I truly wish that they would take the time to pen lengthy letters to one another.

These letters could be a beautiful and intimate way for them to communicate their deepest thoughts, feelings, and experiences.

By sharing these letters with everyone, it would provide a unique and valuable insight into their relationship.

People could gain a better understanding of their connection, the challenges they face, and the joys they share.

It would also allow others to learn from their experiences and perhaps find inspiration in their words.

Additionally, making these letters accessible could create a sense of community and connection among those who read them.

It would be a wonderful way to bring people together and foster a spirit of openness and sharing.

Overall, I believe that if they wrote lengthy letters and made them available to everyone, it would have a profound and positive impact on many people's lives.

The title of the book is deceiving as it does not directly correspond to the content.

The discussions are suitable for professionals and not for the average reader.

And after the empty discussions, there are only articles to increase the number of pages of the book.

This kind of situation is rather disappointing. It makes the readers feel cheated when they expect to find valuable and accessible information but end up with something that is either too specialized or just filler material.

Authors should be more responsible in creating titles that accurately represent the essence of their work and ensuring that the content is engaging and useful for a wider audience.

Otherwise, it will only lead to a loss of trust and credibility among the readers.

Have you ever desired to peruse a debate between an anarcho-nationalist pseudoscientist who believes that countries are malevolent and uphold their power through conspiracy theories?

And a proud crypto-Marxist nihilist who contends that criminals and the insane are unjustly maligned and that if they were to assume control of the world, it would transform into a paradise?

Well, surely you do! Witness what all the hoopla regarding the two least pragmatically impactful intellectuals, yet highly influential among those who merely engage in self-reflection on the far left, is all about!

I seriously doubt that Chomsky's or Foucault's ideas are particularly excellent, but they are extremely influential. And perhaps this is the most concise manner in which to learn about them.

This debate would offer a unique perspective on the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. It would showcase the radical views of these individuals and how they have managed to gain a following among certain segments of society.

By examining their ideas, we can better understand the various currents of thought that exist within the far left and the potential implications of these ideas.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with their viewpoints, there is no denying the influence that Chomsky and Foucault have had on intellectual discourse.

So, if you're curious about the mindsets of these two influential figures, this debate is definitely worth checking out.

It will provide you with a fascinating glimpse into the world of radical ideas and the people who advocate for them.

Who knows, perhaps you'll even find yourself persuaded by one side or the other.

Either way, it's sure to be an engaging and thought-provoking experience.

In the 1970s, there was a very interesting theoretical discussion between Chomsky and Foucault.

It was a remarkable intellectual encounter that attracted a lot of attention.

Chomsky, with his profound insights into linguistics and his views on language and mind, presented his ideas.

Foucault, on the other hand, with his unique perspectives on power, knowledge, and social structures, put forward his own arguments.

Some people believe that Foucault had a more dominant position in this discussion, as if he "ate Chomsky alive with his shoes on."

However, this is just one perspective. In fact, both scholars made important contributions to the field of thought, and their ideas continue to have a profound impact on various disciplines today.

Their discussion not only enriched the academic community but also inspired countless scholars and thinkers to explore and think further.

It is a valuable chapter in the history of intellectual debate.

I think the title of the book "Human Nature" does not actually reflect the content of the book.

The book contains a debate between Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky, revolving around political, economic, and linguistic issues.

It is not suitable for the average non-specialist reader.

This is because the discussions in the book are quite in-depth and require a certain level of knowledge and understanding in the relevant fields.

For the average reader, it may be difficult to fully understand the essence and implications of the arguments put forward by the two scholars.

However, for those who are interested in political science, economics, and linguistics, this book can provide a valuable perspective and inspiration.

It allows readers to explore different viewpoints and theories, and promotes critical thinking and in-depth analysis.

In general, the book "Human Nature" has its own value and significance, but it is not a book that can be easily understood and appreciated by the general public.

The conversation is like a game; the interlocutor determines what you say and what you will say as if putting you on the spot, or in the blink of an eye during the conversation, the truth emerges and as soon as you start speaking, you have entered the game. Therefore, anyone who watches the debate will find that Foucault was not at ease and at times he corrected certain "Eldridge" questions when he was asked: Why are you interested in politics?

And yet, his views - in my opinion - were more convincing; for he always denies the idea of the fixed and the stable whether when talking about creativity or partial justice, and this is a relatively comfortable thing. Also, his deep excavations in the historical and psychological dimensions and his attempt to place them in a network of relationships is something that interests me.

Footnote:

* One of the most important debates that you may encounter.

* I enjoyed watching the debate more than reading it :).

This book begins with the famous debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, which took place in the Netherlands in November 1971 under the auspices of the famous Dutch thinker Fons Elders. The two main points in the dialogue were "the question of human nature and politics."

The dialogue provided a space for discussion across geographical and political thought, revealing the different views of Chomsky and Foucault according to their different approaches (linguistic-philosophical) and political at the same time - which is clearly touched upon in their ideological propositions.

There was a partial agreement between Chomsky and Foucault regarding the question of "human nature," which revolved a great deal around the concept of creativity and its impact on achieving freedoms and social justice. Chomsky views creativity as "a part of the ordinary and daily use of language and human action in general." He also notes that "any true social science, or theory of social change, must be based on some principle of human nature."

As for Foucault, he focuses on the general social and intellectual basis of creativity, and the theoretical possibilities that result from the diversity of social conditions in which the human mind can flourish. He thinks, as Chomsky does, about "the conditions of radical innovation."

Chomsky and Foucault agree that human nature is no longer within the scope of science. And for the present, it has escaped the reach of scientific research, but he believes that specific fields such as the study of language help us to begin formulating an important principle "of human nature" in its intellectual and cognitive aspects, considering that the possession of language is part of human nature.

In brief: Chomsky showed great interest in "the royal kingdom of the mind," and Foucault in "a combination of social and intellectual conditions + a historical perspective on them."

Indeed, Chomsky's views on individual creativity and its role in human nature are to a large extent close to the ideas of Karl Popper and his philosophy in piecemeal social engineering and its impact on individual creativity and the achievement of general and specific freedoms.

Regarding the differences in politics, there were many, for example, the class struggle and its role in achieving social justice and the management of power with its transformations.

Foucault: "Man engages in class struggle to win, not because this will lead to a more just society."

Chomsky: "Class struggle can only be justified if it is supported by an argument - even if it is an indirect argument based on real questions and values that are not fully understood - that claims that the results of this struggle will be beneficial to humanity and will produce a more capable society."

This is where the first chapter of the book ends.

In the second and third chapters, the two dialogues that took place with Chomsky on politics and language in 1971 under the management of Mitsou Ronat continue. In his political dialogue, he touches on American imperial ideology and its impact on the social and intellectual path, as well as on the social role of the elite, and other topics such as oppression, struggle, and facing institutions and power to achieve civil and democratic rights.

In language, Chomsky touches on the imperial problems faced by language learners. He also touches on the influence and role of language in the study of human behavior and our understanding of complex social structures.

In the fourth and fifth chapters, there are lectures by Michel Foucault on "truth and power" and "towards a critique of political reason," and in the sixth chapter, there is an article by Foucault on "facing governments: human rights."

Foucault discussed and criticized power and political reason from a historical and religious perspective of "the pastoral government of people," highlighting its impact on social and human consciousness "identity," and also providing a space for the role of the intellectual in political struggle.

As Foucault was also interested in revealing the pattern of rationality that accompanies the exercise of state power and the historical analysis of what is known as "the art of government."

In Foucault's dialogues, frequent reference was made to what is in his two books "Madness and Civilization" and "Discipline and Punish." I think that the reader's acquaintance with one of these two books makes his understanding of Foucault's ideas in this book clearer.

This book is excellent for all those interested in the human and social sciences.

A good single-volume contrast between the two is presented here.

The debate itself is probably the most engaging part. It showcases the different perspectives and arguments of the two influential figures.

However, the other sections are also worth reading. Even if there is no other specific reason, they offer a valuable opportunity to contrast the approaches of these two individuals.

By examining their methods, strategies, and beliefs, we can gain a deeper understanding of their influence and the significance of their work.

This single-volume provides a comprehensive and accessible resource for those interested in comparing and contrasting the two figures. It allows readers to explore the similarities and differences between them and form their own opinions.

Whether you are a scholar, a student, or simply someone with an interest in the subject, this volume is sure to offer valuable insights and perspectives.

It is a must-read for anyone looking to gain a better understanding of the two influential figures and their contributions.

Have the rules of the game been found before humans or is it humans who create the rules of the game? Is the system of culture, civilization, and science the one that moves or is it humans as active beings who move? Will pushing one system to another lead to more justice or is it just another kind of injustice? Is it a desire for power or a desire for justice?

The video link https://youtu.be/YcYOuffbQ8c might provide some insights or引发 further discussions on these profound questions.

These inquiries touch upon fundamental aspects of our existence and the nature of our societies. Do we follow pre-existing rules or shape them according to our will? How do different systems interact and influence each other? And what truly drives our actions, the pursuit of power or the longing for justice?

Exploring these questions can help us gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us. It challenges us to reflect on our values, beliefs, and the choices we make.

Nature of the book is deceptive. The debate was limited to the first ninety pages and what followed were conversations and articles by both philosophers without the publisher indicating this on the book cover, which is a negligence towards the reader who thinks that what is between the two covers is the debate.

Let's put this formal matter aside and enter into the depth of the debate that requires an advanced mind and great concentration to understand the two main axes around which the meeting revolved: "human nature" and "politics". Although they agreed and met a lot in the first, they differed in the second. For Foucault, scientific knowledge and scientific innovation can only be conceived in successive and historical sequences. He emphasizes the intellectual social basis, in short, "knowledge as a network or sequence", unlike his partner who does not pay much attention to the historical side.

This difference in their perspectives leads to a rich and complex discussion that invites further exploration and analysis. It shows how different philosophical approaches can lead to different understandings of fundamental concepts and how these differences can have significant implications for our understanding of the world and our place in it.

By delving into this debate, we can gain a deeper appreciation of the complexity of human nature and politics and the importance of considering different perspectives when trying to understand these issues.

The debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault is a highly significant and thought-provoking encounter.

Chomsky, a renowned linguist and political activist, and Foucault, a prominent philosopher and social theorist, engaged in a lively exchange of ideas on various aspects of human nature, power, and knowledge.

Their debate covered a wide range of topics, including the nature of truth, the role of language in society, and the relationship between individual freedom and social control.

The video footage of this debate provides a fascinating insight into the minds of two great thinkers and their contrasting perspectives.

It allows viewers to witness the intensity of their arguments and the depth of their intellectual engagement.

Watching this video can be a valuable learning experience, as it challenges our own assumptions and encourages us to think critically about the complex issues at stake.

Video Footage of Chomsky v. Foucault offers a unique opportunity to explore the ideas of these two influential scholars and gain a deeper understanding of the ongoing dialogue in the fields of philosophy, linguistics, and social theory.

As much as I respect Chomsky, I am definitely on team Foucault.

Chomsky is widely regarded as a brilliant linguist and political critic. His work on language and its relationship to power has had a profound impact on many fields. However, Foucault's ideas also hold great significance for me.

Foucault's research on power, knowledge, and subjectivity offers a unique perspective on how society functions. His exploration of how power operates through institutions, discourses, and practices challenges us to question the taken-for-granted assumptions that shape our lives.

While both Chomsky and Foucault have made important contributions to our understanding of the world, I find Foucault's approach more compelling. His emphasis on the historical and contingent nature of power relations allows for a more nuanced and complex analysis of social phenomena.

In conclusion, although I have great respect for Chomsky, I firmly align myself with Foucault. His ideas continue to inspire me and shape my thinking about the world we live in.