Foucault speaks French, Chomsky English, the audience is Dutch, and somehow they just all understand each other as they discuss these weighty concepts. Some people are formidable.
being a bilingual canadian who speaks both english and french fluently, being able to understand and appreciate this discussion without having to read any of the subtitles is an immense pleasure for me. two of my intellectual heroes,
The world is not as kind as we think it is. Foucault saw that and have figured several solutions for us to avoid the conditions of being fooled by anyone. Simply put, he did not want us to be so naive by pretending that we are living a happy life; yet entertaining ourselves with lies to ease the pain.
Chosky is an intellectual but with great wisdom. We must go back to basics - reconnect with our conscience. Find righteousness in the heart, and this will lead to beauty in the character, and then there will be harmony in the home. It is a natural progression from this that we will get order in the nation and peace in the world.
This is perhaps the 3rd or 4th time I've watched this brilliant discussion. I usually sided more with Chomsky but having just reading Foucault's "Discourse & Truth: a Problematization of Parrhesia" I am more compelled by his nuanced position. Foucault does not merely reject "universal morality" he also concludes by stating that he sees no "historical justification" for the kind of transition (to anarcho-syndicalism) proposed by Chomsky. Specifically, he cannot conceive of an absolute "human nature" while his Marxist-Cynicist associations render him highly critical of all institutions which fundamentally orient us towards the world and our self. Foucault seems to be echoing Matthew 7:16, "Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?" Chomsky concedes this critique to Foucault but maintains that it is of the utmost importance that we engage in civil disobedience and actively imagine, theorize and create better future societies. Foucault fears this view, thinking that that we will reproduce the same mistakes or systems since we have not sufficiently understood or critiqued them at their essential levels. Ran Prieur, a perspicacious blogger, likens a variation of Chomsky's argument (more closely the green anarchist argument in favor of forcing "collapse") to the dubious success of a heroin addict tossing away his drugs. Perhaps a more "Eastern" interpretation of this discussion is to view each argument as addressing different sides of the same question(s). That is, bluntly put, how should we live our lives?
Foucault sounds like all institutions have to be purged and cleansed in order to keep the world safe for a more advanced future society. Like the soviets, with their purges. Do we really have to purge feudalism or samurai, or belief in Zeus? Things can change
Unfortunately the god delusion might ALSO Be "real" and an innate artifact. The solution is to encourage humans natural inclination towards fairness and irrationality bigotry oppression and class domination
Foucault is just a philosopher. Chomsky is an m.i.t. professor he comes from a background of finding answers. Not just posing questions. Foucault will not be conducting twin studies anytime soon
He is saying that justice doesn't have meaning for him because justice has meaning when injustice get created in a class society...so in classless society justice doesn't have any meaning.
Foucault is centuries ahead of his time and therefor difficult to understand sometimes. Chomsky is a true humanist and he believes in universal values of humanity. Foucault believes universal values doe not exist and that any form of value system needs to be challenged. For the rest I think they are pretty much on the same page.
I disagree. Foucault is essentially a behaviorist as he believes all our concepts of human nature, justice, etc. are socially conditioned meaning that they were formed w/in our society, which was a trendy topic that peaked in the 50s, and which the man sitting across from Foucault practically singlehandedly destroyed. Chomsky's work in linguistics, biology and the cognitive sciences directly deal with this. He claims that we are pre-programmed, not socially conditioned (though the environment certainly plays a role) with the characteristics which define us: organs, limbs, genetic make up, science forming capabilities etc. which I think is undeniable by now. A good, though extremely simplified example of this is the process of puberty, which is clearly pre-determined before birth but meant to take place sometime after it. Chomsky is well aware of the traits that we should not succumb to that Foucault points out and is adamant in pointing them out. I think Foucault is rifled with confusions. Though the environment certainly plays a role on such concepts, they are by no means limited to them. What Chomsky is arguing is that even if we don't know how to in detail describe these concepts we are trying to define, we should still be bold enough to make certain claims about them (otherwise we're not getting anywhere), even if it leads to error (and we should be open to the overwhelming possibility that they will) if we deem that the current society that oppress and coerces and limits that concept that we have labeled as human freedom
Max Schlepzig I don't disagree with anything you said, only one thing stuck my mind while reading ' pre-programmed'. Now that's undeniable, but, assuming that there is a universal sense of justice that emerges with the biological nature of human beings, how can it be Universal when it is prone to mutations? I don't know if that makes a sense.
Wolfie It's hard for it to make sense unless we define what the term universal means, which is an incredibly difficult task in itself because we're presupposing that we are capable to discuss and understand such concepts. Think about what universal in the ordinary sense, or in the sense you're using it, means. What it implies is like saying we know everything, therefore we can distinguish between what is a _universal_ and what isn't. Somehow, with everything around us that we know and don't, we can distinguish that which should be in it's perfect form. Think about how insane that sounds. It's like the term normal. Think about that as well. When you say this is normal behavior (or pick any example you like) you're presupposing to the extreme because you're essentially saying you know everything and that you're capable of identifying something as _normal_. I think we should be careful using such terms (however tempted we may be) like universals and normal. It makes sense to use them for a certain mode of categorization, but we should realize that that's the only reason were using the term. It certainly isn't a given that we are capable of understanding anything, much less everything. Hope that clears it up for you.
+Max Schlepzig But then, this is indeed the problem. On the one hand, Chomsky (like essentially all the great rational skeptics of the past) points out, quite reasonably, that the deepest mysteries of reality might very well remain forever hidden away from our understanding (repeating almost word by word what Hume, Kant, Leopardi, Vico, and many other modern humanists agreed on long ago). On the other hand, however, Chomsky claims that there is such a thing like "fundamental human nature", that is a "biological invariant" whose main traits include an inescapable tendency towards "creativity", "justice", "sympathy", and "love". Apart from the fact that some of these traits can be very hard even to define and characterize explicitly (as Chomsky himself aknowledges during the debate), these two positions, a basic skepticism on the scopes and limits of the human knowledge and understanding of reality, and, at the same time, a firm belief, even the absolute certainty on and about the existence of a fundamentally pre-programmed biological invariant called "human nature", endowed with some well defined features and qualities, appear to be potentially in contradiction. Moreover, in the light of what we understand, however little it is, about the evolutionary aspects of living beings, the case that evolution and temporal change might/should apply also to "human nature", therefore depriving it, at least partially, to some extent, of its "invariant" character, is an hypothesis that we cannot just lightheartedly reject without further scrutiny. So, in the end, although I do indeed sympathize strongly with Chomsky's humanist, illuminist, and universalist stance on "human nature", I do see that it may suffer from difficulties and contradictions that need to be investigated much deeper, before we can attempt even a provisional assessment. Concerning Foucault, playing the devil's advocate, well, he has some very good points too, although I agree that his belief that absolutely nothing can make sense out of a strictly historicistic and behaviouristic framework is definitly too radical, in fact untenable, at least in the light of our present understanding of the basic homeostatic character of many structural and functional features of living beings. In conclusion, it appears that the issues at stake are very complex, and oversimplifications, on any side, do not help the (extremely slow) progresses in the advancement of human knowledge.
bald wants you to consider him anyway, his society (culture) matters, and you must be oppressed or coerced by it. I think it went right over his stubborn head.
i lean ever so slightly towards agreeing with foucault here, but i still think that justice and empathy as chomsky describes them (that is, in the humanist sense) can be useful for fostering class consciousness in a purely pragmatic way. i think foucault is probably correct in his argumentation, but i think chomsky's approach is easier to swallow for the general public who prefers not to philosophize so heavily about things
Foucault sounds like a bolshevik communist. He seems to imply that our institutions have to be purged in order to pave the way for a safe future society. I feel like that is a road that has been tried and simply leads to repression and massacres
I also agree with Foucault, but side with Chomsky in this particular debate - Chomsky has a heuristic/pragmratic approach that is mindful of and caveated by Foucault's point about terms of justice and fairness being objects already constituted by discourse of bourgeois/unequal politics.
+HammarHeart Systems of justice as systems of class oppression vs Systems of justice as a groping towards true justice The latter is certainly the more pleasant perspective. But isn't this appeal to pleasantries the primary way in which the system seeks to subvert our better judgment? How it manages to hide its true motives behind philanthropy? Foucault's personal trauma provided him with a perspective already well adjusted to the ugliness of oppression. Is this what's necessary in order for people to accept the truth? Can we expect others to be as brave as Foucault? This, in my opinion, is too hopeful, especially considering the fact that the system is only ever becoming more and more effective at alienating man from the apparent. Here is where all great thinkers find themselves facing the wall...how can we trick people into seeing the truth. Cheers,
+Dylan Lane he as a philosopher embodies what he identifies throughout his work, the power of rhetoric and communication through language. he is a sophist.
Justice - the motions of the heart to provide the outcome that will produce the most wellness, the language of Justice including the technical items used to provide the rationale required to apply the medicine. Power - the systems of influence designed to promote the interest of a spirit, and now in a global sense, the Imperial Colonial Neo-Liberal Fundamentalist Religious spirit, which maintains its grip through policies aligned to expedite the flow of funds, to maintain the power, to move with relative ease and without meaningful critique. Justice involves applying a value system to the flow of funds that would involve the promotion of traits that strengthen interdependent life systems, the health of a culture, society, and the environments that sustain it, and system of acknowledged interdependence the moves beyond the scope of scarcity. Current powers generate fear to avoid opposition and so stake their claims as safe harbours from fear for subscribers. There's no blame when the acknowledgement of our interdependence is understood. There is blame when ignorance is used as a shield to seeking solutions that actually create the resolutions we need.
l think it depends on who you are or your situation /status.If you're victim or accused of doing something wrong, of course, you must want the justice from authority or court. But if you're in charge ,you'd prefer unlimited power.Most people always choose something or someone who could give them more benefits no matter who they are.
006 As you like it. No self reliance has its own benefits. As well the benefit when produced by me are far greater. Another point benefits i recieve from someone else need to be taken from another, no thanks. Also the justice has no reason to exist if all are self impowered, educated, and desire knowledge above all else. Justice is only requires in societies that believe they need it. Wrong and right are easily taught, and if taught the problem is obviously ones own mental defect. Just as language is inherent, so is feeling, thought, if you cannot think or feel in an healthy way twords others then justice is kindness, acceptance, and help, NOT Jail, unkindness, or damage. I am comparing to modern illegitimate authoritarian form of justice. In my mind I see us all capable of our own personal Justice in how our actions effect ourselves and others. No man will ever be as critical of me as I am of myself. Society has accepted an illegitimate , immmoral, and ignorant, form of justice. Justice is not blind unless those that follow and accept it are themselves blind to themselves.
This must be the one time I actually miss some _obnoxious_ big annotation that blocks the bottom-third (/-quarter) of the screen. B/c the dutch subtitles (nothing against that people!) are really distracting and thus a huge annoyance... :/
+Andy Thank you for posting. 2 of the greatest minds the world has ever known. I hope all that watch would watch this entire debate. Michael Foucalt's philosophy changed my view of the world and educated society. Chomsky I was 14 when my Grandfather told me of Chomsky and that if I was going to worship that A breakinh free of the circle I should know just what the hell I was doing. There is nothing about the USA that exhibits or will legitimize the authority that everyone seems to just accept for fact when it has all been manafactured. There has been no US Govt for nearly 150 years yet all seem to accept the lies from public school or feel confident they recieved a real esucation from public school or private for that matter. The population of the US is entirely too ignorant and brain washed to so a damn thing about the crimes the govt commits or even that those crimes are commited against them. No historical or philisophical knowledge seems to exist in 2016. Sadness fills my heart when I think of the wasted human potential in favor of insane tyrannical ideals.
NEVER MAKE THE EXCEPTION THE RULE ! Creativity is by no means a fundamental characteristic of humanity. HATE TO BURST YOUR BUBBLE ! Human beings are largely imitative, conformist, and habitual in their behavior -- just like most animals. While it is true that some humans are highly capable of innovation and creativity -- it is no less important to understand them as being the exception among the rule (See Zarathustra!)
Me too. I think Chomsky believes in an innate human principle of justice -- fairness, etc. as he enumerates. But while Chomsky wants to talk about basic human principles, Foucault sees class influencing and over-ruling basic human instincts, corrupting them to some degree. In any case, his final 2 minutes weren't long enough for him to explain his idea -- to me anyway.
@@paulgibby6932 correct me if I’m wrong, but i understood Foucault’s point there as a suggestion that the proletariat or the social classes only believe in the idea of justice because they’re on the receiving end of the harsh treatment. And if there was no class system in a society, then there’d be no such concept of justice, but that 2nd point to me just seems humanly impossible. Harsh treatment being non-existent or very limited in a society could only occur if the people in charge of that society not only believe in justice but are very conscious of the consequences of a lack of fairness.
@@naveed210 Thanks for your comment. I (ultimately) don't know what to make of Foucault's shortened response. I agree with what you've said. I would like to agree with Chomsky (and you, perhaps) that there is an ultimate inborn sense of fairness -- let us call justice. But in history, look how people e.g. in America, have "practiced" a justice that over-looked inherent racism. And how just/fair is it that women's wages are not on par with men's? etc. etc. We are often blind, even as we seem to see things clearly. I wish the debate had gone longer. Regards
@@paulgibby6932 I personally think that in a society which is very anti-religion and where there are no fixed set of values/ideals, then Foucault’s argument makes more sense than Chomsky’s. But again his argument could only make sense if one ignores the suffering of other human beings. If a society doesn’t believe in the intrinsic/inherent worth of humans, as atheism tells us, then the people in that society have less motive for acts of compassion, love and mercy etc. Chomsky and his critique’s of Western politics/culture have stood the test of times because he retains these immutables (like compassion etc) which are common practise in teachings of faith. Foucault is a relativist most definitely in theory, as are most people in today’s Western societies, but in practise it’s very hard to retain this relativistic attitude towards life for a sustainable period, America and the U.K. are persisting with it though & there has emerged a sociopathic society over the last 40/50 years.
I think that's the problem though is competition, and honestly won't often the fittest win in regards to capitalism? If you're a socialist it is sort of the same thing and everyone will not accept whoever that happens to be. But can you take capitalism away cuz people could get bored probably, a lot of people will, you can only actively oppress people so much and then and then they'll only try through the State take away their ability to compete. Unfortunately I don't know, I think it's womens fault a bit. What is capitalism? "Competing" well, over something that is not even real. I'll only really trust the States if don't stop democracy and free speech. I have a hard time between being a classical liberal and libertarian socialist. I wonder if socialism is just a trick in that sense but ugh I am not sure. What does everyone else think.
Is Chomsky still this much of a moral idealist? In this video he's clearly twelve years old; I wonder if he still believes in universal morality as strongly.
Social structures, and the power that emanates from them is a product of evolution, therefore science, not philosophy is the language which explains them. Foucault was never in a position to understand anything about these scientific subjects.
I'd be inclined to call Chomsky the _Karl Marx_ of anarchism - if only he'd have a basic intuition for philosophy... but he doesn't. As admirable as he is when it comes to razor-sharp analysis of most recent historical events, and political and even societal nuisances/woes -- as cringe-worthy he becomes when he's putting himself out there in the field of free thought. His universal morals, for instance, can't withstand apt scrutiny, and if it wasn't for the sophistry he surrounds those _ideas_ with, people, in general, might witness, what otherwise is somewhat hard to see! - Maybe he is the _Friedrich Engels_ of his ideas, that was unlucky to never meet his Karl Marx? - or he's too self-absorbed, to see his own shortcomings; not entirely sure... people who are habitually intellectually-superior to pretty much anyone around them, have a hard time discovering their own limitations (and distinguish them from their actual strong points), being made aware of them... esp. if they are not skeptics! At the end of the day, though, I prefer the realism, the sober facticity of a thinker like Thukydides, or even Machiavelli [for that matter], to the blindness that comes with Chomsky'ian idealism... it's much more [intellectually] salutary esp. for those who are idealists by heart, but also wise (intelligent, skeptic) enough, to see the weakness and limitation in that, i.e. people who know, that listening to most contrary viewpoints (in this case: the most _cynical_ understanding of history and human nature) is key to widening one's mind, to *learn* in a sense that transcends mere accumulation of anecdotes... As long as Chomsky sticks to what he's good as, though, I quickly forget about those awkward moments, when he deviates from his field of expertise/his talent (and the proper methodology inherent to that) ... _"It remains to be examined, of which kind a ruler's (/prince's) behavior must be, towards his subjects (/his 'people'/subordinates/inferiors) and his friends. As I do know, that many have written about this before me, I fear to be deemed presumptuous, as I proceed to be writing about this as well, esp. as I am going to deviate from the arguments of those others. But as it is my intent, to write something useful for he who apprehends it, it seemed more appropriate to me, to look into the reality of matters rather than mere imaginations (/ideas/visions/conceptions) of those. Many have envisioned republics and principalities, which have never actually been known or seen; as there is such a huge separation between how one lives and how one ought to live, that he, who neglects _*_that what is_*_ in favor of that what 'should be', will rather learn to ruin himself than to persevere; because a man who desires to do good in all his deeds, will - if anything - destroy himself amidst so many, _*_who are not good._*_ Accordingly it's necessary for a prince(/ruler) who wants to persevere, to get acquainted with [the ability for] illicit actions, and to make use of it or not, [solely] as necessity dictates it."_ ("il principe", XV.)
btw... whoever translated this, didn't really care to give Foucault justice... I don't think it makes any sense, to write "my approach is far less advanced" (see 1:43) - why would he ever say this? ... I cannot find a truthful transcript of this, and as I do not speak french myself, I have to do with the dutch translations in the background for this (which are otherwise very distracting - * sigh *): "ik ga veel minder ver dan" - in English: "I'm going much less far than" or better "I wouldn't go as far as [...]" ... makes much more sense! - and sounds much more like the words of a well-reasoned philosopher, rather than this servile BS the English translator gave us instead! ... in light of that, whoever did transcribe this, seems rather idiotic and immature (if not to say: dastard). [The virtue of] honesty dictates to give people justice in your translations, *esp.* those you disagree with!
4:17 "[it seems to me, that the real political task in a society such as ours] is to criticize the workings of institutions that appear to be both neutral and independent; [yadayadayada]" It's funny, that this is exactly what Chomsky excels in; yet, in this video (as in other places as well, where he tries to impersonate a philosopher), it seems that he's aspiring to be _something else,_ something more than that noble function he fulfills so admirably. Reminds me of Nietzsche, where he said -- albeit about R.Wagner (or artists in general) rather than an intellectual, commentator, "critic" -- : "Ich glaube, daß die Künstler oft nicht wissen, was sie am besten können: sie sind zu eitel dazu. Ihr Sinn ist auf etwas Stolzeres gerichtet als diese kleinen Pflanzen zu sein scheinen, welche neu, seltsam und schön, in wirklicher Vollkommenheit auf ihrem Boden zu wachsen wissen. Das letzthin Gute ihres eignen Gartens und Weinbergs wird von ihnen obenhin abgeschätzt, und ihre Liebe und ihre Einsicht sind nicht gleichen Ranges. [...] ja er ist der Meister des ganz Kleinen. Aber er will es nicht sein! Sein Charakter liebt vielmehr die großen Wände und die verwegene Wandmalerei! [...]" ( -- _"I believe, that artists all too often do not know, what they can do best: they are too vain for that. Their mind is drawn to something more proud than these small plants seems to be, which understand to grow in true perfection, new, strange and beautiful, on their own soil. That which is ultimately good in their own garden and vineyard they do look down upon, and their love and their insight are not of equal standing. [...] yes, he's the master of everything most petite/delicate/small. _*_But he does not want to be that! - his character loves so much more the big screen and keen mural-paintings!_*_ [...]_ )
PyrrhoVonHyperborea Can you give me an estimation as to Chomskys IQ? I know he dislikes the principle of IQ himseld though. I always felt that it was at the very least 140+
