That depends on the audience.

I have to agree, it nice to just hear both perspectives without any added background noise.

@@helenacorreia7613 Why? How does what we are doing on this end of the screen have any effect on the minds of the producers and what they decide to put on the screen? They gon do wat they gon do, right? And actually there are a few good debates by their contemporaries even today that are very much this same format, IF you are looking it. Remember, what you search for and how you search determines your quality as an audience participant not so much the quality of the content. That's gonna become even more important in the near future, which was the subject of Chomsky's most recent debate a few weeks ago about ChatGPT, in case you missed it. Bro still on the grind in his 90's!

You can still hear that in other parts of the world.

Debate is not an exercise in the pursuit of truth but a showoff of ideas by confrontation

Well Noam Chomsky did anyway. There's some telling cuts before Foucault starts talking...

Their obligation

Well, in fairness, Chomsky was a linguist, and I am pretty sure he knew French.

For me, it said nothing just because of that, it doesn’t matter the language, it doesn’t matter the vocabulary, philosophy is philosophy and this is not philosophy, I could get nothing from this except that Foucault is afraid of power and Chomsky has the notions of a high schooler

It can often be easier to listen to and understand someone else's language than to express yourself in it. Although both of these guys are in highly language-oriented fields, they probably could have had Chomsky speak French and Foucault speak English.

It's not just a lost opportunity, one could argue it shows the power of one language/culture over another - even more so today, English is ubiquitous and French has lost the position it once had. I feel it is also a loss for English speakers not having to learn French , as it helps to gain a deeper understanding of their own language - and even if you don't agree with me on that one, I think everyone who is bilingual (or multilingual) would agree that knowing a foreign language opens up a whole new world to you.

We have english subtitles and thats enough for most of us

could not agree more. 10000% perfect

how do we know that didn't happen at some point, but it just didn't make it to youtube? Ive seen this video with other subtitles (like swedish or something). I bet theres all kinds of lost stuff on VHS in storage somewhere.

We're on the English version of UKposts here. If you find this same debate on the French version, you may find French subtitles.

He was a monster who should have rotted in prison.

Maybe he meant well - and his take on the world certainly garnered my youthful support - but the reality of the Foucault inspired 'woke' take over of education is beyond tragic.

@@blackmore4 L

@@blackmore4 L

He's a pedo

@Insectavamour they damn sure are

@Insectavamour I'm not sure the word competing is appropriate - and if competing goes to domination or superiority feeling, so here i think it is not

@Insectavamour No you're right. They aren't competing, because ultimately they are both interested in finding the truth. In other words, it isn't a political debate, it is an intellectual debate.

@Insectavamour it's definitely more of a discussion. People take initial sides in a discussion, or at least propose their initial viewpoint, but the point of a discussion is to talk about something, not try to convince someone of your viewpoint, and hopefully along the way you learn something. What you are witnessing here is people listening to each other and not just waiting to talk and shove their viewpoint down the other person's throat. I learned this a while ago at work as a business consultant, my job is not to be correct all the time but to assist in getting to the correct decision. To do this I must be open to hearing other people ideas and not be afraid that my ideas are wrong, or partially wrong. I seek the truth, not to be correct all the time.

@@Campfire30 That is exactly the point why they keep speaking about different paradigms: It is a philosophical debate for Foucault (as we would say, scientific, that is, he aims at learning about world and things as they are) - but for Chomsky it is a political debate (that is, he is aiming at shaping and commanding the world according to what he thinks the world should be). Two opposing approaches, I think. Today also, in the US, for some reason the public expects politics from philosophy.

He does look maniacal there huh? Like he's ready to bite Chomsky in the jugular. But I'm sure it's just his passion shining through.

Duality? wtf? Too bad it wasn't a political debate, so no room for the nonsense you're pointing out; his emotions have no importance. What seems to be important here is the fact that Foucault had to educate Chomsky (with a voltairean irony) about his false notions of human nature, spirit of justice out of society as a fish out of water, and so on...

I thought Chomsky looked like a nervous undergraduate.

Suck your own farts more please.

@@watching99134 Who would be unable to pass Foucault's class with his level of understanding.

It's so depressing that something as mundane as allowing another person time to speak is now considered special. But I agree.

i mean probably half of them were stoned even foucault apparently was given a big portion of weed in exchange for agreeing to do this debate

Do they both understand both languages?

@@nofurtherwest3474 Yes, whilst Chomsky is bilingual (English and Hebrew), he can understand French but just chooses not to answer in it.

@@beast_pasta2392 As a standard, philosophers speak in their native tongue to limit the loss of meaning from ideas to speech.

7:55

that's right. without a doubt spot on.

As long as the "culture war" continues, that feature of our civilization has been lost - I fear, forever.

They're mentally masturbating

I cannot think of anybody capable enough to fill their shoes. Christopher Hitchens certainly was. Perhaps Stephen Fry, but we are regretfully short of quality, able people such as Foucault and Chomsky.

great summary, cheers!

Foucalt: I want to have sex with minor children Chomsky: Maybe we should use the values that are passed down and that may be problematic

Well, there is an even greater difference between the two. Foucault is rather direct, powerful, an antagonist of independent freedom in man and of the opinion that almost nothing can be done- he believes not in a better result in the future. Whereas Chomsky is the go-to societal man of our times. He freely believes in inner freedom and thus the choice between two sides, whose results may vary and are unpredictable and thus not from the government controlled. He believes in the existence of both good and bad in society and hopes for the appreciation of the good and its usage for a better future- future whose image one has to imagine so that he can lay abstract and undefined but still road-creating ideas. One is a pessimist and probably a thorough pragmatist and the other a man ready for comprises and appreciative procession toward something better and closer to our true nature.

So in essense both are looking in how to improve current image and masks of aristocracy in order make it work longer. No way this calls for progress and time proved it. Ancient greeks and Aristotle spoke the same, ended up under barbarian Romans.

Human Nature is Human Nature, and it contrasts and is always at enmity with the Divine Nature. Each individual is either being governed by the Human Nature or by the Divine Nature. Collective and progressive evolution favors humanity transforming into Divinity.

This cracked me up. 😂 I think you mean George McFly though.

Hahaha. Underrated comment 😂

The comment I was looking for.

If I'm not mistaken, Willem just ripped an SBD.

Also 0:19 Donald Sutherland.

physicist vs engineer: the former tries to understand the underlying reality dispassionately and objectively while the later always strives to build something practical despite the lack of knowledge. We know both are important for society's progress.

@@rajbhandari9605 the former *despite a lack in knowledge breadth*, the latter *despite a lack in knowledge depth*.

Not sure we need Foucault. To just point out problems without giving any suggestions on how to solve them is close to useless.

@@johreh I share some of the frustration, particularly given today's toxic intellectual environment. But, as a scientist, I'd disagree. Sometimes the best we can do is point out flaws in a claim, even if we cannot present one which is ultimately better. We progress by refuting falsity, not by demonstrating veracity.

​@@johrehRead 'Discipline and Punish' sometime.

What the hell are you talking about??? Light is quite enough, every face is well lit.

Fascinating. What do you think about the content of their discussion?

I agree. Capturing the audience gave it the feel of a group discussion, whereas most camera operators would ignore them.

@@ronanrogers4127 two charlatans. Nothing relevant

@@alvarc3675 only one charlatan here, clearly - and they're certainly not on screen!

Chomsky: "And saying, 'Everything is socially constructed,' actually presupposes human universals such as social construction!"

@@Amittai_Aviram That is a good observation and I agree Foucault's position is self-defeating.

@@Kavafy is it though? The whole concept of social construction may itself be a social construction. Think about it. Concepts such as gender, race, identity, money, happiness, etc... depend on the presence of society itself to exist. If there was only one person alive, then the concept itself of social construction would not exist, there would be no way for one to argue with themselves on what is gender, what is sexuality, race, age, life and death itself. There would be no way for somebody to argue with themselves on how do they exert power over other people or vice versa because there would be no other person around. So my conclusion is that while social constructs have been a fundamental part of society and have shaped our lives and thoughts to the point we can't imagine ourselves outside of these arbitrary molds, they are not absolute as chomsky would say. The name itself implies they depend on the relationship of two or more human beings.

Your ideas make no sense as we are social and co dependent in any way possible. To say the things wouldn’t exist, if there was only one single person, is absolutely pointless of an argument to use, to support your point. Do you understand what you are saying is just impractical to think about, because it’s even less real, than saying our social concepts are not real, because they exist only, because we are more than one single human on this planet. Where do we even go from there?

PARKLIFE!

Lol 😆 integrity. Foucault a pedophile, fucked little boys in Tunisia and bragged about it. And Chomsky spent a lot of time with Jeffery Epstein

Foucault contributed greatly to the mess we have today

That just sounds naive to me. It's a question as old as society itself. Some things in small communities just doesn't translate to large communities, and then you have the complexity of inter-community cooperation, conflict and management. Our "nature" is inescapable and is amplified by these systems, whether we like it or not. We reject them at our peril, every time.

​@@sinephase this is a myth founded by Enlightenment thinkers prior to the huge swath of research and discovery on ancient human history we've seen since that time. And as such, more recent work disproves it, or at least seriously calls it into question. I'd recommend you read at least the introduction and conclusion to The Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow before you make similar claims in the future.

@@christinec271 what, that our instincts are expressed through how we organize our societies?

@@sinephase Dude is "Christine Crow".....😄😄😄😂😙

Foucault is a pedo.

@John-Paul Hunt Where did you see that written? BTW, it might so happens that the idiot is you and not Peterson for not making you understand his point. Ever visited that possibility?

I was gonna say, big props to the translator, they did good work!!

French is BS

i agree! 110% true

Yep

lmao true

Foucault was a revolutionary pedo, so yeah (but then again, chomsky received $$ from epstein)

I am commenting to disappoint you. Foucault's arguments can be reduced to who's penetrating who and Chomsky's arguments are as simple as an ever present CIA using their tricknology to make 3rd world countries bad.

We need more debates between actual experts, not one expert talking to fucking Joe Rogan. Get two smart people on a stage with a mediator, and let them actually talk to each other.

@@andybaldman I thought Rogan was an expert though... 👽

I'm sorry to crush your dreams, but it is very uncommon for openly anti-government thinkers to have a discussion like this, for obvious reasons.

@@mattiaorlandi1524 Even if the topic isn't systems of government though, this type of dialogue is sorely needed today on all kinds of issues.

@@11DaltonB yeah of course, I'm just saying that an argument on this specific topic is going to be very hard to organize

You know he was a pro pedophilia advocate, right? And admitted to abusing children as young as four.

Thank you so much for your comment, it is as enlightening as the content of the video... because it helps my dumbass understand what I am listening to. Sort of.

Yet another one who understands neither Foucault nor Derrida...read Nietzsche and Freud. Don't you understand that every sign already contains its own opposite?

@@uperdown0 Yet another pretentious and dismissive non-reader who assumes that I have not already read quite a lot of Nietzsche and Freud (and written about them!) and have not written extensively about such paradoxes. The idea that "every sign contains its own opposite," however, is not especially relevant to either position. It is obviously central to Derrida, but it is a grave mistake to conflate Derrida with Foucault, as a whole generation of American students so often did.

@@Amittai_Aviram I'm not but people misunderstand both. Besides, it's not a "paradox", the fact that a material dialectical process occurs in every speech act, and this is constantly occurring and there's never "a" moment but a constant shifting of structural positions is NOT paradoxical. Even the Greeks knew that understanding material reality is a dialectical process...all scientific thought relies on it. How did we need Lacan to explain that signs don't refer to reality but always refer to the Other, though it's our relation to the other which gives us our understanding of material reality...it was right there in Plato the whole time.

@@uperdown0 personally I think Deleuze and Guattari get a bit closer to the entropic rhizomatic nature of human thinking and philosophy, the chaosness. Carlo Rovelli dives further still. It’s really about the relative way our brains work, the sense thinking, not what we think.

it's refreshing they missed any mention of the fact Foucault invented fisting and was a pedo

Great stuff, thanks for typing out the words we just heard and could read on-screen anyway. but good job.

zvzgonghiovnzne

Why psychiatry though?

@@blackwaterbae7086 if we look at the history of psychiatry from its very beginnings, we can really see how much its progression has been mostly guided by social and economic influences. Mental illness does not function like other kinds of illness, and as such our understanding of it, or the 'science' we use to describe it, is susceptible to subjectivity (more than we'd accept in any other scientific/medical field). Its hard - if not impossible - to view mental illness objectively, even through the lense of neuroscience. Pharmaceutical/insurance companies have played such a massive role in the way we define, diagnose and medicate mental illnessess; how can we reduce the human condition, in all its complexity, to activity at the synapse? As soon as pharmaceutical companies find a formula (a way of presenting mental illness) that is monetarily benefitial, they will cease to engage in further research - regardless of whether anything is working at all. I hope how you can see too how this is all inexorably tied to politics. Its actually completely insane if you ask me. I will stop now but you get the point... this is just what I think from what I know.

LMAO!

😅

Jaco, I know I had to rewind that a couple of times. He looks demonic. What's with all the teeth picking. Why does Chomsky later call Foucault amoral?

Well, Foucault was gay

If you were an 11 year old Tunisian boy Foucault would look at you that way too.

It still goes on, just you can't easily google them cause it isn't made for plebians.

@@drbeavis4211 If it isn't made for plebians it isn't civil anymore. Thus it isn't the same, OP is right.

Quality, respectful and progressive debate goes back far further of course. I'm always brought back to that of Russell and Copleston in 1948. Today, the topic they grapple with would be utterly polarizing. The same was true for both involved here, but they dealt with it from genuine stances of interest, and not childish point scoring. We sorely need a return to this type of exchange. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/hYZ9f4uJnpyX1WQ.html In particular, the closing words are very refreshing.

Ahh yes the pedophile can really was poetic cant he

@@jimreplicant _"I've known Jeffery Epstein for fifteen years. He's a terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to hang out with. He likes beautiful women as much as I do, and a lot of them are on the younger side"_ -- Donald Trump, 2002 interview for New Yorker magazine. Stop pretending you give a shit about the welfare of abused children.

Do elaborate

troll

@@paolovallejo8022 Noam is like a human encyclopedia on the topic of genocides and, this is my interpretation of the joke, I believe Puma is referring to the petitions Foucault signed in favor of pedophilia and the abolition of prison.

@@paolovallejo8022 Noam Chomsky hardcore denies the Bosnian genocide, there's a really good video on here by a guy named kraut, it's really weird.

@@justinthall5909 His exact words: "The mass slaughter in Srebrenica, for example, is certainly a horror story and major crime, but to call it “genocide” so cheapens the word as to constitute virtual Holocaust denial, in my opinion"

I have to record this quotes.thx

The crappy degradation that have become our mainstream media, filled with noise from advertisments, pumped in order to create fights, and encouraged to be fast-paced to brainwash the viewers/listeners and leave them no time to ponder nor to elaborate the subjects that they are exposed to, have made us not used to this kind of authentic debate, characterized by politeness, respect, reflection. The feeling of freshness and enlightment that the old debates give us proves that they represented the right path to take for pursuing any kind of cultural and educational evolution.

@@i.1213 Correction: This isn't how "debates used to be". It's just what we cared to remember, or in this case upload to UKposts. Else we may as well assume that all ancient Greeks were brilliant philosophers still relevant 2500 years later, which is clearly false.

@@gessie Weren’t they great and still treasured in these days?…

​@@i.1213 Ancient Greek philosophers, yes, but not the average ancient Greek. The average person was as stupid then as they are now, much to the dismay of philosophers - it's a disappointment we have in common despite the passage of millennia.

@@gessie yes! the nostalgia of survivor bias is so intense people who grew up in communist societies which fell apart during their lives will say after 20 years "it was much better during the communist time". Well said, sir!

The topic of this discussion is politics. Were you paying attention?

I really liked the French man’s thinking

@@lydiawilder5996 I think I misused the word politics there, which in the true sense of the word means sensible and judicious action. I meant instead of just wanting their point of view to win regardless of the strength of any counter arguments (like in modern politics) they're trying to identify the truth of the matter rationally and show mutual respect despite their differences in opinion.

@@lydiawilder5996 Instead of 'just politics' he said, so I guess the usual partisan clap trap instead of an effort to figure out what's really going in the world.

Foucault pathological philosophies is a fucking cancer upon society, same category as Marx

hilarious "Great thinkers!" thanks for the laugh

Foucault was a child abuser. His thinking was unhealthy.

lmao. they're just 2 guys talking sht. neither had to or are to prepared to actually fight for, or even sacrifice for their ideals.

Jajaja dijo tula

Yes, well, English "borrowed" a lot of words from Romance languages. Pretty much every word ending in -tion and -ence are borrowed from either French or one of its cousins. I agree that it's really cool! It drives home the point that languages do not develop in a vacuum but are always interacting with eachother.

I've heard this "joke": English is just badly pronounced French. The reality is more complicated obviously, but you get where the joke comes from if you look at the history of the language. And if you "erase" the accents, the similar words become really obvious, absolutely.

1066 - Norman Conquest

"...too thick to understand.." Foucault is speaking carefully, clearly and quite precisely. I do not know if this is his normal speaking pattern but perhaps it is consciously done for the purpose of the debate and audience. Occasionally he does speed up but quickly returns to the clearly spaced word pace. I believe were he to be addressing an audience/debate in Paris, for example, his speech pattern would resemble that of a native Parisian, very fast, fluid and I would not insult a Parisian by calling it thick. edit: I would hope that any rapist, as Foucault admitted to, especially of children, could only speak from a prison cell if at all.

@@elizaonthemountain3464 Yeah, I wouldn't say parisian is that thick but it is indeed fast.

A center-right guy from wyoming? nahhh

CHOMSKY: Yes, I would certainly agree with that, not only in theory but also in action. That is, there are two intellectual tasks: one, and the one that I was discussing, is to try to create the vision of a future just society; that is to create, if you like, a humanistic social theory that is based, if possible, on some firm and humane concept of the human essence or human nature. That’s one task. Another task is to understand very clearly the nature of power and oppression and terror and destruction in our own society. And that certainly includes the institutions you mentioned, as well as the central institutions of any industrial society, namely the economic, commercial and financial institutions and in particular, in the coming period, the great multi-national corporations, which are not very far from us physically tonight [i.e. Philips at Eindhoven]. Those are the basic institutions of oppression and coercion and autocratic rule that appear to be neutral despite everything they say: well, we’re subject to the democracy of the market place, and that must be understood precisely in terms of their autocratic power, including the particular form of autocratic control that comes from the domination of market forces in an inegalitarian society. Surely we must understand these facts, and not only understand them but combat them. And in fact, as far as one’s own political involvements are concerned, in which one spends the majority of one’s energy and effort, it seems to me that they must certainly be in that area. I don’t want to get personal about it, but my own certainly are in that area, and I assume everyone’s are. Still, I think it would be a great shame to put aside entirely the somewhat more abstract and philosophical task of trying to draw the connections between a concept of human nature that gives full scope to freedom and dignity and creativity and other fundamental human characteristics, and to relate that to some notion of social structure in which those properties could be realised and in which meaningful human life could take place. And in fact, if we are thinking of social transformation or social revolution, though it would be absurd, of course, to try to sketch out in detail the goal that we are hoping to reach, still we should know something about where we think we are going, and such a theory may tell it to us. FOUCAULT: Yes, but then isn’t there a danger here? If you say that a certain human nature exists, that this human nature has not been given in actual society the rights and the possibilities which allow it to realise itself…that’s really what you have said, I believe. CHOMSKY: Yes. FOUCAULT: And if one admits that, doesn’t one risk defining this human nature which is at the same time ideal and real, and has been hidden and repressed until now - in terms borrowed from our society, from our civilisation, from our culture? I will take an example by greatly simplifying it. The socialism of a certain period, at the end of the nineteenth century, and the beginning of the twentieth century, admitted in effect that in capitalist societies man hadn’t realised the full potential for his development and self-realisation; that human nature was effectively alienated in the capitalist system. And it dreamed of an ultimately liberated human nature. What model did it use to conceive, project, and eventually realise that human nature? It was in fact the bourgeois model. It considered that an alienated society was a society which, for example, gave pride of place to the benefit of all, to a sexuality of a bourgeois type, to a family of a bourgeois type, to an aesthetic of a bourgeois type. And it is moreover very true that this has happened in the Soviet Union and in the popular democracies: a kind of society has been reconstituted which has been transposed from the bourgeois society of the nineteenth century. The universalisation of the model of the bourgeois has been the utopia which has animated the constitution of Soviet society. The result is that you too realised, I think, that it is difficult to say exactly what human nature is. Isn’t there a risk that we will be led into error? Mao Tse-Tung spoke of bourgeois human nature and proletarian human nature, and he considers that they are not the same thing. CHOMSKY: Well, you see, I think that in the intellectual domain of political action, that is the domain of trying to construct a vision of a just and free society on the basis of some notion of human nature, we face the very same problem that we face in immediate political action, namely, that of being impelled to do something, because the problems are so great, and yet knowing that whatever we do is on the basis of a very partial understanding of the social realities, and the human realities in this case. For example, to be quite concrete, a lot of my own activity really has to do with the Vietnam War, and some of my own energy goes into civil disobedience. Well, civil disobedience in the U.S. is an action undertaken in the face of considerable uncertainties about its effects. For example, it threatens the social order in ways which might, one might argue, bring about fascism; and that would be a very bad thing for America, for Vietnam, for Holland and for everyone else. You know, if a great Leviathan like the United States were really to become fascist, a lot of problems would result; so that is one danger in undertaking this concrete act. On the other hand there is a great danger in not undertaking it, namely, if you don’t undertake it, the society of Indo-China will be torn to shreds by American power. In the face of these uncertainties one has to choose a course of action. Well, similarly in the intellectual domain, one is faced with the uncertainties that you correctly pose. Our concept of human nature is certainly limited; it’s partially socially conditioned, constrained by our own character defects and the limitations of the intellectual culture in which we exist. Yet at the same time it is of critical importance that we know what impossible goals we’re trying to achieve, if we hope to achieve some of the possible goals. And that means that we have to be bold enough to speculate and create social theories on the basis of partial knowledge, while remaining very open to the strong possibility, and in fact overwhelming probability, that at least in some respects we’re very far off the mark. 10:02 - 12:31 FOUCAULT: It seems to me that, in any case, the notion of justice itself functions within a society of classes as a claim made by the oppressed class and as justification for it. CHOMSKY: I don’t agree with that. FOUCAULT: And in a classless society, I am not sure that we would still use this notion of justice. CHOMSKY: Well, here I really disagree. I think there is some sort of an absolute basis-if you press me too hard I’ll be in trouble, because I can’t sketch it out-ultimately residing in fundamental human qualities, in terms of which a “real” notion of justice is grounded. I think it’s too hasty to characterise our existing systems of justice as merely systems of class oppression; I don’t think that they are that. I think that they embody systems of class oppression and elements of other kinds of oppression, but they also embody a kind of groping towards the true humanly, valuable concepts of justice and decency and love and kindness and sympathy, which I think are real. FOUCAULT: Contrary to what you think, you can’t prevent me from believing that these notions of human nature, of justice, of the realisation of the essence of human beings, are all notions and concepts which have been formed within our civilisation, within our type of knowledge and our form of philosophy, and that as a result form part of our class system; and one can’t, however regrettable it may be, put forward these notions to describe or justify a fight which should-and shall in principle-overthrow the very fundaments of our society. This is an extrapolation for which I can’t find the historical justification.

Ya le débat en entier sur yt avec les sous titre français pour Choamsky

That's because video can make even the biggest numb brains into faux intellectuals today. It exposes them to a large enough audience that a subsection will latch on to them for various reasons, and will in turn inflate both their self image and their social credibility. Just look at how many people put Jordan Creeperson on a pedestal while the guy can't even discern between schools of thought.

He was thinking what je looked like as a boy

He is cleaning his theet, there is a class of jordan Peterson talking about serial killer body lenguage, he said things about what he is saying with his boody. In other part of the video you can see him searching for dirt under his fingernails. Just watch again the first reply in the video, the irony before he drops the messieur chomsky.

You know he was a pro pedophilia advocate, right? And admitted to abusing children as young as four.

@@studywithmir1994 I would take what Peterson says with a grain of salt. He's not an intellectual; he's a smart man who brands himself as an intellectual. The same way a lot of news channels have host that brand themselves as journalist. This debate today would happen with 5 commercial interruptions; then the Nietzsche and Rousseau camps would break down the opponents words and manipulate them out of context to give their "side" a form of victory. And then it would make its way around the internet and get completely lost in translation from the original debate. I think that's why no true philosopher would appear on any of the formatted programs today, the true intellectuals probably prefer to discuss things in private; rather than have to perform for people when anything filmed is filmed with the intention of sensationalizing.

Couldn't agree more. The justice system engages in strategic rituals to appear normal and neutral. But it is not neutral or normal. It is an institution that perpetuates and reproduces inequality by exerting power over the oppressed. It's visible in the US. But such institutions are only criticized on a symptomatic level not at the systematic (structural) level. Only constantly critiquing the structures of such a system would make the oppression less pervasive.

And you can propose anything better than what we have today? And within the frame of existing institutions necessary for our civilization? Foucault did enough with his inspiring the current virus of Wokeism that is paralyzing us politically and socially. No thanks. Two fools make for an ass.

A Heart felt Homily tending toward Humility within Humanity.

Calm down.

He doesn't say it is impossible but that it is risky. That good old "fear the unknown" idiom. Chomsky is on the "give society a chance" side of the discussion because sometimes the only way to learn is by doing mistakes. "Practice makes perfect" idiom.

@@RottenMuLoT Yes, both are agreeing that you can’t plan a society in advance, at least Chomsky gives a pragmatic way out of it.

Yes it's impossible to know what society would look like if we abolish slavery

@@user-oi6gr8xw9h until you can abolish the slavery of the mind, the concept will remain with us

That seems to be the underlying intention of 'educational' systems in society; to steer the youth to operate in modes of conformity under existing economic, political and religious orthodoxy.

Schools are the biggest scam in history. The way they destroy children's natural desire to learn is unforgivable

Surely if you have become educated nonetheless, you can still pass the exams. If you disagree, then can you give an example of what you mean?

@@omp199 Learning about epistemology doesn't help you pass a high school exam, but is still correctly described as "educated". Having highly intellectual interests nearly guarantees failure in an academic setting as you'll be forced to regurgitate some random historical factoids, name a few countries on a map and, if you're really unlucky, recite a religious text.

@@gessie If a person fails tests of their understanding of history, geography, and religion, then I would have serious doubts about their understanding of epistemology, too. Of course, anyone can claim that they understand any subject that they have never been tested on. In the absence of an objective test, such a claim cannot be falsified. Which is why we should not take such claims seriously.

I agree with you. However, although the WORDS have different meaning their is a reality beyond the words. If I burn my hand I can call it "painful" or an "unwanted challenge". The reality is that some things are preferable and others aren't no matter what you call them. Giving certain things certain names might make them APPEAR easier to accept but those policies, no matter how they are understood, will create a situation that is preferable or not.

Hats off!

Well, even after understanding every words they said, it doesn't mean I was thinking fast enough to properly assimilate everyhing they threw at each others 😅That was brutally challenging, no matter the language used.

and it's BS in both languages...lol!!

i have english french and Chinese yeah feelinggood

@@RottenMuLoT I don't remember precisely who or where this was said but it was probably a TED talk or a book. "Once the brain learns to incorporate on some level the basic structures/characteristics of multiple languages (far beyond the 'hello/goodbye/how are you starter) neural pathways are formed where ideas can be transmitted without fully having to process them." This is also true of reading and speed reading in a similar way. The window dressing tends to fall away. The descriptors of how the drop or torrent of rain fell and was absorbed by the grass stops mattering and all that's left is the understanding that it rained and there just happened to be grass on which it fell. This does not mean to imply that careful articulation is pointless or lacks beauty/clarity. The main linkage here is "what is the simplest explanation of why someone says a sentence that is then proceeded by another?". The gaps get filled in, not through some random/tangential speculation but rather by the overarching structures/pathways that allow the brain to stop focusing on "window dressing" and to focus primarily on the idea itself. Once that hurdle is passed (it's huge and can take more than an entire lifetime without effort) these types of debates become as simple as "i believe there's an overarching structure that governs this..." "nah that's highly unlikely..." and off to the races. (Focault spoke both French/English fluently while Chomsky understood french but wasn't fluent--as far as a I remember about them. the idea was could they have a debate in multiple languages and it work.)

Great thoughts

I basically agree with what you say and I think it is an important point of view. The basis of the discussion between Foucault and Chomsky, at that time, however, was based precisely on that point you make, to know exactly where we are going and what we want to claim and protect. In order to legally configure a basic right to creativity, so to speak, we would have to be clear, each and every one of us, about what creativity is, and unfortunately, we didn't know in 1971 and we don't know now. Perhaps because we have not moved an inch forward or because we never really wanted to discuss the subject, even though we pretended otherwise.

@@guapelea I believe the context of artificial intelligence (or as I like to call it autonomous intelligence) provides a context for identifying and recognizing creative agency, be it human or not. Hopefully one could make both more clear.

@@aaattteeennn It is true that artificial intelligence designers have seriously considered what creativity is and how to differentiate it from the usual functions of human intelligence such as organization and complex decision making, but when we speak, as in the video, of a "right to creativity", that is, of making sure that every individual has the opportunity to understand what it is to be creative and to train in it, we are talking not about differentiating a function that might deserve the name creative, but about the place that creativity should and can have in an overall design of what we call a dignified human life.

Chomsky gate...

No friend not excited at all. I just came with my bag of popcorn to read the comment section. Chomsky is a hack and Foucault was a pedophile. Nothing more to see here

nice one, @BurtAlexis

Wait, could you please explain? I have America brain and cannot comprends-pas what you mean. Please help lift me up out of the ignorance and parochialism of the American Anglosphere, sir

Foucault was and IS a filthy HOMOSEXUAL PREDATOR pedophile rapist anarchist POS. HIS "IDEAS" ARE FOR THE SCUM OF THE EARTH.

That's the nature of philosophy.

if we ever stop, that's toralitarianism and stagnation

Both are progressive idiots who embrace some form of moral relativism because they essentially despise religious morality and HAVE TO oppose it at all costs. That's where their fundamental opposition to moral absolutism stems from. Their own psychological inadequacy.

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.

@@kaidenkondo5997 It's no mere coincidence that Chomsky was portrayed as the proverbial paradigm to avoid in two books by Sowell and Hollander ("Intellectuals and Society" and "Pilgrims...", respectively). These two are not the great thinkers everyone takes them to be because they lack fundamental economic literacy which spills over to the rest of their worldview.

''economic literacy'' is not everything my dude. in fact economics is quite an unstable field of study. in fact, economists have a humorous depiction of people who blindly follow economics: homo economicus.

@@kaidenkondo5997 economic literacy is everything my dude. You just haven’t realized it yet as you probably still vote on instinct instead of looking who’s BSing you with false and unrealistic promises (that involve YOUR and MY money).

I thought the human nature argument was very weak. Basically, humans are intrinsically creative -> we should foster it as an ideal society -> a decentralized system and probably a very capitalist system is the way to do it. I don’t think Foucault would disagree with humans’ natural creativity at all, and I thought he was much more insightful with his idea that every system is tainted by politics and class (even education, etc). I think he was just saying that even our definition of ideal is tainted by our experiences to show that just letting human nature work is impossible. At least that’s how I took the information, but I have no prior knowledge of these two

Both make good points...

Or at least one. Foucault's a lightweight.

@@russellharvey7096 oh snap! 😦

Very interesting indeed. Collective history and representations influencing their own thesis, perhaps. However, I'm not sure I'd call "new" the philosophical idea of human being inherently good. It was pretty much the basis of the Enlighnment, and of positivist philosophy in the XIXth century. Chomsky is still on that line, Foucault, like many Europeans, definitely left it behind.

Could you explain more specifically what you mean by the instrumentalization of critique?

@@ivandunnachie1612 it is pretty straightforward. if one listens carefully to the discourse of Foucault in this video, the one thing he does not acknowledge is that critique itself can be instrumentalized by power... critique in his view is meant to start and promote and sustain emancipation from the ruses of power, but what if critique itself is precisely a ruse of power???

@@anthonydecastro6938 perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough. Could you explain exactly some of the ways critique can help power. I'm sure it can but it is quite bold to claim that critique helps power since the unfashionable truth is that critique often is not good for power. Critique even in itself undermines any democracy and furthermore is the first stepping stone towards "real action" such as protests, strikes and voting. Even in a complete dictatorship, critique may not undermine the power structure directly, but just having the ability to criticise the government is an improvement for those who are oppressed. Sure it's not much, but let's be honest those people are f*cked if they do f*cked if they don't.

@@ivandunnachie1612 in a nutshell, the crucial and critical concept is the "RUSE OF POWER". The powers that be may and could allow critique, but only as an indirect way of actually promoting themselves. It is naive to think that the powers that be, very much in the manner that liberal democracy and capitalism are able to re-occupy territories subjected to critique, are not astute enough to subtly subvert critique not by denying it but by appropriating it and using it so that they can re-morph into something else that perpetuate these same powers. that all the critique of the American establishment has not produced any permanent change in the system is proof of such.

@@anthonydecastro6938 it has produced change though? America may be in an awful state right now but it would be even worse without the changes critique has made. Women's rights, black rights, gay rights etc. Sure, the system may still be corrupt, but I think critique makes is harder for the government, think about how easy it would be if noone protested anything - they could get away with everything and anything without any risk to their position. The problem is not that critique itself is ineffective, but that it is usually performed ineffectively, where people are not properly united and end up mostly fighting amongst themselves. All those on the left who are meant to criticise the right and fight against them, end up just fighting amongst themselves and making each other look bad.

I guess you and I have a different understanding of what the final point is. I don't think that is actually Foucaults point, I think he is making a different point than that. I'll give you a contemporary analogy that might not work, but here goes. It's kind of like the electric car thing that is going on right now. Chomsky is pointing out that yes, our understanding of these larger systems are flawed, and that we will need to press forward anyway. Foucault is making the point that the change we see in electric cars, still reflects the authoritarian systems at large, namely in the car centric view, rather than significantly changing the status quo. He isn't saying that our attempts to change the system are doomed, he's saying that they are flawed, and we run the risk of further adding to the sunk cost. I believe Chomsky is right in this, but that doesn't mean that Foucault isn't right either, it just means Chomsky is more correct.

I'm getting the feeling that most popularized debates are given by people that don't really know anything about what they're talking about. They merely sound smart, but don't bring anything of substance to the table.

That was the case with this debate, indeed.

I rather thought about Vin Diesel actually but it kinda works too ;)