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