interesting trivia: after the debate Chomsky called Foucault the most immoral man he ever met. Foucault had accepted to do it only if he would receive a block of hashish in compensation after the debate (which he then called the Chomsky-hashish) ∆thx, calle!∆
A problem in this part of Foucault's speech is that the people in the government are the same or at least have the same interests as those in the Instituicions he criticizes.
@viniii12345 that is not a problem in his speech, infact he takes that as a given, in other words he does not need to adress it as much as the other institutions because it has already been adressed befor
What I got from philosophy at the university about Foucault is that he feels power is decentralized. Chomsky thinks it's centralized. The problem is Chomsky is talking about a sort of legislative power, while Foucaults power is abstract. It's the conformity-enforcing, the self-perpetuating nature of power itself. The tendency of people to normalize and the reactionary nature of things. It's hard to describe and I'm sure I don't completely understand it myself.
@mellkiades I mean those instituions he says "which seem to have nothing in common with political power". Foucalt says that the government should criticize the bad working of these institutions so they will be unmasked, but how is this possible when these institutions are actually connected to the government? He problably knows that but it is not clearly stated in this part of the speech.
@viniii12345 Hi Viniii, you misunderstood what he said. He never once said that the government should criticize the bad working of these institutions. He said "me, you, as a citizen, must criticize the bad working of these institutions, and he implied that it also included the government." He implied this by clearly explaining that these institutions are giving the impression that they are independant from the government, but they aren't in reality.
I guess this would be believable, except for the obvious way in which humans are designed: to want and enjoy disgusting acts, such as sex and reproduction. It is built into how we operate; how we think. It is as natural as relieving oneself of body waste. To give into our unfortunate situation does not make one a "bad man," only a weak one, in some respects. Don't speak so surely about things you don't know.
@thepostnihilist Sex is a disgusting act? Are you Baptist? Not very postmodern. Certain Western metaphysical traditions did and might have regarded it as such, but those were the principal targets of postmodern thinking. Postmodernism is a linguistically oriented thought process - more semantically tuned than logically sound. If you want to be a postmodernist, pay attention to the way YOU structure your own language, and observe how it deconstructs itself. A post.m never speaks with certainty.
Yes, sex is a disgusting act that wasn't created for our benefit. Want to challenge me on that? Look at the rate of disease, overpopulation, etc. All animals do it, not because it is for the greater good or because they are reaching higher spiritual heights through it, but because it is programmed into them to do it. Want to defend that which you have been programmed to do and defend, fine by me. It is animalism at best, in my opinion. And I do not label myself a postmodernist.
@thepostnihilist Well, inorder for your little opinion there to make any sense, you must first define what constitutes a "Disgusting" act, The bottom line is "disgusting" is an abstract concept, it is merely your opinion that perhaps rose out of your experiences but it does not mean sex is a negative experience for everyone nor does it make it disgusting because frankly i have a different definition of that word than you(Probably)
I don't have to do anything. If animals want to keep on having sex, overpopulating the earth, and contributing to their own extinction, who am I to complain? Carry on.
@thepostnihilist My own extinction? i will die one day and so will you...and that also applies to every one on this earth, extinction is inevitable and not reproducing will only bring it forth faster. If you are so insecure that you can;t sum up enough courage to ask a girl out, that is fine, be a virgin all you want but rest assured that you are not preventing extinction.
I am actually a female. And I choose not to continue this conversation. But carry on with both your behavior and your wrong assumptions. Again, who am I to stand in your way? Goodbye.
@thepostnihilist Yeah i will carry on my behavior, i will eat, i will breath, i will have intercourse and so on, And you can carry on beeing an antisocial sad person. bye bye.
@omgitsaghiles I must point you guys to Turritopsis nutricula, the immortal jellyfish, a hydrozoan whose form can revert to the polyp stage after becoming sexually mature. So you are both wrong: thepostnihilist because he thinks that all is immortal, and omgitsaghiles because she doesn't want to become sexually mature and thus, will face extinction, one day, when we'll have assimilated the jellyfish' technique of immortality.
@theCREAPx You mean a chat like that or like literally a chat between Foucault & Chomsky? I ask that because Foucault's dead for some 25 years or something like that. Maybe you know that but on the other hand, maybe you don't.
@FabDN41 yes, because the 'goal' is to modify/change engrained habits of the populus, i.e. work more-spend less, because the living 'mass' is reaching its critical point, historically viewed (7+ billions).
A misconception. Most of relationships in the living world are mutualistic in their essence. That is the only mode of survival, even though it may appear quite opposite.
stuck in this society of perpetual competition, as foucault calls it, which rather fabricates individual through incessant training-competition-assessment (control), the individual becomes a slave of himself. as foucault says, that is the worst kind of servitude.
@FabDN41 Hmmm...now, that depends on your imagination. Also, for a blind person unable to see the sunrise, the sunset etc, it can all be questionable. :)
Couldn't agree more. Looks like for NC there is basically one possible version of "decent society". And, as he manages to package in the first few minutes of the talk, the way to go should be high-tech. So, I guess all those who cannot "fit" into that paradigm and pace of "creativity" - they'll do what??? Be depressed and commit a suicide. Sounds pretty tyrannical to me, just like the PC society. Maybe I'm wrong...
The main "problem" with NC here is the way he relates to something I'd call "intrinsic', if you wish, difference in forms of this what he calls 'creative need' b/w humans. Can you truly 'eliminate' the historic part from any human...and this even from (epi)genetic perspective?? But, then again, the last sentence MF pronounces at the end of part 2 indicates the beginning of an answer to this question. NC looks like a kid next to this guy...
Any "system" can always be viewed as a form of control. As a matter of fact, that is what Foucault argues here. at the end of the part 2 he says: "Il y a la une extrapolation dont je n'arrive pas a trouver la justification historique" (last sentence). And he is right. NC mentions 'the arbitrary limiting effects of coercive institutions". At the same time he did not 'relocate' himself form one institution for over a half century...
@scientrophic what makes you assert "truth" as non-nebulous within science? In so far as your statement can be understood, it is surely not within the realm of the scientific. Therefore your "truth" that 'truth' only exists within science is nebulous by definition.
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.
The meaning of the word "truth" is nebulous outside of science. It seems the French thinkers threw this word around a lot, even Debord in talking about falsity being truth in societies where truth (reality?) is inverted. In science, where Chomsky, and some recent moral thinkers like Sam Harris come from, truth is descriptive of nature. Advances in biology and neuroscience are supporting the idea that human beings and their experience are not excepted from dissection.
@incaayoub Looks like Noam is understanding the French. He is a linguist after all. I've only found one 13 minute clip on Google video but the transcript is available if you google it.
For Marx, notions of justice, morality, etc are not objective (i.e. they do not exist in the absolute). For example, the length of the working day is an issue which is decided in a struggle between labour and capital, between two 'rights' in the market place: (rights of collective capitalists and rights of workers), says Marx, "force decides." (Capital, Ch.10 on the Working Day).
Yes, but Marx was also a strong believer in epistemological rationalism. He based his research in the scientific traditions of the Enlightenment. This is in direct contrast to Foucault.
Marx's theory of a socialist state also has at its core a theory of human nature -- involving sharing and a propensity for cooperation -- that is not that far removed from Chomsky's beliefs on justice.
Chomsky is a classical anarchist & a liberal, in the sense that he believes an inherent human nature exists, 'that this human nature has not been given the possibilities to realize itself' & this idea that humans have a natural, biological, inherent right, or human nature is reflected in his work in linguistics.Foucault, although he is associated with being an anti Marxist, argues something very similar to Marx and that is that notions of justice do not exist independent of human consciousness..
Is the cruelty abundant in the world of human beings, a cruelty that can be considered the most reliable companion in any historical journey, not just a thing we can't get rid off? What if Chomsky was taken from his place of dissent and put in charge, wouldn't that be the dead of Chomsky? Is reality different from macro-political points of view? Is a human life worth anything when you see the world from above?
So according to Foucault the political power is being implemented not just by the State, police or army, but also by psychiatrie, universities, justice, well, any institution you can think of. And I agree. But what is this resistance to it? resistance that is doomed to a language incomprehensible to those it resists. Isn't this struggle just part of this power? And am I, who believed to be from another world, fighting equals? Isn't all power? and reason the logos of power?
I would have to say that foucault owned chomsky here, a fact that confirms, if there was the need for a new confirmation in this respect, the proverbially superficial character of the American Geist.
Chomsky can live anywhere he wants. WHy does he live in US? Why did he take 100,000 from Pentagon while working for MIT? Why does his brother live in multimillion dollar home? WHere does Chomsky donate money because he makes millions (upgrading his fee for speeches post 9/11)? He is a fake and a capitalist. But brainwashed morons don't see it.
I would believe you if everything Chomsky said happened to be false. But since everything he says is demonstrably true, i'll continue funding his evil capitalist ventures.
He is so obviously a man of great character, have some respect.
It is, for instance, pretty suicidal for embattled minorities to embrace Michel Foucault, let alone Jacques Derrida. The minority view was always that power could be undermined by truth... once you read Foucault as saying that truth is simply an effect of power, you’ve had it... but American departments of literature, history and sociology contain large numbers of self described leftists who have confused radical doubts about objectivity with political radicalism, and are in a mess. - Alan Ryan
@RebeccaKnightly1 "The minority view was always" is so disturbing... Actually, Foucault became disillusioned with Marxism, Leftism, Maoism, etc., because he was a thinker and readily allowed new information to change his mind about old ideas ("One makes war to win, not because it's just.") To lump all "embattled minorities" in an unproblematic activist group actually takes away the individual's agency to look at history and make his or her own decisions concerning what truth is or isn't.
@thepostnihilist The fact that we can mention some facts about minorities does not get rid of 'individual agency.' Just like there are facts about our material and biological being, and we don't get to individually choose them. That does not limit freedom however because freedom must fit within the material world, otherwise
we're in cloud cuckoo land.
So why don't you try and explain how, needing truth to defend yourself against power, is contrary to individual agency?
Then perhaps suggest what people can do instead of finding the truth? What would you advise is the best way to combat power? Because you surely must agree that there is a most effective way of fighting back? Also, how would you put these ideas into an actually situation, say that of black rights activists in the 60s.
Or is everything just so subjective that we end up doing nothing but sitting in our rooms talking 'fashionable nonsense' and doing nothing.
@thepostnihilist Apart from flinging a load of po-mo adjectives around, you have not responded to any of the points I mentioned. How can one get anywhere in life unless we can make some BASIC assumptions about other human beings.
Recognising that there are biological facts that determine BASIC things about people, is not "mechanical," it does not reduce freedom or "agency." How can we help starving people without making the assumption that human beings don't want to starve?
This extreme relativism often mascarades as ethical, however what would logically follow from it would be the need (in order to refrian from "mechanical assumptions") to interview everyone single individual in a community to ask them the question 'are you hungry, do you wish you wern't?' 'would you like some assistance?'
How can collective action and resistance happen in a 'post nihilist' framework? Are we beyond beyond caring about the facts of existence? Are there any facts of existenece?
@TheThinkery101 What you call "basic assumptions" sound to me quite rational/analytic (Cartesian/Kantian). It is feasible to argue that precisely WITHOUT "basic assumptions" (analytic concepts or pigeonholes) one can truly interact with people. Pigeonholing stuff cranks explanations but seldom truths.
Also, I think you're laying too much emphasis on the causal connection between our biological nature and its consequences. Can "helping starving people" be deduced from our nature axiomatically?
@Stake2 I don't think you summed up what I said fairly, let me explain why. What I called basic assumptions,
were assumptions that we can make based on a rough understand of what human nature is. So starvation,
is contrary to human nature, even animal nature. And we can make the assumption that people who are in that situation, often at the fault of the west's economic structure, will want aid if they are starving. You can see this is the recent crises in Haiti and Pakistan.
@Stake2 This does not take people's individual freedom or agency away. They will still react in different manners to starvation. But it is to say, you are a member of the human race and we can know certain things about you from that.
So no it has nothing to do with analytical pigeonholes, there is plenty of room for human variety in human nature.
@Stake2 I am happy to be called a materialist under certain circumstances. I am happy to talk about the human mind, it's faculties of reason and abstraction. But within the context of the physical brain and evolution, which is after all what has give rise to these phenomena. That is what I mean when I say freedom must become part of the material world, it won't just be understood through ideal and abstract models proposed by philosophers, although this can be useful to an extent.
@TheThinkery101 I think Damasio has shown in his "Descartes's Error" that humanity cannot be reduced either to the material side or the ideal, abstract, analytic side. My own view is a synthesis: a materialism different from materialistic reductionism (Marxism, positivist science, social sciences), and an idealism different from Cartesian and Kantian philosophy of abstraction, reason and the Ego.
@TheThinkery101 Actually, starvation is not a thing but rather a process that varies but whose ultimate end result we, pace Hume, can predict as a natural process. I'd say it is hard indeed to go beyond biological properties to determine "human" absolutely, and there are even humans with some essential-looking biological properties missing (a mechanically-constructed heart etc.).
@TheThinkery101 Certainly, we die without food and nutrition. My point was, from this it doesn't follow causally that we must support a given policy that provides us with food and nutrition. A society is not possible without them but the practical role of them varies from society to society and era to era. There's no single, final, absolute etc. solution.
@TheThinkery101 You never want people speaking for you who won't allow you your own agency and instead look to the "facts" to determine what you are and what you think according to statistics. People who choose to look at the world in a very mechanical way have a different "truth" than those who don't.
@TheThinkery101 "freedom must fit within the material world" With all due respect, on what grounds do you put "the material world" as primary (before ideal for example)? This is the familiar approach of marxists, an interpretation of mine corroborated by you hailing from the UK.
@RebeccaKnightly1 think about what truth being an effect of power means. foucault said that power doesn't come from the top down, that it saturates all aspects of society, from the lowest to the highest; power as a point of resistance, the opportunity for a counter-strategy. speaking truth to power was what he devoted his life's work to. you take a cheap shot at academics who are sympathetic to theory; but can't you see why knowledge-power would be an attractive idea for embattled minorities?
@gsrs1277 eh? for Foucault any expression of 'truth' was an effect of power. For example, he despised any essentialist notion of humanity, such as Marxist humanism, as it holds that once we topple capitalism our 'true' human nature would come to fruition. Foucault hated this, because what is our 'true' nature? Any notion of our 'true' nature is saturated with power, shaped by discourses etc. And this thought extends to any notion of 'truth'; he was entirely sceptical of 'objective' truth.
Chomsky on postmodernism/deconstructionism: "what I find is extremely pretentious, but on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish."
Why always refer to SOMETHING ELSE, some other body of thought, when the two men THEMSELVES dispense with referrals, and are exposing their views without falling back on the entire history of philosophy. Only Foucault is making sense by the way, and Chom get asswhipped. Did you even spot this?
Sometimes we don't see the forrest through the trees...
Most refreshing to see Foucault keeps it simple, and the reason for it is his view is SUFFICIENTLY powerful.
Just had a look at the source, you were basically disagreeing, criticisng (yes, saying that his argument is "chaos" is criticising and/or condescending, then he/she/it replies:
"Those who willfully align themselves with the will of the master intelligence behind the universe, they alone have the foundation needed to unleash human potential."
you, "gotcha"
Well, if you would insist / agree on such US-post-self-help-religious diatribe, you and your friend's empire building project can go to hell.
@suddenlyitsobvious see, arsehole. writing without editing. youtubes word limit, etc.
"you are a troll"
fuck you (good they don't seem to edit fuck, so no need to write fuk/k, okay)
I don't give a fuck if u understand or not, maybe it is difficult. BUT, meaning is there.
Okay, in that mess:
'What we are doing now is equally narcissistic'.
You didn't get that from my non-edited reply because you didn't want to. You are a serious arsehole. I may be addicted to the engagement; I WOULD PREFER WE
I desire far more, intellectual engagement. So what if I post/ed a million things. Yes, finally on the net; a place where the majority are smart/ intellectual/ or at least pseudo intellectual, instead of the 70, 80 maybe more % who are wickedly stupid. The net COULD be a place where intelligence reins, but people are gonna have to get smarter, and while I absolutely have no responsibility, when I see ignorance; it's just like bad graffiti, but in this case, I can leave a note for the vandal.
Chomsky ONLY speaks from a Bourgeois angle - he is a king of that camp. So many words, so few ideas.
Foucault functioned on the basis of loving little boys, like the Greeks; he talked/ wrote a lot, WAY around that, (perversity or "perversity" that can't really be given the true light of day, mixed with a strong intellect combine for some fascinating ideas) . . . another style of Bourgeois. However, he was very generous to share the stage with Chomsky's little more than pseudo-intellectualism.
@ninjacobra Pas très brillant comme réflexion laisse moi t'aider Foucault est homosexuel j'en ai rien a foutre ce n'est pas de mes affaire. C'est pas moi qui porte un jugement sur son orientaion tu voudrais quoi me faire croire que le de le traiter: d'esti de fife est un acte de respect. Désolé si tu n'est pas un fasciste mais tu en as l'attitude.
A moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity expressing our freedom in creative harmonious cooperation for a world that is so POTENTIALLY AND ACTUALLY nourishing. Capitalism in any form, Statist or Corporatist is the denial of our common humanity in a politically manipulated,tyrannical armed MARKET SYSYTEM of artificial scarcity that is designed to perpetuate the enslavement of immense humanity for material interest of the criminal ruling elite
when asked about deleuze, foucault, hardt, chomsky usually says he only understands some of what they say and that he might be "missing something". I find it hard to believe he's missing anything, rather he doesn't see the need to subscribe to the deleuzian system. Foucault never seems to have a problem working from a deleuzian metaphysical or epistemological base. I'd be more interested in a discussion of language between deleuze and chomsky.
when asked about deleuze, foucault, hardt, chomsky usually says he only understands some of what they say and that he might be "missing something". I find it hard to believe he's missing anything, rather he doesn't see the need to subscribe to the deleuzian system. Foucault never seems to have a problem working from a deleuzian metaphysical or epistemological base. I'd be more interested in a discussion of language between deleuze and chomsky.
Foucault, as with all rest of the generation of 68, adds two other Fascisms to the obvious list - the Academy & Medicine (particularly Psychiatry), and would likely have gone on to speak of the hidden Fascisms of taste, disposition, attitude, opinion that are inculcated & controlled by the market/state apparatus...He would go further to state that desire ITSELF is a norm that is shaped to extend and reinforce the more obvious Fascims. Nice, but we're still wage slaves; our water's dirty.
@musicalidea Free yourself from talking so loud and saying almost nothing, just a wee bit, and maybe you won't feel like such a slave. And violent revolution; that's the only way you'll help make change, (at least in the near future) .
While Chomsky's Anarcho-Syndicalism is far-fetched, inasmuch as what it seeks to achieve would be immediately reversed by those able to concentrate capital and force (I am a Statist), Foucault - quite familiar with the Anarcho-Syndicalists in France at the time, some of whom resided in his own dept at Vicennes - advocates that unfortunate abdication of the analyst from practical proposals, inserting a praxis of Critique rather than of Program. All Programs oppress, he vies; this gets us nowhere.
@musicalidea He just wants the freedom to fuck little boys, especially Persian eunuchs. Read between the lines and stop being so bloated. You seem kinda smart, somewhere behind all those words.
@persianprincessacu I aptly summarized the basic difference between what amounts to the Liberal Humanism of Chomsky and the Anti-essentialist Constructionist tendency of Foucault. I then stated my view that this leads - rather ironically - Foucault to concern himself more with the analysis of the premises of the unsaid tenants and truths of the powerful rather than with an actual program for social betterment, which is more Chomsky's focus. The only one not following the arguments here is YOU!
@musicalidea You are wrong. "Social betterment" is as attainable following Foucaults ideas, if not more so. Unfortunately, w/ Fou, probably requires a society of responsible people and at least an above shithead consciousness of her citizens. Whereas the good, little Jew boy bodes well for the (current) finger pointing, 'you must', dogmatic scenario. If we cannot even philosophise about a world in which people carry the higher level of responsibility, then how can it happen - in our dreams only?
@persianprincessacu I disagree with this analysis of Noam Chomsky, of whom you have so 'eruditely' refered to as 'Jew Boy'. His analysis of authoritarian structures, foreign policies and political systems highlights atrocities in which we would never even know about, which in turn isn't even touched upon within the works of Foucault. If we are to be serious about notions of justice, and responsibilty of intellectuals, Chomsky hasn't abstained from them, but spent his career to fulfilling them.
@musicalidea PS. I have to admit to not watching the debate, yet :) I felt like I understood enough after a few catch phrases were thrown around, and I am at least a little familiar with the ummings and arrr. . .arr ..arrrings of Chomsky, and more familiar with The History of Sexuality, 3 persian eunuch, cock-sucking volumes. But not watching doesn't mean that I couldn't see you were full of shit. Oh, sorry sir, is it wrong that I had interest in the comments, as much or more than with the vid?
@TehHipstz0r Well, why are they on stage together? Chomsky's smart, but for academia at least, Foucault is a demi-god. The yank is very lucky he deigned . . .
In our world we don't see this level of debate anymore.
Note that Chomsky gets owned.
Foucault points out that the real problem is elite control and that without sanitizing the basis of our corrupt society, continuing to build on the same roots creates exponential amounts of error/oppression/problems.
Chomsky of course advocates moving on without looking back, meaning he doesn't have an absolute reference frame and no moral base.
@suddenlyitsobvious I argue that all arbitrarily defined foundations of morality do not constitute a sufficient foundation for moving forward and letting human society blossom in love. Defining and analyzing all possible rules then deciding which ones are the best ones and why through debate is an impossible task. Chomsky clearly understands that with a foundation in God on is able to drop everything and move forward gracefully without having to look back.
After your first sentence your argument drifts into obscure chaos.
Chom understands that with a foundation in God we can move on gracefully?
God NEVER enters into Chom's discourse so I have no clue what u mean.
Moving forward without having to look back is indeed what Chom wants becos he has no interest in revisiting the numerous crime scenes of the past that form the foundation and the sine qua non for an even worse future society.
@suddenlyitsobvious I admit I'm diverging a bit from Chomsky into my own point of view here. What I am saying is that all arbitrarily defined foundations of morality serve only to limit the expression of human potential. An arbitrarily defined frame of moral reference will always be like a house build on sand. Those who willfully align themselves with the will of the master intelligence behind the universe, they alone have the foundation needed to unleash human potential.
@suddenlyitsobvious Did you really get it, or just want the person to shut-up!? :) I always insist to not take things out of context, but a phrase like "master intelligence", is like saying "I lick my yummy arse". It's fucked. Why start if you're not gonna go a bit further? I haven't read much here, but so far, you win for smartness.
Wow, are you actually talking to EVERYONE, leaving random comments in the hope of harvesting reactions? OK, why not...
Yes, I did get what forgotaboutbre said, and though I wouldn't have used "master-intelligence" myself, he was no doubt referring to his understanding of "God", which fortunately isn't a fundamentalistic one, excluding "YHWH".
I saw your statement below about MF fukking little boys. Though no doubt a perv,
@persianprincessacu When I say "Master Intelligence" I am speaking of God, who I believe to be an eternal imagination who spends eternity discovering the never-ending possibilities of infinity. Forever novel stimulus, never not more, this is the guarantee of forever and really the only rational reason I can imagine creation having any purpose. Every thing is an expression of The Artist in his never ending exploration of novelty. I hope that clears things up a bit for you.
@forgotaboutbre You need to stop the drugs, or take a whole bunch. Your current state seems infeasible. For those that need religion, like Richard Gere, I suggest to start with buddhism - start with appreciating the here and now. No matter how much you COULD or did suffer, don't unload on an imaginary God. Hats off that you seem past unloading on that poor Jesus guy. Just for clarification; is this god, is it . . . you?? Not, r u a part of it, are you IT, god itself? I reckon you're projecting
What people often don't realize, making fun of God, the big "skydaddy", is that they THEMSELVES are believers in a schizo atheist/scientific worldview. Belief in Darwin and even Copernicus and all those scifi hotshots in reality involves uncritical belief in unavowed METAPHYSICAL assumptions. People simply take anything for granted they are told by authority, by science, not realizing they are DE FACTO believers, which is why they scorn belief in or awareness of God.
@suddenlyitsobvious Who are you talking to?I may or may not make fun of god- I do know better than most religious people, it seems, that by their own definitions of God,"he" wants us to have the liberty 2 at least make fun of him. "HE" is well above that & certainly not upset by something so trivial. And the rest of what you are saying, who the hell are you talking to, because it has nothing to do with what I said or believe. I, from birth - as little swayed by atheist/science or the religious.
You'll find people are addressed with the @ sign on forums.
"I may or may not make fun of god"
It is clear to see in your post to aboutbre that you have a VERY big issue with his awareness of a higher principle. I was merely pointing that typically people having such issues are THEMSELVES believers in an authoritative system based on assumptions.
Aboutbre's last post wasn't confused at all, as is yours. So OK, you're...
@suddenlyitsobvious I'm SURE that I was supportive of a post of yours. In that, I was the most wrong I have been on this forum. You are an idiot. The rhetorical "who r u talking to" was made extremely clear. U missed the point, so once more. You were arguing (mostly) moot points with me, not replying to me. And there is most likely no higher power. And in this world, whenever someone refers to that myth, they are trying to disarm the progress that every responsible, thinking person tries at ac
You'll find that when I first came on this forum, I left a SUBSTANTIVE message. You complain about ubiquitous substandard intellectual engagement, are obviously quite frustrated about this, and I'd go as far as to say I understand that perfectly.
However, in all the posts you left, there is NO TRACE of a conception or a thought you want to introduce into the collective. You add NOTHING, but are looking for intellectual stimulation. Why don't YOU stimulate for once?
@suddenlyitsobvious I have to go to sleep. You are ridiculous. Please, go and take votes that you stimulate and I do not. I will not care if you win, 100 votes to 0. (Of course it wouldn't be that marked). I stimulate some very stimulating people, and that is enough. Yes, I am here for fun. In most interactions, I add a hell of a lot. Getting to those sick motivations behind the crap people say . . .
@suddenlyitsobvious Silly bastard. The vote thing was the most throwaway thing. Saying silly things in reply to what I perceive as ridiculous things you said, then you throwing that back as though it were important to me! R u aware of it? Remember that clichés range between little and very much truth: That you accused me of wanting reactions. Projection, no?Ha ha. Jokes on me; you loved getting me worked-up. That's really worthless and lame. Please attack some stupid person, stupidity deserves
"Silly bastard. The vote thing was the most throwaway thing."
Well, much of what you say is throwaway. I am starting to see in amazement how you turn EVERYTHING around. Yes, you are indeed PROJECTING, and ALL THE TIME!
I loved getting YOU worked up?
You see? YOU are the one trying to get people worked up, as is very clear by your spamming technique. It didn't work on me, and the tables are now turned.
I AM VERY calm my little princess? How do you like THAT? He he he
@suddenlyitsobvious Maybe could have respected your intelligence enough to accept yr criticism. But the large amount of, again, projection, therefore ASSUMPTION you've made is a real shame. As we maybe could have engaged in something where you actually did help teach me something. I am amazed at how much you do it.
@suddenlyitsobvious I never said it was yr responsibility. And please, a moment of ceasefire; don't use that "spam" attack on me. I read people's musings, I take them on board, and I respond individually. Here is by far the most I have ever done it; it has nothing to do with spam. You should stop the low blows, particularly the ones that are completely untrue.
Now, u r horrible, u have started stealing my ideas - u do envy me - that "responsibility" idea was purely my idea, from earlier
@suddenlyitsobvious ah I get it. I see. It is better ONLY to make a claim about the rest of the world! ??? So when we talk from our perspective, about ourselves . . . what, the more +ve it is, it becomes the most atrocious thing!?!?!? You are sick, it's true. Why the hell should I have a problem knowing how intelligent I am? I understand from the inside the suffering that higher intelligence brings. Not from attacking other people w/ THEIR ideas (which has been yr tactic since we started).
The problem here is, that intelligent people typically make intelligent statements. You didn't, indicating that you may merely THINK or DREAM that you are.
Intelligent people can produce intelligible discourse. You don't. just look at this:
"ah I get it. I see. It is better ONLY to make a claim about the rest of the world! ??? So when we talk from our perspective, about ourselves . . ."
@suddenlyitsobvious :) Why do you want me to crack. Strange, and now we see your crack showing with the question or affirmation problem. I do not want you to crack. That is not what I am about. If I were insecure, I would be trying to defend myself. Instead, I am hoping that we get to the point of compromise. Yes, I have emotional responses to your ridiculousness; it seems I have something you envy. Don't. I suffer immeasurably due to this (strongly) emotional intelligence I possess.
"I suffer immeasurably due to this (strongly) emotional intelligence I possess. "
Are you JOKING? I'm sorry, this sounds simply EXTREMELY narcissistic to me, and quite ridiculous really, considering how YOU spam people with total disregard for THEIR sensitivities. I am sorry but you are just a troll, and I hope you are just being provocative and don't actually take your own shit seriously...
Erratic and chaotic are not as faulty as you would like to believe, and you are grossly exaggerating because you are upset. The narcissistic thing: um, if anybody is gonna come here on the net, write, getting into arguments, um, methinks we all have egos with identical (you seem to think HUGE problems), I would say that our egos r identical in that they are; 2010, people arguing/ criticising on youtube. You were,no, you r
"The narcissistic thing: um, if anybody is gonna come here on the net, write, getting into arguments, um, methinks we all have egos with identical (you seem to think HUGE problems), I would say that our egos r identical in that they are;"
Whether you are not doing this on purpose, or not, in both cases there's a problem here. There is certainly no reason to boast your intelligence, this much is certain...
@suddenlyitsobvious One last thing. You are a total arsehole 4 being upset. TOTAL piece of shit. I criticised someone, let them defend/attack as they wish. But u came on not as, smarter than thou (which is fun), but HOLIER than thou.
I don't scout youtube to "protect" others. I agree w/ good opinions and "hate on" dumb shit. You r some fucker who thinks you r MR. GOOD, started some shit w/ me, used all my arguments (projection, eg.), blindly & zealously attacked, driven by (yr) god knows what
You have produced NO CONTENT, NO substance and are very much in denial of your own situation. You are not in a position to exchange, and your prose and reasonings are alarmingly disconnected.
Your insults and provocations are indicative of even more problems.
You've been had at your own game. Face it: I am not upset. You are.
interesting trivia: after the debate Chomsky called Foucault the most immoral man he ever met. Foucault had accepted to do it only if he would receive a block of hashish in compensation after the debate (which he then called the Chomsky-hashish) ∆thx, calle!∆
DaNeedle 1 month ago
@DaNeedle haha source?
2029AD 1 month ago
@DaNeedle is this trivia gossip or documented? If yes, I want to see your sources!
mellkiades 1 week ago
A problem in this part of Foucault's speech is that the people in the government are the same or at least have the same interests as those in the Instituicions he criticizes.
viniii12345 2 months ago
@viniii12345 that is not a problem in his speech, infact he takes that as a given, in other words he does not need to adress it as much as the other institutions because it has already been adressed befor
omgitsaghiles 1 month ago
@viniii12345
What I got from philosophy at the university about Foucault is that he feels power is decentralized. Chomsky thinks it's centralized. The problem is Chomsky is talking about a sort of legislative power, while Foucaults power is abstract. It's the conformity-enforcing, the self-perpetuating nature of power itself. The tendency of people to normalize and the reactionary nature of things. It's hard to describe and I'm sure I don't completely understand it myself.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 1 month ago
@viniii12345 and that is exactly what he says, so really, I don't see your point here.
mellkiades 1 week ago
@mellkiades I mean those instituions he says "which seem to have nothing in common with political power". Foucalt says that the government should criticize the bad working of these institutions so they will be unmasked, but how is this possible when these institutions are actually connected to the government? He problably knows that but it is not clearly stated in this part of the speech.
viniii12345 3 days ago
@viniii12345 Hi Viniii, you misunderstood what he said. He never once said that the government should criticize the bad working of these institutions. He said "me, you, as a citizen, must criticize the bad working of these institutions, and he implied that it also included the government." He implied this by clearly explaining that these institutions are giving the impression that they are independant from the government, but they aren't in reality.
mellkiades 2 days ago
Foucault is a big pooey plopping poo stabber
callmeal84 3 months ago
@callmeal84
You are below him: a flea biting his ankle.
thepostnihilist 3 months ago
@thepostnihilist
What the Foucault? Foucault is a Pomo homo.
callmeal84 3 months ago
that young man on 0:22 is hawwwwt...
jazzbassmatt4 3 months ago
Foucault was gay and had AIDS, he also infected people with his illness on purpose. He was a bad man.
callmeal84 3 months ago
@callmeal84
I guess this would be believable, except for the obvious way in which humans are designed: to want and enjoy disgusting acts, such as sex and reproduction. It is built into how we operate; how we think. It is as natural as relieving oneself of body waste. To give into our unfortunate situation does not make one a "bad man," only a weak one, in some respects. Don't speak so surely about things you don't know.
thepostnihilist 3 months ago
@thepostnihilist
Do you call it postnihilism because you can deliver it in the mail?
callmeal84 3 months ago
Comment removed
thepostnihilist 3 months ago
@thepostnihilist Sex is a disgusting act? Are you Baptist? Not very postmodern. Certain Western metaphysical traditions did and might have regarded it as such, but those were the principal targets of postmodern thinking. Postmodernism is a linguistically oriented thought process - more semantically tuned than logically sound. If you want to be a postmodernist, pay attention to the way YOU structure your own language, and observe how it deconstructs itself. A post.m never speaks with certainty.
MrHsmauberley 2 months ago
@MrHsmauberley
Yes, sex is a disgusting act that wasn't created for our benefit. Want to challenge me on that? Look at the rate of disease, overpopulation, etc. All animals do it, not because it is for the greater good or because they are reaching higher spiritual heights through it, but because it is programmed into them to do it. Want to defend that which you have been programmed to do and defend, fine by me. It is animalism at best, in my opinion. And I do not label myself a postmodernist.
thepostnihilist 2 months ago
@thepostnihilist I want to put my penis in your butt
SharinganMan 2 months ago
@thepostnihilist Well, inorder for your little opinion there to make any sense, you must first define what constitutes a "Disgusting" act, The bottom line is "disgusting" is an abstract concept, it is merely your opinion that perhaps rose out of your experiences but it does not mean sex is a negative experience for everyone nor does it make it disgusting because frankly i have a different definition of that word than you(Probably)
omgitsaghiles 1 month ago
@omgitsaghiles
I don't have to do anything. If animals want to keep on having sex, overpopulating the earth, and contributing to their own extinction, who am I to complain? Carry on.
thepostnihilist 1 month ago
@thepostnihilist My own extinction? i will die one day and so will you...and that also applies to every one on this earth, extinction is inevitable and not reproducing will only bring it forth faster. If you are so insecure that you can;t sum up enough courage to ask a girl out, that is fine, be a virgin all you want but rest assured that you are not preventing extinction.
omgitsaghiles 1 month ago
@omgitsaghiles
I am actually a female. And I choose not to continue this conversation. But carry on with both your behavior and your wrong assumptions. Again, who am I to stand in your way? Goodbye.
thepostnihilist 1 month ago
@thepostnihilist Yeah i will carry on my behavior, i will eat, i will breath, i will have intercourse and so on, And you can carry on beeing an antisocial sad person. bye bye.
omgitsaghiles 1 month ago
@omgitsaghiles I must point you guys to Turritopsis nutricula, the immortal jellyfish, a hydrozoan whose form can revert to the polyp stage after becoming sexually mature. So you are both wrong: thepostnihilist because he thinks that all is immortal, and omgitsaghiles because she doesn't want to become sexually mature and thus, will face extinction, one day, when we'll have assimilated the jellyfish' technique of immortality.
mellkiades 1 week ago
0:20: Thurston Moore looks puzzled
murderbitch0 3 months ago
Lol they act like they had anything to do with the technological innovation brought about by capitalism.
zwdog1122 5 months ago
Foucault was gay
callmeal84 6 months ago
@callmeal84 And this is relevant because?
dwees2 3 months ago
@dwees2 Because callmeal84 is personally involved in the incident.
GentleGinjeet 3 months ago
@callmeal84 grow up
ryanhutchings 3 months ago
i think they should do that chat again, just to make the people aware that it is still not over
theCREAPx 6 months ago
@theCREAPx You mean a chat like that or like literally a chat between Foucault & Chomsky? I ask that because Foucault's dead for some 25 years or something like that. Maybe you know that but on the other hand, maybe you don't.
TheRacistsMustDie 6 months ago
@FabDN41 yes, because the 'goal' is to modify/change engrained habits of the populus, i.e. work more-spend less, because the living 'mass' is reaching its critical point, historically viewed (7+ billions).
hernamine38 7 months ago
@FabDN41 are you truly convinced that the PC society is "medium-mildly coercive"??? only at the very first glance...or if you are a prey of it...
hernamine38 7 months ago
@FabDN41 it is, in fact, one of the most potent tools of the free thinking destruction.
hernamine38 7 months ago
@FabDN41 maybe..."non-conceived" to you because you cannot perceive it; however, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
hernamine38 7 months ago
@FabDN41
There is no thing that is irrelevant. It's a value category.
hernamine38 7 months ago
@FabDN41
A misconception. Most of relationships in the living world are mutualistic in their essence. That is the only mode of survival, even though it may appear quite opposite.
hernamine38 7 months ago
stuck in this society of perpetual competition, as foucault calls it, which rather fabricates individual through incessant training-competition-assessment (control), the individual becomes a slave of himself. as foucault says, that is the worst kind of servitude.
hernamine38 7 months ago
@FabDN41 Hmmm...now, that depends on your imagination. Also, for a blind person unable to see the sunrise, the sunset etc, it can all be questionable. :)
hernamine38 7 months ago
@FabDN41
Couldn't agree more. Looks like for NC there is basically one possible version of "decent society". And, as he manages to package in the first few minutes of the talk, the way to go should be high-tech. So, I guess all those who cannot "fit" into that paradigm and pace of "creativity" - they'll do what??? Be depressed and commit a suicide. Sounds pretty tyrannical to me, just like the PC society. Maybe I'm wrong...
hernamine38 7 months ago
The main "problem" with NC here is the way he relates to something I'd call "intrinsic', if you wish, difference in forms of this what he calls 'creative need' b/w humans. Can you truly 'eliminate' the historic part from any human...and this even from (epi)genetic perspective?? But, then again, the last sentence MF pronounces at the end of part 2 indicates the beginning of an answer to this question. NC looks like a kid next to this guy...
hernamine38 7 months ago 2
@FabDN41
Any "system" can always be viewed as a form of control. As a matter of fact, that is what Foucault argues here. at the end of the part 2 he says: "Il y a la une extrapolation dont je n'arrive pas a trouver la justification historique" (last sentence). And he is right. NC mentions 'the arbitrary limiting effects of coercive institutions". At the same time he did not 'relocate' himself form one institution for over a half century...
hernamine38 7 months ago
@FabDN41
I completely agree. And, to paraphrase Foucault, we are busily and ignorantly assisting in the enslavement of ourselves.
thepostnihilist 7 months ago
foucault's a faggot.
agents1986 8 months ago
@agents1986
Try to post comments that are intellectually stimulating - otherwise, people might think you're an idiot.
thepostnihilist 8 months ago
@scientrophic what makes you assert "truth" as non-nebulous within science? In so far as your statement can be understood, it is surely not within the realm of the scientific. Therefore your "truth" that 'truth' only exists within science is nebulous by definition.
pinfactoryworker 8 months ago
who is at 1:69 ?? I recognize his face
incaayoub 8 months ago
Lol @ the college kids in the audience trying to look intellectual.
stratman06 9 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 9 months ago
The meaning of the word "truth" is nebulous outside of science. It seems the French thinkers threw this word around a lot, even Debord in talking about falsity being truth in societies where truth (reality?) is inverted. In science, where Chomsky, and some recent moral thinkers like Sam Harris come from, truth is descriptive of nature. Advances in biology and neuroscience are supporting the idea that human beings and their experience are not excepted from dissection.
scientrophic 9 months ago
two questions: Is Chomsky understanding French here or is there a simultaneous translator?
and is it impossible to find the full version ?
incaayoub 10 months ago
@incaayoub Looks like Noam is understanding the French. He is a linguist after all. I've only found one 13 minute clip on Google video but the transcript is available if you google it.
jeffreyhsykes 9 months ago
hahah christopher hitchens in audience
pustolov9 10 months ago
@pustolov9 Really? Where?
owenhunt 10 months ago
@pustolov9 Sartre in the house as well!
jeffreyhsykes 9 months ago
For Marx, notions of justice, morality, etc are not objective (i.e. they do not exist in the absolute). For example, the length of the working day is an issue which is decided in a struggle between labour and capital, between two 'rights' in the market place: (rights of collective capitalists and rights of workers), says Marx, "force decides." (Capital, Ch.10 on the Working Day).
iiNDiTC 10 months ago
@iiNDiTC
Yes, but Marx was also a strong believer in epistemological rationalism. He based his research in the scientific traditions of the Enlightenment. This is in direct contrast to Foucault.
Marx's theory of a socialist state also has at its core a theory of human nature -- involving sharing and a propensity for cooperation -- that is not that far removed from Chomsky's beliefs on justice.
bensmith3200 10 months ago
Chomsky is a classical anarchist & a liberal, in the sense that he believes an inherent human nature exists, 'that this human nature has not been given the possibilities to realize itself' & this idea that humans have a natural, biological, inherent right, or human nature is reflected in his work in linguistics.Foucault, although he is associated with being an anti Marxist, argues something very similar to Marx and that is that notions of justice do not exist independent of human consciousness..
iiNDiTC 10 months ago
Is the cruelty abundant in the world of human beings, a cruelty that can be considered the most reliable companion in any historical journey, not just a thing we can't get rid off? What if Chomsky was taken from his place of dissent and put in charge, wouldn't that be the dead of Chomsky? Is reality different from macro-political points of view? Is a human life worth anything when you see the world from above?
wavesspeak 11 months ago
So according to Foucault the political power is being implemented not just by the State, police or army, but also by psychiatrie, universities, justice, well, any institution you can think of. And I agree. But what is this resistance to it? resistance that is doomed to a language incomprehensible to those it resists. Isn't this struggle just part of this power? And am I, who believed to be from another world, fighting equals? Isn't all power? and reason the logos of power?
wavesspeak 11 months ago
@eaglepies
I don't like zoos but I will argue that a troop of chimps hunting is far more artistic than a troop of humans discussing paintings.
funkmystar 11 months ago
I would have to say that foucault owned chomsky here, a fact that confirms, if there was the need for a new confirmation in this respect, the proverbially superficial character of the American Geist.
nndlchModi 11 months ago
. . . the gentleman that appears around 1:30 is Peter O'Toole's father. . .
PunkysDilema1970 11 months ago
Foucault rejects the title of postmodernist just like North Korea rejects the title of dictatorship.
gamerunknown 1 year ago
arada izleyip kendimi zeki hissediyorum, yetiyor
likepiano 1 year ago
Get over yourselves, all we are are chimps with a few DNA alterations. Its ok not to understand.
funkmystar 1 year ago
@funkmystar you reductionist fool. go to a zoo, then to an art museum. you'll see the difference i hope.
eaglepies 11 months ago
Chomsky can live anywhere he wants. WHy does he live in US? Why did he take 100,000 from Pentagon while working for MIT? Why does his brother live in multimillion dollar home? WHere does Chomsky donate money because he makes millions (upgrading his fee for speeches post 9/11)? He is a fake and a capitalist. But brainwashed morons don't see it.
BushidoCode72 1 year ago
@BushidoCode72
I would believe you if everything Chomsky said happened to be false. But since everything he says is demonstrably true, i'll continue funding his evil capitalist ventures.
He is so obviously a man of great character, have some respect.
Dymdez 11 months ago
@BushidoCode72
I dunno. As far as brainwashed professors are concerned, chomsky is a comparative god.
Take that any way you want
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 11 months ago
who is that person in 1:30?
anubis1405 1 year ago
Comment removed
sasquash12 1 year ago
Comment removed
sasquash12 1 year ago
It is, for instance, pretty suicidal for embattled minorities to embrace Michel Foucault, let alone Jacques Derrida. The minority view was always that power could be undermined by truth... once you read Foucault as saying that truth is simply an effect of power, you’ve had it... but American departments of literature, history and sociology contain large numbers of self described leftists who have confused radical doubts about objectivity with political radicalism, and are in a mess. - Alan Ryan
RebeccaKnightly1 1 year ago 18
@RebeccaKnightly1 I couldn't agree more Rebecca.
xpressivist 1 year ago
@RebeccaKnightly1 "The minority view was always" is so disturbing... Actually, Foucault became disillusioned with Marxism, Leftism, Maoism, etc., because he was a thinker and readily allowed new information to change his mind about old ideas ("One makes war to win, not because it's just.") To lump all "embattled minorities" in an unproblematic activist group actually takes away the individual's agency to look at history and make his or her own decisions concerning what truth is or isn't.
thepostnihilist 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheThinkery101 1 year ago
@thepostnihilist The fact that we can mention some facts about minorities does not get rid of 'individual agency.' Just like there are facts about our material and biological being, and we don't get to individually choose them. That does not limit freedom however because freedom must fit within the material world, otherwise
we're in cloud cuckoo land.
So why don't you try and explain how, needing truth to defend yourself against power, is contrary to individual agency?
TheThinkery101 1 year ago
Then perhaps suggest what people can do instead of finding the truth? What would you advise is the best way to combat power? Because you surely must agree that there is a most effective way of fighting back? Also, how would you put these ideas into an actually situation, say that of black rights activists in the 60s.
Or is everything just so subjective that we end up doing nothing but sitting in our rooms talking 'fashionable nonsense' and doing nothing.
TheThinkery101 1 year ago
@TheThinkery101 A mechanical truth is only true to mechanical people.
thepostnihilist 1 year ago
@thepostnihilist Apart from flinging a load of po-mo adjectives around, you have not responded to any of the points I mentioned. How can one get anywhere in life unless we can make some BASIC assumptions about other human beings.
Recognising that there are biological facts that determine BASIC things about people, is not "mechanical," it does not reduce freedom or "agency." How can we help starving people without making the assumption that human beings don't want to starve?
TheThinkery101 1 year ago
This extreme relativism often mascarades as ethical, however what would logically follow from it would be the need (in order to refrian from "mechanical assumptions") to interview everyone single individual in a community to ask them the question 'are you hungry, do you wish you wern't?' 'would you like some assistance?'
How can collective action and resistance happen in a 'post nihilist' framework? Are we beyond beyond caring about the facts of existence? Are there any facts of existenece?
TheThinkery101 1 year ago
@TheThinkery101 What you call "basic assumptions" sound to me quite rational/analytic (Cartesian/Kantian). It is feasible to argue that precisely WITHOUT "basic assumptions" (analytic concepts or pigeonholes) one can truly interact with people. Pigeonholing stuff cranks explanations but seldom truths.
Also, I think you're laying too much emphasis on the causal connection between our biological nature and its consequences. Can "helping starving people" be deduced from our nature axiomatically?
Stake2 1 year ago
@Stake2 I don't think you summed up what I said fairly, let me explain why. What I called basic assumptions,
were assumptions that we can make based on a rough understand of what human nature is. So starvation,
is contrary to human nature, even animal nature. And we can make the assumption that people who are in that situation, often at the fault of the west's economic structure, will want aid if they are starving. You can see this is the recent crises in Haiti and Pakistan.
TheThinkery101 1 year ago
@Stake2 This does not take people's individual freedom or agency away. They will still react in different manners to starvation. But it is to say, you are a member of the human race and we can know certain things about you from that.
So no it has nothing to do with analytical pigeonholes, there is plenty of room for human variety in human nature.
TheThinkery101 1 year ago
@Stake2 I am happy to be called a materialist under certain circumstances. I am happy to talk about the human mind, it's faculties of reason and abstraction. But within the context of the physical brain and evolution, which is after all what has give rise to these phenomena. That is what I mean when I say freedom must become part of the material world, it won't just be understood through ideal and abstract models proposed by philosophers, although this can be useful to an extent.
TheThinkery101 1 year ago
@TheThinkery101 I think Damasio has shown in his "Descartes's Error" that humanity cannot be reduced either to the material side or the ideal, abstract, analytic side. My own view is a synthesis: a materialism different from materialistic reductionism (Marxism, positivist science, social sciences), and an idealism different from Cartesian and Kantian philosophy of abstraction, reason and the Ego.
Stake2 1 year ago
@TheThinkery101 Actually, starvation is not a thing but rather a process that varies but whose ultimate end result we, pace Hume, can predict as a natural process. I'd say it is hard indeed to go beyond biological properties to determine "human" absolutely, and there are even humans with some essential-looking biological properties missing (a mechanically-constructed heart etc.).
Stake2 1 year ago
@TheThinkery101 Certainly, we die without food and nutrition. My point was, from this it doesn't follow causally that we must support a given policy that provides us with food and nutrition. A society is not possible without them but the practical role of them varies from society to society and era to era. There's no single, final, absolute etc. solution.
Stake2 1 year ago
@TheThinkery101 You never want people speaking for you who won't allow you your own agency and instead look to the "facts" to determine what you are and what you think according to statistics. People who choose to look at the world in a very mechanical way have a different "truth" than those who don't.
thepostnihilist 1 year ago
@TheThinkery101 "freedom must fit within the material world" With all due respect, on what grounds do you put "the material world" as primary (before ideal for example)? This is the familiar approach of marxists, an interpretation of mine corroborated by you hailing from the UK.
Stake2 1 year ago
@RebeccaKnightly1 think about what truth being an effect of power means. foucault said that power doesn't come from the top down, that it saturates all aspects of society, from the lowest to the highest; power as a point of resistance, the opportunity for a counter-strategy. speaking truth to power was what he devoted his life's work to. you take a cheap shot at academics who are sympathetic to theory; but can't you see why knowledge-power would be an attractive idea for embattled minorities?
gsrs1277 11 months ago 18
@gsrs1277
yes!
thepostnihilist 11 months ago
@gsrs1277 eh? for Foucault any expression of 'truth' was an effect of power. For example, he despised any essentialist notion of humanity, such as Marxist humanism, as it holds that once we topple capitalism our 'true' human nature would come to fruition. Foucault hated this, because what is our 'true' nature? Any notion of our 'true' nature is saturated with power, shaped by discourses etc. And this thought extends to any notion of 'truth'; he was entirely sceptical of 'objective' truth.
a02lubil 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Chomsky on postmodernism/deconstructionism: "what I find is extremely pretentious, but on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish."
xpressivist 1 year ago 3
That's it, I'm learning French. Starting right now!
Mattyd242 1 year ago
Yeah, you go Foucault
ElNinoPgh 1 year ago
suddenlyitsobvious that I love cock in my mouth and arse, but only while being pissed and shat on. Now, finally, I projected :)
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
Comment removed
ULFHEDNNIR 1 year ago
Why always refer to SOMETHING ELSE, some other body of thought, when the two men THEMSELVES dispense with referrals, and are exposing their views without falling back on the entire history of philosophy. Only Foucault is making sense by the way, and Chom get asswhipped. Did you even spot this?
Sometimes we don't see the forrest through the trees...
Most refreshing to see Foucault keeps it simple, and the reason for it is his view is SUFFICIENTLY powerful.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
Just had a look at the source, you were basically disagreeing, criticisng (yes, saying that his argument is "chaos" is criticising and/or condescending, then he/she/it replies:
"Those who willfully align themselves with the will of the master intelligence behind the universe, they alone have the foundation needed to unleash human potential."
you, "gotcha"
Well, if you would insist / agree on such US-post-self-help-religious diatribe, you and your friend's empire building project can go to hell.
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
*whether you are doing this on purpose, or not
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious see, arsehole. writing without editing. youtubes word limit, etc.
"you are a troll"
fuck you (good they don't seem to edit fuck, so no need to write fuk/k, okay)
I don't give a fuck if u understand or not, maybe it is difficult. BUT, meaning is there.
Okay, in that mess:
'What we are doing now is equally narcissistic'.
You didn't get that from my non-edited reply because you didn't want to. You are a serious arsehole. I may be addicted to the engagement; I WOULD PREFER WE
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
*correction:
I am VERY CALM my little... was an AFFIRMATION, not a question.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
I desire far more, intellectual engagement. So what if I post/ed a million things. Yes, finally on the net; a place where the majority are smart/ intellectual/ or at least pseudo intellectual, instead of the 70, 80 maybe more % who are wickedly stupid. The net COULD be a place where intelligence reins, but people are gonna have to get smarter, and while I absolutely have no responsibility, when I see ignorance; it's just like bad graffiti, but in this case, I can leave a note for the vandal.
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
Chomsky ONLY speaks from a Bourgeois angle - he is a king of that camp. So many words, so few ideas.
Foucault functioned on the basis of loving little boys, like the Greeks; he talked/ wrote a lot, WAY around that, (perversity or "perversity" that can't really be given the true light of day, mixed with a strong intellect combine for some fascinating ideas) . . . another style of Bourgeois. However, he was very generous to share the stage with Chomsky's little more than pseudo-intellectualism.
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@ninjacobra Ouais pis en quoi ça nous concerne. Est tu un fasciste petit troll !
ULFHEDNNIR 1 year ago
@ULFHEDNNIR Et toi.
ninjacobra 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ninjacobra Pas très brillant comme réflexion laisse moi t'aider Foucault est homosexuel j'en ai rien a foutre ce n'est pas de mes affaire. C'est pas moi qui porte un jugement sur son orientaion tu voudrais quoi me faire croire que le de le traiter: d'esti de fife est un acte de respect. Désolé si tu n'est pas un fasciste mais tu en as l'attitude.
ULFHEDNNIR 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity expressing our freedom in creative harmonious cooperation for a world that is so POTENTIALLY AND ACTUALLY nourishing. Capitalism in any form, Statist or Corporatist is the denial of our common humanity in a politically manipulated,tyrannical armed MARKET SYSYTEM of artificial scarcity that is designed to perpetuate the enslavement of immense humanity for material interest of the criminal ruling elite
arzoyan 1 year ago
when asked about deleuze, foucault, hardt, chomsky usually says he only understands some of what they say and that he might be "missing something". I find it hard to believe he's missing anything, rather he doesn't see the need to subscribe to the deleuzian system. Foucault never seems to have a problem working from a deleuzian metaphysical or epistemological base. I'd be more interested in a discussion of language between deleuze and chomsky.
Urdoxa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
when asked about deleuze, foucault, hardt, chomsky usually says he only understands some of what they say and that he might be "missing something". I find it hard to believe he's missing anything, rather he doesn't see the need to subscribe to the deleuzian system. Foucault never seems to have a problem working from a deleuzian metaphysical or epistemological base. I'd be more interested in a discussion of language between deleuze and chomsky.
Urdoxa 1 year ago
Comment removed
Urdoxa 1 year ago
Foucault, as with all rest of the generation of 68, adds two other Fascisms to the obvious list - the Academy & Medicine (particularly Psychiatry), and would likely have gone on to speak of the hidden Fascisms of taste, disposition, attitude, opinion that are inculcated & controlled by the market/state apparatus...He would go further to state that desire ITSELF is a norm that is shaped to extend and reinforce the more obvious Fascims. Nice, but we're still wage slaves; our water's dirty.
musicalidea 1 year ago
@musicalidea Free yourself from talking so loud and saying almost nothing, just a wee bit, and maybe you won't feel like such a slave. And violent revolution; that's the only way you'll help make change, (at least in the near future) .
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@musicalidea what, Foucault had to be master of the universe . . . while Chomsky says ONE cliché every 5 to ten minutes!?
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
While Chomsky's Anarcho-Syndicalism is far-fetched, inasmuch as what it seeks to achieve would be immediately reversed by those able to concentrate capital and force (I am a Statist), Foucault - quite familiar with the Anarcho-Syndicalists in France at the time, some of whom resided in his own dept at Vicennes - advocates that unfortunate abdication of the analyst from practical proposals, inserting a praxis of Critique rather than of Program. All Programs oppress, he vies; this gets us nowhere.
musicalidea 1 year ago 3
@musicalidea He just wants the freedom to fuck little boys, especially Persian eunuchs. Read between the lines and stop being so bloated. You seem kinda smart, somewhere behind all those words.
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@persianprincessacu I aptly summarized the basic difference between what amounts to the Liberal Humanism of Chomsky and the Anti-essentialist Constructionist tendency of Foucault. I then stated my view that this leads - rather ironically - Foucault to concern himself more with the analysis of the premises of the unsaid tenants and truths of the powerful rather than with an actual program for social betterment, which is more Chomsky's focus. The only one not following the arguments here is YOU!
musicalidea 1 year ago
@musicalidea You are wrong. "Social betterment" is as attainable following Foucaults ideas, if not more so. Unfortunately, w/ Fou, probably requires a society of responsible people and at least an above shithead consciousness of her citizens. Whereas the good, little Jew boy bodes well for the (current) finger pointing, 'you must', dogmatic scenario. If we cannot even philosophise about a world in which people carry the higher level of responsibility, then how can it happen - in our dreams only?
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@persianprincessacu I disagree with this analysis of Noam Chomsky, of whom you have so 'eruditely' refered to as 'Jew Boy'. His analysis of authoritarian structures, foreign policies and political systems highlights atrocities in which we would never even know about, which in turn isn't even touched upon within the works of Foucault. If we are to be serious about notions of justice, and responsibilty of intellectuals, Chomsky hasn't abstained from them, but spent his career to fulfilling them.
MyMelancholyDodo 1 year ago
@musicalidea PS. I have to admit to not watching the debate, yet :) I felt like I understood enough after a few catch phrases were thrown around, and I am at least a little familiar with the ummings and arrr. . .arr ..arrrings of Chomsky, and more familiar with The History of Sexuality, 3 persian eunuch, cock-sucking volumes. But not watching doesn't mean that I couldn't see you were full of shit. Oh, sorry sir, is it wrong that I had interest in the comments, as much or more than with the vid?
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@musicalidea Well, where should we get then? And how? By violently invading antithetical and unpleasant societies and cultures perchance?
Stake2 1 year ago
daaaaam foucout swagged it da fucc out 4 this LOL chomsky all like daaaaamn
TehHipstz0r 1 year ago
@TehHipstz0r Well, why are they on stage together? Chomsky's smart, but for academia at least, Foucault is a demi-god. The yank is very lucky he deigned . . .
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
Foucaut c'est un esti d'fife!
ninjacobra 1 year ago
@ninjacobra Tu crois? Exhume lui, et sucer son pénis. Double plaisir!
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
killer hair, Chomsky!!
icyicemanicyicy 1 year ago 2
''Arbitrarily defined foundations of morality?'' If you mean religions, say so. Why use five words when one will do?
exchangeisno 1 year ago 2
@exchangeisno LOL.
landesal 1 year ago
@exchangeisno Because he meant that they are arbitrarily defined! Just the word "religions" might not always specify that
ElNinoPgh 1 year ago
Does anyone else feel like slapping the guy at 0:21-0:27?
fruitbrute69 1 year ago
@fruitbrute69 and exactly why do you feel compelled to slap Bill Gates?
wdmoon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fruitbrute69 And exactly why do you feel compelled to slap Bill Gates?
wdmoon 1 year ago
In our world we don't see this level of debate anymore.
Note that Chomsky gets owned.
Foucault points out that the real problem is elite control and that without sanitizing the basis of our corrupt society, continuing to build on the same roots creates exponential amounts of error/oppression/problems.
Chomsky of course advocates moving on without looking back, meaning he doesn't have an absolute reference frame and no moral base.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious I argue that all arbitrarily defined foundations of morality do not constitute a sufficient foundation for moving forward and letting human society blossom in love. Defining and analyzing all possible rules then deciding which ones are the best ones and why through debate is an impossible task. Chomsky clearly understands that with a foundation in God on is able to drop everything and move forward gracefully without having to look back.
forgotaboutbre 1 year ago
@forgotaboutbre
After your first sentence your argument drifts into obscure chaos.
Chom understands that with a foundation in God we can move on gracefully?
God NEVER enters into Chom's discourse so I have no clue what u mean.
Moving forward without having to look back is indeed what Chom wants becos he has no interest in revisiting the numerous crime scenes of the past that form the foundation and the sine qua non for an even worse future society.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious I admit I'm diverging a bit from Chomsky into my own point of view here. What I am saying is that all arbitrarily defined foundations of morality serve only to limit the expression of human potential. An arbitrarily defined frame of moral reference will always be like a house build on sand. Those who willfully align themselves with the will of the master intelligence behind the universe, they alone have the foundation needed to unleash human potential.
forgotaboutbre 1 year ago
@forgotaboutbre
gotcha
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Did you really get it, or just want the person to shut-up!? :) I always insist to not take things out of context, but a phrase like "master intelligence", is like saying "I lick my yummy arse". It's fucked. Why start if you're not gonna go a bit further? I haven't read much here, but so far, you win for smartness.
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@persianprincessacu
Wow, are you actually talking to EVERYONE, leaving random comments in the hope of harvesting reactions? OK, why not...
Yes, I did get what forgotaboutbre said, and though I wouldn't have used "master-intelligence" myself, he was no doubt referring to his understanding of "God", which fortunately isn't a fundamentalistic one, excluding "YHWH".
I saw your statement below about MF fukking little boys. Though no doubt a perv,
seems to me he was into SM, ADULTS. Comment?
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@forgotaboutbre But they can only be arbitrary.
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@persianprincessacu When I say "Master Intelligence" I am speaking of God, who I believe to be an eternal imagination who spends eternity discovering the never-ending possibilities of infinity. Forever novel stimulus, never not more, this is the guarantee of forever and really the only rational reason I can imagine creation having any purpose. Every thing is an expression of The Artist in his never ending exploration of novelty. I hope that clears things up a bit for you.
forgotaboutbre 1 year ago
@forgotaboutbre You need to stop the drugs, or take a whole bunch. Your current state seems infeasible. For those that need religion, like Richard Gere, I suggest to start with buddhism - start with appreciating the here and now. No matter how much you COULD or did suffer, don't unload on an imaginary God. Hats off that you seem past unloading on that poor Jesus guy. Just for clarification; is this god, is it . . . you?? Not, r u a part of it, are you IT, god itself? I reckon you're projecting
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@persianprincessacu
What people often don't realize, making fun of God, the big "skydaddy", is that they THEMSELVES are believers in a schizo atheist/scientific worldview. Belief in Darwin and even Copernicus and all those scifi hotshots in reality involves uncritical belief in unavowed METAPHYSICAL assumptions. People simply take anything for granted they are told by authority, by science, not realizing they are DE FACTO believers, which is why they scorn belief in or awareness of God.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Who are you talking to?I may or may not make fun of god- I do know better than most religious people, it seems, that by their own definitions of God,"he" wants us to have the liberty 2 at least make fun of him. "HE" is well above that & certainly not upset by something so trivial. And the rest of what you are saying, who the hell are you talking to, because it has nothing to do with what I said or believe. I, from birth - as little swayed by atheist/science or the religious.
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@persianprincessacu
@persianprincessacu
"Who are you talking to?"
You'll find people are addressed with the @ sign on forums.
"I may or may not make fun of god"
It is clear to see in your post to aboutbre that you have a VERY big issue with his awareness of a higher principle. I was merely pointing that typically people having such issues are THEMSELVES believers in an authoritative system based on assumptions.
Aboutbre's last post wasn't confused at all, as is yours. So OK, you're...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious I'm SURE that I was supportive of a post of yours. In that, I was the most wrong I have been on this forum. You are an idiot. The rhetorical "who r u talking to" was made extremely clear. U missed the point, so once more. You were arguing (mostly) moot points with me, not replying to me. And there is most likely no higher power. And in this world, whenever someone refers to that myth, they are trying to disarm the progress that every responsible, thinking person tries at ac
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@persianprincessacu
You'll find that when I first came on this forum, I left a SUBSTANTIVE message. You complain about ubiquitous substandard intellectual engagement, are obviously quite frustrated about this, and I'd go as far as to say I understand that perfectly.
However, in all the posts you left, there is NO TRACE of a conception or a thought you want to introduce into the collective. You add NOTHING, but are looking for intellectual stimulation. Why don't YOU stimulate for once?
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious I have to go to sleep. You are ridiculous. Please, go and take votes that you stimulate and I do not. I will not care if you win, 100 votes to 0. (Of course it wouldn't be that marked). I stimulate some very stimulating people, and that is enough. Yes, I am here for fun. In most interactions, I add a hell of a lot. Getting to those sick motivations behind the crap people say . . .
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@persianprincessacu
See? Who cares about votes? Not me. I actually don't get them that often.
Well my little princess, I must say you certainly sound like a man...
Good night my dear, and don't fret at all these unknowns before you know them.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Silly bastard. The vote thing was the most throwaway thing. Saying silly things in reply to what I perceive as ridiculous things you said, then you throwing that back as though it were important to me! R u aware of it? Remember that clichés range between little and very much truth: That you accused me of wanting reactions. Projection, no?Ha ha. Jokes on me; you loved getting me worked-up. That's really worthless and lame. Please attack some stupid person, stupidity deserves
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@persianprincessacu
"Silly bastard. The vote thing was the most throwaway thing."
Well, much of what you say is throwaway. I am starting to see in amazement how you turn EVERYTHING around. Yes, you are indeed PROJECTING, and ALL THE TIME!
I loved getting YOU worked up?
You see? YOU are the one trying to get people worked up, as is very clear by your spamming technique. It didn't work on me, and the tables are now turned.
I AM VERY calm my little princess? How do you like THAT? He he he
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious Maybe could have respected your intelligence enough to accept yr criticism. But the large amount of, again, projection, therefore ASSUMPTION you've made is a real shame. As we maybe could have engaged in something where you actually did help teach me something. I am amazed at how much you do it.
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@persianprincessacu
"my intelligence has an amazingly logical/academic edge, even though my musings are PURELY emotional "
Oh dear, what is THIS?!
you say:
" where you actually did help teach me something"
Not MY responsibility, when you've already made it clear you're only interested in exposing how silly people are.
Too bad you don't even see that YES, you can &could learn from this exchange.
Perhaps you're tired but I find your reasonings confused and your mindframe unconstructive
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious I never said it was yr responsibility. And please, a moment of ceasefire; don't use that "spam" attack on me. I read people's musings, I take them on board, and I respond individually. Here is by far the most I have ever done it; it has nothing to do with spam. You should stop the low blows, particularly the ones that are completely untrue.
Now, u r horrible, u have started stealing my ideas - u do envy me - that "responsibility" idea was purely my idea, from earlier
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@persianprincessacu
THIS is what you take into your excvhanges, in your own words:
" In most interactions, I add a hell of a lot. Getting to those sick motivations behind the crap people say . . ."
It is evident to see that such a motivation gets you nowhere, especially when you are apparently not in THE LEAST aware of your own shortcomings.
I mean really, I have rarely heard ANYONE make such an atrocious statement as
"my intelligence has an amazingly..."
But I see...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious ah I get it. I see. It is better ONLY to make a claim about the rest of the world! ??? So when we talk from our perspective, about ourselves . . . what, the more +ve it is, it becomes the most atrocious thing!?!?!? You are sick, it's true. Why the hell should I have a problem knowing how intelligent I am? I understand from the inside the suffering that higher intelligence brings. Not from attacking other people w/ THEIR ideas (which has been yr tactic since we started).
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@persianprincessacu
" knowing how intelligent I am"
The problem here is, that intelligent people typically make intelligent statements. You didn't, indicating that you may merely THINK or DREAM that you are.
Intelligent people can produce intelligible discourse. You don't. just look at this:
"ah I get it. I see. It is better ONLY to make a claim about the rest of the world! ??? So when we talk from our perspective, about ourselves . . ."
Your prose is actually, well..disconnected.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious :) Why do you want me to crack. Strange, and now we see your crack showing with the question or affirmation problem. I do not want you to crack. That is not what I am about. If I were insecure, I would be trying to defend myself. Instead, I am hoping that we get to the point of compromise. Yes, I have emotional responses to your ridiculousness; it seems I have something you envy. Don't. I suffer immeasurably due to this (strongly) emotional intelligence I possess.
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@persianprincessacu
...it is getting even worse:
"I suffer immeasurably due to this (strongly) emotional intelligence I possess. "
Are you JOKING? I'm sorry, this sounds simply EXTREMELY narcissistic to me, and quite ridiculous really, considering how YOU spam people with total disregard for THEIR sensitivities. I am sorry but you are just a troll, and I hope you are just being provocative and don't actually take your own shit seriously...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@persianprincessacu
"and now we see your crack showing with the question or affirmation problem"
What are you talking about? I corrected a comment in which an unwanted question mark was added.
EXACTLY as I pointed out at the start:
YOU can't sustain an exchange. Your posts are completely erratic, chaotic, narcissistic and have NO SUBSTANCE, NO IDEAS.
You're a troll and I'm done. Bye.
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious & if you learn about yourself, hell might freeze over.
Erratic and chaotic are not as faulty as you would like to believe, and you are grossly exaggerating because you are upset. The narcissistic thing: um, if anybody is gonna come here on the net, write, getting into arguments, um, methinks we all have egos with identical (you seem to think HUGE problems), I would say that our egos r identical in that they are; 2010, people arguing/ criticising on youtube. You were,no, you r
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@persianprincessacu
You see?
I'm sorry but your prose is just meaningless:
"The narcissistic thing: um, if anybody is gonna come here on the net, write, getting into arguments, um, methinks we all have egos with identical (you seem to think HUGE problems), I would say that our egos r identical in that they are;"
Whether you are not doing this on purpose, or not, in both cases there's a problem here. There is certainly no reason to boast your intelligence, this much is certain...
suddenlyitsobvious 1 year ago
@suddenlyitsobvious One last thing. You are a total arsehole 4 being upset. TOTAL piece of shit. I criticised someone, let them defend/attack as they wish. But u came on not as, smarter than thou (which is fun), but HOLIER than thou.
I don't scout youtube to "protect" others. I agree w/ good opinions and "hate on" dumb shit. You r some fucker who thinks you r MR. GOOD, started some shit w/ me, used all my arguments (projection, eg.), blindly & zealously attacked, driven by (yr) god knows what
persianprincessacu 1 year ago
@persianprincessacu
What are you talking about?
I'm not upset...YOU are.
You have produced NO CONTENT, NO substance and are very much in denial of your own situation. You are not in a position to exchange, and your prose and reasonings are alarmingly disconnected.
Your insults and provocations are indicative of even more problems.
You've been had at your own game. Face it: I am not upset. You are.
Like some hysterical highschool girl actually.
Get a grip and good luck.
suddenlyitsobvious