This book disappointed my expectations.

I wanted an introduction to the world of writers, especially (Foucault), as I am quite familiar - to some extent - with (Chomsky), and I wanted to search specifically in (human nature) as the title implies. Especially after I failed to listen with pleasure and concentration to the lecture text available on YouTube due to the multiplicity of languages and poor translation.

But unfortunately, I found it recently too verbose and not satisfying for a researcher, nor enriching for a student, nor enjoyable for a reader, in addition to being far from its title.

Finally, I fell into a trap that I know - unfortunately - which is reading a dry lecture or a dry conversation without editing that turns the spoken word into a written text. Because of the nature of each of them.

Overall, this book did not meet my initial hopes and left me feeling rather dissatisfied with its content and presentation.

The differences in thought between Chomsky and Foucault are indeed quite subtle at times. The exchange regarding 'just' future societies is still in its embryonic stage for obvious reasons. However, there are clear oppositional and contentious moments within the context of the debate that are worth recognizing.

Chomsky asserts an absolute, universalized almost innate'schematicism' linked to human nature when it comes to the concept of a 'just' action or society. This idea is connected to enlightenment values of achieving better forms of justice and enabling a society of creative individuals. Foucault, on the other hand, notes that the understanding of justice can vary depending on the class relations and societal configurations. For example, when the proletarians take power over the bourgeois, there would be a different perception of justice.

Interestingly, Chomsky accepts a degree of social constructivism but maintains that progressive actions are only undertaken if they are considered 'just'. Foucault, in response, argues that 'just' is a product of the social formation we exist in and objective justifications are not possible. He also rejects Satre's idea of public tribunals as a key place in criticism/activism.

Another point of contention is the idea of innate structures or predisposition. Foucault points out that the concept of life was not used in the 17th and 18th centuries when classifying nature. Chomsky, however, argues that humans have an epistemological indicator similar to his universal grammar model, which allows them to reach similar conclusions using limited sensual empirical data.

There is also an unspoken disagreement over autobiographical involvement. Foucault spars with the moderator when asked a personal question, believing such questions to be uninteresting. Chomsky, on the other hand, speaks a lot about his personal involvement in disobedience and activism during the Vietnam war.

In conclusion, the disagreement between Chomsky and Foucault is over method. Chomsky values communitarian networks and aims to politically and socially orient his thinking, while Foucault seeks to critique institutions and showcase non-linearity in thinking and process over time through his genealogical analysis.

By far the most valuable part is the first one.

It consists of the actual text of the (trilingual, although all translated into English) debate.

This part provides a direct and in-depth look at the exchanges and discussions that took place during the debate.

It allows readers to understand the viewpoints, arguments, and counterarguments of the participants.

The second and third parts are also good.

They contain some of the key formulations on the topics of language and power by Chomsky and Foucault respectively.

However, these formulations are better understood and appreciated when placed in their original contexts elsewhere.

Therefore, while they are valuable, they do not have the same level of significance as the first part.

Overall, the first part of the article is the most essential and值得关注的, as it offers a unique and comprehensive perspective on the debate.

The part of the debate on Justice as the derivative is truly one of the most crucial debates concerning this subject.

Both sides in this debate manage to present their points of view with remarkable clarity. It's as if they are painting a vivid picture in the minds of the readers.

Their arguments are so well-structured and presented that it makes for a truly joyful reading experience.

One can't help but be engaged and intrigued by the different perspectives and the way they are defended.

This debate not only enriches our understanding of the concept of justice but also showcases the power of intellectual discourse.

It is a testament to the importance of exploring different ideas and viewpoints in order to arrive at a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of complex subjects.

Overall, it is a fascinating and enlightening debate that leaves a lasting impression on the reader.

This could probably be one of the twentieth century's most significant intellectual exchanges regarding the philosophy of human nature.

The book is a straightforward transcript of the original debate that was telecasted in the 1970s. It provides a continuous and fascinating exploration of Foucault's Postmodernism and Chomsky's Rationalism.

Unlike the high-profile debates of today where people are often only eager to outdo their opponents, this is a highly insightful exchange between two great influencers who had different views.

Both intellectuals made an effort to understand each other's positions on philosophy, politics, and human nature and then presented their own, attempting to find common ground.

It is truly worth reading for anyone with an interest in philosophy, politics, and human behavior. Many of the points raised in the debate are still relevant today in various aspects.

This exchange serves as a valuable resource for those seeking a deeper understanding of these complex and important topics.

The word "Fascinating" is truly captivating. It has the power to draw our attention and hold it firmly.

When we encounter something that is described as fascinating, it immediately piques our curiosity. It makes us want to know more, to explore further, and to uncover the hidden details that make it so interesting.

Fascinating can refer to a wide range of things. It could be a beautiful work of art that leaves us in awe, a mysterious story that keeps us on the edge of our seats, or a unique scientific discovery that challenges our understanding of the world.

Whether it's the charm of a person, the allure of a place, or the wonder of an idea, the term "Fascinating" encapsulates the essence of something that has an irresistible appeal. It invites us to engage with it, to be inspired by it, and to let ourselves be carried away by its magic.

In a world full of ordinary and mundane things, the fascinating stands out as a bright and shining light, beckoning us to come closer and experience its splendor.

I had only a cursory knowledge of Chomsky from a linguistics class and Foucault from research presentations by other students during my MFA studies.

This book was truly engaging and has successfully sparked my interest in delving deeper into the studies of their theories.

Despite the fact that the thinking of the two is rather dense, the book is a relatively quick and easy read.

The chosen works that follow the interview transcription are interesting on an individual basis and seem to create an interesting dialogue.

However, I only take issue with the inclusion of "Omnes et Singulatim: Toward a Critique of Political Reason." It feels somewhat forced and doesn't flow as smoothly with the dialogue that is being created.

Nonetheless, overall, this book has provided me with a valuable introduction and has whetted my appetite for further exploration of the theories of Chomsky and Foucault.

I look forward to reading more about their ideas and seeing how they can be applied in different contexts.

Perhaps in the future, I will be able to contribute my own thoughts and interpretations to the ongoing dialogue surrounding their work.

I watched the one-hour debate on Youtube and read several papers analyzing and arguing about the opinions of the two thinkers.

It was truly an interesting debate. In my view, Chomsky indeed has some valid points. However, I also believe that Foucault understands Chomsky to a greater extent than Chomsky understands him.

From a philosophical perspective, I think Foucault emerges as the winner. But, on the other hand, his ideas seem to lead us nowhere in a practical sense. At least Chomsky's approach appears to be more practical and applicable to our current societies.

Perhaps this is because Chomsky's ideas are more directly related to issues such as politics, language, and social change, which are of immediate concern to us. While Foucault's theories are more abstract and philosophical, they may not have the same practical impact.

Nevertheless, both thinkers have made significant contributions to the field of philosophy and have provided us with valuable insights into the nature of human thought and society.

This is an outstanding piece of reading material.

Both Foucault and Chomsky present their ideas with remarkable clarity. What's perhaps even more significant is their exceptional ability to precisely identify the differences between their respective theories.

Chomsky neatly summarizes his thoughts around page 132.

If you have an interest in linguistics and politics, or the debate between innate and experience-learned language, then this is definitely a worthwhile read.

In addition, Foucault offers an intriguing perspective on the police and their role within society.

It delves into the complex relationship between law enforcement and the social fabric, providing valuable insights that can stimulate further思考 and discussion.

Overall, this work combines the intellectual prowess of two great thinkers and offers a wealth of knowledge and food for thought for those interested in these diverse fields.

This book is truly very good and extremely illuminating. It is beneficial that Foucault and Chomsky have always been outstanding speakers during their entire public careers. This book splendidly emphasizes the details of their philosophy and politics. Although they are driving towards a similar point regarding human nature, both of them elaborate meticulously on what they believe to be the crucial underlying structures that shape our nature and the world we live in today. Their ideas offer profound insights and perspectives that can expand our understanding and challenge our existing beliefs. By reading this book, we can gain a deeper appreciation of the complexity and significance of their works.

This book is the transcription of a televised debate in the seventies. It is structured in two parts.

The first part, regarding the theories of language structure, has been rather difficult for me and full of technicalities. I must say that I am a complete layman in this matter, and that's where the difficulty lies. However, when read carefully, although I haven't been able to take the side of either of the two debaters, I have grasped how interesting the topic can be.

The second part of the debate, about the use that power makes of the laws and its inevitable confrontation with individual freedom, is framed within the social movements of the late sixties and early seventies in the United States and France (although its arguments are still valid today). This part has been the most enjoyable and stimulating for me. So much so that in the end it has given me the feeling that due to the time limitation of the television format, only the surface of Chomsky and Foucault's positions is scratched and I have been left wanting more.

I found this book to be a fascinating exploration of two important topics. It made me think deeply about the nature of language and the relationship between power and freedom. Although the first part was challenging, it was also rewarding to try to understand the technical concepts. The second part was particularly engaging, as it related to real social movements and current issues. Overall, I would recommend this book to anyone interested in linguistics, philosophy, or social theory.

Chomsky's writing is succinct and clear.

For me, his thoughts on epistemological limits are the most captivating. If you have perused any of his other activist works, chances are you won't discover anything novel here.

Foucault, on the other hand, has some intriguing ideas, yet his discourse seems a bit nebulous and abstract for my personal taste.

Foucault engages in a particularly interesting discussion regarding the emergence of the'specialist' intellectual (as opposed to the 'universal' intellectual). In other words, there has been a departure from the 'renaissance man' model of scholarship and an increased emphasis on the'savant' model.

To me, it appears as if he mourns this shift, reasoning that the latter is more vulnerable to the caprices of the state and power structures in general. However, I didn't find his assumptions in this line of reasoning to be very lucid. Honestly, it feels as though it stems more from a general lament over the decline of philosophy in a broad sense and perhaps the stigma associated with the 'ivory tower' academic, who is seen as wizened, pretentious, and anything but pragmatic.

I am sympathetic to this sentiment, but my initial counterargument would be that this shift is inevitable. We need only consider a prospective intellectual generalist confronted with the rapidly expanding realm of knowledge to recognize that this might be the case.

On the other hand, if what Chomsky asserts about knowledge acquisition is true - namely, that we possess innate systems of knowledge (possible theories) within us - then perhaps by comprehending the underlying structure (and rules) of this knowledge, one's task becomes significantly easier in other specialized domains.

Personally, I believe that all areas of study could benefit from seriously considering the drive to unify theories, as best exemplified in physics.