Man is the author and actor of his

ayshakhatun0605

Story, and this process is guided by his confrontation with reality, which has an objective character and is external to his consciousness (lara, 2011; tonet, 2013). According to frigotto (2011), in order to understand the arrival at the fragmentation of knowledge, it is necessary to understand the trajectory of the social being from its original bases, in historical and ontological terms. The question is to verify the origin of the fragmentation of knowledge, which, it seems, occurred with the advent of private property and social classes, with the social division of labor, alienation, the division between those who think and those who do, between manual and intellectual work, and deepened with positivism, the development of capitalist society and the division between capital and work that reinforces the division between those who think and those who perform work and deepens alienation.

In other words, the division and fragmentation of knowledge have direct links with the form of social organization and production of material life based on the division of classes, “[…] The split that is produced and developed at the level of the production relations of social man , as a concrete totality, is necessarily explained at the level of America Cell Phone Number List consciousness, representations and conceptions of reality” (frigotto, 2011, p. 60). Frigotto (2011) also states that ideas and conceptions do not have a life of their own, but emerge from the historical moment and the way in which the way of producing material life is organized at each moment. This fragmentation that occurs at the level of social relations of production has repercussions at the level of thought and representations. When social classes did not yet exist, knowledge and knowledge happened through life and returned to life.



There was no need to deprive anyone of any information or experience, and there was no fragmentation. It is from this perspective that the deeper nature of social praxis and its developments throughout history are understood. The praxic construction of knowledge takes us, therefore, to the historical reality to be known, since individuals develop in relationships of appropriation of the history contained in objects produced by man and in the relationships established between them on the basis of such productions. But for an effective understanding of the praxic dimension of man, another precept must be taken into account, namely, the initial unity existing between subject and object of knowledge (abrantes and martins, 2007, p. 315).