This book is a good introduction for both thinkers and an incentive to read more of their works. That is, it will never satisfy hunger. However, what distinguishes it, of course, is the presentation of different views on one issue at a time. It was closer to an interview with the thinkers than a debate. Foucault's ideas were very orderly and compelling in the debate, unlike Chomsky, who presented many ideas that were not entirely clear even to him, so much so that he mentions in many places in the debate that he is unable to explain or interpret them.

Watching the recording of the debate adds another dimension to it.

The book provides valuable insights into the minds of these two great thinkers. It allows readers to explore their different perspectives and engage in a mental dialogue.

The clear organization of Foucault's thoughts makes it easier for readers to follow and understand his arguments. On the other hand, Chomsky's more complex and sometimes ambiguous ideas challenge readers to think more deeply and try to uncover their true meaning.

Overall, this book is a must-read for anyone interested in philosophy, sociology, or linguistics. It offers a unique opportunity to witness a fascinating intellectual exchange between two giants of the field.

The political aspects of the debate and other readings in this edition held a greater allure for me than the human nature aspects. The content was rather dense, and perhaps the debate format for reading didn't quite work to its full potential.

I found myself constantly thinking, "OK, I understand their arguments. Uh, no. No I don't really." It was a bit of a struggle to fully grasp the complex ideas being presented.

However, one cannot deny the significance of Chomsky. He is Chomsky, and that alone is a compelling reason to engage with this reading. His insights and perspectives are often thought-provoking and can offer a unique lens through which to view various issues.

Despite the challenges in understanding, delving into this material can be a rewarding experience, especially for those interested in political theory and the intricacies of different arguments.

The same interview.

In today's world, interviews play a crucial role in various aspects. Whether it's for a job, a scholarship, or a research project, the interview process allows both the interviewer and the interviewee to exchange information and get to know each other better.

During an interview, the interviewer has the opportunity to assess the interviewee's skills, knowledge, experience, and personality. They may ask a series of questions to evaluate the candidate's suitability for the position or the project. On the other hand, the interviewee can showcase their abilities, express their interest, and learn more about the organization or the opportunity.

To make a successful interview, both parties need to be well-prepared. The interviewer should have a clear understanding of the requirements and expectations, and design appropriate questions. The interviewee, on the other hand, should research about the organization, practice answering common questions, and present themselves in a professional and confident manner.

In conclusion, the same interview can have different outcomes depending on the preparation and performance of both the interviewer and the interviewee. It is essential to approach the interview with a positive attitude and do one's best to make a good impression.

This book served as my re-introduction to Noam Chomsky (I delved into his linguistics work during my graduate school days) and my very first encounter with Michel Foucault.

In the United States, Chomsky wasn't frequently invited to speak. And, according to his supporters and his own remarks, he was actively obstructed from speaking or publishing his work in the US in the past. This marks the first time this particular dialogue has become accessible in the US.

Based on a television program taped in France for Dutch television in the early seventies, the much-criticized Chomsky engaged in a debate with Foucault on the topic of human nature. This broad subject had the potential to lead the discussion in numerous directions. However, Chomsky and Foucault delved into the social and political implications of either accepting the existence of an innate human nature (Chomsky) or denying it, arguing that human behavior is solely a derivative of society at any given time (Foucault). Or perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between?

Chomsky and Foucault navigated the debate through history, referring to the writings of great minds such as Descartes and Francis Bacon, and striving to prove their respective points. Then, they brought it into the modern political arena, debating whether it is the denial of an inherent human nature that gives rise to the political and societal crisis of today, or if it is simply another phase in the development of humankind.

It is rather amusing to observe how often they fail to specifically address the points the other is making and, in fact, seem to completely miss them.

The debate constitutes only one-third of the book. The remainder is dedicated to interviews and writings done separately by each speaker/author, providing the reader with more background on their individual philosophies.

In some sense, the title of this book is misleading.

Yes, it includes the "debate" between Chomsky and Foucault. However, for one thing, can we justifiably call it a debate? And for another, only a third of this book is this debate. This is where this book can become enjoyable. In the time we live in, we can easily find the recording of the televised debate with subtitles that covers each of the languages used in the debate.

However, the more interesting and valuable part of this book comes in the inclusion of 4 (5 if you count the last excerpt) chapters that follow the debate, giving it more context. The 4 chapters are two excerpts from Chomsky and two excerpts of Foucault. Of the four, I would say that the pieces of Foucault are more interesting. The two chapters of Chomsky are taken directly from an interview with Mitsou Ronat which can be found in Chomsky's book On Language. The works of Foucault that are included are a series of Questions that Foucault answers and what seems to be a lecture that he gave.

However, what of the contents of the book besides the table of contents? It is important to note that neither Chomsky nor Foucault are philosophers, and this is one of the first things addressed in the debate itself. The debate series was held as a part of a Dutch program titled the International Philosophers' Project. Why is it important to bring this up? It is important to know that this discussion is based around Human Nature and Politics. While there have been and are many scientific advances, these scientific advances are not wholly separate from an underlying philosophical phenomenon.

Chomsky is based in Linguistics, and Foucault is based in history. The difference is not only in which Science they deal with but also in how each person understands the philosophical underpinning differently. From reading this book and knowing of each person's project, you can gain some curious insights. Chomsky is not afraid to link his thought to a Cartesian model. Foucault, on the other hand, is very in tune with philosophical problems and different philosophies. In regard to Human Nature, this is the big sticking point. Chomsky's reliance on Descartes gives his statements an air of naivety.

This book is interesting. I picked it up on a whim because I had heard a certain podcast praising Chomsky while bashing Foucault. While it may be the case that Chomsky's political analysis is more immediately available, if one takes the time to understand Foucault, they can see that Chomsky's Cartesian underpinning to his scientific thought is not only naive but also arrogant and detrimental. This book review is for this book, so I am not going to delve into other works that could help explain this point. If the difference between Chomsky and Foucault can be summed up, the best way might be that Chomsky is only looking at the object in this point in his life, while Foucault is looking at the person studying the object and seeing that the studier is creating a conceptual apparatus in which to study the object. There is a big difference in this, and it shows in Foucault's reactions in the debate.

PS, a great part of this book is that it inserts Foucault's mannerism from the debate into the text. "Elders: Well, may I first of all ask you not to make your answers so lengthy. [Foucault laughs] " (pg. 21)

Foucault and Chomsky's debate on power and justice is an interesting one. There is no attempt at intellectual superiority as both are intellectuals. However, Chomsky seems unable to analyze the concepts of power and justice independently from the field in which he has dedicated himself. Since he is more concerned with the field of language, he didn't seem to be as proficient in the subject as Foucault. But I still think he expressed himself well (not extremely well; just well).

On the other hand, the moderator Elders (even though he was once interrupted by Foucault) is very knowledgeable and proficient in the subject. The questions are very accurate. Indeed, it is not easy to bring Foucault and Chomsky onto the same platform and create a critical level.

Another point is that Foucault presents himself here with a familiar guise again; as an archaeologist of knowledge. It is a great source that I believe those interested in the subject will benefit from.

Note: For those who are curious, there is also a video with Turkish subtitles available on YouTube.

The encounter between them was less than what I had expected.

I mean I was anticipating to see a fight or two breaking out, with people getting angry and perhaps even some chaos ensuing as they returned to the island and its traditions.

But in reality, it was a rather calm and uneventful meeting. There were no raised voices or physical altercations. Maybe they had all decided to put aside their differences for the time being and just focus on the task at hand. Or perhaps they were simply too tired from their journey to engage in any unnecessary drama. Whatever the reason, I was relieved that the situation did not escalate into something more serious.

The debate was, at times, truly interesting. It engaged the minds of the participants and the audience alike.

However, what really stood out were the additional texts that emerged after the debate. These texts added a new dimension to the discussion, offering fresh perspectives and insights.

As for the statement "The will of individuals must make a place for itself in a reality in which governments have attempted to serve a monopoly for themselves, that monopoly which we need to wrest from them little by little and day by day", it presents a thought-provoking idea. It highlights the struggle between the will of the individual and the actions of the government.

In a world where governments may sometimes seek to assert their power and control, it is essential for individuals to assert their own will and strive for a more equitable and just society. This requires a continuous effort to challenge the status quo and work towards a better future.

Overall, the debate and the subsequent texts offer a rich source of material for further reflection and discussion.

Human nature

How can two languages find a common ground for issues related to the human side despite the differences in geographical thinking? The dialogue between contemporary thinkers with their distinct philosophies

Any person can engage in political analysis if they are open-minded and tend to present the facts based on the available information. Chomsky 11

Unpredictable events are those that make us re-think our political habits, suggesting new ways of thinking and seeing that require creativity in the ways of speaking. Foucault 15

Unfortunately, I didn't finish it.

Human nature is a complex and multi-faceted concept. It encompasses our emotions, behaviors, and values. Understanding human nature is crucial for various fields such as psychology, sociology, and philosophy.

In the context of the relationship between two languages, finding a common ground can be challenging due to differences in culture, history, and geographical location. However, through dialogue and mutual understanding, it is possible to bridge the gap and find areas of agreement.

Political analysis is another important aspect of understanding human nature. By analyzing political events and policies, we can gain insights into the motives and behaviors of individuals and groups. This can help us make informed decisions and contribute to the development of a more just and democratic society.

Unpredictable events, such as natural disasters or political upheavals, can have a profound impact on our lives and force us to re-evaluate our assumptions and beliefs. These events can also inspire creativity and innovation as we search for new ways to应对 the challenges.

In conclusion, human nature is a fascinating and ever-evolving subject that requires continuous study and exploration. By understanding our nature, we can better understand ourselves and others, and work towards creating a more harmonious and fulfilling world.

There is no doubt that Chomsky and Foucault are among the greatest philosophers in the modern era. This book clearly expresses this by deeply presenting several issues discussed in the famous debate, of which this book is a summary - and fortunately, the debate is available on YouTube and translated into Arabic.

This discussion stems from three main aspects. The first was about human nature, in which Chomsky presented his point of view, which was influenced to some extent by the nature of his work as a "linguistic philosopher". He refuted the Greek concept in understanding this nature and gave an example of a child's ability to learn any human language because it recognizes every human language. Foucault opposed him at this point and emphasized the need for scientific understanding that develops and changes over time to understand this nature.

The second point they discussed was creativity in an individual's life. Foucault was able to convince Chomsky that the greatest influence on creativity is social, political, and historical circumstances rather than being an individual event.

The third point they discussed was the political philosophy of change in capitalist societies. Chomsky insisted that change must have the concept of justice as a goal, while Foucault wanted change for the sake of change in these societies and insisted that the concept of justice is relative and obscure and not achievable in many circumstances. The discussion revolved around this point.

My summary may be somewhat lacking in many aspects as it is difficult to write superficially about a deep topic, but the thing I emphasize is that it is an interesting debate.

It is an interesting viewing or reading for everyone.

Books hold a certain degree of importance as through them, readers can get a glimpse of the ideas of philosophers Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault in a simple way. The book's themes revolve around human nature, creativity, power, the critique of political reason, and political discourse. My interest lies in the stance of Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault on power. Chomsky believes that the American system is not a democratic one. He even contends that if there were a rational fascist dictatorship, it would choose the American system. Chomsky presents many rational arguments and proofs to support his stance. He also refers to the American elite and the mass media. In his view, the American media is not free as it consists of capitalist institutions. Michel Foucault agrees with this view. He believes that he lives under a hierarchical dictatorship, that is, under the power of a class that imposes itself by force.

What stopped me in reading the book was Michel Foucault's idea of justice. He says that the idea of justice is an invented one and is used in societies as a tool for political and economic power or as a weapon against this power. The idea of justice works within a class society as a claim for the oppressed class and as a justification for it. That is, justice is just a weapon used by any oppressed class as a weapon for it to suppress the exploited class later. Of course, Chomsky does not agree with Foucault's stance in this regard.

It is difficult to write a comprehensive review of the book to cover its specific topics. The book is a television interview that brings together the philosophers and they discuss their views on different topics. This interview is available on YouTube. The book also contains a number of articles written by both thinkers. I think the book provided me with an introduction to get to know Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault to a greater extent.

An awesome transcript of their debate indeed! In my humble opinion, Foucault seemed to outmaneuver Chomsky, although he didn't have sufficient time to fully address his points. In a debate, there's this crucial aspect where even when debating a particular definition, like human nature in this case, we must first agree on other definitions before delving into the core of our arguments. I believe this is where they faced difficulties. It felt as if they sometimes missed each other's points because they were arguing based on their own definitions, especially regarding creativity. Both sides had solid arguments. However, when they reached the actual point of clash, as a self-proclaimed post-structuralist, I was inclined towards Foucault's argument that there is no such thing as an "innate" human nature. As a former debater (thank the lord above), this was not only interesting in terms of theory but also in terms of the actual debating process.