🎯 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

@mrigendrajha2690

6 ай бұрын

doing God's work

Anyone else impressed by the questions that the crowd asks?

@josesousa272

Жыл бұрын

If it was today: why only white men is attending this debate? Are you racist?

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.

@DeadGuye1995

Жыл бұрын

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.

@jwf2125

Жыл бұрын

@@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).

@user-yh2pd6dp9o

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@jwf2125

Жыл бұрын

@@user-yh2pd6dp9o Yeah, it's pretty irrelevant. i was in an idle moment.

@user-yh2pd6dp9o

Жыл бұрын

@@jwf2125 ok. I see...

Thank you for doing this. I could actually listen to the entire debate while working.

1:02:49 Wow, I need to read more Foucault

This is a phenomenal channel. Thank you for this.

@peterkirgis7468

2 жыл бұрын

I omp

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. 🤯

@lucasnadamas9317

Ай бұрын

Anyone with average intelligence comes to this conclusion at 14 years of age, focault: the intellectual of midwits

@KommentarSpaltenKrieger

Ай бұрын

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".

absolutely wonder conversation (debate) love how they offered them OJ instead of wine or water, the 70s😂

Exactly what I needed ty ! 🕊️

@aleks0_o879

Жыл бұрын

amen

I need another person to pause the video to explain the explanation of the guy who pauses the video to explain Focults exolainations.

@AnnaPrzebudzona

Жыл бұрын

🤣

@cheri238

Жыл бұрын

Who in their critical analysis of human nature is who is grown up in the room now in 2023? The proletariat or the bourgeois?

@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060

5 ай бұрын

His explanations are far more perplexing than anything Focualt says here who is very clear.

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

4 ай бұрын

Exactly but the insight you profess will win out as it can not be extinguished We must look to the light not the darkness ❤

@garyjohnson1466

4 ай бұрын

@@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……

@FrankoB469

4 ай бұрын

chomsky is a clown.

@garyjohnson1466

4 ай бұрын

@@FrankoB469 oh, an what make you say that, I’ll be curious to hear your professional opinion…..

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.

@cmcdumas

3 ай бұрын

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.

What a treat! Thank you Jonathan.

@aleks0_o879

Жыл бұрын

you shouldnt be on the internet CHILD from the olden days

I’m no Chomsky honk, but I did find this enlightening.

@placebojesus5652

7 ай бұрын

Lol honk

40:00 "Groupe social" translates into "social group" not "social class"

Beautiful

This is so good that I had a whim to go to Algeria to have fun.

54:00 forward caught my attention

I keep imagining Alex and his Droogs strolling in and destroying the place.

So, what was first the creation (Chomsky approach) or the transformation (Foucault approach)? (in whole of creativity and scientific progress approaches)

This explains a lot.

Dubbing Foucault is scandalous.

Bravo 👏🏻

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

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.

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.

@user-yh2pd6dp9o

Жыл бұрын

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.

@Itsmespiv4192

Жыл бұрын

​@@user-yh2pd6dp9o This ability to emphatize is innate or is a process of evolution in which in a given environment humans thrive through collaboration ?

@user-yh2pd6dp9o

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@matthewkopp2391

11 ай бұрын

@@user-yh2pd6dp9o 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.

@user-yh2pd6dp9o

11 ай бұрын

@@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".

Anyone found any clips here where the moderator is holding the red wig :P?

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 would rather read foucault. I would rather political life/institutions be organized according to chomsky's vision of citizenship.

Caracas venezuela: función de lo fantástico simbólico únicamente

Wasn't it Copernicus who first (well, first in the post-classical world) proposed a helio-centric model of our planetary system?

🙏🏻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🙏🏻.

Hasta que medida de Canadá llega el estado de México?

christopher Hitchens at 37:30?

@gauravshah4857

Ай бұрын

No

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.

@aleks0_o879

Жыл бұрын

shut up, your justjealous

@changthunderwang7543

11 ай бұрын

Embarrassing to see him run apologia for Putin these days

@commonsensethecynosure1639

11 ай бұрын

@@changthunderwang7543 If that is the case, then I am embarrassing as will, because I support Putin and the Russian people 100%.

@changthunderwang7543

11 ай бұрын

@@commonsensethecynosure1639 hey, you said it not me

@jeffhicks8428

11 ай бұрын

@@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?

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.

I appreciate these flashbacks which are still pertinent to the evolving Mormon culture. Keep m’ coming,

Copernicus and Galileo are on top of it for humanity, as is Darwin and Alan Watts. Chomsky and Foucault need more time.

When ever happened in none exist how do you do Faulcat !

Chomsky got CRUSHED!

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!

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.

@rickwrites2612

Жыл бұрын

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.

@samsalamander8147

Жыл бұрын

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.

@user-yh2pd6dp9o

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@harshkumar2473

Жыл бұрын

​@@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

@darillus1

Жыл бұрын

@@rickwrites2612 animals in general have a morality, just because they don't jot it down on paper doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

101:20 justification "...au cote de la classe oppressive" (a justification for it made by the the oppressing (not oppressed) class?)

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 🙏🏻 .

Sound and Fury... what a waste of bandwidth.

What if the proletariat is morally won’t be sound the same ways as of the current leadership is not

29:01 😂

Interesting.

@aleks0_o879

Жыл бұрын

its intellechually put. very STIMyouLATE ing

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. 🦁👍🇲🇽

DF México capital Caracas

I wonder if there is a connection between genius and being bald 👩‍🦲

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!

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.

@unfortunatebeam

11 ай бұрын

Agreed

@msl361

6 ай бұрын

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??

@MrHopperkeith

6 ай бұрын

@@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.

@Renbu8

6 ай бұрын

No, no! Let's stop this! You're not a clown, you're a United States senator!

@MrHopperkeith

6 ай бұрын

@@Renbu8 You copied and pasted the wrong reply, or you're a bot.

Foucault is dead and all these talks seem a trifle after that.

@anitkythera4125

Жыл бұрын

Dead is just a social construct 😂

@user-yh2pd6dp9o

Жыл бұрын

@@anitkythera4125 I know these absurdic post-modernism theories.

@Alan_Stinchcombe

Жыл бұрын

Voltaire said: "Dieu est mort". Later, God said: "Voltaire est mort".

@user-yh2pd6dp9o

Жыл бұрын

@@Alan_Stinchcombe it was said not Voltaire... it was said by Nizshe. In his most famous book "Zaratustra".

@darillus1

Жыл бұрын

@@user-yh2pd6dp9o Nietzsche

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¨

@pierren___

5 ай бұрын

Or maybe he just like it 🤷‍♂️

@8:55 - 9:03 Chomsky sticks the landing and the debate is over.

@o.s.h.4613

8 ай бұрын

Not at all, don’t be dogmatic

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.

The camera man is trolling, I would say he/she is a camera philosopher themselves lol

Is it possible that both Foucault and Chomsky are both narcissist grifters in their own way, and we are just suckers?

@kirillloyacano3469

11 ай бұрын

Foucault is pedo, Chomsky's shadow is hard to explain... I am thinking privilege

@Ihatemyusernamemore

11 ай бұрын

Foucalt was a narc grifter, not Chomsky though.

@mentalitydesignvideo

9 ай бұрын

Entirely possible, albeit in different ways.

@chloefourte3413

8 ай бұрын

gonna come back to this comment in a few months. This is my way of bookmarking LOL.

this would have been much better if they put foucault to debate with someone intelligent

Foucault is more interesting than Chomsky. He shouldn't have died so early 😅

@cheri238

Жыл бұрын

I agree 💯

@aleks0_o879

Жыл бұрын

superbolw 2024 BBQ boys

@rhythmdroid

11 ай бұрын

Well he could have taken a clue from others and recognized that his hedonistic lifestyle was dangerous.

@jpass7784

14 күн бұрын

No disrespect to Foucault but his communist beliefs and homosexual promiscuity killed him. Such a loss.

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.

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...

🙏🏻🤔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 🤮🤑🐄🙏🏻.

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.

@oomamee1251

7 ай бұрын

What definition of God do you mean?

Tankie vs Pedo...

@andreasrumpf9012

8 ай бұрын

Finally somebody said it! Thanks!