Thread replies: 18
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
File: images.jpg (5KB, 283x178px) Image search:
[Google]
5KB, 283x178px
Imagine being Foucault in that debate and having to be all like "damn, Chomsky, you fuckin' fine, all dialectical with your human nature and horrific language theory. I would totally write an article with you, both my literary persona and the real me." when all he really wants to do is write about relations of power in societal institutions. Like seriously imagine having to be Foucault and not only sit in that chair while Noam Chomsky flaunts his disgusting theory in front of you, the favorable lighting barely concealing his shitty haircut, and just sit there, word after word, hour after hour, while he perfected his argument. Not only having to tolerate his stupid fucking syntactic structure theories but his haughty attitude as everyone on the audience tells him he’s STILL GOT IT and DAMN, NOAM CHOMSKY DEBATES LIKE *THAT*?? because they're not the ones who have to sit there and hear this stupid fucking analytic contort his books into types of mental gymnastics you didn't even know existed before that day. You've been writing nothing but a healthy diet of critical theory and post-structuralist best-sellers for your ENTIRE CAREER coming straight out of the opium dens in France. You've never even heard anything this fucking disgusting before, and now you swear you can taste the sweat that's breaking out on his dirty thick-rimmed glasses as he smirks suggestively at you, smugly assured that you are enjoying the opportunity to get paid to sit there and revel in his "revolutionary (for that is what he calls it)" cognitive science, the cognitive science he worked so hard for with his anarchist buddies in the previous months. And then Fons Elders brings up another subject, and you know you could refute every single person in this room before the analytics could write a review of your book, but you sit there and endure, because you're fucking Foucault. You're not going to lose your academic prestige over this. Just bear it. Hide your face and bear it.
>>
File: 1487303045677.jpg (1MB, 2456x1724px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 2456x1724px
>>2384972
& Humanities strikes again
>>
>>2385002
thanks for bumping the thread
>>
>>2384972
I like this OP.
>>
Neither of them were particularly wrong about what they were talking about.
But Foucault had to be a cunt, and accuse Chomsky's argument essentially being "muh human nature".
>>
File: realtalk.jpg (3MB, 3320x2547px) Image search:
[Google]
3MB, 3320x2547px
>& Humanities
>>
Foucault was a disgusting human being, inside and out
>>
>>2385253
agreed
>>
Ignore the shit-for-brains posting & Humanities memes OP, I laughed hard.
>>
>>2385040
chomsky *literally* uses the phrase human nature more than once in the debate, it's an important key term to interrogate
>>
>>2386901
It is, and Chomsky was basically right in supposing that a collection of immutable, statistically evident characteristics of human beings can meaningfully and usefully be given a label along the lines of "human nature". On this point of the discussion, the earlier part, Chomsky was right and Foucault was wrong. Foucault's insistence on checking the mores of a particular century or culture is misguided, becuase what Foucault is doing here is the original version of "muh social construction". On the contrary, there are immutable characteristics of the human condition, which Chomsky correctly asserts.
However, Chomsky loses the latter part of the discussion, which shifts from the human nature opening stuff into questions of politics. Chomsky starts insisting that just because states make laws that he doesn't like, that those laws are, more than being "wrong", themselves criminal, illegal, and so on, when the world and power don't work that way. Chomsky basically makes an is/ought confusion here, whereas Foucault more accurately explains things at this juncture. Go to 56:15 here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8
In the French, Foucault says, "The proletariat makes war with the ruling class because, for the first time in history, it wants to take power. And because it will overthrow the power of the ruling class, it considers such a war to be just."
Chomsky: "Yeah, I don't agree."
Foucault (French): "ONE MAKES WAR TO WIN, NOT BECAUSE IT IS JUST."
Chomsky: "I don't, personally, agree with that..."
In the funniest part of the whole discussion, Foucault B's TFO of Chomsky, the latter explicating his morality for a bit, having missed Foucault's point. Foucault is describing how the world actually works, and Chomsky is describing how he would like the world to be.
The great irony of all this is that the person arguing for human nature, Chomsky, is himself a leftist who would prefer a flavor of anarchism which human nature precludes.
>>
>>2384972
/tv/posters are the saving grace of this board.
>>
File: 4c8e883216f39345e740a16682b94742.jpg (42KB, 500x375px) Image search:
[Google]
42KB, 500x375px
>>2386976
>>
>>2387035
was he red pilled?
>>
>>2386901
human nature is real no matter what the kids on your university campus tell you
>>
>>2387035
Did he mean ze Jews?
>>
Poor Foucault had to play along with the french-post modern thing to get attention. He was born in the wrong time.
Thread posts: 18
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4