Two of the great thinkers of the 20th century "clash" in a televised debate. The book turns out to be a trigger for readings depending on the interests of the reader.

Specifically, the second part seemed more interesting to me than the first. In the first part, the debate starts rather chaotically. The authors have too much to say in too little time, which limits the juice that the reader can obtain. Chomsky is a bit more overbearing than Foucault, and a moderator who attacks Foucault more than Chomsky biases the debate. In the reading, one can notice a discomforted Foucault, although perhaps it was an unfounded suspicion of mine.

Interesting, but not decisive, the usefulness of reading the debate is to have reasons for a new reading. As a criticism of the Spanish edition, it would lack a brief introduction situating the context and warning about the positions of the participants and citing bibliography related to the debated topics. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding for the reader and enhance the value of the book.

I felt like I was in the calculus class at the university.

At first, I thought I could handle it, but as the class progressed, I started to feel lost.

The professor was speaking so fast, and the equations on the board were just a jumble of symbols to me.

I tried to take notes, but I couldn't keep up.

By the end of the class, I was completely confused.

I had no idea what was going on.

I looked around the room, and everyone else seemed to be understanding everything.

I felt so stupid.

I thought to myself, "I'm never going to get this."

And in the end, I think I didn't understand a goddamn thing.

I think I am happy and lucky because I came across this book. The book was for me like an introduction to the thoughts of both Chomsky and Foucault, and I had a basic background about them as great thinkers in the twentieth century.

Although there is more of Chomsky than Foucault, yet the dialogue between them was interesting and engaging. I thought I would spend several weeks reading the book because I thought it would be heavy and dense in terms of information and ideas, but I was surprised to finish the book in just 3 days. Yes, the book is full of information and ideas but the way it is presented is simple and wonderful.

I liked the addition of the important texts of both philosophers. And I think I will explore more of their philosophies after this book.

By the way, the debate is available on the YouTube website for those who want to follow it and enjoy it aurally instead of reading the book.

There has been a wide-ranging debate and a well-thought-out discussion about some of the core issues of human nature and society.

These issues are not only complex but also extremely intriguing. They touch upon the fundamental aspects of what it means to be human and how our society functions.

The debate涵盖了 various aspects such as morality, ethics, and the role of individuals in society. It forces us to question our beliefs and values and consider different perspectives.

Moreover, it also highlights the importance of understanding human nature in order to address the challenges and opportunities that our society faces.

Overall, this debate is a crucial step in our ongoing exploration of the human condition and the future of our society.

This is a rather strange thing to review as a book. It is composed of a transcript of a live debate, transcripts of several interviews with Chomsky, and two lectures by Foucault. My review pertains to the sum total of those disparate elements, rather than the book as a whole, because... it's not truly a traditional book! Maybe I'm being too critical, as the parts were surely selected to attempt to unpack a bit of what each thinker means by or understands as构成 the concept of human nature.

Regarding the debate: Oh my, was I disappointed. The debate ultimately became all about Chomsky. Foucault could barely get a significant argument in or even meaningfully answer any of the questions posed to him, and Chomsky was extremely verbose in each of his answers, consuming a lot of time. The latter quarter of the debate was entirely dominated by Chomsky. Foucault hardly said a word. It was disheartening to have been looking forward to reading a debate about nature vs. power structures and to have Chomsky so frequently miss the point of what Foucault was saying or asking and then veer off in another direction, and then have the moderator follow Chomsky's lead to the detriment of the debate itself. Foucault had so much to offer that would have been an incredibly interesting complement and challenge to Chomsky's arguments. It made me wonder if it would have felt as intellectually constricted or persistently nascent in person or as a viewer on television. Plus, Chomsky spoke in English and Foucault spoke in French, so who knows how well the pacing and debating could actually have been in reality. All these factors affect the quality of the debate itself.

Taking all the content into account, the book as a whole (even if not the debate) was a decent primer on both of their spheres of thought and intellectual contributions to history. Based solely on my reading of this book (so I'm well aware there's a lot about both that I'm missing), I wasn't overly impressed by Chomsky's understanding of the human brain regarding linguistic development, nor by his, what I found rather naïve and simplistic, prescriptions for tightly-local social and political structures that somehow avoid the pitfalls of large institutions and their oppressions. I found Foucault more compelling (perhaps because I already came into it appreciating his emphasis on power structures for understanding interpersonal and political ethics - hello, Nietzsche!), but still not as insightful or even as helpful as I had anticipated. His brief history of the term "shepherd" in political and religious systems was fascinating. I also loved his insight that new discoveries in science often cut off certain streams of knowledge or knowing (e.g., the discovery of evolution cut off future possibilities for true knowledge to come from Creationism, the discovery of the Copernican model cut off future possibilities for true knowledge to come from the Ptolemaic model of the universe, etc.).

On the whole, this really is a decent introduction or overview for understanding two influential and divergent thinkers of the 20th century, so it's worth reading if you've never read either and especially if you don't plan to read much beyond trying to get a sense of their high-level contributions to intellectual thought and history.

I would say that for this debate, both of them had very little space. Foucault's teasing and nitpicking often seemed more like entertainment from polemicizing with someone who is a direct opponent of his views. Towards the end, he didn't even hesitate to respond to Chomsky because he didn't have enough space, which perhaps says a lot about the strength of his convictions.

Chomsky looks at human nature, which is mainly being debated here, as something that is innate to our minds, given universally. "Let's look to the future with vision and some positivity." Michel Foucault, on the other hand, is more concerned with the idea that we are a product of a given time, our time, culture, and organization (which incidentally he brilliantly dissects in 'The History of Sexuality', which I am reading simultaneously). From this, of course, he arrives at his well-known concepts such as power, power deeply rooted in seemingly neutral institutions, deliberately influencing development, or also how the intellectual trends of a certain time influence the development of intellectual trends of another time. If we try to reapply similar older attitudes, we risk, for example, setting up similar organizations and similar problems.

The debate revolves mainly around knowledge and power. Foucault's position is that power exists in all areas of society and manipulates our knowledge. According to Chomsky, power is in the hands of a smaller group of elites and this knowledge is the way to liberation. The debate is most interesting precisely in these nuances, which, however, make it somewhat difficult in its tempo because often a person will come to the conclusion that, especially Chomsky, is very insistent on his own views and Foucault is more amused by the fact that he is presenting his intellectual view and throwing down a challenge to Chomsky to defend some of the questions. If a person is not 100% focused on the debate, it can easily get boring for a while... but at the same time, it's not bad to listen to how a debate can be conducted and how to disagree. However, after all these years, it seems to me that Chomsky looks at Foucault with a certain amount of contempt. If you don't know which debater your position is closer to, just play this video and the answer is in whether you find it funny or not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0dM6...

I really liked Chomsky's interventions a great deal.

His insights on universal justice and the goals of violent revolutions were extremely interesting. It is crucial to take into account the historical period in which these interviews occurred and the social struggles of that time.

Foucault also had interesting perspectives on human behavior. I was quite surprised by how intrigued I became with some of his thoughts regarding the concepts of truth.

However, unfortunately, Foucault was blindly obsessed with power, and this clouded his mind to a certain extent.

Overall, both Chomsky and Foucault have made significant contributions to their respective fields, but it is important to approach their ideas with a critical eye and consider the context in which they were developed.

In a world of diverse races, human values, and the management of the world from both inherited and acquired perspectives, the conversation between Chomsky and Foucault takes place. This book started with a more contemplative look than necessary, but unfortunately, it didn't meet my expectations to a certain extent as it doesn't fully match its title.

In fact, it is not limited to just the debate. It also contains texts, articles, and other conversations that gradually range from the most essential to creativity, freedom, and struggle.

I wouldn't recommend this book as the first reading for Foucault and Chomsky thinkers as it requires a prior background about them - for example, Foucault's surveillance and punishment and Chomsky's manufacturing consent - in order to fully understand the concept. Nor do I agree with those who say it's only a book for experts.

Regarding the content of the book, through my reading, I found that I completely agree with Chomsky's proposal for the nuclear monarchy of reason, especially his views on the individual and his creativity in turn in human nature, and then comes the aspect of class struggle and justice in it.

I really enjoyed Foucault's presentation of the truth, but I didn't agree with him much. Even the part about "the intellectual and his role in political struggle" was very interesting! And he convinced me of the greater impact of creativity as it lies in the social and historical circumstances.

In short, it is an interesting book, a lovely journey from which I learned a lot and took me beyond my usual questions. I jumped between topics with agility, and my mind also did the same after finishing it. It's a book that fills you with the passion for progress.

The debate between Chomsky and Foucault concerning the existence of human nature is not so much a traditional debate as it is a distinct presentation of ideas by these two remarkable scholars.

Chomsky, in this context, is surprisingly affirmative and holds an optimistic view regarding the existence and potential of the human spirit. This is rather unexpected considering his stance and reputation as a public intellectual.

Foucault, on the other hand, unsurprisingly rejects any form of human essentialism.

Nonetheless, they do converge in their engagement with and opposition to the state.

Apart from the transcript of the debate, Foucault's essay in the collection, "Omnes et Singulatim" is particularly notable. In this essay, he examines the role of the police in the state as presented in historical documents. Here, punishment and control are revealed to be both instruments and consequences of the police's role in promoting the population's happiness.

This essay is truly worth reading on its own, as it offers profound insights into the complex relationship between the state, the police, and the concept of happiness.

In 1971, at the height of the Vietnam War and a time of political and social instability, the Dutch philosopher Fons Elders invited two prominent intellectuals, Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, to a debate revolving around the age-old question: Is there such a thing as an innate human nature independent of our experiences and external influences? This conversation is considered one of the most genuine, lively, and thought-provoking discussions among contemporary philosophers. Moreover, it provides a brief introduction to their basic theories.

The debate, which began as a philosophical discussion starting from linguistics and the theory of knowledge, turned into a broader discussion, covering a wide range of topics, extending from science, history, and psychology to creativity, freedom, and the struggle for justice.

This book, titled "On Human Nature," contains the famous debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, translated by Amer Zaki. The debate took place in the Netherlands in November 1971. Chomsky spoke in English, and Foucault in French. It was broadcast on Dutch television as part of a series of debates hosted by the Dutch thinker Fons Elders, bringing together philosophers from different and sometimes opposing trends among 20th-century thinkers to meet on screen. However, neither Chomsky nor Foucault is a philosopher in the narrow academic sense. Each has developed a very original approach in the study of language, and they have also been instrumental in defining the role of the political or public intellectual.

The debaters, using two languages in front of the Dutch television audience, moved between various topics, crossing from questions of language and creativity to questions of power and politics. This debate provided a space for discussion across intellectual and political geographies, and it became clear that the disagreement over "human nature" reflects differences in linguistic, philosophical, and political approaches simultaneously, in the works of Chomsky and Foucault and in their respective countries.

In what way did each of them redefine the study of language and discourse for its new political role? In other words, what is the relationship between linguistics and politics, or what is the role of power in the analysis of discourse? In a sense, this was the highlight of the debate, with each trying to translate the fundamental question in their own terms. Is it a matter of linguistic universals and their relationship to justice and human suitability as Chomsky saw it, or is it a matter of historical and material constraints and their relationship to the exercise of power as Foucault insisted? After several hesitant attempts to find common ground and resolve the disagreement in this context, and as is usually the case in such discussions, no solution was reached.

The book also shows that the problem of power extended to the questions raised by Chomsky about justice at the end of the debate with Foucault. In what way can we find this kind of political responsibility in institutions that pursue justice and in discourses of justice, as well as in the very idea of justice? This was a problem that Foucault was deeply interested in and wanted to work on. Social rights emerge from a new understanding of social conditions, practices, and related struggles. In the end, the nature of such rights and their guarantee depend on politics and types of knowledge and experience.

A nice collection of essays and interviews, along with the so-called “debate” (if one can even call it that), offers some insights into the differences in the ideological stances of the two philosophers regarding “human nature” and its definition within a social context.

Personally, I found the parts following the debate to be far more enjoyable. Although I haven't read a great deal of Foucault's work, I am a fan of the research I've managed to uncover on my own. It's truly fascinating to have two brilliant minds discuss society and its pitfalls.

The “debate” was a televised conversation on Dutch television, with each debater answering questions in their native language - Chomsky in English and Foucault in French. The challenges presented by a live TV broadcast are evident throughout. At one point, Chomsky drones on for so long when making a point that Foucault is only given a little over 2 minutes for a rebuttal. What a farce!

There were some interesting aspects of Foucault's views that I hadn't previously known, which made this worthwhile. And I'm always eager to read Chomsky. However, the main attraction for me was somewhat of a disappointment.

If you have a keen interest in delving deeper into the mind and works of Michel Foucault, then “The Chomsky - Foucault Debate” is an essential text that you must peruse. However, I would strongly suggest that you commence your reading from Chapter Four. The reason being that in the actual debate, Foucault's ideas are rather elusive and hard to precisely define. But in the “Truth and Power” interview, he manages to present his thoughts as clearly as possible. Reading this particular interview truly assisted me in understanding—if I may be so bold as to assume—what he was attempting to convey in the titular debate. I just wish that I had come across this before I read his “Discipline and Punish.”

The interviews with Chomsky are equally captivating and well worth your time. Throughout the book, Chomsky articulates his ideas on politics and language with remarkable clarity, making it a pleasure to read and contemplate his thoughts. It's almost as if he equips you with the necessary tools to enhance your thinking process. I have deducted a star, though, due to the last chapter, which consists of some lectures by Foucault. Initially, this part could have been presented in a more lucid manner. However, as you progress towards the end, it becomes more comprehensible (in my opinion). Nevertheless, the last chapter is at least worthy of a cursory glance.

Overall, this book is an outstanding read and I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the fields of philosophy, politics, and language. It offers valuable insights and perspectives that are sure to stimulate your intellectual curiosity and expand your understanding of these complex subjects.