Post structuralism is guilty of essentializing knowledge. It critiques western knowledge structures while secretly relying on them because guess what it cant be applied to anything else.
@Hofsteder by the way, I think you should now... the Genoma isn't the answer to all our ontological problems. Quite the opposite, your running towards another "blonde-beast" with it (remember the nazis reappropriating Nietzsche?), only this time, you got geneticists telling you what you should be, look and act like to be "human"... DANGER WILL ROBINSON, danger!
@Hofsteder so you need ME to translate what Foucault said through the video? really? I thought you didn't need anyone to explain Foucault's position to you!
If you really understood what he said you wouldn't be cheering on Chomsky and his half-ass defense (or lack of one) on how there's a "universal human nature".
Seriously, if you believe it, then DEFINE IT! Because so far it all sounds to me like nothing but rhetoric, semantics, and Foucault-phobia.
@Hofsteder Congratulations on the great use of rhetoric, still, that doesn't change the fact that you're defending some idealistic (unrealistic, I should add) point of view from Chomsky, that was so rushed and poorly constructed, that not even he could defend it!
By the way, if my comments here seem unfounded to you, it's because I'm not going to teach post-structuralist french philosophy on YouTube to somebody who clearly has nothing better to do than start fights on the internet! real sad!
@Hofsteder Seriously... I don't know you or what you are about, but seriously, your speech is of someone who has no idea, whatsoever, of what is it that it's done in an university. Specially in the field of applied social sciences or any other heavily theoretical field such as philosophy.
A hypothesis may be the beginning of a research, but a hypothesis without a research to back it up, is NOTHING! It's like Mr. Chomski here, spitting out an opinion without a strong argument to support it!
@Hofsteder 3 - They weren't talking about some biological categorization between different animals (AND YOU KNOW IT!), but different human behaviors that can be labeled as "humanitarian" or not. The danger lies in who is determining what is human and what isn't, and how they're determining it.
4 - about the caps...I THINK I SHOULD BE THE ONE DECIDING HOW I TYPE! Tough luck for you!
@Hofsteder 1- maybe you DO need someone to explain Foucault to you, since you obviously isn't familiar with his works! TIP: Read "The Archaeology of Knowledge", "The History of Sexuality vol. I" and "The Order of Things" by him. It would definitely help you out.
2 - if you don't develop your hypothesis, then yes, it's worthless! it's just an opinion, a guess. Another reading tip: "Scientific Method for dummies". seriously, that's community college 1-0-1 kinda stuff!
@Hofsteder It doens't matter what your belief is, if you can't defend it, then it's nothing but a BELIEF, a HYPOTHESIS an OPINION! Therefore, it has no scientific value! Well, Foucalt, in the other hand, arguments that the very notion of a "human nature" is a construction... meaning that, somehow, someone, somewhere decides to call this or that "human nature", and it's been like that even nowadays! So it is nothing but a dispositive of power to decide who or what is or isn't human! BRILLIANT!
There goes Chomsky with his naive assertion that there are some sort of fundamental human qualities, natures, or essences of which can be distilled, measured, and accounted for.
Such Modernist disdain for the mystery and the the refusal to admit unknowing.
@nofalltoofar It's incredible, and in a way beautiful, his ability to speculate these complex ideas, but my God he's so steeped in modern intellectualism.
Just listen to you buttfuck-for-brains homos, getting stiff pickles while watching videos of worthless academics mastur-debating worthless topics!! Coming soon: fuck-oult debates Woody Allen about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! And you buttfuckers obsess over it!! You fucking Ted Kocinski sick motherfuckers.
Foucault is right on target! It's funny to see Chomsky kinda going all over the place with his argument, he even says "if you push me too hard I'll be in trouble 'cause I can't sketch it out..." hehehe
Nevertheless, this video is a true treasure! Thanks for posting it martindukz !
Hey, @IZn0g0uDatAll, you lock-in dweeb idiot, your being "smart" has obviously taken you NOWHERE in life, you frustrated, self-perceived "intellectual."
All your 'smarts' and fifty cents will buy a pack of gum, and leave nothing for change.
You fuckheaded loser. You just don't get it, do you. Well, Herman, this is NOT one of those 'exams' you get a stiff pickle anticipating. This is called 'Real Life', and nobody here gives a fuck about your silly self perceptions. Go back to your dark little Buckley / Chomsky videos, and entertain yourself back into meaningless oblivion.
@IZn0g0DatAll, Hi, how does it feel to have what you believe is superior intelligence, but then be unable to dress yourself like something more advanced than a caveman? Well, I guess that "superior intelligence" and two bits would buy you a weekday copy of the Telegraph, and leave no room for change.
You ugly brit, are your teeth as crooked as your penis?
I'll bet you attract the hottest women, with all that geeky bullshit esoteric talk about Chomsky and Buckwheat.
Look at the worthless geek motherfuckers in this video clip...This is what happens when males have low testosterone levels -- they morph into Woody Allen clones and masturbate to thoughts and images of other men's asses.
You fuckers need to jam your (Anthony) Weiners into a girls pussy!!
Okay, so I sat and tried to fold my legs into lotus position. But my hip popped out of its socket! Damn! It hurt like HELL! So I began moaning and groaning, but the other meditators around me thought I was chanting my mantra so they ignored me. Since I was already folded into the lotus position, I farted this rotten eggs scented bomb that wafted around the room. NOW they began paying attention to me. So then I just shit my pants, hoping that they'd call an ambulance...
I'm wondering if those who are saying Chomsky or Foucault "won the debate" even listened to the discussion. there was no debate here, there was meaningful, educated discussion and mostly consensus, as reflected in their fantastic writings as well. Foucault's "History of Madness" might be the most important book I've ever read.
Dr. Chomsky recently told Iranian TV that at the time the USA attacked Afghanistan they had no evidence that al Qaeda did 9/11. See my video "Chomsky on Faith-based Wars and 9/11"
I'll leave it to the readers of this thread to decide for themselves whether the US is a great democracy or not. It's easy to criticize when you don't have any solutions. I stand by my statement, Foucault must be turning in his grave!
I think Chomsky is right. He takes over all important insights of Foucault, but proposes a way to action, while Foucault wants to sit back and criticize without taking action. Thinking in itself can take all directions and is useless without action. If you do not risk to take action (on the basis of certain assumptions and goals that you are willing to adapt if necessary) you cannot learn from your (intellectual) mistakes and you can’t achieve anything. You have to find a balance between both.
@Z2Z2Z21 I wouldn't do too much of thinking if I were you, it can lead you to a lot of troubles. Want to debate Foucault? You wouldn't even fill his shoes. Think you can keep up?
@BtrdDbs5 You idiot, I study Foucault, and from the fact that you told me that you think you live in a 'great democracy' in the US, I know for sure that you do not understand sh*t about Foucault. Stop making a fool of yourself.
@Z2Z2Z21 If that's not roles reversing, then what is it? Since you resort to name callings to make your point, you're not in position to tell me to stop making a fool of myslef, are you?
@Z2Z2Z21 btw, as far as i remember, our last discussion ended by your apologies... Now you're telling me to watch a video, huh? The only idiot I see here is you! Boasting about your studies on Foucault to disprove the fact that the US is not a great democracy only fools yourself, and, what's more, it doesn't make a change as far as doing too much of thinking can lead you to a lot of troubles. Please, spare me the b.s and get lost.
@Z2Z2Z21 "and from the fact that you told me that you think you live in a 'great democracy' in the US" I live in France, you've got it all backwards. Go back to your study.
@BtrdDbs5 Whatever, you told me that the US was a 'great nation and a great democracy'. And no, he would turn in his tomb because he wrote what he wrote to prevent people from staying as dumb as you obviously are.
It seems to me that Chomsky is getting caught up in defending his understanding of human nature, whereas Mr. Foucault doesn't care if there is such a thing as a universal human nature. He is suggesting that we critique those institutions that hinder human relationship. Chomsky seems to be describing and defending his ideas about the content of human nature, and Foucault is talking about the process of human relationship.
"Could Foucault possibly be any more incoherent or meandering?"
*chuckle*
Uh, do you know who Foucault is?
The answer of course is no. He literally could not be any more meandering or incoherent -at least not while holding to the constraints of basic grammar and syntax.
@oneofthey Actually, he was to the point. He stated an important way of conceiving of human nature and society. Chomsky witnessed an explosion of scientific discovery, especially in the fields of biology and physics, which many take for granted. Without possessing all of the vocabulary, and without being a biologist, he faintly perceives of the collective human physiology emerging into diverse systems of society and culture "groping" at, or approximating the average of everyone's ideals.
All the f.. this and that seem a bit of freshmen expressionism and limited intellectual capacity to offer solutions... We are all part of the problem and part of the solution depending on which way we choose to go. Expression as F--- everything isn’t going to change anything .. only shows a helplessness that Chomsky and Foucault might be able to help mediate so that voice and social justice get ramped up rather than intellectual dullardry...
Very good! In special, the notion - affirmed by Foucault at the end - that dispositions to intelectually justify this of that political action on the basis of a concept pressumptly elaborated outside the uncertainty of our human condition can not, in the end, find historical justification.
Faucalts reaction: " why did he murder this person , we should investigate his motives and judge mankind"
Chomsky's reaction: " we must isolate the murderer in order to remove the threath of having more people killed. Then we investigate why this happened and let societies justice judge the murderer"
@gyllip1 It's the "Chewbacca / Solo" way to speak. Each can express themselves better in their own language, while they don't need to traduce. Kapitch ?
I understand where Foucault is coming from but really he's being tight towards a potential resolution of this issue: 'all our ideas and notions come from within our oppressed class system and we can't justify putting forward some of these notions to create the path of a future reformulation of a society because ultimately such ideation will fail for we will remain oppressed'. Really? maybe Chomsky is being too much of an idealist but Foucault is leaning onto very reductionistic waters.
All the f.. this and that seem a bit of freshmen expressionism and limited intellectual capacity to offer solutions... We are all part of the problem and part of the solution depending on which way we choose to go. Expression as F--- everything isn’t going to change anything .. only shows a helplessness that Chomsky and Foucault might be able to help mediate so that voice and social justice get ramped up rather than intellectual dullardry...
All the f.. this and that seem a bit of freshmen expressionism and limited intellectual capacity to offer solutions... We are all part of the problem and part of the solution depending on which way we choose to go. Expression as F--- everything isn’t going to change anything .. only shows a helplessness that
Chomsky and Foucault might be able to help mediate so that voice and social justice get ramped up rather than intellectual dullardry...
I'm sure regardless of class we would all consider, for example, a mother who forcefully slaps a child hard across the face for taking a cookie without permission is being unreasonably unfair...Isn't that emotional response our innate understaning of justice? I'm sure that is what Chomsky is saying, but Foucault seems to enamoured by his own position to concede this quality is inherent and beyond the influence of class.
@chichigord I don't know if what you say is true, if we are speaking of human nature, then by definition we are speaking of something transcendental to any individual person, that is, something that all humans possess. Now if I have a negative reaction to a mother slapping a kid for stealing a cookie, that doesn't mean that all humans would react in the same way. No, indeed the mother didn't feel that way at all as she is the one who slapped him.
all about the stress and where it falls language is a personal thing...who can kick the bucket...lark at dawn rising...leur oi complete contre moi cest des ange complice...1356 was a good year.
Good point by Chomsky about having to take a position eventually but in the end, Chomsky's simply arguing from a baseless Left position about the nature of justice.
A little deeper religious debate than is usual on youtube. The prime problem with any religion is the designation of the sacred, one aspect of which I would define as an assumption the questioning of which is not tolerated. Perhaps this is what it has in common with totalitarianism.
@dappercad my experience of the church is that questioning god is perfectly tolerated and encouraged. it is this question that strengthens faith. the difference between the church and a totalitarian state is that should you decide to leave the church, no one sends you to the gulag.
There's very little youtube content of Chomsky as a young man... which is disappointing, because it's during the '70s and '80s that he makes a name for himself.
what foucault proposes is politically void - no action can come out of it. on the other hand, although also aware of limitations of thought, chomsky is more socially productive at least...
I wouldn't go so far as to say Foucalt's proposal is politically void. We simply cannot fight the system using the system's own tools, its own vocabulary. Foucalt is just warning us against using a theory of justice to fight "injustice," and instead asks that some improved concept take over the role justice once played. Being as these concepts are not foundational, by his account, it is only a matter of time.
@BoStevoD the range of practical and semiotic alternatives is limited at any point. a new term for justice will not get rid of injustice. in trying to be smart, that only shows how naive post-structuralism is at both political and theoretical levels. good stuff for philosophy but not for justice...
Fascinating discussion in terms of fundamental principles of human justice. This issue is still hotly debated and contested and I'm not entirely sure we'll have answers in this regard.
What is equally problematic is the fact that we might have international conventions protecting these rights, but the regulation and enforcement is patchy at best.
I do wonder what justice would look like in a classless or more egalitarian society.
@academianon I think more refinement is needed on your question, it is not only the question of how justice would function in a classless, egalitarian society, it is a also a qustion of how it would function in the complexity of a society wielding great technological and organizational power. there are tribes of classless, egalitarian people in this world, but they satisfy their means by a hunter-gatherer mode of production.
@bummer2000 Indeed, very true. I don't want to romanticize the hunter-gather mode of production, but I respect those cultures very much because of their egalitarian principles. Not to mention their harmony with nature.
Hardt and Negri formulate a new system of democracy in their trilogy of books regarding Empire, Multitude and Commonwealth. It's actually quite an interesting concept, and I think holds promise for ensuring our civilizations become more just and free for everyone.
I think Faucalt is being prententiously abstract. Just like most philosophers who sit in their arm chairs and ponder as if these issues were just a game for their imagination.
Chomsky is active in his philosophys which is what makes him relevant.
He also seems to have a greater sense & understanding of people's basic needs. Love, compassion, humility, rights etc.
I love Noam because these basic values are the undercurrents of most of his work .
@saxengee: I agree that Noam is a great activist, and poses some good points, but I would disagree that Foucault's so-called "pretentious" argument is invalid. Foucault is seeing the culture as the medium by which we (re)invent ourselves, and Noam isn't quite coming to terms with this notion in this discussion.
"The society of Indochina will be teared to shreds by the American power" - how does that relate to Cambodja, North Vietnamite society and all those marvels! "A real notion of justice" - thank you for telling us that you know more about human values!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Foucault is just whinging, because he's gay. He thinks society doesn;t accept the gays, which i don't think it did in the seventies. Alot of progress has been made in gay rights movements but some people think its wierd, deal with it!
Did anyone ever read the parts of Russell's 'History of Philosophy" where he describes the problems with particular figures of the Romantic movement (most notably: Rousseau and Byron)? He claims there that his main problem with these figures is that at the end of their arguments they simply justify their claims by invoking a sort of "feeling" that cannot be argued with.
Focault does just that at the end of this debate. Russell claims this as the seeds to totalitarianism. I see what he means!
A sort of "feeling" that cannot be argued with is indeed the seed of all flavours of totalitarianism. Especially religion - where this "feeling" is called "faith" -the most insidious of all because societies (even though the intelligent and intellectually honest minority correctly identifies it as totalitarian -just one of the reasons it's untenable) seem hell bent to hold religion exempt from the, at least intellectual if not institutional, rejection it requires if humanity is to progress.
@fctchk Religion isn't totalitarian (note that it was when religion was in decline that the totalitarianisms came into being), nor does it have to rest on a "feeling". As Russell tirelessly shows there is a vast tradition that argues the existence of God rationally (Aquinas, Kant etc). There's also a tradition - probably beginning with Hegel - that argues for religion as a form of social cohesion. People from this background would probably say that true religion prevents totalitarianism.
From the relative safety of the 21st century behind your computer screen to you personally it is not. It was and continues to be to "heretics" e.g. G. Bruno, G. Galilei; thousands of women tortured, burnt and drowned as witches; thousands of "savages" "saved" by "conversion"; thousands of children raped by priests, millions of children genitally mutilated, thousands of victims of fascist dictators - the church's fast friends. And, I haven't even included Mormonism, Islam or Scientology yet.
@fctchk Get your terminology right friend. Totalitarianism was a form of political organisation that arose in the first half of the twentieth century. What you're talking about is organised religious persecution. That's not totalitarianism. Neither is scientology and mormonism (scientology and mormonism doesn't control any State - you have to control a State in order to be totalitarian).
You don't know what you're talking about mate. Read a book. Try Arendt's "Origins of Totalitarianism".
@fctchk As I said, though, religion is not totalitarian. Religious claims are not always argued in this manner. Russell says quite clearly that historical the notion of religious truth was perfectly rational and coherent (albeit he thinks it incorrect). The "feeling" argument is a modern invention which he traces back to Rousseau.
What we see is religion being used for totalitarian ends. As in the proto-totalitarianism of Robespierre and his cult of Reason. Religion is not to blame here...
The topic is Russell’s observation of the invocation of a sort of "feeling" that cannot be argued with to simply justify claims at the end of arguments and his claim of this as the seeds to totalitarianism. The topic is not a dictionary definition of totalitarianism but the parallels that can be drawn between Russell's observation and how religious truth claims are argued and the totalitarian nature of religions.
As to the "rational" arguments of god's existence read "Why I'm not a Christian".
The topic is Russell’s observation of the invocation of a sort of "feeling" that cannot be argued with to simply justify claims at the end of arguments and his claim of this as the seeds to totalitarianism. The topic is not a dictionary definition of totalitarianism but the parallels that can be drawn between Russell's observation and how religious truth claims are argued and the totalitarian nature of religions.
As to the "rational" arguments of god's existence read "Why I'm not a Christian".
@fctchk Respectfully, I strongly disagree with you. I am an atheist and my doubts about religion were certainly fueled by the negative aspects of religion that you mention. However, I think a more progressive view of religion takes into account its numerous values and some very humanitiarian religious figures (Gandhi, MLK, etc.) and the fact that, in a way, we all hold religious-tye beliefs in various ideals, even if that ideal is nihilism or "questioning."
Michel is just so exited. All the rest of these intellectuals try to present themselves as scholarly and stable and Michel is just about foaming at the mouth with reason and rationale rather than steadfast in insanity.
of course. being able to understand a language is really different from speaking it. you're probably able to read shakespeare, but more than probably not able to write as good as him.
Michel is the same with English. It's not that they can't speak either language; it's that neither of them can articulate theoretical discourses this complicated in any language but their native one.
Justicia, amor... todos esos son constructos culturales que no tienen nada que ver con la naturaleza humana. ¿quieren naturaleza humana? experimenten con bebés como lo hacen con los changos... he ahí su naturaleza humana.
Wouldn't both be pretty much the same thing? The second obviously implies the first but even the first would eventually imply the second unless ways to continue without consumption are found. And if those ways are possible, they might even allow many to exist and even enjoy life. Life on this planet seems to be possible for several billion more years. Why not culture/civilization as well? What other ways emerge if we assume that there still is a civilization in a billion years?
"Wouldn't both be pretty much the same thing?" Not necessary. 1 nation left, the rest is dead. That doesn't mean necessary stone age for the last nation. The question is how. How achieve this result without war or massive destruction. Massive suicide? Hm.. "Life on this planet seems to be possible for several billion more years. Why not culture/civilization as well?" Because civilization and culture are not natural. Life is.
We have to understand human nature starting with genetics. Chomsky argues that we are hard-wired to communicate. There is also other hard-wiring. Building authority and social structures is also a natural part of human nature. We see this in children. Even parrots are hard-wired to communicate and analyze. One parrot was taught arithmetic, how to communicate colors, shapes, textures. How could this happen if the bird was not already genetically programmed for this?
Genetics? I think we already agreed that a person's enviroment is detrimental to his/hers development therefore pointing to a single index (e.g. genetics) is not indicitive of anything. We did not know for a long time that animals could be trained to do anything. Why was that? because our enviroment, namely the medieval society did not consider animals to be of importance, to be something near to us. After Darwin we started observing animal behaviour...
And we realized that we were quite close with them. Now, genetics don't mean jack if our enviroment does not let us act on our genetics. That is Chomsky's point. That is also Foucault's point. BUT, Chomsky attempts to visualise a society with his existing knowledge derrived from a rotten society. Foucault does not do that and he has a point, I think.
This motivation is philosophically unfounded. The body of the genetics is a typical cultural object and not a thing in itself, whatever this word means (from Hegel we should end thinking of object separated from the conscience). We can't speak about human nature, because the man is not a fact to claim but a result to exhibit. This thought was of Nietzsche,Whitehead and Foucault.
A man is a fact based on genetics, which is a blueprint for many things, one thing is behavior. For instance, the motivation for sex and children is genetic. Most men and women are heterosexual. However, a certain percentage are driven by homosexual urges and this percentage is similar, if not the same, across cultures. It is cultures that filter their behavior as some societies execute homosexueals - i.e., a man caught in homosexual behavior.
There are some Iranians that believe a vanguard is necessary. This has been true since 1979. However, many Iranians, especially the young, believe in democratic choice. This is a strong break from the past. While democracy is not creative it is new for Iran. They now expect elections to count, even if the choice of candidates is far from democratic. The desire for fairness is inherent in the human condition and that nations have to work very hard to remain authoritarian.
Still, authoritarianism is something in the human nature. We invented it. Fascism is a product of the so called human nature. There's no such thing as a tendency to be fair. There are lots of natures in humans. The good and the bad. No fair society has existed to this day. Never. That is not something divine or something that is inhumane. It is humane to be unfair. Undemocratic. Not even logic is something inherent to us. The Ancient Greeks TAUGHT themselves to reason. You re not born to be fair
You may not be born to do anything at all other than survive. So you do whatever entertains you. Some people could forever fuck, sleep, eat and repeat. Others want to do many many many creative things in order to SURVIVE. I do not mean physical survival. I mean mental survival. But maybe these attitudes are 100% a product of our society. Maybe these attitudes will change if we completely change our society. You simply can not know that. Even Chomsky admitted that.
So, Mr Foucault was very clear in my opinion. You can not really know the human nature. in fact we know nothing of the human nature. Anything that we say now is a speculation.
But did you not say before that we did not know animals could be trained, but now we do; after Darwin we started studying animal behaviour. Aren't you admiting here that have learned something new about animal behaviour?
Can't the same thing be said about human nature. To say we know nothing of human nature is a bold statement and directly conflicts your earlier statement that "authoritarianism is something in the human nature" . That sentence alone claims to know something about human nature.
No no it is not a bold statement. I am just saying that IF creativity is something in our nature, it would not exist without enviromental help. Without the enviroment acting on it, e.g, without Church withering away, Darwin wouldn't have found anything. Same goes for authoritarianism. If we didn't have the wars and the fear and etc, people would not let themselves be governed by one man - say Hitler.
Maybe, if we change our society we will become more fucked up. More shitty. And this is what Foucault says. There are 2 natures. The real and the ideal. The real is what we have right now. That is, limited creativeness but creativeness nonetheless. Chomsky suggests to change our society and our creativeness will "raise". We do not know that. We may become worse. That's all I'm saying.
Therefore what I am saying is that even if we were to change our enviroment - our society - you can not know the course of our actions. You can not predict that we will get more creative as Mr Chomsky suggests. And Mr Foucault is right. People did not predict the creativeness of 18th-19th century. We also did not predict the "authoritarianism" of the 20th century. So changing society based on your views of human nature aint gonna cut it.
Sorry if I do not get the arguments correct - too many subtitles. Focault is too abstract and relativistic. There are studies demonstrating that dogs, for instance, have a sense of fairness. Isn't justice very similar to fairness? We cannot remove human nature from society. Human nature is grounded in genetics. I like Chomsky's argument of authority having the burden to prove legitimacy. We will follow leaders that are legitimate and reject illigitimate authority easily based on genetics
You said that we can not remove human nature from society and that's what Foucault said. He said that whatever you think about a future society is very much influenced by the current society, the very society you want to change. Therefore, when Chomsky says that humans are inherently creative and etc, Foucault says that you do not know that for sure. That is Chomsky's perception of human nature which certainly is heavily influenced by the American society he wants to see changed.
For example, if you ask a Muslim intellectual he may disagree with you. He may assume that the human nature is disgusting and therefore need a vanguard - the same way you assumed that the human nature is creative... prove me wrong.
The key here is a sense of fairness; a sense of fairness may be inbred, but this does not lead to a conception of justice by any standard. Further, what Chomsky and others who use human nature arguments are trying to do is in essence biologism. The problem is that people are who they are and value themselves not simply as agents with biological potentialities, but as culturally constituted subjects. Thus, we can never really get to a deculturated understanding of human nature.
@LikeAGlassAsterisk It'right. Biologism is a tipical cultural operation and not "nature" and tha nature of the man is his culture. Thinking that the man has a nature meanings misunderstanding the umanity of the uman, that is a project and not a thing.
And if we could to suggest the primacy of human nature qua human nature against cultural convention is somewhat arbitrary. Even if we have these biological potentialities why ought we to realize them. Perhaps the repression of these biological potentialities to a degree is necessary for the sustenance of a modest collective life.
@LikeAGlassAsterisk Then you're basically excising yourself from the conversation. Go ahead and argue for a political ideology, I bless you; but you are excising yourself from any conversation of utopia.
Foucault hits the nail on the end underlying the importance of how we are played into beleiving a natural historical course of evolution of our society from which we can find answers and objectives to our problems, and while I know in his texts he goes on to highlight the importance of ¨self-arts¨ i understand why people say he doesnt support solutions in these vids. But i say to them that the whole idea in fact lies in the people as the their own solution, instead of their systems (paradox?)
So Focault says, to overcome fundamental social structures of modern societies, we have to abandon traditional class struggle vocabulary? However, didn't past revolutions mostly rely on the very basic and ancient ideas of freedom, justice and equality? Don't you need a vision you strive to accomplish to overcome present injustices? Even if your vision might turn out completely diffent than anyone expected, don't we have to use our current vocabulary to break our current boundaries? Or something?
It's a shame that Chomsky resorts to a half-baked essentialist position on human nature. F certainly gets the last word, but given the time constraints that last word is no different from repeating Pascal. I wish this was longer.
i agree i think focault "wins", possasbly as chomsky seems to be in the middle of his thought which makes his discourse more abstract.
By excepting foucult and his point philosophy does his knowledge not also become a system of power especially in light of his introduction into university education as a historical figure. the problem with deconstruction is that it is based on a postmodern society's power structure, which in the contemporary sphere can no longer support its philosophy.
PART 3 should really have been done!
faceDcrook 2 months ago
I think the most pressing question I have is: didn't anyone else notice Foucault's weird teeth moment at 2:31-2:33?
discerningfilmcritic 2 months ago
Post structuralism is guilty of essentializing knowledge. It critiques western knowledge structures while secretly relying on them because guess what it cant be applied to anything else.
Duder871 2 months ago
@Hofsteder by the way, I think you should now... the Genoma isn't the answer to all our ontological problems. Quite the opposite, your running towards another "blonde-beast" with it (remember the nazis reappropriating Nietzsche?), only this time, you got geneticists telling you what you should be, look and act like to be "human"... DANGER WILL ROBINSON, danger!
JustJeffie 3 months ago
@Hofsteder so you need ME to translate what Foucault said through the video? really? I thought you didn't need anyone to explain Foucault's position to you!
If you really understood what he said you wouldn't be cheering on Chomsky and his half-ass defense (or lack of one) on how there's a "universal human nature".
Seriously, if you believe it, then DEFINE IT! Because so far it all sounds to me like nothing but rhetoric, semantics, and Foucault-phobia.
JustJeffie 3 months ago
@Hofsteder Congratulations on the great use of rhetoric, still, that doesn't change the fact that you're defending some idealistic (unrealistic, I should add) point of view from Chomsky, that was so rushed and poorly constructed, that not even he could defend it!
By the way, if my comments here seem unfounded to you, it's because I'm not going to teach post-structuralist french philosophy on YouTube to somebody who clearly has nothing better to do than start fights on the internet! real sad!
JustJeffie 3 months ago
@Hofsteder Seriously... I don't know you or what you are about, but seriously, your speech is of someone who has no idea, whatsoever, of what is it that it's done in an university. Specially in the field of applied social sciences or any other heavily theoretical field such as philosophy.
A hypothesis may be the beginning of a research, but a hypothesis without a research to back it up, is NOTHING! It's like Mr. Chomski here, spitting out an opinion without a strong argument to support it!
JustJeffie 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hofsteder 3 - They weren't talking about some biological categorization between different animals (AND YOU KNOW IT!), but different human behaviors that can be labeled as "humanitarian" or not. The danger lies in who is determining what is human and what isn't, and how they're determining it.
4 - about the caps...I THINK I SHOULD BE THE ONE DECIDING HOW I TYPE! Tough luck for you!
5 - take care ;)
JustJeffie 3 months ago
Comment removed
JustJeffie 3 months ago
@Hofsteder 1- maybe you DO need someone to explain Foucault to you, since you obviously isn't familiar with his works! TIP: Read "The Archaeology of Knowledge", "The History of Sexuality vol. I" and "The Order of Things" by him. It would definitely help you out.
2 - if you don't develop your hypothesis, then yes, it's worthless! it's just an opinion, a guess. Another reading tip: "Scientific Method for dummies". seriously, that's community college 1-0-1 kinda stuff!
...
JustJeffie 3 months ago
@Hofsteder It doens't matter what your belief is, if you can't defend it, then it's nothing but a BELIEF, a HYPOTHESIS an OPINION! Therefore, it has no scientific value! Well, Foucalt, in the other hand, arguments that the very notion of a "human nature" is a construction... meaning that, somehow, someone, somewhere decides to call this or that "human nature", and it's been like that even nowadays! So it is nothing but a dispositive of power to decide who or what is or isn't human! BRILLIANT!
JustJeffie 3 months ago
There goes Chomsky with his naive assertion that there are some sort of fundamental human qualities, natures, or essences of which can be distilled, measured, and accounted for.
Such Modernist disdain for the mystery and the the refusal to admit unknowing.
nofalltoofar 3 months ago in playlist More videos from martindukz
@nofalltoofar It's incredible, and in a way beautiful, his ability to speculate these complex ideas, but my God he's so steeped in modern intellectualism.
popper05 3 months ago
Tits
g17y5wb 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just listen to you buttfuck-for-brains homos, getting stiff pickles while watching videos of worthless academics mastur-debating worthless topics!! Coming soon: fuck-oult debates Woody Allen about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! And you buttfuckers obsess over it!! You fucking Ted Kocinski sick motherfuckers.
Come to my channel and REALLY masturbate.
g17y5wb 6 months ago
Comment removed
g17y5wb 6 months ago
Foucault is right on target! It's funny to see Chomsky kinda going all over the place with his argument, he even says "if you push me too hard I'll be in trouble 'cause I can't sketch it out..." hehehe
Nevertheless, this video is a true treasure! Thanks for posting it martindukz !
JustJeffie 6 months ago
INTELLECTUAL MASTURBATION. THE AUDIENCE WANTS ITS' MONEY BACK!!
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 7 months ago
Hey, @IZn0g0uDatAll, you lock-in dweeb idiot, your being "smart" has obviously taken you NOWHERE in life, you frustrated, self-perceived "intellectual."
All your 'smarts' and fifty cents will buy a pack of gum, and leave nothing for change.
g17y5wb 7 months ago
You fuckheaded loser. You just don't get it, do you. Well, Herman, this is NOT one of those 'exams' you get a stiff pickle anticipating. This is called 'Real Life', and nobody here gives a fuck about your silly self perceptions. Go back to your dark little Buckley / Chomsky videos, and entertain yourself back into meaningless oblivion.
g17y5wb 7 months ago
@IZn0g0uDatAll
M O T H E R F U C K E R
g17y5wb 7 months ago
@IZn0g0uDatAll, ... and Gore Vidal and such. I'll bet you stroke your dick twice a day.
Pathetic autistic butthole.
PS: some hacker friends are phishing for systems passwords using your youtube momoniker; it'll be fun to see what that password opens up!!
Love ya' !! (NOT!) You grandpa ugly smelly butthole
g17y5wb 7 months ago
@IZn0g0DatAll, Hi, how does it feel to have what you believe is superior intelligence, but then be unable to dress yourself like something more advanced than a caveman? Well, I guess that "superior intelligence" and two bits would buy you a weekday copy of the Telegraph, and leave no room for change.
You ugly brit, are your teeth as crooked as your penis?
I'll bet you attract the hottest women, with all that geeky bullshit esoteric talk about Chomsky and Buckwheat.
g17y5wb 7 months ago
Look at the worthless geek motherfuckers in this video clip...This is what happens when males have low testosterone levels -- they morph into Woody Allen clones and masturbate to thoughts and images of other men's asses.
You fuckers need to jam your (Anthony) Weiners into a girls pussy!!
You'll NEVER know the pleasure.
Losers.
g17y5wb 7 months ago
@g17y5wb I've read stupid stuff on youtube, but that's really a highlight. Congratz
IZn0g0uDatAll 7 months ago 2
Okay, so I sat and tried to fold my legs into lotus position. But my hip popped out of its socket! Damn! It hurt like HELL! So I began moaning and groaning, but the other meditators around me thought I was chanting my mantra so they ignored me. Since I was already folded into the lotus position, I farted this rotten eggs scented bomb that wafted around the room. NOW they began paying attention to me. So then I just shit my pants, hoping that they'd call an ambulance...
g17y5wb 7 months ago
I'm wondering if those who are saying Chomsky or Foucault "won the debate" even listened to the discussion. there was no debate here, there was meaningful, educated discussion and mostly consensus, as reflected in their fantastic writings as well. Foucault's "History of Madness" might be the most important book I've ever read.
truthslap 7 months ago 2
2:31: the bald guy has really healthy gums.
shwwnn 9 months ago
Crimen Sollicitationis
SollicitationisC 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice job on the video looks good. When you have time come visit my channel!
truehealthyproducts 9 months ago
I think Foucault clearly won the debate, though I agree with Chomsky ideas more.
StarkOfWinterfell 10 months ago
Foucalt is an armchair filosopher, and Chomsky a practical one
TheSololobo 10 months ago
Foucault is also a genius but my ideas are closer to Chomsky's.
Atalay 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Chomsky recently told Iranian TV that at the time the USA attacked Afghanistan they had no evidence that al Qaeda did 9/11. See my video "Chomsky on Faith-based Wars and 9/11"
punxsutawneybarney 1 year ago
I'll leave it to the readers of this thread to decide for themselves whether the US is a great democracy or not. It's easy to criticize when you don't have any solutions. I stand by my statement, Foucault must be turning in his grave!
BtrdDbs5 1 year ago
@BtrdDbs5 Maybe you should watch the first part of this video
Z2Z2Z21 1 year ago
You study Foucault? He must be turning in his tombstone!
BtrdDbs5 1 year ago
I think Chomsky is right. He takes over all important insights of Foucault, but proposes a way to action, while Foucault wants to sit back and criticize without taking action. Thinking in itself can take all directions and is useless without action. If you do not risk to take action (on the basis of certain assumptions and goals that you are willing to adapt if necessary) you cannot learn from your (intellectual) mistakes and you can’t achieve anything. You have to find a balance between both.
Z2Z2Z21 1 year ago
Comment removed
BtrdDbs5 1 year ago
@Z2Z2Z21 I wouldn't do too much of thinking if I were you, it can lead you to a lot of troubles. Want to debate Foucault? You wouldn't even fill his shoes. Think you can keep up?
BtrdDbs5 1 year ago
@BtrdDbs5 You idiot, I study Foucault, and from the fact that you told me that you think you live in a 'great democracy' in the US, I know for sure that you do not understand sh*t about Foucault. Stop making a fool of yourself.
Z2Z2Z21 1 year ago
@Z2Z2Z21 If that's not roles reversing, then what is it? Since you resort to name callings to make your point, you're not in position to tell me to stop making a fool of myslef, are you?
BtrdDbs5 1 year ago
@BtrdDbs5 And as far as I remember our last discussion ended by you calling me names. Now would you please leave me alone
Z2Z2Z21 1 year ago
@Z2Z2Z21 btw, as far as i remember, our last discussion ended by your apologies... Now you're telling me to watch a video, huh? The only idiot I see here is you! Boasting about your studies on Foucault to disprove the fact that the US is not a great democracy only fools yourself, and, what's more, it doesn't make a change as far as doing too much of thinking can lead you to a lot of troubles. Please, spare me the b.s and get lost.
BtrdDbs5 1 year ago
@BtrdDbs5 I never apologized to you.
Z2Z2Z21 1 year ago
@Z2Z2Z21 "and from the fact that you told me that you think you live in a 'great democracy' in the US" I live in France, you've got it all backwards. Go back to your study.
BtrdDbs5 1 year ago
@BtrdDbs5 Whatever, you told me that the US was a 'great nation and a great democracy'. And no, he would turn in his tomb because he wrote what he wrote to prevent people from staying as dumb as you obviously are.
Z2Z2Z21 1 year ago
google "the sokal affair" and be enlightened.
brothamouzoune 1 year ago
@brothamouzoune what about it, though?
BinMac 1 year ago
It seems to me that Chomsky is getting caught up in defending his understanding of human nature, whereas Mr. Foucault doesn't care if there is such a thing as a universal human nature. He is suggesting that we critique those institutions that hinder human relationship. Chomsky seems to be describing and defending his ideas about the content of human nature, and Foucault is talking about the process of human relationship.
daniel15671 1 year ago
how many languages is chomsky fluent in?
jmdf103 1 year ago
Excellent Foucault ....... you gave them the result about all... bling peaple .. never search
adhemar84 1 year ago
"For example, to be quite concrete..."
Not sure if this was a swipe at Foucault, but it certainly should have been. Could Foucault possibly be any more incoherent or meandering?
genovesachx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@genovesachx
"Could Foucault possibly be any more incoherent or meandering?"
*chuckle*
Uh, do you know who Foucault is?
The answer of course is no. He literally could not be any more meandering or incoherent -at least not while holding to the constraints of basic grammar and syntax.
polymath7 11 months ago
Chomsky is being so pointless. I love Foucault, though.
oneofthey 1 year ago
@oneofthey Actually, he was to the point. He stated an important way of conceiving of human nature and society. Chomsky witnessed an explosion of scientific discovery, especially in the fields of biology and physics, which many take for granted. Without possessing all of the vocabulary, and without being a biologist, he faintly perceives of the collective human physiology emerging into diverse systems of society and culture "groping" at, or approximating the average of everyone's ideals.
firstnamenavarre 1 year ago
All the f.. this and that seem a bit of freshmen expressionism and limited intellectual capacity to offer solutions... We are all part of the problem and part of the solution depending on which way we choose to go. Expression as F--- everything isn’t going to change anything .. only shows a helplessness that Chomsky and Foucault might be able to help mediate so that voice and social justice get ramped up rather than intellectual dullardry...
szlizewski 1 year ago
Very good! In special, the notion - affirmed by Foucault at the end - that dispositions to intelectually justify this of that political action on the basis of a concept pressumptly elaborated outside the uncertainty of our human condition can not, in the end, find historical justification.
O120009 1 year ago
A murderer gets caught next to his victim...
Faucalts reaction: " why did he murder this person , we should investigate his motives and judge mankind"
Chomsky's reaction: " we must isolate the murderer in order to remove the threath of having more people killed. Then we investigate why this happened and let societies justice judge the murderer"
vriend1 1 year ago
Chomsky speaks franch, foucaoult understainds english? How can they understaind each other? Somebody explain...
gyllip1 1 year ago 2
@gyllip1 It's the "Chewbacca / Solo" way to speak. Each can express themselves better in their own language, while they don't need to traduce. Kapitch ?
kelvinz011 1 year ago
@gyllip1 there are translators you cannot see.
scout6686 11 months ago
I understand where Foucault is coming from but really he's being tight towards a potential resolution of this issue: 'all our ideas and notions come from within our oppressed class system and we can't justify putting forward some of these notions to create the path of a future reformulation of a society because ultimately such ideation will fail for we will remain oppressed'. Really? maybe Chomsky is being too much of an idealist but Foucault is leaning onto very reductionistic waters.
Atemporal 1 year ago
All the f.. this and that seem a bit of freshmen expressionism and limited intellectual capacity to offer solutions... We are all part of the problem and part of the solution depending on which way we choose to go. Expression as F--- everything isn’t going to change anything .. only shows a helplessness that Chomsky and Foucault might be able to help mediate so that voice and social justice get ramped up rather than intellectual dullardry...
szlizewski 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
All the f.. this and that seem a bit of freshmen expressionism and limited intellectual capacity to offer solutions... We are all part of the problem and part of the solution depending on which way we choose to go. Expression as F--- everything isn’t going to change anything .. only shows a helplessness that
Chomsky and Foucault might be able to help mediate so that voice and social justice get ramped up rather than intellectual dullardry...
szlizewski 1 year ago
is there a full version somewhere ?
JeroenUyttendaele 1 year ago
I'm sure regardless of class we would all consider, for example, a mother who forcefully slaps a child hard across the face for taking a cookie without permission is being unreasonably unfair...Isn't that emotional response our innate understaning of justice? I'm sure that is what Chomsky is saying, but Foucault seems to enamoured by his own position to concede this quality is inherent and beyond the influence of class.
chichigord 1 year ago
@chichigord I don't know if what you say is true, if we are speaking of human nature, then by definition we are speaking of something transcendental to any individual person, that is, something that all humans possess. Now if I have a negative reaction to a mother slapping a kid for stealing a cookie, that doesn't mean that all humans would react in the same way. No, indeed the mother didn't feel that way at all as she is the one who slapped him.
ilikekittensandlolis 1 year ago
all about the stress and where it falls language is a personal thing...who can kick the bucket...lark at dawn rising...leur oi complete contre moi cest des ange complice...1356 was a good year.
TheFriedLiverAttack 1 year ago
chomsky misrepresents himself. he is no anarchist. he is a communist.
johnbourbon 1 year ago
Good point by Chomsky about having to take a position eventually but in the end, Chomsky's simply arguing from a baseless Left position about the nature of justice.
greatleaper 1 year ago
A little deeper religious debate than is usual on youtube. The prime problem with any religion is the designation of the sacred, one aspect of which I would define as an assumption the questioning of which is not tolerated. Perhaps this is what it has in common with totalitarianism.
dappercad 1 year ago
@dappercad my experience of the church is that questioning god is perfectly tolerated and encouraged. it is this question that strengthens faith. the difference between the church and a totalitarian state is that should you decide to leave the church, no one sends you to the gulag.
johnbourbon 1 year ago
I really admire both as towering figures, but the last Foucault statement is somewhat of a backbreaker!!
asf04 1 year ago
There's very little youtube content of Chomsky as a young man... which is disappointing, because it's during the '70s and '80s that he makes a name for himself.
MikhailSilverwood 1 year ago
Chomsky looks just like Dr. Strangelove.. Hmm....
renumeratedfrog 1 year ago
Chomsky is not half the Foucault...
iveco555 1 year ago
why do native speakers of french seem retarded homicidal knife-grabbers? anywya fuck that Chomsky is GOD
xtrmsprts 1 year ago
@xtrmsprts oui, c'est vrai.
jacquelaguerre 1 year ago
@jacquelaguerre no shit, frenchie ?
xtrmsprts 1 year ago
@xtrmsprts
Well, your GOD doesn't look so mighty when discussing with Foucault. In fact, he seems naïve and overall mentally inferior to Foucault's genius.
zBlacksad 1 year ago
@zBlacksad foucault's a bald wild-eyed nut
xtrmsprts 1 year ago
I don't suppose it matters==Foucault never bothered with scholarship=Birth of the Cliinic is full of factual error
vivascargill 1 year ago 2
Newbie question: are they actually discussing in their respective mother tongues and actually understanding each other
goghbuoy 1 year ago
@goghbuoy It seems that way to me. Its easier to understand a foreign language than to speak one.
givebirthathome 1 year ago
what foucault proposes is politically void - no action can come out of it. on the other hand, although also aware of limitations of thought, chomsky is more socially productive at least...
technotony1227 1 year ago
@technotony1227
I wouldn't go so far as to say Foucalt's proposal is politically void. We simply cannot fight the system using the system's own tools, its own vocabulary. Foucalt is just warning us against using a theory of justice to fight "injustice," and instead asks that some improved concept take over the role justice once played. Being as these concepts are not foundational, by his account, it is only a matter of time.
BoStevoD 1 year ago
@BoStevoD the range of practical and semiotic alternatives is limited at any point. a new term for justice will not get rid of injustice. in trying to be smart, that only shows how naive post-structuralism is at both political and theoretical levels. good stuff for philosophy but not for justice...
technotony1227 1 year ago
Fascinating discussion in terms of fundamental principles of human justice. This issue is still hotly debated and contested and I'm not entirely sure we'll have answers in this regard.
What is equally problematic is the fact that we might have international conventions protecting these rights, but the regulation and enforcement is patchy at best.
I do wonder what justice would look like in a classless or more egalitarian society.
academianon 1 year ago
@academianon I think more refinement is needed on your question, it is not only the question of how justice would function in a classless, egalitarian society, it is a also a qustion of how it would function in the complexity of a society wielding great technological and organizational power. there are tribes of classless, egalitarian people in this world, but they satisfy their means by a hunter-gatherer mode of production.
bummer2000 1 year ago
@bummer2000 Indeed, very true. I don't want to romanticize the hunter-gather mode of production, but I respect those cultures very much because of their egalitarian principles. Not to mention their harmony with nature.
Hardt and Negri formulate a new system of democracy in their trilogy of books regarding Empire, Multitude and Commonwealth. It's actually quite an interesting concept, and I think holds promise for ensuring our civilizations become more just and free for everyone.
academianon 1 year ago
an excellent discussion
though i can't help but wonder whether they went to a pub afterwards and if they did what that conversation was like...
WhiteLionV1 1 year ago
@WhiteLionV1 According to Chomsky, they actually did hang out afterwards, and they got on like a house on fire by the sounds of it.
daysinthewake 2 months ago
I think Faucalt is being prententiously abstract. Just like most philosophers who sit in their arm chairs and ponder as if these issues were just a game for their imagination.
Chomsky is active in his philosophys which is what makes him relevant.
He also seems to have a greater sense & understanding of people's basic needs. Love, compassion, humility, rights etc.
I love Noam because these basic values are the undercurrents of most of his work .
He never loses sight of the here and now.
saxengee 1 year ago
Comment removed
lingerlonger82 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@saxengee: I agree that Noam is a great activist, and poses some good points, but I would disagree that Foucault's so-called "pretentious" argument is invalid. Foucault is seeing the culture as the medium by which we (re)invent ourselves, and Noam isn't quite coming to terms with this notion in this discussion.
lingerlonger82 1 year ago
@saxengee well said
patrickpaganini 1 year ago
Foucault kicks ass!
gajomailindo 2 years ago 2
French madmanism vs. un-pragmatic American delusionism!...love it!
hyperseauton 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
hyperseauton 2 years ago
"The society of Indochina will be teared to shreds by the American power" - how does that relate to Cambodja, North Vietnamite society and all those marvels! "A real notion of justice" - thank you for telling us that you know more about human values!
zezeoli 2 years ago
love the hairdos in the audience.
foucault sounds like a maoist and chomsky sounds like and absolutist
crmoats 2 years ago 2
lulz, maybe that´s because Foucault WAS a Maoist and Chomsky IS an absolutist.
hyperseauton 2 years ago
@hyperseauton
maybe but not absolutely
crmoats 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Foucault is just whinging, because he's gay. He thinks society doesn;t accept the gays, which i don't think it did in the seventies. Alot of progress has been made in gay rights movements but some people think its wierd, deal with it!
hanneesh 2 years ago
Did anyone ever read the parts of Russell's 'History of Philosophy" where he describes the problems with particular figures of the Romantic movement (most notably: Rousseau and Byron)? He claims there that his main problem with these figures is that at the end of their arguments they simply justify their claims by invoking a sort of "feeling" that cannot be argued with.
Focault does just that at the end of this debate. Russell claims this as the seeds to totalitarianism. I see what he means!
pilkingtonphil 2 years ago
A sort of "feeling" that cannot be argued with is indeed the seed of all flavours of totalitarianism. Especially religion - where this "feeling" is called "faith" -the most insidious of all because societies (even though the intelligent and intellectually honest minority correctly identifies it as totalitarian -just one of the reasons it's untenable) seem hell bent to hold religion exempt from the, at least intellectual if not institutional, rejection it requires if humanity is to progress.
fctchk 1 year ago 2
@fctchk Religion isn't totalitarian (note that it was when religion was in decline that the totalitarianisms came into being), nor does it have to rest on a "feeling". As Russell tirelessly shows there is a vast tradition that argues the existence of God rationally (Aquinas, Kant etc). There's also a tradition - probably beginning with Hegel - that argues for religion as a form of social cohesion. People from this background would probably say that true religion prevents totalitarianism.
pilkingtonphil 1 year ago
From the relative safety of the 21st century behind your computer screen to you personally it is not. It was and continues to be to "heretics" e.g. G. Bruno, G. Galilei; thousands of women tortured, burnt and drowned as witches; thousands of "savages" "saved" by "conversion"; thousands of children raped by priests, millions of children genitally mutilated, thousands of victims of fascist dictators - the church's fast friends. And, I haven't even included Mormonism, Islam or Scientology yet.
fctchk 1 year ago
@fctchk Get your terminology right friend. Totalitarianism was a form of political organisation that arose in the first half of the twentieth century. What you're talking about is organised religious persecution. That's not totalitarianism. Neither is scientology and mormonism (scientology and mormonism doesn't control any State - you have to control a State in order to be totalitarian).
You don't know what you're talking about mate. Read a book. Try Arendt's "Origins of Totalitarianism".
pilkingtonphil 1 year ago
Comment removed
fctchk 1 year ago
@fctchk As I said, though, religion is not totalitarian. Religious claims are not always argued in this manner. Russell says quite clearly that historical the notion of religious truth was perfectly rational and coherent (albeit he thinks it incorrect). The "feeling" argument is a modern invention which he traces back to Rousseau.
What we see is religion being used for totalitarian ends. As in the proto-totalitarianism of Robespierre and his cult of Reason. Religion is not to blame here...
pilkingtonphil 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The topic is Russell’s observation of the invocation of a sort of "feeling" that cannot be argued with to simply justify claims at the end of arguments and his claim of this as the seeds to totalitarianism. The topic is not a dictionary definition of totalitarianism but the parallels that can be drawn between Russell's observation and how religious truth claims are argued and the totalitarian nature of religions.
As to the "rational" arguments of god's existence read "Why I'm not a Christian".
fctchk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The topic is Russell’s observation of the invocation of a sort of "feeling" that cannot be argued with to simply justify claims at the end of arguments and his claim of this as the seeds to totalitarianism. The topic is not a dictionary definition of totalitarianism but the parallels that can be drawn between Russell's observation and how religious truth claims are argued and the totalitarian nature of religions.
As to the "rational" arguments of god's existence read "Why I'm not a Christian".
fctchk 1 year ago
@fctchk Respectfully, I strongly disagree with you. I am an atheist and my doubts about religion were certainly fueled by the negative aspects of religion that you mention. However, I think a more progressive view of religion takes into account its numerous values and some very humanitiarian religious figures (Gandhi, MLK, etc.) and the fact that, in a way, we all hold religious-tye beliefs in various ideals, even if that ideal is nihilism or "questioning."
TallFastLoud 1 year ago
@TallFastLoud I agree. well put.
IxAMxERROR 1 year ago
Wouldnt want to meet foucalt in a dark alley!!
Check out 1:18, all those casting for the wolf in lil red riding hood...
wmdip 2 years ago
For this reason, Foucault shows his philosophical superiority.
codadilupo83 2 years ago
Wow Noamie, is that why we remained the dupped slaves of your totalitarian ideologies of false absolutes and the fetishized subject?
What a mess you made of the last 40 years!
seanlebas 2 years ago
Michel is just so exited. All the rest of these intellectuals try to present themselves as scholarly and stable and Michel is just about foaming at the mouth with reason and rationale rather than steadfast in insanity.
urfnklnme 2 years ago 7
good comment!
PheNow 1 year ago
Institutions are nothing more than places of torture in the modern world. This is what I understand from Foucault.
kahmed89 2 years ago
I'd feel like a freaking dork if I was sitting across desk from either Foucault or Chomsky having to engage in a discussion with them...
therealglennquagmire 2 years ago
So Noam can understand French but not speak it? Wtf?
FeelOfFriction 2 years ago
of course. being able to understand a language is really different from speaking it. you're probably able to read shakespeare, but more than probably not able to write as good as him.
qsdfjklmm 2 years ago 3
well* sry i couldn't resist:P
ipwnorcs 2 years ago
Comment removed
qsdfjklmm 2 years ago
Michel is the same with English. It's not that they can't speak either language; it's that neither of them can articulate theoretical discourses this complicated in any language but their native one.
redraiderdude187 2 years ago 2
i dont know if i m correct but to me its the only time that i see someone making a correction on the thoughts of chomsk. great stuff.two monsters.
kaymanklynman 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Michel Foucault is an idiot
Fun206 2 years ago
Really good point!
velocityJE 2 years ago
you too.
codadilupo83 2 years ago
Justicia, amor... todos esos son constructos culturales que no tienen nada que ver con la naturaleza humana. ¿quieren naturaleza humana? experimenten con bebés como lo hacen con los changos... he ahí su naturaleza humana.
Tlilmikiztli 2 years ago
Comment removed
belzondium 2 years ago
Well argued by Foucault. His last lines are well stated and true.
ManilaSyndicate 2 years ago 6
Is Man supposed to live in a globalized society ?
Maybe the vehicle is now way too big to be maneuverable.
zqewkl 2 years ago
What alternative would you suggest?
milliongenerations 2 years ago
Basicly, I see 2 major ways. -A massive reduction of Earth's population.
or -Return to stone age for every1.
In both cases, it sucks.
zqewkl 2 years ago
Wouldn't both be pretty much the same thing? The second obviously implies the first but even the first would eventually imply the second unless ways to continue without consumption are found. And if those ways are possible, they might even allow many to exist and even enjoy life. Life on this planet seems to be possible for several billion more years. Why not culture/civilization as well? What other ways emerge if we assume that there still is a civilization in a billion years?
milliongenerations 2 years ago
zqewkl 2 years ago
We have to understand human nature starting with genetics. Chomsky argues that we are hard-wired to communicate. There is also other hard-wiring. Building authority and social structures is also a natural part of human nature. We see this in children. Even parrots are hard-wired to communicate and analyze. One parrot was taught arithmetic, how to communicate colors, shapes, textures. How could this happen if the bird was not already genetically programmed for this?
7jerryv7 2 years ago
Genetics? I think we already agreed that a person's enviroment is detrimental to his/hers development therefore pointing to a single index (e.g. genetics) is not indicitive of anything. We did not know for a long time that animals could be trained to do anything. Why was that? because our enviroment, namely the medieval society did not consider animals to be of importance, to be something near to us. After Darwin we started observing animal behaviour...
OMikrosIroas 2 years ago
And we realized that we were quite close with them. Now, genetics don't mean jack if our enviroment does not let us act on our genetics. That is Chomsky's point. That is also Foucault's point. BUT, Chomsky attempts to visualise a society with his existing knowledge derrived from a rotten society. Foucault does not do that and he has a point, I think.
OMikrosIroas 2 years ago
This motivation is philosophically unfounded. The body of the genetics is a typical cultural object and not a thing in itself, whatever this word means (from Hegel we should end thinking of object separated from the conscience). We can't speak about human nature, because the man is not a fact to claim but a result to exhibit. This thought was of Nietzsche,Whitehead and Foucault.
codadilupo83 2 years ago
A man is a fact based on genetics, which is a blueprint for many things, one thing is behavior. For instance, the motivation for sex and children is genetic. Most men and women are heterosexual. However, a certain percentage are driven by homosexual urges and this percentage is similar, if not the same, across cultures. It is cultures that filter their behavior as some societies execute homosexueals - i.e., a man caught in homosexual behavior.
Theory must mesh with fact or it is opinion.
7jerryv7 2 years ago
Iran.
There are some Iranians that believe a vanguard is necessary. This has been true since 1979. However, many Iranians, especially the young, believe in democratic choice. This is a strong break from the past. While democracy is not creative it is new for Iran. They now expect elections to count, even if the choice of candidates is far from democratic. The desire for fairness is inherent in the human condition and that nations have to work very hard to remain authoritarian.
7jerryv7 2 years ago
Still, authoritarianism is something in the human nature. We invented it. Fascism is a product of the so called human nature. There's no such thing as a tendency to be fair. There are lots of natures in humans. The good and the bad. No fair society has existed to this day. Never. That is not something divine or something that is inhumane. It is humane to be unfair. Undemocratic. Not even logic is something inherent to us. The Ancient Greeks TAUGHT themselves to reason. You re not born to be fair
OMikrosIroas 2 years ago
You may not be born to do anything at all other than survive. So you do whatever entertains you. Some people could forever fuck, sleep, eat and repeat. Others want to do many many many creative things in order to SURVIVE. I do not mean physical survival. I mean mental survival. But maybe these attitudes are 100% a product of our society. Maybe these attitudes will change if we completely change our society. You simply can not know that. Even Chomsky admitted that.
OMikrosIroas 2 years ago
So, Mr Foucault was very clear in my opinion. You can not really know the human nature. in fact we know nothing of the human nature. Anything that we say now is a speculation.
OMikrosIroas 2 years ago
But did you not say before that we did not know animals could be trained, but now we do; after Darwin we started studying animal behaviour. Aren't you admiting here that have learned something new about animal behaviour?
Can't the same thing be said about human nature. To say we know nothing of human nature is a bold statement and directly conflicts your earlier statement that "authoritarianism is something in the human nature" . That sentence alone claims to know something about human nature.
SuperJesus316 2 years ago
No no it is not a bold statement. I am just saying that IF creativity is something in our nature, it would not exist without enviromental help. Without the enviroment acting on it, e.g, without Church withering away, Darwin wouldn't have found anything. Same goes for authoritarianism. If we didn't have the wars and the fear and etc, people would not let themselves be governed by one man - say Hitler.
OMikrosIroas 2 years ago
Maybe, if we change our society we will become more fucked up. More shitty. And this is what Foucault says. There are 2 natures. The real and the ideal. The real is what we have right now. That is, limited creativeness but creativeness nonetheless. Chomsky suggests to change our society and our creativeness will "raise". We do not know that. We may become worse. That's all I'm saying.
OMikrosIroas 2 years ago
Therefore what I am saying is that even if we were to change our enviroment - our society - you can not know the course of our actions. You can not predict that we will get more creative as Mr Chomsky suggests. And Mr Foucault is right. People did not predict the creativeness of 18th-19th century. We also did not predict the "authoritarianism" of the 20th century. So changing society based on your views of human nature aint gonna cut it.
OMikrosIroas 2 years ago
Comment removed
SuperJesus316 2 years ago
Sorry if I do not get the arguments correct - too many subtitles. Focault is too abstract and relativistic. There are studies demonstrating that dogs, for instance, have a sense of fairness. Isn't justice very similar to fairness? We cannot remove human nature from society. Human nature is grounded in genetics. I like Chomsky's argument of authority having the burden to prove legitimacy. We will follow leaders that are legitimate and reject illigitimate authority easily based on genetics
7jerryv7 2 years ago
You said that we can not remove human nature from society and that's what Foucault said. He said that whatever you think about a future society is very much influenced by the current society, the very society you want to change. Therefore, when Chomsky says that humans are inherently creative and etc, Foucault says that you do not know that for sure. That is Chomsky's perception of human nature which certainly is heavily influenced by the American society he wants to see changed.
OMikrosIroas 2 years ago
For example, if you ask a Muslim intellectual he may disagree with you. He may assume that the human nature is disgusting and therefore need a vanguard - the same way you assumed that the human nature is creative... prove me wrong.
OMikrosIroas 2 years ago
The key here is a sense of fairness; a sense of fairness may be inbred, but this does not lead to a conception of justice by any standard. Further, what Chomsky and others who use human nature arguments are trying to do is in essence biologism. The problem is that people are who they are and value themselves not simply as agents with biological potentialities, but as culturally constituted subjects. Thus, we can never really get to a deculturated understanding of human nature.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 1 year ago
@LikeAGlassAsterisk It'right. Biologism is a tipical cultural operation and not "nature" and tha nature of the man is his culture. Thinking that the man has a nature meanings misunderstanding the umanity of the uman, that is a project and not a thing.
codadilupo83 1 year ago
And if we could to suggest the primacy of human nature qua human nature against cultural convention is somewhat arbitrary. Even if we have these biological potentialities why ought we to realize them. Perhaps the repression of these biological potentialities to a degree is necessary for the sustenance of a modest collective life.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 1 year ago
@LikeAGlassAsterisk Then you're basically excising yourself from the conversation. Go ahead and argue for a political ideology, I bless you; but you are excising yourself from any conversation of utopia.
NathanJSweet 1 year ago
Does a blowjob mean anything?
rankdog99 2 years ago
Foucault hits the nail on the end underlying the importance of how we are played into beleiving a natural historical course of evolution of our society from which we can find answers and objectives to our problems, and while I know in his texts he goes on to highlight the importance of ¨self-arts¨ i understand why people say he doesnt support solutions in these vids. But i say to them that the whole idea in fact lies in the people as the their own solution, instead of their systems (paradox?)
ToniSkit 2 years ago
So Focault says, to overcome fundamental social structures of modern societies, we have to abandon traditional class struggle vocabulary? However, didn't past revolutions mostly rely on the very basic and ancient ideas of freedom, justice and equality? Don't you need a vision you strive to accomplish to overcome present injustices? Even if your vision might turn out completely diffent than anyone expected, don't we have to use our current vocabulary to break our current boundaries? Or something?
boodleboy 2 years ago
It's a shame that Chomsky resorts to a half-baked essentialist position on human nature. F certainly gets the last word, but given the time constraints that last word is no different from repeating Pascal. I wish this was longer.
01vp 2 years ago
i agree i think focault "wins", possasbly as chomsky seems to be in the middle of his thought which makes his discourse more abstract.
By excepting foucult and his point philosophy does his knowledge not also become a system of power especially in light of his introduction into university education as a historical figure. the problem with deconstruction is that it is based on a postmodern society's power structure, which in the contemporary sphere can no longer support its philosophy.
zanderstory 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Foucault Wins!!
Fawless victory!!
diiormontsolli 2 years ago
Comment removed
marciodoliveira 2 years ago
Lol@Fawless victory!!
hussaiz3 2 years ago
there are not winners
there are only 2 intellectuals that speak
FreedomNow85 2 years ago 3
Agreed, flawless victory
rfgedgdf 2 years ago
Foucault Wins!!
Noam is loser!!
kisses!!
diiormontsolli 2 years ago