Foucault is used to living in a society where socialism has been espoused; this notion that true human nature is hidden by the predatory nature of capitalism. He's already confronted these sort of ideas and I think Chomsky isn't prepared for his reaction at all.
this debate should not have ever taken place, these two thinkers are not mutually exclusive and in the end chomksy will always say action will be more important and that we can think about what foucault is saying later, and foucault will always say that thinking must come first. In this sense they are mutually exclusive, but in the end when they actually agree a lot on what needs to be done it is the argument by which way? kant says the motive is key not the process or impact, i agree
If we are really concerned about the affects of subjectivity, whether social or emotional, in pursuit of truth, we must delve into an understanding of knowledge--what it is to think, how to think to attain truth, how to communicate or formulate truth as near the reality as possible--and to retain a humility and pervasive skepticism unto the beginning of knowledge, where there must be a sort of fundamental faith (common-sense?)
...By virtue of Foucault being a philosopher and communicating his inquiry, it follows that he does believe that an approximate truth, in human terms, is attainable.
So, rather than discarding all knowledge as "social construct," perhaps a more helpful approach is to inquire more deeply into the nature of language and knowledge.
Language is obviously an artificial thing, affected by emotions, irrationality, imprecision and weighed down by historical and social baggage. That said, Foucault's denial of any possibility of a meaningful construction of truth using human language is not a satisfying answer. First of all, it ignores the unsaid function of every sincere and published philosophical inquiry--a pursuit of truth in human language.
Chosmky is right you have to go and put on practice what you propose otherwise you'll be and ideallist and idealism have been overcome many years ago, snobism is characteristic of the ruling class and for what reason someone propose a theory if that someone keep that as an idea, that doesn't work for science, neither for people, it's about changing the world but in real, to go and take action to corroborate if what you say is true or not, otherwise is a pretty stupid game...
Foucault's critique implies that human nature is a blank state, that institutions and historical circumstances can stamp onto the popular mind whichever system of justice it wishes. It shows how Chomsky's linguistic theories are central to his vision; there are instrinsic human propreties (language, but also a sense of justice) that are shared but nowhere to be found in modern society. Chomsky is right; modern science clearly supports the idea that moral sentiments have an evolutionnary basis.
@philbelanger2 to regard morality as evolutionary would only act to prove Foucault right, unless you actually believe our morals are embedded in our genetics
@philbelanger2 So typical: "it's not a belief, it's science"
Modern science is a system of thought that is restricted by our own social understandings; this is what Foucault is saying. We need to look at the institutions that shaped the definitions morality and especially modern science so we can discover all the flaws we may be unknowingly accepting
of course there is something you would call human nature. how would mankind have been able to survive without it? i mean we breed, we found families, thats what most people do and have been doing since we're here obviously. thats one example for human nature.
@Zatzzo Breeding may be in human nature but what you're doing is exactly what Foucault is trying to highlight. Breeding can still exist without the family structure that popular society currently accepts. So while breeding may be human nature, breeding as you understand and interpret it is mostly socially constructed
You can't quite see it here, but according to chomsky, the moderator was holding a wig on his lap throughout the debate, and attempting to persuade foucault to put it on. Little bit of trivia for you there youtube.
When this assumption is made he creates yet another system to move said units of power. By using the arena of the "academic" to wield a very certain type of power in establishing an egalitarian society. Doing this he has introduced a hierarchical form of egalitarianism based on western academic polemic that does not take into account a more complex and inclusive critique. This also automatically assumes the thesis+antithesis=synthesis model which again is reductionist,Chomsky lost right there
Foucault is not creating history as an observer that is not the issue here. One of the main issues he faults Chomsky on is his inability to address structures, individuals, and culture as diffuse power models based on reproduction. In Chomsky's arrogance he did not take the time to fully explore these areas and instead took a very American idea of class as simply power. When class is just equated to power he must assume a finite amount of power and arenas to express them.
There is no such thing as "human nature" Mr Chomsky. There is a hegemonically constructed one that represses and produces identities at the same time. That is all Foucault is saying. How can that be so controversial?
@jmans The idea that what many people consider to be "human nature" is actually a social construct isn't controversial. I think the controversial aspect of it is the claim that the working class conception of justice is subjective and self-serving rather than, in many significant ways, an attempt to achieve justice in an objective sense. (cont.) ...
@jmans For example, if the working class were to take over the means of production, this could be regarded as just b/c it will (in theory) lead to a more egalitarian, free, fair, democratic, etc. society (values that anyone, regardless of their class interests, would agree are values that would be present to a greater degree in a more just society)
I don't think that Foucault is saying that we shouldn't bother understanding justice. Namely, he's negating Chomsky's inference that there is a formal justice, (in the Platonic sense), that transcends human experience. Chomsky grounds the majority of his argument on building a societal construct that reflects human nature. Foucault believes that societal constructs dictate human nature. This is to say, our notions of justice are not essential, but, instead, constructed by hegemony.
There is no absolut conclusion which can be drawn from this debate simply because one is using history as a basis of his argument, while the other one is speaking as a visionary. In other words just because human beings couldn't move faster than the speed of sound some centuries ago, didnt mean it was irrational to claim it was possible; just because we havent been able to define this "absolut human notion of justice" doesn't mean we should decline it's existence and stop trying to reach it.
@RasputinStream I think those are counterexamples: Just as we couldn't reasonably posit an "absolute speed", I don't think we can posit an "absolute justice"
Funny that you mention it. There is an absolut speed, and that is the speed light, anything faster than that, is currently debated as either teleportation to a place or even dimention That surely is much more futher, absurd if you will, than just understanding the basic human notion of justice. Chomsky is not even talking about how to implement "that notion", but simply reffering to it as a paramount foundation which can lead/develope us forward in history rather than backwards
Lame.... Why don't instead stick to the point, which is exactly what you refer to. Future is determined by our actions and not by history or what we believe as the "truth" at the present as science, just like human beings, keep on evolving. And this is exactly where Chomsky lays down his input, while Foucault makes a clear distinction regarding his potion as purely an observer of history, refusing the accept the influence of politics in his conclusions -> an observer vs visionary
I don't get it....why would people think that Foucault "won" this? He presupposes an apparent adherence to whatever "truths" we have "created" and as such argues that we cannot escape from this initial philosophy because our current concepts are a product of the system, but is not post-modernism at its core a philosophy of transformation? At any rate, I would argue that no historical precedent is not enough of a basis for a truly philosophical argument.
in my opinion, foucault fails miserably in one respect: the focus of his thought is fundamentally negative. it's pure critique of institutions and power relations but he pulls the rug from under his feet when he denies the possibility of a stable concept of justice, human nature, etc. calling an education system, for example, opressive and exclussionary becomes extremely relative.
@fede2 So, essentially, you criticise Foucault for being anti-utopian? Foucault's conclusions are no different to other thinkers with similar ideas, such as Althusser.
@rjcroton no. i criticize him for effectively making value-judgements on the nature of institutions while seemingly rejecting any standard to make such judgements possible. for him we can't talk about justice, we can't talk about human nature, fine. but, what can we talk about? if we can't talk about anything, calling an institution opressive becomes essentially meaningless. opressive by what standard? that's what i'm saying.
Foucault makes a very important point of our 'human nature' and how we define the way humans wants and are created to behave. I think it is true that our notion of human nature has been defined by the accepts of different variable controls, which make a single definition very difficult to attain. Culture, government etc... all of these will invoke different human qualities and behaviour. Additionally, people have an instinct to control - wouldn't a anarchist system go against human nature?
Foucault was right, how many white rich guys are in jail? and how many from the poor minoritys? 80% of the people in jail in USA are black, hispanic or from other ehtnic groups and poor. Not to mention that now penitentiary system is controlled and exploited by private companys, now more than ever it's an opresive system. Not only from the state but now also owned by the most powerful and rich of the plutocracy that governs USA.
How the hell did they understand each other? I don't see any earphones at all... One might definitely think back in the 70s (or the late 60s) earphones would have been gigantic. So I doubt if they have a tiny wireless earphone
@IbraheemalZawahiri Why bother in doing such a thing? If you have a near native knowledge of a language there is no burden in understanding the other. How I know that? For experience, my mother tongue is spanish and I can perfectly understand you. Also there are lectures given by Foucault in English in which he actively answered questions stated in English. Also there is no big deal in thinking that such a talented individual as Chomsky would know both French and English languages.
@IbraheemalZawahiri - If both understand their non-native tongues, surely there should be an allowance for each to speak in their native tongue. This makes sense, as long as a lack of fluency in some regard leads to a miscommunications or translation, but they seemed to do fine.
@cricket5387cricket - God is not on earth to make day-to-day decisions. His followers can 'interpret' his word with ambiguity, thus the sort of justice you yearn to acquire, may not be God's justice.
purely you can see the french kind of thinking, very meticulous, very subjetive and ambiguous, in contrast with the north american thinking, very materialist, progresist and extremely positioned by justifying the world that he lives in as the way that things must be...
In capitalistic societies the often made assumption is that people act 'rationally' but it is thus assumption which falls under criticism by liberals. However, such criticism is a matter of failure to understand what is meant by 'rational'. It is not a psychological term. Eat my asshole. And it emphasizes the importance of measures which lead to better informed consumers, like false ad legislation. Would you like to fuck my teenage bod? People who are anticapitalism are criticizing the DE
I don't understand, even if justice arises out of a class structure in the way Foucault infers, does the nature of such a genesis alone prove it to be immalleable? All positive progress through human history has been the attainment of ideals envisioned and then fashioned only via the imperfect tools and systems around us at great risk of failure. To say that justice and therefore morality is cyclic and antithetical to progress seems erroneous.
I think most people in the comments who think Foucault offers some profound insight over Chomsky are just crypto-liberals that refuse to shed their fascists notions of individualism.
Foucault is not wrong, but it is wrong to suggest all power is equally coercive. Sweden and the United States are both liberal capitalistic countries with a bourgeoisie power structure. One is better than the other. I think you can figure out which.
>>> Chomsky's not able to rigorously define "being open" or such and he's not even trying. his point is to stress the importance of doing our best in bringing our critically challenged notions of these concepts to life and defend the causes we find worth defending. of course we slip in ideology the very moment we try but should we do nothing then? i understand it's tempting to shout out "Foucault wins!" and tremble with post-structuralist ecstasy, i find it pretty pointless though...
@kiteracer2 foucalt is pure polemics, chomsky is concerned with the practicability of changing society. its tempting to forget the real struggles of people, fighting for basic dignity of human life and getting lost in the grand rhetoric of post modernism, but it does not change anything.
" philosophers have only interpreted the world in diffrent ways, the point however is how to change it". ----- ;from specters of Marx.
@kiteracer2 We should not do nothing. Foucault says clearly what he think we should do: critique and attack the institutions. That may bring about a change. Tear all of it down and build something completely new.
@Tomat456 ... Ok, but he doesn't offer any idea concerning the new thing we should build. Foucault seems to be lost in words. He claims that every 'interpretation' and 'meaning' found in society is merely a social construct. Yet he doesn't realize that HE IS ALSO in society. His own philosophy destroys itself, because his philosophy struggles for power too. It all sounds cute and sexy for some people, but with the 'proper' reflection we see as trivial rhetoric.
@kiteracer2 It doesn't have to be looked at as so much of a competition between the two. While Chomsky looks to maximize the potential of the individual for an ideal society, Foucault humbly notes that we should first critically examine the truths are embedded within our decisions
@kiteracer2 I agree.If you take Foucault's position, you are stuck in a stalemate&you just stuck with criticism of the existing conditions without offering anything new. As flawed Chomsky's model of society may be, It would be interesting to see if Foucault could reveal in what ways Chomsky's society imply flawed ideas of justice&human nature, and how they are social constructed. It will help redefine those ideas, or reveal a new criteria in which a new society should be based on.
@kiteracer2 you don't need to rigorously define openness or our desire to improve ourselves. It's something that we simply discover about ourselves & something that simply happens to us. Chomsky is not interested in definitions. Chomsky is simply interested in describing our natural & innate proclivities without which power relations are not even possible. Chomsky was just too advanced for Foucault to handle in this debate. Foucault had no idea what Chomsky was talking about.
gah, all the talk about who "won" this... the debate is quite obviously set up as a confrontation between a sceptic and a believer, a thinker and a doer. Foucault, staying true to his intellectual background, has no choice but to go on claiming that all notions of justice are historically/socially/however conditioned and therefore relative. what he's doing there is basically one big "epoché" - emancipating himself from everything inaccurate and possibly biased. >>>
If Foucault thought it impossible to define valid concepts of justice or ultimate values, on what grounds did he call for a change to the existing social order? Because he himself would be better off in a new order? For the sake of making trouble?
you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this
comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't demn even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
@Shadow9392 Well, in it's type of analysis maybe Nietzschean, but remember that Foucault (thinks he) fights for the oppressed. For Nietzsche, siding with the oppressed is falling for slave morality.
@Shadow9392 Responding to the alternative (of a classless society) requires the language of justice (or whatever you may wish to call it) in order to, first, protect|insulate your society from injustice and, second, to define what your society is not, or rather how it is not just. A clearly miserable, stressed, starving, disempowered existence is not lightened because the preconditions were ``merely`` socially constructed. Power not shared equally is oligarchy and oppression.
Seriously, you geek losers, go over to @trucuban's channel for shits n grins, and look at the video he lauds-- it's some childish fucking video game about DRAGONS etc -- oh my fucking god!!!
The intellectual development, the social maturity, of one of your geeky loser peers!!
Hey, MAN-BOYs, go to @trucuban's channel and reap real intellectual value from the FUCKING VIDEO GAMES he's hooked on!!!!!!! Hhahhahhahaaahhahahhahaaa!!!
Then that butthole comes here and tries to ride on the cerebral coattails of these gay mastur-debaters!!!
What a DOLL!! The chicks must go FUCKING WILD over a guy like you, huh, @trucuban??!! Chomsky-Woody Allen-Fuckoult videos, with electronic 'shoot-em-up' video games for dessert!! A REAL manly catch, you are!!
@trucuban, the funny thing about homosexuals like you, there is this reputation of you freaks as being super-promiscuous. Well, then, it must be EXTRA frustrating to you to not only be a sexual deviant, but also to be so physically repulsive that not even hot-n-horny, "anyone goes" bed hopping rump rangers don't want to suck YOUR uncircumcised pickle, or jam their Anthony Weiner's in your poop chute. I know there's a third option, but I can safely assume YOU AREN'T the sexually dominant one!!!
@trucuban:Better to have cancer and come out of it than to be a fucking low class, tattooed, multiple-body pierced bald obese "never-had-both-my-parents" loser like you, wouldn't cha agree, fat-so??? How does it feel to be 48 and to have achieved NOTHIING in your life? You angry, bitter homosexual. Tisk tisk, watching mentally ill buttfuckers like you try to achive self-worth by "debating" people at "intellectual" video comment boards on line.
"this isnt a comedy skit... go watch real houses wives and spot wasting everyone's time...."
Wow, @trucuban, your typing skills dropped off suddenly, as if your AIDS ridden hands were shaking from your childish emotional outburst!!
Don't cry, okay, you empty little pathetic home-bound shut-in loser!!!
HAHAHHAHAHAHAAA!!!!
I had fun over the holiday; you masturbated to that UGLY motherfucker foucault and your SICK delusions of his being your father...You are SICK, you butthole.
@trucuban, Hi, loser! Hi, dumbfuck. What a nerd like you hasn't figured out yet is that I will die, for certain, but guess what, moron,
YOU ARE GOING TO DIE, TOO.
The question is, how many times will you have taken it up your ass before you go?
Or, why have you remained a fucking idiot liberal pathetic pseudo-intellectual worthless welfare-dependent obese hairy smelly pig your whole life before your pickle gets bitten off by your boyfriend? You self-deluded moron.
Chomsky is very nice to Foucault, but intellectually he trumps him in this discussion. He responds in a clear and effective way to the criticisms Foucault throws in. Especially the way he defends the use of notions like justice and human nature struck me as apt rebutts to the - still popular - Foucaultian style of philosophy.
I don't know that much about Chomsky, but has he ever had any serious, personal interactions with our so-called justice system? If he had, I think he would be a lot more sympathetic to Foucault's perspective. Chomsky is SO American (in his idealism and, it seems to me. somewhat naive optimism).
I cannot hold my piece on this one. It is quite evident that g17y5wb is brainwashed beyond recognition. If she had any modicum of sensibility, she would understand that superficial beauty is transitory. Her pubescence is made all the more obvious with her rebuttals. Mind you, to call them "rebuttals" is to give her too much credit. Save your time, and instead pay heed to this summary of her mindless comments: "Fromis you're fat, and poor... I'm skinny and I have lots of sex... I win" fucking sad
some ppl are just too ignorant to appreciate sincere debate,
so they put on angry mask,and bash this kind of talk
yet,do they know not that life as they're living as they claimed so fancy ,built on the ground that these philosopher,thinkers,or whatever foucault or chomsky called themselves debate,created or designed
Hi, @fromis111, how is your little 'debate champion' fantasy going there, eh, loser?
How good do YOU look in a swimsuit??
Have you been laid this week? This YEAR???
You sadly live in the house of mirrors created by meaningless losers, low-income, low net worth, low sexual pleasure (WITH OTHER HUMANS, THAT IS) 'smart' people who are too fucking foolish to see how we in the REAL world look at you chomsky v. buckwheat fans and laugh so hard that we blow Pepsi out our nostrils!!! Hahahah!
Hey, you FREAK also known as @fromis111, While I'm out with a rather colorful group of individuals, most of whom appear on stage weekly in front of more than 10,000, who speak more languages than you will ever read, who fuck like monsters (and have a rather nice time doing so), .......
@fromis111, ..............YOU sit on your computer and challenge people to 'debates' and fantasize that you're that fuckhead chomsky and that you 'defeat' other people -- your enemies -- as if they're buckwheat, in some fantasy of the above video. You sad, sick, STUPID, homebound loser.
"hatred for pseudo-intellectualism"...So, genius, motherfuck @fromis111, what, do you ADMIRE pseudo-intellectualism? You ARE retarded!!
Let me guess, you're canadian, too. You wanna play psychoanalyst? Here's a mirror for you gay little self: You are so confused by how you don't fit into any productive group of individuals so you deceive yourself into thinking you're 'smart' (har) and that THEREFORE you mean something to someone. WRONG on all counts, dipshit.
Hey, fromis111, what's with your sexual deviancy? Why do you desperately substitute threats for 'debates' with others, as if you'll prove your manhood by 'outdebating' others? You are one sexually confused, falsely self-intelligent-perceiving freak.
foucault...wins!! I <3 chomsky, but foucault is sneaky and transcends all of chomsky's ideology and idealism to attack the very foundation of his beliefs...clearly noam isn't won over, but I think foucault defs wins - the part where chomsky is going on about what he believes/feels to be essential human qualities is uncharacteristically intellectually weak
@tleshuk I don't think so. Chomsky asserts that certain qualities are biologically given. Foucault asserts that these qualities are socially constructed. Neither provide convincing evidence of these claims (and there is a limit to how well they could do so in this context), so it's not fair to single Chomsky out. However, I think studies in evolutionary biology have shown moral intuitions to be deeply ingrained and observable in lower primates.
Fuck me this Foucalt guy is an idiot. What a dick head poseur.
I wonder if he ever asks himself why he ever lived. Wasting all his time being a pretentious twat.
Giving Chomsky Over(100 footnoted and researched books) a hard time. Sorry if Im stupid but he just comes over like a problem with no moral compass. Aye. Half the reason why academia has become a conservative place whilst education is being 'rationalised'. A sophist of the lowest order in this particular tussle.
@100FingeredMonkey I agree. It seems this ideal Chomsky is talking about is a reaction against the histories of exploitation and not an ideal that existed and then was undermined. I'm with Foucault- I see no precedent for decency or human beings who by themselves wished to use power fairly (if that's possible). I would say that there is a growing consciousness for these ideals the further we are removed from them and that is somewhat hopeful, I guess.
@warmwarmerdisco Then again, Chomsky seems to suggest that we have to make some leaps "on the basis of partial knowledge" regarding human nature, and this is true too. Inevitably, in society, we have to suppose people will act with "decency" to a degree. Otherwise we end up with some totalitarian state where its virtual impossible to break any rules or anything.
The thing with this debate is that Foucault talks about how it is in reality, while Chomsky talks about practice.
They are both a couple of douchebags if you ask me. The best way to get in touch with a society's notions of truth, justice, and so forth, is to get a fucking job. You'll find out pretty quick where you stand in the scheme of things.
Is Foucault saying that without civilization we would not arrive at forms of justice? I wouldn't agree with that and that's the same argument that Christians use to denounce Atheists, they say that Atheists would not have morality without the pretext of Christianity. Morality isn't constrained by religion or civilization (depends on how you define civilization). I think morality comes from empathy. Chomsky ftw.
Most morality is surface-level: "I'm going to adapt my morality to the morality of others in this social system so that I appear good." The contradictions are thus pushed down to a subconscious level because no one wants to be "bad"; everyone wants to be empathetic, nice, agreeable, civil, moral. But the real desire of humans is to survive under any and all circumstances. Thats why Foucault says one makes war to win, not because it is just. Humans adapt & not because they are good
@thepostnihilist Inherent within our animalistic mentality, yes, there is a survival instinct, but in a civilization or an appearance of one we must work together as part of a larger collective (a sort of superbeing if you will) to achieve a common good, to prosper. Your idea of surface-level morality makes it sound like a falsity, but i think acting as an individual to benefit yourself shows the selfishness of humankind, so in order for our species to survive we have to break selfishness.
@djamorpheus You can't achieve "common good" when your subconscious mind is filled with all sorts of unresolved contradictions. All you will do is continually create chaos with a thin veil of civility over it. Look at the word today. Is it filled with good people or hypocritical, confused people? I'm not interested in creating a superficial hand-holding picture to savor. I'd like to get to the root of the problem, which is human denial, insincerity, and lack of desire to think critically.
@thepostnihilist Sure you can do good when you're fucked up. If people couldn't do any good without resolving mental problems or ridding themselves of contradictions NOTHING good would have ever occurred and we wouldn't be here. You set up a standard for "good" that really means angelic, saintly, absolutely pure and this is absurd. Social/political movements that have made positive changes in the world are filled with good but flawed human beings.. ANYway you know this
@djamorpheus "Is Foucault saying that without civilization we would not arrive at forms of justice?"
No, I don't think he would say that without civilization we would not arrive at forms of justice and human nature...he was only arguing that because our current concepts of justice and human nature are consequences which arose out of a particular class system within a contingent cultural and historical perspective, it would be unjustified to treat these concepts as ideal and static...
I think it was clear that he indeed went further than that. He noted the dilemma in regarding the so called "fundamental human notion of justice", which Chomsky invoked: That it is exactly because our perception of justice has been found with in our civilization,shaped by, as well as perceived through culture and class system that justice is ultimately subjective thus the fundamental human notion of justice can not be identified
I think it was clear that he indeed stated that. He noted the dilemma in regarding the so called "fundamental human notion of justice", which Chomsky invoked: That it is exactly because our perception of justice has been found with in our civilization,shaped by, as well as perceived through culture and class system that justice is ultimately subjective thus the fundamental human notion of justice can not be identified
Really they discuss just like two common persons in the street, what philospphers they are.. with all my respect...but they are called as philosophers..
I think Focault's position is ultimately a violent one. That is, there is no seeds of redemption to be found within the given society --- all that is born from it (i.e. notions of fundamental human nature, justice, etc.) are tainted almost genetically with its belonging to society. Chomsky, however, seems to indicate that within even the given society, as corrupted as it may be, is a natural human, and a justice natural to that human. Society can be redeemed by its best elements.
@nobodady1 No, Foucault´s position is that we shoudn´t trust so easily. The "class society" can be changed, but it has ti be changed also on its basis, such as education, family institution, for instance.
@FEDE541 I suppose you are correct. And he is, too. That is, if in his circumspection he does not illiminate the possibility of acting. But his position seems to me to be fundamentalist, in that he wishes to change society at its roots. Yet, if society is so wrong that we need to uproot it so, why is it worth reforming? I don't agree that any institution is fundamental to the others. What if a change in one can affect change in the others without regard to heirarchy?
Focault points out the danger in taking a position with respect to Human Nature, Chomsky points out the danger in refusing to do so. Both positions are valid, IMO. Danger is on either side of us. We walk a tight rope.
Wow, it's the clear difference of a strong intellectual and a philosopher. They are not at the same level, Foucault's abstraction level can make even Chomsky seem so simple and superficial. C'est-a-dire, Chomsky semble comme un enfant contre Foucault. Il a renforce mon respect pour lui.
Enough people considered him a philosopher for the term to be permanently attached to his name. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy reading Foucault. I suggested that you read one of his works because from your comment it seemed obvious to me that you hadn't. It also seemed to me that you were very young and probably had no contact with his work outside of youtube. Your criticism of him just wasn't at the level of his actual contribution to knowledge, more like a passing uninformed insult.
...Foucault believed that when we exclude writings from an author's career that were written in a "different style," or were "inferior", we create an artificial stylistic unity and theoretical coherence.
... Prior to his death, Foucault had destroyed most of his manuscripts, and in his will had prohibited the publication of what he might have overlooked.
Oh well. These obviously didn't fit into his self-projected 'theoretical coherence'.
Simply saying enough of this, already or labeling it defeatism or nihilism is not a convincing response. Just because you find nihilism distasteful does not make it wrong. Many things about life may be distasteful but true.
"Just because you find nihilism distasteful does not make it wrong. Many things about life may be distasteful but true."
I'm glad to see you readily recognize the intrinsic uselessness of Foucault's position.
'True'? 'Wrong'? What do you mean - the truth of having a toothache, when you don't care about concepts? Or the 'Wrong' when anyone bombs your family, which becomes 'Right' the moment some privileged person juggling concepts in a safe place explains it away with some 'Truth'?
Justice relies on classes? justice relies on perceived wrongs on the basis of behavior, this concept exists intrinsically not on the basis of an artificially constructed social hierarchy. Otherwise there would be no concept of justice horizontally between members of the same class, we're all aware that's simply not reality.
@Karestase I'm sure had Foucault had time to justify his position on a class-centric "justice", he would have done so to ample, considerable if disagreeable effect. I agree with your position though, but must jump at the whip to defend this Hugh Laury lookalike intellectual.
Ayn Rand is the classical American author who argues that human nature is objective, exists independently of human consciousness, that everyone is isolated, atomized, and self interested - a sort of mind frame that is very pervasive in American society and politics. The collective aspect of society, knowledge, politics, etc. simply does not exist in her work, she is another Hobbesian 'war of all against all.' I would not recommend reading her works ...
Yes..foucault is saying that these qualities chomsky is trying to liberate and encourage in society are the very same characteristics that led to societies we have today. It would be incorrect to say that human nature is wholly good but then not take into account the class structures it has created, unless you have strong proof. Human nature seems to be in a constant struggle with itself, if democracies and socialist governments are any indicators
Foucalt is rejecting the idea of fundamental qualities of humanity and justice outside of power.Chomsky is clinging to his ideals and therefore remains in the fold. It is the outsider versus the insider, they seem to agree but Chomsky is too close to the seat of power Foucault is just taking it all a step too far for poor Chomsky. Also it is somewhat ironic that America has really not got over this insatiable desire to tell the rest of the world how to think about what justice and freedom are!
Foucalt is rejecting the idea of fundamental qualities of humanity and justice outside of power.Chomsky is clinging to his ideals and therefore remains in the fold. It is the outsider versus the insider, they seem to agree but Chomsky is too close to the seat of power Foucault is just taking it all a step too far for poor Chomsky. Also it is somewhat ironic that America has really not got over this insatiable desire to tell the rest of the world how to think about what justice and freedom are!
Chomsky, in this part, seems to imply that Foucault's position possesses the potential fear of political action. This is quite the contrary: Foucault, as he has stated in other venues, feels that it is important to identify the PRIMARY danger, while being quite open to the very real risk that our commitments may engender. Moreover, Foucault wants to historicize the concept of human nature. That is, how does this concept service governmental, medical, educational, class, etc. interests?
After much consideration, I give them boths "C-'s" (on the class based grading system of our academia) for trying. Foucault seems rebellious in terms of antipower, anti-discpline, and levels this attack at Chomsky. Chomsky maintains a pragmatic stance, one of saying that he believes in essential human values. It's hard not to basically agree with essential justice. does foucault fully accept that we should have no "rules." The problems of course come about SINCE we have a "need" for "order."
@ivanoschen look the point is to find a form of justice that more fair the one we are living in now are just fueld with one sided justice that serves the interests of the few this is what osme people dont get its not the objective essence of one thing that we need to find its the pursuit for it that makes it important of course we have aknowledge dangers so we are prepared for them
@ivanoschen Um, philosopher-named people like to debate these things like justice. A true or essential injustice for me isnt that hard to understand. Do you think we should not have "rules" or simple rules? Like you should not kill someone else for a selfish and petty insignificant gain?
@ippolytos1 I was asking 'essential justice', not 'essential injustice'. On the other hand, does your 'essential justice' equal to 'not kill someone else for a selfish and pettily insignificant gain'?
The pure and true voice of humanity: 1:23 .
`Meaningful human life takes place.``
markse4444 2 weeks ago
Foucault is used to living in a society where socialism has been espoused; this notion that true human nature is hidden by the predatory nature of capitalism. He's already confronted these sort of ideas and I think Chomsky isn't prepared for his reaction at all.
datasoluble 2 weeks ago
this debate should not have ever taken place, these two thinkers are not mutually exclusive and in the end chomksy will always say action will be more important and that we can think about what foucault is saying later, and foucault will always say that thinking must come first. In this sense they are mutually exclusive, but in the end when they actually agree a lot on what needs to be done it is the argument by which way? kant says the motive is key not the process or impact, i agree
Talisgoodatwow 3 weeks ago
If we are really concerned about the affects of subjectivity, whether social or emotional, in pursuit of truth, we must delve into an understanding of knowledge--what it is to think, how to think to attain truth, how to communicate or formulate truth as near the reality as possible--and to retain a humility and pervasive skepticism unto the beginning of knowledge, where there must be a sort of fundamental faith (common-sense?)
jjbinks3 3 weeks ago
...By virtue of Foucault being a philosopher and communicating his inquiry, it follows that he does believe that an approximate truth, in human terms, is attainable.
So, rather than discarding all knowledge as "social construct," perhaps a more helpful approach is to inquire more deeply into the nature of language and knowledge.
jjbinks3 3 weeks ago
Language is obviously an artificial thing, affected by emotions, irrationality, imprecision and weighed down by historical and social baggage. That said, Foucault's denial of any possibility of a meaningful construction of truth using human language is not a satisfying answer. First of all, it ignores the unsaid function of every sincere and published philosophical inquiry--a pursuit of truth in human language.
jjbinks3 3 weeks ago
Focault shoes proper restraint and intrllectual rigor in his self-questioning.
Chomsky blithes assumes the inassailabilty of his opine.
Great demonstration of intellectual vs pseudointellectual.
TemplarLeonem 1 month ago
@TemplarLeonem Seems to me that Chomsky is outmatched by Foucault in his precision, but yours is a harsh comment.
sniperquasi 4 weeks ago
Chosmky is right you have to go and put on practice what you propose otherwise you'll be and ideallist and idealism have been overcome many years ago, snobism is characteristic of the ruling class and for what reason someone propose a theory if that someone keep that as an idea, that doesn't work for science, neither for people, it's about changing the world but in real, to go and take action to corroborate if what you say is true or not, otherwise is a pretty stupid game...
trincherasdeideas88 1 month ago
Foucault's critique implies that human nature is a blank state, that institutions and historical circumstances can stamp onto the popular mind whichever system of justice it wishes. It shows how Chomsky's linguistic theories are central to his vision; there are instrinsic human propreties (language, but also a sense of justice) that are shared but nowhere to be found in modern society. Chomsky is right; modern science clearly supports the idea that moral sentiments have an evolutionnary basis.
philbelanger2 1 month ago 12
@philbelanger2 to regard morality as evolutionary would only act to prove Foucault right, unless you actually believe our morals are embedded in our genetics
OhSyx 1 month ago
@OhSyx That's not what I believe, it's what modern science tells us. See A Cooperative Species, by Sam Bowles
philbelanger2 1 month ago
@philbelanger2 So typical: "it's not a belief, it's science"
Modern science is a system of thought that is restricted by our own social understandings; this is what Foucault is saying. We need to look at the institutions that shaped the definitions morality and especially modern science so we can discover all the flaws we may be unknowingly accepting
OhSyx 1 month ago
of course there is something you would call human nature. how would mankind have been able to survive without it? i mean we breed, we found families, thats what most people do and have been doing since we're here obviously. thats one example for human nature.
Zatzzo 1 month ago
@Zatzzo Breeding may be in human nature but what you're doing is exactly what Foucault is trying to highlight. Breeding can still exist without the family structure that popular society currently accepts. So while breeding may be human nature, breeding as you understand and interpret it is mostly socially constructed
OhSyx 1 month ago
@OhSyx
"breeding may be human nature"
so after all, it is human nature?
Zatzzo 1 month ago
@Zatzzo so long as you can separate human nature from social constructs
OhSyx 1 month ago
You can't quite see it here, but according to chomsky, the moderator was holding a wig on his lap throughout the debate, and attempting to persuade foucault to put it on. Little bit of trivia for you there youtube.
towneslives 2 months ago
When this assumption is made he creates yet another system to move said units of power. By using the arena of the "academic" to wield a very certain type of power in establishing an egalitarian society. Doing this he has introduced a hierarchical form of egalitarianism based on western academic polemic that does not take into account a more complex and inclusive critique. This also automatically assumes the thesis+antithesis=synthesis model which again is reductionist,Chomsky lost right there
SomniumCorvus 2 months ago in playlist Noam Chomsky
Foucault is not creating history as an observer that is not the issue here. One of the main issues he faults Chomsky on is his inability to address structures, individuals, and culture as diffuse power models based on reproduction. In Chomsky's arrogance he did not take the time to fully explore these areas and instead took a very American idea of class as simply power. When class is just equated to power he must assume a finite amount of power and arenas to express them.
SomniumCorvus 2 months ago in playlist Noam Chomsky
Lex Luthor is brilliant!!
MrRobfullarton 2 months ago
There is no such thing as "human nature" Mr Chomsky. There is a hegemonically constructed one that represses and produces identities at the same time. That is all Foucault is saying. How can that be so controversial?
jmans 3 months ago
@jmans The idea that what many people consider to be "human nature" is actually a social construct isn't controversial. I think the controversial aspect of it is the claim that the working class conception of justice is subjective and self-serving rather than, in many significant ways, an attempt to achieve justice in an objective sense. (cont.) ...
dt106102547 1 month ago
@jmans For example, if the working class were to take over the means of production, this could be regarded as just b/c it will (in theory) lead to a more egalitarian, free, fair, democratic, etc. society (values that anyone, regardless of their class interests, would agree are values that would be present to a greater degree in a more just society)
dt106102547 1 month ago
I don't think that Foucault is saying that we shouldn't bother understanding justice. Namely, he's negating Chomsky's inference that there is a formal justice, (in the Platonic sense), that transcends human experience. Chomsky grounds the majority of his argument on building a societal construct that reflects human nature. Foucault believes that societal constructs dictate human nature. This is to say, our notions of justice are not essential, but, instead, constructed by hegemony.
saintseymour 3 months ago 3
"That is unjust!"
"Absolutely!"
It's really, really, really great how that little exchange entirely embodies their views in this debate
SharinganMan 3 months ago 6
There is no absolut conclusion which can be drawn from this debate simply because one is using history as a basis of his argument, while the other one is speaking as a visionary. In other words just because human beings couldn't move faster than the speed of sound some centuries ago, didnt mean it was irrational to claim it was possible; just because we havent been able to define this "absolut human notion of justice" doesn't mean we should decline it's existence and stop trying to reach it.
RasputinStream 3 months ago 4
@RasputinStream I think those are counterexamples: Just as we couldn't reasonably posit an "absolute speed", I don't think we can posit an "absolute justice"
SharinganMan 3 months ago
@SharinganMan
Funny that you mention it. There is an absolut speed, and that is the speed light, anything faster than that, is currently debated as either teleportation to a place or even dimention That surely is much more futher, absurd if you will, than just understanding the basic human notion of justice. Chomsky is not even talking about how to implement "that notion", but simply reffering to it as a paramount foundation which can lead/develope us forward in history rather than backwards
RasputinStream 3 months ago
@RasputinStream Come back to me in a century or so and we'll talk about the speed of light.
SharinganMan 3 months ago
@SharinganMan
Lame.... Why don't instead stick to the point, which is exactly what you refer to. Future is determined by our actions and not by history or what we believe as the "truth" at the present as science, just like human beings, keep on evolving. And this is exactly where Chomsky lays down his input, while Foucault makes a clear distinction regarding his potion as purely an observer of history, refusing the accept the influence of politics in his conclusions -> an observer vs visionary
RasputinStream 3 months ago
I don't get it....why would people think that Foucault "won" this? He presupposes an apparent adherence to whatever "truths" we have "created" and as such argues that we cannot escape from this initial philosophy because our current concepts are a product of the system, but is not post-modernism at its core a philosophy of transformation? At any rate, I would argue that no historical precedent is not enough of a basis for a truly philosophical argument.
joseromero2010 4 months ago
in my opinion, foucault fails miserably in one respect: the focus of his thought is fundamentally negative. it's pure critique of institutions and power relations but he pulls the rug from under his feet when he denies the possibility of a stable concept of justice, human nature, etc. calling an education system, for example, opressive and exclussionary becomes extremely relative.
fede2 4 months ago
@fede2 So, essentially, you criticise Foucault for being anti-utopian? Foucault's conclusions are no different to other thinkers with similar ideas, such as Althusser.
rjcroton 4 months ago
@rjcroton no. i criticize him for effectively making value-judgements on the nature of institutions while seemingly rejecting any standard to make such judgements possible. for him we can't talk about justice, we can't talk about human nature, fine. but, what can we talk about? if we can't talk about anything, calling an institution opressive becomes essentially meaningless. opressive by what standard? that's what i'm saying.
fede2 4 months ago 2
Foucault makes a very important point of our 'human nature' and how we define the way humans wants and are created to behave. I think it is true that our notion of human nature has been defined by the accepts of different variable controls, which make a single definition very difficult to attain. Culture, government etc... all of these will invoke different human qualities and behaviour. Additionally, people have an instinct to control - wouldn't a anarchist system go against human nature?
DarrenRyanMurphy 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Foucault was right, how many white rich guys are in jail? and how many from the poor minoritys? 80% of the people in jail in USA are black, hispanic or from other ehtnic groups and poor. Not to mention that now penitentiary system is controlled and exploited by private companys, now more than ever it's an opresive system. Not only from the state but now also owned by the most powerful and rich of the plutocracy that governs USA.
ooneto193110 5 months ago
This needs to be auto-tuned.
gregmm1960 5 months ago
How the hell did they understand each other? I don't see any earphones at all... One might definitely think back in the 70s (or the late 60s) earphones would have been gigantic. So I doubt if they have a tiny wireless earphone
IbraheemalZawahiri 5 months ago
@IbraheemalZawahiri They obviously knew both french and english languages.
Joseluistreblablab 5 months ago
@Joseluistreblablab Then why didn't they just use one language (iether French or English)????
IbraheemalZawahiri 5 months ago
@IbraheemalZawahiri Why bother in doing such a thing? If you have a near native knowledge of a language there is no burden in understanding the other. How I know that? For experience, my mother tongue is spanish and I can perfectly understand you. Also there are lectures given by Foucault in English in which he actively answered questions stated in English. Also there is no big deal in thinking that such a talented individual as Chomsky would know both French and English languages.
Joseluistreblablab 5 months ago
@IbraheemalZawahiri - If both understand their non-native tongues, surely there should be an allowance for each to speak in their native tongue. This makes sense, as long as a lack of fluency in some regard leads to a miscommunications or translation, but they seemed to do fine.
DarrenRyanMurphy 4 months ago
this is why we need God.
with God (which is a word), both are right in their disagreement about "justice".
cricket5387cricket 5 months ago
@cricket5387cricket - God is not on earth to make day-to-day decisions. His followers can 'interpret' his word with ambiguity, thus the sort of justice you yearn to acquire, may not be God's justice.
DarrenRyanMurphy 4 months ago
"to construct a vision" - is this really the intellectual domain of political action?
is vision-construction intellectual?
is it political?
cricket5387cricket 5 months ago
the importance of "creativity" (and "innovation", etc) to the justification of today's forms of power shows how right Foucault is.
Although if Chomsky thought like that, he would never be able to say ANYTHING in America.
Even Habermas knew the problems of (or that the problem was) defining human nature, long before this.
The way Foucault listens to Chomsky is so beautiful!
cricket5387cricket 5 months ago
the importance of "creativity" (and "innovation", etc) to the justification of today's forms of power shows how right Foucault is.
Although if Chomsky thought like that, he would never be able to say ANYTHING in America.
Even Habermas knew the problems of (or that the problem was) defining human nature, long before this.
cricket5387cricket 5 months ago
the importance of "creativity" (and "innovation", etc) to the justification of today's forms of power shows how right Foucault is.
Although if Chomsky thought like that, he would never be able to say ANYTHING in America.
cricket5387cricket 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
purely you can see the french kind of thinking, very meticulous, very subjetive and ambiguous, in contrast with the north american thinking, very materialist, progresist and extremely positioned by justifying the world that he lives in as the way that things must be...
efedeforero 5 months ago
Comment removed
efedeforero 5 months ago
In capitalistic societies the often made assumption is that people act 'rationally' but it is thus assumption which falls under criticism by liberals. However, such criticism is a matter of failure to understand what is meant by 'rational'. It is not a psychological term. Eat my asshole. And it emphasizes the importance of measures which lead to better informed consumers, like false ad legislation. Would you like to fuck my teenage bod? People who are anticapitalism are criticizing the DE
g17y5wb 5 months ago
I don't understand, even if justice arises out of a class structure in the way Foucault infers, does the nature of such a genesis alone prove it to be immalleable? All positive progress through human history has been the attainment of ideals envisioned and then fashioned only via the imperfect tools and systems around us at great risk of failure. To say that justice and therefore morality is cyclic and antithetical to progress seems erroneous.
billhicks8 6 months ago
These people are speaking different languages. In every sense.
andrewsurtees 7 months ago 3
I think most people in the comments who think Foucault offers some profound insight over Chomsky are just crypto-liberals that refuse to shed their fascists notions of individualism.
Foucault is not wrong, but it is wrong to suggest all power is equally coercive. Sweden and the United States are both liberal capitalistic countries with a bourgeoisie power structure. One is better than the other. I think you can figure out which.
nerfmyaccount 7 months ago 3
>>> Chomsky's not able to rigorously define "being open" or such and he's not even trying. his point is to stress the importance of doing our best in bringing our critically challenged notions of these concepts to life and defend the causes we find worth defending. of course we slip in ideology the very moment we try but should we do nothing then? i understand it's tempting to shout out "Foucault wins!" and tremble with post-structuralist ecstasy, i find it pretty pointless though...
kiteracer2 7 months ago 30
@kiteracer2 foucalt is pure polemics, chomsky is concerned with the practicability of changing society. its tempting to forget the real struggles of people, fighting for basic dignity of human life and getting lost in the grand rhetoric of post modernism, but it does not change anything.
" philosophers have only interpreted the world in diffrent ways, the point however is how to change it". ----- ;from specters of Marx.
TheSumit1985100 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSumit1985100 This is of course wrong, since Foucault actively engaged in activism, just as Chomsky did.
DivisionbyZer0 1 month ago
@kiteracer2 We should not do nothing. Foucault says clearly what he think we should do: critique and attack the institutions. That may bring about a change. Tear all of it down and build something completely new.
Tomat456 3 months ago
@Tomat456 ... Ok, but he doesn't offer any idea concerning the new thing we should build. Foucault seems to be lost in words. He claims that every 'interpretation' and 'meaning' found in society is merely a social construct. Yet he doesn't realize that HE IS ALSO in society. His own philosophy destroys itself, because his philosophy struggles for power too. It all sounds cute and sexy for some people, but with the 'proper' reflection we see as trivial rhetoric.
NoLies86 2 months ago
@kiteracer2 It doesn't have to be looked at as so much of a competition between the two. While Chomsky looks to maximize the potential of the individual for an ideal society, Foucault humbly notes that we should first critically examine the truths are embedded within our decisions
OhSyx 1 month ago
@kiteracer2 I agree.If you take Foucault's position, you are stuck in a stalemate&you just stuck with criticism of the existing conditions without offering anything new. As flawed Chomsky's model of society may be, It would be interesting to see if Foucault could reveal in what ways Chomsky's society imply flawed ideas of justice&human nature, and how they are social constructed. It will help redefine those ideas, or reveal a new criteria in which a new society should be based on.
XXjazzfiend99xx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kiteracer2 you don't need to rigorously define openness or our desire to improve ourselves. It's something that we simply discover about ourselves & something that simply happens to us. Chomsky is not interested in definitions. Chomsky is simply interested in describing our natural & innate proclivities without which power relations are not even possible. Chomsky was just too advanced for Foucault to handle in this debate. Foucault had no idea what Chomsky was talking about.
xpressivist 2 weeks ago
gah, all the talk about who "won" this... the debate is quite obviously set up as a confrontation between a sceptic and a believer, a thinker and a doer. Foucault, staying true to his intellectual background, has no choice but to go on claiming that all notions of justice are historically/socially/however conditioned and therefore relative. what he's doing there is basically one big "epoché" - emancipating himself from everything inaccurate and possibly biased. >>>
kiteracer2 7 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
If Foucault thought it impossible to define valid concepts of justice or ultimate values, on what grounds did he call for a change to the existing social order? Because he himself would be better off in a new order? For the sake of making trouble?
Gibbsian36 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this
comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't demn even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
ehudnold9 7 months ago
3:51 foucault's face...
autonomy21 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@autonomy21
Absolutely!
asy4 7 months ago
Foucault drops the Nietzsche hammer at about 5:26. Delicious.
Shadow9392 8 months ago 28
@Shadow9392 Well, in it's type of analysis maybe Nietzschean, but remember that Foucault (thinks he) fights for the oppressed. For Nietzsche, siding with the oppressed is falling for slave morality.
Naturalist1979 7 months ago
@Shadow9392
excellent comment!
i totally agree
mousoungu 7 months ago
totally agree
mousoungu 7 months ago
@Shadow9392 Responding to the alternative (of a classless society) requires the language of justice (or whatever you may wish to call it) in order to, first, protect|insulate your society from injustice and, second, to define what your society is not, or rather how it is not just. A clearly miserable, stressed, starving, disempowered existence is not lightened because the preconditions were ``merely`` socially constructed. Power not shared equally is oligarchy and oppression.
markse4444 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Seriously, you geek losers, go over to @trucuban's channel for shits n grins, and look at the video he lauds-- it's some childish fucking video game about DRAGONS etc -- oh my fucking god!!!
The intellectual development, the social maturity, of one of your geeky loser peers!!
You "smart" mastur-debaters must BE SO PROUD!!!
Fuck you all.
;-)
g17y5wb 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, MAN-BOYs, go to @trucuban's channel and reap real intellectual value from the FUCKING VIDEO GAMES he's hooked on!!!!!!! Hhahhahhahaaahhahahhahaaa!!!
Then that butthole comes here and tries to ride on the cerebral coattails of these gay mastur-debaters!!!
What a DOLL!! The chicks must go FUCKING WILD over a guy like you, huh, @trucuban??!! Chomsky-Woody Allen-Fuckoult videos, with electronic 'shoot-em-up' video games for dessert!! A REAL manly catch, you are!!
MAN-BOY MAN-BOY!
g17y5wb 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trucuban, the funny thing about homosexuals like you, there is this reputation of you freaks as being super-promiscuous. Well, then, it must be EXTRA frustrating to you to not only be a sexual deviant, but also to be so physically repulsive that not even hot-n-horny, "anyone goes" bed hopping rump rangers don't want to suck YOUR uncircumcised pickle, or jam their Anthony Weiner's in your poop chute. I know there's a third option, but I can safely assume YOU AREN'T the sexually dominant one!!!
g17y5wb 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trucuban:Better to have cancer and come out of it than to be a fucking low class, tattooed, multiple-body pierced bald obese "never-had-both-my-parents" loser like you, wouldn't cha agree, fat-so??? How does it feel to be 48 and to have achieved NOTHIING in your life? You angry, bitter homosexual. Tisk tisk, watching mentally ill buttfuckers like you try to achive self-worth by "debating" people at "intellectual" video comment boards on line.
Loser.
g17y5wb 8 months ago
Case in point. Ignore what g17y5wb has to say, it wasted my time... dont make the same mistake.
trucuban 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"this isnt a comedy skit... go watch real houses wives and spot wasting everyone's time...."
Wow, @trucuban, your typing skills dropped off suddenly, as if your AIDS ridden hands were shaking from your childish emotional outburst!!
Don't cry, okay, you empty little pathetic home-bound shut-in loser!!!
HAHAHHAHAHAHAAA!!!!
I had fun over the holiday; you masturbated to that UGLY motherfucker foucault and your SICK delusions of his being your father...You are SICK, you butthole.
g17y5wb 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trucuban, Hi, loser! Hi, dumbfuck. What a nerd like you hasn't figured out yet is that I will die, for certain, but guess what, moron,
YOU ARE GOING TO DIE, TOO.
The question is, how many times will you have taken it up your ass before you go?
Or, why have you remained a fucking idiot liberal pathetic pseudo-intellectual worthless welfare-dependent obese hairy smelly pig your whole life before your pickle gets bitten off by your boyfriend? You self-deluded moron.
I love you.
g17y5wb 8 months ago
Chomsky is very nice to Foucault, but intellectually he trumps him in this discussion. He responds in a clear and effective way to the criticisms Foucault throws in. Especially the way he defends the use of notions like justice and human nature struck me as apt rebutts to the - still popular - Foucaultian style of philosophy.
Naturalist1979 8 months ago
@Naturalist1979
I don't know that much about Chomsky, but has he ever had any serious, personal interactions with our so-called justice system? If he had, I think he would be a lot more sympathetic to Foucault's perspective. Chomsky is SO American (in his idealism and, it seems to me. somewhat naive optimism).
asy4 7 months ago
@asy4
You need to research Chomsky more. He is far from Naive. He basicly the biggest selling author on the crimes of the USA, and Capitalism.
brownie1982ad 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brownie1982ad
Frederick Jameson is no sclepp when it comes to critiquing
capitalism even if he not a best selling author. Chomsky is
naive for all the reasons that Omnicron777 so astutely points out.
asy4 7 months ago
I cannot hold my piece on this one. It is quite evident that g17y5wb is brainwashed beyond recognition. If she had any modicum of sensibility, she would understand that superficial beauty is transitory. Her pubescence is made all the more obvious with her rebuttals. Mind you, to call them "rebuttals" is to give her too much credit. Save your time, and instead pay heed to this summary of her mindless comments: "Fromis you're fat, and poor... I'm skinny and I have lots of sex... I win" fucking sad
trucuban 8 months ago
Comment removed
trucuban 8 months ago
some ppl are just too ignorant to appreciate sincere debate,
so they put on angry mask,and bash this kind of talk
yet,do they know not that life as they're living as they claimed so fancy ,built on the ground that these philosopher,thinkers,or whatever foucault or chomsky called themselves debate,created or designed
y34r 8 months ago
Foucault wins....
groove40 8 months ago
Hi, @fromis111, how is your little 'debate champion' fantasy going there, eh, loser?
How good do YOU look in a swimsuit??
Have you been laid this week? This YEAR???
You sadly live in the house of mirrors created by meaningless losers, low-income, low net worth, low sexual pleasure (WITH OTHER HUMANS, THAT IS) 'smart' people who are too fucking foolish to see how we in the REAL world look at you chomsky v. buckwheat fans and laugh so hard that we blow Pepsi out our nostrils!!! Hahahah!
g17y5wb 8 months ago
@g17y5wb read the above statement you brain dead cunt.
trucuban 8 months ago
and by the way bitch, this isnt a comedy skit... go watch real houses wives and spot wasting everyone's time
trucuban 8 months ago
@g17y5wb
And, of course, net worth is the ultimate standard by which to measure
a human being. That's why our world is the way it is.
asy4 7 months ago
Hey, you FREAK also known as @fromis111, While I'm out with a rather colorful group of individuals, most of whom appear on stage weekly in front of more than 10,000, who speak more languages than you will ever read, who fuck like monsters (and have a rather nice time doing so), .......
g17y5wb 8 months ago
@fromis111, ..............YOU sit on your computer and challenge people to 'debates' and fantasize that you're that fuckhead chomsky and that you 'defeat' other people -- your enemies -- as if they're buckwheat, in some fantasy of the above video. You sad, sick, STUPID, homebound loser.
g17y5wb 8 months ago
"hatred for pseudo-intellectualism"...So, genius, motherfuck @fromis111, what, do you ADMIRE pseudo-intellectualism? You ARE retarded!!
Let me guess, you're canadian, too. You wanna play psychoanalyst? Here's a mirror for you gay little self: You are so confused by how you don't fit into any productive group of individuals so you deceive yourself into thinking you're 'smart' (har) and that THEREFORE you mean something to someone. WRONG on all counts, dipshit.
g17y5wb 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey, fromis111, what's with your sexual deviancy? Why do you desperately substitute threats for 'debates' with others, as if you'll prove your manhood by 'outdebating' others? You are one sexually confused, falsely self-intelligent-perceiving freak.
g17y5wb 8 months ago
Nihilism vs. Idealism = triumph of Nihilism!......... there are no "ideal" arguments that can stand the objectivity of nihilism
Mefisto1mced 8 months ago
foucault...wins!! I <3 chomsky, but foucault is sneaky and transcends all of chomsky's ideology and idealism to attack the very foundation of his beliefs...clearly noam isn't won over, but I think foucault defs wins - the part where chomsky is going on about what he believes/feels to be essential human qualities is uncharacteristically intellectually weak
tleshuk 8 months ago
@tleshuk I don't think so. Chomsky asserts that certain qualities are biologically given. Foucault asserts that these qualities are socially constructed. Neither provide convincing evidence of these claims (and there is a limit to how well they could do so in this context), so it's not fair to single Chomsky out. However, I think studies in evolutionary biology have shown moral intuitions to be deeply ingrained and observable in lower primates.
fromis111 8 months ago
Chomsky is for people who are easily seduced by words. "Human nature" sounds great. A "good human" sounds great. SOUNDS.
thepostnihilist 9 months ago
Fuck me this Foucalt guy is an idiot. What a dick head poseur.
I wonder if he ever asks himself why he ever lived. Wasting all his time being a pretentious twat.
Giving Chomsky Over(100 footnoted and researched books) a hard time. Sorry if Im stupid but he just comes over like a problem with no moral compass. Aye. Half the reason why academia has become a conservative place whilst education is being 'rationalised'. A sophist of the lowest order in this particular tussle.
themec 9 months ago
@themec So explain why Foucault is a poser. What he says here makes more sense than what Chomsky says. I like Chomsky, but Foucault wins here.
100FingeredMonkey 9 months ago
@100FingeredMonkey I agree. It seems this ideal Chomsky is talking about is a reaction against the histories of exploitation and not an ideal that existed and then was undermined. I'm with Foucault- I see no precedent for decency or human beings who by themselves wished to use power fairly (if that's possible). I would say that there is a growing consciousness for these ideals the further we are removed from them and that is somewhat hopeful, I guess.
warmwarmerdisco 9 months ago
@warmwarmerdisco Then again, Chomsky seems to suggest that we have to make some leaps "on the basis of partial knowledge" regarding human nature, and this is true too. Inevitably, in society, we have to suppose people will act with "decency" to a degree. Otherwise we end up with some totalitarian state where its virtual impossible to break any rules or anything.
The thing with this debate is that Foucault talks about how it is in reality, while Chomsky talks about practice.
100FingeredMonkey 8 months ago
They are both a couple of douchebags if you ask me. The best way to get in touch with a society's notions of truth, justice, and so forth, is to get a fucking job. You'll find out pretty quick where you stand in the scheme of things.
cmilford1969 9 months ago
I don't like Chomsky.
Anihilist 9 months ago
@FabDN41
Okay, I see now. Thanks for clearing that up.
thepostnihilist 9 months ago
@FabDN41
Foucault wasn't a Maoist...
thepostnihilist 9 months ago
Is Foucault saying that without civilization we would not arrive at forms of justice? I wouldn't agree with that and that's the same argument that Christians use to denounce Atheists, they say that Atheists would not have morality without the pretext of Christianity. Morality isn't constrained by religion or civilization (depends on how you define civilization). I think morality comes from empathy. Chomsky ftw.
djamorpheus 9 months ago
@djamorpheus
Most morality is surface-level: "I'm going to adapt my morality to the morality of others in this social system so that I appear good." The contradictions are thus pushed down to a subconscious level because no one wants to be "bad"; everyone wants to be empathetic, nice, agreeable, civil, moral. But the real desire of humans is to survive under any and all circumstances. Thats why Foucault says one makes war to win, not because it is just. Humans adapt & not because they are good
thepostnihilist 9 months ago
@thepostnihilist Inherent within our animalistic mentality, yes, there is a survival instinct, but in a civilization or an appearance of one we must work together as part of a larger collective (a sort of superbeing if you will) to achieve a common good, to prosper. Your idea of surface-level morality makes it sound like a falsity, but i think acting as an individual to benefit yourself shows the selfishness of humankind, so in order for our species to survive we have to break selfishness.
djamorpheus 9 months ago
@djamorpheus You can't achieve "common good" when your subconscious mind is filled with all sorts of unresolved contradictions. All you will do is continually create chaos with a thin veil of civility over it. Look at the word today. Is it filled with good people or hypocritical, confused people? I'm not interested in creating a superficial hand-holding picture to savor. I'd like to get to the root of the problem, which is human denial, insincerity, and lack of desire to think critically.
thepostnihilist 9 months ago
@thepostnihilist Sure you can do good when you're fucked up. If people couldn't do any good without resolving mental problems or ridding themselves of contradictions NOTHING good would have ever occurred and we wouldn't be here. You set up a standard for "good" that really means angelic, saintly, absolutely pure and this is absurd. Social/political movements that have made positive changes in the world are filled with good but flawed human beings.. ANYway you know this
S2Cents 9 months ago
@djamorpheus "Is Foucault saying that without civilization we would not arrive at forms of justice?"
No, I don't think he would say that without civilization we would not arrive at forms of justice and human nature...he was only arguing that because our current concepts of justice and human nature are consequences which arose out of a particular class system within a contingent cultural and historical perspective, it would be unjustified to treat these concepts as ideal and static...
soultorment27 9 months ago
@soultorment27 but isn't social construct an inherent characteristic of a civilization?
djamorpheus 9 months ago
@djamorpheus Yes I would agree...
soultorment27 9 months ago
@soultorment27
I think it was clear that he indeed went further than that. He noted the dilemma in regarding the so called "fundamental human notion of justice", which Chomsky invoked: That it is exactly because our perception of justice has been found with in our civilization,shaped by, as well as perceived through culture and class system that justice is ultimately subjective thus the fundamental human notion of justice can not be identified
RasputinStream 9 months ago
@djamorpheus
I think it was clear that he indeed stated that. He noted the dilemma in regarding the so called "fundamental human notion of justice", which Chomsky invoked: That it is exactly because our perception of justice has been found with in our civilization,shaped by, as well as perceived through culture and class system that justice is ultimately subjective thus the fundamental human notion of justice can not be identified
RasputinStream 9 months ago
Really they discuss just like two common persons in the street, what philospphers they are.. with all my respect...but they are called as philosophers..
otinnaros 9 months ago
oh fuck son chomsky just got BEASTED by foucault!!!!
LtGeyserShitdick 9 months ago
Last famous incidents prove Foucault's approach again. Children has to witness killing of their mother. And famous celebrations in the States.
mesutrrose 10 months ago
I think Focault's position is ultimately a violent one. That is, there is no seeds of redemption to be found within the given society --- all that is born from it (i.e. notions of fundamental human nature, justice, etc.) are tainted almost genetically with its belonging to society. Chomsky, however, seems to indicate that within even the given society, as corrupted as it may be, is a natural human, and a justice natural to that human. Society can be redeemed by its best elements.
nobodady1 10 months ago
@nobodady1 No, Foucault´s position is that we shoudn´t trust so easily. The "class society" can be changed, but it has ti be changed also on its basis, such as education, family institution, for instance.
FEDE541 9 months ago
@FEDE541 I suppose you are correct. And he is, too. That is, if in his circumspection he does not illiminate the possibility of acting. But his position seems to me to be fundamentalist, in that he wishes to change society at its roots. Yet, if society is so wrong that we need to uproot it so, why is it worth reforming? I don't agree that any institution is fundamental to the others. What if a change in one can affect change in the others without regard to heirarchy?
nobodady1 9 months ago
Focault points out the danger in taking a position with respect to Human Nature, Chomsky points out the danger in refusing to do so. Both positions are valid, IMO. Danger is on either side of us. We walk a tight rope.
nobodady1 10 months ago
Wow, it's the clear difference of a strong intellectual and a philosopher. They are not at the same level, Foucault's abstraction level can make even Chomsky seem so simple and superficial. C'est-a-dire, Chomsky semble comme un enfant contre Foucault. Il a renforce mon respect pour lui.
mesutrrose 11 months ago
Thanks, I've read enough of Foucault to know that I'd rather jab myself in the eye with a sharp stick repeatedly, than read any more.
this video is the most clear I've seen him speak.
he's got a point (when he finally arrives at it), but I wouldn't cal him a philosopher.
Hamking1 11 months ago
@Hamking1
Enough people considered him a philosopher for the term to be permanently attached to his name. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy reading Foucault. I suggested that you read one of his works because from your comment it seemed obvious to me that you hadn't. It also seemed to me that you were very young and probably had no contact with his work outside of youtube. Your criticism of him just wasn't at the level of his actual contribution to knowledge, more like a passing uninformed insult.
thepostnihilist 11 months ago
so you're saying he actually names names and points fingers? in which book would that be in?
Hamking1 11 months ago
@Hamking1
Sarcasm is a waste of time. Read his books if you honestly want to get to know him as a thinker.
thepostnihilist 11 months ago
Foucault strikes me as a conspiracy theorist who refuses to do research [into the possibility of a conspiracy and specific conspirators].
"They're all in power!!: Government, Education System, Justice System, Media, etc..."
...that's all the more detailed he gets.
Hamking1 11 months ago
@Hamking1
I suggest actually reading one of his books.
thepostnihilist 11 months ago
I would like to respond but your writing is too incoherent.
rlmerrill 11 months ago
Admittedly, Foucault had some opportunist traits:
...Foucault believed that when we exclude writings from an author's career that were written in a "different style," or were "inferior", we create an artificial stylistic unity and theoretical coherence.
... Prior to his death, Foucault had destroyed most of his manuscripts, and in his will had prohibited the publication of what he might have overlooked.
Oh well. These obviously didn't fit into his self-projected 'theoretical coherence'.
noteworthiness 11 months ago
Simply saying enough of this, already or labeling it defeatism or nihilism is not a convincing response. Just because you find nihilism distasteful does not make it wrong. Many things about life may be distasteful but true.
rlmerrill 11 months ago
@rlmerrill
"Just because you find nihilism distasteful does not make it wrong. Many things about life may be distasteful but true."
I'm glad to see you readily recognize the intrinsic uselessness of Foucault's position.
'True'? 'Wrong'? What do you mean - the truth of having a toothache, when you don't care about concepts? Or the 'Wrong' when anyone bombs your family, which becomes 'Right' the moment some privileged person juggling concepts in a safe place explains it away with some 'Truth'?
noteworthiness 11 months ago
Justice relies on classes? justice relies on perceived wrongs on the basis of behavior, this concept exists intrinsically not on the basis of an artificially constructed social hierarchy. Otherwise there would be no concept of justice horizontally between members of the same class, we're all aware that's simply not reality.
Karestase 11 months ago
@Karestase I'm sure had Foucault had time to justify his position on a class-centric "justice", he would have done so to ample, considerable if disagreeable effect. I agree with your position though, but must jump at the whip to defend this Hugh Laury lookalike intellectual.
owenhunt 11 months ago
the sense of justice Chomsky was alluding to but afraid to admit is called "morality", and as the Bible says, it is "written on our hearts".
Frettsy 1 year ago
@Frettsy
that's cute...
thepostnihilist 1 year ago
@thepostnihilist thanks little guy
Frettsy 11 months ago
@Frettsy Fuck the Bible.
LongliveSnak2e 11 months ago
@LongliveSnak2e why the hostility brah?
Frettsy 11 months ago
@Frettsy lol nice school, Virgina Tech is for psychopaths and retards. Well done sir.
LongliveSnak2e 11 months ago
@LongliveSnak2e whatever makes you feel good about yourself, troll.
Frettsy 11 months ago
Ayn Rand is the classical American author who argues that human nature is objective, exists independently of human consciousness, that everyone is isolated, atomized, and self interested - a sort of mind frame that is very pervasive in American society and politics. The collective aspect of society, knowledge, politics, etc. simply does not exist in her work, she is another Hobbesian 'war of all against all.' I would not recommend reading her works ...
iiNDiTC 1 year ago
Yes..foucault is saying that these qualities chomsky is trying to liberate and encourage in society are the very same characteristics that led to societies we have today. It would be incorrect to say that human nature is wholly good but then not take into account the class structures it has created, unless you have strong proof. Human nature seems to be in a constant struggle with itself, if democracies and socialist governments are any indicators
radscorpion8 1 year ago
@radscorpion8 hmm i definitely just paraphrased the end of this video. darn
radscorpion8 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Foucalt is rejecting the idea of fundamental qualities of humanity and justice outside of power.Chomsky is clinging to his ideals and therefore remains in the fold. It is the outsider versus the insider, they seem to agree but Chomsky is too close to the seat of power Foucault is just taking it all a step too far for poor Chomsky. Also it is somewhat ironic that America has really not got over this insatiable desire to tell the rest of the world how to think about what justice and freedom are!
mjkalloor 1 year ago
Foucalt is rejecting the idea of fundamental qualities of humanity and justice outside of power.Chomsky is clinging to his ideals and therefore remains in the fold. It is the outsider versus the insider, they seem to agree but Chomsky is too close to the seat of power Foucault is just taking it all a step too far for poor Chomsky. Also it is somewhat ironic that America has really not got over this insatiable desire to tell the rest of the world how to think about what justice and freedom are!
mjkalloor 1 year ago
@mjkalloor You're a fucking twat.
SaggioD 1 year ago
Hahahaha! Foucault looks like he is getting ready to fucking eat Chomsky at 3:15
AnEarthPilot 1 year ago 8
I know some students and scholars feel that Foucault is the end in all but Foucaut owes a lot to Marx.
He also never cited the names of authors whose ideas he burrowed in some of his work.
When Chomsky was asked what he thought about the debate with Foucault, he reply: "I still have effectively no idea what he was talking about"
iiNDiTC 1 year ago
@iiNDiTC Foucault is a reaction to Marx, I don't think you can say that he owes a lot to Marx
cjclarke89 1 year ago
Chomsky, in this part, seems to imply that Foucault's position possesses the potential fear of political action. This is quite the contrary: Foucault, as he has stated in other venues, feels that it is important to identify the PRIMARY danger, while being quite open to the very real risk that our commitments may engender. Moreover, Foucault wants to historicize the concept of human nature. That is, how does this concept service governmental, medical, educational, class, etc. interests?
emahunn 1 year ago
After much consideration, I give them boths "C-'s" (on the class based grading system of our academia) for trying. Foucault seems rebellious in terms of antipower, anti-discpline, and levels this attack at Chomsky. Chomsky maintains a pragmatic stance, one of saying that he believes in essential human values. It's hard not to basically agree with essential justice. does foucault fully accept that we should have no "rules." The problems of course come about SINCE we have a "need" for "order."
ippolytos1 1 year ago
@ippolytos1 "t's hard not to basically agree with essential justice"
What is essential justice? What is "non-essential" justice?
ivanoschen 1 year ago
@ivanoschen look the point is to find a form of justice that more fair the one we are living in now are just fueld with one sided justice that serves the interests of the few this is what osme people dont get its not the objective essence of one thing that we need to find its the pursuit for it that makes it important of course we have aknowledge dangers so we are prepared for them
timetochilli 1 year ago
@ivanoschen Um, philosopher-named people like to debate these things like justice. A true or essential injustice for me isnt that hard to understand. Do you think we should not have "rules" or simple rules? Like you should not kill someone else for a selfish and petty insignificant gain?
ippolytos1 1 year ago
@ippolytos1 I was asking 'essential justice', not 'essential injustice'. On the other hand, does your 'essential justice' equal to 'not kill someone else for a selfish and pettily insignificant gain'?
ivanoschen 1 year ago
Comment removed
ippolytos1 1 year ago