Human nature, Foucault vs Chomsky.

m25105

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
7,128
Reaction score
3,797
I've recently had the pleasure of watching this video:


Remember to turn on CC when you watch.

While I thought Foucault had some points in that we are limited by the walls the institutions have put around us, I found myself more in agreement with Chomsky, that our innate curiosity is what determines our growth and that because of the society which we live in now, human creativity (in the west at least) is not repressed by the state / institutions.

The reason I find myself in agreement with Chomsky, is that I used to believe in Foucault (without ever having known of the man), blaming society and thinking nothing mattered since I was destined to fail. But as one grows in life, I began to realise that the hindrances I have in my life are usually the ones I have put in front of myself. I started to change the way I lived through small steps, and now I aim to do something productive every day.

Also in a religious sense I feel like that I am in agreement with Chomsky, when he said that the limitations put upon us by the institutions makes us seek out the knowledge outside of it. Think of Plato's cave for an analogy that you can draw as a parallel. This is because I grew up with almost no knowledge about my own faith, and the only introduction I had to it, was inside the institutions that Foucault mentioned. This lead me to having a very narrow Weltanschauung, however my own curiosity and that of my brother, both made us start to question aspects of our faith, and find other materials that further grew our perception of the nuance in our religion, and recognise the flaws of the Hadiths and the Sunnah. Had my brother and I been locked in a state of mind where we only sought out truth inside the walls that Foucault says we are in (granted he also says great discoveries transforms society, but the institutions despite transformation still remains) we would have not been able to escape the cave, and just think that the opinion / stance of those we perceived as having more knowledge about the topic to be inherently always true.

That being said, I also recognise that ones life can be impacted through a bad start, such as being born in a socio-economic poor environment where education and knowledge is not fostered, and that the walls of the institutions around you would feel like a subconscious cage, constricting the free flow of your minds movement. This is why I truly believe that we need to foster our fellow humans, early on, through good education and character building to make them see each other as thinking individuals, have solidarity with them and nurture their mind through a socratic manner.
 
This is why I truly believe that we need to foster our fellow humans, early on, through good education and character building to make them see each other as thinking individuals, have solidarity with them and nurture their mind...

If we could just focus on this our country would be a much better place, so many of societies problems could be diminished with this emphasis.

Chomsky is an amazing intellect BTW.
 
I think the lives that they led, indicate the level of success for each others' philosophy.

Chomsky still going at nearly 90 years of age, remained a relevant intellectual mind throughout the ages. Foucalt, well, I suppose he is still a relevant intellectual mind in some sense.
 
If we could just focus on this our country would be a much better place, so many of societies problems could be diminished with this emphasis.

Chomsky is an amazing intellect BTW.

I remember when I first started to post in the War Room, it was a thread about the US/Israel relationship I believe, not a very good one (it was my debut in the War Room after all). But I referenced Chomsky, and was immediately met with derision about Chomsky, although none of them actually refuted what he said. Over the years I've noticed that happen a lot when ever Chomsky's name (or a video with him) is mentioned. Posters calling him clueless or that he hates America, but never once actually refuting what he's saying.
 
Last edited:
I guess I'm being selfish bumping this, but I'd hope to hear more opinions on this.
 
I think the lives that they led, indicate the level of success for each others' philosophy.

Chomsky still going at nearly 90 years of age, remained a relevant intellectual mind throughout the ages. Foucalt, well, I suppose he is still a relevant intellectual mind in some sense.
Foucault is still very much "relevant" in left academic circles. My wife is in the communication department of a large California university where Foucault is still de rigueur. But I agree with you -- I have a low opinion of Foucault, although he is probably the least bad of the postmodern genre.
 
I always valued Foucault like Adorno, Satre or Zizek.
Their main focus to explain human condition allways was a bit too political for me and the ppl I knew who liked them waved their work like the holy grail blaming politics/conditions and not themselves for their miserable lives for most of the part.

I rather read me some Popper back when I was interested in western philosophy.
 
I always valued Foucault like Adorno, Satre or Zizek.
Their main focus to explain human condition allways was a bit too political for me and the ppl I knew who liked them waved their work like the holy grail blaming politics/conditions and not themselves for their miserable lives for most of the part.

I rather read me some Popper back when I was interested in western philosophy.
Zizek gets a pass for telling great ethnic jokes.
 
Goddamn, this thread got snubbed hard. It was a pretty decent OP too. I think both guys are assholes. Foucault is a nihilist and Chomsky has made a career out of the blame game and both sit around complaining with no prescription on how to fix anything. We get it, Noam, America sucks and is the root of all evil.
 
Goddamn, this thread got snubbed hard. It was a pretty decent OP too. I think both guys are assholes. Foucault is a nihilist and Chomsky has made a career out of the blame game and both sit around complaining with no prescription on how to fix anything. We get it, Noam, America sucks and is the root of all evil.
And you're fixing things how?
 
I remember when I first started to post in the War Room, it was a thread about the US/Israel relationship I believe, not a very good one (it was my debut in the War Room after all). But I referenced Chomsky, and was immediately met with derision about Chomsky, although none of them actually refuted what he said. Over the years I've noticed that happen a lot when ever Chomsky's name (or a video with him) is mentioned. Posters calling him clueless or that he hates America, but never once actually refuting what he's saying.
Chomsky is great but I do think he defaults to blaming America and the West too quickly at times. Take the case of the extremism of the Middle East, he blames the Brits for allying with radical Islam in the aftermath of the First World War. But the Brits actually put a Hashemite in charge of Arabia who was swiftly BTFO by the Saudis. The Saudis were smart enough to only pursue their interests only as far as they did not conflict with those of the Brits, the imperial hegemon at the time, to the point of turning on their own soldiers with the help of the infidels.

My point is you can't really blame the Brits, it denies the Saudis the agency they clearly had in engineering their place in the modern world. But to Chomsky the blame falls on the Brits for allowing it to happen.
 
Last edited:
I've recently had the pleasure of watching this video:


Remember to turn on CC when you watch.

While I thought Foucault had some points in that we are limited by the walls the institutions have put around us, I found myself more in agreement with Chomsky, that our innate curiosity is what determines our growth and that because of the society which we live in now, human creativity (in the west at least) is not repressed by the state / institutions.

The reason I find myself in agreement with Chomsky, is that I used to believe in Foucault (without ever having known of the man), blaming society and thinking nothing mattered since I was destined to fail. But as one grows in life, I began to realise that the hindrances I have in my life are usually the ones I have put in front of myself. I started to change the way I lived through small steps, and now I aim to do something productive every day.

Also in a religious sense I feel like that I am in agreement with Chomsky, when he said that the limitations put upon us by the institutions makes us seek out the knowledge outside of it. Think of Plato's cave for an analogy that you can draw as a parallel. This is because I grew up with almost no knowledge about my own faith, and the only introduction I had to it, was inside the institutions that Foucault mentioned. This lead me to having a very narrow Weltanschauung, however my own curiosity and that of my brother, both made us start to question aspects of our faith, and find other materials that further grew our perception of the nuance in our religion, and recognise the flaws of the Hadiths and the Sunnah. Had my brother and I been locked in a state of mind where we only sought out truth inside the walls that Foucault says we are in (granted he also says great discoveries transforms society, but the institutions despite transformation still remains) we would have not been able to escape the cave, and just think that the opinion / stance of those we perceived as having more knowledge about the topic to be inherently always true.

That being said, I also recognise that ones life can be impacted through a bad start, such as being born in a socio-economic poor environment where education and knowledge is not fostered, and that the walls of the institutions around you would feel like a subconscious cage, constricting the free flow of your minds movement. This is why I truly believe that we need to foster our fellow humans, early on, through good education and character building to make them see each other as thinking individuals, have solidarity with them and nurture their mind through a socratic manner.

Super interesting, both your post and I'm sure the video as well. Gonna watch when I get a chance and can pay attention, thanks.
 
When it comes to human nature I tend to default to something closer to Foucault's view in that I instinctively view human behavior as the result of the institutional framework. An example would be when I see cops commit abuse, I tend to think that the behavior is more a result of the institution itself than the individual.

Not necessarily saying I agree with Foucault over Chomsky, would have to watch the debate first. Nor do I pretend that this perspective is always the right one.
 
I've recently had the pleasure of watching this video:


Remember to turn on CC when you watch.

While I thought Foucault had some points in that we are limited by the walls the institutions have put around us, I found myself more in agreement with Chomsky, that our innate curiosity is what determines our growth and that because of the society which we live in now, human creativity (in the west at least) is not repressed by the state / institutions.

The reason I find myself in agreement with Chomsky, is that I used to believe in Foucault (without ever having known of the man), blaming society and thinking nothing mattered since I was destined to fail. But as one grows in life, I began to realise that the hindrances I have in my life are usually the ones I have put in front of myself. I started to change the way I lived through small steps, and now I aim to do something productive every day.

Also in a religious sense I feel like that I am in agreement with Chomsky, when he said that the limitations put upon us by the institutions makes us seek out the knowledge outside of it. Think of Plato's cave for an analogy that you can draw as a parallel. This is because I grew up with almost no knowledge about my own faith, and the only introduction I had to it, was inside the institutions that Foucault mentioned. This lead me to having a very narrow Weltanschauung, however my own curiosity and that of my brother, both made us start to question aspects of our faith, and find other materials that further grew our perception of the nuance in our religion, and recognise the flaws of the Hadiths and the Sunnah. Had my brother and I been locked in a state of mind where we only sought out truth inside the walls that Foucault says we are in (granted he also says great discoveries transforms society, but the institutions despite transformation still remains) we would have not been able to escape the cave, and just think that the opinion / stance of those we perceived as having more knowledge about the topic to be inherently always true.

That being said, I also recognise that ones life can be impacted through a bad start, such as being born in a socio-economic poor environment where education and knowledge is not fostered, and that the walls of the institutions around you would feel like a subconscious cage, constricting the free flow of your minds movement. This is why I truly believe that we need to foster our fellow humans, early on, through good education and character building to make them see each other as thinking individuals, have solidarity with them and nurture their mind through a socratic manner.


Foucault was still making the transition from a structuralist to a poststructuralist in that interview. The debate is a poor example of the evolution of his mode of thought, but without doubt it's an example of the limits of structuralism: individuals have no agency and structures determine action (Chomsky also abided by structuralism, but was more about the creative force of language than institutions that discipline the subject). Later in his career Foucault became more interested in discourse, agency, and the ways in which meaning and power are signified due to his increasing reading of Sassure and Lacan. Poststructuralist Foucault would ground and pound Chomsky into submission, imo.
 
I've recently had the pleasure of watching this video:


Remember to turn on CC when you watch.

While I thought Foucault had some points in that we are limited by the walls the institutions have put around us, I found myself more in agreement with Chomsky, that our innate curiosity is what determines our growth and that because of the society which we live in now, human creativity (in the west at least) is not repressed by the state / institutions.

The reason I find myself in agreement with Chomsky, is that I used to believe in Foucault (without ever having known of the man), blaming society and thinking nothing mattered since I was destined to fail. But as one grows in life, I began to realise that the hindrances I have in my life are usually the ones I have put in front of myself. I started to change the way I lived through small steps, and now I aim to do something productive every day.

Also in a religious sense I feel like that I am in agreement with Chomsky, when he said that the limitations put upon us by the institutions makes us seek out the knowledge outside of it. Think of Plato's cave for an analogy that you can draw as a parallel. This is because I grew up with almost no knowledge about my own faith, and the only introduction I had to it, was inside the institutions that Foucault mentioned. This lead me to having a very narrow Weltanschauung, however my own curiosity and that of my brother, both made us start to question aspects of our faith, and find other materials that further grew our perception of the nuance in our religion, and recognise the flaws of the Hadiths and the Sunnah. Had my brother and I been locked in a state of mind where we only sought out truth inside the walls that Foucault says we are in (granted he also says great discoveries transforms society, but the institutions despite transformation still remains) we would have not been able to escape the cave, and just think that the opinion / stance of those we perceived as having more knowledge about the topic to be inherently always true.

That being said, I also recognise that ones life can be impacted through a bad start, such as being born in a socio-economic poor environment where education and knowledge is not fostered, and that the walls of the institutions around you would feel like a subconscious cage, constricting the free flow of your minds movement. This is why I truly believe that we need to foster our fellow humans, early on, through good education and character building to make them see each other as thinking individuals, have solidarity with them and nurture their mind through a socratic manner.

Hey OP. Thanks for the thoughtful post.

I’m interested, but I’m also a little drunk and about to get a little drunker.

Cliffs?
 
Hey OP. Thanks for the thoughtful post.

I’m interested, but I’m also a little drunk and about to get a little drunker.

Cliffs?



Lol but in all seriousness:

Early Foucault: Institutional structures determine action. Foucault was much more pessimistic in 1971 (he died in 1984 and his later works are much more accurate in regards to agency). Foucault can be said to be a communist during this time.
Early Chomsky: No, it's about the way our brains process and develop language (also a structuralist position). Chomsky was much more optimistic at that point and believed in innate universal qualities irrespective of cultural predilections. Chomsky, I suppose, can be described as an anarcho-syndicalist at the time of the interview.

Both seem to merge closer to one another as time passed, though.
 
Back
Top