A truly captivating debate took place between two extremely significant thinkers of the twentieth century. Moderated by Fons Elders, this engaging debate encompassed two primary topics of discussion: human nature and politics. The deliberations regarding human nature were rather abstract in nature. At certain moments, they were somewhat challenging to comprehend. However, the discourse on politics was remarkably lucid. It very clearly demonstrated how the two gentlemen diverged in their fundamental ideas. This specific copy of the book features a lengthy introduction. Additionally, it contains 4 appendices. These appendices offer supplementary insights into the topics that were discussed, thereby enriching the overall understanding of the readers.

Genuinely, it is very funny to read or listen to this exchange between Chomsky and Foucault. Chomsky is essentially correct, yet he is powerless to argue against Foucault simply because he can't make sense of the man. Chomsky seems incapable of understanding why someone would hold the views Foucault held. Foucault, on the other hand, is having a great deal of fun by playing up how esoteric and weird he is. This doesn't make for a very engaging or substantive debate, but it is objectively hilarious.

As a positive, I like Chomsky's take on Descartes. Modern readers engaging with Descartes are often very uncharitable to him, but Chomsky is very sympathetic and explains well why Descartes made the philosophical moves he did. It is this good-natured sincerity that leads to Chomsky's loss here. It is simply a poor match-up against Foucault's trickster archetype.

Foucault's anti-essentialist position leaves radicals scratching their heads about what a human being is, let alone why they would prefer one mode of social reproduction to another. It deprives us of the ground from which to launch a normative attack on society, which Foucault is aware of and is okay with because he sees morality as suspect. Having helped a friend write a book whose core point is that radicals would benefit from incorporating Nietzsche's critique of morality into their worldview, I am sympathetic to Foucault's concerns. Nevertheless, I find him taking one step too many.

At one point, Foucault notes that the working class does not wage war against the capitalist class because it finds its current situation unjust but because "for the first time in history, it wants to take power." Implicit here is that radicalism stems not from the better angels of our nature but rather from our greed. Chomsky fumbles his response, arguing the classic anarchist position that centralizing power in a revolution is dangerous and that we'd do better to place our hopes in humankind's instinct for justice. I'd ask both men why they counterpose power to justice as if they are contradictory.

The problem with Foucault's position here is that, without normative content, it's difficult to see what's desirable about power in the first place. Why should we be concerned with radicalism if what it brings us is not connected to our highest good? It speaks volumes that, by the end of his life in the 1980s, Foucault had abandoned his radicalism in favor of a strange brand of neoliberalism. On the other hand, Chomsky is as much an anarchist at 94 as he was at 43! Even if he naively accepts the duality between the desire for power and eudaimonia, Chomsky's position roots radicalism in something real, whereas Foucault's does not, and their lives speak to this.

Unfortunately, Chomsky's naivety does render him incapable of grappling with Foucault because, ultimately, Chomsky's position is that of a radical republican, and Foucault's position is the result of grappling with the failures of that tradition. Chomsky may have personally remained a radical, but it isn't easy to see what his radicalism has brought about in reality. If Chomsky's view of human nature has allowed him to see the profound value of a future anarchist society, what has prevented him from doing much meaningful work to bring it about?

In essence, Chomsky believes that humankind is naturally drawn to justice but that the powers have perverted this natural inclination. The education system indoctrinates children to believe falsehoods about the past, and the news-media brainwash adults into lies about the present. Then, the spreading of class consciousness must hinge on combating this propaganda. We must allow others to see as we do, with eyes unclouded. Once this is accomplished, humanity's natural desire for justice will win out more or less automatically.

It's a very liberal way of thinking about things in that it sees education and the lack of it as the defining features of our political landscape. Our enemies aren't evil, according to Chomsky. They're misinformed. This is a nice way of viewing things and is much better than the moralistic alternative, but it is wrong. Ironically, Chomsky would have done well to learn from Erich Fromm's writings, which he dismissed as superficial. Far from it, Fromm's ideas provide depth exactly where Chomsky's are lacking. Fromm, a Jewish man living in Germany during the rise of the Nazi party, had a front-row seat watching perfectly intelligent and well-informed people bring a man to power who very clearly was not going to do well by them.

I won't bother regurgitating Fromm's arguments here, but the relevance of this kind of analysis is clear. At the risk of being accusatory, Chomsky's understanding of radicalism is one in which he, as an academic, gets to play a role front and center, and I don't think this is a coincidence. As a wannabe intellectual myself, I understand the temptation, but that does not change the fact that it is deeply, deeply wrong. What's needed is a new view that weds Chomsky's understanding of the depth of human values with Foucault's appreciation of humankind's selfishness and propensity for self-transformation. Fromm laid much groundwork for such a view but failed to articulate this comprehensively. Moreover, Fromm was something of a liberal himself at the end of the day and so often shied away from the most critical implications of his work.

Yes, I did turn this into a plug for my own ideas. Sue me xD

A very important book... I read it again several years later.

This book holds a special place in my heart. The first time I read it, it had a profound impact on me.

After several years, I decided to pick it up again. As I turned the pages, it was as if I was rediscovering a hidden treasure.

The story and the characters came alive once more, and I found myself completely immersed in the world created by the author.

It was interesting to see how my perspective had changed over the years. Some parts that I didn't fully understand before now made perfect sense.

This book is not just a collection of words on paper. It is a work of art that has the power to touch our souls and make us think.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to read it again and I know that it will continue to be a source of inspiration for me in the future.

I really, really enjoyed this extremely important book.

The book contains the debate that took place between Chomsky and Foucault in Holland, and then separate conversations with Chomsky and Foucault. This debate is a unique model for what has been achieved by leading models in Western thought, and the debate took place in two languages in a country that speaks a third language!

I almost agreed with Chomsky in all his views and every day I became increasingly amazed by him in an unbelievable way... I think he is really one of the most important intellectuals on this planet, and his great strength lies in his ability to go beyond the framework and his amazing objectivity, and not adhering to a particular ideology in an enviable way.

One of the paradoxes in this book is that when Foucault speaks in the debate or the individual conversations, one finds it extremely difficult to understand him, and in one of Chomsky's separate conversations specifically about what took place in the debate and Foucault's presentations and views, one finds that the matter was not that complicated.

There is a real difficulty in understanding modern philosophical schools like Foucault's and others, and I think one of the main reasons for that is their way of expressing the matter and not the difficulty of the matter itself. What he says is not that complicated, but he presents it in a very bad way, and in my opinion, it is not even deep and does not add much to what came before.

The gateway to two of the most influential intellectuals ever is a concept that holds great significance.

These intellectuals have had a profound impact on various fields, shaping the way we think, learn, and understand the world around us.

Their ideas and contributions have transcended time and continue to inspire generations.

By exploring the gateway that leads to their works and teachings, we can gain valuable insights into their mindsets and the factors that influenced their intellectual growth.

This gateway may include their personal experiences, educational backgrounds, and the social and cultural contexts in which they lived.

Understanding these aspects can help us better appreciate the significance of their ideas and how they have influenced the course of history.

Moreover, the gateway to these influential intellectuals can also serve as a source of inspiration for us.

It can encourage us to think critically, question the status quo, and strive for intellectual growth and innovation.

By following in their footsteps, we can make our own contributions to the world of knowledge and ideas.

The two interlocutors seem to talk past each other for a significant portion of the debate. Foucault is rather evasive and never directly assaults Chomsky's core argument that linguistic structures are derived from the innate universal biological properties of the human mind.

Chomsky, on the other hand, does not directly oppose Foucault's central point that historically contingent power structures define the prevailing conceptions of truth and knowledge.

In terms of politics, Foucault gains some ground, especially regarding the universal legal/moral principles that Chomsky appeals to in justifying civil disobedience. However, the alternative that Foucault presents is unsatisfactory and borders on nihilism. He refuses to offer a positive vision of a just society and appears to suggest that we should act as if in a constant war against power, aligning ourselves with whichever class or group is disenfranchised, regardless of their values or vision.

The other essays included in the volume are less enlightening for those familiar with the thought of these intellectuals and can be skipped.

What an extraordinary little book this is.

To begin with, it can hardly be considered a "debate" in the traditional sense. Chomsky and Foucault were operating on such distinct wavelengths throughout that it is more of a juxtaposition of their views rather than a direct confrontation. Their answers are not so much opposing as they are orthogonal to each other. Chomsky's approach leans more towards the psychological, while Foucault's is more sociological. To such an extent that at times, they were clearly using different definitions for the same words. They even pointed this out in the case of the word "creativity."

Nevertheless, I found it enjoyable. I have a weakness for a good dialogue, and it still serves to illuminate the differences in their approaches.

This work functions as a discussion on politics, power, and the structural forces that determine the ideas we can conceive and the things we can express (for different, somewhat unrelated reasons). The parts that deviated from these themes were a bit strange. Multiple moderators seemed determined to force Chomsky to connect his work on linguistics/generative grammar to his politics, which Chomsky seemed to认为 was more or less completely irrelevant and shut down each time. Foucault's later chapters are somewhat of a complex historiography about the development of state power, with conclusions that often feel a bit like non-sequiturs. Those lectures are quite interesting, but clearly under-developed.

Personally, I feel much more in line with Chomsky's approach here than Foucault's. This is actually my first time reading Foucault directly, rather than learning about his ideas indirectly through others, and I found it much easier to follow his thoughts through his own words than I ever have before. He is undoubtedly very clever and writes extremely well, but I feel like he is also the kind of thinker who talks himself into a position so far removed from the realm of intuition that he ends up defending some truly unhinged ideas. For what it's worth, some parts of this were also uncomfortable to read for the first time after he has already been posthumously cancelled. But his dissection of the mechanisms of power is probably the most interesting aspect in here, and I'll likely be pondering that for a while.

Chomsky reads like the one brilliant old guy at the DSA meeting, while Foucault reads like he might be a couple of years away from starting a cult.

The first part of the book presents a transcription of an actual, lively debate between Foucault and Chomsky that took place on Dutch TV. I relished the give-and-take between these two intellectual titans. The medium seems to be well-suited to the topic of conversation: how do we, as human beings, generate knowledge? Are there intrinsic frameworks that we employ to interpret the world around us, including the political economy?

However, there is a caveat (thus my 3-star rating): 1. Chomsky speaks twice as much as Foucault, which undermines the essence of a two-way debate. 2. At times, it appears as if Chomsky and Foucault are on entirely different wavelengths. It becomes challenging to make sense of their arguments jointly. They don't truly enlighten each other.

Nevertheless, it was pleasant to be drawn into a philosophical, yet still highly relevant debate. For me, it fulfilled the perfect purpose: a mode of thinking and writing that one can only truly encounter in an academic, such as a political philosophy university course, setting.

The remainder of the book supplemented the debate splendidly. There are several thought-provoking pieces by both Chomsky and Foucault that expand on the themes that surface during the debate (and more).

I think that among the many books that make you think, this one makes you engage with questions that you have never thought about before, and explore philosophical discussions with the hands of two outstanding thinkers. It will change your perspective forever on certain topics.

The truth is that this book is a treasure, a great one indeed. Every idea presented in it is more beautiful than the previous one, and it is truly a delight for thinkers like Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault whom this book introduced me to, then to the author who collected and presented it, and then to the translator Amer Zeki without whom it would have been difficult for me to read the content of this book in English with all its scientific sophistication. The basic idea is that the question is asked to the thinker, the dialogue takes place, and the ideas move between the thinkers. It was truly enjoyable and very beneficial, even with the differences in their viewpoints.

The discussion about human nature really opened my mind. Before reading this book, I never thought that the interpretation of human nature is related to many sciences not just politics and social science, but also it extends to include all sciences since humans are the ones who drive them and are the basis of their development.

The only drawback I have with this book, which is related to my expectations, is that there are some topics that are very scientific and I felt that they were really difficult for me to understand, like Noam Chomsky's treatment of the topic of language. I felt it was very specialized and it would have been possible to have a discussion about a different topic in the book that is closer to all readers.

It is an enjoyable and truly beneficial reading experience. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in philosophy in general, and politics, social sciences, and the relationship between them in particular.

The book contains the main interview and additional material - 2 interviews with Chomsky and 2 with Foucault.

Human nature - innate organizational mechanisms / intrinsic mental schematism.

Chomsky says:

- Can we give human nature a biological explanation? - The child's ability to accumulate a complex system of knowledge, but, more than that, the capacity to use this complex system once accumulated in various creative and free ways from any constraint. Can these 2 properties (the ability to accumulate knowledge + the capacity to use them in a variety of ways) be explained biologically?

It is about the normal creativity of the human being (not that true creativity in art and science).

Foucault says:

- There are concepts. For example, there are concepts that have the role of classifying, of establishing differences or of analyzing. But there are also "peripheral" notions through which scientific practice establishes its design, its field of activity, delimiting itself thus from other practices. The notion of "LIFE" has played this role for BIOLOGY at a certain moment. The biological knowledge at the end of the 18th century could be demonstrated on the one hand by using new concepts in the scientific discourse and on the other hand gave birth to new notions, such as the notion of "life", which allowed the delimitation and the architecture of the scientific discourse. "Life" is not a scientific concept but an epistemological indicator.

- "Human nature" is also an epistemological indicator. It has been useful for delimiting a certain scientific discourse from others (for example from the biological, theological, historical scientific discourse).

Then follows an extremely interesting and difficult discussion about language, creativity and freedom.

The next two interviews of Chomsky are related to politics and language. And those of Foucault are about truth, power and political reason.

I especially liked the definition of "Truth" in Foucault's conception:

Contrary to a myth whose history and functions would repay further study, truth isn't the reward of free spirits, the child of protracted solitude, nor the privilege of those who have succeeded in liberating themselves. Truth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint. And it induces regular effects of power. Each society has its regime of truth, its "general politics" of truth - that is, the types of discourse it accepts and makes function as true; the mechanisms and instances that enable one to distinguish true and false statements; the means by which each is sanctioned.

The truth:

- is centered on the form of scientific discourse and the institutions that produce it

- it is subject to constant economic and political incitement

- it is the object, under diverse forms, of immense diffusion and consumption (apparatuses of education and information whose extent is relatively broad in the social body, notwithstanding certain strict limitations)

- it is produced and transmitted under the control, dominant if not exclusive of a few great political and economic apparatuses (university, army, writing, media)

- it is the issue of a whole political debate and social confrontation ("ideological" struggles).

I am very delighted that I came across this book, I will read it at some point. It is wonderful to come across such interesting and intelligent books and ideas. I recommend it.

A when understanding, the relationship of the subject to truth, is only a consequence of knowledge? What if understanding is a complex, multiple, non-individual form and is not subordinated to the subject who created the effects of truth? M. Foucault (s.21)

For me, it was an interesting conversation between two wise men. The moderator was completely out of it the whole time and as Barsa writes at the end, he was suggesting ideas to both participants that were not theirs and so somehow it wasn't clear to me what kind of creation it was and where it came from. The literal translator seemed a bit strange to me because I think that even at the time of the publication of this book, there were conversations of a similar nature on Czech television and I wouldn't say that they reduced the ratings (see Hydepark Civilization, Fokus VM and many others).

It is important to note that Foucault's ideas challenge the traditional view of the relationship between the subject and truth. His concept of understanding as a complex and non-individual form implies that truth is not simply a product of an individual's knowledge or perception. Instead, it is shaped by various social, cultural, and historical factors. This view has significant implications for our understanding of how knowledge is constructed and how we can access and understand the truth. By considering the role of these external factors, we can gain a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the nature of truth and the ways in which it is produced and reproduced in society.

The debate delves into the most crucial question in philosophy: do we possess a human nature?

Chomsky firmly asserts that we indeed have a human nature and that it should not be altered. He contends that our nature is an essential part of who we are and any attempt to change it would be a violation of our fundamental essence.

Foucault, on the other hand, being the Ubermensch, holds the belief that humanity has the power to transform its nature and evolve into a new being. This view, however, is seen by some as a threat to the very fabric of humanity.

Virtue is equated with happiness, while vice leads to misery, and thus, the argument goes, one should not change one's nature. Chomsky continuously emphasizes that humanity has a fixed nature that must be preserved.

In the end, Chomsky makes a rather striking comment, stating that Foucault seems like he is from another species, existing in a different moral universe, beyond the realm of good and evil.

One of the most memorable lines in the debate comes when Chomsky claims that wars are fought to promote justice, while Foucault retorts that wars are fought to win. Foucault's stance is that of realpolitik, a pragmatic approach that prioritizes practical outcomes over moral ideals.

This debate highlights the stark differences in their perspectives on human nature and the role it plays in our lives.