Trihedral modern episteme: the count and Foucault

"Modern man is not the man about to discover its secrets, hidden truth, that man is trying invented. This modernity does not 'liberate man in his own "which forces him to face the task to occur. "

Baudelaire

In this article an attempt was made to proceed Foucault's critique of the linear classification of the branches of knowledge by the figure. The first article begins with a summary Eddy trihedral mathematics, empirical science and philosophy, then moves in the linear classification of Comte, with special reference to positivism. Ultimately, the article compares both the count and Foucault and the most important critique of Foucault Comte, referring to other important works of Foucault.

Eddy modern episteme projection:
Foucault's account of the humanities focuses on a controversial statement, the man is a recent invention. And we can be coming to an end. Foucault says that man is subject and object of knowledge as a transcendental doublet, was built in the nineteenth century, with the specific conditions of possibility. The man did not exist in the 17th and 18th century and its place was occupied by the structure of representation. Grammar, wealth and natural history has the structure of representation. Foucault,

… The representation regulates the mode of being of language, people, nature and needs. The analysis of the representation, therefore, has critical value for all empirical fields. The whole system of classical order, all the major taxonomy that lets you know things through the system of their identity, developed in this space that is open on the inside when the representation is shown, the area where the well-being and even the residence. The language is simply representation of the people need is simply the representation of needs (1966:209).

The 19th century saw the knowledge of wealth, living and the language is free of representation. Knowledge of these areas were unified taxonomic tables. Language, economic and living beings began to be considered as an organic structure composed of the basic function. Biology no longer living were analyzed using tables based on the taxonomic structure the surface, but it is the exploration of space between the surface and bodies that are hidden, so the connection with their duties. Also in the field of purely grammatical philology appears. The individuality of the language and its similarity to other languages is determined by its means and mechanisms in grammar. Foucault,

… The language is not only the representation and the sounds they represent in turn are classified representations and links between them that the need of grace, it is formal elements, along with a system that imposes the sounds, syllables, roots of an organization that is not that of representation (1966: 235)

Foucault not to say that the modern episteme eliminates rendering based on the thought, however, he said, the representation is always a key site in the design of modern signs (As well as language and knowledge). Point is no longer just an unquestionable, self-justification starting point, and not just as a similar function the same thought. The power of attorney to record instead of seeking "external representation, beyond the immediately visible in a kind of behind cameras, even deeper and more dense than representation.

Foucault's Kantian critical project as a major objective of this point view of representation. Kant allows certain forms of knowledge are essentially empirical representation. But does not accept the conventional assumption that all thought is by its very nature of representation. His portrayal of critical issues on the basis of its legitimate limits. The whole system of representation of the time Classic is the necessary form of thought and reality is as such, with the criticism of Kant, as a simple way of thought and reality must be based on an uncritical acceptance representation systems involving dogmatic metaphysics. Kant is also working to open the questioning of all sources of representations (Gutted: 1989: 243).

One of the most important development of modern knowledge has been the fragmentation of knowledge. By age classic find a homogeneous whole, with each area (from mathematics to philosophy, empirical science), only a special form of science in general application. For information on any field has ordered the construction of tables and differences. Foucault,

At the time Conventionally, the domain knowledge of the draft analysis of the representation on the issue of mathesis universalis, were perfectly consistent: all knowledge of any kind, carried out command of his material by establishing and defining these differences differences by creating an order, which is true of mathematics is true taxonomies also (broadly) and the natural sciences, but it is also true for those rough, imperfect and largely spontaneous types of knowledge come into play in the construction of the last fragment of the speech or in the daily processes of change, and it is true, finally, for thought philosophical and the long chains of command as "ideologues, no less than Descartes or Spinoza, thought differently, I tried to put in place to create a path that leads ideas inevitably the simplest and most obvious of truths compound. But in the nineteenth century epistemological fields has become fragmented, or rather exploded different directions. It is difficult to escape the rule of classification and linear hierarchies in the way Comte, but seeks to include all branches of modern science on basis of mathematics is to present the unique perspective of objectivity in the knowledge of the issue of positivity of each branch of knowledge …. (1966: 346)

The epistemological field exploded in the 19th century in different directions (346), and could not be understood as a linear series of surveys using the same basic method in different areas. The modern episteme is not ordered according to the ideal of the mathematization perfect, nor is it produced, or the basis of a formal purity, a long descending sequence knowledge increasingly overwhelmed by Empire (1966:346). Rather, it emerged three distinct dimensions of knowledge

(1) mathematics, including mathematics and physics, pure mathematics. What construction of deductive systems, which connects the proposals obvious or proven
(2) science empirical, such as biology, economics and philology, the ethics of the relationship between similar elements, but resigned to the known world to reveal causal relations and structural constraints between them.
(3) The philosophical reflection, which is a unified understanding of the reasons and order or knowledge of reality. This joint plan for the language of biology and economics.

Foucault sees these divisions in the field of knowledge as a result of reduced representation. The separation of philosophy as a way different from the methodology of the survey is the direct result of this representation is the most indisputable of thought and knowledge. The division between mathematics and empirical science as a result of a new distinction between analytic and synthetic knowledge, which derives from the question of representation.

Directly opposite linear model of progressive growth Count, Foucault said that modern biology, economics and philology correspond to breaks in the history of high thinking and not simply extensions of earlier forms of thought

The analysis of wealth in terms of movement of work beyond the point of view pure representation of Adam Smith's wealth, but the radical break with the classical episteme analysis Product only with Ricardo, who presented the work not only as a measure of value, but also the only source of value. Value no longer a sign, it became in a project … the value of things increases with the amount of work … but does not change with the increase or decrease in wages for work which, like all other goods are traded (1966: 254). And with this design work, a new conception of man as a trader emerged, which Foucault called homo oeconomics.

Foucault said Ricardo and Marx saw the economy as the linearity of the history of man's struggle to survive finished with their work. Both the history to see that progress towards climax in which the man will face the ultimate consequence of finitude. Ricardo is the culmination as a mere dead end which makes permanent shortage against that man has struggled for a long time, Marx, however, believes the end of the shortage and the beginning of the new form of human existence. These two linear thinking are two ways develop the basic picture of economic reality, are based on the structure of the same archaeological modern economy.

Foucault criticized Marxism and said that deep knowledge of Marxism in the West has no discontinuity opposes the bourgeoisie economically, but this opposition is a mere surface effect. Like Foucault, Marxism introduced no real discontinuity, found its place without difficulty, as a whole, very comfortable and, God knows, good for a while (his) epistemological a provision welcomed the fun (as it is this provision that was really the place for them) and he, in turn, I had no intent to distribute and, above all, no power to change even one iota, because it was based entirely on him. Marxism was the nineteenth century as a fish, water is unable to breathe in other places … and again said the controversy was as Marxist bourgeoisie … a few waves and caused a few ripples on the surface, but they are more storms in the pool addling Children (1966:262).

As Foucault said that Marxism was not as revolutionary as he believes the proposed and not a major break and break with the classical episteme, but a simple surface effect, which follows the linear progression of history.

Move in biology Modern began, according to Foucault, with the introduction of the concept of organizational structure, by Lamarck, but decisive break came only with Cuvier, who first organizational structure to give an independent role of taxonomic classification. For Cuvier, the structure of an organ must be understood in terms of functions that the body performs. Thus, Cuvier, arrive at the definition of being alive as a functional system where life becomes a category that defines the object of research biological, and modern biology is, unlike the classical natural history, life sciences. Life was more related to temporality and historicity, which Foucault has provided a basis for introducing the idea of Darwinian evolution, which was alien to classical thought.

I the case of philology, the main rupture and break the general grammar that philology come with different Bopp, who recognized the roots of verbal relations of languages.

So we see here in the modern episteme, with the decline and fragmentation of knowledge representation, language has lost the central role it played in the episteme classical language and became a mere object of knowledge, among others. Eddy said that the drawing and interpretation of language have their roots in the new status of language as a historical reality and the object of our knowledge. The formalization and interpretation does not conflict with each other, but they have source and destination common have a common basis of phenomenology and structuralism in the modern episteme. In modern literature, for Foucault, refers to something like the language of their state during the Renaissance. If recovery of the language is controlled and limited time for the Text of the universe as "god" creative word, the language of modern literature is totally unfounded "no point, endlessly, no promise. So, here we see that language is classical episteme back to its roots, so we can assume that this is the game Renaissance and modern episteme that made the modern language.

We talked about the three pillars of modern knowledge of mathematics, philosophy and the empirical, but have not yet complied with the humanities. The humanities, which are of ultimate interest of Foucault are excluded, as he says, the epidemiological triad humanities are excluded at least in the sense that it can be found in over the scale or at the surface of an aircraft as defined. But we can say that have been included because it is in the interstices of these branches knowledge or, more precisely, the volume defined by their size, the humanities have their place (1966:347).

Foucault saw the modern philosophy is the philosophy of Kant is "man" who is also the subject of the humanities. Foucault says that Man is the product of the modern episteme, and by the end of the eighteenth century man did not exist (338) and will disappear in the spirit of the fall of the modern episteme. The idea here is the man for performances there. The emergence of man in the modern episteme makes the issue of knowledge representation itself becomes an object of knowledge. Foucault recognizes science as the place of empirical knowledge, but argues that man can not be simply an object of knowledge, but a question that constitutes the world and everything as objects. Foucault argues that the study of man, precisely as the subject constituent is the central concern of philosophical reflection modern human and modern science to the contrary.

Kant has given the distinction between man as a transcendental subject and that are the object of his experience, but Foucault Kant says five proper relationship between man a transcendental and empirical, which led to post-Kantian philosophers, the empirical and transcendental reduction led to the appearance of two ways:
(1) human biological body empirical knowledge as the basis of a positivist interpretation of the Transcendental Aesthetic. The result was the discovery that knowledge has anatomical and physiological conditions, is progressive and the structure of the organization. This was taken to show the nature tat of human knowledge has empirically that determines its nature and at the same time is an object of knowledge.
(2) This approach is based on historical knowledge and and biological about the human condition. This led to the Marxist version of the transcendental dialectic, which shows that knowledge of historical conditions, social or that there was a short economic history of human knowledge that could be given to empirical knowledge and the manner prescribed (1966: 319).

The positivist This is the alternative to the philosophical and eschatological, based on empirical truth philosophical truth becomes important to understand the human sciences. Philosophy positivist says that our discourse on the knowledge itself is real truth about empirical objects. The eschatological view that our scientific and historical accounts empirical objects are true under the truth of our philosophical discourse on knowledge. Eddy said, Comte and Marx Both focus on the fact that eschatology and archaeologically positivism are inseparable: a speech to try to be both empirical and critical, but can not positivist and eschatological man appears in it as a truth both reduced and fiancee (1966:320). Therefore, it becomes clear that the efforts (both Comte, Marx) to carry out the project in general, ranged between positivism and reductionist eschatology.

Eddy said the search of modern philosophy of man has come to put an end to death, acceptance undisputed man as the inevitability of development philosophy is a new form of dogmatic slumber. Foucault says, in modern thought, revealed in history things the Foundation and the historicity of a man is the void by creating distance in the same (1966:340).

Central human concern, is the man. They deal with men of science such as life, and speech production, but not as empirical sciences of biology, economics and philology. The humanities and philosophy has to do with man as subject, as a connoisseur whose actions are her world and not just products of the same. The humanities are not an analysis of what man is by nature are rather an analysis that moves from the nature of man that life, production and speaking being, unlike biology, science man's concern for human life. humanities deal with human life, work, and language in the stratum of conduct, behavior, attitudes, gestures and in fact phrases that have spoken or written … (1966: 354)

The Division of Humanities in the three regions epistemological all divided within themselves, and intertwined, each corresponding to one of the empirical sciences of biology, economics and philology.

Foucault develops his methodology social sciences in terms of these three divisions, and believes that each of the three divisions of the humanities use to model the empirical science is particularly connected. Although Foucault believes that each model has a fundamental role and importance of a science of man, in particular, recognizes that all models come in all humanities. Eddy said, all the humanities and the lock can still be used to interpret each other, their boundaries are blurred, intermediary and are disciplines compounds multiply without end, and at the end of its proper object may disappear completely (1966: 358)

The humanities are original, and seeking active role of man as a subject, which became known as the unconscious, and it is through these functions unconscious conflicts, and meanings, the humanities are able to develop an explanation of how the man represents the fundamental reality of life, work and language contained in the empirical sciences as determinants of man an object of (gutted: 1989).

Science Achievement belongs to the realm of human knowledge, not science, because science is the human form of knowledge, such as physics and biology, have defined legitimate position in the modern episteme. They have no formal criteria of a form of scientific knowledge. Therefore, the difference between empirical sciences and humanities is the formalization and proof (gutted: 1989).

The story is an environment that is both privileged and dangerous for the Humanities. For each of the Humanities offers a fund, where he established and is a fixed field, so to speak, a country determines the cultural, chronological and geographical boundaries in that this branch of knowledge can be recognized as having validity, but also around the sciences of man with the limits of border and destroy them from the beginning, its claim to the validity of the elements of universality (1966:371). Foucault believes that history has a special role because the object of Humanities "Man is a historical being. The man is a science of man is the man who makes a particular range of its history. Validity of universal knowledge (such as positivism) can also be tested at any chronological time. We will discuss the universality of knowledge later.

Foucault in the last chapter of the order of things, on combating sciences such as psychoanalysis and ethnology. Science combat rather than developing a general concept of man, they question the very concept of man himself. Just as Kant raises the question of the condition of the possibility of representation has led to a decrease of representation, so the question collection like the man is the sign of the missing man, what Levi-Strauss says of ethnology: the man had to disband.

The modern episteme seems to be defective and sell the structuralism and poststructuralism. Therefore, we again turned to the language, thinking perhaps that since modern thought arises in the dispersal of the language, all you have to replace a revival of his unit. So the man left the modern episteme, and is doomed to disappear with the fall of the modern episteme.

Conde classification linear branches of modern science
In the nineteenth century, Auguste Comte Enlightenment idea of progress in a linear view of evolution three-stage/law to positivism. He described three historical stages: (1) Theology (2) metaphysics (3) the positive. View Count three stages of evolution is based on the positivist belief that the pursuit of history, where the third phase in which he called positivism, which consist of observations carried general laws governing human activity. Let us now look briefly at some important elements of linear classification.
Let us first briefly review the progress three linear stages of human civilization. In 1822, in his first draft of the positive philosophy, argued that "because of the nature of the human spirit" all human knowledge through "the theological or fictitious, the metaphysical or abstract, and finally the positive or scientific stage." In the theological " ideas of the supernatural "work as explanatory concepts, and" the observed facts are explailzed, which are a priori, in terms of invented facts. Stage metaphysical is an intermediate style of thought that works "in terms of ideas that are not supernatural and not yet very natural. Briefly, these ideas are abstractions embodied in the mind can decide to see if the mystical name of a supernatural cause, or summary statement of a simple series of phenomena, since it is more about theology or science. (Action 1958)
state theology is reflected in concepts such as divine right of kings. The metaphysical stage including concepts such as the social contract, equal people, and popular sovereignty. The step results in a scientific positivist or "sociological" (a term invented by Auguste Comte) Focusing organizational policy. Highly critical of democratic procedures, Comte provides a stable society governed by scientific elite who would use scientific methods to solve human problems and improving social conditions.
Corresponding to the theological thought humans has been the scene of predatory social-military organization, which corresponds to the positive phase of positive thinking is the industrial stage of social organization, then enter the two is a step in the military defense or non-predator in which to develop the metaphysical ideas. There was also a corresponding development of feeling, showing itself in the perspective welfare of mankind. In the feelings of men in society are organized theological-military in its conception of a supernatural world with its rewards and punishments after death. In the provisional revolutionary society, feelings of men are organized in its own interest world, so that liberalism is bound to be both a perspective metaphysics selfish. Positive step in human development agreement took the view that the scientific method, the predicted counts are combined with awareness the sociologist of the dependence of each individual in society as a whole to produce a system of "the principle of love to his base, and progress to the end." The moral of positive industrial society tend to be one of universal love. (Action, 1958).

Classification of Auguste Comte claims to represent the order of the simple to complex and general to specific, and order mental growth is the first as shown, and the second reversed. We expect that the order of individual mental progress faithfully represents the order of the race situation in science, but this is clearly not the case. Mathematics, for example, the first science in development, treated with simple concepts but more general and abstract. Its rapid growth is largely due to progress in accordance with the law of least mental resistance. Was easy for the mind to work for an ideal world so that inferences patiently to the complexities and perplexities of the real world of things. All comments is that we have the right to consider that knowledge of the world that can stand the test of observation and experimentation. Comte believed that the methods of natural science experimentation and observation, etc. Verification can be used to study and solve human problems.

Earl then proceeded to use the law of the three state of the scientific knowledge base to argue for the existence of laws governing the evolution of other aspects of society. First, uses the fact that changes in one aspect of society will lead to changes in other aspects in an attempt to prove the existence of laws of social statics, the science of social balance. Earl also claims that, moreover, is that there are laws of social dynamics that describe the development of aspects of society other than their scientific development. These other aspects of society should grow at the pace of scientific advances in order to avoid decomposition of the system.

Comte believes that the objective method positivist is to find facts and truths, which is the ultimate goal of science. Comte believed that the gradual positive science will enhance the company is questionable, because scientific progress has been settled and what Foucault calls, disciplinary societies. Earl believes that scientific knowledge of the social sciences will lead governments to recognize that there are definite limits to what they can expect to force or persuade their subjects to do, but it was Foucault who has provided the knowledge and power NEXUS Comte did not mention. The application of the positive has led to greed and the scientific nature of faith, and was taken to the construction of an agreement and also the authority science society. Although Earl has rejected the belief in a transcendent being, recognized the value of religion in contributing to social stability. In the System positive politics, he proposed his religion of humanity, to promote socially beneficial behavior.

Conde believes that because human nature is everywhere one and the same, society will always develop according to the same laws. These laws can be discovered through a study of more advanced societies of man. Local factors such as race and the weather can not change the nature of this development. They concern the speed at which the company moves from one state to another in the social set. For this reason, Conde believes that companies simply represent non-Western states in early social development through which Western Europe has passed.

Thus, the Count believed in a stage of evolution and the theory of growth line of human progress based on the laws of scientific positivism, that law evolution can be generalized to all cases of human nature itself. And the ultimate aim of positivism was to find the truth, a universal truth of the management company. Comte's positivism was like stages of growth theories available late by psychologists, where the man lives to be, even when the child grows into adulthood. positivist Auguste Comte was later taken by Durkheim, who proposed ideas such as solidarity positivist evolutionary mechanical and organic, and to some extent also Marx (historical and revolutionary) in the case of dialectical materialism.

The main points of conflict between the earl and Foucault
As we have discussed the steps both Comte and episteme Foucaudian, And now we approach the critical stages of knowledge Foucault proposed by Comte linear. I have a little impact on the major criticisms Foucault, I will try to discuss briefly.

The first point of conflict between the earl and Foucault is the point, the linear classification of the branches of knowledge. Earl proposed three stages of knowledge progress and said the knowledge transmitted through theology in the science of meta-physics and, finally, when he called positivism. Counts said that each stage of knowledge forms a hierarchy, where the scientific positivism or progressive ranks first. Comte believed that the higher the hierarchy of knowledge, the most rational and progressive it is. As Canguilheim, progress: the rejection of the childishness of the human race and prejudice, and recognition from their mistakes (1988:315).

The positive step, Comte, "This is the final way to be assumed by all the science and the first two are intended only to prepare the way for gradually. At this stage the facts are related in terms of ideas or general laws an entirely positive agenda suggested or confirmed by the facts themselves. The intent is always to reduce to as few as possible but without any assumption that one day could not be verified by observation, and without them otherwise than as a means of expression phenomena in general. "The law has three stages, first, a formulation of a theory knowledge. In this respect, the review of it is a matter of philosophy. Secondly, is used by the Earl of interpretation of the history of science and Western society. In this regard, it is alleged sociological law. (Action, 1958).

Count refers to positive science as "work monitor continuum of all mankind, without any special inventor, "and said that" apart from its starting point, public reason should be implemented the overall goal of positive speculation, it always ends-oriented projection of the universal needs. "The main reason why the theological modes and reject metaphysical thinking is not associated with common sense and practice as the only positive way (action: 1958).

Earl also noted that only verifiable, testable statements are significant. In his view, any proposal that is not strictly reducible to a simple statement of fact General or particular may be important or real or intelligible to us … Earl verifiability used as a stick to beat the metaphysical. This was particularly important to Comte in the bed of his three stages of intellectual development. All sciences have experienced periods of domination and the "metaphysics espirit l '" (1971:39).

Foucault's critique of Comte, is that knowledge can be organized in a hierarchical linear and progressive, but it should be understood in their own episteme. This knowledge must be understood in their own time, context and the importance or the place of that period, and we can not simply say that the knowledge of the Renaissance was wild. In Instead of looking at the classification of knowledge in terms linear Eddy tried to understand in terms of epistemological rupture and rupture, and says it is the historian's task to understand knowledge in terms of coherence and continuity. Therefore, Canguilheim rightly said that life in the twentieth century, we can understand why the century Nineteenth century was a critical look at eighteen, but she thought it was me who follows in his footsteps (1998:322). Levy Strauss says it is unacceptable to discredit companies cold because their means of production are archaic … (1998:224).

Eddy said that intrinsic value "impurity" what we call "reason" their roots "in the culture and society, its entanglement with power and interest, the historical variability of its categories and criteria, embodied, sensual, and almost committed nature of their carriers (McCarthy: 1990). Foucault rejects the image of Augustus Having an autonomous rational subject, located in a world of objects intended to represent and the representative, to master. Eddy thinks the reason, in employment and cognitive, is integrated into the socio-cultural.

Earl uses his positive ideas of science to social sciences such as sociology and says it is the science of society. He said that as the empirical sociology of science can be quantified and mathematized. But Foucault said that in seeking to harmonize modern knowledge based on mathematics is to submit to the unique perspective of objectivity in the matter knowledge positivity of each branch of knowledge. Eddy said that both empirical and social sciences have a common root and soil and traces of their connection to the era before lighting.

Account and other natural scientists proposed that the ultimate aim of positivism is the search for ultimate truth and fact, is a universal. The idea was further popularized by its rules of sociological method in which he discusses the appropriate method of sociological research on Durkheim the facts as final. Foucault's main theme is that there may be some really unique and universal? Foucault thinks that the answer or "no" because the truth is the episteme, and what was true for episteme can not be true for others. Foucault think that, like other practices, epistemic practices must also be understood in its socio-cultural context. Therefore, in this sense, Foucault believes the theory of knowledge is part of the theory of society, that is embedded in practical contexts, and distinctive forms.

In addition, Foucault critique the role that social science and social "experts trained in science" have played in the process of "rationalization." Foucault saw the rationality that came to prevail in modern society as a potential tool to extend our dominion over the physical and social worlds, a rationality technique and calculation, regulation and administration, seeking more effective forms of domination. In As the humanities have helped greatly to build and keep the bars of the "iron cage" in the words of Max Weber, are a favorite target of dialectical critique and genealogy. (McCarthy: 1990).

Since the Enlightenment, a history and an idea of always reasonhas the surface, as Foucault says, "I think the central question of philosophy and thought critical since the eighteenth century has always been, still is, and I hope the question remains: What is the reason why I use? What are its effects historical? "Of course, our days we have added:" What are your limits and what are its dangers? How can we exist as rational beings, happily engaged practicing a rationality that is unfortunately crossed by the intrinsic hazard (McCarthy: 1990) Foucault and the response to these Questions are in the stories pedigree, that emphasize the local and contingent of the dominant forms of rationality rather than its universality.

All companies as Foucault says, "In a regime of truth", and genealogy focuses specifically on how we govern ourselves and others through its production. emphasis on the humanities-sciences "Man" is the theme that examines the many ways in which power relations are the two conditions and effects of the production of truth about human beings. In the survey of the area between psychiatry and medicine, criminology and population studies, found the relationship between the comments it receives power over people to extract data from and around them (McCarthy: 1990). What separates this kind of universal guidance "Analytical truth" is the institutionalization and rationalization of knowledge as psychiatry, criminology, etc., and essentially states Foucault the link between knowledge-power in the modern episteme.
Eddy with other thinkers who are equally or more critical of rational and progressive Count are as follows, Freud, Nietzsche, Canguilheim, Levi-Strauss, etc.
Freud, we live in a remarkable. We found that progress has been associated with barbarism amazement. Nietzsche said that progress is a modern idea, that is, a false idea (1998:326). Canguilheim said, it is possible to reject evolutionism and the linear vision of progress without, hopefully, to succumb to the temptation of a naive backward. We can say to compare the history of different societies or different states of the same society, which in different ways and according to several criteria. Levi-Strauss called primitive societies do not represent the States been overtaken by the progress made by so-called civilized societies, representing different solutions to similar problems, and that its value can not be evaluated in the rules imported from outside (1998:324). For example, Levi Strauss questioned the paradox of ideology progressive of civilized man, pointing at the same time, it has been destroyed in the name of progress.
In conclusion we can say that the linear, progressive classification with modern knowledge why the count is rejected by Foucault and others as Canguilheim, because society can not be understood only in terms of quantification and rationalism always moves to a higher stage of human conversation, however, be said in words Canguilheim the dark side of rationalism of the Enlightenment was the day in 15 hours for children.

Bibliography
(1) Foucault, M (1966) The order of things: an archeology of the human sciences. London. Tavistock Publications.
(2) evisceration, G (1989) Michael Foucault archeology of scientific reason. Cambridge and New York. Cambridge University Press.
Articles
(1) Canguilheim, H (1998) The decrease in the idea of progress, "Economy and Society (27, 2 and 3) pp 313-329.
(2) Ludden, L (1971) Towards a new evaluation method Conde positive ', Philosophy of Science, vol. 38, no. 1. pp 35-53.
(3) McCarthy, T (1990) Criticism of impure reason: Foucault and the Frankfurt School "Political Theory, vol. 18, No. 3. pp. 437-469
(4) Acton, MP (1951) Comte's positivism and science of society ", Philosophy, vol. 26, No. 99. pp. 291-310.

About the Author

research scholar in deparetment of sociology, delhi university.

The King of Glory (Prophecy – The King of Glory!)

[affmage source="ebay" results="9"]king comforter modern[/affmage]