Who was in the right here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8
>>8081993
Me, 'cause I never watched this dumb documentary lol
Both. They didn't really reply to each other.
>>8081993
Was it a deliberate attempt to distract Foucault?
fuocual bcuz hes french. chomsky is an american thus inferior intelectually
What were they drinking?
I have decided that both of these guys are dipshits who have no clue what they're talking about.
you have to admit foucault had swag
>>8082101
Yeah, but if you want to be stereotypical we could say that Foucault surrendered.
Chomsky wins at the end when they go into ideas of war and justification for the proletariat and so on. Before then they're talking past one another. In totally different universes
Noam was doing journalism, Foucault was doing philosophy, no debate ;)
>>8082394
You're a moron.
>>8082401
I know you are but what am I :^)
>>8081993
Chomsky, as always.
To stave the tide of these kinds of threads i made this.
>>8082421
coming from le 'u dun know nuthing i'm bettter than you cuz i know i dun know nuthin' man
sm h
>>8081993
Chomsky wins in the debate and as a philosopher.
Foucault is overrated although still interesting.
>>8082425
If you knew anything about ideas you wouldn't care if the thought came from Satan himself.
I'm reading the transcript and it's kind of tedious, because like the overview dude says about 15 minutes in, and like Chomsky says a few minutes later, they're talking at cross-purposes and kind of gliding past one another.
Chomsky is talking about the semiotic linguistic ability of humans, at kind of a low conceptual level. Foucault is barely even talking Foucauldian, he's basically giving the usual Canguilhem or Bachelard, which should be recognisable to anyone vaguely familiar with Kuhn. Chomsky is describing human nature and the nature of creativity as semiotic "play" within certain strictures. Foucault is talking about epistemes (as "grids") structuring (imperfectly, and not as a single structural-functional system) knowledge and "pointing out" knowable or researchable things.
Chomsky then vaguely agrees with Foucault, in the sense that he agrees with the basic "Kuhnian" idea of axiomatic presuppositions, and the idea of epistemes. But without saying much of interest.
Foucault then vaguely agrees with Chomsky about semiotic free play, which is equally commonplace. Then he kind of tries to mush it back to talking about his thing, the limitations of epistemes.
Chomsky makes his most interesting reply so far, basically showing familiarity with the whole Kuhnian thing and discussing post-positivist theory-ladenness, but describing it in a typically Chomsky-esque simplified way ("jagged" but progressive, not neo-positivist but not relativist-constructivist) that doesn't turn it into a big pomo wankoff thing. For him the epistemological rupture points to conceptual revolutions, not relativism.
Foucault replies not necessarily as a relativist but at least that we need to be attentive to how epistemes are shaped ideologically by political or social determinants (typical post-Marxian analysis). Foucault elaborates that he's not interested in the biographical form of intellectual history; he's interested in fields of discourse, and in ideology primarily, not in a progressive twist on Kuhnian "revolutions." The history of knowledge as structured by power, not the history of science in its own right.
Now I have to go take a dump
>>8082420
I want to lick those adorable toes!
Any more?
I always want to kill myself when I see how smug Chomsky is in debates.
Then I remember that he has to stick to linguistics nowadays, because he proved himself to be politically retarded when it came to the Communists and their crimes.
>>8083127
>Then I remember that he has to stick to linguistics nowadays
wew lad
he's booked like 3 years in advanced for political talks mainly
>>8083137
>Political retards want to hear a political retard
Wow, you're right.
I'm so shocked and wrong.
>>8083141
couldn't give 2 fucks about his politics or what you think of them. You are wrong. That's the point.
>>8083127
Dumbest post I've read on 4chan in a long time.
>>8083155
>Implying Chomsky didn't have to run with his tail between his legs when people started calling him out on his wilful ignorance
>>8081993
doesn't chomsky know way, way more about linguistics than focault? why is he coming at him with that right off the bat?
>>8083197
The funny thing is that Chomsky's linguistic knowledge is hugely overblown.
>>8083167
of?
With regards to Cambodia? He admitted he was wrong about that. Outside of that?
The orange juice.
t. pataphysician
>>8082594
gj anon
>>8083127
shit tier
