The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature Paperback | Pages: 213 pages

List Based On Books The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature

Title	:	The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature
Author	:	Noam Chomsky
Book Format	:	Paperback
Book Edition	:	First Edition
Pages	:	Pages: 213 pages
Published	:	September 1st 2006 by The New Press (first published 1974)
Categories	:	Philosophy. Nonfiction. Politics. Psychology. Sociology. Science

Narrative Supposing Books The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature

Two of the twentieth century's most influential thinkers debate a perennial question.
In 1971, at the height of the Vietnam War and at a time of great political and social instability, two of the world's leading intellectuals, Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, were invited by Dutch philosopher Fons Edlers to debate an age-old question: is there such a thing as "innate" human nature independent of our experiences and external influences?
The resulting dialogue is one of the most original, provocative, and spontaneous exchanges to have occurred between contemporary philosophers, and above all serves as a concise introduction to their basic theories. What begins as a philosophical argument rooted in linguistics (Chomsky) and the theory of knowledge (Foucault), soon evolves into a broader discussion encompassing a wide range of topics, from science, history, and behaviorism to creativity, freedom, and the struggle for justice in the realm of politics.
In addition to the debate itself, this volume features a newly written introduction by noted Foucault scholar John Rajchman and includes additional text by Noam Chomsky.

Specify Books During The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature

Original Title:	Human Nature: Justice versus Power
ISBN:	1595581340 (ISBN13: 9781595581341)
Edition Language:	English

Rating Based On Books The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature

Ratings: 3.94 From 2290 Users | 166 Reviews

Crit Based On Books The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature

Although probably not the best introduction to Foucault and Chomsky's thought (though Chomsky does tend to follow a more linear position), this debate is more indicative of their respective approaches to the social sciences. As Chomsky posits a kind of communitarian society or set of cosmopolitan social relations, Foucault questions the institutions that individuals are embedded within as a kind of power structure bent on maintaining the status quo and controlling those elements of society in

Chomsky, you were an embarrassment then and remain so now. Part of me wishes Foucault would just have outright said how much of a fool Chomsky is, but it's almost as if Chomsky just points out his hypocrisies and contradictions himself (with a little help from the audience members). Acting as the arbiter of legality and justice (and even trying to say there is a natural, innate legality to humanity--of course, he is the one to define what is legal and not--outside of the state-form), Chomsky

This book was my re-introduction to Noam Chomksy (I studied his linguistics work in grad school) and my first introduction to Michel Foucault. Chomksy was not asked to speak very often in the U.S and, if you are to believe his supporters and his own comments, he was actively prevented from speaking or publishing his work in the U.S in the past. This is the first time this dialogue has been available in the U.S. Based on a television program recorded in France for Dutch television in the early

By far the most valuable part is the first, which consists of the actual text of the (trilingual, although all translated into English) debate. The second and third parts, which contain some of the key formulations on the topics of language and power by Chomsky and Foucault respectively are good, but are better found in their contexts elsewhere.

Video Footage of Chomsky v. Foucault

There are few people who would defend the relevance of both Foucault and Chomsky at the same time and for the same reasons. I'm one of those people. I think Foucault is important for his commentaries on politics, and I'm coming to respect Chomsky's political writing more and more. (And Chomsky's work on linguistics is necessary for anyone interested in the history and standards of that field.) Both are a bit more radical than I am, but that's a part of the time that they were writing in and a

The first part of the book is a transcription of a real, live debate between Foucault and Chomsky on Dutch TV. I enjoyed the back and forth between these two giants and I think the medium lends itself well to the topic of conversation: how do we, as humans, create knowledge? are there inherent frameworks we use to interpret the world around us, including political economy?Theres a catch though (hence my 3 stars): 1. Chomsky speaks twice as much as Foucaultwhich defeats the purpose of a two-way