Mediator: 'Well, may I first of all ask you not to make your answers so lengthy.' [Foucault laughs.]

This book is a transcription of a debate between Chomsky and Foucault, available on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl...). In the first part, epistemological themes are debated. The mediator attempts to give some direction to the discussion but is summarily ignored.

The second part, about politics, is much more accessible. The differences in thinking between Chomsky and Foucault are, in the end, irreconcilable. Chomsky believes in the existence of objective concepts of Justice, natural rights, human nature, etc. He envisions a type of society organized in free associations that allow humans to satisfy their innate need for useful and creative work.

Foucault, on the other hand, doesn't even accept that there is something like an innate need for every human being, and the very concept of human nature doesn't have as much validity for him. He argues that supposedly innate and absolute notions like this are only the result of the social context and are therefore inherently limited. Just because of this, he believes that it is not possible to conceive of an ideal model of society as Chomsky proposes. For him, any idea of what an ideal society would be would already be flawed, simply because it is thought according to current values. The most we can do in our political action is to seek to identify and denounce the power relations present in social institutions, especially in those institutions that claim to be neutral and independent (such as universities, for example).

I tend to like Chomsky's universalist current more, perhaps only because the alternative seems cold and cruel to me.

I felt a lack of more content in the book. If it is going to cost R$ 30.00 for a transcription, it would be great if they had added some extras, perhaps articles elaborating on the topics treated or something of the sort. The introduction at the beginning helps, but it is little.

In 2019, it remains unclear as to the exact reasons behind their disagreement or even what Foucault's precise point truly is.

It is obvious that norms are generated by societal institutions and that they are inherent within us. Chomsky, on the other hand, is actually making a significant point regarding human freedom.

We cannot simply assail society; rather, we require a positive plan.

In 2020, it seems that it is just two academic leftists talking past one another. This is interesting for me, as someone who is now aware of the analytic-Continental split.

However, Chomsky does not appear to be engaging with Foucault. I mean, how can we design our future? Isn't this just utopian?

It is not about lacking a plan; rather, it is about avoiding utopian universalism and responding to the current social makeup.

In 2021, debates can be annoying if one is reading them with an eye for a triumphant party. This is enjoyable for me because it is like witnessing in person what occurs in my head.

As a student interested in Continental philosophy at an analytic university and also studying generative linguistics, while there are definitely more productive entanglements between the two traditions, it is fascinating to observe one that is more improvisational (less methodical).

The Chomsky-Foucault debate, which consisted of only 89 pages (with the other chapters being separate interviews with Chomsky and Foucault), was an outstanding book. It truly provided me with an abundance of food for thought and opportunities for further research.

I found myself constantly engaged in deep reflection as I delved into the ideas presented in this book. The exchange between Chomsky and Foucault was both intellectually stimulating and thought-provoking.

It opened up new avenues of exploration for me, inspiring me to dig deeper into the relevant topics. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

P.S. It should be noted that I read all of my books in PDF or EPUB formats. As a result, the page numbers I refer to may not correspond exactly to those of the print editions. However, this does not in any way detract from the value and significance of the content within the book.

A rather good window into the thought of Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault is presented. I'm not entirely certain that this volume would stand alone extremely well. However, it surely clarifies the work of each by presenting them in contrast. Thus, it makes a great companion to each man's writings.

This is the transcript of a debate held by Dutch television in 1971. In it, Chomsky (speaking in English) and Foucault (in French) responded to the questions posed by moderator Fons Elders regarding human nature and political justice. Loosely speaking, Chomsky contended that there is such a thing as a universal human nature and an ideal of justice that transcends self-interest. Foucault, on the other hand, argued that human thought is the result of its cultural context and that political activity is an expression of collective self-interest. (To speak much too broadly, they were debating whether human experience is defined by nature or nurture.) In fact, though, the two men agreed on most crucial points, and most differences between them were differences in emphasis.

Chomsky's key contention was that human language and human scientific "creativity" (i.e., the generation of scientific hypotheses, experiments, and theories) demand a certain inborn set of mental dispositions. There is something that human brains have in common at birth, which makes it possible for us to make sense of (and in) the world. It is natural for us to construct workable scientific theories, and it is natural for us to acquire languages very quickly as children based on minimal exposure, because the brain is organized to perceive and comprehend certain kinds of patterns. What we do not do, Chomsky argued, is encounter the natural world, or the sentences constructed by older people, as blank slates, open to all possible patterns. We do not simply receive information passively as it arrives; we file it in mysterious preset categories. Therefore, there is such a thing as "human nature"; there are predispositions in the human mind that are universal to the species.

Foucault, however, emphasized a different aspect of scientific "creativity" - the generation of strikingly new systems of thought - only to downplay its significance. The achievements of a Newton or an Einstein, he said, were not so much the result of individual brilliance as the manifestation of preexisting social tendencies. Scientific creativity in this sense, therefore, is not as liberating as it is often portrayed as being; it is an outgrowth of, and is constrained by, the same larger forces it supposedly challenges.

To some extent, then, Chomsky and Foucault were not debating the existence of human nature but rather arguing that different aspects of it are prominent. They frequently agreed with each other. When the conversation turned to the question of political justice, however, two key points of disagreement emerged.

Both Chomsky and Foucault, of course, strongly identified with the Left, albeit in idiosyncratic ways. In practical terms, Chomsky spoke as an anarcho-syndicalist, advocating class-conscious resistance to the concentrated power of governments and property owners. Foucault took arguably a more cynical position, suggesting that there is no means of escaping from power. The role of an intellectual, instead, is to point out how power operates in order to allow the desired class to appropriate it.

In moral terms, accordingly, Chomsky argued that the role of an intellectual is to speak for justice - for this is what all legitimate political movements seek. Foucault countered that all political movements seek is politics itself - that is, the members of an oppressed class take to the streets not in order to achieve justice but rather to become society's rulers themselves. This proposition clearly perturbed Chomsky.

The problem does not lie in changing people's awareness - or what is in their minds - but in the political, economic, and institutional system for producing truth.

This is a valuable and thought-provoking book in a special way. Foucault and Chomsky addressed the issue of human nature in terms of concept and practice, and each of them was able to put forward his related point of view. While we find Foucault's perspective more meaningful in the way that human nature interacts with its society, we find Chomsky meaningful in the special realm that human nature has and that enables it to initiate the interaction in the first place. And they have touched on the relationship between the latency of creativity and the development of the history of human sciences and knowledge.

Chomsky talked about the biological limitations that allow us to build theories but hide a lot of knowledge from us, and he talked about scientific creativity based on the essential realm of the mind. While Foucault attributed it to the mixture between social, cultural, and intellectual circumstances. For this reason, the class struggle for Foucault was victory, while for Chomsky it was the achievement of a particular vision of justice.

Foucault talked about the necessary expansion of truth over power and its practice. However, this is not the problem. The problem lies in liberating truth from the forms of economic, social, and cultural hegemony. For there are emerging hegemonic and controlling systems that form collective awareness. And it must be dealt with and understood first before turning to deal with the general awareness of people, because it is ultimately the result of the systems themselves and stems from them.

Then Foucault addressed the superiority of European rationality over the paternalistic pastoral governance system. However, power itself requires the existence of latent resistance. And our rational attempt to understand power is our way to survival. Therefore, we must support just citizenship in all societies regardless of the offender and the victim, because in the end, every system affects others in one way or another.

This book is read repeatedly for benefit and is cared for to refer back to it each time.

This is a very interesting book indeed.

It commences with the engaging debate regarding human nature between Chomsky and Foucault. Surely, this debate is not so much about which one of them is right or wrong, but rather the interpretations provided by both intellectuals regarding the fundamental problem concerning the capacity to learn.

Nonetheless, it is extremely fascinating to listen to the stances of both of them on this matter and the subsequent political ones that emerge later during the course of the debate.

The second part of the book encompasses two distinct interviews about politics with both authors. Despite the complexity of the subject and the difficulty in following the explanations of both thinkers, it is very enriching.

One can gain valuable insights into their political perspectives and the reasoning behind them.

The book offers a unique opportunity to explore the ideas and views of these two influential intellectuals, making it a worthwhile read for those interested in the fields of philosophy, linguistics, and politics.

The two parallel lines that occasionally connect.

These parallel lines seem to exist in their own separate worlds, never intersecting according to the rules of geometry. However, there are rare moments when they manage to break free from the ordinary and connect.

It's as if fate intervenes and allows them to come together, even if only for a brief moment. These connections can bring about unexpected changes and new possibilities.

They might create a point of intersection where ideas merge, emotions collide, or relationships are formed.

The occasional connection of these parallel lines serves as a reminder that even in a world of order and predictability, there is room for the unexpected and the extraordinary.

It adds a touch of mystery and excitement to the otherwise linear path of our lives.

We never know when these parallel lines will connect again, but when they do, it's a moment to cherish and explore.

I've known about this debate for a long time. However, for some reason, I was always too lazy to really go through it. But then, somehow, I came across a paperback transcript and decided to give it a try.

The first part of the debate focuses on human nature and its "location." Chomsky contends that not only do we have human nature, but it is essential for our creative ability. Here, he defines creativity as the capacity to generate nearly unlimited valuable outputs from very little input. This is largely based on his work in linguistics, where it is impossible to explain a child's linguistic development without assuming a certain linguistic base that our brains have by default due to our evolutionary history.

Foucault, on the other hand, argues that we should be skeptical of the concept of human nature. If it exists, he believes it is a limitation within society, not in the brain itself. I actually think Foucault has a valid point, especially when considering the development of scientific progress and its contingent socio-historical background. Nevertheless, Chomsky's argument is quite straightforward, and I find it difficult to oppose. This is not only on philosophical grounds considering our evolutionary history (even without a more Kantian approach), but also because of Chomsky's linguistic work.

The second part of the debate is about justice vs power, which emerged as politics entered the conversation. This part was rather frustrating. It can be simply summarized as Chomsky arguing that there is such a thing as true justice, and violence (or revolution) is only justified if it is perceived to produce a higher level of justice. Foucault completely rejects this. For him, justice is only a concept specific to our civilization and always depends on power. It neatly represents the worst aspects of postmodernism, especially in its Foucaultian form, where power becomes its only ontology and everything is subordinate to it.

Overall, it was an enjoyable debate with interesting points from both sides. Out of curiosity, I later watched part of the debate on video. I'm not sure if I would recommend the paperback. I would suggest trying the video first, and if the format doesn't suit you, then give the paperback a go.

There are some truly interesting points of view presented.

Some of them I find myself in agreement with, while others I firmly disagree.

The so-called debate didn't really give the impression of a proper debate at all.

It is quite evident that at least one of the participants, being a linguist, quotes and mentions references in a way that would be completely meaningless to those outside this particular field.

They seem to say a lot while actually saying very little.

I still maintain that the title is somewhat misleading as this book offers a rather narrow perspective on human nature.

It mainly focuses on the aspects of creativity and intelligence, mostly arguing between two opposing views - whether creativity determines intelligence or intelligence determines the level of creativity.

Although a hypothesis was eventually introduced, the first part of the debate was rather nonsensical and extremely narrow-minded, especially considering that "creativity" was predominantly discussed in relation to scientific discoveries and the development of scientific theories.

The second part of the debate regarding power and politics was an improvement and made more sense.

However, it still felt somewhat disjointed from the long narrations in the first part about creativity.

The continued essays are a nice addition, yet they seem quite redundant.

They cover already discussed issues in greater detail and with new references to other researchers, which again, hold no significance for those not involved in the field.

It is quite ironic how the author insists on intelligence being accessible to everyone, granting them the right to express their opinion regardless of their credentials on the matter, not just the intelligentsia, yet keeps quoting and unquoting a plethora of members of this "intelligentsia" as points of reference.

It is an interesting book, of course, but not overly so.

As it turns out, the two titans had a televised discussion in Sweden in 1971.

This was some rather esoteric TV. The transcript is like an intellectual snack, similar to a philosophy pizza bagel. It looks great on the box but turns out a bit mushy when heated in the microwave.

Both Chomsky and Foucault are enlightening writers. You can pick up one of their books and feel super smart, as if you're finally getting all the answers. For this reason, I have experienced fits of adulation for both of them at different times. So, for me, it would be bordering on the sublime to see them engage in a verbal battle. It would be the perfect after-school snack.

However, alas, they didn't really delve deep into the questions where they disagree, such as linguistics, the nature of power, the goal of social revolution, etc. Instead, they politely touched upon these topics and then moved along. I think this is because they wouldn't have known where to begin a debate, as they come from completely different backgrounds. Big C is a "libertarian" writing in the Anglo-American liberal tradition, so he likes to expound on individual freedom, knowledge, and creativity in the face of the repressive state. Foucault, on the other hand, is a (post)structuralist Frenchman who is trying to move away from "the subject" altogether and focus on thinking about discursive structures instead. For example, at one point, it becomes clear that while C is striving towards Justice with a capital J, F would rather concentrate on teasing out the power relations behind "justice." There isn't much overlap there. Or rather, it would require a very nutritious home-cooked intellectual history meal to explore it, and who's in the mood for that?

Foucault presents a rather dark and nihilistic perspective. He argues that there is no genuine freedom or true creativity. Instead, we are all victims of the "Power Principle," and his case for this is quite convincing.

On the other hand, Chomsky, while tending to agree to some extent, postulates the idea that creativity, such as a toddler experiencing his environment, is not bound by this power. Instead, it is driven by a "positive urge" to reach an individual's highest potential.

I am quite familiar with Chomsky's work, but Foucault has been a revelation. I have also never seen Chomsky so acquiescent. Although it is touted as a "debate," it comes across as an amicable discourse (mostly) between these two intellectual giants, with brilliant moderation by the Dutch philosopher Fons Elders. The exchange of ideas between Foucault and Chomsky offers a fascinating exploration of the nature of freedom, creativity, and the role of power in our lives. It challenges us to think deeply about these fundamental concepts and consider different perspectives.

Chomsky, you were an embarrassment then and remain so now.

Part of me wishes Foucault would just have outright said how much of a fool Chomsky is. But it's almost as if Chomsky just points out his hypocrisies and contradictions himself (with a little help from the audience members). Acting as the arbiter of legality and justice, and even trying to say there is a natural, innate legality to humanity (of course, he is the one to define what is legal and not, outside of the state-form), Chomsky does a swell job conflating anarco-syndicalism with liberalism (or perhaps they've always been the same thing). Not to mention the terrible misunderstanding, or if one was to be generous, simplification, of Marx: the proletariat as the "universal class"? I'm pretty sure they are, by definition, the class that would abolish themselves. It's also a complete wonder how 40 years later "anarchists" are still spouting out garbage about how technology can be a decentralizing and liberatory apparatus, since Chomsky fudged his answer back in the early 70s. Yuck!

Some key insights from Foucault though: the inability for us to map out a future world, the reasons for analyzing society in order to destroy it, a hesitancy to define anything as human nature, and remarks on why he is interested in politics that can be read in support of the anti-political project.

One of the other two pieces by Chomsky is a rather bland analysis of state policies and actions he is known for, and the other is a lackluster attempt to talk about his philosophy of language and sum up his debate with Foucault (which he almost repeats verbatim from the transcript).

The two substantial Foucault pieces were excellent. This seems to be one of the earliest cases (before his university lectures) of him attempting to elaborate upon his theories of Power in a language that is not verbose or laden with jargon (not that there's necessarily a problem with those qualities). The standout piece for me is "Omnes et Singulatim," which gives a historical reading of Greek, Jewish, and Christian formulations of the flock and how this could possibly have influenced contemporary discourses of policing, Power, and state functioning.

I gave this five stars because of the lucidity that Foucault begins to express. His ideas are easy to understand without prior familiarity with his works and definitely show how he is an almost-unrivaled thinker from the past century. Because of this, I am willing to set aside the trash written by Chomsky.