The present study aims to identify the similarities and differences in the view of
values between the main social theoretical trends adopted as assets to discuss topics of
interest to sociology. These trends agreed in principle to give quality of o
bjectively to the
values, and differed about their interpretation, understanding and change. We resort to the
comparative approach to find the disclosure of similarities and differences. This approach
is the closest approaches of social research to the nature of the studied subject, mainly in
the study of social phenomena. We will also turn to the analysis of the content according to
the requirements of the study when determining the point of view concerning the values in
this direction or that as stated by the first founders of these trends, namely Emile Durkheim
functional trend, and the founder of the rules of the approach in sociology, and Karl Marx,
the founder of marital comprehension of history and social life, Max Weber, the founder of
sociology of understanding, a pioneer of the ideal model of social analysis. The efforts
made by the founders to study social problems and phenomena, which have been adopted
as the basis of research in sociology, the researcher can draw from their general context
their view of values and reveal the underlying aspect of their studies around them,
especially if we know that each of the first pioneers did not highlight directly on the values
concept.
Van Tijm and Victor Gremonsky, in their comparative monetary work, have
established two closely related, largely divergent approaches and research methods. The
first to follow the approach of EvelFeilmann to look at international literary relations
is a
certain historical causation (historical theory). And the second approach to the theory of
typology, influenced by the writings of A. Vesilowski monetary, influenced by German
philosophers, starting in the second half of the eighteenth century. The term similarities
and differences between literatures is presented as a result of similarity or difference in the
movement of the development of societies and their conditions.
However, their divergence in principle did not override their agreement on some
partial issues and their divergence in other matters. This is what the research will try to
look at, using extrapolation as a means to elucidate judgments, which were ignored by
scholars and interested parties, in the hope of giving each person the right, both impartially
and objectively, to adopt their texts.
The purpose of this article is to examine the possibility of immediate against mediated or theoretical knowledge. However, in both types of knowledge, there is a face to face confrontation. I encounter something which I wish to apprehend. Therefore,
aspiration already assumes a duality, a gulf between me and that which faces me. The object is, as it were, already there, autonomous, present as a fact. This is, of course, a basic tenet of positivism and empiricism. The world as summation of all its possible contents is simply 'given'. This article also tries to enquire a little further into this perspective, questioning the nature of this objectivity exploring possible ambiguities. I shall be looking mostly at Kantian transcendentalism and Husserlian and Merleapontian phenomenology.
