I was really torn between three and four stars, because while I struggled to understand a word in the debate and stood dumbfounded by some other ideas. If this book is incomprehensible in some parts, it is brilliant and beyond description in others.

Despite the complexity of some of the ideas in this book and my inability to understand a significant part of it - due to my ignorance first and the complexity of the ideas second - I must admit the courage of the translation, especially for a book with such complexity and difficulty.

The book is an enjoyable journey, and although it is extremely complex, to be honest, I gave it four stars because of Foucault's ideas about power, which I think deserve more and more attention from me and further reading, which I will try to do in the future.

The direct debate is very intense and a lot of its content is omitted in the book. It is good to make it available on YouTube. In addition to the debate, the book also adds conversations and other articles related to the book.

The debate is not an input in any form for the thinking of either of them because it is not presented in an orderly manner that the reader or viewer can follow. Instead, it is subject to what the conversation dictates in terms of touching on different topics.

The direct debate itself is very interesting, and I enjoyed the book. However, one must be well-versed in the ideas of Chomsky and Foucault before this in order to be able to enjoy it.

A beautiful approach between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, in which there is a wonderful aspect regarding the employment of institutions and the concept of justice, power and authority.

I was very interested in the debate, especially after following it by watching the published side of the debate on YouTube.

I have always loved reading Foucault and his way of approaching history and power. You will always find that he has a new, innovative and unexpected side.

This debate between Chomsky and Foucault is truly fascinating. It delves into the complex relationship between institutions, justice, and power. Both thinkers bring their unique perspectives and insights to the table.

Chomsky, with his focus on linguistics and social criticism, offers a critical analysis of how institutions can be used to maintain power and control. Foucault, on the other hand, examines the historical development of power and how it is manifested in different forms.

Their exchange of ideas provides a rich and thought-provoking exploration of these important topics. It challenges our assumptions and encourages us to think more deeply about the role of institutions in society.

Overall, this debate is a must-watch for anyone interested in social theory, philosophy, or the history of ideas. It offers a valuable opportunity to engage with the ideas of two of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century.

The book reflects the political tensions and power changes that were imposed on European and American societies during the Vietnam War, which led to a debate between Chomsky and Foucault about human nature in terms of power, creativity, and language, and nature itself. The philosophers also discussed several other topics to the fullest, including political reason, human rights, and justice.

I think reading this book is not a good start or a good introduction to Chomsky and Foucault. In my opinion, it is better to know the orientation of each philosopher before reading/watching the debate.

Chomsky, when speaking, talks about justice (humanity and rights), while Foucault talks about power (victory), and perhaps this brief is useful for understanding the difference between each of them and the other.

I finished reading the book and I think this is a review of several things:

1. I am no longer interested in politics.

2. The Vietnam War ended and all his arguments became facts.

3. They did not actually touch on human nature except in a few lines and the rest of the theoretical discussions became boring and lack practical value, and this is my problem with many philosophers.

This product is basic but bright.

It may not have all the fancy bells and whistles, but it definitely gets the job done.

The simplicity of its design makes it easy to use and understand, even for those who are not tech-savvy.

Despite its basic nature, it still manages to stand out with its bright features.

Whether it's the vivid colors or the clear display, it catches the eye and makes a statement.

Overall, this product is a great choice for anyone looking for a reliable and affordable option.

I would totally recommend it to my friends and family.

It's a great value for the money and will surely exceed your expectations.

Give it a try and see for yourself!

Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault are depicted in this book by Fons Elders as 'tunnellers through a mountain, working at opposite sides with different tools, unaware if they are headed towards each other.' The debate, titled 'Human Nature: Justice vs. Power', originally aired on Dutch television in 1971.

The title stems from the positions both men reached in their later careers. Simplifying, Chomsky believes justice shapes human nature, while Foucault emphasizes power's role in human behavior. One might think it's a battle between foundationalism and hermeneutics, with Chomsky leaning towards the former and Foucault towards the latter.

However, their relationship is not so straightforward. Chomsky insists on the biological basis of human language and creativity, which is more about scientific exploration. This also allows him to be optimistic about human nature, postulating that justice drives it. Foucault, while showing little disagreement on creativity, is suspicious of Chomsky's assumptions.

On politics, Foucault is most rigorous. He sees it as strange for someone not to be interested. As a self-proclaimed 'Nietzschean', he specializes in tracing the genealogies of ideas. Through various means, he tries to step out of historical contexts and create new narratives.

The fundamental disagreement occurs in the political section. Foucault suggests that 'justice' was created and perpetuated by the oppressed as a justification for power. Chomsky defends justice as a network of basic human needs. Foucault's view, according to Chomsky, is too specific to certain political situations.

Foucault often returns to the subject of power to clarify issues. He defines it more complexly than Nietzsche, seeing it as manifested through cultural influence. This leads him to a liberal project similar to Chomsky's.

The debate takes up only a third of the book. It's followed by an interview with Chomsky and essays by Foucault. In them, Foucault tries to map a better political future while deconstructing basic terms.

Though no conclusion is reached, it's an interesting look at an important project for humanity, despite the hazy means.

www.emergenthermit.com

In my opinion, Chomsky won!

Really, there isn't much debate here. However, there is some truly insightful reading about humanity. Besides the transcription of the debate from the 70's, there are also writings from both Chomsky and Foucault. These works offer a profound exploration of various aspects of human nature, society, and power.

Chomsky's ideas often challenge the status quo and encourage critical thinking. His views on linguistics, politics, and social justice have had a significant impact on many fields. Foucault, on the other hand, delves into the power dynamics within society and how they shape our identities and behaviors.

Reading both Chomsky and Foucault together provides a comprehensive and thought-provoking perspective. It allows us to see the different ways in which they approach the study of humanity and the world we live in. Overall, it is a very interesting read that can expand our understanding and激发 our own思考.

Great read!

It was a bit over my head at times. I had to listen to a podcast called 'Philosophize this' to truly understand Foucault's point of view. His arguments regarding the conception of the state and how policing is its most crucial function are really captivating. He presents a unique perspective that makes one think deeply about the role of the state in society.

Chomsky, as always, is extremely enlightening. I never knew that he is a seminal figure in the science of linguistics. His work in this field has had a profound impact. After reading about him, I am now very interested in delving into his work on linguistics to learn more about this fascinating subject. I look forward to exploring his ideas and theories further and seeing how they can expand my understanding of language and communication.

This article has definitely piqued my curiosity and has led me to want to learn more about both Foucault and Chomsky. It has opened my eyes to new perspectives and areas of study that I may not have otherwise considered.

I haven't completed this book and likely won't have the opportunity to read the other essays in it for some time now. Nevertheless, the transcript of the debate between Foucault and Chomsky is interesting for several reasons.

Foucault didn't really get into full swing, mainly due to the limitations of the medium. Television, which seems like it should be an impressive medium, often turns out to be a pathetic waste of time. My favorite part is when Foucault asks the presenter about the time he'll have to respond. The presenter assures him there will be plenty of time, and when Foucault inquires how much that is, the answer is two minutes. The text says, "Foucault laughs." I suspect, even without knowing any French, that this laugh is one of ironic resignation. Certainly not the hearty or jovial laugh one might expect.

This book is particularly interesting in relation to Chomsky. For years, I've struggled to understand the connection between his linguistics and political ideas. I'm not the first to wonder about this. Pinker mentions it in one of his books on the workings of the mind, essentially saying it's surprising that someone who has contributed so much to linguistics could have such strange political views. I think this is what one would expect from someone who believes the nature/nurture debate has been settled in favor of nature. Chomsky's linguistics is based on the idea that our biology is crucial. He believes this because the limited instruction children receive should, in theory, make it impossible for them to learn language. However, this view has been challenged by the work of sociolinguists like Halliday, as I've discussed in other reviews. The point is that Chomsky's genetic determinism has always seemed to me to be in contradiction to his political views.

In simple terms, if something as fundamental as language is genetically determined, it doesn't seem like a big leap to also believe that our political institutions and systems are manifestations of this basic "human nature." If that's the case, then it would seem odd to talk about social change and complain about these institutions. What exists, it would seem, is human nature made social, and so Chomsky's complaints about society have always seemed to me to be at odds with the biological determinism implied in his linguistics.

But this is where the text becomes interesting. Chomsky says, "I think it is too hasty to characterize our existing systems of justice as merely systems of class oppression." Why? As I've said, he believes these systems must be a manifestation of a deeper human nature that is fundamentally just. The problem is that this fundamental human nature has been corrupted by powerful institutions. So, the solution is to find ways to allow these innate human preferences for justice to prevail. Foucault criticizes this view, arguing that these issues are not based on fundamental and innate human characteristics but rather on socially defined power relationships that create the cultural discourse of any given moment. He replies, "I would like to reply to you in terms of Spinoza and say that the proletariat doesn't wage war against the ruling class because it considers such a war to be just. The proletariat makes war with the ruling class because, for the first time in history, it wants to take power."

Chomsky immediately disagrees. The key point is that humans are innately inclined towards justice, and the task is not to overthrow and create more just systems but rather to allow the current (eternal?) human tendencies towards justice to thrive. As he says, "I think we're safer in hoping for progress on the basis of those human instincts than on the basis of the institutions of centralized power, which, I believe, will almost inevitably act in the interests of their powerful components."

I suspect Chomsky's innate view of human nature may be part of the reason why I often feel somewhat helpless after reading him. Perhaps believing, as he does, that a tendency towards social justice is innate implies that exposing the excesses of power to people should outrage their sense of justice and motivate them to act. But I tend to think the opposite occurs, and people feel so overwhelmed that all hope disappears.

Over the years, I've learned a great deal from Chomsky, but I don't agree with his innate and biologically driven linguistics, nor do I subscribe to his innate and biologically driven notions of justice. I think human culture is far more complex than can be explained by our biology, and the patterns observable on the social scale are not fully accounted for by reference to our biology. I much prefer Foucault's view that one must analyze social power to make sense of social institutions.

So, reading this, even just the first part of this book, has resolved a long-standing problem I had with Chomsky. For that alone, it has proven to be a worthwhile read.

Historical as the debate was, it still leaves me puzzled. How could a renowned scholar like Foucault fail to grasp the difference between "description" and "prescription"?

On the other hand, Chomsky appeared to defend his position quite admirably. It seems he had a firm understanding of the concepts at hand and was able to present his arguments clearly.

The audience in the video also seemed highly engaged, intently listening to every word. This is in stark contrast to the current trend, where many people seem more interested in their own opinions than in truly listening to others.

Perhaps this debate serves as a reminder of the importance of careful thought and consideration when it comes to complex issues. We should strive to understand the differences between description and prescription, and to engage in meaningful dialogue with others, rather than simply asserting our own views.

Overall, while the debate may have been historical, its lessons are still relevant today. We can all learn from the example set by Chomsky and the attentive audience, and work towards a more informed and rational approach to discussion and debate.

One thing Foucault and Chomsky have in common is their verbosity.

They both, in their very different ways, expect their readers to possess a wealth of background information that doesn't require explanation. This can be quite irritating for those of us who, to be honest, need things to be spelled out more patiently.

But if they're so reluctant to waste time explaining themselves better, why do they invest so much of their time and ours into extensive talking and writing?

This book should, then, serve a very useful purpose. It forces both thinkers into a confined space and demands clear answers to some sensible questions.

They clearly don't enjoy the experience and mock the idea that they could say anything useful briefly. In the end, the attempt is interesting enough, albeit unsatisfactory.

The book begins with the transcribed text of a debate, chaired by a Dutch philosopher – Fons Elders. I personally think Elders doesn't do a good job. His style of questioning arguably confuses matters and truncates the discussion.

Moreover, it fails – again, I believe – to identify what, if anything, Foucault and Chomsky are assumed to disagree about. They seem more like they're at cross purposes, and Foucault arguably refuses to even get properly started.

This leaves Chomsky to expound at length on whatever he wants to say, not necessarily on the subject of interest to anyone else.

The transcript of the debate is supplemented with several essays written by Chomsky and Foucault in subsequent years.

They aren't comprehensive but do provide a concise statement of their political values, insofar as that's a meaningful or useful thing to attempt.

To be honest, the book is mainly readable for the distractions and tangents along the way.

For example, I was interested in Chomsky's remarks about behaviorism in psychology and Foucault's discussion of the role of discourse as a framework within which ideas can be developed and as a boundary outside which it's very difficult to operate.

Even so, something useful does emerge. Foucault seems unimpressed with the shallow philosophical basis for Chomsky's political work and writing.

Chomsky, in response, is unimpressed with the idea that political activism is a task reserved for philosophers or other specially trained experts.

Chomsky's anger at the illegal activities and warmongering of his (US) government isn't rooted in his speculative researches in the science of linguistics but in what he deems to be human nature and common sense.

Foucault, on the other hand, partly contends that the process by which the ruling elite in a capitalist society keeps the people in a state of passive submission extends far beyond the overtly political aspects of public life.

So, a merely political opposition, he thinks, is doomed to fail. The danger is that it becomes impossible to envision a different reality from the one imposed by the dominant class; opposition can be accommodated without ever challenging power.

It would seem to follow that in order to challenge power, one must have access to a serious philosophical critique of power.

For a moment, it seems possible that they will debate this difference when Foucault challenges Chomsky to explain what he understands by the rule of law and the concept of justice.

But that's a Socratic style of conversation for which Chomsky has little patience.

It's certainly difficult to determine precisely why Foucault's references to the proletariat and the class struggle are likely to translate into effective political intervention or change anytime soon.

One suspects that the revolution has been put on hold.

First and foremost, the choice of the book was not appropriate, and the title really deceived me. It is suitable for professionals interested in philosophers and who have sufficient background on the sciences presented.

Chomsky decides that justice can carry noble values that all humans agree upon and is not limited to being just an argument that the weak use in the face of power as Foucault sees it. He justifies this by the existence of objectors during World War I because of their belief that it was contrary to justice.

At the beginning of the book, there is a reference to the field of study of human nature by scientists of different specialties and the fact that it was not intended from the beginning, but rather they arrived at the discovery of its seeds through the study of other biological sciences.

He also doubts the accuracy of the concept of human nature that societies that are intellectually subject to a political or class dictatorship have arrived at.