A oday, and accepted the economic model as a prerequisite in the development of societies becomes clear that the advent of modernity not only integrates a form of political and economic but also implies a distinctive lifestyle, a new appreciation of things and new ideals of man.
Its activity is regulated with formal rules and argues that the advance of science will be optimal when science and society share values \u200b\u200bsuch as openness, rationality, universality, portability and a reward system based on achievement.
Foucault late modern perspective is presented as an alternative to conservative positions as to reveal (Bury) the consequences of the modern project, establishing the hypothesis that the type of knowledge determines the type of society. That
clarify the role that the individual has in the assessment of this process, namely the establishment of the subjetividadad: the subject, enabling governance. In both Frankfurt School (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, and Benjamin) developed the equation: Freedom + Power = No regulation , revealing the latent consequence of a freedom not based on universal principles transcending not divine.
In this sense, to representatives critical Nietzsche, Freud and Marx , the history of modernity was nónica and dialectics. Dialectic that makes a statement that generates a negative. However, the mother of the moral hazard of the modern subject is moving toward the individual. And surprise we see that freedom derives easily in totalitarian movements and domination. Weber
opens a comprehensive sociology devoted to understanding the senses mented social action, as the company describes as an iron cage with an inexorable command, legal and bureaucratic. However, it is Foucault who pointed out that the guardians of the iron cage lack of inner freedom and provide only empty: confinement, madness and civilization.
The currency is the autonomy of the human being's main feature: the subject dares to individuals. However, we note that, before the Depreciation of the corporeal, intensity level was low of Being to play with machines. Man can adapt to the world, in the engineering sense, it works, it fits.
Its activity is regulated with formal rules and argues that the advance of science will be optimal when science and society share values \u200b\u200bsuch as openness, rationality, universality, portability and a reward system based on achievement.
Foucault late modern perspective is presented as an alternative to conservative positions as to reveal (Bury) the consequences of the modern project, establishing the hypothesis that the type of knowledge determines the type of society. That
clarify the role that the individual has in the assessment of this process, namely the establishment of the subjetividadad: the subject, enabling governance. In both Frankfurt School (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, and Benjamin) developed the equation: Freedom + Power = No regulation , revealing the latent consequence of a freedom not based on universal principles transcending not divine.
In this sense, to representatives critical Nietzsche, Freud and Marx , the history of modernity was nónica and dialectics. Dialectic that makes a statement that generates a negative. However, the mother of the moral hazard of the modern subject is moving toward the individual. And surprise we see that freedom derives easily in totalitarian movements and domination. Weber
opens a comprehensive sociology devoted to understanding the senses mented social action, as the company describes as an iron cage with an inexorable command, legal and bureaucratic. However, it is Foucault who pointed out that the guardians of the iron cage lack of inner freedom and provide only empty: confinement, madness and civilization.
The currency is the autonomy of the human being's main feature: the subject dares to individuals. However, we note that, before the Depreciation of the corporeal, intensity level was low of Being to play with machines. Man can adapt to the world, in the engineering sense, it works, it fits.
PART
Problem 1.-
D
social sciences ince taking for granted that man is a gregarious and of culture. Thus, culture is opposed to the term nature. Meaning by this that men and women live in nature but do not have the code for a living, so on the basis of knowing and doing is allowed to adapt by technical criteria, which enable practical human relations through processes of intersubjective understanding.
We note, the interest component of our knowledge, the knowledge becomes practical, as the basic guidelines of our rationality are technical and moral. The child leaves a whole in which no subject or object, but from Descartes and Kant onwards explanations given against the cultural turn, and told of a theory of knowledge. Being pre-modern ontology is structured so but with the emergence of the theory of knowledge begins a period (epistemological) driven by a new subject by providing critical capability, autonomy and rationality.
But during the twentieth century when initiating the speech or criticism of the society. To critics of modern emancipatory project weaknesses are evident, but they value reason invulocra entanto both mental processes and awareness of the given. According to Foucault, Nietzsche, Marx and Freud founded a new type of interpretation that puts us in the presence of interpretive techniques. The new interpretation questions the interpreter.
Thus, perform scientific and critical analysis of capitalist rationality, noting that the promise of enlightened discourse are not being met, revealing the existence of ideological discourse which ideology conceals the contradictions of the model.
Nietzsche, notes the absence of metaphysical reflection on the modern subject. Marx claims that the capital is based on the ownership of the means of production and the origin of private property is the existence of private property, its consequence, the dehumanization and alienation from work or risk losing the essence being it objectifies. The work should release it, it dominates.
D
social sciences ince taking for granted that man is a gregarious and of culture. Thus, culture is opposed to the term nature. Meaning by this that men and women live in nature but do not have the code for a living, so on the basis of knowing and doing is allowed to adapt by technical criteria, which enable practical human relations through processes of intersubjective understanding.
We note, the interest component of our knowledge, the knowledge becomes practical, as the basic guidelines of our rationality are technical and moral. The child leaves a whole in which no subject or object, but from Descartes and Kant onwards explanations given against the cultural turn, and told of a theory of knowledge. Being pre-modern ontology is structured so but with the emergence of the theory of knowledge begins a period (epistemological) driven by a new subject by providing critical capability, autonomy and rationality.
But during the twentieth century when initiating the speech or criticism of the society. To critics of modern emancipatory project weaknesses are evident, but they value reason invulocra entanto both mental processes and awareness of the given. According to Foucault, Nietzsche, Marx and Freud founded a new type of interpretation that puts us in the presence of interpretive techniques. The new interpretation questions the interpreter.
Thus, perform scientific and critical analysis of capitalist rationality, noting that the promise of enlightened discourse are not being met, revealing the existence of ideological discourse which ideology conceals the contradictions of the model.
Nietzsche, notes the absence of metaphysical reflection on the modern subject. Marx claims that the capital is based on the ownership of the means of production and the origin of private property is the existence of private property, its consequence, the dehumanization and alienation from work or risk losing the essence being it objectifies. The work should release it, it dominates.
+ + +
Marx begins the analysis of scientific discourse as he realizes that the ideology hides the inconsistencies of the model. And Freud notes the break Pleasure Reality. Indicates the existence of a logic which is unconscious conscious, but finally operational. For him the unconscious desire and rationality establishes the way we ordered (and nested) for cultural given certain social media, that require us to delay his pursuit of pleasure or frustration tolerance.
In approaches based on cognitive theories, but there is no moral reason episteme is responding to a social classification from certain forms of knowledge and study, is a knowledge divide, punishes and monitors. And who gets out of the episteme violates the regulations based on forms of knowledge and social discourses
Now, from taxonomic-anthropological criteria from Lineo, then the rankings in the biological sciences, we ask, then: Who knows?
The hypothesis indicates that the type of knowledge, the kind of society, so that life forms are associated with certain types of knowledge, determines a lifestyle characterized dominant values. And power is the ability to achieve these values \u200b\u200ballows us to develop personally. We refer to skills, cognitive affective and aesthetic. The power to build our own existence.
Michel Foucault opposed to an ethics of Habermas. The purpose of life is autonomy, but autonomy is not an end. Autonomy is not the destination. Go there, then a denaturation and desencialización of what is considered natural frentea diversity and the ability to create identity, reveals the forms of restraint: the subordination and oppression. That is, the difference becomes inequality, then the issue becomes ethical. For example, gender differences are a product of culture.
For Foucault the guardians of the iron cage of Weber provided the building blocks of an instrumental rationality. Knowledge creates power creates disease and madness. The author speaks of epistemic forms of knowledge constituted by discursive practices. And the speeches of limited power. Political discourse excludes, label and unlink.
2.-Kant a foundational subject.
critical in the idealism developed by Kant summarizes the two major philosophical currents of his time: rationalism and empiricism. He conceives knowledge as a synthesis process in which the intellect provides the form and experience matter, establishing a link between them through imagination, understood as a creative faculty.
When reason is applied to concepts that can not come from the experience and are incongnocibles for sensitivity (God or the Soul, for example) produce the illusions of reason are merely speculative. In this regard include his "Critique of Pure Reason" in 1781.
However, in 1788 appears "Critique of Practical Reason" in which Kant explains his ethical law. According to the fiósofo, ethics does not require data on the sensitivity and therefore can not fall into illusion.
The fact that the man accepts the moral law governed by the "categorical imperative" which compels him to guide their actions in accordance with universally accepted ethical principles, are proof that there is an order that transcends the merely sensible and that is only possible foundation of God's existence.
The Kantian exerts a powerful influence and determinant in Western philosophy. Idealists tend to make the character creator of human reason, instead, collect their materialistic and positivist critique of metaphysics and deny the importance of the moral order defended by his "Critique of Practical Reason." Either way the issue was planned by Kant on the relationship between subject and object of knowledge which gave the fact a new and different approaches allowing multiple appearance later.
Kant invites us to reflect on morally, to constitute an ethics based on free examination of reason outside heteronomous. It also stresses that to obtain true knowledge we must clear reason, and not found an ethical moral feelings and emotions, in contrast to the conscience are the principles of doing things for duty.
searches In his critique of reason categorical judgments as the basis of our knowledge, to come to ask: why this is good, is it a means of universal criteria valid? What is social change? , when morality becomes a shift, or do what the moral aspects are basic for the functioning of a society?.
3.-The emergence of frameworks, systems of thought and epistemes
Since the twentieth century begins a more detailed treatment of the relationship between science / society, and relations between sociology and epistemology, where the decline of metaphysical reflection is associated with the world wars and hegemonic consolidation of a new economy. Kuhn
breaks with the tradition of progressive and cumulative knowledge challenges the hegemony of positivism and demonstrates the abandonment of epistemological issues arising from the recognition dependence of scientific knowledge of social factors, leaving the production mechanisms Philosophy and validation of scientific knowledge.
is argued that men think in terms of benchmarks, it is recommended that the existence of the universe of discourse, the technical language and intellectual assumptions that are socially conditioned. Without notice, he breaks with tradition. Henceforth, the conduct of scientific work changed substantially since the epistemological problems moving to a different plane and separated from science to become a form of knowledge, not knowledge.
The causes of this process will go back to the early 30 'the crisis of the Weimar Republic and the spread of Marxist philosophers and neo-positivists, so the appearance of post-revolution Soviet thinking produces the formulation of a sociology of knowledge of Marxist roots and Weber. Thus, while in Europe examines the social origins of knowledge in the United States studied the distribution of knowledge, its instrumentation and performance management.
The focus was to ascertain, rather, how people produce their beliefs, leaving forward positions in the verification and context of discovery. The new canon delimited social structure of science and the scientific community and limited scope of sociology.
In addition. After the revolution of Kuhn and Popper falsifiability of science activity to changes. It was highlight by a relativistic philosophical Corpus aided by a theoretical apparatus, and the inconsistencies of the classical approaches that distinguish between context of justification and discovery are replaced by objective and rational epistemological principles.
In the last decades of the twentieth century, systems of thought are historical analysis of discourse, Foucault condemns what are the philosophies of history history and myth of the identity of the person allows to differentiate the traditional teaching that reinforces specialized instruction transmitting skills and abilities. The problem is that the French educational system offers a unique method to tackle anything. The approach is based on "verbal knowledge" that, as regards Wallon "reflective intelligence does nothing to recognize the achievements already made, and whose operations survive ..." so far in us.
From Descartes begins to describe that the reality is that you can put in an order of well-established concepts . Man is therefore able to set objects, naming and classify them in a conceptual order. The new canon of science [1] appeared to be capable of handling all possible conditions as a confirmation of their theories [2] .
is assumed that within the classical culture all people have a firm consistency and the same admiration for the rules, models, images, among others, establishing common codes that allow you to associate the meaning of the words , to events, and above all ensure that this culture forward, which is the basis of the content of the communication [3] . Thus "the cultural field" [4] restructuring is transformed by successive revolutions rather than radical.
The principle of clarification (manifetatio) is a representation scheme which provides a method of approaching the objects where the researcher sets the order and logic of its purpose, which establishes a set of symmetries and correspondences. More important than whether they are true is to try to give maximum precision to the argument, that is, there is a reduction to extreme assumptions which may tend ideally.
fundamental in this model is the ability to argue their positions and the use of methods of inference. Now more important than whether they are true attempt to give maximum precision to the argument. Bourdieu
[5] noting that complements the field of science the concept of scientific authority is a significant share of social power and technical authority. But what really worries the author is that education systems and systems of thought, more important than its content is essentially the ability to argue their positions in the Aristotelian sense, namely, privileging the appropriate use of methodologies inference the explicit and rigorous nature of their formulations as well as their objectives.
therefore behavior is associated with certain types of speech, and language does not designate a pre-existing reality to it. In this sense, language is not a mechanism of representation of reality but is organized.
Everything is in the language is in our world, it provides a linguistic register before which we can establish certain controls. Now, do not refer discourses circulating Cartesian truth, but with arguments supported cultural truths in terms of plausibility.
Thus, all language sets an argumentative estructuta which gives us a guideline for the screening of various speeches by reaching social structure affect the system of attitudes, behaviors are then, in a psychological depth that necessarily involves our values. In this sense, are always dirsursos values. In this context, the scientist "Save Link of familiarity" with their culture.
Under the new optical understand how the Aristotelian laws of logic are manifested fully in everyday life through the formula of syllogism asertótico. Now the truth is the correspondence of idea with the idea.
Accordingly, we studied the facts, because they give the truth through the transfer of the physical method of social science and the criterion of truth that is based on the semantic construction. Tarski, I would call this criterion of adequacy, who tries to find a criterion of truth based on a semantic conception of it.
In the Thomistic tradition of adequatio the truth is the correspondence between knowledge and the thing is not to leave the final criterion in the hands of the scientific community, but to show that what is known about reality and reality itself have an absolute degree of correspondence. Plausible verisimilitude are closely related to the detail of what is communicated. The structure is updated argumentative discourse genres.
Inevitably, they fall into idealism and every effort Tarskian and Popperian approach to vindicate the autonomy of the world of knowledge by establishing standard criteria for scientific activity, ie, test and save the scientific community and their own bias [6] . The methodology in future statements represent the world as an object-state method and determined. Therefore, the method does narrows and defines what is relevant knowledge.
This produced three streams of analysis. First. From Marxism, Bernal school shows science as the main instrument of transformation of the social and natural science is not just a social activity but a collective research that develops at the junction of the theory and practice. Thus, science is the answer to certain social needs. Also, Yahiel investigates the social determination of science and scientific creativity. Viewing therefore science as a social system. Ossowski, meanwhile, stresses that science has become the object itself, so the researchers divided into three. Those who deal with the personality of the scientist, activities, and their products.
Segundo. Understand the Frankfurt School science, within the German linguistic tradition, and the combination of natural and social sciences. In the emblematic work of the Frankfurt School "Dialectic of Enlightenment Adorno and M. Th Horkheimer (1947) the authors report the instrumental bias towards stepping modern reason " [7] .
Horkheimer says that science suffers the same fate as all the productive forces, its growth does not lead to the rational management of society. Science can not benefit humanity within the capitalist system, as their control lies in one part of it.
postulate the fracture and the divorce between science and reason, the rule is more central to human relationships and nature. He notes including Marcuse, Schmidt, and Habermas.
And third, the reaction to Marxism Veblen, Raymond, Buckharin and Polangi movement as a reaction of historians and philosophers.
Finally, note that in some way or another point of view strives to show that the patterns that guide the thinking and behavior of people who are the lifestyle and training habits, coming to ask: Is there a common set of categories of thought that make communication possible because while sustain and maintain societies in motion?.
In such a scenario in Europe, the sociology of social scientific knowledge began to worry about the social determination of knowledge, its causes and significance of this, and we used a speculative research seeking to produce a system of knowledge. By contrast, in the United States natural sociology of scientific knowledge studies the effects of knowledge in society, therefore, we investigate only what can be measured.
In approaches based on cognitive theories, but there is no moral reason episteme is responding to a social classification from certain forms of knowledge and study, is a knowledge divide, punishes and monitors. And who gets out of the episteme violates the regulations based on forms of knowledge and social discourses
Now, from taxonomic-anthropological criteria from Lineo, then the rankings in the biological sciences, we ask, then: Who knows?
The hypothesis indicates that the type of knowledge, the kind of society, so that life forms are associated with certain types of knowledge, determines a lifestyle characterized dominant values. And power is the ability to achieve these values \u200b\u200ballows us to develop personally. We refer to skills, cognitive affective and aesthetic. The power to build our own existence.
Michel Foucault opposed to an ethics of Habermas. The purpose of life is autonomy, but autonomy is not an end. Autonomy is not the destination. Go there, then a denaturation and desencialización of what is considered natural frentea diversity and the ability to create identity, reveals the forms of restraint: the subordination and oppression. That is, the difference becomes inequality, then the issue becomes ethical. For example, gender differences are a product of culture.
For Foucault the guardians of the iron cage of Weber provided the building blocks of an instrumental rationality. Knowledge creates power creates disease and madness. The author speaks of epistemic forms of knowledge constituted by discursive practices. And the speeches of limited power. Political discourse excludes, label and unlink.
2.-Kant a foundational subject.
critical in the idealism developed by Kant summarizes the two major philosophical currents of his time: rationalism and empiricism. He conceives knowledge as a synthesis process in which the intellect provides the form and experience matter, establishing a link between them through imagination, understood as a creative faculty.
When reason is applied to concepts that can not come from the experience and are incongnocibles for sensitivity (God or the Soul, for example) produce the illusions of reason are merely speculative. In this regard include his "Critique of Pure Reason" in 1781.
However, in 1788 appears "Critique of Practical Reason" in which Kant explains his ethical law. According to the fiósofo, ethics does not require data on the sensitivity and therefore can not fall into illusion.
The fact that the man accepts the moral law governed by the "categorical imperative" which compels him to guide their actions in accordance with universally accepted ethical principles, are proof that there is an order that transcends the merely sensible and that is only possible foundation of God's existence.
The Kantian exerts a powerful influence and determinant in Western philosophy. Idealists tend to make the character creator of human reason, instead, collect their materialistic and positivist critique of metaphysics and deny the importance of the moral order defended by his "Critique of Practical Reason." Either way the issue was planned by Kant on the relationship between subject and object of knowledge which gave the fact a new and different approaches allowing multiple appearance later.
Kant invites us to reflect on morally, to constitute an ethics based on free examination of reason outside heteronomous. It also stresses that to obtain true knowledge we must clear reason, and not found an ethical moral feelings and emotions, in contrast to the conscience are the principles of doing things for duty.
searches In his critique of reason categorical judgments as the basis of our knowledge, to come to ask: why this is good, is it a means of universal criteria valid? What is social change? , when morality becomes a shift, or do what the moral aspects are basic for the functioning of a society?.
3.-The emergence of frameworks, systems of thought and epistemes
Since the twentieth century begins a more detailed treatment of the relationship between science / society, and relations between sociology and epistemology, where the decline of metaphysical reflection is associated with the world wars and hegemonic consolidation of a new economy. Kuhn
breaks with the tradition of progressive and cumulative knowledge challenges the hegemony of positivism and demonstrates the abandonment of epistemological issues arising from the recognition dependence of scientific knowledge of social factors, leaving the production mechanisms Philosophy and validation of scientific knowledge.
is argued that men think in terms of benchmarks, it is recommended that the existence of the universe of discourse, the technical language and intellectual assumptions that are socially conditioned. Without notice, he breaks with tradition. Henceforth, the conduct of scientific work changed substantially since the epistemological problems moving to a different plane and separated from science to become a form of knowledge, not knowledge.
The causes of this process will go back to the early 30 'the crisis of the Weimar Republic and the spread of Marxist philosophers and neo-positivists, so the appearance of post-revolution Soviet thinking produces the formulation of a sociology of knowledge of Marxist roots and Weber. Thus, while in Europe examines the social origins of knowledge in the United States studied the distribution of knowledge, its instrumentation and performance management.
The focus was to ascertain, rather, how people produce their beliefs, leaving forward positions in the verification and context of discovery. The new canon delimited social structure of science and the scientific community and limited scope of sociology.
In addition. After the revolution of Kuhn and Popper falsifiability of science activity to changes. It was highlight by a relativistic philosophical Corpus aided by a theoretical apparatus, and the inconsistencies of the classical approaches that distinguish between context of justification and discovery are replaced by objective and rational epistemological principles.
In the last decades of the twentieth century, systems of thought are historical analysis of discourse, Foucault condemns what are the philosophies of history history and myth of the identity of the person allows to differentiate the traditional teaching that reinforces specialized instruction transmitting skills and abilities. The problem is that the French educational system offers a unique method to tackle anything. The approach is based on "verbal knowledge" that, as regards Wallon "reflective intelligence does nothing to recognize the achievements already made, and whose operations survive ..." so far in us.
From Descartes begins to describe that the reality is that you can put in an order of well-established concepts . Man is therefore able to set objects, naming and classify them in a conceptual order. The new canon of science [1] appeared to be capable of handling all possible conditions as a confirmation of their theories [2] .
is assumed that within the classical culture all people have a firm consistency and the same admiration for the rules, models, images, among others, establishing common codes that allow you to associate the meaning of the words , to events, and above all ensure that this culture forward, which is the basis of the content of the communication [3] . Thus "the cultural field" [4] restructuring is transformed by successive revolutions rather than radical.
The principle of clarification (manifetatio) is a representation scheme which provides a method of approaching the objects where the researcher sets the order and logic of its purpose, which establishes a set of symmetries and correspondences. More important than whether they are true is to try to give maximum precision to the argument, that is, there is a reduction to extreme assumptions which may tend ideally.
fundamental in this model is the ability to argue their positions and the use of methods of inference. Now more important than whether they are true attempt to give maximum precision to the argument. Bourdieu
[5] noting that complements the field of science the concept of scientific authority is a significant share of social power and technical authority. But what really worries the author is that education systems and systems of thought, more important than its content is essentially the ability to argue their positions in the Aristotelian sense, namely, privileging the appropriate use of methodologies inference the explicit and rigorous nature of their formulations as well as their objectives.
therefore behavior is associated with certain types of speech, and language does not designate a pre-existing reality to it. In this sense, language is not a mechanism of representation of reality but is organized.
Everything is in the language is in our world, it provides a linguistic register before which we can establish certain controls. Now, do not refer discourses circulating Cartesian truth, but with arguments supported cultural truths in terms of plausibility.
Thus, all language sets an argumentative estructuta which gives us a guideline for the screening of various speeches by reaching social structure affect the system of attitudes, behaviors are then, in a psychological depth that necessarily involves our values. In this sense, are always dirsursos values. In this context, the scientist "Save Link of familiarity" with their culture.
Under the new optical understand how the Aristotelian laws of logic are manifested fully in everyday life through the formula of syllogism asertótico. Now the truth is the correspondence of idea with the idea.
Accordingly, we studied the facts, because they give the truth through the transfer of the physical method of social science and the criterion of truth that is based on the semantic construction. Tarski, I would call this criterion of adequacy, who tries to find a criterion of truth based on a semantic conception of it.
In the Thomistic tradition of adequatio the truth is the correspondence between knowledge and the thing is not to leave the final criterion in the hands of the scientific community, but to show that what is known about reality and reality itself have an absolute degree of correspondence. Plausible verisimilitude are closely related to the detail of what is communicated. The structure is updated argumentative discourse genres.
Inevitably, they fall into idealism and every effort Tarskian and Popperian approach to vindicate the autonomy of the world of knowledge by establishing standard criteria for scientific activity, ie, test and save the scientific community and their own bias [6] . The methodology in future statements represent the world as an object-state method and determined. Therefore, the method does narrows and defines what is relevant knowledge.
This produced three streams of analysis. First. From Marxism, Bernal school shows science as the main instrument of transformation of the social and natural science is not just a social activity but a collective research that develops at the junction of the theory and practice. Thus, science is the answer to certain social needs. Also, Yahiel investigates the social determination of science and scientific creativity. Viewing therefore science as a social system. Ossowski, meanwhile, stresses that science has become the object itself, so the researchers divided into three. Those who deal with the personality of the scientist, activities, and their products.
Segundo. Understand the Frankfurt School science, within the German linguistic tradition, and the combination of natural and social sciences. In the emblematic work of the Frankfurt School "Dialectic of Enlightenment Adorno and M. Th Horkheimer (1947) the authors report the instrumental bias towards stepping modern reason " [7] .
Horkheimer says that science suffers the same fate as all the productive forces, its growth does not lead to the rational management of society. Science can not benefit humanity within the capitalist system, as their control lies in one part of it.
postulate the fracture and the divorce between science and reason, the rule is more central to human relationships and nature. He notes including Marcuse, Schmidt, and Habermas.
And third, the reaction to Marxism Veblen, Raymond, Buckharin and Polangi movement as a reaction of historians and philosophers.
Finally, note that in some way or another point of view strives to show that the patterns that guide the thinking and behavior of people who are the lifestyle and training habits, coming to ask: Is there a common set of categories of thought that make communication possible because while sustain and maintain societies in motion?.
In such a scenario in Europe, the sociology of social scientific knowledge began to worry about the social determination of knowledge, its causes and significance of this, and we used a speculative research seeking to produce a system of knowledge. By contrast, in the United States natural sociology of scientific knowledge studies the effects of knowledge in society, therefore, we investigate only what can be measured.
+ +
+
PART
1.-The epistemic understanding
anto T T. And M. Kuhn Foucault gives a role to language in the constitution knowledge. Science is language, not enough experimental evidence or rational arguments, it resorts to the rhetoric.
hermeneutical method (exegesis) is the hidden meaning rescue, reconstruction decipherable language that hides, to say the power of what is said in the word, which has a plurality of meanings. Interpreting ourselves, when the interpretation is always something unfinished.
http://www.fractal.com.mx/F13ricoe.html
http://www.nietzscheana.com.ar/sobre_ricoeur.htm
http://www.cibernous .com / glossary / sorrel / hermeneutica.html
Http://www.revele.com.ve/pdf/episteme/vol18-n3/pag107.pdf
http://www.ilustrados.com/publicaciones/EpyAZlpEAyLlgmoyNn.php
http://www .monografias.com/trabajos15/institucion-y-libertad/institucion-y-libertad.shtml
"If it were clear slowly interpret hidden meaning in origin, only metaphysics could interpret the future of humanity. But if interpretation is avail, violence or surreptitiously, a system of rules that have no meaning in itself essential, and to impose a direction, bending of a will, make it go into another game, and subjected to secondary rules, then the future of humanity is a series of interpretations " [8] .
The genealogical method is the play of forces in the emergence of a phenomenon, archeology problematizes "speeches in which knowledge is built."
hermeneutics is "a founding subjectivity" is the first origin, interior hidden behind manifest exteriority. Exegesis rests on the assumption of a large hidden text which his rescue interpret its hidden meaning. "Every speech concealed the power to say nothing of what he said and wrapping and a plurality of meanings" [9] .
exegesis refers to a Telos, a purpose that is hidden but already advanced, the meaning is the intention of consciousness, the telos of a subject. Try to achieve "total revolution from which everything is organized" [10] .
Moreover, the genealogy refers to the interplay of forces that are present in the emergence of a phenomenon. And archeology is the problematization of the discourse in which knowledge is articulated.
Epistemology is "the analysis of the fundamentals of the validity of knowledge" [11] . However, on the contrary, the Episteme is a framework of underlying principles that determine the knowledge of an era, is the code of the principles of knowledge of a culture . They are the certainties that we support even if we did not think thematically, is the fund in thought the thought we think, talk and experience things.
Episteme is knowledge of the fundamental code of a culture : located-in-archaeological method in the certainties and not the opinion (doxa) codes burst and disappear in continuous-and dashed-between-codes enduring continuity, discontinuity is radical and codes cover a wide range of knowledge of an era, many of them scientific.
archaeological method, used by Foucault, notes that the cultural code is accessible to us only through the study of language and discourse. This is a discursive approach. It is the discourse that shapes the objects of science. And the experience of order is an experience in which things are placed on the clarity of the word.
Language, Speech, and the grid code in which we think things and out of which we are not accessible. This means that the episteme it is not possible but as an experience of language in the order of things in which said to be . Our knowledge is articulated in the speech, our sciences are a speech language well done. For example, Darwinism should be thought of as a political discourse with scientific coverage. Both
M. T. Kuhn and Foucault converge where they state that both the paradigm and episteme change abruptly, discontinuously. The structures of rationality through which vary historically objective madness, being episteme, that is, a framework of underlying principles determine the knowledge of an era.
Furthermore, the author talked about the end of the episteme of history, namely that the story had become the hub of knowledge for the last two centuries. It's the end of the story in the sense of real history in relation to historical science domain was in the last century.
Its purpose is to inquire about how science was madness in order to convert scientific knowledge. Then, properly concerned with the subject and the problem of power. It deals with relationships of domination and how modernity develops, by government, discipline and strength and power technology as a way to govern, to work and control.
The state organizes and homogenized technological knowledge, knowledge by eliminating "useless" context within which universities are born, the know does not exist if not formed within universities and research agencies, excluding the know "wild." Three directions from the historical-political discourse, philology, talk, economic and political, work, and biology; live.
To Boulainvilliers, the nation based on shared interests, common customs and language are the French who shape the state and ensuring their universalizing function. Population is a group of people "crossing, dominated, governed by the process of law", where the body is the subject of technology.
Governmentality rests on three techniques: the Christian ministry; military diplomacy, and the state police as a technique, its object is the human being as a living being. Thus, Foucault not only defends the picture but he himself stands in the tradition of the Enlightenment, along with Kant and Weber and the Frankfurt School.
The author talks about the end of the episteme of history, thus indicating that the story had become the hub of knowledge for the past two centuries. Everything was historicized. And the state has a rational discipline that seeks to serve domination. The domination that historical science had in the last century.
On the other hand, never said the truth every episteme, but episteme of the times is the spacetime of knowledge from which scientific theories are configured . That is, historical-epochal opening determines rules within which knowledge is constituted.
And chances are the thread of history that Phoenicia was replaced by another organizing principle that would be the language. Foucalut radicalized his theory of power and considers the social field is a network of branches. The social space consists of a network of forces and powers in which we exist. Everything in society is power. Speech is power. Regulating the time, was distributed space forces is regulated, it dominates the individual.
The relationship between knowledge and power is complex, on the one hand there is the discursive regularity, the order of discourse, and secondly, is the diagram of forces that constitute the fabric of a society. What Foucault highlights the political dimension of scientific work. So the transition from one paradigm to another is not only accepted rationally, but there is also a rhetorical persuasion.
In "Genealogy of racism," says: "My problem is to establish what rules of law make power relations work to produce discourses of truth, what kind of power is susceptible of producing discourses of truth in a society like ours, equipped with powerful effects? Who
dominates? The power is exercised over free subjects who are capable of performing various ways of behaving, reacting and behaving. Freedom is the condition of power that is acquired by becoming subject from the perspective of an "ethic of self-care" ... the process of subjectivity begins in power relations, but also born of man himself, his liberty, fundamental assumption of ethics ... ethics [12] of subjectivity is self-control is the freedom and beauty that try to shape and style to life itself " [13] .
remains to state: How legitimate domination?, Who are excluded?. His choice of the excluded is justified in that there is a disciplinary status which is at the service of domination, then we critique of domination restraints we are making history of these rationales.
2.-The option for the excluded
The goal is to protect the sick and prisoners, it calls the "mad", has been submitted to and win. The scientific rationality of psychiatric discourse is complicit with the closure and exclusion. This is to neutralize the external forces that may have on him, because from the separation of asylum, insanity is not intended as a disorder of knowledge, but as a social deviance, madness is a social framework out, is associated with a disease with social morality made.
madness in the Renaissance is considered in two ways: the tragic consciousness of madness and critical of it to maintain dialogue with unreason. In the seventeenth century, Paracelsus distinguishes between lunatici, Insani, Vesania, and Melancholici. To Zacchi fools can be Fools, Fools, and stolid. Either way, the fool is the other reason. The other who lives in a world report, undifferentiated and without individuality (Freud).
From the perspective of capitalism, the insane and criminal, are also part of the mechanisms of production, but in absentia, since along with them, the entire population is a factor of wealth. Leisure is dangerous. The work is productive. The asylum was created to protect the productive population Disorder and Non inactivity.
"Those who govern in society and not the codes, but the perpetual distinction between normal and abnormal, for ever and undertaking of restoring the normal system."
The axiom of modern criminal law rests on this principle needs to function as the establishment of the plea it is triable only one who is normal, since it implies a rational subject is responsible. This is therefore a direct relationship between knowledge and power.
Foucault sought a temporary order space-delimited culture. That is, "the codes of culture since they have some experience of the order of things that light reveals Ratio. The man has launched some experience of the Same and the Other ... The ratio experienced by the order of things in a box having taxonomic identities things which resemble each other in an order which is familiar. But both have identities in order that experience also puts other things as the other, which is not is akin to that network of similarities but one that excludes " [14] .
When we study the speech in which are embodied knowledge What do we study? We investigated the regularities of discourse, discursive practices in which the objects of knowledge are formed. Studied usually they are those things in a culture.
Petrarca asked if anything in the story that is not praise of Rome. The discourse of history is the root of philology, economy and biology. Foucault, a critique of humanism, and proposes a history of the ways in which humans are objectified in the way it does humans. There are three ways in which man becomes the subject: its language, grammar, philology and linguistics, "as a person who worked the economics and politics," and as a person who lives and biology.
"People also become subject by means of the" words of division, humans split off from each other and the other ... this is becoming a subject-not static-that is, is in the process of objectification in this process is that the discourse of knowledge-power-objective on the subject.
Thus Darwinism became a political speech, and above all a way of masking political discourse science coverage. Its purpose is to inquire about how European science madness came to convert an object of scientific knowledge.
3.-The constitution of a subject
domination has its starting point the very relations of power and how to create the conditions for which she operates. The power relations create subjects. Therefore, your goal is not to make history in the sovereigns but manufacturing the devices of subjects. Its direct consequence is that political discourse is no longer presented as universal as liberating, but perpectivístico.
The story becomes a tale some [15] whom? Technological knowledge is consolidated at the time that wealth is possible. In contrast, the independence of knowledge represents independence of the individual, or the opportunity to establish itself as subject.
From XII and XIII century, establishing a form of justice in which the sovereign acts a delegate. The official discourse is particularly concerned to eliminate the little knowledge that are considered useless, normalizes the acquisition of knowledge, classified knowledge hierarchies and centralized institutions to control them, and of course a clear distinction between wisdom and knowledge. Given the scenario, University created body within which to develop the official centers of learning. The sciences discipline. And the subject is monitored before authenticated with a college degree is able to reproduce the matrix described in his speech.
Manifestatio and inquisitio are the principles of administrative research and to establish the truth. Now, turning complex play of political forces formed knowledge about statistical criteria: the birth rate, mortality, migration, and level of wealth, among others.
Power is then again able to step in to make living. And the statistics will become the main factor administration [16] . So from the middle of the eighteenth century when the family appears instrumental for the stock, on there will be vaccination, mortality and birth rates. This is what allows people to unlock the art of government.
1.-The epistemic understanding
anto T T. And M. Kuhn Foucault gives a role to language in the constitution knowledge. Science is language, not enough experimental evidence or rational arguments, it resorts to the rhetoric.
hermeneutical method (exegesis) is the hidden meaning rescue, reconstruction decipherable language that hides, to say the power of what is said in the word, which has a plurality of meanings. Interpreting ourselves, when the interpretation is always something unfinished.
http://www.fractal.com.mx/F13ricoe.html
http://www.nietzscheana.com.ar/sobre_ricoeur.htm
http://www.cibernous .com / glossary / sorrel / hermeneutica.html
Http://www.revele.com.ve/pdf/episteme/vol18-n3/pag107.pdf
http://www.ilustrados.com/publicaciones/EpyAZlpEAyLlgmoyNn.php
http://www .monografias.com/trabajos15/institucion-y-libertad/institucion-y-libertad.shtml
"If it were clear slowly interpret hidden meaning in origin, only metaphysics could interpret the future of humanity. But if interpretation is avail, violence or surreptitiously, a system of rules that have no meaning in itself essential, and to impose a direction, bending of a will, make it go into another game, and subjected to secondary rules, then the future of humanity is a series of interpretations " [8] .
The genealogical method is the play of forces in the emergence of a phenomenon, archeology problematizes "speeches in which knowledge is built."
hermeneutics is "a founding subjectivity" is the first origin, interior hidden behind manifest exteriority. Exegesis rests on the assumption of a large hidden text which his rescue interpret its hidden meaning. "Every speech concealed the power to say nothing of what he said and wrapping and a plurality of meanings" [9] .
exegesis refers to a Telos, a purpose that is hidden but already advanced, the meaning is the intention of consciousness, the telos of a subject. Try to achieve "total revolution from which everything is organized" [10] .
Moreover, the genealogy refers to the interplay of forces that are present in the emergence of a phenomenon. And archeology is the problematization of the discourse in which knowledge is articulated.
Epistemology is "the analysis of the fundamentals of the validity of knowledge" [11] . However, on the contrary, the Episteme is a framework of underlying principles that determine the knowledge of an era, is the code of the principles of knowledge of a culture . They are the certainties that we support even if we did not think thematically, is the fund in thought the thought we think, talk and experience things.
Episteme is knowledge of the fundamental code of a culture : located-in-archaeological method in the certainties and not the opinion (doxa) codes burst and disappear in continuous-and dashed-between-codes enduring continuity, discontinuity is radical and codes cover a wide range of knowledge of an era, many of them scientific.
archaeological method, used by Foucault, notes that the cultural code is accessible to us only through the study of language and discourse. This is a discursive approach. It is the discourse that shapes the objects of science. And the experience of order is an experience in which things are placed on the clarity of the word.
Language, Speech, and the grid code in which we think things and out of which we are not accessible. This means that the episteme it is not possible but as an experience of language in the order of things in which said to be . Our knowledge is articulated in the speech, our sciences are a speech language well done. For example, Darwinism should be thought of as a political discourse with scientific coverage. Both
M. T. Kuhn and Foucault converge where they state that both the paradigm and episteme change abruptly, discontinuously. The structures of rationality through which vary historically objective madness, being episteme, that is, a framework of underlying principles determine the knowledge of an era.
Furthermore, the author talked about the end of the episteme of history, namely that the story had become the hub of knowledge for the last two centuries. It's the end of the story in the sense of real history in relation to historical science domain was in the last century.
Its purpose is to inquire about how science was madness in order to convert scientific knowledge. Then, properly concerned with the subject and the problem of power. It deals with relationships of domination and how modernity develops, by government, discipline and strength and power technology as a way to govern, to work and control.
The state organizes and homogenized technological knowledge, knowledge by eliminating "useless" context within which universities are born, the know does not exist if not formed within universities and research agencies, excluding the know "wild." Three directions from the historical-political discourse, philology, talk, economic and political, work, and biology; live.
To Boulainvilliers, the nation based on shared interests, common customs and language are the French who shape the state and ensuring their universalizing function. Population is a group of people "crossing, dominated, governed by the process of law", where the body is the subject of technology.
Governmentality rests on three techniques: the Christian ministry; military diplomacy, and the state police as a technique, its object is the human being as a living being. Thus, Foucault not only defends the picture but he himself stands in the tradition of the Enlightenment, along with Kant and Weber and the Frankfurt School.
The author talks about the end of the episteme of history, thus indicating that the story had become the hub of knowledge for the past two centuries. Everything was historicized. And the state has a rational discipline that seeks to serve domination. The domination that historical science had in the last century.
On the other hand, never said the truth every episteme, but episteme of the times is the spacetime of knowledge from which scientific theories are configured . That is, historical-epochal opening determines rules within which knowledge is constituted.
And chances are the thread of history that Phoenicia was replaced by another organizing principle that would be the language. Foucalut radicalized his theory of power and considers the social field is a network of branches. The social space consists of a network of forces and powers in which we exist. Everything in society is power. Speech is power. Regulating the time, was distributed space forces is regulated, it dominates the individual.
The relationship between knowledge and power is complex, on the one hand there is the discursive regularity, the order of discourse, and secondly, is the diagram of forces that constitute the fabric of a society. What Foucault highlights the political dimension of scientific work. So the transition from one paradigm to another is not only accepted rationally, but there is also a rhetorical persuasion.
In "Genealogy of racism," says: "My problem is to establish what rules of law make power relations work to produce discourses of truth, what kind of power is susceptible of producing discourses of truth in a society like ours, equipped with powerful effects? Who
dominates? The power is exercised over free subjects who are capable of performing various ways of behaving, reacting and behaving. Freedom is the condition of power that is acquired by becoming subject from the perspective of an "ethic of self-care" ... the process of subjectivity begins in power relations, but also born of man himself, his liberty, fundamental assumption of ethics ... ethics [12] of subjectivity is self-control is the freedom and beauty that try to shape and style to life itself " [13] .
remains to state: How legitimate domination?, Who are excluded?. His choice of the excluded is justified in that there is a disciplinary status which is at the service of domination, then we critique of domination restraints we are making history of these rationales.
2.-The option for the excluded
The goal is to protect the sick and prisoners, it calls the "mad", has been submitted to and win. The scientific rationality of psychiatric discourse is complicit with the closure and exclusion. This is to neutralize the external forces that may have on him, because from the separation of asylum, insanity is not intended as a disorder of knowledge, but as a social deviance, madness is a social framework out, is associated with a disease with social morality made.
madness in the Renaissance is considered in two ways: the tragic consciousness of madness and critical of it to maintain dialogue with unreason. In the seventeenth century, Paracelsus distinguishes between lunatici, Insani, Vesania, and Melancholici. To Zacchi fools can be Fools, Fools, and stolid. Either way, the fool is the other reason. The other who lives in a world report, undifferentiated and without individuality (Freud).
From the perspective of capitalism, the insane and criminal, are also part of the mechanisms of production, but in absentia, since along with them, the entire population is a factor of wealth. Leisure is dangerous. The work is productive. The asylum was created to protect the productive population Disorder and Non inactivity.
"Those who govern in society and not the codes, but the perpetual distinction between normal and abnormal, for ever and undertaking of restoring the normal system."
The axiom of modern criminal law rests on this principle needs to function as the establishment of the plea it is triable only one who is normal, since it implies a rational subject is responsible. This is therefore a direct relationship between knowledge and power.
Foucault sought a temporary order space-delimited culture. That is, "the codes of culture since they have some experience of the order of things that light reveals Ratio. The man has launched some experience of the Same and the Other ... The ratio experienced by the order of things in a box having taxonomic identities things which resemble each other in an order which is familiar. But both have identities in order that experience also puts other things as the other, which is not is akin to that network of similarities but one that excludes " [14] .
When we study the speech in which are embodied knowledge What do we study? We investigated the regularities of discourse, discursive practices in which the objects of knowledge are formed. Studied usually they are those things in a culture.
Petrarca asked if anything in the story that is not praise of Rome. The discourse of history is the root of philology, economy and biology. Foucault, a critique of humanism, and proposes a history of the ways in which humans are objectified in the way it does humans. There are three ways in which man becomes the subject: its language, grammar, philology and linguistics, "as a person who worked the economics and politics," and as a person who lives and biology.
"People also become subject by means of the" words of division, humans split off from each other and the other ... this is becoming a subject-not static-that is, is in the process of objectification in this process is that the discourse of knowledge-power-objective on the subject.
Thus Darwinism became a political speech, and above all a way of masking political discourse science coverage. Its purpose is to inquire about how European science madness came to convert an object of scientific knowledge.
3.-The constitution of a subject
domination has its starting point the very relations of power and how to create the conditions for which she operates. The power relations create subjects. Therefore, your goal is not to make history in the sovereigns but manufacturing the devices of subjects. Its direct consequence is that political discourse is no longer presented as universal as liberating, but perpectivístico.
The story becomes a tale some [15] whom? Technological knowledge is consolidated at the time that wealth is possible. In contrast, the independence of knowledge represents independence of the individual, or the opportunity to establish itself as subject.
From XII and XIII century, establishing a form of justice in which the sovereign acts a delegate. The official discourse is particularly concerned to eliminate the little knowledge that are considered useless, normalizes the acquisition of knowledge, classified knowledge hierarchies and centralized institutions to control them, and of course a clear distinction between wisdom and knowledge. Given the scenario, University created body within which to develop the official centers of learning. The sciences discipline. And the subject is monitored before authenticated with a college degree is able to reproduce the matrix described in his speech.
Manifestatio and inquisitio are the principles of administrative research and to establish the truth. Now, turning complex play of political forces formed knowledge about statistical criteria: the birth rate, mortality, migration, and level of wealth, among others.
Power is then again able to step in to make living. And the statistics will become the main factor administration [16] . So from the middle of the eighteenth century when the family appears instrumental for the stock, on there will be vaccination, mortality and birth rates. This is what allows people to unlock the art of government.
C ONCLUSION
E l French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926-1984) was one of the most influential of the twentieth century. Following in the footsteps of Nietzsche undertook a relentless analysis of the mechanisms of social control. Actively involved in political and ideological struggle, determined to give voice to the voiceless, his thinking has been welcomed with enthusiasm by those who strive to improve the situation of the excluded (the prisoners, madmen, sexual minorities, immigrants, youth ...) and movements sexual liberation.
Extract from an interview in 1977 in which Foucault explains that "this ethic was not tied to a legal system. The laws regulating sexual behavior were not very numerous and had too much strength. For the Greeks were interested that would be an ethical aesthetics of existence " [17] .
Foucault makes a critical thinking modern but inviting us to participate actively in what I called technology. Freedom is an ethical possibility among others.
subjectification process begins in the relations of power, but also created the human being, liberty, fundamental assumption of ethics. The care itself is the basic principle of ethical rationality. Thus, freedom is ontological status of ethics.
The ethical substance is the freedom to practice that exists in the being of the subject that is open to transformation. Freedom is something unfinished, is the method to become, defines its position on this, so set your be, the work itself, try to know, checked, experienced, refined and transformed. Ethics is self care, permanent life, which ensures freedom, an end-imposed release of technologies by developing ourselves to access our subjectivity.
The ethics of subjectivity is self-control, freedom and beauty is trying to shape and style to life itself. The author calls the gifted free spirit of the subject that is open to a historic transformation into a work of freedom that involves the exchange possible and desirable. For this a description of the mechanisms of social control [18] and transformation of nature guided by certain purposes considered "valuable." Therefore, "... the right way to resist the power is to make specific rationalities history ...".
While Kant raised the critical issue, the limits and scope of knowledge (rational), Foucault is located on the borders of practice singular, contingent and arbitrary, as historical criticism, the event which is, that made us and leads us to the possibility of being ... in the work of freedom that involves the exchange possible and desirable. " [19]
The author calls this ontology of the updating of Kant's question as to what we are at this time, to link their response to a cultural diagnosis. The author criticizes the static is the subject of modernity. Reassessment raised illustration makes the simplification is due to post-modern (Lyotard) and criticism of his thought (Habermas).
But Foucault not only recreates the Kantian question but rejects the reason is definitely a modern story that just loses credibility. By contrast, sees no opposition in the sense that a great story ends to make way for another in a dialectical movement. What the author reveals is the continuous emergence of new rationales specific .
worth noting that "the Enlightenment is not content, but questions about what we are now, on today of which we are part. Modernity begins with two Kantian questions: What is Enlightenment? And what do the will of revolution ... The question now deals with potential-Ontology-experiences of this ... Enlightenment is the guarantee of freedom of thought, the public use of reason, "most of age ", autonomy and critical. Illustration is this ethos: a critical attitude of being historic. Therefore, prior to distinguish a pre-or post-modern era, we must investigate modern attitude against anti-modernity. " [20]
postmodernism implies sympathy of some of the following thesis: the classification of metanarrative modern, enlightened thought, the affirmation of the end of metanarratives and the end of the history of linguistic the totality of human knowledge, the fragmented nature of language to defend liberalism and the idea and practice of local politics. But the severe criticism they Tardomodernos modernity without falling into totalitarian questioning. Says: "I see many changes, but I do not see why call this transformation a collapse of reason, other forms of rationality are created ... without ceasing."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
* * *
++++++ Finally, note that now more than ever we need tools and analysis tools that allow us to approach significant interpretations of our historical situation, and that the uncontrolled expansion of new concepts has weakened the strengthening of social and to make use of science as a critical model, diversifying and pioneering solutions, because what is needed is not answers, but an epistemological region contacting allowing voices and more voices in dialogue. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
* * *
++++++++++++++++++
Suggested Reading
Deleuze, Gilles, Nietzsche and philosophy, anagram, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b1994.
Deleuze, Gilles, Foucault, Polity Press, Mexico, 1991.
Deleuze, Gilles, "What is a device?" In Michel Foucault, philosopher, Gedisa, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b1990.
Foucault, Michel, Archaeology of Knowledge, Siglo XXI, Mexico, 1995.
Foucault, Michel, The Order of things, Siglo XXI, Mexico, 1993.
Foucault, Michel, Microphysics of power, the Piquette, Madrid, 1991.
Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish, Twenty-First Century, Buenos Aires, 1989.
Foucault, Michel, The order of speech, Tusquets, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b1987.
Foucault, Michel, Technologies of the Self, Polity Press, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b1995.
Nietzsche, Friedrich, The Genealogy of Morals in Works, Aguilar, Madrid, 1932.
Vattimo, Gianni The Transparent Society, Polity Press, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b1990.
BOBBIO, Norberto, the absent third, Catedra, Madrid, 1997.
Deleuze, Gilles, Nietzsche and philosophy, anagram, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b1994.
Deleuze, Gilles, Foucault, Polity Press, Mexico, 1991.
Deleuze, Gilles, "What is a device?" In Michel Foucault, philosopher, Gedisa, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b1990.
Foucault, Michel, Archaeology of Knowledge, Siglo XXI, Mexico, 1995.
Foucault, Michel, The Order of things, Siglo XXI, Mexico, 1993.
Foucault, Michel, Microphysics of power, the Piquette, Madrid, 1991.
Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish, Twenty-First Century, Buenos Aires, 1989.
Foucault, Michel, The order of speech, Tusquets, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b1987.
Foucault, Michel, Technologies of the Self, Polity Press, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b1995.
Nietzsche, Friedrich, The Genealogy of Morals in Works, Aguilar, Madrid, 1932.
Vattimo, Gianni The Transparent Society, Polity Press, Barcelona, \u200b\u200b1990.
BOBBIO, Norberto, the absent third, Catedra, Madrid, 1997.
Notes
[1] Science is a growing body of ideas that can be characterized as rational knowledge, accurate and verifiable, therefore feasible. Proposes a methodology incorporates the research procedure as follows: orderly, repeatable, and self-correcting that guarantees valid results. For Piaget, Science is above all learn the general rules of any scientific expertise. Merton reaffirms the distinction between methodology and logic of scientific procedure and sociological theory. Parsons adds that the methodology is the border area between science, logic and epistemology. By contrast, Feyerabend and Phillips question the assumptions of the method and are an opportunistic approach that incorporates a theory of error against the infallibility of the method. Brigman, also denies the existence of the scientific method, he states that science is what scientists do and there are many scientific methods as men of science. Beltran raises advocating alternative integration paradigm that assimilates the natural, cultural, and micro and macro sociology. Finally, we note that the methodology is logical and systematic study of the principles that guide social research.
[2] In positivist science concepts are meaningful only verifiable. Since the Vienna Circle and logical positivism positivist tradition collect objective thinking and the ability of science to discover the truth and the use of logic and mathematics to establish standards and requirements of inquiry.
[3] Also called "spirit of time" or "unitary vision of the world."
[4] According to the author, culture is not only a source nor a common reopertorio response is a shared set of fundamental structure, from which articulated a number of private schemes.
[5] Bourdieu, P., "Systèmes d'enseignement et systèmes de pensée", Revue International de Science Sociale, 1967, v XIX, No. 3, pp. 367-388.
[6] Given this scenario Ben-David, distinguishes two trends in science. An institutional and interactional. The first is concerned with social influence and political-economic focus its work on a descriptive function. The second perspective is interested in relations research groups to establish communication networks of scientific communities, ie, studies that create knowledge elite and the nature of scientific fields.
[7] Giner, S., Lamo de Espinosa, E., Torres, Ibid, p. 256.
[8] Foucault, M., "microphysics of power", 2 nd ed., Madrid, 1980, p. 18.
[9] Foucault, M., "Archaeology of Knowledge", 2 nd ed., Mexico, XVI, 1972, p. 201.
[10] Foucault, M., Ibid, p. 245.
[11] Giner, S., Lamo de Espinosa, E., Torres, C., "Dictionary of Sociology", Ed Alliance, 1998, p. 247.
[12] Foucault speaks of an ethics has three fields: the games of truth, power and technology of subjectivity. Focusing more on the ethics in power, which refers to power as government to government distinguishes things (technology), men (state policy) and himself.
[13] Ordonez, J., Ibid, p. XI.
[14] Ordonez, J., Ibid, p.23
[15] "Power is unjust, not because they have fallen from the highest examples, but because ours ", Foucault, Ibid, p. 81.
[16] Ian Hacking points out that "the statistics began to be the systematic study of quantitative facts about the state ... but only from 1603 and after the plague wish to have figures on a regular basis "in" The sugimiento of probability ", Ed Gedisa, 1995, Barcelona, \u200b\u200bp.128.
[17] Le Nouvel Observateur, June 1984.
[18] Deleuze argues that it is a joint and bi-dimensional multilinear, a machine to see and do talk. The devices are composed of lines of visibility, enunciation, power, subjectivity, breaking, cracking, and fracture that intersect and mingle with others to raise capacity through changes in provision. This world of representation that Foucault has shown, is defined by four dimensions that is coordinated: the concept of identity, the opposition in the predicate, analogy in the trial and the similarity in perception .
[19] Ordonez, J., Ibid, p. XI.
[20] Ordonez, J., for the prologue Rojas Osorio, C., "Foucault and postmodernism", Ed UNA, Costa Rica, 2001, p. IX.
[19] Ordonez, J., Ibid, p. XI.
[20] Ordonez, J., for the prologue Rojas Osorio, C., "Foucault and postmodernism", Ed UNA, Costa Rica, 2001, p. IX.
0 comments:
Post a Comment