Re: [Foucault-L] Proof check in Order of Things

Hi Alasdair

Thankyou, what you have said makes sesnse as you have explained it, however in thaat sense then, as a discussion, why in that sentence are 'need's a representation of its own representation yet the other two examples he uses here ARE representations of something else.

I understand the sense of the distinction in Foucault's thought but why within this sentence is there a discrepancy?

Hi Anthony

Mea culpa. That is my typo. Sorry.

Thankyou though both of you.

all the best


Partial thread listing: