So I was explaining the important concepts in *Les Mots et les Choses* to a
friend who was reading it. She wanted to know how to distinguish Foucault's
argument about the Renaissance period's unique epistemical focus on
"representation" from the general human cognitive ability to think in terms
of representation or symbols. I explained that representation was being used
more in the terms of knowledge and how various signs represented totalities,
but perhaps I oversimplified something? Because any discussion of
representation often involves discussion of symbols and such, which is did
of course, so perhaps that only adds to the confusion.
How would any of you guys distinguish his account of the representative
episteme from a general human cognitive capacity to think in terms of
representation (which led to early art and perhaps spirituality).
Looking forward to your comments.
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(319)-512-9318
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"
friend who was reading it. She wanted to know how to distinguish Foucault's
argument about the Renaissance period's unique epistemical focus on
"representation" from the general human cognitive ability to think in terms
of representation or symbols. I explained that representation was being used
more in the terms of knowledge and how various signs represented totalities,
but perhaps I oversimplified something? Because any discussion of
representation often involves discussion of symbols and such, which is did
of course, so perhaps that only adds to the confusion.
How would any of you guys distinguish his account of the representative
episteme from a general human cognitive capacity to think in terms of
representation (which led to early art and perhaps spirituality).
Looking forward to your comments.
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(319)-512-9318
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"