It is now widely conceded among post-modern/post-structuralist circles that Foucault broke the back of linguist-political scientist Noam Chomsky in this televised debate on Dutch television.

Perhaps this conception further contributed to Chomsky's disdain with the French intellectual community entire in subsequent years. Nevertheless, regardless of one's political/philosophical disposition, this is an endlessly fascinating debate.

As the moderators described, it is between two thinkers working as "tunnellers through a mountain working at opposite sides of the same mountain with different tools, without even knowing if they are working in each other's direction".

The debate begins technically. Chomsky addresses his discoveries within the domain of cognitive linguistics, while Foucault outlines his historical research into the sciences in Western civilization.

Chomsky is a self-described rational `Cartesian,' a philosophical disposition largely rejected by post-modernity after the destruction of Western philosophy by Martin Heidegger.

Foucault, on the other hand, who began as a major Heideggerian, seems to adopt a Nietzschean disposition. He rejects Chomsky's assertion that a genuine concept of human justice is rooted biologically in the human species. Instead, he argues that our knowledge of morality and human nature are always necessarily rooted in social conditioning.

Chomsky actually fails, both here and elsewhere, to really confront the philosophy of Nietzsche, who necessarily put a dent in all forms of socialism, whether democratic, libertarian, or totalitarian.

To illustrate Chomsky's elusiveness, consider the following exchange: "FOUCAULT: it seems to me that the idea of justice in itself is an idea which in effect has been invented and put to work in different types of societies as an instrument of a certain political and economic power as a weapon against that power. But it seems to me that, in any case, the notion of justice itself functions within a society of classes as a claim made by the oppressed class and as justification for it. CHOMSKY: I don't agree with that. FOUCAULT: And in a classless society, I am not sure that we would still use this notion of justice" (54-55). But Chomsky replies by reasserting his belief that there must be an absolute basis in which notions of human justice are "grounded" (ibid), yet he once again solely relies on his partial knowledge of what `human nature' is.

This debate continues to be a subject of great interest and study, as it reveals the fundamental differences in the thinking of these two influential thinkers.

I could not fully lean towards one of the two thinkers without the other; each of them can bear what the other can bear. However, I do agree with the authenticity of their thoughts in certain aspects. Tomasello is optimistic about the salvation of humanity in his language and the ability that stems from a particular craftsmanship that the individual brings himself. As for Foucault, he studies what Tomasello is optimistic about by analyzing the frameworks of reality with its positive and negative aspects, and the good thing about this is that it is very realistic and he dreams of what is higher than the level of reality. I might have disagreed with the presenter of the argument when he said that thinkers start from two opposite sides of one mountain, and in fact they are searching in two different paths, meaningful and based. Tomasello is concerned with proving the value of the individual according to his language and this is a political behavior; because for Tomasello, language acts as the power that prepares the path for its owner to a stable salvation. While Foucault believes that the salvation of the individual lies in his rights and powers from the powers of the state. All that can be beneficial from this book is that it presents what others have prepared for others.

This exploration of the two thinkers, Tomasello and Foucault, reveals their distinct perspectives on human salvation and the role of various elements. Tomasello emphasizes language and individual craftsmanship, while Foucault delves into the analysis of reality and the relationship between the individual and state powers. Their different approaches offer valuable insights and contribute to a deeper understanding of these complex themes.

By examining their ideas, we can gain a more comprehensive view of the possibilities and limitations of human progress and the pursuit of salvation. It also highlights the importance of considering multiple perspectives when approaching such profound topics.

Overall, this discussion of Tomasello and Foucault's thoughts serves as a reminder of the rich and diverse nature of intellectual inquiry and the potential for new understandings and interpretations.

Although perhaps not the most ideal introduction to Foucault and Chomsky's thought (even though Chomsky does tend to adhere to a more linear stance), this debate is more revealing of their respective methods in the social sciences.

Chomsky proposes a sort of communitarian society or a set of cosmopolitan social relations. In contrast, Foucault challenges the institutions within which individuals are situated, seeing them as a kind of power structure that is determined to maintain the status quo and control those aspects of society that are "in need" of coercion. He takes it a step further and suggests that all state institutions, ranging from the clinic and police station to the seemingly "benign" institution of the university, actually require interrogation (through language and discourse) to determine how they ultimately uphold and enforce a particular set of power relations.

Their approaches differ. For instance, Foucault seldom answers questions but rather poses his own. However, what is most显著 in these debates is Chomsky's composure and Foucault's incendiary verbal violence. Enjoy!

This is a very good read indeed.

The debate presented within is extremely interesting, captivating the reader's attention from the start.

However, what makes this piece even more engaging is the addition of the extra essays and interviews.

These supplementary materials serve to further explain the positions of both thinkers in great detail.

By including these, the author provides a more comprehensive understanding of the viewpoints being discussed.

The essays offer in-depth analysis and exploration of the ideas, while the interviews give the thinkers a chance to express their thoughts and clarify any potential misunderstandings.

Overall, this combination of a fascinating debate and additional explanatory content makes for a truly enjoyable and enlightening read.

It allows the reader to gain a deeper appreciation for the complexity of the issues at hand and the different perspectives that exist.

Whether you are already familiar with the topic or new to it, this article is sure to provide valuable insights and food for thought.

Debate is a thought-provoking and stimulating activity. It is wonderful and crucial for those who are interested in the humanities and social sciences.

You can watch it on YouTube (as you have kindly provided). I really enjoyed it.

Debate allows for the exchange of different ideas and perspectives, challenging our own beliefs and expanding our knowledge.

It helps us to develop critical thinking skills, improve our communication abilities, and enhance our understanding of complex issues.

Whether it is a formal debate or an informal discussion, the process of debating can be both intellectually rewarding and engaging.

So, I encourage everyone to explore the world of debate and discover the benefits it has to offer.

A really interesting and short read combines the great minds of Foucault and Chomsky. It delves into the concept of human nature, whether it is an innate property or a social construct, presenting very interesting arguments. The discussion on justice vs power is also included, and I found this part particularly powerful and exciting to read. Personally, I consider Foucault to be a more convincing and profound thinker than Chomsky. However, I was extremely disappointed that he spoke so little. It almost seemed as if the interviewer would not let him speak and allowed Chomsky to go on for pages about idealist notions that I don't agree with.

Listening to or reading a debate between thinkers is always interesting, but this one was somewhat cut short. We were not able to explore Foucault's thoughts as much as Chomsky's. It would have been great to hear more from Foucault and gain a deeper understanding of his perspectives. Despite this, the read still offered valuable insights and引发了对重要问题的思考.

There is a profound discussion between the two great thinkers about whether there is an innate "human nature", mediated by the Dutch philosopher Fons Elders. The debate is intense and evolves into a dynamic discussion about Justice, Power, Legality and Civil Disobedience. It should be remembered that the encounter between the two philosophers, in November 1971, took place at the height of the US military intervention in Vietnam, which was mentioned several times during the debate.

The encounter was broadcast by Dutch television and is available with Portuguese subtitles on YouTube.

It is truly fascinating to witness such a high-level intellectual exchange. The ideas and perspectives presented by both thinkers offer valuable insights into the complex issues of human nature and society. The reference to the Vietnam War adds an interesting historical context to the debate, highlighting the relevance of these discussions in times of conflict and social change. Watching this debate can inspire viewers to think deeply about these important topics and perhaps even form their own opinions.

A casual bro hangout is a place where guys can come together and just be themselves.

It's a laid-back environment where they can relax, unwind, and have a good time.

They might watch sports, play video games, or just shoot the breeze and talk about whatever's on their minds.

It's a great way for guys to bond and build friendships.

Sometimes, they might even have a few beers or snacks while they're hanging out.

Overall, a casual bro hangout is a fun and enjoyable way for guys to spend their free time with their friends.

It's a place where they can let loose and forget about the stresses of everyday life.

Whether it's at someone's house, a local bar, or a park, a casual bro hangout is always a good time.

There are people who are born with the neurons that others lack.

I agree that it is not just a struggle for power. The centralization of power is terrible.

I liked this statement because it makes us think about the inequality that exists in society. Some people seem to have an advantage from birth, while others have to work much harder to achieve the same things.

The centralization of power can also lead to abuse and corruption, as those in power may use their position for personal gain rather than for the good of the people.

We need to be aware of these issues and work towards a more equal and just society, where everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential, regardless of their background or circumstances.

**"Recommended Reading with Emphasis"**

For those who are interested in politics and philosophy, there are certain works that are highly recommended. These can provide valuable insights and perspectives into the complex world of ideas and governance.

Political and philosophical texts have the power to shape our understanding of society, justice, and the role of the individual. They can inspire us to think critically, question the status quo, and strive for a better world.

Some classic works in these fields include the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, and Rousseau. Their ideas have endured through the ages and continue to be relevant today.

By reading and studying these works, we can gain a deeper appreciation for the intellectual heritage that has influenced our modern world. We can also learn from the mistakes and successes of the past and apply those lessons to our present-day challenges.

So, if you have a passion for politics and philosophy, I encourage you to pick up some of these recommended works and immerse yourself in the fascinating world of ideas.

This is the best philosophy book I’ve ever read.

It is short, which means it doesn't require a huge time commitment to get through. You can easily pick it up and put it down without losing the thread of the argument.

It is also sweet, in the sense that it presents its ideas in a charming and accessible way. The language is not overly technical or晦涩, making it suitable for readers of all levels of philosophical expertise.

Finally, it is to the point. The author doesn't waste words or go off on tangents. Instead, they get straight to the heart of the matter and present their arguments clearly and concisely.

Overall, I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in philosophy. It is a great introduction to the subject and a valuable resource for more experienced readers as well.

There are few individuals who would simultaneously defend the relevance of both Foucault and Chomsky for the same reasons. However, I am one of those people.

I firmly believe that Foucault is of great importance due to his incisive commentaries on politics. Additionally, I am increasingly coming to respect Chomsky's political writing. (It should be noted that Chomsky's work on linguistics is essential for anyone with an interest in the history and standards of that field.)

Both Foucault and Chomsky are a bit more radical than I am, but this is a reflection of the era in which they were writing and a part of their disposition as truly groundbreaking and powerful intellectuals.

Unfortunately, the book provides very little in-depth understanding of the political writings of either. At most, it shows that the two liked each other and agreed to a greater extent than many of their successors would have you believe. (It should be remembered that Chomsky is still alive as I pen this; the term "successor" should be understood in a more general sense.)

In the writings, we get a glimpse of Chomsky's perspective on American political history, particularly within the university context, and we also get a look at Foucault's reading of Nietzsche and how he considers himself significantly influenced by Nietzsche's thought. While both views are useful for understanding the intellectuals, if this is all we glean from these interviews, then we are missing out on a great deal.

These individuals have some seriously complex ideas. (Although, as far as their ideas about politics and power are concerned, I would venture to say that Foucault's views are a bit more complicated and challenging than Chomsky's. However, being an American intellectual, I have more familiarity with Chomsky's background, and perhaps if I were French, the situation might be different.)

Regrettably, these ideas are not addressed, rearticulated, or challenged in any serious way in the interviews, representing a huge missed opportunity.

The editing of the interviews is satisfactory. Given that the book has been intentionally made short, they could still have utilized some excerpts to enhance the text. (They do already include some; the last 100 pages or so are actually interviews and statements from Foucault and Chomsky individually.) These excerpts could have truly challenged the reader and reinforced the central issues of human nature discussed in the interview the two intellectuals conducted together.

It could have been even stronger, especially if they had pushed the point on the subjects where the two disagree (which is touched upon quite a bit in the second half of the interview) and attempted to present the reasoning of each on the points of disagreement. Excerpts from important works by the intellectuals or published papers could have achieved this. (Perhaps this criticism is overly harsh; perhaps there were publishing issues that precluded this from occurring.)

Overall, the book will not offer much in the way of new thinking to those who are familiar with either of the two authors, nor is it a particularly good primer for their views on politics. At best, it is a sort of appendix to their views and an intersection between them. However, I would not strongly recommend it unless someone was extremely interested in a very specific relationship between the two thinkers.