Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Power vs Justice (1971)

A few clips of Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault discussing justice, power, and the notion of human nature in their famous 1971 debate. This is a version of an upload from the previous channel. The translation is my own, although I referenced the published text (which by the way was edited by Foucault prior to publication, which is why there are various differences between the published transcript and the actual recording). The audio has also been improved.

The debate was about human nature and took place in November 1971 at the Eindhoven University of Technology, in the Nederlands, as part of the “International Philosophers Project” initiated by the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation and arranged by the Dutch philosopher Fons Elders, who was also the moderator.

#Philosophy #Chomsky #Foucault

[jakit]

It’s such a relief to not have to hear applause in between each speakers points. A time where intelligent debate wasn’t a point scoring, moneymaking, gameshow and was for the pure pursuit of truth is sorely missed.

[dalmanly]

No one's gonna mention that these two had a high-level philosophical debate in two different languages without missing a beat?

[OutsideLands]

As an English speaker, I greatly appreciate the Foucault translation. I feel that not Translating Chomsky into French is a great opportunity lost.

[williamhurstactor]

I love how they are patiently listening and considering one another's time, voice, and theories. The moderator has nothing to do but sit back and listen.

[yuseihirai]

You'll never know how much im excited to the fact Foucalt is a real person and actually speaks

[vesellin]

I love the duality of Chomsky talking calmly as Foucault smiles like a maniac while picking his teeth

[MooMooManist]

When Foucault makes Chomsky look like a moderate, you know you're in deep revolutionary territory.

[braveeee]

Jokes apart. I am at such a high level of intellectualism that I can't comprehend a single word of these legends

[rootsraf]

Foucault saying nothing at all really. An example of the French intellectual class of that era, the post-socialist/communist deconstructionist types who were masters of empty sophistry and contrarianism for its own sake. 'well we can't know that human nature is human nature is not a reason to dismiss alternative propositions to the current socio-political paradigm. But there he is saying it all the same. Intellectual debate became a sort of competitive sport amongst those of the Sorbonne it seems to me. Endless pontification on Lacanian and Freudian psychoanalysis and how nothing means anything and everything is oppression. Talk about a mechanism of distortion and obsfucation

[mayerscharlat]

It's the silence when someone is speaking. The attention given to the speaker you can feel in debates and discussions years ago like this that is so special.

[cbir]

Foucalt: Because our ideals of human nature are based on the beliefs of our society, we shouldn't use these to create a new society which hopes to remove the brutalities of our current society.

Chomsky: We have only our current ideals, and we should use them to create a more advanced society which attempts to remove the inequalities of our current society.

[nathanielennis]

It’s so apparent that these guys were having a great time, despite their disagreements. I hope we see more of this in our time

[puma]

Never ask a man his salary, a woman her age, Michel Foucault which petition he signed, and Noam Chomsky which genocides didn't happen

[robertd]

I find it funny how postmodernists deconstruct everything, including human essence and values, and then go on to criticize everything that, according to them, is "wrong", as if criticism didn't need some kind of measuring stick (i.e., values) which allows you to judge things as 'good' or 'bad' (i.e., criticize) in the first place.

That's the swindle of moral relativism: It states that it is absolutely true that nothing is absolutely true.

It's the perfect camouflage - and one that Foucault and his buddies (Deleuze, Derrida, etc.) used countless times: to make any kind of grandiose claim about society, humans, etc., and then, when being called out on it, to state that they were just misunderstood because in reality, their words mean something different, or they were just deconstructing, or, well, there really isn't any truth at all, so you can't judge them based upon truth.
That is the ultimate form of sophistry and psychopathy.

P.S.: No wonder all these morally depraved "philosophers" (they sully that term) signed a petition in 1977 calling for the legalization of sexual relations with minors. Look it up.

[cominoengenharia]

We need both kinds of intellectuals. The ones who can not formulate concrete solutions, but who can see clearly what's wrong. And those which may miss some of the sofisticated details of society functioning, but can devise practical and mostly realizable ways of improving structures and life.

[poguemahony]

Foucault: “Anarcho-syndicalism is like a pendulum…”
Chomsky: “…which can only swing in a circle.”

[Kavafy]

Foucault: "Everything is socially constructed"

Chomsky: "No, some things are human universals"

[MrNickMulgrave]

A lot of cameo appearances in the first 2 minutes of this debate.
0:01 Marty McFly
0:19 Ray Manzarek
1:11 Jeffrey Dahmer & Lyndon Johnson
1:26 Willem Defoe
1:36 Hunter S Thompson

[dagoldrush]

My only struggle is finding someone that'll look at me like Foucault does Chomsky at 7:55

[kaidenkondo]

It's also interesting considering Foucault is from Europe and Chomsky was educated in the USA. You can definitely tell which one was educated in the continent home to both World Wars. Foucault is far more cautious of new formulas that call humans by nature good, as his country knows the horrors of what humanity can achieve. In this way, Chomsky is a bit naïve.