The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences

I think most scholars and educators in the history of philosophy would put this in the top ten most important philosophical works of the latter half of the 20th Century, despite whether one largely agrees with Foucault's views or not.

This is because the work has had enormous influence not just in philosophy, but also in literary criticism, historiography, social psychology, theology, and a host of other disciplines within the humanities and social sciences.

What I think is interesting is that if you are either a friend or foe of deconstructionism, you will find plenty to appreciate in this book. In fact, even if you can't stand (or can't understand) what deconstruction is all about, you can safely give Foucault a try. Though very heavy reading, he is far more structured and organized in his argumentation than, say, Derrida.

If post-modern meta-theory (i.e. discussion of how we might take a step back and judge whether the very principles of how we form theories may be called into question) is of interest to you, in any field, then you probably will be glad for having read this book.

About this edition: It's a shame they did not keep the print of the painting, Las Meninas, on the cover -- as an older paperback version had borne. Foucault talks about this painting at length in the book, and there is no replacement for seeing it. A black-and-white print on the inside is not nearly as nice as the larger, color one that was on previous covers.

This was an eye-opener for me. Not so much that Foucault's insights are convincing, but in reading him I achieved a first glimpse of how much of the language used by academic writers conversant in "theory" is taken from this book. After a little time spent reading this, I felt more comfortable with academic writing. Not so much that I understand better what the scholars are saying, but it's now clearer whom they are parroting. It consequently lets me know where an author's allegiance lies.

More a curiosity and an exploration in the mental discipline of standing rigor up to total relativism. Read this classic if you're (a) interested in the roots of the nascent deconstruction movement (b) thick skinned enough not to be distracted by the author's biases.

I read it out of a desire to see my suppositions challenged; it succeeded well for that.

The 1994 Random House / Vintage edition astonishingly does not include an index. Without an index, the text is virtually useless for students and academics. One is forced to rely on Google Books in order to find terms in the text. If you intend to use this book for anything more than casual reading, avoid this edition.

This book has dramatically changed the way I conceptualize reality. It is hard to follow but incredibly insightful. It will hurt to get through but once you do, you might consider practising your best Mr.Universe pose and claiming -- in the words of the the "Governator" -- "No pain, no gain."

I recommend the following steps to understanding this book:
1) read once;
2) see a psychiatrist;
3) read again;
4) think;
5) read again
6) understand.

Im only considering step two. I might just skip it and go strait to step 3.

Good luck.