5 ms·

Was that before or after Foucault cooked him in the debate?

by viccis 2y ago

paulpauper 2y ago
it is wrong. Chomsky said no such thing about him as a person. He was referring to Foucalt's belief system as being amoral
- slowhadoken 2y ago
  Chomsky said "he struck me as completely amoral, I'd never met anyone who was so totally amoral". Chomsky doesn't consider post-structuralism, and by extension Foucault system of thought, to be a philosophy. Foucault is a rhetorician.
rvense 2y ago
I think it was after they met for the debate. I don't remember Chomsky calling Foucault a phony. The quote I remember is Chomsky calling him "amoral". The debate is a fun thing. Some people hear Foucault make no sense, others see him slicing Chomsky up into so many pieces he appears to not even notice.
slowhadoken 2y ago
I guess if you're a 16 year old with an IQ of 85 and are stoned out of your mind Foucault cooked Chomsky, sure why not. lmfao. get out of here.
- daseiner1 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - slowhadoken 2y ago
    [flagged]
nchmy 2y ago
Cooked him? They had a perfectly pleasant and interesting conversation for the first 75% of the talk - both regularly shooshing the clueless moderator. Then at the end it turned more towards morality and Foucault showed himself to be quite clearly completely, illogically, disturbingly amoral - as Chomsky himself later more or less described him (a video which has been linked in other comments) No person with a shred of moral character or intellectual honesty could ever conclude anything remotely close to Foucault winning, let alone "cooking" him. edit: It starts building up to the real conflict/debate around maybe 45min, but it really becomes concrete at 54:13. Foucault just finished rambling about "destroy the bourgeoisie " and Chomsky says "surely you believe that your role in the war is a just role" and then further lays down some very sensible, insightful ideas about justice. Foucault then says something to the effect of "the proles dont fight for justice, they fight to have power for the first time in history. One wages war to win, not because it is just". Chomsky disagrees, but remains patient and extends an olive branch to him to say something less insane - suggesting that if such an overthrow would lead to a terroristic police state (e.g. the USSR, north korea etc...) , then I wouldn't want the proles to win. The only justification for such action is if one thinks - rightly or wrongly - that some fundamental human values will be achieved". Foucault just doubles and triples down and they go back and forth. YET, he even ends up agreeing with Chomsky by saying that the "suppression of class power" is the goal. Chomsky says ah hah, so you finally agree with me then. And foucault just dodges it and rambles some more. Chomsky then again shares some beautiful and insightful, yet humble, ideas. And then it ends. Foucault - and postmodernism in general - is all about narcissistic resentment. The link is here. Its very much worth watching. https://youtu.be/3wfNl2L0Gf8?si=954dTZp7G_C9PTMr&t=3255 https://youtu.be/3wfNl2L0Gf8?si=954dTZp7G_C9PTMr&t=3255
- viccis 2y ago
  Sorry, but if you're gonna do the midwit whining about pomo thing, you gotta spell ressentiment the French way, them's the rules.
- nchmy 2y ago
  Here are the two best tributes to Chomsky that I know of: The Loneliness of Noam Chomsky by Arundhati Roy http://www.rarre.org/documents/roy/The%20Loneliness%20Of%20Noam%20Chomsky.pdf http://www.rarre.org/documents/roy/The%20Loneliness%20Of%20N... When Chomsky Wept by Fred Branfman- https://www.salon.com/2012/06/17/when_chomsky_wept/ https://www.salon.com/2012/06/17/when_chomsky_wept/ Absolutely beautiful writing about a beautiful person.
manilbeat 2y ago
[flagged]

Was that before or after Foucault cooked him in the debate?

by viccis 2y ago

Was that before or after Foucault cooked him in the debate?

it is wrong. Chomsky said no such thing about him as a person. He was referring to Foucalt's belief system as being amoral

slowhadoken 2y ago
Chomsky said "he struck me as completely amoral, I'd never met anyone who was so totally amoral". Chomsky doesn't consider post-structuralism, and by extension Foucault system of thought, to be a philosophy. Foucault is a rhetorician.

rvense 2y ago

I think it was after they met for the debate. I don't remember Chomsky calling Foucault a phony. The quote I remember is Chomsky calling him "amoral". The debate is a fun thing. Some people hear Foucault make no sense, others see him slicing Chomsky up into so many pieces he appears to not even notice.

slowhadoken 2y ago

I guess if you're a 16 year old with an IQ of 85 and are stoned out of your mind Foucault cooked Chomsky, sure why not. lmfao. get out of here.

daseiner1 2y ago
[flagged]
- slowhadoken 2y ago
  [flagged]

nchmy 2y ago

Cooked him? They had a perfectly pleasant and interesting conversation for the first 75% of the talk - both regularly shooshing the clueless moderator. Then at the end it turned more towards morality and Foucault showed himself to be quite clearly completely, illogically, disturbingly amoral - as Chomsky himself later more or less described him (a video which has been linked in other comments) No person with a shred of moral character or intellectual honesty could ever conclude anything remotely close to Foucault winning, let alone "cooking" him. edit: It starts building up to the real conflict/debate around maybe 45min, but it really becomes concrete at 54:13. Foucault just finished rambling about "destroy the bourgeoisie " and Chomsky says "surely you believe that your role in the war is a just role" and then further lays down some very sensible, insightful ideas about justice. Foucault then says something to the effect of "the proles dont fight for justice, they fight to have power for the first time in history. One wages war to win, not because it is just". Chomsky disagrees, but remains patient and extends an olive branch to him to say something less insane - suggesting that if such an overthrow would lead to a terroristic police state (e.g. the USSR, north korea etc...) , then I wouldn't want the proles to win. The only justification for such action is if one thinks - rightly or wrongly - that some fundamental human values will be achieved". Foucault just doubles and triples down and they go back and forth. YET, he even ends up agreeing with Chomsky by saying that the "suppression of class power" is the goal. Chomsky says ah hah, so you finally agree with me then. And foucault just dodges it and rambles some more. Chomsky then again shares some beautiful and insightful, yet humble, ideas. And then it ends. Foucault - and postmodernism in general - is all about narcissistic resentment. The link is here. Its very much worth watching. https://youtu.be/3wfNl2L0Gf8?si=954dTZp7G_C9PTMr&t=3255 https://youtu.be/3wfNl2L0Gf8?si=954dTZp7G_C9PTMr&t=3255

viccis 2y ago
Sorry, but if you're gonna do the midwit whining about pomo thing, you gotta spell ressentiment the French way, them's the rules.
nchmy 2y ago
Here are the two best tributes to Chomsky that I know of: The Loneliness of Noam Chomsky by Arundhati Roy http://www.rarre.org/documents/roy/The%20Loneliness%20Of%20Noam%20Chomsky.pdf http://www.rarre.org/documents/roy/The%20Loneliness%20Of%20N... When Chomsky Wept by Fred Branfman- https://www.salon.com/2012/06/17/when_chomsky_wept/ https://www.salon.com/2012/06/17/when_chomsky_wept/ Absolutely beautiful writing about a beautiful person.

manilbeat 2y ago

[flagged]