Abstract

Normal 0 21 false false false ES X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabla normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} This article is a didactic attempt to make comprehensible the methodological stance of Michel Foucault whereby philosophy is said to be made in a similar way that archeologists work. According to these terms, interpretation is replaced by description, trading the eagerness to compensate the poverty of enunciations by the description of the law of that poverty. The exposition of Foucault’s archeological method seeks to show its advantages in comparison to more traditional forms of analysis. This way, contradictions are no longer that which needs to be superceded, but are objects that need to be described in order to determine the extent and the form of its being out of joint