The Chomsky-Foucault Debate [excerpt, part 2/2]

This is an excerpt from the Chomsky-Foucault debate which was aired on Dutch television in 1971. The moderator seen here is Fons Elder. I am unaware of any full length copies of the original video, however the debate has been reprinted (and translated, of course) several times. For a copy of this debate and several interesting interviews that followed, see Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, _The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature_ (New York: The New Press, 2006).

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Chomsky
• Foucault
• human
• nature
• language
• philosophy
• sociology

[kiteracer2]

>>> Chomsky's not able to rigorously define "being open" or such and he's not even trying. his point is to stress the importance of doing our best in bringing our critically challenged notions of these concepts to life and defend the causes we find worth defending. of course we slip in ideology the very moment we try but should we do nothing then? i understand it's tempting to shout out "Foucault wins!" and tremble with post-structuralist ecstasy, i find it pretty pointless though...

[philbelanger2]

Foucault's critique implies that human nature is a blank state, that institutions and historical circumstances can stamp onto the popular mind whichever system of justice it wishes. It shows how Chomsky's linguistic theories are central to his vision; there are instrinsic human propreties (language, but also a sense of justice) that are shared but nowhere to be found in modern society. Chomsky is right; modern science clearly supports the idea that moral sentiments have an evolutionnary basis.

[markse4444]

@Shadow9392 Responding to the alternative (of a classless society) requires the language of justice (or whatever you may wish to call it) in order to, first, protect|insulate your society from injustice and, second, to define what your society is not, or rather how it is not just. A clearly miserable, stressed, starving, disempowered existence is not lightened because the preconditions were ``merely`` socially constructed. Power not shared equally is oligarchy and oppression.

[markse4444]

The pure and true voice of humanity: 1:23 .

`Meaningful human life takes place.``

[datasoluble]

Foucault is used to living in a society where socialism has been espoused; this notion that true human nature is hidden by the predatory nature of capitalism. He's already confronted these sort of ideas and I think Chomsky isn't prepared for his reaction at all.

[Talisgoodatwow]

this debate should not have ever taken place, these two thinkers are not mutually exclusive and in the end chomksy will always say action will be more important and that we can think about what foucault is saying later, and foucault will always say that thinking must come first. In this sense they are mutually exclusive, but in the end when they actually agree a lot on what needs to be done it is the argument by which way? kant says the motive is key not the process or impact, i agree

[jjbinks3]

If we are really concerned about the affects of subjectivity, whether social or emotional, in pursuit of truth, we must delve into an understanding of knowledge--what it is to think, how to think to attain truth, how to communicate or formulate truth as near the reality as possible--and to retain a humility and pervasive skepticism unto the beginning of knowledge, where there must be a sort of fundamental faith (common-sense?)

[jjbinks3]

...By virtue of Foucault being a philosopher and communicating his inquiry, it follows that he does believe that an approximate truth, in human terms, is attainable.

So, rather than discarding all knowledge as "social construct," perhaps a more helpful approach is to inquire more deeply into the nature of language and knowledge.

[jjbinks3]

Language is obviously an artificial thing, affected by emotions, irrationality, imprecision and weighed down by historical and social baggage. That said, Foucault's denial of any possibility of a meaningful construction of truth using human language is not a satisfying answer. First of all, it ignores the unsaid function of every sincere and published philosophical inquiry--a pursuit of truth in human language.

[sniperquasi]

@TemplarLeonem Seems to me that Chomsky is outmatched by Foucault in his precision, but yours is a harsh comment.

[XXjazzfiend99xx]

@kiteracer2 I agree.If you take Foucault's position, you are stuck in a stalemate&you just stuck with criticism of the existing conditions without offering anything new. As flawed Chomsky's model of society may be, It would be interesting to see if Foucault could reveal in what ways Chomsky's society imply flawed ideas of justice&human nature, and how they are social constructed. It will help redefine those ideas, or reveal a new criteria in which a new society should be based on.