These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
On 9 August 2013 02:03, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: > Integral yes. But as ANL himself points out *human* needs are themseleves > *products* of human acitivity. People only need hammers because someone has > produced nails. In circular processes like this, the question is: what > concept is fundamental? Cf Dewey on the reflex arc. > > Are needs produced? Or is this simply different objects to fashion new motives that address the need? i.e. social change could expose new needs, but that's not the same as creating them. And why is fundamental necessary? Do you mean what came (comes) first? Best, Huw > Andy > > Huw Lloyd wrote: > >> ... >> >> Re theory of human needs, needs seem fairly integral to studying activity >> developmentally, no? >> >> Best, >> Huw >> >> > > >