The biggest difference in 1971 Chomsky is square and Foucault is hip. Apparently the latter was given a large brick of hash by the moderator to attend. It lasted years, and he referred to it as The Chomsky Hash.
Except Rick, you didn't write very well even though its edited at least once. Latter means the "Second Person". Former is the "First Person" in simple childlike terms. Latter+ you wrote Foucaults name second. SO Foucault would be "Latter" (germanic word origin). Your sentence would actually make more sense if you went with this actually, because Foucault WAS the hash-head. But you said "Chomsky hash". Even though "Chomsky" in your sentence is the "Former" aka First Person.
@@DeadGuye1995 I think Rick got "latter" correct. It's clear to me that he meant to say the hash went to Foucault, who named it "the Chomsky hash". Foucault wouldn't have named it "the Foucault hash", would he? Mind you, I have no idea whether any of it's true; I'm just defending Rick's language (it's a slow Monday).
@@jwf2125 anyway it seems that you mean that Foucault was given the brick of Hash ?... that this thing could be before the discussion... It's strange for me to read about it.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:05 🌍 Galileo's discovery challenged the belief that humans were at the center of the cosmos, similar to how Chomsky's linguistics challenged the centrality of humans in culture and society. 03:42 🗣️ Chomsky emphasizes that innate knowledge, like language, is a fundamental aspect of human nature that enables us to derive complex knowledge from limited data. 09:38 💭 Foucault questions the concept of human nature, viewing it as a research program rather than a definitive characteristic, and suggests that it points to areas of study rather than human potential. 16:32 🧠 Foucault discusses the concept of "episteme" as a set of rules that governs human thinking within a particular culture, challenging individual creativity. 18:08 🔄 Chomsky and Foucault discuss the role of creativity, with Chomsky focusing on individual creativity and Foucault emphasizing the role of communal rules and grids. 28:13 🧐 Chomsky and Foucault agree that science progresses through limitations and structures in human minds, leading to creative leaps in knowledge. 31:58 🤔 Chomsky and Foucault discuss the reasons for not addressing personal questions and the relation of knowledge to society. 34:44 🌍 Both Chomsky and Foucault agree on the importance of addressing political questions and societal transformation. 37:19 🏭 Chomsky advocates for anarcho-syndicalism as a form of social organization that maximizes individual freedom and creativity. 39:51 🏛️ Foucault emphasizes the need to critique institutions that may seem neutral but serve to maintain power structures. 45:27 ⚖️ Chomsky discusses the relationship between legality and justice, arguing that actions can be justifiable if they aim for a more just outcome. 57:37 💭 Foucault questions whether justice itself is a concept that functions within class-based societies and whether it would persist in a classless society. 01:02:12 🤝 Chomsky believes that there is an absolute basis for justice grounded in fundamental human qualities, suggesting that justice exists independently of class-based systems. 01:02:26 🧠 Chomsky emphasizes concepts like justice, decency, love, and kindness as real human qualities. 01:03:04 🔍 Foucault suggests that concepts like human nature, kindness, justice, and human essence are constructs of their civilization and class system. 01:04:13 🔄 Chomsky discusses the irony of intellectuals from middle and upper classes identifying as proletarians and their role in revolution. 01:05:08 📚 Chomsky discusses the importance of how the trained intelligentsia identify themselves, either as technocrats or part of the workforce, in modern industrial society. 01:06:05 ✊ Chomsky talks about his courageous stance against the Vietnam War and coexistence of MIT's involvement in war research and libertarian values. 01:07:46 🤝 Chomsky explains the balance of coexisting elements within institutions like MIT, which allows dissent and encourages civil disobedience as a means of opposing war. Made with HARPA AI
First, the narrator"explaining" this to us (not the "debate" moderator) completely derails the opening focus. Second, when the "debate" resumes, it is Foucault following his own statement, with Chomsky's initial reply having been voiced over by this narrator. Chomsky's basic argument (when he is heard) seems to proceed from his idea that innate grammar stems from human habits of pre-existing mental patterns and that science results from when these tendencies line up with that which can be measured with empirical data. The German moderator then interrupts Foucault's narrative of social rather than cognitive structures at the root of human "creativity" with his observation of some unrelated topic of "The death of man" made by Foucault elsewhere, which Foucault points out has nothing to do with staying on topic. At this point the "moderator" attempts to contextualize the discussion himself, chastizing Foucault for "refusing to speak about his own creativity" to which a disgusted Foucault replies, " Well, you can wonder about it, but I can't help that," cutting to an expression on Chomsky's face that communicates non-verbally, his agreement with Foucault that at least on the topic of this moderator, they may be in full agreement. Basically Foucault goes on to inform this idiot narrator that his own thesis involves themes that are far more interesting to him than this moderator's personalization of social trends, such as the larger currents of western epistemological thought. Cut to the equal idiot narrator, who proceeds with his agenda, which is to state that Foucault refuses to "distance himself from politics" in a discussion about culture, pointing out that Foucault and Chomsky agree on the necessity to "abolish and destroy the forms of capitalism, in order to favor direct worker's participation." This speech is what we get instead of actually hearing what Foucault and Chomsky actually said to each other in what was in all likelihood, a far more intricate discussion, sans the idiot moderator. We then return to Chomsky answering everything that we DIDN'T hear Foucault say, discussing the very "repression oppression, coercion, and destruction by the institutions" by which these two interlopers have derailed any meaningful witnessing by the viewers of the video. Finally on the issue of "oppressive institutions," Foucault and Chomsky agree and are both allowed to speak, leaving us with their conclusions, but without a clear basis of how these conclusions were arrived at. Chomsky, then points to the usefulness of a model of a basic human nature" in solving these problems, to which Foucault replies only that such a sexualized bourgeois model is dangerous, to which Chomsky replies with his opposition to Viet Nam within American politics relative to the action that must be taken, for which the proposed model of human nature must be constructed to establish the criteria for the ethics necessary to freeing society according to the civilization liberated from said bourgeois oppression. The moderator then makes his only intelligent contribution to the discussion thus far, by mentioning "population census papers" that must be filled out by citizens of holland under threat of legal penalty. Foucault takes this point immediately to a source of "class struggle", while Chomsky aims his moral objection to state authority at "imperialism," neither of which directly address the issue of the "social disobedience" of the pragmatic act of government of counting citizens. At last however we arrive at the main difference between the thinkers; Foucault arguing against a higher standard of justice because it too is a product of the social forces it must control, whereby Chomsky counters with the idea that without establishing the standard to begin with, there is no basis for action upon a conviction of justice, finally pointing out that "legality and justice are not identical," nor are they mutually exclusive ideas. Whereby Foucault points out that basic the human nature of the class war against unjust authority is fought not because their war is just but because the oppressed "want to win." Chomsky then states that if the proletariat is just going to cause chaos and instability, that he doesn't want the proletariat to win at all costs. Foucault states that if such a proletariat is indeed just another class of oppressors, that it is simply another shade of a bourgeois faction. Chomsky rejects this theory of social revolution stating that is the justification of revolution itself that may lead to the dead end of the concept. Foucault counters by saying that though the violent seizure of power might itself be unjust, it is justified because the action leads to "the suppression of class power in general." Chomsky rests on the idea that the ends and only the ends must justify the means. Those ends must have the result of "some sort of an absolute basis ultimately residing in fundamental human qualities." Foucault's final statement is that notions such as justice, love, kindness and so forth are simply the result of social constructions themselves. The students in the studio audience seem to be attuned to the fact that Chomsky himself is member of the military industrial complex of MIT, to which Chomsky points out that he hopes he is a symbol of activism towards some of its policies. In the end, it seems that nothing can be resolved here. Perhaps the whole value of these exercises among the intellectual class is that they are observed and considered, so that the greater number of humans don't seek drastic and invasive solutions that lead to stupid actions.
Completely agree on the unnecessary disruptiveness of the moderator's comments, particularly when he launches into the death of man spiel. I would've loved to hear Chomsky's direct response to Foucault's assertion (masquerading as a question) that the root of creativity lies in social structures rather than cognitive structures that are innate to human nature. I suspect, extrapolating from what Chomsky says in the rest of the debate, that Chomsky would suggest that both social structures and cognitive structures act upon human creativity, and that the presence of the former does not so completely contaminate the current conception of human creativity so as to render the current enterprise of human creativity as entirely problematic.
I am now rewatching this debate again. I admire both Focault and Noam Chomsky. Focault, for me, theories and concepts are asking deeper questions as that of Frantz Omar Fanon's " Black Skin White Masks" and "The Wretched Earth." Sarte and Simone de Beavoir are great minds. One has to grow beyond the culture one is brought up in to acquire more knowledge no matter which field one is studying. Centuries of histories of philosophy, sciences, religious divisions of wars, and competition. Psychiatristry and Psychology with its complexity. If it is between Sigmund Freud or Carl Gustav Jung, the choice is Jung for me. The "Redbook" Libra Novus edited and with an Introduction by Sonu Shamdasani. Heraclitus stated that nature loves to hide. The mystery schools of myths of the Greeks and Romans. Socrates taught Plato, Plato taught Aristole, and Aristole taught Alexander the Great. Aristole was the father of political science. Hannah Arendt is considered the greatest political philosopher of the 20th century, "The Banaily of Evil," "Tolertarism." A general definition of civilization: a civilized society is exhibiting the fine qualities of truth, beauty, art, and peace. Philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead Futhernore, how can one advance to a better society with the Empire been so corrupted by powers of greed? American Imperialism and colonization and Great Britain Empire and colonization of recent. Economics enters in with false derrritives of numbers by minds wanting more money and greed. "How Much Land Does One Man Need" is a short story by Tolstoy. Heigel, Karl Marx, and Ingels. What did Karl Marx really teach? Who actually got Marx correct? For its time, Lenin did. Now we are in 2024. Capitalism with its claws of the powers of our elites of colleges that has been bought out by government who trains people how to think, except by those who thinks outside the box of control. Technocrats and kleptocracy. Which form will gather next with American Empire and colonization and Imperialism in addition to Great Britain' s Empire and colonization? Will nuclear war with its contractors build more weapons to murder innocent more families and children? Apartide and genocide in Palestine. Zionism is an ideology. It does not mean one is fascist or racist. What will happen to Nato, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, the European Union, designed with its mechanisms of control? Dr. Iian McGilchrist's books, "The Master and His Emissary," The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, "The Matter With Things," 2 volumes, Our Brains and Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World, and all those in various fields of knowledge and his lectures speaking with one another to bring a better understanding for our world. As for myself on my journey of life, Krishnamurti and Alan Watts have had an enormous contribution, in addition to the updates of Carl Jung's writings. Peace and love. 🙏❤️🌍🌎🌏🌿🕊🎶🎵🎶💫✨️💫✨️
Thank you for taking the time to post all this. It’s helpful. I will look into many you mentioned. I like Dr. Robert Sapolski and his theory that humans have no free will. I think that when science discovers exactly how our brains work within our bodies, we will have the possibility of a more just world.
This was a most excellent discussion, professor Chomsky is without any doubt in my opinion, one of the foremost intellectuals of our age, a voice for the best of what make us human, the essential of fairness, justice for all, regardless on one nationality, or class, it’s sad that such men are not given the power they deserve but instead those who only care about wealth and power who use and exploit others for materialism and self interest who misuse power to oppress others, for ideological and political manipulation of poorly educated people who more often driven by religious ideology etc etc…sadly
@@petershelton7367 thank you, I wish I could be so optimistic, it’s had to see any light at the end of the tunnel but I suppose hope is what make us human keep going, in spite of all the human misery these days……
In retrospect, I don't think he really did very much. Some of what is considered his 'original thinking' was actually already well-established elsewhere. But he never really would act as a scholar of such thought and never had to. He was pretty much given free rein there at MIT to gassify on and on.
The most profound statement I’ve ever heard: One does not necessarily allow the state to define what is legal. The state has the power to enforce a certain concept of what is legal. But power doesn’t imply justice or even correctness. 🤯
At first I thought "Oh dear this whole 'i call it legal' thing sounds very silly, this cannot be his point of view", but well, he made his case by saying that his point of view can be drawn from existing law. It is still not quite right to call it the legal interpretation I think, but, well, it can be legal at some point. To not judge principles only by their current interpretation, but also by the possible interpretations that can be drawn from them is I think right and a welcome antidote to "stupid radicalism".
really? I kind of took that as just saying that there is more than one definition of 'legal' (not just the one we all know, which is exactly what the state defines it to be)
@@thunkjunk not justice for you, maybe, but it's necessary to make a rule that applies a flat fee to everyone, otherwise things would be too complicated, and obviously that one fee can't be justice for everyone it affects.
I value both perspectives. I think we can discern certain areas of „what human nature is not“ in other words through science we can discern we have the cognitive faculties and instinctual patterns of a human and not a spider. We mainly eliminate possibilities and narrow parameters through scientific research and coherent hypothesis. At the same time all things that are „nature“ are organized in culture. The structural aspects are a much more important aspect than people realize. And on top of that there is a very conservative tendency to overly universalize. This happens all the time in profane ways: men are from mars women from Venus type thinking etc. At the same time Foucault’s radical structuralism is just as misunderstood as Chomsky’s universalism. Universalism really only exists in an abstract way, not in reality. It is a set of probable innate phenomena that gets structured by society. So Foucault dismissing Universalities is true. In the end all things thought Universal are actually structural to a particular place and time in history. At the same time we miss a very important perspective if we dismiss attempts to discern what lay below structuring.
I agree only with your last statement. Of course there is something that lies under social constructs they fill us with... This "something" is our soul and our innate ability to empathise, to think, to try to understand what is good and what is bad ... So the society and its work on our minds... is not all in our life. I hope you understand me.
@@КороткийГеннадий This ability to emphatize is innate or is a process of evolution in which in a given environment humans thrive through collaboration ?
@@Itsmespiv4192 well... I admit even that it... the ability to emphathize.. it emerges as somethng new in our soul... in the course of our life. Or... maybe yes... it can be innate also. Just as you said.
@@КороткийГеннадий I understand what you are saying it is what Plato, Socrates and others called Logos. Aristotle made a distinction between soul and logos though. But your idea is similar.
@@matthewkopp2391 you.. yourself... wrote that we miss very important perspective if we dismiss that which llies below the social structuring. Honestly I don't belive in Logos of the world as Heraclitus first mentioned it in his famous sayings. I think that there is something in our soul which makes our personality and which influences our personal life-way. And I think that this "something" doesn't depend on the social structuring. It's my opinion. We can call it "personal essence" of our soul. God or Nature gave it to us... Foucault didn't understand that as it seems... And this is why Foucault wrote that notion of "man would be erased like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea".
So, what was first the creation (Chomsky approach) or the transformation (Foucault approach)? (in whole of creativity and scientific progress approaches)
I like the host’s mountain digging analogy lol, it’s a good way to affirm objective reality and truth in a unifying way that grants good faith which I can’t help but feel warm & fuzzy about, through in some platitudinal commendation of democracy and you’ve got me homies.
Which position do you feel most aligned with? Their differing perspectives on humanity are glaring and worthy of further thought and discussion. Foucault seems comfortable with embracing the shadow side of humanity, While Chomsky holds fast to an optimistic even privileged perspective of the overall It’s difficult to accept that there are in fact dark, inhumane, immoral humans that seek only their own, but an unwillingness to accept reality, does not a utopia make.
Yes, well thhey have bith have had elrments that have been proven wrong by later research. Regarding linguistics, Chomskys entire idea of an innate grammar organ is pretty much been debunked. That doesn't neccessarily mean he has to be wrong about other things, such as justice. And Foucaults moral relativism is on thin ice as well, since we have recently discovered non human animals, particularly primates, have a morality. So it's more that each of them has different pieces of the puzzle and looking at politics from differing cameras. Foucault the post modernist acknowleging the pragmatism describing the realpolitik in which power actually occurs, and Chomsky as a classic modernist from a more idealistic view.
I haven’t watched it yet but I know from both of thier personal life’s who I would place my money on, Foucault was an admitted pe do ph i l e who was essentially a sex tourist while Chomsky is still held in a high regard and still working. Chomsky is famous for his idea of Manufactured Consent and Foucault is famous for being degenerate and A moral. If you are a follower of Foucault you have to avidly practice “death of the author” and divorce him from his ideas, I have a hard time with that.
@@rickwrites2612 I see... Now... after reading your post.. it became more cleat for me... I think I am a classic modernist too... and we should overcome these post-modern misconceptions... even if they have a grain of Truth also.
@@rickwrites2612it hasn't been debunked..... Not a single model has ever able to replace his linguistic model entirely.... I am not saying that Chomsky is right..... But it's too far fetched to say that his linguistic model has been debunked or proved completely wrong
This is the Chomsky I fell in love with and will always admire, intellectually raging against the machine, and not the Chomsky who has lived beyond or outlived his intellect. He convinced my intellect, what little I have, that it could impose its will upon those better qualified and punch above its weight.
@@changthunderwang7543 lets be real. You couldn't find Russia on a map. You likely don't have a passport and have never traveled outside the United States. Likely everything you "know" about Russia you learned through audio visual media, because like 2/3 of the US you are functionally illiterate, and you're well trained to parrot the phrases you think signal your in group allegiance for social cookies. Basically, you're a pathetic serf that doesn't know how to assess his own interests from that of the elite which rule over you. Did you even finish high school, I wonder?
Foucoult just slapped chomky silly threw the whole debate 1:01:40 he's talking about God grounding objective morality/justice God embodying love, sympathy, kindness from which we derive it. (and let me answer personally even as a theist, i cant tell you right now, no God still does not ground those, in ANY religion, so Christians need to shut up thinking they have a win here) Chomsky is appealing to God and admits he can not defend it he admits in his "don't push me on it" comment Foucault takes the victory lap and says , "No", all that is just made up subjective crap and you can never derive justification from any of it"
The Fourth Philosophy referred to a number of individual groups whose common goal was to overthrow the foreign powers that ruled the land of Israel. These groups favored armed rebellion against foreign authorities. Among the groups were the Sicarii (the "daggermen") and the Zealots. 18:00 To what extent is the individual able to discover something new and if so, how should we make sense of this? 36:00 Noam on creativity
What is experience to him to be so sure of 'this man'? He knows the Royal We as "one". General schematic structure might interface experience for knowledge as synonyms. Ergo Noam becomes outdated.
It was funny to see Foucault with gleaming eyes while quothing Mao as if Mao was the god of some religion...this illustrates what Chomsky called ¨french insular culture¨
If’s the truth and creatives don’t learn from the truth of outside influences and repeat it again and again then why weren’t its relying on the Situation😞🙏🏻. We should learn from the facts and failures to understand the facts of failures, then thinking 🤔 how and why🙏🏻.
I am not fool to believe that the outside situation needs more true in practice no only philosophy 😩. How often are the positive dummies on block boards complaining about their lack of lies of knowledge!
🙏🏻I didn’t think 🤔 anything could change by human creativity, how could change when the circumstances of being in stimulated human behavior to make its existence proper for human! But to much change would not to make the natural process manageable till the ecosystem becomes dangerous as well as the Climate Crisis and living on relying upon the Imagination 💭 which created by means spirituality of human ego🙏🏻.
It’s human nature not relying upon the Formula of anything with social contracts, how much has he said too much about the structure of process! It’s no mathematical please 🙏🏻 .
What I find most annoying about this video is the person reading the subtitles. I'd rather listen to Foucault speak in French and read the subtitles myself.
Someone put the effort in dubbing this which you refer to as "reading the subtitles" for a lot of us who for many different reasons aren't able to read subtitles while listening to this. And yet, there are people like who complain why someone has don this. For free! Why don't you just go watch the one that's not dubbed? Is it other people's fault that you're not intelligent enough to do a simple search or read the title of the video??
@@msl361 I did both of the things you suggested. I was simply making a comment. My intelligence has no relevance here. For instance, I could attack your intelligence over the grammatical incorrectness of your comment, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you were either in a hurry or angry. Or maybe you don't know how to use spell check.
Human nature,......🤔...in.. Foucault is more about, culture, biological process and ...bla bla bla.... Chomsky is about linguistics, well, culture and linguistics is together, l don't see the working and the explanation , easy way for people comprehend that, l don't great in philosophy, ........l see. Foucault and Chomsky... repit the same principal concept , we looking for are semple answer, I understood is debate, but for, l .. debate is the construction of one answer, this 2 great tinkers... make confused 🤔....who is right ...the vision of the relatively reality of Foucault is him and the vision relatively reality of Chomsky is him to, ...l see..... a lot.....bla bla bla .... but nothing new, like l mention...is the same principal repetition of some one is ready think , is the positive and negative of the same, but nothing in between, we... Read book 📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚... thousand .... and we don't have the answer, correct. Society is the most complicate organisms in the universe. 🦁👍🇲🇽
Full absorption of something as "heavy" as this is not aided by the constant intrusion of the original audio bleeding through. Honestly, I never truly understood why this is done with dubbed presentations in general. Can someone tell me: Is this distracting "bug in my ear" intended to serve as some kind of "proof" that a mysterious entity with its own dark agenda is not inserting words into the mouths of the honorable individuals we see on the screen? An implied guarantee that somewhere among the at-home audience is a would-be whistle-blower who understands the original language being spoken and is excitedly hovering within arm's reach of his/her telephone, prepared at any moment to pounce should a key word or phrase not "match up" correctly? Because I promise you, I for one am not that paranoid.
Please advise me when the educational sanctions for the human made Fouls 🙏🏻, how foolish of not being able to adapt if you thinking about the consequences made us ! If’s only been in no sense based! Condition is man made! Why’d you think ahead!
Two brilliant men. Both wrong. A debate between Foucault and Chomsky which mirrored the conversation Socrates had about truth not being tied only to power. Chomsky agreed with Socrates, but admitted he had a hard time justifying this without an appeal to absolute justice, which he could not claim due to his lack of beliefs in absolutes. Foucault simply said new powers take over and define “justice” their own way, which does not, to his mind, have any definition or reality apart from that implementation of power. Both are wrong because there are absolutes and justice is not merely power as Chomsky says, but it also has a ground upon which it is founded. Chomsky doesn’t have an appeal to this ground because he is an atheist. Theism supplies the ground of ethics Chomsky’s instincts and conscience point toward. Religion completes the understanding concerning justice. Justice’s absolute quality, like all else, arises from the Justice of God. Love is where Justice and Mercy meet, in all relationships and in all societies. It is the desire for the good of the other for the other’s sake, individually and collectively. You must balance mercy and justice to have healthy love. Every good parent, judge, leader attempts to strike this balance. Forsake either and the humanity in your children or subjects or fellow citizens will be harmed. Human nature has limits and confined parameters for health. When those are violated, we know it, and resist. Even the failure to resist, when it happens, is a sign of unhealthiness and therefore points to an abuse of power where justice and or mercy have been compromised and the imbalance has caused harm. Both of these brilliant men would’ve been corrected by belief in God.
The most obnoxious, self-entitled, pretentious and pointless debate of all time ... associating the incomprehensibility and lack of substance of Focault with a (surprising!) moral cowardliness of Chomsky.
🙏🏻🤔he didn’t understand himself well please, my gratitude ! Then again freedom is structured like struggle for power free , unlimited power nor humankind feels . It’s his job act playing, until today it’s Western no cause of freedom to live with pirate 🤮🤑🐄🙏🏻.
I dont say this as a conservative right wing supporter but I politically and philosophically disagree with this debate when they talk so nice about the disastrous fail of no-deserved title of Karl Marx as philosopher. Marx's so called "philosophy" is todays social problems because today people dont wanna work instead they wanna receive lazying dole/welfare benefits and evething belonging to the state and eradicating the existence of private property? Karl Marx and his crap thoughts that he calls philosophy is todays serious problems and it comes out of a dirty toilet instead of an correct use of a human brain as the two gentlemen were debating about human nature...
You have not engaged with Marx, you have not put any effort in doing so. All you have done is consume second hand, ideologically charged, muddied up information about Marx. I assure you, no one in their right mind, with an honest and open mind, would even come close to commenting what you just did. Your playlist with videos you watch gives away your lie about not saying all this as a conservative right wing supporter. Furthermore, Marx's philosophy encompasses the issue of alienation, which you might know about. Losing meaning in one's life due to the society we live in. But Marx, not being a political pundit and demagogue, didn't blame it on trans people or mind numbing stuff like that. He gave a concrete analysis of the function of socio-economic factors that influence our well-being and sense of meaning. Second, Marx's philosophy is based on the RIGHTS of the worker. Something you'd know about if you stop bootlicking technocrats and rich right wing influencers. The function and presence of the worker is essential for societies to flourish. The worker is the fundament of our modern world. But guess who gets to fly into space and own yachts and influence politicians. Does the essential entity get to enjoy even a fraction of that? No, the private property owner does. From generation to generation he inherits the wealth of his ancestors. Have others do the work, come up with the ideas, take the real risk of making a start up. You have the money, you can buy it. You'd have to be really stupid to be born into wealth and fuck it up somehow, not becoming rich yourself. Through connections, privilege, opportunities. But you can be as smart as you can as a lower class worker, it still necessitates you to make sacrifices, sell your time, jump over bureaucratic barriers to enjoy a carefree life. Inequality doesn't arise because people are lazy. That's an insanely out of touch thing to say considering how much work people in third world countries do and live in squalor. So there must be something else going on... obviously. Be sensible, be open minded, stop watching hollywood screw ups turned conservative hot shots and read books. Read what matters. Read whoever you disagree with. Just educate yourself and know your enemy.
Mom : How's the job search going ?
Me :
hahahaha
Anyone else notice that the captioned translations calls him “fucko”? Well played translators!
The biggest difference in 1971 Chomsky is square and Foucault is hip. Apparently the latter was given a large brick of hash by the moderator to attend. It lasted years, and he referred to it as The Chomsky Hash.
Except Rick, you didn't write very well even though its edited at least once. Latter means the "Second Person". Former is the "First Person" in simple childlike terms. Latter+ you wrote Foucaults name second. SO Foucault would be "Latter" (germanic word origin).
Your sentence would actually make more sense if you went with this actually, because Foucault WAS the hash-head. But you said "Chomsky hash". Even though "Chomsky" in your sentence is the "Former" aka First Person.
@@DeadGuye1995 I think Rick got "latter" correct. It's clear to me that he meant to say the hash went to Foucault, who named it "the Chomsky hash". Foucault wouldn't have named it "the Foucault hash", would he? Mind you, I have no idea whether any of it's true; I'm just defending Rick's language (it's a slow Monday).
@@jwf2125 anyway it seems that you mean that Foucault was given the brick of Hash ?... that this thing could be before the discussion... It's strange for me to read about it.
@@КороткийГеннадий Yeah, it's pretty irrelevant. i was in an idle moment.
@@jwf2125 ok. I see...
Anyone else impressed by the questions that the crowd asks?
If it was today: why only white men is attending this debate? Are you racist?
That's what you get from a literate class. Now our population us tik tok literate and nothing much more.
Thank you for doing this. I could actually listen to the entire debate while working.
This is a phenomenal channel. Thank you for this.
I omp
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:05 🌍 Galileo's discovery challenged the belief that humans were at the center of the cosmos, similar to how Chomsky's linguistics challenged the centrality of humans in culture and society.
03:42 🗣️ Chomsky emphasizes that innate knowledge, like language, is a fundamental aspect of human nature that enables us to derive complex knowledge from limited data.
09:38 💭 Foucault questions the concept of human nature, viewing it as a research program rather than a definitive characteristic, and suggests that it points to areas of study rather than human potential.
16:32 🧠 Foucault discusses the concept of "episteme" as a set of rules that governs human thinking within a particular culture, challenging individual creativity.
18:08 🔄 Chomsky and Foucault discuss the role of creativity, with Chomsky focusing on individual creativity and Foucault emphasizing the role of communal rules and grids.
28:13 🧐 Chomsky and Foucault agree that science progresses through limitations and structures in human minds, leading to creative leaps in knowledge.
31:58 🤔 Chomsky and Foucault discuss the reasons for not addressing personal questions and the relation of knowledge to society.
34:44 🌍 Both Chomsky and Foucault agree on the importance of addressing political questions and societal transformation.
37:19 🏭 Chomsky advocates for anarcho-syndicalism as a form of social organization that maximizes individual freedom and creativity.
39:51 🏛️ Foucault emphasizes the need to critique institutions that may seem neutral but serve to maintain power structures.
45:27 ⚖️ Chomsky discusses the relationship between legality and justice, arguing that actions can be justifiable if they aim for a more just outcome.
57:37 💭 Foucault questions whether justice itself is a concept that functions within class-based societies and whether it would persist in a classless society.
01:02:12 🤝 Chomsky believes that there is an absolute basis for justice grounded in fundamental human qualities, suggesting that justice exists independently of class-based systems.
01:02:26 🧠 Chomsky emphasizes concepts like justice, decency, love, and kindness as real human qualities.
01:03:04 🔍 Foucault suggests that concepts like human nature, kindness, justice, and human essence are constructs of their civilization and class system.
01:04:13 🔄 Chomsky discusses the irony of intellectuals from middle and upper classes identifying as proletarians and their role in revolution.
01:05:08 📚 Chomsky discusses the importance of how the trained intelligentsia identify themselves, either as technocrats or part of the workforce, in modern industrial society.
01:06:05 ✊ Chomsky talks about his courageous stance against the Vietnam War and coexistence of MIT's involvement in war research and libertarian values.
01:07:46 🤝 Chomsky explains the balance of coexisting elements within institutions like MIT, which allows dissent and encourages civil disobedience as a means of opposing war.
Made with HARPA AI
doing God's work
I've never heard of Harpa. It must be good.
I need another person to pause the video to explain the explanation of the guy who pauses the video to explain Focults exolainations.
🤣
Who in their critical analysis of human nature is who is grown up in the room now in 2023? The proletariat or the bourgeois?
His explanations are far more perplexing than anything Focualt says here who is very clear.
@@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060😂 I would prefer to just listen to the debate.
First, the narrator"explaining" this to us (not the "debate" moderator) completely derails the opening focus. Second, when the "debate" resumes, it is Foucault following his own statement, with Chomsky's initial reply having been voiced over by this narrator. Chomsky's basic argument (when he is heard) seems to proceed from his idea that innate grammar stems from human habits of pre-existing mental patterns and that science results from when these tendencies line up with that which can be measured with empirical data. The German moderator then interrupts Foucault's narrative of social rather than cognitive structures at the root of human "creativity" with his observation of some unrelated topic of "The death of man" made by Foucault elsewhere, which Foucault points out has nothing to do with staying on topic. At this point the "moderator" attempts to contextualize the discussion himself, chastizing Foucault for "refusing to speak about his own creativity" to which a disgusted Foucault replies, " Well, you can wonder about it, but I can't help that," cutting to an expression on Chomsky's face that communicates non-verbally, his agreement with Foucault that at least on the topic of this moderator, they may be in full agreement.
Basically Foucault goes on to inform this idiot narrator that his own thesis involves themes that are far more interesting to him than this moderator's personalization of social trends, such as the larger currents of western epistemological thought.
Cut to the equal idiot narrator, who proceeds with his agenda, which is to state that Foucault refuses to "distance himself from politics" in a discussion about culture, pointing out that Foucault and Chomsky agree on the necessity to "abolish and destroy the forms of capitalism, in order to favor direct worker's participation." This speech is what we get instead of actually hearing what Foucault and Chomsky actually said to each other in what was in all likelihood, a far more intricate discussion, sans the idiot moderator.
We then return to Chomsky answering everything that we DIDN'T hear Foucault say, discussing the very "repression oppression, coercion, and destruction by the institutions" by which these two interlopers have derailed any meaningful witnessing by the viewers of the video.
Finally on the issue of "oppressive institutions," Foucault and Chomsky agree and are both allowed to speak, leaving us with their conclusions, but without a clear basis of how these conclusions were arrived at. Chomsky, then points to the usefulness of a model of a basic human nature" in solving these problems, to which Foucault replies only that such a sexualized bourgeois model is dangerous, to which Chomsky replies with his opposition to Viet Nam within American politics relative to the action that must be taken, for which the proposed model of human nature must be constructed to establish the criteria for the ethics necessary to freeing society according to the civilization liberated from said bourgeois oppression.
The moderator then makes his only intelligent contribution to the discussion thus far, by mentioning "population census papers" that must be filled out by citizens of holland under threat of legal penalty. Foucault takes this point immediately to a source of "class struggle", while Chomsky aims his moral objection to state authority at "imperialism," neither of which directly address the issue of the "social disobedience" of the pragmatic act of government of counting citizens.
At last however we arrive at the main difference between the thinkers; Foucault arguing against a higher standard of justice because it too is a product of the social forces it must control, whereby Chomsky counters with the idea that without establishing the standard to begin with, there is no basis for action upon a conviction of justice, finally pointing out that "legality and justice are not identical," nor are they mutually exclusive ideas. Whereby Foucault points out that basic the human nature of the class war against unjust authority is fought not because their war is just but because the oppressed "want to win."
Chomsky then states that if the proletariat is just going to cause chaos and instability, that he doesn't want the proletariat to win at all costs. Foucault states that if such a proletariat is indeed just another class of oppressors, that it is simply another shade of a bourgeois faction. Chomsky rejects this theory of social revolution stating that is the justification of revolution itself that may lead to the dead end of the concept. Foucault counters by saying that though the violent seizure of power might itself be unjust, it is justified because the action leads to "the suppression of class power in general."
Chomsky rests on the idea that the ends and only the ends must justify the means. Those ends must have the result of "some sort of an absolute basis ultimately residing in fundamental human qualities." Foucault's final statement is that notions such as justice, love, kindness and so forth are simply the result of social constructions themselves.
The students in the studio audience seem to be attuned to the fact that Chomsky himself is member of the military industrial complex of MIT, to which Chomsky points out that he hopes he is a symbol of activism towards some of its policies.
In the end, it seems that nothing can be resolved here. Perhaps the whole value of these exercises among the intellectual class is that they are observed and considered, so that the greater number of humans don't seek drastic and invasive solutions that lead to stupid actions.
Completely agree on the unnecessary disruptiveness of the moderator's comments, particularly when he launches into the death of man spiel. I would've loved to hear Chomsky's direct response to Foucault's assertion (masquerading as a question) that the root of creativity lies in social structures rather than cognitive structures that are innate to human nature.
I suspect, extrapolating from what Chomsky says in the rest of the debate, that Chomsky would suggest that both social structures and cognitive structures act upon human creativity, and that the presence of the former does not so completely contaminate the current conception of human creativity so as to render the current enterprise of human creativity as entirely problematic.
Chomsky being asked about MIT got him sweating harder than Foucault standing in an elementary school
🤮
❓️
Why
@@inteljumperxx Because Foucault was a chomo
I am now rewatching this debate again. I admire both Focault and Noam Chomsky.
Focault, for me, theories and concepts are asking deeper questions as that of Frantz Omar Fanon's " Black Skin White Masks" and "The Wretched Earth."
Sarte and Simone de Beavoir are great minds.
One has to grow beyond the culture one is brought up in to acquire more knowledge no matter which field one is studying. Centuries of histories of philosophy, sciences, religious divisions of wars, and competition.
Psychiatristry and Psychology with its complexity.
If it is between Sigmund Freud or Carl Gustav Jung, the choice is Jung for me. The "Redbook" Libra Novus edited and with an Introduction by Sonu Shamdasani.
Heraclitus stated that nature loves to hide. The mystery schools of myths of the Greeks and Romans.
Socrates taught Plato, Plato taught Aristole, and Aristole taught Alexander the Great.
Aristole was the father of political science.
Hannah Arendt is considered the greatest political philosopher of the 20th century, "The Banaily of Evil," "Tolertarism."
A general definition of civilization: a civilized society is exhibiting the fine qualities of truth, beauty, art, and peace.
Philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead
Futhernore, how can one advance to a better society with the Empire been so corrupted by powers of greed?
American Imperialism and colonization and Great Britain Empire and colonization of recent. Economics enters in with false derrritives of numbers by minds wanting more money and greed.
"How Much Land Does One Man Need" is a short story by Tolstoy.
Heigel, Karl Marx, and Ingels.
What did Karl Marx really teach? Who actually got Marx correct? For its time, Lenin did.
Now we are in 2024.
Capitalism with its claws of the powers of our elites of colleges that has been bought out by government who trains people how to think, except by those who thinks outside the box of control. Technocrats and kleptocracy.
Which form will gather next with American Empire and colonization and Imperialism in addition to Great Britain' s Empire and colonization?
Will nuclear war with its contractors build more weapons to murder innocent more families and children?
Apartide and genocide in Palestine. Zionism is an ideology. It does not mean one is fascist or racist.
What will happen to Nato, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, the European Union, designed with its mechanisms of control?
Dr. Iian McGilchrist's books, "The Master and His Emissary," The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, "The Matter With Things," 2 volumes, Our Brains and Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World, and all those in various fields of knowledge and his lectures speaking with one another to bring a better understanding for our world.
As for myself on my journey of life, Krishnamurti and Alan Watts have had an enormous contribution, in addition to the updates of Carl Jung's writings.
Peace and love.
🙏❤️🌍🌎🌏🌿🕊🎶🎵🎶💫✨️💫✨️
Brilliant comment.
What a stupid comment.
@@alexdiaz4296
❤😊 📚
Thank you for taking the time to post all this. It’s helpful. I will look into many you mentioned. I like Dr. Robert Sapolski and his theory that humans have no free will. I think that when science discovers exactly how our brains work within our bodies, we will have the possibility of a more just world.
Exactly what I needed ty ! 🕊️
amen
1:02:49 Wow, I need to read more Foucault
Everyone needs to read more Foucault.
I keep imagining Alex and his Droogs strolling in and destroying the place.
40:00 "Groupe social" translates into "social group" not "social class"
I am not at all convinced that human kindness and other natiral human values are class-structured as Foucault insists.
I’m no Chomsky honk, but I did find this enlightening.
Lol honk
This was a most excellent discussion, professor Chomsky is without any doubt in my opinion, one of the foremost intellectuals of our age, a voice for the best of what make us human, the essential of fairness, justice for all, regardless on one nationality, or class, it’s sad that such men are not given the power they deserve but instead those who only care about wealth and power who use and exploit others for materialism and self interest who misuse power to oppress others, for ideological and political manipulation of poorly educated people who more often driven by religious ideology etc etc…sadly
Exactly but the insight you profess will win out as it can not be extinguished We must look to the light not the darkness ❤
@@petershelton7367 thank you, I wish I could be so optimistic, it’s had to see any light at the end of the tunnel but I suppose hope is what make us human keep going, in spite of all the human misery these days……
chomsky is a clown.
@@FrBr69 oh, an what make you say that, I’ll be curious to hear your professional opinion…..
In retrospect, I don't think he really did very much. Some of what is considered his 'original thinking' was actually already well-established elsewhere. But he never really would act as a scholar of such thought and never had to. He was pretty much given free rein there at MIT to gassify on and on.
I would rather read foucault. I would rather political life/institutions be organized according to chomsky's vision of citizenship.
absolutely wonder conversation (debate) love how they offered them OJ instead of wine or water, the 70s😂
The most profound statement I’ve ever heard:
One does not necessarily allow the state to define what is legal.
The state has the power to enforce a certain concept of what is legal.
But power doesn’t imply justice or even correctness. 🤯
Anyone with average intelligence comes to this conclusion at 14 years of age, focault: the intellectual of midwits
At first I thought "Oh dear this whole 'i call it legal' thing sounds very silly, this cannot be his point of view", but well, he made his case by saying that his point of view can be drawn from existing law. It is still not quite right to call it the legal interpretation I think, but, well, it can be legal at some point. To not judge principles only by their current interpretation, but also by the possible interpretations that can be drawn from them is I think right and a welcome antidote to "stupid radicalism".
Doesn't feel like justice at all to have to pay $70 if I forget to move my car on street sweeper day.
really? I kind of took that as just saying that there is more than one definition of 'legal' (not just the one we all know, which is exactly what the state defines it to be)
@@thunkjunk not justice for you, maybe, but it's necessary to make a rule that applies a flat fee to everyone, otherwise things would be too complicated, and obviously that one fee can't be justice for everyone it affects.
What a treat! Thank you Jonathan.
you shouldnt be on the internet CHILD from the olden days
This is so good that I had a whim to go to Algeria to have fun.
I value both perspectives. I think we can discern certain areas of „what human nature is not“ in other words through science we can discern we have the cognitive faculties and instinctual patterns of a human and not a spider. We mainly eliminate possibilities and narrow parameters through scientific research and coherent hypothesis.
At the same time all things that are „nature“ are organized in culture. The structural aspects are a much more important aspect than people realize. And on top of that there is a very conservative tendency to overly universalize. This happens all the time in profane ways: men are from mars women from Venus type thinking etc.
At the same time Foucault’s radical structuralism is just as misunderstood as Chomsky’s universalism.
Universalism really only exists in an abstract way, not in reality. It is a set of probable innate phenomena that gets structured by society.
So Foucault dismissing Universalities is true. In the end all things thought Universal are actually structural to a particular place and time in history. At the same time we miss a very important perspective if we dismiss attempts to discern what lay below structuring.
I agree only with your last statement. Of course there is something that lies under social constructs they fill us with... This "something" is our soul and our innate ability to empathise, to think, to try to understand what is good and what is bad ... So the society and its work on our minds... is not all in our life. I hope you understand me.
@@КороткийГеннадий This ability to emphatize is innate or is a process of evolution in which in a given environment humans thrive through collaboration ?
@@Itsmespiv4192 well... I admit even that it... the ability to emphathize.. it emerges as somethng new in our soul... in the course of our life. Or... maybe yes... it can be innate also. Just as you said.
@@КороткийГеннадий I understand what you are saying it is what Plato, Socrates and others called Logos. Aristotle made a distinction between soul and logos though. But your idea is similar.
@@matthewkopp2391 you.. yourself... wrote that we miss very important perspective if we dismiss that which llies below the social structuring. Honestly I don't belive in Logos of the world as Heraclitus first mentioned it in his famous sayings. I think that there is something in our soul which makes our personality and which influences our personal life-way. And I think that this "something" doesn't depend on the social structuring. It's my opinion. We can call it "personal essence" of our soul. God or Nature gave it to us... Foucault didn't understand that as it seems... And this is why Foucault wrote that notion of "man would be erased like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea".
Wasn't it Copernicus who first (well, first in the post-classical world) proposed a helio-centric model of our planetary system?
So, what was first the creation (Chomsky approach) or the transformation (Foucault approach)? (in whole of creativity and scientific progress approaches)
54:00 forward caught my attention
This explains a lot.
Dam y’all snap with this
I like the host’s mountain digging analogy lol, it’s a good way to affirm objective reality and truth in a unifying way that grants good faith which I can’t help but feel warm & fuzzy about, through in some platitudinal commendation of democracy and you’ve got me homies.
Beautiful
Which position do you feel most aligned with?
Their differing perspectives on humanity are glaring and worthy of further thought and discussion.
Foucault seems comfortable with embracing the shadow side of humanity, While Chomsky holds fast to an optimistic even privileged perspective of the overall
It’s difficult to accept that there are in fact dark, inhumane, immoral humans that seek only their own, but an unwillingness to accept reality, does not a utopia make.
Yes, well thhey have bith have had elrments that have been proven wrong by later research. Regarding linguistics, Chomskys entire idea of an innate grammar organ is pretty much been debunked. That doesn't neccessarily mean he has to be wrong about other things, such as justice. And Foucaults moral relativism is on thin ice as well, since we have recently discovered non human animals, particularly primates, have a morality. So it's more that each of them has different pieces of the puzzle and looking at politics from differing cameras. Foucault the post modernist acknowleging the pragmatism describing the realpolitik in which power actually occurs, and Chomsky as a classic modernist from a more idealistic view.
I haven’t watched it yet but I know from both of thier personal life’s who I would place my money on, Foucault was an admitted pe do ph i l e who was essentially a sex tourist while Chomsky is still held in a high regard and still working. Chomsky is famous for his idea of Manufactured Consent and Foucault is famous for being degenerate and A moral. If you are a follower of Foucault you have to avidly practice “death of the author” and divorce him from his ideas, I have a hard time with that.
@@rickwrites2612 I see... Now... after reading your post.. it became more cleat for me... I think I am a classic modernist too... and we should overcome these post-modern misconceptions... even if they have a grain of Truth also.
@@rickwrites2612it hasn't been debunked..... Not a single model has ever able to replace his linguistic model entirely.... I am not saying that Chomsky is right..... But it's too far fetched to say that his linguistic model has been debunked or proved completely wrong
@@rickwrites2612 animals in general have a morality, just because they don't jot it down on paper doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
This is the Chomsky I fell in love with and will always admire, intellectually raging against the machine, and not the Chomsky who has lived beyond or outlived his intellect. He convinced my intellect, what little I have, that it could impose its will upon those better qualified and punch above its weight.
shut up, your justjealous
Embarrassing to see him run apologia for Putin these days
@@changthunderwang7543 If that is the case, then I am embarrassing as will, because I support Putin and the Russian people 100%.
@@commonsensethecynosure1639 hey, you said it not me
@@changthunderwang7543 lets be real. You couldn't find Russia on a map. You likely don't have a passport and have never traveled outside the United States. Likely everything you "know" about Russia you learned through audio visual media, because like 2/3 of the US you are functionally illiterate, and you're well trained to parrot the phrases you think signal your in group allegiance for social cookies. Basically, you're a pathetic serf that doesn't know how to assess his own interests from that of the elite which rule over you. Did you even finish high school, I wonder?
Chomsky got CRUSHED!
Wtf
Hahaha
Anyone found any clips here where the moderator is holding the red wig :P?
Foucoult just slapped chomky silly threw the whole debate
1:01:40
he's talking about God grounding objective morality/justice
God embodying love, sympathy, kindness from which we derive it.
(and let me answer personally even as a theist, i cant tell you right now, no God still does not ground those, in ANY religion, so Christians need to shut up thinking they have a win here)
Chomsky is appealing to God and admits he can not defend it he admits in his "don't push me on it" comment
Foucault takes the victory lap and says , "No", all that is just made up subjective crap and you can never derive justification from any of it"
I appreciate these flashbacks which are still pertinent to the evolving Mormon culture. Keep m’ coming,
Foucault peered back into history with a scalpel like no one ever has.
The Fourth Philosophy referred to a number of individual groups whose common goal was to overthrow the foreign powers that ruled the land of Israel. These groups favored armed rebellion against foreign authorities. Among the groups were the Sicarii (the "daggermen") and the Zealots.
18:00 To what extent is the individual able to discover something new and if so, how should we make sense of this?
36:00 Noam on creativity
christopher Hitchens at 37:30?
No
What is experience to him to be so sure of 'this man'? He knows the Royal We as "one". General schematic structure might interface experience for knowledge as synonyms. Ergo Noam becomes outdated.
Hasta que medida de Canadá llega el estado de México?
I think Foucault goes deeper but Chomsky covers only one level.
It was funny to see Foucault with gleaming eyes while quothing Mao as if Mao was the god of some religion...this illustrates what Chomsky called ¨french insular culture¨
Or maybe he just like it 🤷♂️
Copernicus and Galileo are on top of it for humanity, as is Darwin and Alan Watts. Chomsky and Foucault need more time.
12:12 is this guy interpreting to her ?😅
When ever happened in none exist how do you do Faulcat !
If’s the truth and creatives don’t learn from the truth of outside influences and repeat it again and again then why weren’t its relying on the Situation😞🙏🏻.
We should learn from the facts and failures to understand the facts of failures, then thinking 🤔 how and why🙏🏻.
Caracas venezuela: función de lo fantástico simbólico únicamente
I am not fool to believe that the outside situation needs more true in practice no only philosophy 😩. How often are the positive dummies on block boards complaining about their lack of lies of knowledge!
🙏🏻I didn’t think 🤔 anything could change by human creativity, how could change when the circumstances of being in stimulated human behavior to make its existence proper for human! But to much change would not to make the natural process manageable till the ecosystem becomes dangerous as well as the Climate Crisis and living on relying upon the Imagination 💭 which created by means spirituality of human ego🙏🏻.
What if the proletariat is morally won’t be sound the same ways as of the current leadership is not
Hold on bro.. so c
Chomsky understands french?
It’s human nature not relying upon the Formula of anything with social contracts, how much has he said too much about the structure of process! It’s no mathematical please 🙏🏻 .
Foucault is dead and all these talks seem a trifle after that.
Dead is just a social construct 😂
@@anitkythera4125 I know these absurdic post-modernism theories.
Voltaire said: "Dieu est mort".
Later, God said: "Voltaire est mort".
@@Alan_Stinchcombe it was said not Voltaire... it was said by Nizshe. In his most famous book "Zaratustra".
@@КороткийГеннадий Nietzsche
What I find most annoying about this video is the person reading the subtitles. I'd rather listen to Foucault speak in French and read the subtitles myself.
Agreed
Someone put the effort in dubbing this which you refer to as "reading the subtitles" for a lot of us who for many different reasons aren't able to read subtitles while listening to this. And yet, there are people like who complain why someone has don this. For free!
Why don't you just go watch the one that's not dubbed? Is it other people's fault that you're not intelligent enough to do a simple search or read the title of the video??
@@msl361 I did both of the things you suggested. I was simply making a comment. My intelligence has no relevance here. For instance, I could attack your intelligence over the grammatical incorrectness of your comment, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you were either in a hurry or angry. Or maybe you don't know how to use spell check.
No, no! Let's stop this! You're not a clown, you're a United States senator!
@@Renbu8 You copied and pasted the wrong reply, or you're a bot.
Martin Deborah Rodriguez Cynthia Rodriguez Karen
Bravo 👏🏻
@8:55 - 9:03 Chomsky sticks the landing and the debate is over.
Not at all, don’t be dogmatic
I wonder if there is a connection between genius and being bald 👩🦲
101:20 justification "...au cote de la classe oppressive" (a justification for it made by the the oppressing (not oppressed) class?)
Thompson Larry Martin Jennifer Jones Betty
Human nature,......🤔...in.. Foucault is more about, culture, biological process and ...bla bla bla.... Chomsky is about linguistics, well, culture and linguistics is together, l don't see the working and the explanation , easy way for people comprehend that, l don't great in philosophy, ........l see. Foucault and Chomsky... repit the same principal concept , we looking for are semple answer, I understood is debate, but for, l .. debate is the construction of one answer, this 2 great tinkers... make confused 🤔....who is right ...the vision of the relatively reality of Foucault is him and the vision relatively reality of Chomsky is him to, ...l see..... a lot.....bla bla bla .... but nothing new, like l mention...is the same principal repetition of some one is ready think , is the positive and negative of the same, but nothing in between, we... Read book 📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚📚... thousand .... and we don't have the answer, correct. Society is the most complicate organisms in the universe. 🦁👍🇲🇽
this would have been much better if they put foucault to debate with someone intelligent
29:01 😂
Is it possible that both Foucault and Chomsky are both narcissist grifters in their own way, and we are just suckers?
Foucault is pedo, Chomsky's shadow is hard to explain... I am thinking privilege
Foucalt was a narc grifter, not Chomsky though.
Entirely possible, albeit in different ways.
gonna come back to this comment in a few months. This is my way of bookmarking LOL.
How's Noah Chomsky a grifter?
The camera man is trolling, I would say he/she is a camera philosopher themselves lol
Foucault is more interesting than Chomsky. He shouldn't have died so early 😅
I agree 💯
superbolw 2024 BBQ boys
Well he could have taken a clue from others and recognized that his hedonistic lifestyle was dangerous.
No disrespect to Foucault but his communist beliefs and homosexual promiscuity killed him. Such a loss.
Full absorption of something as "heavy" as this is not aided by the constant intrusion of the original audio bleeding through. Honestly, I never truly understood why this is done with dubbed presentations in general. Can someone tell me: Is this distracting "bug in my ear" intended to serve as some kind of "proof" that a mysterious entity with its own dark agenda is not inserting words into the mouths of the honorable individuals we see on the screen? An implied guarantee that somewhere among the at-home audience is a would-be whistle-blower who understands the original language being spoken and is excitedly hovering within arm's reach of his/her telephone, prepared at any moment to pounce should a key word or phrase not "match up" correctly? Because I promise you, I for one am not that paranoid.
Interesting.
its intellechually put. very STIMyouLATE ing
DF México capital Caracas
Please advise me when the educational sanctions for the human made Fouls 🙏🏻, how foolish of not being able to adapt if you thinking about the consequences made us ! If’s only been in no sense based! Condition is man made! Why’d you think ahead!
Two brilliant men. Both wrong. A debate between Foucault and Chomsky which mirrored the conversation Socrates had about truth not being tied only to power. Chomsky agreed with Socrates, but admitted he had a hard time justifying this without an appeal to absolute justice, which he could not claim due to his lack of beliefs in absolutes. Foucault simply said new powers take over and define “justice” their own way, which does not, to his mind, have any definition or reality apart from that implementation of power.
Both are wrong because there are absolutes and justice is not merely power as Chomsky says, but it also has a ground upon which it is founded. Chomsky doesn’t have an appeal to this ground because he is an atheist.
Theism supplies the ground of ethics Chomsky’s instincts and conscience point toward. Religion completes the understanding concerning justice. Justice’s absolute quality, like all else, arises from the Justice of God.
Love is where Justice and Mercy meet, in all relationships and in all societies. It is the desire for the good of the other for the other’s sake, individually and collectively. You must balance mercy and justice to have healthy love. Every good parent, judge, leader attempts to strike this balance. Forsake either and the humanity in your children or subjects or fellow citizens will be harmed. Human nature has limits and confined parameters for health. When those are violated, we know it, and resist. Even the failure to resist, when it happens, is a sign of unhealthiness and therefore points to an abuse of power where justice and or mercy have been compromised and the imbalance has caused harm.
Both of these brilliant men would’ve been corrected by belief in God.
What definition of God do you mean?
No vous nous se Pa que es el Marxismo 😊
The most obnoxious, self-entitled, pretentious and pointless debate of all time ... associating the incomprehensibility and lack of substance of Focault with a (surprising!) moral cowardliness of Chomsky.
Tankie vs Pedo...
Finally somebody said it! Thanks!
Pedo wins every day, Foucault is basically a nihilists ancap
🙏🏻🤔he didn’t understand himself well please, my gratitude ! Then again freedom is structured like struggle for power free , unlimited power nor humankind feels . It’s his job act playing, until today it’s Western no cause of freedom to live with pirate 🤮🤑🐄🙏🏻.
I dont say this as a conservative right wing supporter but I politically and philosophically disagree with this debate when they talk so nice about the disastrous fail of no-deserved title of Karl Marx as philosopher. Marx's so called "philosophy" is todays social problems because today people dont wanna work instead they wanna receive lazying dole/welfare benefits and evething belonging to the state and eradicating the existence of private property? Karl Marx and his crap thoughts that he calls philosophy is todays serious problems and it comes out of a dirty toilet instead of an correct use of a human brain as the two gentlemen were debating about human nature...
You have not engaged with Marx, you have not put any effort in doing so. All you have done is consume second hand, ideologically charged, muddied up information about Marx. I assure you, no one in their right mind, with an honest and open mind, would even come close to commenting what you just did. Your playlist with videos you watch gives away your lie about not saying all this as a conservative right wing supporter.
Furthermore, Marx's philosophy encompasses the issue of alienation, which you might know about. Losing meaning in one's life due to the society we live in. But Marx, not being a political pundit and demagogue, didn't blame it on trans people or mind numbing stuff like that. He gave a concrete analysis of the function of socio-economic factors that influence our well-being and sense of meaning. Second, Marx's philosophy is based on the RIGHTS of the worker. Something you'd know about if you stop bootlicking technocrats and rich right wing influencers. The function and presence of the worker is essential for societies to flourish. The worker is the fundament of our modern world. But guess who gets to fly into space and own yachts and influence politicians. Does the essential entity get to enjoy even a fraction of that? No, the private property owner does. From generation to generation he inherits the wealth of his ancestors. Have others do the work, come up with the ideas, take the real risk of making a start up. You have the money, you can buy it. You'd have to be really stupid to be born into wealth and fuck it up somehow, not becoming rich yourself. Through connections, privilege, opportunities. But you can be as smart as you can as a lower class worker, it still necessitates you to make sacrifices, sell your time, jump over bureaucratic barriers to enjoy a carefree life. Inequality doesn't arise because people are lazy. That's an insanely out of touch thing to say considering how much work people in third world countries do and live in squalor. So there must be something else going on... obviously. Be sensible, be open minded, stop watching hollywood screw ups turned conservative hot shots and read books. Read what matters. Read whoever you disagree with. Just educate yourself and know your enemy.