A review of Foucault vs Chomsky, does human nature exist?

This video is part of the debate playlist, where we analyze popular discussions. The goal is both to refine and distill the, sometimes quite long, debates we look at and also to critically review their contents. In particular, we focus on how arguments are created and how they can be logically contested, important skills to have for the proper functioning of our society.
The refinement of knowledge and its effective transmission is of particular importance to me since it is a rarely discussed subject, even though it is essential to render our civilization more and more efficient.
Any input on how to improve the format is thus welcomed.

Michel Foucault is often said to be one of the most prominent postmodernists. He was a philosopher, historian of ideas, writer, political activist, and literary critic.
Noam Chomsky is a linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist. He is sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics.".
Here, they go head to head on the existence of human nature. Unfortunately, they are interrupted. The discussion then moves on to Anarcho-syndicalism. It's a pleasure to hear them articulate their thoughts.

Thoughts on the lovely debate:

I disagree with Foucault's skepticism on the existence of human nature.

I agree with the fact that science may evolve discontinuously but not on whether it is an accumulation of knowledge (it seems to me that it is). The grids might exist, but they pile on top of each other nicely (they extend more than they destroy).

I disagree with Chomsky on the fact that a need for creative work is a fundamental part of human nature.

I was impressed by how articulate and coherent the two academics were.

[dystopiansoothsayer]

Chomsky: Monke is, monke do

Foucault: Monke see, monke do

Chomsky: Monke train, monke bigbrain

Foucault: Monke traped, monke capped

Chomsky: Monke can french, monke can change

Foucault: Monke dare, monke rare

Chomsky: Monke think, monke wink

Foucault: Monke smol, monke crawl

Foucault: Monke look fore, monke tweak lore

Chomsky: Monke not junkie, monke funky

Foucault: Monke trained, monke chained

Chomsky: Monke should try, monke might pry

Foucault: Monke tried, monke then cried

Chomsky: Monke can judge, monke may buzz

Foucault: Monke pause, monke dodge

Chomsky: Why monke monke? if monke no donke?

Foucault: Monke see fight, monke take side

[Mirko_SanSan]

Chomsky is so idealistic, but he made a nice career for himself with his "embedded structures.". Foucault is a real philosopher, dispassionate with eyes wide open and an unclouded mind.

[fenzelian]

IMO Chomsky's big problem in this debate is he's still beholden to Western Reductionism because science had not yet advanced to the point of articulating all that well how complex phenomena emerge from simple rules and inputs. The predominant notion of the time was still that complex machines must have complex parts, and that the rules that govern the machine are best understood by subdividing them into the rules that govern the parts. Thus the human mind, which is more complex than is possible in this framework given its observable parts, must have a store of hidden information somewhere that is adding to the complexity of its functions.

Of course now we know more - or think we do at least - and we know the human brain is networked, and functions through its networks, rather than for the most part through the functions of its neurons. And that in much the same way, a mind functions through the network of their thoughts and memories, not through the functions of their thoughts and memories. And that this networking effect can explain at least the operation of much of the creativity in language, as well as the higher-order emergent properties of human language relative to the language of other animals, as it is commonly delineated.

IMO Foucault is right in that Chomsky is framing a "human nature" gap between observed linguistic phenomena and observed notions of data inputs and memory not as a scientific tool of analysis, and not as descriptive of scientifically observed behavior, but rather to point to a problem that required further study.

But of course you could repurpose the term "human nature" if you wanted to refer to something more concrete if you wanted to. I just don't think that Chomsky is doing that, and the debate is revolving around Chomsky's articulation of what human nature might be.

[MS-fgqo]

It was (and is) necessary to reject the isea of truth. However, the opposite is true as well and we've seen the rather ugly effects of each extreme.

[andrebenoit]

I miss this class of public intellectual.

[machietheapachie]

Surely human nature exists in the mode we compartmentalize and define phenomena, which would be the ego.

In which case, is Chomsky saying this schema is an innate physical structure or conceptual?

[amiir.]

interesting I'm with Foucault's argument.

[profe]

Foucault, like all the PostStructuralists, sounded good in 1971, but has aged rather badly. Today, the bankruptcy of these ideas is pretty obvious. "There's no perfect society, so I'm going to sit on my beautifully upholstered ass and congratulate myself on my sophistication, " is a pretty useless philosophy - especially if your ass is less than well-upholstered, and you actually have to get up and go to work.

[Celador]

Chomsky's argument is what I wish humanity was. Foucault's argument is what humanity is. There is no universal justice, there is no human nature, there is no innate desire for happiness, justice, prosperity. Everything is born out of a struggle for survival, those who are on top oppress everyone who is on the bottom. All other notions and issues are subjective and ultimately pointless, and even that "gem" of a thought is also completely meaningless unless I decide to hammer it into someone's head using propaganda and maybe an actual hammer. Now that I think about it - suppose that the "lack of human nature" can be identified as human nature. Complete and utter cluelessness, besides the desire to succeed, consume, survive, dominate. And I shall call it - shmemolution! Wait a minute...





"Grid" analogy is so-so. I end up visualizing some sort of 3d topography map, where every new layer slightly flattens all the heights and curves while increasing the thickness of the map. Seems like a very "philosophical" way of saying that new knowledge replaces the old one.

It was still very interesting to watch, thanks.