Thursday, February 28, 2019

Mother-of-Pearl Pendant on Wooden Beads Necklace

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

In the Marxist interpretation of History, denying human
the opportunity to own their work, clearly gives rise to a positive form
his ultimate life-his material truth is finally
released of Course, easy to understand, both at the level of opinions
happened the choice between these options, why some gave
preference to the first type of analysis, the other-second. But then
both are merely derived differences based on overall
from doxological approach to the study. At a deep level
Western knowledge Marxism there is no real gap:
he easily located with the fullness, peace,
the convenience and the acceptability of its time inside
epistemological disposition which accepted it graciously
(after all, she provided him a place); as it
turn had no reason to disturb her, no power in any
any change, only because in it he rested. Marxism
inside the thinking of the nineteenth century is like a fish in water: in any
another place it can not breathe. If he opposes
"bourgeois" theories of Economics and if this
the contrast he makes against them radical revolution
History, and this conflict and this project are a condition of its
not possible the overcoming of all History in General, but specific
the event, which can pinpoint archaeology,
because it both equally predetermined and
the bourgeois economy and revolutionary economy of the XIX century. Their
the controversy could generate some waves and confused water
surface; however, this is only a storm in a glass ????1<$F1 As you know,
the emergence of Marxism in the nineteenth century and its subsequent development was
due to all previous experiences of science and public
practices. In this context, due to the absolute Foucault
the aspect of discontinuity, this fact gets about
lighting. In subsequent works, such as the "archaeology of knowledge",
Foucault gives a more reasonable interpretation of this problem.