Debate Noam Chomsky & Michel Foucault - On human nature [Subtitled]
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- The full tv debate by Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault on the question of Human Nature. Subtitles: English, Portuguese, Japanese. Proper subtitles. If you'd like to help create subs for other languages, then contact me.
[Dutch & Portuguese below]
Excerpts from the historical debate between Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky have passed the reverse many times in recent years. And there is frequently referred to these two thinkers. Here we will be showing the whole fascinating debate on philosophy and politics that in 1971 was recorded for Dutch television.
Noam Chomsky (1928): linguist, historian, philosopher, critic and political activist. As the "father of modern linguistics" (linguistics), he focused on the issue of innate vs.. the learned. In his later career has evolved as a major critic of foreign policy of the United States (from Vietnam to South America to the Middle East) and propaganda in the modern media with one of his major works "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media".
Michel Foucault (1926 - 1984): French philosopher, social theorist, historian and literary critic. In his work he researches power and its workings, how it influenced knowledge and how it is used as a form of social control. He is best known for his critical studies of social institutions such as psychiatry, social anthropology, the prison system and the history of human sexuality. One of his major works is "The Birth of the Prison, Discipline and Punish" (Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison) on changes in the criminal model of punishing the body (corporal punishment) to punish the spirit.
This video contains the complete TV-Breadcast. Subtitles to be downloaded from: www.anarchistis...
------
Het volledige televisiedebat tussen Michel Foucault en Noam Chomsky over de vraag van de menselijke natuur. Fragmenten uit het historische debat tussen Michel Foucault en Noam Chomsky zijn de nodige keren de revue gepasseerd de afgelopen jaren. En er wordt regelmatig aan deze twee denkers gerefereerd. Hier zullen we het gehele fascinerend debat over filosofie en politiek vertonen dat in 1971 werd opgenomen voor de Nederlandse televisie.
Noam Chomsky (1928): linguïst, historicus, filosoof, politiek criticus en activist. Als de 'vader van de moderne linguïstiek' (taalkunde) richtte hij zich op het vraagstuk van het aangeborene vs. het aangeleerde. In zijn latere carrière heeft zich verder ontwikkeld als een belangrijke criticus van buitenlands beleid van de Verenigde Staten (van Vietnam tot Zuid-Amerika en het Midden-Oosten) en propaganda in de moderne media met als een van zijn belangrijkste werken "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media".
Michel Foucault (1926 -- 1984 ): Franse filosoof, sociaal theoreticus, historicus en literair criticus. In zijn werk behandeld hij was macht is en hoe dit werkt, de manier waarop het kennis beïnvloed en hoe het gebruikt wordt als een vorm van sociale controle. Hij is het meest bekend van zijn kritische studies van sociale instituten als de psychiatrie, sociale antropologie, het gevangenissysteem en de geschiedenis van de menselijke seksualiteit. Een van zijn belangrijke werken is "Naissance de la prison, Surveiller et punir" (Discipline, toezicht en straf: de geboorte van de gevangenis) over de veranderingen in het strafmodel van het straffen van het lichaam (lijfstraffen) naar straffen van de geest.
Deze video bevat de volledige TV-uitzending.
-----
ATENÇÃO: PARA ATIVAR A LEGENDAS EM PORTUGUÊS CLIQUE NO ITEM "LEGENDAS OCULTAS"DA BARRA DE FERRAMENTAS DO VÍDEO
Special thanks to
Anarchist Group Nijmegen (www.anarchistis...)
ROAR Magazine (www.roarmag.org).
Portuguse subtitles: Erik Martins
Japanese subtitles: Isamu Ichikawa
![Tee Grizzley - Robbery 8 [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/34_vkNV6wrU/mqdefault.jpg)
Eeeh, its subtitled people? Check out how to enable them?
Check the small buttons of the RUclips-screen where you can also go to full-screen etc.
There you can enable them.
tis niet nodig ik ken nederlands, haha
withDefiance true
I may be wrong, but I won't let that stop me. I believe the general expectation when one sees a video advertised as 'subtitled' is that there already will be subtitles, not that it's a feature to be turned on. And, if all videos have that feature available, then why ever entitle them as such. Also, how does one go about getting their comment pinned? That seems quite an accomplishment. Oh now I get it, you posted the video. Learning is neat
I don't seem to have that option. Maybe it's my phone.. 🤔
Hey guys. Do you know where you can find a yearly magazine that has all the intellectuals across western civilization? Both right wing and left wing.
Chomsky: English
Foucault: Français
Narrator: Dutch
Me: Español
Me : Filipino(Tagalog)
Me Brazilian
Me Hindi
Hotel: Trivago
Me: Russkie dussky
I’ll say one thing for sure that as someone who grew up in the us in the 90’s the idea of two professors debating philosophy being aired on tv is unimaginable. It’s so amazing this happened
dude... this was filmed in 1971. "Uh so" Dude, you just wanted to say "as some one who grew up in the 90's" For literally no reason. People from the 90s are 30-50, we are the majority. "So whats your point in all this" You said it was unimaginable but it happened 20 years before you were born. Still dont get it, how could it be "unimaginable" when it already happened. LOL
@@DeadGuye1995 actually I brought up growing up in America in the 90s because of how commercialized tv media was at the time especially kids media that were largely just straight up 30 minute ads for toys or video games.
@@DeadGuye1995 you retarded?
@@DeadGuye1995 Boy did you get your knickers in a twist, and all entirely by yourself! 'Unimaginable' that a philosophical debate would be shown on TV TODAY (in fact, it has become unimaginable over a number of decades from the 90s to the present day), meaning TV (and social media) have been so far dumbed down that this archive footage, which comes from only as far back as the 70s, feels as if it was made in another planet.
I got what you said and grew up in the 90s and agree 100 percent. Tv got dumbed down 20 years later to Jerry Springer, Bill O'Reilly, and Rachel Maddow.
Foucault's French is so pure and understandable even for such poor students of French as my humble self
Igor Mikeshin I was thinking the same thing
Damn, you weren't kidding.
He speaks very slowly and emphasizes every single syllable. that's what you do to sound smart in french by the way.
@@bolshevikalgerien8415 lol
he is really careful to speak very understandable. Maybe it was for the audience
Foucault would have made a stellar Bond villain.
Shane Michael Neal Unbelievable, wouldn't he? Lol. His appearance is 10/10 and he would have the best villain's scheme as well; to enslave humanity since they are all doomed by class power struggles, or he could be a cult leader or something haha..
@@TheJoshtheboss My money is on Wittgenstein
@Boony Tooty You do realise that Hitler does not need to be cast as a villain, right? That he already is a supervillain?
'I'm leaving now Mr Bond, enjoy prison. Forever.'
Shane Michael Neal He did eventualy.
Chomsky: Monke is, monke do
Foucault: Monke see, monke do
Chomsky: Monke train, monke big-brain
Foucault: Monke is trapped, monke is capped
Chomsky: Monke can french, monke can change
Foucault: Monke who dare, monke rare
Chomsky: Monke think, monke wink
Foucault: Monke is smol, monke only crawl
Foucault: Monke look fore, monke tweak lore
Chomsky: Monke not junkie, monke funky
Foucault: Monke trained, monke chained
Chomsky: Monke should try, monke might pry
Foucault: Monke then tried, monke then cried
Chomsky: Monke can judge, monke may buzz
Foucault: Monke pause, monke dodge
Chomsky: Why monke monke? if monke no donke?
Foucault: Monke see fight, monke take side
Golden Comment
you deserve more likes
Now you're talking my language 🦧
this feels like a Xavier Renegade angel dialogue.
This is simply genius
5:00 Innate Ideas. Innate Structures. Which arguments give human nature?
6:10 Data/Direct Experience with language
6:30 Problem of Small data presented and highly articulated organized resulting knowledge from the data
7:14 One possible explanation. The individual contributes (a good deal) of the structure of knowledge.
8:45 Collection of Schema that directs our human behavior= Human Nature.
Foucault
9:45 Distrust Human Nature
10:37 Peripheral Notions, Point out Some Problem.
11:23 The concept of life
11:41 Problem arise at end of eighteenth century
12:40 Life changes meaning after discovery of bacteria, etc. using microscope.
13:00 Explanation
22:24 What do you mean by Creativity
Chomsky?
Focult?
25:04 Rules of Construction
Communal General Rules
26:52 How do scientista arrive at a theory from data?
29:05 Possible Intellectual Structures
30:43 Creativity is “only possible” from a system of rules
“Well you can wonder about it, but I can’t help that”
32:59 Thinkers have questioned Knowing; Newton, Cuvier, (DesCartes)
36:10 The need for creative work can be had by maximizing freedom and limiting bureaucratic structures
• Maximize Creativity by Minimizing Repression
[ _Anarchosyndicalism_ ]
37:45 I cannot posit a model society
39:53 Psychiatry
41:09 2 Tasks
1. Understand Power across Society
2. Connect Human Nature to Social Structure
Marx dream of a Liberated Human Nature
45:25 Mao Zedong
46:04 Civil Disobedience
“It’s of critical importance that we have some direction.”
48:15 The State Way may not be The Right Way
To violate The State when it is wrong is doing Right [In Truth, not in Power’s Truth]
49:40 “I regard The State as Criminal.”
51:53 Letting criminals decide right and wrong is wrong
52:35 Criminal Justice Tribunal?
Attack The practices of Justice?
Legality and Justice don’t mean the same
55:30 Disregard Oppression
56:36 Terroristic State outcome of Revolution
58:25 Motive and Modus
59:16 Violence for Justice good, Violence for evil bad. A violence that is not grounded in Justice is undesirable.
1:00:00 Proletariat Takeover Suppresses Class Power
1:01:05 Classless society would see an end of the meaning of the notion of Justice
1:02:45 Conceptions created by Civilzation
• kindness, Justice, human nature, actualization
All fiction
*Q&A*
1:04:00 Where is the Proletariat in 1971?
1:05:55 MIT and War 1:07:04
Balance of Rights
1:08:00 Institutions, use the power you can get to push the movement
Thank you so much
People making a playlist of a philosophy debate are truly a gift we do not derserve thank you thank you thank you
thanks a lot!
(it should be pinned up !)
So many people are dead
@@_aworldthatspoke950 excellent
and when you have Chomsky & Foucault in studio you should not end the debates in 1 hour
I'd love to be a fly on the wall in that green room.
well, the debate obviosuly took longer. You can see the host summarizing parts of it we were not presented with.
Pourquoi!?
It is unjust 😄
Chomsky has commented that the media often only allows short comments and descriptions, which funnily enough only allows you to repeat ideas people know, and not introduce new ones. It's a verry interestin tool of power; terminology and normalized ideas
12:09 You know you he's the one when he translates an entire Foucault lecture for you in real time just so that you don't get lost.
And many years later when you come across this video and read the actual subtitles then you realise that your future husband had not translated a single line correctly, bluffed you all through the debate.
@@BubuDuduForever The long con, haha.
We also have to consider the possibility that he's the one who wrote the comments pointing out flaws in the subtitles, in order to gaslight her into thinking he was right after all. The only way for her to be sure then would be to learn French. But French is a waste of time, as we all know. I will go on as usual
@@ramdas363 So applying a little bit of syllogistic logic:
To understand Foucault she needs to learn French.
But French is a waste of time.
Ergo Foucault's ideas are a waste of time.
😆😆
@@BubuDuduForever clap,clap,clap,clap. Touché.
I love Noam because he is so down to earth and open to all debate! He even returned my call personally to tell me he didn't know enough about the topic I requested his presence for to give a good interview. This guy is a treasure!!
HIs humility indeed contributes to his greatness. It is important to listen to great thinkers like Chomsky who challenge us instead of listening to the comforting lies of Narcissist conspiracy theorists.
Marlo got some Big problems are you even a human? CIA shill
Shame it is afucking genocide denier
@@jtaoufiqlet me guess English supremasist
The audience must've able to talk Dutch, French and English in order to understand, and that's impressive! (And that's coming from a Belgian)
@Mr Sandman wat frickin erudite city on the hill u living at?
In those years people in the Netherlands spoke better French than nowadays. It was still a major source of foreign culture (music, cinema, gastronomy etc.), whereas now Anglo-American culture dominates
As someone who lives in Brussels, I can tell you that most of the people here who speak Dutch can also speak both other languages.
@@fuzz6263 If only the Walloons would learn Dutch as well...
@@fuzz6263 Hi, fellow Belgian! :)
Discourse aside, I love the way this is filmed: The close-ups of Foucault chewing on his nails, the shots of the audience looking on, here and there discussing things amongst themselves, the overall angles of the speakers, etc. It's very intimate and real.
Today, the only times you see cinematic like this are when you watch music festivals online.
@Nothing Sounds Like an 808 - "Thats's absolutely gross". It seems that across cultures and across time, human beings chew on their nails. Can this be defined as a fundamental characteristic of human nature, and therefore human nature is gross (Chomsky)? Or is the behavior simply a product of human culture, and you are defining "gross" within the narrow social constructs in which we critique other individuals (Foucault)?
Nothing Sounds Like an 808 - lmao why are so mad about nail biting
Zezozeonamanapulanamoritium lol i see. i was really just joking around but yikes
@Nothing Sounds Like an 808 - ve was pulling your leg as clear by that last response. I agree Foucault was not nail biting but greenbud still is correct in Chomsky successfully dismantling Foucault's overarching conclusions. Chomsky stood strong by principals of guiding ideals as means to achieving smaller aims , stepping stones of progression otherwise never achieved without class struggle, and the born innate instinct towards love and compassion, which then may or may not be trained out of us. I've French friends, and all subscribe to the concept and conspiracy of social engineering, which Chomsky illuminates in "manufacturing consent" btw, but fail to probe further with why and how to resolve i enquiry. My french friends, whom i do respect, utilise the social engineering concept to justify their own extreme views on society. However, chomsky is apart because while he both acknowledges and reports those truths he further theorises means of progression towards idealist goals. Much how science has functioned at all
the cute moment of a guy translateing the french for that girl is maggical
when was this? I missed it
I think 12:10
@Chopin Chopin and from your fascination by this I can probably infer that you came here for chomsky haha
Cute yes💕
lol i totally saw it as a mansplaining spotted at 12:10
I love this conversation, I frequently come back to it; I’m here after listening to that horrible crowd at the Zizek-Peterson debate, here you can see people actually listening to a beautiful and important conversation, not rooting like if they were at a soccer game. What a pleasure it must have been to see this live.
People are quiet because they are either trying hard to translate everything in their head or listening to a translator. Dutch university students don't all speak 3 languages lol. I agree the audience in the Peterson debate was horrendous.
RUclips also brought me here after suggesting me Zizek-Peterson. But I'm done with Peterson, so I didn't watch that one ;)
バンジョベンジ apparently you disagree that self defense is justified.
It’s a depressingly grave signal of where we currently are as a culture
The thought of comparing any debate that includes Jordy Peterson with this Chomsky and Foucault debate is a sign that as advanced as we believe the world is becoming there is a ferocious slide into abject stupidity at the same time.
Are they literally speaking 3 different languages and understanding each other perfectly???
Recordings of discussions like this should be archived and preserved and available for any and all, and the internet has made it so, it is a blessing. Great minds, great presentation, great discussions.
I don't see why people are saying Foucault won this debate. It seems like they both present their views, the reasons they hold them, and try to identify where their disagreement lies. Chomsky takes there to be such a thing as human nature, and identifies it with a system of rules located in the brain that organise and articulate human thought, science, language, etc., and that this system can, perhaps, to some extent be studied itself by human science; Foucault agrees there are systems of rules responsible for the same phenomena, but places them outside the head in wider social structures. Chomsky correspondingly thinks justice is real, and absolute since based on these innate endowments, while Foucault takes it to be a merely contingent and transient since rooted in the institutions of our particular class-ridden historical epoch. It's a bit of a muddle at times because their coming from such different intellectual environments. But there's no clear winner in this debate, taken in isolation, that I can see.
HumeConnection well i see that someone actually knows their shit. First comment worth shit ive found in this entire section
People rush to declare someone a winner because the machismo posturing of academia has primed them to think of every interaction as a contest with a clear winner and loser.
It seems like it's quite hard to function politically if you ascribe to Foucault's position... It seems easier if ascribe to Chomsky's position but take into account some stern warnings Foucault makes.
"identifies it with a system of rules located in the brain"...... There is such thing in neurology? He never took a brain and look at it to find that.
people take side with Foucault because he creates this illusion that he is the science guy as opposed to Chomsky's subjective narrative of creativity.
It's amazing to see these two very different intellectuals having a powerful debate, not because both give strong points, but also because while they are trying to one-up each other they are having a lot of fun and respect towards each other. This is borderline impossible to see in our contemporary world.
@117165043134883284447 Obviously it has something to do with the caliber of the participants, but also, perhaps, because they are engaging each other in their non-native languages. I've heard about some research suggesting that people tend to make more rational decisions when speaking in second+ languages. Something to do with the brain having to slow down its formulations in the absence of knee-jerk, canned responses. Is it possible that listening to other languages also makes one more deliberative and attentive?
I had a philosophy professor in college who told us about his experiences at a Buddhist monastery, and how impressed he was with how the monks would listen attentively to everything you said and wait for you to finish before replying.
Interesting points. To build on that, when you listen to a second language you probably have more of a sense of your own limitations, sense you are aware that you're not as good at that language as the other person, which would humble you.
I know this comment is old, but recent debates between Peterson and Harris were very respectful.
@@omginever Not completely however. Mostly.
@@omginever Peterson isnt that intellectual though. He regularly employs appeal to nature fallacies. His most famous being the lobster heirarchy justification.
I don't know much about Harris. Seems just like a outspoken atheist more so than a hyper intellectual philosopher.
So talking about a less important and volatile topic, with two less stimulating and intellectual speakers, most likely lead to less confrontation. Not as impressive as the civility in this debate imo.
There is a painting, called I believe, 'The Symposium, ' in which Aristotle is portrayed pointing downwards to the earth and Plato points upwards to the sky. This discussion reminds me of it.
Donald Scrivener Could you link the painting?
my man...
Zafir Vuiya en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_of_Athens
That is a fascinating remark. In some way, the entirety of philosophy can be understood as a dialectic between Plato and Aristotle, between the ideal absolutes and the empirical contingencies of existence.
It was Raphael's School of Athens
Refreshing to watch two great minds develop ideas together, admit not knowing it all, and not trying to diminish each other. Mutual respect. And an audience that really listens intensely.
Lol. Foucault was not a great mind.
@@googleuser2609 ahahahahahahahahahaha
Nothing like debates being held today
I strongly suspect no one was expecting Foucault to speak exclusively in French. The presenter had to interrupt to give an update in dutch or whatever at 13:00
@@pierregauthier3611 Foucault was a pseudo-intellectual poser who brought absolutely nothing to this debate. He was not a philosopher, he was a fraud.
I realize that mastery of language is essential for effectiveness in chosen career, any activity, or living life. I came to this conclusion from following, that is, listening, reading and watching Noam Chomsky. I wish I can continue learning from Chomsky as time goes along or allows.
LOL, I love how they have orange juice on the table in front of them instead of water! I guess when they are thinking so hard and talking about complex technical matters - he brain needs glucose!
Lmao nice 1
Need to be reminded of the color of Holland also...
OJ is an important part of my nootropic stack. Potassium, carbs, and flavanoids that studies show increase blood flow to certain parts of the brain.
I love how amused Foucault looks in reaction to the mediator's mountain digger analogy.
Thanks to the effort of Isamu Ichikawa there are now also Japanese subtitles available.
+withDefiance Is there an English version?
yep, see CC for subtitles
I never thought I'd find myself rooting for Chomsky. Foucault is the goddamn devil.
Symbol Soft Funny, because for me it's quite the other way round. For me Foucault is the Lightbringer, the man with the torch who lights up the crypt.
+withDefiance I'd like to create Turkish subtitles for the debate. It seems that, however, sending messages is no longer available on RUclips. Could you please provide me an e-mail address so I can contact you.
Thank god the moderator is explaining what F and Chomsky are saying, instead of letting us listen directly to what they're saying. 2nd hand accounts are always better.
Yes Stalin
yeah wtf is this... I just want to watch the actual debate.
It's because if you were to just listen to the debate, you would say Chomsky made sense and Foucault sounds like a rambling moron.
There's always something to whine about, isn't there?
It also adds useful analysis for lay people like me who haven't studied philosophy in any real depth but are interested in the subject.
What a great introductory speech. I wish there were more people who can give such introductions instead of telling about all of the acknowledgements that the speakers have gotten.
i completely agree!!
That was really interesting, I can't help thinking though how respectful they were to each other and how much they paid attention to each other's argument and what it would be like if things like political debates were like that.
If people in politics were that intelligent, articulated and cultivated, the world would be a very different place
To be fair, politicians aren't going into debates with the intent of finding the root of their disagreements with other politicians or even to convince their opponent to agree with them; politicians only engage with other politicians in bad-faith to acquire votes from as many neutral onlookers as possible.
This means it is necessary for politicians to even cater to the absurd values of the lowest common denominators, because every vote counts, even the ones from misinformed/uninformed people. They'll tend to use more rhetoric than actually well composed argumentation.
But I think we, the common folk, should be more critical of our day to day discussions of politics, philosophy, and societal/organizational cultures (at least I like to imagine that anyone watching this video is the kind of irritating person who, like myself, arbitrarily yet frequently brings up politics at the dinner table). Are we actually engaging with controversial topics in good-faith?
That's a lot of orange juice...
Orange juice is a social construct.
and is pretty useless without Vodka
Soylent Green is people
Bugs.... easy on the carrot juice.
a very unusual choice. haha. Water, coffee, tea, all totally understandable. Nothing against OJ, but a little odd. lol
I'm a linguist student who's currently studying criminology, and thus, I've read a lot of Chomsky as well as Foucault. Seeing this makes my brain melt lol.
Hi, why would a linguist study criminology? I'm genuinely curious.
👀
@@Shamanosuke TG jargons of the crimnals are famous abd relted to hretics. in germany jewish issiad to have ben the string point of 2rotwewlcxsch" a crimnal jargon in ord to infom sectretlyx. it ha to b changerd often because of te police...
You poor guy...
翻訳者とUp主に最大限敬意を表します
ありがとうございます。感謝してます。
5:00 human nature for Noam
9:00 Foucault mistrusts the concept of human nature
14:30 Chomsky thinks of creativity as a important aspect of human nature
18:25 Foucault does not pay so much attention to the creativity of the individual from a historical perspective
22:20 Noam suspects they are have different notions of "creativity"
25:10 Foucault: there exist only posible creations and innovations
26:40 Chomsky: how is it possible that we are able to construct any kind of scientific theory at all then?
30:45 Foucault: creativity only becomes posible thanks to a system of rules
34:00 intervention
36:10 noam: a fundamental element of human nature is the need for creative work, so a decent society should maximize the possibility for this to be realized
37:44 michel: I am not able to describre an ideal society but I see urgent problems that need to be solved
41:05 Noam: there are 2 intellecual tasks
43:00 michel: claiming that human nature exists is a problem to culture
45:30: noam: we face the similar problems in different domains due to human nature
Thank u bro
48:17 "one does not necessarily let the state define what is legal" - Chomsky
Their interaction at 1:00:14 is like two people trying to navigate each other as they walk to opposite ends of a hallway.
El placer de ver este debate en esta plataforma, gratis, con subtítulos para varios idiomas y volver a repetir alguna parte en particular cuando uno se pierde, en serio que buen momento para estar vivo =D
9:43: Foucault realizes it's not a french fry but his finger.
HES EVEN MAKING GNAWING SOUNDS I CANT
Destiny got destroyed in this debate
I'm glad you at least found your way over here from that cesspit. Too bad he wouldn't be able to follow the conversation because he hasn't read a book in a decade.
Oh yeah he was totally destroyed here... to the point where he wasn't even born yet. 😂
@@imgayasheck595 Boom.
@@imgayasheck595 GOT 'EM
God dammit I can never escape this meme
字幕をつけていただいた Isamu Ichikawaさんありがとうございます。
Who is here after the Zizek Peterson debate?
ahahahahah - good one!
Me!
Are we differentiating being here after the debate and being here as a result of the debate? If not, I'm here, too. Hi everyone. If so, I just happened to be here after watching the debate
@@markf5220 I did not "happen" to be here but came here on purpose. To remind myself what a "debate of the century" should look like.
reporting for duty
1:01:42 "If you press me too hard I'll be in trouble because I can't sketch it out"...The most un-Chomsky-like quote you'll ever hear from Chomsky.
It's because he's being pushed towards saying the "unavowable", namely that deep down he believes in God and angels and their transcendent values. Foucault knows this, that's why he looks so ecstatic, because it's too much fun watching moralizing people in that kind of situation.
Chomsky did waffle here and there, his style is very American
You'll be surprised, because it's characteristic of Chomsky. His linguistic work, in which nothing was ever complete, is full of such remarks.
@@billyoldman9209 Can you kinda expand on this comment? I find it interesting.
@@DontDrinkthatstuff Chomsky has to maintain some special connection with some platonic world of ideas, lest we become "animals" or something. This moral imperative to speculate on better and better legal contraptions is analogous to protestant christians speculating on what God demands of them with no guarantee of going to heaven, so Foucault rightly calls it a product of the system that will always reproduce the same oppression. Chomsky believes that only if we could decipher human nature and milk it for its pure justice, then we could impose that justice on the ruling classes so that humans could finally abandon their vices (especially the proletarians) and dedicate their whole lives to work. As to why work, again, ask God.
When your customized character appears on a cutscene 29:00
?
He's probably dead by now, wholly unsolicited murder right here.
so good
LMAOOOOO
bro those bangs
Small crowd there. Maybe Can was in town that night.
haha.
aren't can german? I dont get the joke :(
touche
nice.
it's in Holland. Can are German
Back then, there was good stuffs on TV.
Which one would invite these two geniuses to debate nowadays ?
Not one, because there is a "Manufacturing Consent" to settle, and because "Discipline and Punish" is what we get, and supposed to appreciate.
Geniuses? A linguist who can't speak French and a guy who think madness is normal. 😳😳😳
@@Big-guy1981 do you know what linguistics are
At 31:40 Noam was going to give his thoughts on the most important question of all time and the damn moderator interrupts.
Yeah, it was a damn right and reasonable/logical question. But the moderator doesn't get it. It might sound a bit harsh but I've lived in the Netherlands and learned to speak Dutch quite fluently, but Dutch people cannot understand what is beyond very very explicit (duidelijk). I feel like this is, according to Foucault's account on the barrier/structure that obstructs the 'truth', the barrier of structure/languague, or framework.
Or even, Foucault's framework and Chomsky's framework cannot be contained/processed/understood by the moderator so the 'truth' may have been blocked.
Plus, I strongly believe that Dutch culture is all about the very specifics that everyone can understand (De algemene). It is kind of like how the Dutch laws are written so that the 'ordinary' Dutch people, which is meant to be the 'general' public, can understand. I feel like this is also very restriciting in the sense that some 'general' truth behind the (very) 'specific' truth is missing.
I would love to hear others' (Dutch, Dutch-speaking international people or non-Dutch, whatsoever) opinions on this). Criticisms are always appreciated as long as it's not some personal attacks. Thanks.
Lastly, the tendeny of Dutches: 'this is the problem!' 'oh yeah? (O ja?) then how can we solve the problem? I feel like the guy after the moderator who tried to summarise what's going on is already biased as he is making this problem as a matter of 'this is the question he gives (which is not the same question Foucault posed), so how can we solve it?' Maybe it is my own bias. But this is defintely the reality I see and, based on my reality, this is what's going on in this video 31:40 onwards.
Can we give a round of applause to both of these intelligent thinkers!
That was the highest level of thinking I have ever seen in a debate by both sides. Thank you so much for presenting it with subtitles!
From a rhetorical point of view, it is interesting to observe the different positions of the two. Chomsky is the ideologists in the debate who as quite concrete political and legal ideas which follow from his epistemological views. Foucault on the other side is the sceptic who questions the assumptions of Chomsky and has in this respect an easier job because it is easier to critisise than to justify. Hence the impression that Foucault "won" the debate.
" Foucault on the other side is the sceptic who questions the assumptions of Chomsky and has in this respect an easier job because it is easier to critisise than to justify. Hence the impression that Foucault "won" the debate"
You hit the nail on the head!
I always thought its pretty rich coming from the person (foucault & others) who take on the assumption that objectivity itself doesnt exist and therefore objectively "proves" his own theory.
People following this mindset tend to be completely oblivious to the inherent logical contradiction of the idea itself.
Asking critical questions about assumptions =/= denying reality itself.
In reality there is no value in their core idea, all it does is allowing the person in question to simply say something is wrong because my theory objectively states that objectivity itself doesnt exist, because people cant be objective.
It allows you dismiss any mountain of evidence proving you wrong.
People can NEVER be truly objective, that is a true statement.
Because you are an actor in the world and you cannot get around the fact that you have to interpretate every bit of data in your everyday life.
Without those masses of assumptions you make every day (expecting the ground to hold your feet, eating, etc etc etc) you would simply not be able to function.
BUT, what this also means is that foucault's theory is per defintion wrong by his own standards.
That is why its a worthless theory.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people these days that have adopted this sophistry, mainly because it sounds reasonable on the surface.
Its only when you think about it more in terms of philosophy and pure logic, it becomes clear as day that this idea is worthless.
Hey man, why affirm a belief when you can just deny it, or tear it apart. This is the new left we're speaking about it, it's not cool to believe, or have faith, or to find consistency amongst one's belief; instead...relativism, relativism, relativism. Ironically keep one foot in so you can always quickly pull it out and never have to justify belief's, especially the taboo or the reactionary ones that can cause real world justification. At this point, hearing and reading the constant use of nihilism and relativism as a justification for a lack of belief really does get old. I'd rather die on my shield holding onto an idea, or something transcendent, then never have a shield at all and be miles away from the battle.
@@DiamorphineDeath The burden is on the one claiming to believe in something. I can understand why someone wants to believe or have faith in something, but usually the one who does this can be a bit stubborn and fixed and usually has a hard time noticing new or other perspectives.
The inverse of that holds in the same exact way. The person who uses a priori reasoning to never have to actually prove something, and instead, rely on continual relativism and irony, has nothing to begin with. The issue here is that the burden is not on the one holding the belief in this case, acting as if the nihilist or the relativist has an automatic get out of jail free card to use a priori, as they themselves are willingly partaking in deconstruction. To actively deconstruct and critique an idea or a belief, one has to present a counter-point to it in some fashion, with Foucault and the relativists do not. They critique solely to critique, and then act as if their action requires no justification or burden on their part in any way. Take Foucault and his blanket statements on institutions and their use as bourgeois oppressive entities to maintain the normative nature of the society. He never has to prove his theory, as it is a priori, in that any act or action/inaction can be used to support it. These individuals use cowardly thought and retreat to abstraction and theoretics solely as they are so uncomfortable dealing in reality, that they can only function in the grand narratives they choose to construct and dwell within. That's all the new-left was, findings ways to use deconstruction and critique and manipulate/denigrate culture to fit their idea of what quantifies an ideal marxist humanist world...to the detriment of anyone unfortunate enough to find themselves within it.
Chomsky pointed to what seems to be a fundamental flaw in Foucault's stance on political action. If justice doesn't exist, why bother with revolution? What are you aiming towards? Foucault answers something about a classless society, which would be better (Because of what standard? If there is no good or justice?). Otherwise he should probably say 'I support this because I feel like it' or 'I support this because it increases my sense of power', maybe that would be the honest truth.
Its not that it doesnt exist, its more like it is a maliable concept that depends on culture and time
@@depresent2897 Okay, but if that is how Foucault would look at it, then the question still remains: by what logic is Foucault motivated when striving for what he sees as a better society. What is he aiming towards and based on what standard.
Sad to see the comments turn into a pissing match. Rather than trying to cheerlead for your favorite mascot, try to get something out of both sides.
+Drew Williams Hahaha how very dialectical of you :P
ENLIGHTENED CENTRISM
Foucault is yet another classic case of someone who should have resolved their own issues before presuming to lecture the world on their sins.
@@Valelacerte which issue?
@@Valelacerte it sounds like youre parroting a certain Shmordan B Schmeterson without providing any evidence of your accusation against Foucault. what in this particular debate did he say that lead you to this conclusion? or is it just cuz peterson characterized him as a scary cryptomarxist?
This discussion was very illuminating. I think one can synthesize the points both men make in the theoretical and the practical elements of changing a society. I think both here are aware of the coercion of institutions which constitute our current society, and that rightly so, institutions that attempt to force humans into the mold of this class stratified society are unjust and illegitimate. Foucault's skepticism as well as criticism are a useful balance to the lofty goals of Chomsky's theory of a more just and free society. I think we have to accept that perfection is impossible, that humans are contentious, and that eliminating the forms of capitalist habituation might not be possible, hell, even might be a lost cause, but we will go nowhere if we allow skepticism to completely disengage us from trying. I respect both opinions here and I think both are valuable in formulating our own thoughts on the matter.
There's nothing to synthesize. Either you believe in justice & morality or you don't.
I just wished Frantz Omar Fanon had been alive to be in this debate. "Black Skin, White Masks," The Wretched Earth."
Thank you. It's great to see this debate again.
Foucalts French is so clear and proper it's very easy as a learner to understand it
*insert person*
*insert time in video*
*insert "totally destroyed!!!" *
*insert that you know this because of your two semesters of philosophy at college*
This is a great comment
lmao yup
*[insert half-assed “both sides is dumb” critique because you’re too dense to grasp the concepts being discussed but want to protect your ego and feel like you’re just smarter than everyone]*
Great comment!
How many semesters do you need for your opinion to count?
I appreciate putting this online, I just wish the JRE had preceded this event so people could learn they need neither a moderator, who just gets in the way of a good conversation, and we definitely don''t need a TV presenter providing context and breaking up the conversation.
I like how Chomsky laughs when Foucault tries to refute him "in terms of Spinoza" 56:06
It's not it, haven't read much Spinoza although I do like the little I've read. It's just that it seems to me that Foucault wants to refute Chomsky no matter what. What Chomsky is saying is reasonable, he's also whiling to admit he could be wrong, he seems to me to have a very clear thinking, Foucault on the other hand, likes to philosophize his way out of everything that's being talked about. So, for instance, when Chomsky talks about civil disobedience, he gives examples to illustrate it, like taking action against the Vietnam war, Foucault doesn't do that, and here he just brings Spinoza from under his sleeve to be able to problematize more and not losing the argument. So I just find it funny that Chomsky seems to find it funny. :)
Is that how they translated it? He doesn't say refute, but répondre which merely means answer. Way less arrogant.
it's basically the same argument Jordan Peterson is making today
I also noticed that! hahaha So funny and I agree that appealing to Spinoza is rather unnecessary in this case.
Spinoza was an important thinker for Foucault and Deleuze. Part of doing philosophy is referencing influences in an attempt to elucidate your own line of thought. If this is a philosophical discussion, why the hell *shouldn’t* Foucault be able to mention Spinoza? You all seem to see this as him trying to ‘defeat’ Chomsky. I disagree. They both seem to be almost playfully engaging in a conversation from diverse vantage points. And if you know any Spinoza, you’d know his ideas have a lot to say about justice, power, knowledge, and human nature. This isn’t a game of Yu-Gi-Oh. “I play...Spinoza! You lose life points, Chomsky!”
The problem is in believing you have to chose between perfect moral objectivism, and perfect moral subjectivism. Those are just axioms, and neither one captures the complex reality underneath. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle: human nature informs our sense of morality, but morality requires axioms to be expressed linguistically. Those axioms include contradictions, but they are generally useful, and informed by an underlying nature.
There's a reason that the vast majority of humans who are born naturally dislike hurting an infant.
there's a lot of orange juice on that stage
lmao hahahahahaha
Orange juice is just a social construct.
I took that as the metaphor for Holland, since they like orange so much
@Ibrahim Abid lol I meant as a color
I appreciate what both men are saying here. A moment emblematic of the main disagreement between them is after Chomsky describes anarcho-syndicalism as a societal structure he believes could free the common man and Foucault begins to retort, he says "He is much less advanced than Chomsky in this sense" which I see as characterizing Foucault's skepticism in firmly committing to anything. Chomsky understands the reasons surrounding this skepticism perfectly well and he agrees with Foucault in many areas, but Chomsky is willing to take the step forward, knowing full well there's a possibility he could wind up two steps back from the goal of achieving true human liberation, while Foucault is not so bold in this area, always being wary of even his own conceptions of morality, justice, etc.
That's a way to critique Marxism by Foucault, right here. Meanwhile, we got Ben Shapiro, like: "That's evil. You're just saying give me stuff. Thief."
@Nothing Sounds Like an 808 - Marxism is better, since Marxism was formed by more than just Marx, even without appending the Leninisms and such.
Yeah it just shows how vapid contemporary commentators are.
@dio io You don't think that our current media diet online with SJW or anti-SJW dunking is step down from debates in the past? I'd love to hear a case.
There's little in common between different versions of marxism apart from opposing capitalism on the basis of values and ideals of modernity.
One version killed and rounded up my (some still living) family members in labor camps, hunted down gay people and commited genocide against "reactionary" ethnic minorities.
But I would agree this critique is better than Ben Shapiro's, haha. Foucault is cool.
the way shapiro wouldn't survive 5 min in any french media platform lmao
Estoy tan feliz que haya subtítulos en español
I really like both Chomsky and Foucault in this debate. They are trully striving to achieve the same goal, just on widely different foundation. a synthesis of Chomsky's naivety and Foucault's post-irony
i love you noam for everything you have ever done, for everything you will do. i love you for all the good you will inspire in others for generations to come. the thought of a world without you crushes my heart. and i hope that especially with youtube and your legacy that your voice will continue to be heard as long as humanity persists.
facccssss
I love the recognition both Chomsky and Foucault give the moderator at ~ 4:00 on the mountain-digging analogy, indicating the willingness to converge. Then, the rest of the discussion illustrates the difficulties that entail.
This reminds me of a more modern version; recently discussed by Linkov et al., in "Scientific Convergence: Dealing with the Elephant in the Room", Environmental Science and Technology, 2014:
"Like the parable of the blind men and the elephant, scientists independently working in individual domains are each unable to see the full underlying nature and implications of a problem..." (figure 1)
People have different expectations for how difficult this problem of synthesizing the elephant is and who should be responsible for making it happen.
The most concise point made here, or the most relevant to the human condition on our current societal predicaments..is the statement Foucault makes in regards to Spinoza and the proletariat waging not a just wage, but a war solely for power. Chomsky immediately disagrees and looks at it in that good/evil sort of dichotomy, but Foucault presents a very solid point there.
The ends justify the means, and while the means might seem just, and good hearted, and humanistic.. when the ends are anything but, then what good were the means in the first place? It always comes back to the Nietzschean phrase, "sympathy multiplies misery." Whatever justness Chomsky wants to attribute to his cause, to the radical leftism, and the revolutionary sort of aspect...it is still rooted in elitism and intellectualism, and sort of exists in a masturbatory way to stroke its own ego and virtue signal about how holy and good it is, in spite of any objectivity and measurable aspects pertaining to it. While I watched this debate ten years back while I was in high school, I remember agreeing wholeheartedly with Chomsky and the idealistic approach to his politics. Re-watching this the relativism that Foucault displays in his specific statements there, and the amorality present speaks a lot more to the basic human condition I've seen than anything Chomsky presents to affirm his own words.
As an example, would a ideology rooted in the furthering of the 'proletariat' like marxism, really use such convoluted and complex terminology/language? If one does not know the words, or the concepts, or the theories, then one is automatically outside of the club..regardless of social class. The blue collar worker will not muse poetically and nonsensically about Adorno, or Foucault, or Lacan, etc. How can a movement, claim to be rooted in the lowest caste, while simultaneously only function in the most bourgeoisie of fashions and styles?
The best point here, made by Foucault, in my opinion, is that one cannot justify (in the sense given by Chomsky) a war against any kind of society in terms of "justice" as this "justice", as Foucault points out, necessarily emerges from that kind of society one wants to put an end to. The chomskian argument, from Foucault's point of view, has a circular structure and therefore is invalid.
However, the notion of "creativity" allows Chomsky to overcome this problem, but as long as Foucault doesn't accept it, they cannot agree about that.
If we don't want to accept neither the "cartesian" solution of Chomsky nor the Foucault's paradox which results in some kind of moral skepticism, we can take a Hegelian point of view and argue that in any form of society there are contradictions, such as the class one, that logically allow us to overcome them with an image of an "ideal society", where those contradictions no longer exist. Of course this is based on an arbitrary principle (it is better to avoid contradictions) and on a restriction (we cannot choose between diferent forms of avoiding the contradiction, if we do so we fall on the Foucault's paradox again).
Do you think that anyone has come with a better theoretical solution for this?
Foucault was a phony.
@sharpsider, you still don't get what Chomsky wants us to understand i.e there exists a fundamental notion in human nature that has guided our civilization for so many years, but to focault these fundamentals are just recent manifestations to solve the current problems that exist with the current system to which chomsky agrees but to some extent only, the thing is equality and justice are fundamental schematisms of human nature that have been enshrined in every human being and according to chomsky if we just give people the right sense of direction they, might just uncover it this is what chomsky thinks how creativity works but for focault he thinks certain men in history came and revolutionized the society by discovering things that already existed but were not visible to human intelligence to which chomsky thinks its a process which is common to human nature and is ultimately the notion that makes us human.
wisely
human nature the last bastion of scandroules
...Does anyone else feel like the heart of the debate is really free will vs. determinism? And also the relationship between objective and subjective existence? Or am I just listening with an ear to my own preoccupations? ...Honestly most philosophical debates eventually lead to those topics for me, though, if I follow the logic far enough.
@@hououinkyouma5033 Thanks for the explanation! For my part, my problem isn't with deterministic aspect: that's something I take for granted, since... The self cannot be independently self-determining, because that's circular; even if quantum randomness is involved, then it's just a random occurrence. I wouldn't say we're controlled, either, since we literally ARE the forces that constitute us... But anyway, yeah, my problem is with the focus on the social aspect to the detriment of the biological and... extra-social environmental. Although actually, I think separating these things is somewhat arbitrary, since they contribute to each other... It's like water dripping on a rock: does the rock direct the flow of the water, or does the water change the shape of the rock? Well, yes: in the end, they're both material stuff, and mutually construct each other. In short, you cannot understand one without the other. For that reason, I'm really into post-humanist thinking. Although it, too, can be kind of... mechanical, I want to say. I'd love to see theory that merges post-humanism and panpsychism. I'm reading this book right now called Cosmologies of the Anthropocene that addresses the short-comings of post-humanist theory, but I don't know if the author is going to go there.
You do not know how long I have searched for this in it’s entirety.
Blessed be you whom’st grant me this stimuli so that it’s sensation may be maximally experienced by my presence.
Foucault emphasizes the ingredients in the kitchen while Chomsky talks about the endless recipes the cook can generate with them. My vote goes to Chomsky with due respect for Foucault.
Good analogy my guy
Whenever I'm reminded of the mismatch that was Peterson and Zizek's debate, I come back to this video to remind myself of what a true intellectual battle of the century looks like.
Same
foucealt was a very fidgety person. One thing i love about this video though is the body language of everyone throughout.
It's because he used to smoke weed all the time. The guys probably blazed in this debate!
Oral fixation.
Fidgety thinker. He leads from one component idea of an argument to the next and then goes to nonsense as though he thinks you'd forgotten what he was talking about. Arrogant wanker. The fingers he puts in his own mouth represent his own penis, or his mums'. The neurotic fidgeting is probably from the constant struggle to avoid what Derrida at least managed to acknowledge, that he had had a hand in something truly reprehensible. I don't like him, can ya tell?
@@RedfilmMovies he actually got part of his payment for doing this debate in the form of hash from the moderator. Him and his friends went on to refer to it as the "Chomsky hash"
@@lancemannly Source?
This is the best full debate with english translation in youtube. Good work, dude!
Great, thank you so much for uploading this here and also providing subtitles! ;)
Watching this brought me so much joy. It's fascinating, why can't we have more quality material like this on tv? Instead we get Kardashians.
Sunshine Spanish that’s true! But I’m sure there was still pleanty of trash on tv back then :)
Este es sin duda uno de los mejores debates que he visto en mi vida :)
Can you say in English what you worte?
@Martín A. no, why I would mind?? Is there any reason for it? And what's the language? Is it french?
@Martín A. ooo, now everythings ok. I think you have love to language! Yeah?
@Martín A. Noam Chomsky is my favorite philosopher only for huge interest and knowledge about language! Oh my language! He said now a days God is only alive in Language!
@@kazikamruzzaman8033 Being your favorite philosopher (Linguist). I urge you to learn a second language... Notarás la diferencia🧠
I love Chomsky's posture and respectfulness in debate. I'm learning something new everyday from him...
i love these kinds of debates. not hostile, just opposed. it’s more a conversation than it is a debate, really. just two very well-researched people in their fields talking to each other about an interesting concept. also the way the debate is filmed is very cool
in the age of debates bros, it's refreshing to see two people take the time to understand each other and even butt head while still being nuanced
This is incredible. Though I disagree with much of Foucault’s thinking, he and Chomsky are among the top 10 most cited academics in history. Their influence pervades our culture and it is quite the spectacle to witness them having this conversation.
Foucault was a nonce.
Good to see Chomsky at his best, even in his early years. His breadth of knowledge is impressive.
Chomsky on Foucault: "He struck me as completely amoral, I’d never met anyone who was so totally amoral"
There's an important distinction between "amoral" and "immoral". Being amoral would be a virtue in a philosopher and theoretical social critic. In fact, it's a perfect summation of Foucault's position in the debate.
Nietzsche's work never asks us to abandon all Morality, just the morality of the church and state. How could one become an Ubermensch if there is no objective morality and measuring stick? If Nietzsche believed in subjectivism then there would be no demarcation between a mensch and an Ubermensch, and people could not jump over, and surpass themselves to become better as he suggests. He derides the German Spirit (in later works), Alcohol consumption, German-Unification, praises the European Spirit, etc. which all point to objectivism, not subjectivism.
Foucault wrote about how social norms are the dominant form of power in society, so yeah, that kind of is the point. If Chomsky actually said that, then that says A WHOLE LOT MORE about Chomsky than it says anything about Foucault. But then again, Chomsky hates the fact that Foucault is an acclaim philosopher, and that his theory will live on for centuries, while Chomsky anti-imperialism, while loadable and morally good, is conceptually worthless.
Foucault wiped the floor with Chomsky, and til this very day, Chomsky is still sore. Everything Chomsky says about postmodernism or french intellectual scene stems from this major ass whooping he got from one of the greatest thinker of the last century.
Having said that, it's amazing how people tend to care so much about the personality and not the concept of said personality. The world would be a better place if people understood things like disciplinary power and panoptic. Google Scholar > RUclips.
Gareth Mensah
Chomsky's work WILL outlive the work of Foucalt. The guy literally revolutionized the field of linguistics.
True but not the world of philosophy. Chomsky the linguist will be remember. But Chomsky the anti-imperialist intellectual will be a footnote at best. There is no concept. There is no heritage. There is definitely no legacy either.
On the other hand with Foucault, his work has influenced sociology, anthropology, and countless philosophical movements. His concepts of disciplinary power, biopolitics, his warning of the coming age of neoliberalism and culture of self were prescient.
His heritage is clearly embedded in Nietzsche, Durkheim and Hegelian dialectics. His legacy can be seen in Baudrillard, Deleuze, Gattari, Zizek, and countless.
Regarding anti-imperialism, Edward Said's concept of orientalism, which I would connect to the concept of othering (the creation of the other, that there is no other, only the process of creating the other, i.e Gattari's territorialization) is A LOT MORE insightful that Chomsky naive's anti-imperalist outcry.
Yes, I said, naive, that is the only word to describe Chomsky's philosophy. I know he doesn't to be called that, and believes it comes from those ivory tower french intellectuals, but it's hard to read any of his book and not be slapped by it. It's hard to watch this video and no be slapped by it. Chomsky is this grown ass man who wakes up one day and realizes the world is not fair and confuses (or forces onto) his ideal for man with the actual nature of man.
Boo hoo, grow up and stop moralizing everything.
Great debate, it’s ashame we don’t really have too many intellectual heavyweights left today. I also like that the audience doesn’t whoop at everything point they make as if it’s an mma event or something as they do for many debates between public intellectuals today.
Remember when people were so smart THAT: When they were having a debate on philosophy/civics/history/etc. etc., one of them went "can we just talk in this language?" and the other guy was like "for sho" and then they still had the most intensely complex conversation ever.
I'm not used to listening to such high quality debates in 3 different languages, I have to watch at least 2 more times to understand it. I can't believe such quality was aired in the 70ies, the decade I was born.
Look at all those oldschool Dutch philosophers in the audience. hahaha. My dad used to look like that!
Not any more...
“Some people talk in their sleep. Lecturers talk while other people sleep." - Albert Camus
I notice many complaining about lack of subtitles: the description box should have made it clear, but all you need to do is click the *CC* on bottom right of video....voilà, perfect captioning of all languages into English.
***** OR a good editor would simply release each subtitled version as separate youtube videos.
Imagine something like this on TV today.
whenever i feel i'm third wheeling Chomsky and Foucault debate, i remember the interviewer here
Thank you so much for uploading this video in full, in a single file, and in very solid quality, AND annotated.
My first encounter with Foucault (in 2009) set me off on a path of self-empowerment and -- his '73 Paris lecture on mechanisms of exclusion, among other things, to be specific. It's only gotten better/worse from that point on. ;)
Thank you for the subtitles for those who cant speak french yet :p
that orange juice looks delicious and refreshing
I really like both sides. I myself am an Anarchist, or at least label myself as one for ease of explaining my beliefs, but I do think that everything we think, do, say, create, etc. is a product of our society. I think Chomsky's linguistic theory even goes to further support Foucault's point on this that children are able to create new language but it must be within the bounds of that language, it's not like they just create new language. Of course, recently new studies have come out that some children who have been raised together without language have created their own, but I would assume that these languages have their own rules and the new creation through that must also be within the bounds of such, this is something I would have to look deeper into, but anyways. I especially think Foucault's point right at the end about needing to disavow justifications for liberation that come from before liberation as they are a product of class society and thus are a part of class society. I really like that, and especially as I am reading more into things like Deleuze and Guattari, Mark Fisher, and Debord, I am thinking more and more about these types of issues. How can we break free of class oppression and hierarchical society without creating a new hierarchical society once we've broken this one down?
Blessed that I get to watch this. Internet is amazing
I love how Noam tries not to laugh at the bad pronunciation of the Dutch host.
48:07 - when Chomsky said "right" he actually meant "shut the hell up"
I appreciate these kind of discussions. Now, although I am Mr. nobody, I will use the democratic power RUclips gives me to express myself...
These two men are talking about the same thing but with different views. If only one view is used, there will be blind zones for that view.
A simpler example would be the next situation:
An artist makes a painting in 18th century. The question is ¿where did his creativity came from?
The trivial answer is: from the brain of the artist.
So ¿why don't we just study the brain of this artist?
Because it's very complex, we need several disciplines and technologies.
To cope with that complexity, without resorting simultaneously to all those disciplines and technologies, we can build mind abstractions, models, and logic explanations, based exclusively on one of those disciplines (eg psychology, sociology, phylosophy, neurology, and any other field that has some connection with this).
A person with a view like Chomsky, would say that the creativity of this artist of 18th century came from his own human nature, that is some sort of attribute of his brain that is also present in any other human brain, but this artist has developed more this attribute of creativity applied to painting.
A person with a view like Foucault, would say that the creativity of this same artist came from a set of rules (social, cultural and technical) and a set of contextual conditions that led him to express himself in such a way that the painting was achieved.
Both views are right, and they are complimentary, not exclusionary, because each one express one dimension of the multidimensional reality.
Maybe the Chomsky vision is perceived somewhat naive, but it is not. It is just more popular and easier to comprehend because the concepts used in that view are already of common use in some civilizations.
But Foucault vision is also true, and it becomes evident for a person only when connecting to other cultures and civilizations, so this person realizes how different situations can lead to distinct creations, specially in artistic disciplines. It happens a lot with music. For example, even the more creative Greek citizen, could not create Caribbean music from spontaneous thoughts; exposing to some rules and conditions is necessary for some creations to occur.
End of my idle intervention.
I was waiting for the washing machine to end washing my clothes, now I have to get them out!
pretty nice synthesis. surely there is more to this analysis, but it's a good and solid start
I would like to nit-pick and say we most assuredly do not know whether art come from the brain or anywhere else.
A good Philosopher just passing by I guess.
Your last comment is hilarious :D
Both views are NOT right.
Foucault produced no real scholarship.
Thank you both !
I'm super late on this, but I'm super glad you uploaded all of this, this is super exciting, and I'm super humble and thankful for this.
when they are talking about proletariat and power i think their meaning are quite different because chomsky equalizes power with state and Foucault means in power much more broader sense
ხოდა როცა "ადამიანის ბუნებაზეა" ლაპარაკი, ალბათ ძალაუფლება უფრო ფართო გაგებით იგულისხმება, ვიდრე სახელმწიფოსთან გათანაბრებულად.
No, Chomsky mentions about other means of power like multiple times; commercial, economical...
Love the dorky Dutch interviewer-guy.
I had been looking for a full version of this debate for years! Thank you!
This is like watching a high priest debate Nosferatu