Noam Chomsky - Noam vs. Michel Foucault (Eng. subs) Part 2

Chomsky and Foucault discusses the nature of power, amongst other things.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Noam
• chomsky
• Michel
• Foucault
• Power
• Politics

[faceDcrook]

PART 3 should really have been done!

[daysinthewake]

@WhiteLionV1 According to Chomsky, they actually did hang out afterwards, and they got on like a house on fire by the sounds of it.

[discerningfilmcritic]

I think the most pressing question I have is: didn't anyone else notice Foucault's weird teeth moment at 2:31-2:33?

[Duder871]

Post structuralism is guilty of essentializing knowledge. It critiques western knowledge structures while secretly relying on them because guess what it cant be applied to anything else.

[JustJeffie]

@Hofsteder by the way, I think you should now... the Genoma isn't the answer to all our ontological problems. Quite the opposite, your running towards another "blonde-beast" with it (remember the nazis reappropriating Nietzsche?), only this time, you got geneticists telling you what you should be, look and act like to be "human"... DANGER WILL ROBINSON, danger!

[JustJeffie]

@Hofsteder so you need ME to translate what Foucault said through the video? really? I thought you didn't need anyone to explain Foucault's position to you!

If you really understood what he said you wouldn't be cheering on Chomsky and his half-ass defense (or lack of one) on how there's a "universal human nature".

Seriously, if you believe it, then DEFINE IT! Because so far it all sounds to me like nothing but rhetoric, semantics, and Foucault-phobia.

[JustJeffie]

@Hofsteder Congratulations on the great use of rhetoric, still, that doesn't change the fact that you're defending some idealistic (unrealistic, I should add) point of view from Chomsky, that was so rushed and poorly constructed, that not even he could defend it!

By the way, if my comments here seem unfounded to you, it's because I'm not going to teach post-structuralist french philosophy on YouTube to somebody who clearly has nothing better to do than start fights on the internet! real sad!

[JustJeffie]

@Hofsteder Seriously... I don't know you or what you are about, but seriously, your speech is of someone who has no idea, whatsoever, of what is it that it's done in an university. Specially in the field of applied social sciences or any other heavily theoretical field such as philosophy.

A hypothesis may be the beginning of a research, but a hypothesis without a research to back it up, is NOTHING! It's like Mr. Chomski here, spitting out an opinion without a strong argument to support it!

[JustJeffie]

@Hofsteder 1- maybe you DO need someone to explain Foucault to you, since you obviously isn't familiar with his works! TIP: Read "The Archaeology of Knowledge", "The History of Sexuality vol. I" and "The Order of Things" by him. It would definitely help you out.

2 - if you don't develop your hypothesis, then yes, it's worthless! it's just an opinion, a guess. Another reading tip: "Scientific Method for dummies". seriously, that's community college 1-0-1 kinda stuff!

...

[JustJeffie]

@Hofsteder It doens't matter what your belief is, if you can't defend it, then it's nothing but a BELIEF, a HYPOTHESIS an OPINION! Therefore, it has no scientific value! Well, Foucalt, in the other hand, arguments that the very notion of a "human nature" is a construction... meaning that, somehow, someone, somewhere decides to call this or that "human nature", and it's been like that even nowadays! So it is nothing but a dispositive of power to decide who or what is or isn't human! BRILLIANT!