Leontyev’s claim that each system of activity is objec-
tively motivated by an object, which is a need of the whole society.
This implies that any system of activity objectively tends towards to
the satisfaction of some definite social need. For Leontyev, this is not
something peculiar to capitalism
– novelists, Christian theologians, journalists, politicians, and philosophers – and they come from many sides of the political spectrum. These men find themselves united rhetorically, sentimentally, and politically by a shared consciousness of man’s destiny. This knowledge motivates them to make speeches and
substance to a concept. When we take our idea of the
good life and erect a building in line with that ideal, people will be living
with that idea of the good life for long after. Ideas of learning are objecti-
fĳied in the design of schools and classrooms, and long after teachers have
learnt better and
in the project.
But projects have alife of their own, just like human beings: they
grow and develop and give birth to offspring. A project is aliving
thing, but what is alive in it is the human beings who participate in
it. Projects do not have some other existence, in ‘society’ or in struc
the (ontological) constitution of cultural life-forms.
Stories are lived before being told. The unity of livinga story
and telling a story (of alife-form’s tradition) informs an impor-
tant feature of the hermeneutic fore-structure of community’s
being-in-a-cultural-life-world. All ‘structures’ that
defĳinition , or any kind of reifĳied object , but aliving, active
form of life, with all the vitality and emotion that belongs to real human
activity: a real form of human life which is both subjective and objective.
The study of language and its relation to the study of concepts cannot go
modernization on traditional societies. Th ese are societies that were,
and to a large extent still are, integrated in their communities based on
oral culture (there is a great deal of illiteracy), on the psychology of
living in a perpetual present, and are greatly motivated by a feeling of
course, a bourgeois could conceivably earn his living partly through
occupational work and partly through social aid. But, would it be pos-
sible for this person to lead an honorable life?59 Hegel does not seem to
discuss the relation between providing for oneself and the process of
AN INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
The self becomes a project, not as a fully formed ‘thing’, something that
is constructed in the processes of mutual recognition in social life. The
affirmation of themselves as independent agents . . .
policemen, monitoring everybody, and other than that off ered little
leadership. Th at is the source of the culture of many authoritarian soci-
eties in the modern era, not communities setting agendas, but fi gure-
head rulers who live like little kings, and other than livingalife of sloth