In the discussion of my previous question on the ethical dimension of needs, there appeared, among others, the problem of source / origin of needs. In particular, some of colleagues responding to my question formulate a thesis that needs exist or appear as if objectively, i.e.. regardless of someone's intentions or actions. In turn, I believe that in many cases the needs are created ("designed"). What do you think?
Dear Rey,
Can you please be not so laconic and slightly develop your thoughts ;-)
Best regards,
Jan
This is an abstract question raised from the point of view of classical or at best Feuerbachian materialism that conceives the term “human” (species-human or species-man) as abstraction in thought, as an object, independent of any specific context; but not as living human beings in specific social/historical existence.
This is pure scholasticism, so typical of academic social sciences based on what Hegel called “the view of understanding” and not the “view of reason” or dialectics. Man as an individual has no meaning without being a social man! Karl Marx castigated Feuerbach for this kind of impotent scholasticism and not trying to understand “live” (not abstract) human beings in their specific material, social, historical living circumstances. “Need” in itself cannot be considered in its abstraction alone, but as need in specific social/historical condition and therefore it evolves with the evolution of society and hence it is a question historical evolution of humanity.
For a proper formulation of this question and for any meaningful deliberation on this issue, I would suggest the booklet by Frederick Engels, which borrows heavily from Morgan's research work: “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/
Dear Wolfgang,
Thank you so much for the exhaustive and thoughtful answer to my question. I am especially grateful for the suggestion of the phenomenological approach to the problem of nature of human needs. Still, it remains open - in my opinion - the question of the practical dimension of recognizing needs (as something objective) and / or creating needs (as something subjective). The problem is also compounded because of the fact that Rey Segundo Guerro-Poenza is evidently right (previous answer to my question is that the needs have or can have dual nature.
Best regards,
Jan
Dear Abdul Malek,
In the area of philosophy I am clearly ignorant (as a representative of technical sciences), and my question has been formulated precisely from the engineering perspective; perspective of the practical dimension of research, recognition, analysis and evaluation of needs (which elements contribute to the activity that I define as Engineering of Needs).
By the way, your answer confirms what I am personally convinced as an academic teacher: modern engineers should be also equip with knowledge of the philosophy of technology. For balance: students in the humanities would not harm the courses of technical knowledge ;-)
Best regards,
Jan
The answer might actually be within your question. If someone is a scientist, no matter if they are in Individual or different fields or working interdependently, their work is assumed to be objective. That separates scientists from others. However, I try not to discount anyone unless there is an overt reason.
Dear Steve,
Thank you so much that you found my question as worth to be answered. On the other hand, your answer doesn't fit my expectation, perhaps I ought to formulate the question in different way. To me, the nature of needs can not be seen as being correlated with a person who analyses the need. So the question is: does the need is a "spontaneous existence" or can be created or formed by somebody. In other words: can the needs be a subject of engineering-like activities?
Best regards,
Jan
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics