Not by me. But of course your fawning adulating comment will appeal to the cult of morons that gather in reverence before every rambling video of your guru.
Coming from an American: "France is an extremely insular culture. Always has been. Everything is in France. Nothing is anywhere else.", this had me smiling.
@@themanwhosoldtheworld5350 spot on. He's not cnn right? When you're self critical, you are definitely the right to criticise others. Now, an observation from someone who is living in France currently. France is not an island, it is surrounded by UK, Belgium Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Spain. They know what is happening in the UK brexiter,Italian pm Georgia meloni etc... A Lot influenced by the culture of Europe and Arabia. The French people are self deprecative, thinking they're not the best but the smartest!
That just shows how insular he himself actually is. For what I know, French people are actually very curious and appreciative of other cultures and philosophies. They have a real fascination for Chinese and Japanese legacies.
@@pikebishop8516 And yet, despite being surrounded by so many different cultures and being the birthplace of the father of modern philosophy some centuries before, they managed to confine themselves intellectually to their own brand of pompous pseudointellectualistic obscurantist pop for the most part of the previous century. For better or for worse (I say mostly the latter) we are still experiencing its legacy.
“French culture after the Second World War kind of has some strange characteristics.” French people post ww2: still wipe their aholes with their hands.
This is ironically a really Anglo-centrist view of the French Philosophy/Scientific scene of the 20th century. France didn't have *A* scene, but many different ones struggling with each others, as all countries. Saying "70s French intellectuals were Stalinists" period is grossly ignorant of the reality.
It's not really surprising that a neoliberal like Chomsky wants to sweep under the rug a whole generation of thinkers who publicly made him look fairly silly in debates. Labeling them all Stalinists just makes that easier.
He dislikes the idea that "there is no truth" because the meaninglessness of the statement directly points to the meaninglessness of his deeply held beliefs about morality and reality. When you have no real argument, you attack the popular perception of the idea instead of the idea itself. To say that "skepticism" is pointless might show a lack of understanding of what epistemology is, or propaganda for a certain political movement that relies on "true" morality.
I'm a French philosophy student and I can say that even though continental philosophy is strong in French universities indeed, logical positivism and analytic philosophy are actually widely spread in France nowadays, and a lot of famous and prestigious philosophers from prestigious French universities are analytic philosophers (claudine tiercelin of the college de france, vincent descombes, jacques bouveresse of the college de france, who's famous for pointing out how foucault's phylosophy is irrationnal, roger pouivet and so on)... For instance Derrida's philosophy is criticized a lot by French intellectuals, who say he's a fraud, whereas in America he's adored by loads and loads of intellectuals (as Chomsky says, comparative literature but not only). Here Chomsky talks formost of his speech about the 70s and 80s but things have changed a lot in France. For instance the idea of intellectual being "media stars" is not true at all anymore.
«even though continental philosophy is strong in French universities indeed, logical positivism and analytic philosophy are actually widely spread in France» Isn't positivism a French philosophy originally anyway ?
nightingale hi! Could you point me towards any work in English where Bouveresse criticizes Foucault? Or anything against Derrida? I’ve been meaning to get into what deconstruction actually entails. So I could use some criticism.
« the idea of intellectual being "media stars" is not true at all anymore » : I’m sorry to inform you that the so-called "philosophes", actually givers of opinions, or what we would call technically "media whores", are still very well around.
Who is Chomsky talking about? The "new philosophers" (BHL, Glucksman) or the post-structuralists (Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari)? Not the same thing. I would agree with him that French intellectuals tend to be insular (only "tend"), but the first statement of this interview ("the French intellectuals were the last dedicated Stalinists or Maoists") is rather surprising from him: he is just describing a fraction of French intellectuals. First, if French intellectuals were really that much insular as Chomsky says, why would they be "Stalinists", or "Maoists" or even Marxists instead of Proudhonists, Blanquists or even "Sartrists"? Or why would Foucault and Deleuze try to push Nietzsche into the middle of the French philosophical debate? Second, though the French Communist party emerged very strong politically from WWII, mostly because of the role of its militants in the French resistance, there was, in fact, a strong current of anti-stalinist intellectuals in France after the war: André Breton, Albert Camus, Jacques Prévert, Pierre Naville, Benjamin Péret, David Rousset, Daniel Guérin, Boris Vian, Guattari, just to name a few. Poets-singers, too: Georges Brassens, Léo Ferré, Georges Moustaki. It is not to honor them (many of them were openly anarchists, btw) to make such a broad (and frankly rather absurd) statement. This is the kind of statements used by the French far-right to try to discredit all leftist intellectuals.
The French gave the world revolution after revolution. With practices and theory to boot. The US gave us globalised capitalism and few theorists with original ideas. Most of their intellectuals are heavily indebted and referential to other works, mostly of European origin.
@@mrtone5284 An excellent question that a youtube comment would never approach in answering. I'd argue good/bad depends on the goal (if a goal there is).
@@georgewash8926 Yeah, anything inherited is good. The baseline of something is always good considering they can be argued against, and the goal is generally insignificant...i mean, if you're serious :) I wish only gypsies argued about who gets credit for ideas...we'd be much better off with the disposal of any serious credit for who invented the reuben sandwich, haha.
Foucault lived a long time in the US. I highly doubt that he didn’t know what American intellectuals were doing. What Norm would say about French intellectuals living in a bubble, on the contrary, could easily be used on American public. It’s very true in the 60s a lot of French intellectuals were communists, open and closeted.
I also genuinely didn't get his argument about the presence of Stalinism and Maoism in France this late being a sign of secularism. Of course when compared to the extremely anti-communist american societ, France will have more communist philosophers, that's in no way a sign of France's intellectuals being secular or "late" compared to the rest of the world
So basically, he's saying that the French make themselves believe they discovered something even though Americans or other countries have known it for many years. I find that hard to believe, and very general. Maybe I didn't quite understand what he said.
he is absolutely correct and as a north african (judging by your name) you should be even more aware of their self aggrandising tendencies and obscene dismissal of everything that hasn't come from them
@ThaEzioAuditore As a North African, I say you're right. This video dates back to 5 years ago, but I somewhat always had my instincts telling me that most contemporary French philosophers say stupid things. Then I moved to London and was introduced to German, and English philosophers it was an epiphany for me...
@Wandering_Owl I know its been a year, but I'm also from a country (and field) in which late french thinkers are the top dogs and we should comment on them. I pulled a "hell no" and went back to my main thinkers, i.e. phenomenologists, german idealism and sociology and Jesus Christ what a difference.
I'm French, and I wouldn't be sure about Chomsky's other points, but I think he is partially mistaken when talking about "french intellectual superstars". There are a couple of them, and though they are taken seriously by some of the mainstream newpapers and medias, and a portion of the general public, they have basically no legitimacy in their respective academic fields.
That has nothing to do with the video, it's juts a reaction to your «There are a couple of them, and though they are taken seriously by some of the mainstream newpapers and medias, and a portion of the general public, they have basically no legitimacy in their respective academic fields.» It's kind of a curse, don't you think ? Philosophical superstars have no legitimacy in their fields, but relevant philosophers in the said fields aren't known of the general public. That's a shame.
6:50 That literally sums up my scientific endeavors in my 3rd world country. I always craved to be a scientist or do work in research institutes. But when I finally got there all I've found was corruption, struggles of character and biased scientists keeping their pet theory alive at all costs. And I mean ALL COSTS. Even people who were clearly more brilliant, more open minded and better suited for the job had to leave the laboratory because they couldn't pursue in their scientific research because that would lead to clashes inside of the institution. That completely undermines and destroys a country intellectual growth. All those "scientists" wanted here was a simple areola atop their heads so people would consider them an authority in their field. Few had noble, humble and open minded aspirations. Most were downright corrupt, condescending and egotistical. What I eventually realized is that I was the one wrong. I was chasing a rainbow of sorts. I was chasing a mirage. Because I failed to realize that that scientists that inhabit a determined society cannot be so far off from the aspects of those society. If all you see is putrid behavior, ego and petty struggles, than all of that will be reflected in the scientific realm of that society. The Ivory Tower effect might be real, but the land where it stands stays it's foundations no matter what.
If this is of any reassurance to you, I'm a former physicist who worked in Switzerland and the US, and the same corruption you described is present and pushed me out of the field. It is VERY prevalent in the US where your worth as a researcher is measured solely by how much money you bring in. So you can imagine how there was very little science done. Politics, PR, and marketing are the name of the game.
@@phillustrator It saddens me greatly to know that the scientific method was developed in a world where there were absolute monarchies stemmed into a deep religious society. Now we live in a secular society, yet science is at a peril. Borderline worthless papers, citation world, salami science and politics everywhere, from inside and outside laboratories/institutes. Again, your experience is parallel to mine. A greedy society, such as the American one, cannot be disjointed from it's scientific culture. But a couple of things to douse our misfortunes: Einstein himself wrote many times that he was tired of so many ass kissers and idiots circling him, with nothing of good to say. And the person with the highest IQ ever, allegedly, Marilyn von Savant also had the same comment. That most of the people who claim themselves to be expert, weren't actually intelligent, but just repeaters, parrots of some scientific bubble they lived in.
@@Draxis32I think one plausible explanations would be that scientists back in the day dedicated their lives to science because they truly wanted to understand how the Universe works. There were few patrons who sponsored only those who were brilliant and was passionate about what they were doing. These days, to be a scientist is like all other professions; there's not much intrigue and many researchers are downright corrupt as has been seen in multiple shocking cases lately. Academia needs a huge reform to stop these pseudo-scientists from taking over.
Unfortunately,its that way with most " systems " that were once NEW and innovative. after about 350 years they peter out to become an established way of thinking,like bureaucracy. When this stage is reached there are only a lucky few left,who manage to produce some- thing original,against all odds.
He's describing Paris Cultural Circles from the 70s/80s/90s. Things have changed a bit now. Philosophy as a way of life is no longer a thing. We still study it at school, but mostly tangible concepts.
Can't tell if Chomsky is knowingly weaponizing this Foucaultian / post-structuralist / "historical" archaeology of French intellectualism or if he's somehow unfortunately unaware of the overt influence French intellectuals have had on the very rhetorical format he's using.
"France is an extremely insular culture, always has been. They think everything is in France - nothing is anywhere else." Chomsky's excellent mind is missing something here - e.g., Paris the heart of the Renaissance, absorbing foreign learning; Debussy's revolutionary adoption of gamelan music in the 1890s; Paris the magnet for Chopin, Stravinsky, others; Paris welcoming American jazz players; long relationship between cultures of Paris and middle and eastern Europe... Unless he's talking just about the (obviously) narrow field of philosophy.
Would love to see a source for Chomsky's claims about French biologists. I suspect he is referring to acceptance of the "modern synthesis" which would indeed coincide with the World War II era. And if he's going to criticize the French for not accepting the modern synthesis in pre-World War II, you could probably make the same claims about American biology where Joseph Woodger's positivism and other influences led to some biologists to reject natural selection as a major cause of evolutionary change.
His attempt to take down French biology failed at the first hurdle, since he had to mention the esteemed name of Jacques Monod. He did not mention Edgar Morin, and I am sure there are many other great names that are unknown to him. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_biophysicists
Guess he's refering to the strong Lamarckean influence that slowed down this acceptance in France ? I mean that's what I've been taught (as a French student).
@@bobbyblanc_ I think you are right. By the way, the lamarckian reference was still very present in other parts of the world at least in the 1930s. It is the case for Latin America at least.
Chomsky just takes it for granted that anglo-saxon culture is the center of the universe. I met some American students at kartlstad's University in Sweden who did'nt even know where Paris was.
He said enough about anglo Saxon culture and intellectual spheres that a trial for ethnocentrism on a 8min video edit about the French intellectual field is not warranted.
@@ExquisiteIdea he is acting like something that is only popular in the german anglo-saxon world, logical positivism, "spread around the world". this supposed insularity really is his own anglo saxon ignorance, because he can not see that there are "islands" everywhere. france is not alone; russia, spain, italy etc. were similar. france's upper class is for the most part very outward looking, like america's. i find the french intellectual attitude vile otherwise btw.
Yes! Anglo-American provincialism and insularity begin with failure to read in French and German, so that everything is borne on a breeze of distorted second-hand (mis)information. During the "theory boom" of the 1980s the trade in translations and doxographies created a ghastly caricature of European philosophy, which professors of Eng Lit and job applicants were expected to have mastered overnight. Then when the boom went out of fashion the postmod profs were left stranded, boring to their students and unwelcome to publishers.
I can't comment on French biologists, but in the Christian world, French theologians and philosophers significantly impacted world-wide religious philosophy (Blondel, Ricouer), Thomism (Maritain), Patristics (De Lubac, Danielou), and spirituality (Peguy, Teilhard De Chardin) across Europe and the U.S. in the 20th century, and had either studied under or were continually reading/interacting with German philosophers and theologians (Hegel, Schleiermacher, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger). These French thinkers (especially Maritain) were widely read and translated, and many took up teaching positions at Harvard and Chicago, Oxford and Cambridge - or, welcomed foreign PhD students who brought French thought back home to their respective countries. In the 21st century, theological phenomenologists such as Henry, Chretien, Marion, etc. are also a part of this trans-continental conversation, again with many holding dual professorships in France and either the U.K. or U.S. I don't see the French as being a bubble or being too insular; they simply have an amazingly rich tradition, rooted in Catholicism, stretching back to the University of Paris and the Carolingian schools, which they continue to act out. What we perceive as a "bubble" is the actually the vast, echoey spaces, bathed in light, of Chartres, Notre Dame, and Amiens.
Interesting insights from Chomsky on the French bubble. From his own bubble. These are spaces with their own inherent logic, incomprehensible for outsiders.
There is a big difference between rightly pointing out that the French academic culture is pretty isolated (or even isolationist) and implying that as a consequence everything it delivers is either bollocks or has already been done decades earlier. As if there was no value in revisiting ideas, clarifying them and merging them with other original ones. I also wonder how much the spread of logical positivism, historically a German/Austrian tradition, "benefited" from loads of intellectuals from the region fleeing to the USA in the pre-war period.
French philosophers should give up their obscure "continental" philosophy and submit to the facts and logic of the anglo-american analytic philosophy. Instead of useless topics like deconstruction etc. they should focus on real philosophical issues like the mind body problem, meta-ethics, philosophy of time, epistemology, onthology etc. just like anglophone philosophers. They should stop playing with fancy words, stop the fashionable nonsense. Clarity is the greatest virtue in philosophy. Obscurantism is a disease. Philosophy is about the taste of discovering the ideas around the world, not about talks about power structures etc. Give that topic to social scientists. French philosophy is almost like a side branch of political science. French people either sexualize or politicize everything.
It's a very true point of view when you look at it from 1980. Things have changed a lot since then and the philosophical landscape is much more diverse now.
i kind of get a kick out of chomsky's response to the french thinkers since he got put away by michel foucault back in the day... i like chomsky, but he is more than likely wrong that there is some magical template in every human's mind that allows languages...as foucault said, even if there were such an imaginary thing, isn't chomsky likely to define it in a way that favors his own culture? to this day, he seems to continue to try to put them down when they are no longer here to defend themselves. he strikes me as a wounded animal gone defensive when he talks about the French. (By the way, the idea that there is no absolute truth pre-dates the French...at least in Nietzsche, for example...absolutely false statement by the Chomster. it's an age old philosophical debate. Chomsky seems to side with the transcendentalist camp, the structuralists, the platonic world of ideal forms.)
What is funny is that the French critics of postivist science, like the one Foucault developed in that debate actually understand the positivism and position themselves against it while the positivists critic is the non-sense and weirdness of the french... which clearly shows that they actually don't understand it.
Really? I saw the debate with Foucault. I found Foucault to be a very superficial trying very hard to be super "radical" while not being "radical" at all. The whole utter crap about Justice being irrelevant and it's all about "power" was amusing. If that is the case why bother with radical change at all it it is all about various gangs fighting for power? Of course the notion that "Justice" is meaningless and it is all about power is not in the slightest new it goes back to the Greeks just read Plato's Republic and what Thrasymachus says is "Justice". To me Foucault struck me has an attention seeker trying to be a media star by saying controversial things.
@@makinapacal That's fair. I am no big fan of Foucault, although I do like his ideas on biopower. What I mean was Foucault was analysing and discussing concepts on a level beyond what Noam could engage with. You have to admit that any notion of justice is inherently tied to the culture in question. Since Western civilisation is modelled on ancient Greece in some regards it's not strange that we would have similar notions of justice. In the middle of a communist revolution hanging the middle class is seen as justice, I guess Foucault sees culture as constructed and not an organic formation
@@Blandy0487 Foucault is not discussing concepts on a level beyond Chomsky instead he is articulating in a complicated philosophical like obfuscation a very conventional series of notions. One is a very dull cynicism that all that really matters is "power", and ideals are irrelevant and useless. That all that matters is who has "power". It is a very common trope to say that ideals are useless, that concepts like "justice", "love" "decency" etc., are useless or mere disguises for the reality of a dog eat dog world and brutal self interest. Foucault was saying absolutely nothing new here but simply dressing it up in philosophical guise. If Foucault wants to see society as little more than groups fighting for "power" then he also subscribes to the notion of society has a war of all against all in which case why not support those who now have "power" over those who don't. All of Foucault's support for disadvantaged groups becomes quixotic in that they have less "power" than their opponents. Could it be that Foucault actually supports those groups because their treatment is "unjust". Of course not?! Then why did he? The notion that certain ideals are useless and meaningless against brute reality is simply nothing new. Foucault is NOT saying here anything new or brilliant. It is to repeat the same old, very old, dull cynicism. As for Chomsky's views or the origins of society and culture. Of course culture is constructed - so? Chomsky did so also. Then we get a dose of relativism. So in a Communist revolution "hanging" the middle class is seen as justice. Well then the following acts were "just". The Holocaust was "just" because murdering Jews was seen as "just". The Great Purge in Russia, 1936-1938, with at least 800,000 executions, millions sent to the Gulag, and mass torture is "just". The Rwanda genocide of Tusi in1994 was "just". In fact under this rubic any act carried out by State authorities, of murder, torture etc., is "just", because what is "just" is simply what those who have "power" say is "just". Foucault should be "thanked" for providing to mass murders, torturers etc., a justification for their acts; after all "justice" is simply what the powerful say it is. Oh and just what Communist Revolution tried to physically genocide the Middle Classes? The only one I can think of is the Khmer Rouge, but I guess what they did was "just", after all they had the power.
It sounds like Chomsky has inherited some of the Anglo-American anti-French bias that characterized the immediate postwar period in the academy. This probably also is rooted in his critique of structuralism, which enjoyed a real flourishing in France in the 1950's. A more direct confrontation with the details of this movement would be welcome.
I mean, Chomsky liked French enough to learn the language well enough to be able to respond (in English) to Foucault without a translator. He's pissed because the French intellectuals of his time dedicated themselves to trying to make pedophilia legal (search "French petition against age of consent laws"), and because the French press slandered him (He's anti-Nazi but pro-freedom-of-speech, and wrote a little bit defending the legal right of a Holocaust denier. The French media published this without context to make it look like Chomsky himself was a Holocaust denier and refused to print his rebuttals wherein he said he was absolutely not a Holocaust denier).
@@wodediannao4577 Yes I'm familiar with the Faurisson affair. And Chomsky definitely had to deal with people like Vidal Naquet writing some false things about his involvement. I'm also aware of the debate around the age of consent laws in France, though I don't think Chomsky ever wrote about this. Still, despite the Faurisson affair, I don't get why Chomsky had to make such general claims about people like Kristeva or Derrida. He clearly never dealt with their work in any detail.
Foucault knowingly gave teenage male prostitutes AIDS. He was an evil human being, and the intellectual and moral cancer he spewed has caused untold damage.
I saw the debate and Foucault came across has a facile poseur trying to be more a radical than thou with it personality. His position was in many ways quite nihilistic. To Foucault it all seemed to be about getting power and nothing else. In which case it was simply two gangs of thugs fighting over turf. Of course if "power" is everywhere then the whole concept becomes meaningless. I am not remotely interested in revolution or radical change if it is only about "power".
Straight White Male Foucault was a homosexual, yes, but not a Maoist And Sartre was, at least for a time, a Maoist, but not a Homosexual. I think you’re mixing the two up
As far as I know the French watch nearly every popular American tv show with dub and have one of the only stable markets for Japanese Manga in Europe. Now how many Americans even know les gendarmes de st tropez? How many Japanese people have even read one Astérix comic? There are a lot of people in France from their ex colonies and one of the most impressive tourism numbers in the world, and for the size of the country a stable international art market. Maybe they are weary of the vieuws of AngloSaxon intellectuals, mostly because you stereotype and insult them constantly?
Chomsky is always brilliant and clear, however I think it would be fair to say, he is embedded/ orientated in the logical positivist/analytic school, and linguistic analysis informed by that. Continental philosophy, following from Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and through existentialism to the French post modernists, has a very different topos, and France has a brilliant tradition in this regard.
French philosophers should give up their obscure "continental" philosophy and submit to the facts and logic of the anglo-american analytic philosophy. Instead of useless topics like deconstruction etc. they should focus on real philosophical issues like the mind body problem, meta-ethics, philosophy of time, epistemology, onthology etc. just like anglophone philosophers. Stop.playing with fancy words, stop the fashionable nonsense. Clarity is the greatest virtue in philosophy. Obscurantism is a disease. Philosophy is about the taste of discovering the ideas around the world, not about talks about power structures etc. Give that topic to social scientists. French philosophy is almost like a side branch of political science. French people either sexualize or politicize everything.
@@freandwhickquest I’m French and I must say that the French cultural life does not reflect “French theory”. There are many sources of information, on geopolitics for example (shows on France Culture or Le Monde Diplomatique, or Arrêt sur Images, or Le Dessous des Cartes), that inherit from the political and philosophical views of Russell, Orwell and Chomsky (I’m connecting them a bit superficially but...). French politicians are also much more logical than what we can see in the US, religions and superstitions are absent from political debates, for example. The most influential thinker today is arguably the ecologist Jean-Marc Jancovici and he actually is an engineer, completely grounded on dry data and logical reasoning. So the pictures is more complex than what Chomsky says, although it’s always pleasant to hear a frontal criticism of “French Theory”. Most sociologists, historians, philosophers I read and hear today are completely “no-nonsense”. Only psychology and arts still seem to be dominated by more “poetic” (...) ways of dealing with rationality. Also at the time when “French Theory” was big there were many “new age” movements in the English speaking world that had very little reach in France. So the whole picture is full of subtleties.
... and rent a gob, Jordan Peterson is a cheap and popular caricature, not an intellectual, but an out of control gas bag that just doesn't know when to finish his sentence or where the full stop is . ⬅️
@@freandwhickquest Analytic philosophers always have to talk about these "big timeless problems" even tho their language and cultural-philosophic context provides the concepts that make it possible to formulate these questions and never reflect on the genealogy of anything ever. The mind-body problem is a pseudo-problem, all your analytic ontology is naive realist antropomorphisms (reality is structured like our thoughts and language, even tho my experience is a representation of another representation, analyzed and reformed into a specific vocabulary that could only exist due to specific events in this specific place on a specific giant ball of earth, which is then a representation of a beam of photons, which are on their own a representation of the surface of the object in question. Yeah but you know we can understand how these 'things-in-themselves' work) Analytic epistemology is pretty good tho.
This is a very sad story. I remember watching for the very first time the famous video of the 70s debate with Michel Foucault. Is he still bitter about it? Is he still feeling the urge to come back to it? To give it "names" (incomprehensible, irrational, banal, insular, blah blah blah). After so many years? Very likely so. Already then Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky were each speaking in very distinct, incompatible languages. And Noam Chomsky unsurprisingly still does not understand a single bit of what he is so contemptuous about.... People like Noam Chomsky think that what they are so bitter about is "anything goes" --- when in fact it means "anything matters"...
Chomsky never had time to (1) learn French and German, (2) study the philosophers he dismisses, by reading them in French, (3) acquire the philosophical education that Sartre, Foucault, and Derrida took for granted, including a good understanding of Hegel and Heidegger, read in German
Yes, Chomsky is looking at France but is seeing America there. His conversations with Foucault long ago showed that he had not a clue. Whereas in France, Chomsky's views were intelligently and critically discussed (e.g. his fatal missteps on Cambodia in the late 1970s).
Except geography, and language and the historical sources of a culture and political power and its centuries of causes and outcomes yeah.... except those factors and maybe a few others yeah.😅
For decades, people would say: Sartre or Camus? in: www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/camus-and-sartre-friendship-troubled-by-ideological-feud-a-931969.html
Hannes Winter the real irony of it all is that much later in life, Sartre would actually abandon his Maoist tendencies and became something of an anarchist, and in essence follow in Camus’ footsteps
It is funny what one can read on those commentaries. A Nobel prize winer was a for sure an insignificant intellectual. By the way, anybody can tell who was the author of the following: «What separates them from Marxism or Gaullism or any other movement they join is, first, in the words of an excellently informed English writer, that they never "seek to validate their reasoning by reference to fixed principles, and, second, that their revolution is never primarily directed against social or political conditions, but against the human condition as such. Courage, according to Malraux, challenges the human condition of mortality; freedom, according to Sartre, challenges the human condition of "being thrown into the world" (a notion he took over from Heidegger); and reason, according to Camus, challenges the human condition of having to live in the midst of absurdity.»?
Chomsky is not a philosopher. He is a critic of philosophy and a linguist. Philosophy is concept creation to aid us in understanding our experience and society etc. Giving words to what is not spoken about. Our experience is complex and maybe some people are happy to just leave things unspoken about, others seek to give them words. I am sure many people hear applauding Noam’s critique have never had the patience to read any of the writers. It’s only in conprehensible if you are lazy or quick to discard something as meaningless if it doesn’t immediately make sense. I had to read the first book I read by baudrillard very slowly and rereading things because I wasn’t use to thinking at that level of abstraction (something Noam fails to mention how French culture and the education those writers got trained them to think in abstract concepts from an early age)… but it was worth every minute of effort and it got easier as I moved on - no one else has philosophy that provides concepts that predicted and help understand the post internet world.
But Noam ISN'T the sort of person to quickly discard something if it doesn't immediately make sense. He wouldn't have gotten far in his career if he was a lazy thinker.
Concerning the developing world and the archaic "anti-rational" discord and how that is a major distraction from reality and popular mobilisation, I have witness so much of this. In both Neoliberal wet dream Gulf states where pseudo-intellectuals are simply imitating western "anti-rationale" as it's in fashion, and French West Africa where French literature is simply being upheld as gold.
It's a double edged sword though for the simple fact that adopting enlightenment rationalism (which imo is as subjective and culturally specific worldview just like any other) effectively means adopting western thought and opens the door to western culture, at which point you have to fundamentally ask what is the point in resistance when you're tacitly taking in the fundamental philosophical foundations of the cultures that colonised you
@@nektarios5291 Hmm, I don't know if it has to result in similar outcomes, one could adopt scientific thinking and use it much more radical to build more liveable civilizations. If they get rid of the pseudo sciences like neoliberal doctrines.
@Fabien Gerard Definitely, I lived in the uk for years, and it's a wierd schizophrenic split between sycophantic America gazing and insistence that its the foremost country on Earth
As an American, I think we should close all foreign military bases and cease being the naval police force that guarantees safe, global overaeas shipping. Seriously.
@zeenuf ye no one else has navies and there's no multilateral way of doing it, it just has to be the hegemonic preserve of thr US for its own benefit, the only other option is anarchy...
I am French, loving Chomy but could not give a toss about his view on French which define French pretty well giving you the finger first hand. French is rich & diverse intellectually & in constant battle to define itself. This notion of intellectualism elite representing need to go.
I have a feeling this is the problem with france. They can go to such lengths questioning their own worth that they actually can't really conclude what would be a good way to go in any point in time making their efforts meaningless and quite self destructive. The moment Foucault went into the area of rationalising having sex with children was a clear sign that french philosophy can go off the rails really fast.
I can't understand what he says in the last minute of the video. Does he want the Third World intellectuals to be like the French ones or not like the French ones?
Noam Chomsky trying his best to make friends with Jordan Peterson. Amazing. The level of straw man fallacies on this small video is unreal and it hurts coming from such an interesting thinker on other topics.
No straw man fallacies here really. PoMos incursion into the philosophy of science and their nonsensical pseudoscientific babble driven by physics envy is nothing short of diarrhea of the pen.
Mr Chomsky isn't wrong, but he talks about something that is in the past now, currently the bubble is still there but there is absolutely no trace of intellect.
French culture is indeed ''insular'' but the same is real for the american one. And, yes, french ''intellectuals'' use a ''strange bubble'' which they call ''ideas'' but the same is true about the american ''intellectuals'' also. ''Bubble'' means ''they speak according to their national heritage and logic'' which is very obvious to them and in their language, but totally misunderstood or misinterpreting from others. Fowles wrote about these things in his book ''Wormholes''. Western World has to return to the Greeks and, above all, to reread Martin Luther's christian theology. Outside of these two bases, everything is without meaning.
I love Chomsky. But I also think that it is not really useful to be completely dismissive of any philosophy. My primary experience was with analytic philosophy but reading people like Heidegger (who had a huge influence on Derrida and Merleau-Ponty), Guatarri and others have really expanded my horizons.
In the 70s I studied macroeconomics in the Netherlands. It was all about differential & difference equations, and constructing big models of 150 equations and more. The funny thing was that the model's predictions were always wrong. The solution to that problem was to add more equations... So I ventured into philosophy of science, positivism, analytical philosophy, to figure out what went wrong in economics. Many years later I neither believe in the scientific value of these big models, nor in the merits of logical positivism. It's all wrong. A science is not a set of indicative statements that are True, anti-science being statements that are False, and thinking + language being best described by mathematical logic. All this is wrong, pointless. It irritates me beyond repair that these analytic philosophers always talk about language, but don't speak any foreign language and have no clue about linguistics. They also talk endlessly about science, but don't know how science works. They also make sweeping statements on philosophy of mind, but have no knowledge at all about how the brain works. They're just juggling words. Continental philosophy, Husserl, Heidegger, etc, is the same kind of word pudding.
@@ernstraedecker6174 logical positivism works pretty well in the hard sciences. Economics is not in any way a hard science. It's a social science with a little math thrown in. Expand your horizons.
If you consider mediatic experts to be intellectuals then yes, it's all true. Nonetheless i find it astounding for such a great mind as Mr Chomsky's to deny the radical differences between the Anglo-saxon logical positivism and the French/Latin Rationalism (first theorized by Descartes). In that regard it is either doubtful that Mr Chomsky has ever consider Philosophy very seriously or that he as ever understand the substance of its work. Nevertheless, whatever he may qualifies as "irrationality" is in fact as rational as a thought can be, and whatever other comments found to be "muddy" and falsly profound actualy most of the time is quite simple to understand. But again, sorry anglo-saxon world not to have the exact same intellectual culture and history than you have, we just happen to be "others" (wich you apperently disregard to much to try and understand, even at the top academic level). On a side note, that very rational man found himself quite embarassed when the "irrational" Foucault urge him to answer the very simple question of what did he meant by "absolute good". Now sorry for my horrible english as it is not my native language, i realy hope you all (unlike Mr Chomsky) manage one day to go beyond the clichés about french philosophy for it is a interesting tradition and a even more entertaining, serious to your standards, ongoing process.
@@ggagga1312 Chomsky's mental landscape always struck me as oddly over-shaped by a kind of Cartesianism. Now I realize he knows NOTHING about modern European philosophy (confesses to not having understood a line of the two texts of Heidegger and Hegel he began reading 70 years ago). Even his references to Logical Positivism suggest ignorance of that tradition as well.
@@ItsameAlex the American intellectual bubble appears to me intensely closed off, like there is very little knowledge of anything outside of their anglophone box. The comical divide between the analyticial (anglo-saxon) and 'continental' philosophers is a prime example of this phenomenon.
Yeah. And in the same discussion he cites Chomsky's work on Cambodia as proof of this. Zizek thus proves his own inability to read and understand simple books before making statements about them.
If I might take it up, the rivalry between anarchists and state communists is long, but the central argument is whether or not authority or liberty leads to a better society. When it comes to the legacy of both anarchism and communism, obviously both have both their own set of facts to point to, and the debate will continue adnauseam. While the reality isn't fixed, just looking at the ethical landscape, I'm not sure there is an appetite for having a second Communist revival, while even conservative quislings are trying to co-opt anarchism.
Fascinating. I couldn't believe this was recent. It credits a talk in 2011. Of course these ideas are now riddled through the Anglo-Saxon world with "woke". But he ideantifies a problem with academia I felt myself but hadn't seen elsewhere. That pressure to have new ideas leads to criticism as an easy answer: Chomsky says: "It's not easy to come up with exciting new ideas. You have to come up with exciting ideas" "One of the ways to have exciting new ideas is to tear everything to shreds" "Rationality is a tool that you'd better have if you want to achieve anything." "If you give up on that you'll be an easy victim for any outside force". "In the United States it's mostly confined to comparative literature departments" Not anymore.
As a french anarchist intellectual, I had never seen things that way, I'll think about it. I'd like to know his clear references, though, is he talking Camus ? Sartre ? Bourdieu ? Deleuze ? Bazin ? Godard ? Léo Ferré ? Georges Brassens ? Jacques Brel (ok this one was Belgium).
@@johnsharman7262 Well naming french intellectuals wouldn't really elevate their importance, it's lot like Voltaire, Sartre, or Bourdieu are unknown lol. What would elevate the importance of Chomsky's analysis would be if he and/or how he does or doesn't differentiate the salons des Lumières (Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, etc.) from the french circles of Sartres, Camus, De Beauvoir, or the publications of Bourdieu, Bazin, Bensa... Your comment was quite demeaning, I was questioning what he defines as "bubbles".
The difference between French intellectuals and Chomsky's innate grammar is merely a difference between types of subjectivism. And, too, Chomsky pretends to understand subjectivity. French intellectuals confess honestly that they are confused.
@@cmo5150 But, of course, French intellectuals have style. Chomsky, not. You can't even imagine him sipping a Pernod at an outdoor cafe on the Champs Elysee and watching la femme stroll on by. He seems more like Inspector Clouseau.
@@Ranger1216 This is not a philosophy course, but especially Foucault has an immense influence on California Feminism and Levinas on California Effective Altruism. Then add in J.S. Mill and C.S. Peirce and you know why the world now finds itself in general pychosis.
it is funny how he says "forgotten in the West" in contrast to Paris. He clearly doesn't mean the West as geographical direction but political concept. That he excludes France from "the West" means the only thing he considers as "the West" is the anglophone World which is very American and arrogant in my view
Lit is my heart, Deleuze and Guattari help disable inane hierarchies and allow us all to at least envision, if not breath in, sweet anarchy. Some readers love complexity and enjoy being puzzled. It's a matter of taste, not truth or clarity. It's about finding the thought you aren't aware that you're thinking. But, we love Uncle Noam too, so it's all good.
This is me man. I love DnG, Nietzsche, Foucault, but I also admire Zizek and lacan, and on another hand i also see value in Chomsky and the anarchist tradition such as max stirner or Emma Goldman.
@@HybridHalfie I am shocked at Noam's philistinism toward the entire European philosophical tradition, but even more disillusioned by the realization that he cannot respond intellectually to Literature.
@@josepholeary3286 Some people see logic and rationality as religion. Its nietzsches critique of secular humanism that although claims tpo be atheist and not Christianity still holds the same values.
i dont know how true it was 50 years ago, but this seems quite far from the current truth. I'm not french, but french-speaking belgian studying philosophy for three years now, so i've had quite a bit of contact with the milieu
Tbh I don't remember what I had in mind exactly but I guess my impression was that it was quite open to the outside, there was little need to act as if France was 'still' leading in philosophy, logic and scientific thought was greatly respected and there werent many philosopher-stars demanding recognition from the masses, except maybe when it comes to mild social or political analysis
@@LeDingueDeJeuxVideos France historicaly didnt trust any countries. They've been a peaceful nation since the XIXe century, and yet were invaded many times (3 times by the Germans only). I would say that with the EU. France is much more open to the world that it was after the war.
Chomsky's an old dude. He's talking about his age-peers. If he started talking about the British Music Scene, I'd expect to hear about Donovan and the Beatles.
Joe Eoj i find Chomsky always difficult to understand, since he mumbles a lot. Unfortunately that discourages me to watch his talks so i miss out a lot. I activated the close captions, but those have mistakes where Chomsky is unintelligible, or hardly understandable. Nevertheless i tried the "add a translation" in the "..." pop-up menu, but got a "The video you requested isn't enabled for community contribution." So, PhilosophyInsights, how 'bout it? This way the French could get a translation of what he says about'em.
I'm not so sure about Chomsky's claim regarding french philosophers, I believe he might hold a grief against some of them (the most influential ones in the media during the 70's - 80's up to this date) that tried to make him look as an antisemit, what he's mostly known for here for the mainstream at least. His argument of the intellectuals being outside of the popular struggles and strikes is not true, Bourdieu, Bouteldja or the Pinçon-Charlot's couple are examples that contradicts him (for the last 30 years at least) and they're the first ones I thought about in like 2 seconds. Quite possibly I'm too young or too stupid to have all the datas or the analytic finesse he has to decipher everything but it lacks sources or names here. Maybe if some of the commenters here have books recommandation to go further I'd be glad to read them.
Ce type est un imbécile, finalement... après toute l'admiration qu'il a suscité dans la gauche française, cela en est comique! Il a dû avoir été fait cocu par quelqu'un de français, c'est pas possible autrement😅
@@lllool8404 I didn't need mr Chomsky to know how bad are the USA, but accoding to 'the patriot act' those who dirt the honnor of USA are not allowed on the US soil.So I also think that mr Chomsky has the right to write what he wants about France and french society and history , even a lot of lies as he uses to do, but it's just indecent to see him in France where he dares to come.
Good point on the argument that philosophers dissociate themselves with popular struggles by talking postmo french theory garbage. However, imo the thing about the non existence of truth does not come from french theory but from Nietzsche
etbadaboum Does add up. Never met a French person I haven’t liked though so my own experience says it’s because of an influential minority rather than anything in the French psyche. Is it a Paris thing - rather than a French thing?
Yep, it is the centralisation of everything in Paris (going on since the monarchy), that made up this monster insular culture. The french "intellectuals" (meaning the one that are just omnipresent on tv or radio), are all patented narcissists that are in love with their own legend : BHL, Finkielkraut ...etc The only one who measure up in terms of celebrity and who is trying to break the model is M. Omfray. He uses his popularity to fight the Parisians. He set a free popular philosophy university in Caen, he proposes a Prouddhonian reform of the power, which would be based on the collaboration of smaller communities around the country (a more federalist than autocratic approach if you wish). In any case it is going to be a while before the failed model breaks. Les habitudes ont la peau dure!
As a 45 year American resident of France I can tell you that Chomsky hit the nail on the head about French philosophers and French society which he considers as insular. Fortunately less now then when I arrived in 1977 and I didn't come here for any political affinity but for love. At that time 25 % of the population voted communist. Philosophers, as Chomsky said, were either Stalinists or Maoists. They peddled the theory that there were no absolute truths which led to generations lacking in determination other than demonstrating in the streets. The work ethic was considered as corrupted. The French public school system only reinforced this so called French cultural superiority or as I said each Frenchman had 3 or 4 differing opinions on one subject as they were taught philosophy in school and even had a subject to pass in the end of high school testing..Few people at that time had ventured outside of France other than to the east Block countries to see the marvels of communism. (Tourisme et Travail named at the time, (the Travel agency of the CGT Communist Union ) The younger generation especially those in tech are much more realists, connected, travelled and less politically oriented than the left or ultra left who still are locked into the notion of the class struggle as if they are locked in an 18th century revolutionary time warp and they are uber concerned with holding onto their state subsidized advantages which I may add are economically unsustainable in today's competitive world. Or as my former accountant once told me 40 years ago. "Don't try to change them as they never will." But I am in no way advocating for the rough and tough American style of capitalism. As far as being behind the curve, one only has to turn on the French television to hear how France is behind this or that country in innovation and entrepreneurship in spite of having a very competant educated workers pool.... Insular! Even today many French have serious difficulties to expand their vision beyond the hexagon. Taxation policies don't help to seed this vision. That's why Germany's medium size companies are more effective and present in the world than the French mid sizers. Thirty some years ago I heard an interview with a young French man who went to California looking for seed money for a start up. He was seeking 100K$. The response that he got was that the business angels wouldn't even talk to anyone asking for under 5 million. Thinking big can be difficult in France. I heard just the other day that Sarte once said on his return from the URSS that the russian people had total freedom. I guess so, in his mind when you are only allowed to see what they want you to see. But he didn't see!. I don't listen to French philosophers much as I come away as if I have just heard an exercise in indecisiveness and that is the last thing france needs but still permeates many levels of society. But hey!. I still love a good camembert with a baguette!
Has Noam Chomsky ever spoken loudly enough to not sound like he’s grumbling? Every time I try to listen to him, I lose patience because he seems to have no ability to speak with any volume and the recorders of his speech seem to mic him very quietly. His point of view would be interesting and I would be able to take it in more easily and attempt to understand if he would open his mouth and speak like he has a pair.
A bit unfair to France's intellectual history. Chomsky could have framed its objections to a specific philosophical (post-modernism and teh like) trend a bit better? Rationalism started in France with Decartes. Enlightenment took place in France first. Positivism was initiated by Comte. I don't know about the philosophical trajectory of Neo-positivism in France, however, they had Bachelard (ok, mildly relativist, but not irrationalist)... In the post-war they had Structuralism with Levi-Strauss (and Piaget, Swiss operating in French)... and Castoriadis would have agreed with Chomsky re. anti-stalinism. With Chosmky, I def. agree on teh critique of post-structuralism and on the primacy of struggles.
I honestly think this is Chomsky's weak point-he's still bitter that when he debated Foucault all those years ago, Foucault was subtler than him and drew attention to some of the weaknesses of his approach. And I love Chomsky. There's few others I trust more to give a clear, forensic and principled account of imperial struggle, for example. What Chomsky and others miss about the milieux he critiques here-which by the way contain many diverse and incompatible ideas, I love Deleuze, but no one will claim he is in line with Badiou-is their sincerity. It's the same thing that a reactionary like Jordan Peterson (himself a peddler of Jungian dragons and big words) also misses when complaining about "postmodernism". If someone like Derrida arrived at pessimistic statements concerning the nature and final accessibility of truth, it's not because his enquiry was insincere or his method failed. Put briefly, Chomsky like many others prefers not to dwell on things that are uncertain or change, falling to understand than uncertainty and change are themselves certain. But this kind of screed, in which he accuses willy-nilly a whole landscape of thinkers he hasn't read and doesn't understand of stubborn Stalinism ... it's lazy.
Chompsky says that in the western world, postmodernism does not do much harm, but in the third world, it doesn. However, he does not want to name names. Well, without naming names or getting into more specifics about what he is talking about, it is very hard to evaluate the truth of his staements. So it comes across as gross overgeneralizations.
As a former professional philosopher (now in tech), I 90% agree. They and the Franco-sphere over-values bad work. And in conferences are insufferable. They are paying for it with grossly misallocated scientific funding errors. As to where I disagree: The French did produce good late 20th century philosophers, such as Foucault, but they were prone to hyperbole or major errors (Latour) which Science Studies mainly recovered from. But repatriated anthropology and the bulk of critical theory were BS-generating industries. As far as the being behind, absolutely. Nothing was new in the economist Thomas Piketty’s book.
@@renzoqu ITER is a total failure (international, French lead). Because in the teens it was shown that fusion could work in something as small as a car and several companies and labs have produced net energy with smaller devices. The Ecole for Administration produces corrupt politicians. While France had a head start in avionics and molecular biology; you will not find leaders there AND France has been lapped many times in both fields by many especially the US. The mini-tel network was ahead of its time, but did not update to Internet Protocols and left you French in the dust. There is no science and I read the four best journals weekly where France has any ascendency or is even a significant player. Anthropology? No. And no area of culture: film, literature, cuisine, music, soap operas, comedy where France competes meaningfully internationally. Really it is just occasionally ahead of the pack in fascism having nearly elected the Front National. The US has problems but our technical elites are second only rarely. And while we have racial problems, we are far ahead when it comes to the creation of a peaceful multicultural society. As a society France is not cosmopolitan but deeply racist and insular too: Demanding payments from Haiti for slaveholders and taking them, billions of dollars, and the. abducting President Aristide. Le Monde silent until reached the international press. Le Monde at least in the 1990s covered French war crimes in the Congo on behalf of French mining interests leading to a WW death toll war which has not ended; and given the treatment of Morracans today, I have little hope that France given its over-investment in subpar anthropology has the social technology to integrate climate migrants. I blame the Ecole’s and French elites who think they can run an economy off luxury goods, inefficient agriculture and 1980s technology.
Die Art, wie Chomsky die französischen intellektuellen und Philosophen diskreditiert, finde ich etwas überheblich. Für mich war die Lektüre von Foucault, Derida, Levi Strauss, Guatari/Deleuze, Lacan anregend und eine Inspiration. Ich bin kein Philosophie Student, sondern ein interessierter Leser, der immer wieder versucht, sich seinen Reim auf die Welt zu machen, sein Verständnis für den Gang der Dinge zu erweitern. Natürlich stellt sich die Frage danach wie die Realität uns gegeben ist und ob es eine allgemeingültige Realität gibt - ich denke nicht, denn ich beobachte, wie sich meine Wahrnehmung der Realität immer wieder verändert.
das ändert nichts daran, dass es sich beim Geschreibsel dieser Autoren um neo-esoterischen pseudo-Intellektualismus handelt - die Beobachtungen, die von ihnen richtig wiedergegeben werden sind banal, ihre daraus gezogenen Ableitungen inkonsistent und uninformiert über die empirische Welt. Dieses verdrehte und verkürzte französische "Denken" hat die Universitäten zerstört.
Chomsky based a big part of his carrier to argue against the French Theory. Therefore, it's not a surprise to see him, once more, being negative about French Intellectuel sphere which respected in a lot of countries. His own anti-french sphere prevent him from seing other sphere than Paris mediatic-intellectuals that he call "French Intellectuals" , while they are brilliants philosophers and intellectuals who, about some topics, are probably way ahead on USA.
Needless to mention the little war between Chomsky and "French Intellectuals", as Chomsky saw France as a land of mission that he were not able to afford, France saw Chomsky as someone who has no respect for its intellectuals. When Chomsky co-signed a text with Faurisson (who is a Negationist), France banned him from its University. And it was the good decision, seeing these stereotyp and unrespectful Americans coming to France saying everyone is saying shit, you won't be welcomed. Seeing him being the same at such an advanded age, it's sad. Chomsky got wounded in his ego and looks like he doesn't want to ahead. Sadly for him and all the respect i have for the career he had, we (as a french) don't need Chosmky and his lack of respect in France. French intellectuals already told us what he said in his career, Bourdieu, Daniel Bensaid, Slavoj Zizek, Alain Badiou etc. All he said in his career was already known, but he could not see it because of the little war he had for his ego with some French Intellectuals. Maybe is it time to grow up Noam ?!
@@ktn13001 French philosophers should give up their obscure "continental" philosophy and submit to the facts and logic of the anglo-american analytic philosophy. Instead of useless topics like deconstruction etc. they should focus on real philosophical issues like the mind body problem, meta-ethics, philosophy of time, epistemology, onthology etc. just like anglophone philosophers. Stop.playing with fancy words, stop the fashionable nonsense. Clarity is the greatest virtue in philosophy. Obscurantism is a disease. Philosophy is about the taste of discovering the ideas around the world, not about talks about power structures etc. Give that topic to social scientists. French philosophy is almost like a side branch of political science. French people either sexualize or politicize everything.
A sharp insight not always that sharp : N. Chomsky doesn't mention the Situationists for example that France has rejected but he says how an actual intellectual must have in France to be "a media star". He is clever enough to ask a question : if the medias know that, why don't they "produce" their own intellectuals, their own so called philosophers ? And they do and that's France today : so many "philosophers" and so little philosophy.
Denis Vrain-Lucas (1818-1882) was a French forger who sold counterfeit letters and other documents to French manuscript collectors. Over 16 years Vrain-Lucas forged a total of 27,000 autographs, letters, and other documents from historical figures including Mary Magdalene, Cleopatra, Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate, Joan of Arc, Cleopatra, Cicero and Dante Alighieri He did a good job, French intellectuals fell for it “an masse” The thing was though, all these historical documents were written in 19 century French…
Bourdieu is my favourite. I'm a painter and I think a lot of my work has been influenced and inspired by his ideas. I found his work in a time when I was in a state of disillusionment, coming to terms with how the artist is viewed (valued) in society. Studying his work gave me new perspective on my role and gave me the drive to continue to pursue my interests. I often find myself pondering his theories on the different forms of capital, habitus and field, regularly in my daily life. I've taken to studying Sociology and French in university because I want to eventually be able to read and understand his works, particularly "Distinction" as he originally wrote them in French. Honestly, I've never felt anybody's writings so relevant to me since the Bible. I'm thankful for his work because it's turned me from just a guy who could draw and paint well into a being aware of the role of the artist in society and the importance of interesting oneself with intellectual pursuits as artist. It's given my work purpose and direction and I've learnt and grown as a person as well from studying his work. Much love and many blessings from South Africa 🇿🇦
Chomsky is the individual who pushes power in all its usage; he pushes the power of “the state” from his unclear, and self-stated “anarchism.” He pushes power in terms of his position as the chair of imagined linguists, faulty philosophy, and an infantile understanding of political theory. He pushes the rights of the “worker” in America, while never being one...apparently not understanding what a worker actually does or is, and not realizing the world Baudrillard talks about as being more relevant than his. He has discussed law and order as being central to his political view, the obedience to democracy, to the majority and the minority, as if this is what an anarchist should profess? Submission to the mob? So to hear his equating of someone like Baudrillard with power dynamics is just ohhh so like Chomsky; speaking for decades without actually saying anything.
What did Chumpsky achieve? Less than fkn antivaxxers and Donald Trump if you're talking about radical changes. But loads if you're talking about pushing conservative enlightenment ideology.
@@zeenuf00 yeah that was the level of argumentation I was expecting. Qualifying postmodernism as a whole of "irrational" is at best unfounded, but mostly likely dishonest, and the way he talks about its supposedly bad influence on third world countries intellectuals... patronizing.
There is some truth in what Chomsky is saying about French philosophers, although he exaggerates a bit when he characterizes their works overall as meaningless or arcane for the sake of being arcane. Yes, philosophers are almost like sports champions or rock stars in France in terms of popularity. It's the only place I know where one will define oneself as a philosopher because it has a powerful ring to it. French is a very very precise language and is most appropriate for describing the foundations and concepts of a given philosophical school of thought, and discussing its value in a very rational way that may sound as almost incomprehensible at first. However, once you delve into the text, and assimilate the lexicon, you realize it makes plenty of sense. One musn't forget that many great texts in philosophy were written in French first: we owe some of the greatest philosophical treaties to people like Descartes, Montesquieu, Rousseau and many others. The late 20th century French philosophers were influential in psychiatry and psychology, among other areas of application. On the other hand, there were too many philosophers in that period arguing about commas and periods whereas they were basically agreeing with one another.
In any country the philosophical intellectuals have big heads. They think about this or that and think above all that we listen to them to rebuild the world of tomorrow. The problem is there. The word bubble aptly describes their world isolated from real life. The darker the discourse, the more it deserves to be bothered. In France there is an expression for this: intellectual masturbation. This does not mean that all reflection is useless. The good idea is to reflect in order to move forward in a practical way.
An american saying that France is an extremely insular culture, and that everything is in France and nothing outside is important, is a bit funny. That could have been partially true in the past in some ‘parisian bubbles’. But Paris isn’t France, and that’s not even close to the truth. There are different science fields, math and many more that prove him wrong. The school programs and results nowadays may not be as good as they could be, but many international prizes have been awarded to french scientist. Nobel prizes (economy, physics, chemistry, medecine…) and the Fields medal are a few examples. For a small country that’s not too bad. And to be awarded that kind or recognition, you can not not be aware of what is happening in your field of expertise around the world. I do agree that many french think that the world revolves around France(again mostly in Paris)… but don’t this happens in almost all countries…? Edit: for an American speaking about Darwinism and that France was the last place to accept it… isn’t the theory of creation still teached today in many American schools? My guess is that French philosophers didn’t accept his theories and he’s still resentful. Like an heartbroken lover that finds his ex to be the worst person in the world…
This kind of nonsensical talk is what makes me loose respect for Chomsky - 10 minutes of he-said she-said unsubstantiated personal anecdotes without any intellectual inquiry into WHY? Very easy to condemn a culture of 60 million people saying that they got excited about stuff you yourself knew when you were 10 years old but without asking pertinent question about WHY you come across as someone without any intellectual curiosity. Logical positivism has put such heavy blinders over your eyes that you don't even admit possibility that there must be some reason - maybe even outside of your own comprehension (gasp!) - why certain ideas ignite spirits of people at different times in history.
This was very interesting to hear, particularly that it was a synchronicity with a debate I saw of him and Foucault, a french philosopher, it was filmed in 1971. Since I lived in Paris ten years I was always intrigued about the movie star of intellectuals on tv, as much as I was intrigued of their stubborn loyalty to Stalin and particularly Mao tze tung. In the debate with Chomsky , he siad something concerning politics, that it was was a good thing to have politics, law and order and Foucault got histerical and proudly quoted Mao´ś comment on such thing, with a quasi religious fantacism, when we were already reading the Gulag of Sholtsenitzyn in America. In this video Chomsky explains the french intelectual mentality very clearly as I saw it while I lived in france in the 80s.
Chomsky is the only person in the world who walks into a library and is told to be louder.
I bet you could tell a whole bunch of Chomsky intellectual jokes similar to the Chuck Norris badass jokes.
Hehe nice one
Not by me. I'd tell him to keep it down.
🤭, tal cual.
Not by me. But of course your fawning adulating comment will appeal to the cult of morons that gather in reverence before every rambling video of your guru.
Its like he lowers his voice proportionally to how much I raise my volume.
HAHA
Hahahaha
Lmao!!!
Thought it was just me
It's because his argument is weak
Coming from an American: "France is an extremely insular culture. Always has been. Everything is in France. Nothing is anywhere else.", this had me smiling.
Have you heard what Chomsky has said about his own country?! It should make you LOL!
@@themanwhosoldtheworld5350 spot on. He's not cnn right? When you're self critical, you are definitely the right to criticise others. Now, an observation from someone who is living in France currently. France is not an island, it is surrounded by UK, Belgium Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Spain. They know what is happening in the UK brexiter,Italian pm Georgia meloni etc... A Lot influenced by the culture of Europe and Arabia. The French people are self deprecative, thinking they're not the best but the smartest!
That just shows how insular he himself actually is. For what I know, French people are actually very curious and appreciative of other cultures and philosophies. They have a real fascination for Chinese and Japanese legacies.
@@Cloudyvi so true!
@@pikebishop8516 And yet, despite being surrounded by so many different cultures and being the birthplace of the father of modern philosophy some centuries before, they managed to confine themselves intellectually to their own brand of pompous pseudointellectualistic obscurantist pop for the most part of the previous century. For better or for worse (I say mostly the latter) we are still experiencing its legacy.
“French culture after the Second World War kind of has some strange characteristics.”
Understatement of the century lol.
“French culture after the Second World War kind of has some strange characteristics.”
French people post ww2: still wipe their aholes with their hands.
France has always been strange.
This is ironically a really Anglo-centrist view of the French Philosophy/Scientific scene of the 20th century. France didn't have *A* scene, but many different ones struggling with each others, as all countries. Saying "70s French intellectuals were Stalinists" period is grossly ignorant of the reality.
It's not really surprising that a neoliberal like Chomsky wants to sweep under the rug a whole generation of thinkers who publicly made him look fairly silly in debates. Labeling them all Stalinists just makes that easier.
He dislikes the idea that "there is no truth" because the meaninglessness of the statement directly points to the meaninglessness of his deeply held beliefs about morality and reality. When you have no real argument, you attack the popular perception of the idea instead of the idea itself. To say that "skepticism" is pointless might show a lack of understanding of what epistemology is, or propaganda for a certain political movement that relies on "true" morality.
I'm a French philosophy student and I can say that even though continental philosophy is strong in French universities indeed, logical positivism and analytic philosophy are actually widely spread in France nowadays, and a lot of famous and prestigious philosophers from prestigious French universities are analytic philosophers (claudine tiercelin of the college de france, vincent descombes, jacques bouveresse of the college de france, who's famous for pointing out how foucault's phylosophy is irrationnal, roger pouivet and so on)... For instance Derrida's philosophy is criticized a lot by French intellectuals, who say he's a fraud, whereas in America he's adored by loads and loads of intellectuals (as Chomsky says, comparative literature but not only). Here Chomsky talks formost of his speech about the 70s and 80s but things have changed a lot in France. For instance the idea of intellectual being "media stars" is not true at all anymore.
«even though continental philosophy is strong in French universities indeed, logical positivism and analytic philosophy are actually widely spread in France»
Isn't positivism a French philosophy originally anyway ?
nightingale hi! Could you point me towards any work in English where Bouveresse criticizes Foucault? Or anything against Derrida? I’ve been meaning to get into what deconstruction actually entails. So I could use some criticism.
Has critical realism reached France yet?
« the idea of intellectual being "media stars" is not true at all anymore » : I’m sorry to inform you that the so-called "philosophes", actually givers of opinions, or what we would call technically "media whores", are still very well around.
Bergson was already anticipating it in 1896
Who is Chomsky talking about? The "new philosophers" (BHL, Glucksman) or the post-structuralists (Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari)? Not the same thing. I would agree with him that French intellectuals tend to be insular (only "tend"), but the first statement of this interview ("the French intellectuals were the last dedicated Stalinists or Maoists") is rather surprising from him: he is just describing a fraction of French intellectuals. First, if French intellectuals were really that much insular as Chomsky says, why would they be "Stalinists", or "Maoists" or even Marxists instead of Proudhonists, Blanquists or even "Sartrists"? Or why would Foucault and Deleuze try to push Nietzsche into the middle of the French philosophical debate? Second, though the French Communist party emerged very strong politically from WWII, mostly because of the role of its militants in the French resistance, there was, in fact, a strong current of anti-stalinist intellectuals in France after the war: André Breton, Albert Camus, Jacques Prévert, Pierre Naville, Benjamin Péret, David Rousset, Daniel Guérin, Boris Vian, Guattari, just to name a few. Poets-singers, too: Georges Brassens, Léo Ferré, Georges Moustaki. It is not to honor them (many of them were openly anarchists, btw) to make such a broad (and frankly rather absurd) statement. This is the kind of statements used by the French far-right to try to discredit all leftist intellectuals.
Was also Castoriadis an anti-stalisnist?
@@stfnba Yes, we could add him and Guy Debord to that current. Many of them broadly identified themselves as libertarian socialists. Not a bubble.
Cause chomaky is an anti marxist shit lib
Pol Pot went to France to learn radio electronics, and came back to Cambodia a raving Stalinist.
I find it interesting that of all the French intellectuals in the 70s I started reading Henri Lefebvre "The Production of Space" first
ASMRChomsky
thats whta a tought! hahahahahahahhahahahahaha.... thats a good ASMR stuff
Wow, not at all for me! His voice is irritating, if anything, not soothing.
@@robertbrandywine Same here, so irritating I can’t listen even if I want to!! 😵💫😵💫
@@new_to_planet4424Gnome CHOMOmski.
The French gave the world revolution after revolution. With practices and theory to boot.
The US gave us globalised capitalism and few theorists with original ideas. Most of their intellectuals are heavily indebted and referential to other works, mostly of European origin.
Yeah, but a question remains. Were all of those ideas America inherited from europe ,even good ideas to begin with?
@@mrtone5284 An excellent question that a youtube comment would never approach in answering.
I'd argue good/bad depends on the goal (if a goal there is).
@@georgewash8926 Yeah, anything inherited is good. The baseline of something is always good considering they can be argued against, and the goal is generally insignificant...i mean, if you're serious :)
I wish only gypsies argued about who gets credit for ideas...we'd be much better off with the disposal of any serious credit for who invented the reuben sandwich, haha.
The French revolution was inspired by the American revolution. The US is one of the first nations to sprout from enlightenment ideas.
laughable
Foucault lived a long time in the US. I highly doubt that he didn’t know what American intellectuals were doing. What Norm would say about French intellectuals living in a bubble, on the contrary, could easily be used on American public. It’s very true in the 60s a lot of French intellectuals were communists, open and closeted.
They were intelligent communists such as the USA has never known.
I believe he actually had a debate w foucault.
I also genuinely didn't get his argument about the presence of Stalinism and Maoism in France this late being a sign of secularism. Of course when compared to the extremely anti-communist american societ, France will have more communist philosophers, that's in no way a sign of France's intellectuals being secular or "late" compared to the rest of the world
A bubble boy goes into a bar and starts mocking another bubble boy for living in a bubble. That's what happens when you don't use a mirror
Fact
So basically, he's saying that the French make themselves believe they discovered something even though Americans or other countries have known it for many years. I find that hard to believe, and very general. Maybe I didn't quite understand what he said.
equalism is a myth. Don't be heartbroken
he is absolutely correct and as a north african (judging by your name) you should be even more aware of their self aggrandising tendencies and obscene dismissal of everything that hasn't come from them
@ThaEzioAuditore As a North African, I say you're right. This video dates back to 5 years ago, but I somewhat always had my instincts telling me that most contemporary French philosophers say stupid things. Then I moved to London and was introduced to German, and English philosophers it was an epiphany for me...
Hi, the American Revolution says hello.
@Wandering_Owl I know its been a year, but I'm also from a country (and field) in which late french thinkers are the top dogs and we should comment on them. I pulled a "hell no" and went back to my main thinkers, i.e. phenomenologists, german idealism and sociology and Jesus Christ what a difference.
dude is still salty about that one debate with Foucault
I'm French, and I wouldn't be sure about Chomsky's other points, but I think he is partially mistaken when talking about "french intellectual superstars". There are a couple of them, and though they are taken seriously by some of the mainstream newpapers and medias, and a portion of the general public, they have basically no legitimacy in their respective academic fields.
That has nothing to do with the video, it's juts a reaction to your «There are a couple of them, and though they are taken seriously by some of the mainstream newpapers and medias, and a portion of the general public, they have basically no legitimacy in their respective academic fields.»
It's kind of a curse, don't you think ? Philosophical superstars have no legitimacy in their fields, but relevant philosophers in the said fields aren't known of the general public. That's a shame.
I mean, If you look inside the American intellectual sphere, you can safely make the same observation.
You know exactly the ones he’s talking about. And they are the ones you still study in school.
Such as?
@@maymadison3620 BHL, Onfray. They are not studied at all in schools
If you put this at 1.25x speed it actually seems perfectly normal
6:50
That literally sums up my scientific endeavors in my 3rd world country. I always craved to be a scientist or do work in research institutes. But when I finally got there all I've found was corruption, struggles of character and biased scientists keeping their pet theory alive at all costs. And I mean ALL COSTS. Even people who were clearly more brilliant, more open minded and better suited for the job had to leave the laboratory because they couldn't pursue in their scientific research because that would lead to clashes inside of the institution.
That completely undermines and destroys a country intellectual growth. All those "scientists" wanted here was a simple areola atop their heads so people would consider them an authority in their field. Few had noble, humble and open minded aspirations. Most were downright corrupt, condescending and egotistical.
What I eventually realized is that I was the one wrong. I was chasing a rainbow of sorts. I was chasing a mirage. Because I failed to realize that that scientists that inhabit a determined society cannot be so far off from the aspects of those society. If all you see is putrid behavior, ego and petty struggles, than all of that will be reflected in the scientific realm of that society. The Ivory Tower effect might be real, but the land where it stands stays it's foundations no matter what.
If this is of any reassurance to you, I'm a former physicist who worked in Switzerland and the US, and the same corruption you described is present and pushed me out of the field. It is VERY prevalent in the US where your worth as a researcher is measured solely by how much money you bring in. So you can imagine how there was very little science done. Politics, PR, and marketing are the name of the game.
@@phillustrator It saddens me greatly to know that the scientific method was developed in a world where there were absolute monarchies stemmed into a deep religious society.
Now we live in a secular society, yet science is at a peril. Borderline worthless papers, citation world, salami science and politics everywhere, from inside and outside laboratories/institutes.
Again, your experience is parallel to mine. A greedy society, such as the American one, cannot be disjointed from it's scientific culture.
But a couple of things to douse our misfortunes: Einstein himself wrote many times that he was tired of so many ass kissers and idiots circling him, with nothing of good to say. And the person with the highest IQ ever, allegedly, Marilyn von Savant also had the same comment. That most of the people who claim themselves to be expert, weren't actually intelligent, but just repeaters, parrots of some scientific bubble they lived in.
Be the individual
@@Draxis32I think one plausible explanations would be that scientists back in the day dedicated their lives to science because they truly wanted to understand how the Universe works. There were few patrons who sponsored only those who were brilliant and was passionate about what they were doing. These days, to be a scientist is like all other professions; there's not much intrigue and many researchers are downright corrupt as has been seen in multiple shocking cases lately. Academia needs a huge reform to stop these pseudo-scientists from taking over.
Unfortunately,its that way with most " systems " that were once NEW and innovative. after about 350 years they peter out to become an established way of thinking,like bureaucracy.
When this stage is reached there are only a lucky few left,who manage to produce some-
thing original,against all odds.
He's describing Paris Cultural Circles from the 70s/80s/90s. Things have changed a bit now.
Philosophy as a way of life is no longer a thing. We still study it at school, but mostly tangible concepts.
Can't tell if Chomsky is knowingly weaponizing this Foucaultian / post-structuralist / "historical" archaeology of French intellectualism or if he's somehow unfortunately unaware of the overt influence French intellectuals have had on the very rhetorical format he's using.
"France is an extremely insular culture, always has been. They think everything is in France - nothing is anywhere else." Chomsky's excellent mind is missing something here - e.g., Paris the heart of the Renaissance, absorbing foreign learning; Debussy's revolutionary adoption of gamelan music in the 1890s; Paris the magnet for Chopin, Stravinsky, others; Paris welcoming American jazz players; long relationship between cultures of Paris and middle and eastern Europe... Unless he's talking just about the (obviously) narrow field of philosophy.
@Gina Bean Quite desappointing to see him for who he is : un petit esprit! (et bien américain)
Would love to see a source for Chomsky's claims about French biologists.
I suspect he is referring to acceptance of the "modern synthesis" which would indeed coincide with the World War II era.
And if he's going to criticize the French for not accepting the modern synthesis in pre-World War II, you could probably make the same claims about American biology where Joseph Woodger's positivism and other influences led to some biologists to reject natural selection as a major cause of evolutionary change.
His attempt to take down French biology failed at the first hurdle, since he had to mention the esteemed name of Jacques Monod. He did not mention Edgar Morin, and I am sure there are many other great names that are unknown to him. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_biophysicists
@@josepholeary3286 The point wasn't that there are and were no great French biologists. You just don't get it.
It's just blather, like everything that comes out of his mouth.
Guess he's refering to the strong Lamarckean influence that slowed down this acceptance in France ? I mean that's what I've been taught (as a French student).
@@bobbyblanc_ I think you are right. By the way, the lamarckian reference was still very present in other parts of the world at least in the 1930s. It is the case for Latin America at least.
Chomsky just takes it for granted that anglo-saxon culture is the center of the universe. I met some American students at kartlstad's University in Sweden who did'nt even know where Paris was.
He said enough about anglo Saxon culture and intellectual spheres that a trial for ethnocentrism on a 8min video edit about the French intellectual field is not warranted.
@@ExquisiteIdea he is acting like something that is only popular in the german anglo-saxon world, logical positivism, "spread around the world". this supposed insularity really is his own anglo saxon ignorance, because he can not see that there are "islands" everywhere. france is not alone; russia, spain, italy etc. were similar. france's upper class is for the most part very outward looking, like america's.
i find the french intellectual attitude vile otherwise btw.
Yes! Anglo-American provincialism and insularity begin with failure to read in French and German, so that everything is borne on a breeze of distorted second-hand (mis)information. During the "theory boom" of the 1980s the trade in translations and doxographies created a ghastly caricature of European philosophy, which professors of Eng Lit and job applicants were expected to have mastered overnight. Then when the boom went out of fashion the postmod profs were left stranded, boring to their students and unwelcome to publishers.
@@josepholeary3286 You sound triggered lmfao
@@josepholeary3286 Dare I say you sound french
I can't comment on French biologists, but in the Christian world, French theologians and philosophers significantly impacted world-wide religious philosophy (Blondel, Ricouer), Thomism (Maritain), Patristics (De Lubac, Danielou), and spirituality (Peguy, Teilhard De Chardin) across Europe and the U.S. in the 20th century, and had either studied under or were continually reading/interacting with German philosophers and theologians (Hegel, Schleiermacher, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger). These French thinkers (especially Maritain) were widely read and translated, and many took up teaching positions at Harvard and Chicago, Oxford and Cambridge - or, welcomed foreign PhD students who brought French thought back home to their respective countries. In the 21st century, theological phenomenologists such as Henry, Chretien, Marion, etc. are also a part of this trans-continental conversation, again with many holding dual professorships in France and either the U.K. or U.S. I don't see the French as being a bubble or being too insular; they simply have an amazingly rich tradition, rooted in Catholicism, stretching back to the University of Paris and the Carolingian schools, which they continue to act out. What we perceive as a "bubble" is the actually the vast, echoey spaces, bathed in light, of Chartres, Notre Dame, and Amiens.
True, and a host of Dominican and Jesuit French theologians gave us Vatican II.
Interesting insights from Chomsky on the French bubble.
From his own bubble.
These are spaces with their own inherent logic, incomprehensible for outsiders.
There is a big difference between rightly pointing out that the French academic culture is pretty isolated (or even isolationist) and implying that as a consequence everything it delivers is either bollocks or has already been done decades earlier. As if there was no value in revisiting ideas, clarifying them and merging them with other original ones. I also wonder how much the spread of logical positivism, historically a German/Austrian tradition, "benefited" from loads of intellectuals from the region fleeing to the USA in the pre-war period.
French philosophers should give up their obscure "continental" philosophy and submit to the facts and logic of the anglo-american analytic philosophy. Instead of useless topics like deconstruction etc. they should focus on real philosophical issues like the mind body problem, meta-ethics, philosophy of time, epistemology, onthology etc. just like anglophone philosophers.
They should stop playing with fancy words, stop the fashionable nonsense. Clarity is the greatest virtue in philosophy. Obscurantism is a disease. Philosophy is about the taste of discovering the ideas around the world, not about talks about power structures etc. Give that topic to social scientists. French philosophy is almost like a side branch of political science. French people either sexualize or politicize everything.
@@freandwhickquest "real philosophical issues" -- that phrase breathes a naive and ahistorical fundamentalism and essentialism
@@josepholeary3286 empty headed leftists love to toss accusations like 'essentialism' around.
Whats logical positivism
@@freandwhickquest thank you for articulating my thoughts perfectly!!
It's a very true point of view when you look at it from 1980. Things have changed a lot since then and the philosophical landscape is much more diverse now.
i kind of get a kick out of chomsky's response to the french thinkers since he got put away by michel foucault back in the day... i like chomsky, but he is more than likely wrong that there is some magical template in every human's mind that allows languages...as foucault said, even if there were such an imaginary thing, isn't chomsky likely to define it in a way that favors his own culture? to this day, he seems to continue to try to put them down when they are no longer here to defend themselves. he strikes me as a wounded animal gone defensive when he talks about the French. (By the way, the idea that there is no absolute truth pre-dates the French...at least in Nietzsche, for example...absolutely false statement by the Chomster. it's an age old philosophical debate. Chomsky seems to side with the transcendentalist camp, the structuralists, the platonic world of ideal forms.)
Chomsky's talking is almost ASMR
Yeah but gross asmr
What does ASMR mean? Wont be this? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASMR
He was once completely out of his depth with a discussion with Foucault many decades ago, seems like he never got over it
What is funny is that the French critics of postivist science, like the one Foucault developed in that debate actually understand the positivism and position themselves against it while the positivists critic is the non-sense and weirdness of the french... which clearly shows that they actually don't understand it.
Really?
I saw the debate with Foucault. I found Foucault to be a very superficial trying very hard to be super "radical" while not being "radical" at all. The whole utter crap about Justice being irrelevant and it's all about "power" was amusing. If that is the case why bother with radical change at all it it is all about various gangs fighting for power? Of course the notion that "Justice" is meaningless and it is all about power is not in the slightest new it goes back to the Greeks just read Plato's Republic and what Thrasymachus says is "Justice".
To me Foucault struck me has an attention seeker trying to be a media star by saying controversial things.
@@makinapacal That's fair. I am no big fan of Foucault, although I do like his ideas on biopower. What I mean was Foucault was analysing and discussing concepts on a level beyond what Noam could engage with.
You have to admit that any notion of justice is inherently tied to the culture in question. Since Western civilisation is modelled on ancient Greece in some regards it's not strange that we would have similar notions of justice. In the middle of a communist revolution hanging the middle class is seen as justice, I guess Foucault sees culture as constructed and not an organic formation
@@Blandy0487 Foucault is not discussing concepts on a level beyond Chomsky instead he is articulating in a complicated philosophical like obfuscation a very conventional series of notions. One is a very dull cynicism that all that really matters is "power", and ideals are irrelevant and useless. That all that matters is who has "power".
It is a very common trope to say that ideals are useless, that concepts like "justice", "love" "decency" etc., are useless or mere disguises for the reality of a dog eat dog world and brutal self interest. Foucault was saying absolutely nothing new here but simply dressing it up in philosophical guise. If Foucault wants to see society as little more than groups fighting for "power" then he also subscribes to the notion of society has a war of all against all in which case why not support those who now have "power" over those who don't. All of Foucault's support for disadvantaged groups becomes quixotic in that they have less "power" than their opponents. Could it be that
Foucault actually supports those groups because their treatment is "unjust". Of course not?! Then why did he?
The notion that certain ideals are useless and meaningless against brute reality is simply nothing new. Foucault is NOT saying here anything new or brilliant. It is to repeat the same old, very old, dull cynicism.
As for Chomsky's views or the origins of society and culture. Of course culture is constructed - so? Chomsky did so also.
Then we get a dose of relativism. So in a Communist revolution "hanging" the middle class is seen as justice. Well then the following acts were "just".
The Holocaust was "just" because murdering Jews was seen as "just".
The Great Purge in Russia, 1936-1938, with at least 800,000 executions, millions sent to the Gulag, and mass torture is "just".
The Rwanda genocide of Tusi in1994 was "just".
In fact under this rubic any act carried out by State authorities, of murder, torture etc., is "just", because what is "just" is simply what those who have "power" say is "just".
Foucault should be "thanked" for providing to mass murders, torturers etc., a justification for their acts; after all "justice" is simply what the powerful say it is.
Oh and just what Communist Revolution tried to physically genocide the Middle Classes? The only one I can think of is the Khmer Rouge, but I guess what they did was "just", after all they had the power.
It sounds like Chomsky has inherited some of the Anglo-American anti-French bias that characterized the immediate postwar period in the academy. This probably also is rooted in his critique of structuralism, which enjoyed a real flourishing in France in the 1950's. A more direct confrontation with the details of this movement would be welcome.
I mean, Chomsky liked French enough to learn the language well enough to be able to respond (in English) to Foucault without a translator.
He's pissed because the French intellectuals of his time dedicated themselves to trying to make pedophilia legal (search "French petition against age of consent laws"), and because the French press slandered him (He's anti-Nazi but pro-freedom-of-speech, and wrote a little bit defending the legal right of a Holocaust denier. The French media published this without context to make it look like Chomsky himself was a Holocaust denier and refused to print his rebuttals wherein he said he was absolutely not a Holocaust denier).
@@wodediannao4577 Yes I'm familiar with the Faurisson affair. And Chomsky definitely had to deal with people like Vidal Naquet writing some false things about his involvement. I'm also aware of the debate around the age of consent laws in France, though I don't think Chomsky ever wrote about this. Still, despite the Faurisson affair, I don't get why Chomsky had to make such general claims about people like Kristeva or Derrida. He clearly never dealt with their work in any detail.
He's still smarting over his "debate" with Foucault.
This man can hold a grudge.
Foucault knowingly gave teenage male prostitutes AIDS. He was an evil human being, and the intellectual and moral cancer he spewed has caused untold damage.
I saw the debate and Foucault came across has a facile poseur trying to be more a radical than thou with it personality. His position was in many ways quite nihilistic. To Foucault it all seemed to be about getting power and nothing else. In which case it was simply two gangs of thugs fighting over turf. Of course if "power" is everywhere then the whole concept becomes meaningless.
I am not remotely interested in revolution or radical change if it is only about "power".
But it always start with power.
'Flaming Maoist' lol.
alfabravo80
Are you laughing because that's the best kind of Maoist?
Straight White Male Foucault, yes, of course.
But Sartre?
Straight White Male Foucault was a homosexual, yes, but not a Maoist
And Sartre was, at least for a time, a Maoist, but not a Homosexual.
I think you’re mixing the two up
Mike C I prefer maoist on flames
Sartre was heterosexual, many of his female students and de Beauvoir are a testimony. He just didn't like the intercourse.
As far as I know the French watch nearly every popular American tv show with dub and have one of the only stable markets for Japanese Manga in Europe. Now how many Americans even know les gendarmes de st tropez? How many Japanese people have even read one Astérix comic? There are a lot of people in France from their ex colonies and one of the most impressive tourism numbers in the world, and for the size of the country a stable international art market. Maybe they are weary of the vieuws of AngloSaxon intellectuals, mostly because you stereotype and insult them constantly?
Exactly. Spot on.
Clearly, Louis de Funès is the epitome of our culture. Shame on the American ppl for failing to know him.😌
@@v.d.6131 He is way better as a cultural export that Foucault and much more than Derrida, any day.
Chomsky is always brilliant and clear, however I think it would be fair to say, he is embedded/ orientated in the logical positivist/analytic school, and linguistic analysis informed by that.
Continental philosophy, following from Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and through existentialism to the French post modernists, has a very different topos, and France has a brilliant tradition in this regard.
French philosophers should give up their obscure "continental" philosophy and submit to the facts and logic of the anglo-american analytic philosophy. Instead of useless topics like deconstruction etc. they should focus on real philosophical issues like the mind body problem, meta-ethics, philosophy of time, epistemology, onthology etc. just like anglophone philosophers.
Stop.playing with fancy words, stop the fashionable nonsense. Clarity is the greatest virtue in philosophy. Obscurantism is a disease. Philosophy is about the taste of discovering the ideas around the world, not about talks about power structures etc. Give that topic to social scientists. French philosophy is almost like a side branch of political science. French people either sexualize or politicize everything.
@@freandwhickquest I’m French and I must say that the French cultural life does not reflect “French theory”.
There are many sources of information, on geopolitics for example (shows on France Culture or Le Monde Diplomatique, or Arrêt sur Images, or Le Dessous des Cartes), that inherit from the political and philosophical views of Russell, Orwell and Chomsky (I’m connecting them a bit superficially but...).
French politicians are also much more logical than what we can see in the US, religions and superstitions are absent from political debates, for example. The most influential thinker today is arguably the ecologist Jean-Marc Jancovici and he actually is an engineer, completely grounded on dry data and logical reasoning.
So the pictures is more complex than what Chomsky says, although it’s always pleasant to hear a frontal criticism of “French Theory”. Most sociologists, historians, philosophers I read and hear today are completely “no-nonsense”. Only psychology and arts still seem to be dominated by more “poetic” (...) ways of dealing with rationality.
Also at the time when “French Theory” was big there were many “new age” movements in the English speaking world that had very little reach in France. So the whole picture is full of subtleties.
... and rent a gob, Jordan Peterson is a cheap and popular caricature, not an intellectual, but an out of control gas bag that just doesn't know when to finish his sentence or where the full stop is . ⬅️
@@freandwhickquest Analytic philosophers always have to talk about these "big timeless problems" even tho their language and cultural-philosophic context provides the concepts that make it possible to formulate these questions and never reflect on the genealogy of anything ever. The mind-body problem is a pseudo-problem, all your analytic ontology is naive realist antropomorphisms (reality is structured like our thoughts and language, even tho my experience is a representation of another representation, analyzed and reformed into a specific vocabulary that could only exist due to specific events in this specific place on a specific giant ball of earth, which is then a representation of a beam of photons, which are on their own a representation of the surface of the object in question. Yeah but you know we can understand how these 'things-in-themselves' work) Analytic epistemology is pretty good tho.
absolutely
This is a very sad story. I remember watching for the very first time the famous video of the 70s debate with Michel Foucault. Is he still bitter about it? Is he still feeling the urge to come back to it? To give it "names" (incomprehensible, irrational, banal, insular, blah blah blah). After so many years? Very likely so. Already then Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky were each speaking in very distinct, incompatible languages. And Noam Chomsky unsurprisingly still does not understand a single bit of what he is so contemptuous about.... People like Noam Chomsky think that what they are so bitter about is "anything goes" --- when in fact it means "anything matters"...
Chomsky never had time to (1) learn French and German, (2) study the philosophers he dismisses, by reading them in French, (3) acquire the philosophical education that Sartre, Foucault, and Derrida took for granted, including a good understanding of Hegel and Heidegger, read in German
The whole description applies perfectly to Americans.
Yes, Chomsky is looking at France but is seeing America there. His conversations with Foucault long ago showed that he had not a clue. Whereas in France, Chomsky's views were intelligently and critically discussed (e.g. his fatal missteps on Cambodia in the late 1970s).
but not to the elite intellectuals of America. Whereas it DOES apply to the elite intellectuals of France. Equalism is a myth.
No it doesn't.
American intellectuals are superstars who are on the front page of the news? That's an odd take.
Except geography, and language and the historical sources of a culture and political power and its centuries of causes and outcomes yeah.... except those factors and maybe a few others yeah.😅
Chomsky also is living in his bubble, inevitably.
What About Albert Camus? Camus was anti-staliniste way before the discover of Soljenitsyne.
Oversimplification and false. See for a glimpse: www.dailymotion.com/video/x3a6uqe
For decades, people would say: Sartre or Camus?
in: www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/camus-and-sartre-friendship-troubled-by-ideological-feud-a-931969.html
Hannes Winter the real irony of it all is that much later in life, Sartre would actually abandon his Maoist tendencies and became something of an anarchist, and in essence follow in Camus’ footsteps
Oh poor, poor monsieur Derome... yes the French are always first and right about everything... lol
It is funny what one can read on those commentaries. A Nobel prize winer was a for sure an insignificant intellectual.
By the way, anybody can tell who was the author of the following: «What separates them from Marxism or Gaullism or any other movement they join is, first, in the words of an excellently informed English writer, that they never "seek to validate their reasoning by reference to fixed principles, and, second, that their revolution is never primarily directed against social or political conditions, but against the human condition as such. Courage, according to Malraux, challenges the human condition of mortality; freedom, according to Sartre, challenges the human condition of "being thrown into the world" (a notion he took over from Heidegger); and reason, according to Camus, challenges the human condition of having to live in the midst of absurdity.»?
Chomsky is not a philosopher. He is a critic of philosophy and a linguist. Philosophy is concept creation to aid us in understanding our experience and society etc. Giving words to what is not spoken about. Our experience is complex and maybe some people are happy to just leave things unspoken about, others seek to give them words. I am sure many people hear applauding Noam’s critique have never had the patience to read any of the writers. It’s only in conprehensible if you are lazy or quick to discard something as meaningless if it doesn’t immediately make sense. I had to read the first book I read by baudrillard very slowly and rereading things because I wasn’t use to thinking at that level of abstraction (something Noam fails to mention how French culture and the education those writers got trained them to think in abstract concepts from an early age)… but it was worth every minute of effort and it got easier as I moved on - no one else has philosophy that provides concepts that predicted and help understand the post internet world.
But Noam ISN'T the sort of person to quickly discard something if it doesn't immediately make sense. He wouldn't have gotten far in his career if he was a lazy thinker.
Logic positivism never achieved the desenvolvimentistas in Brazil.
Concerning the developing world and the archaic "anti-rational" discord and how that is a major distraction from reality and popular mobilisation, I have witness so much of this. In both Neoliberal wet dream Gulf states where pseudo-intellectuals are simply imitating western "anti-rationale" as it's in fashion, and French West Africa where French literature is simply being upheld as gold.
It's a double edged sword though for the simple fact that adopting enlightenment rationalism (which imo is as subjective and culturally specific worldview just like any other) effectively means adopting western thought and opens the door to western culture, at which point you have to fundamentally ask what is the point in resistance when you're tacitly taking in the fundamental philosophical foundations of the cultures that colonised you
@@nektarios5291 Yes, they should follow their own philosophies.
@@nektarios5291 Hmm, I don't know if it has to result in similar outcomes, one could adopt scientific thinking and use it much more radical to build more liveable civilizations. If they get rid of the pseudo sciences like neoliberal doctrines.
This is....a caricature. Read the french and not their critics. Then read the critics.
but not to the elite intellectuals of America. Whereas it DOES apply to the elite intellectuals of France. Equalism is a myth.
Come on Naom, living in America is like being surrounded by a one way mirror with the whole world looking in.
So true !
Doesn’t any Empire (or former Empire) think somehow that way?
@Fabien Gerard Definitely, I lived in the uk for years, and it's a wierd schizophrenic split between sycophantic America gazing and insistence that its the foremost country on Earth
As an American, I think we should close all foreign military bases and cease being the naval police force that guarantees safe, global overaeas shipping.
Seriously.
@zeenuf ye no one else has navies and there's no multilateral way of doing it, it just has to be the hegemonic preserve of thr US for its own benefit, the only other option is anarchy...
I am French, loving Chomy but could not give a toss about his view on French which define French pretty well giving you the finger first hand. French is rich & diverse intellectually & in constant battle to define itself. This notion of intellectualism elite representing need to go.
I have a feeling this is the problem with france. They can go to such lengths questioning their own worth that they actually can't really conclude what would be a good way to go in any point in time making their efforts meaningless and quite self destructive. The moment Foucault went into the area of rationalising having sex with children was a clear sign that french philosophy can go off the rails really fast.
I can't understand what he says in the last minute of the video. Does he want the Third World intellectuals to be like the French ones or not like the French ones?
Noam Chomsky trying his best to make friends with Jordan Peterson. Amazing.
The level of straw man fallacies on this small video is unreal and it hurts coming from such an interesting thinker on other topics.
No straw man fallacies here really. PoMos incursion into the philosophy of science and their nonsensical pseudoscientific babble driven by physics envy is nothing short of diarrhea of the pen.
I hope someday i will be able to listen to one Noam's videos without having to put my speakers on.😢
Mr Chomsky isn't wrong, but he talks about something that is in the past now, currently the bubble is still there but there is absolutely no trace of intellect.
hahahaha spot on
It's gotten worse since these 5 years have past 😂😂😂
You are wrong : Finkelkraut doesn't like Arabs, and Onfray believe in The End of Time. This is pure intellect.
@@Wandering_Owl oh dear! So much :,
The only time Sowell and Chomsky are in agreement
Every French intellectual: "The Bubble of American Intellectuals"
French culture is indeed ''insular'' but the same is real for the american one. And, yes, french ''intellectuals'' use a ''strange bubble'' which they call ''ideas'' but the same is true about the american ''intellectuals'' also. ''Bubble'' means ''they speak according to their national heritage and logic'' which is very obvious to them and in their language, but totally misunderstood or misinterpreting from others. Fowles wrote about these things in his book ''Wormholes''. Western World has to return to the Greeks and, above all, to reread Martin Luther's christian theology. Outside of these two bases, everything is without meaning.
Fowles Wormholes is a good book.
I love Chomsky. But I also think that it is not really useful to be completely dismissive of any philosophy. My primary experience was with analytic philosophy but reading people like Heidegger (who had a huge influence on Derrida and Merleau-Ponty), Guatarri and others have really expanded my horizons.
Check out what Gabriel Rockhill has to say about them, and how they became products sold by the theory industry
In the 70s I studied macroeconomics in the Netherlands. It was all about differential & difference equations, and constructing big models of 150 equations and more. The funny thing was that the model's predictions were always wrong. The solution to that problem was to add more equations...
So I ventured into philosophy of science, positivism, analytical philosophy, to figure out what went wrong in economics.
Many years later I neither believe in the scientific value of these big models, nor in the merits of logical positivism. It's all wrong. A science is not a set of indicative statements that are True, anti-science being statements that are False, and thinking + language being best described by mathematical logic. All this is wrong, pointless.
It irritates me beyond repair that these analytic philosophers always talk about language, but don't speak any foreign language and have no clue about linguistics.
They also talk endlessly about science, but don't know how science works.
They also make sweeping statements on philosophy of mind, but have no knowledge at all about how the brain works.
They're just juggling words.
Continental philosophy, Husserl, Heidegger, etc, is the same kind of word pudding.
Instead of being merely dismissive of French pomo idiocy, we should actively seek to destroy it with prejudice.
@@ernstraedecker6174 logical positivism works pretty well in the hard sciences. Economics is not in any way a hard science. It's a social science with a little math thrown in. Expand your horizons.
@@zeenuf00 It's a neo liberal ideology
The fact that the French were all "meh" about the Beatles proves they should be entirely ignored.
If you consider mediatic experts to be intellectuals then yes, it's all true. Nonetheless i find it astounding for such a great mind as Mr Chomsky's to deny the radical differences between the Anglo-saxon logical positivism and the French/Latin Rationalism (first theorized by Descartes). In that regard it is either doubtful that Mr Chomsky has ever consider Philosophy very seriously or that he as ever understand the substance of its work. Nevertheless, whatever he may qualifies as "irrationality" is in fact as rational as a thought can be, and whatever other comments found to be "muddy" and falsly profound actualy most of the time is quite simple to understand. But again, sorry anglo-saxon world not to have the exact same intellectual culture and history than you have, we just happen to be "others" (wich you apperently disregard to much to try and understand, even at the top academic level). On a side note, that very rational man found himself quite embarassed when the "irrational" Foucault urge him to answer the very simple question of what did he meant by "absolute good". Now sorry for my horrible english as it is not my native language, i realy hope you all (unlike Mr Chomsky) manage one day to go beyond the clichés about french philosophy for it is a interesting tradition and a even more entertaining, serious to your standards, ongoing process.
You English is very good.
Loved this comment
@@ggagga1312 Chomsky's mental landscape always struck me as oddly over-shaped by a kind of Cartesianism. Now I realize he knows NOTHING about modern European philosophy (confesses to not having understood a line of the two texts of Heidegger and Hegel he began reading 70 years ago). Even his references to Logical Positivism suggest ignorance of that tradition as well.
Does he say anything here that's substantial regarding the problems of French philosophy outside of attacking irrelevant cultural idiosyncrasies?
France as an insular sociaty. Have you ever heard of America or Britan. How does anyone take this guy seriously...
Noam is such an unintentional ASMR vibe
LOL. So true.
asmr?
In my experience the Americans live as much in their own bubble as the French do
but not to the elite intellectuals of America. Whereas it DOES apply to the elite intellectuals of France. Equalism is a myth.
@@ItsameAlex anglo-americans and american-)ews intelectual elite live in their own world of neoliberalism
@@ItsameAlex the American intellectual bubble appears to me intensely closed off, like there is very little knowledge of anything outside of their anglophone box. The comical divide between the analyticial (anglo-saxon) and 'continental' philosophers is a prime example of this phenomenon.
@@parkergiele Exactly.
Zizek: "You know for a strict empiricist, I have never known someone to be so often empirically wrong as Chomsky."
Yeah. And in the same discussion he cites Chomsky's work on Cambodia as proof of this. Zizek thus proves his own inability to read and understand simple books before making statements about them.
@@edwardjones2202 care to explain?
@@edwardjones2202 When I was in Paris in 1977-78 there was much consternation over Chomsky's views on Cambodia
If I might take it up, the rivalry between anarchists and state communists is long, but the central argument is whether or not authority or liberty leads to a better society. When it comes to the legacy of both anarchism and communism, obviously both have both their own set of facts to point to, and the debate will continue adnauseam. While the reality isn't fixed, just looking at the ethical landscape, I'm not sure there is an appetite for having a second Communist revival, while even conservative quislings are trying to co-opt anarchism.
Let me guess. That’s the end of the paragraph. Then he makes some opaque remark about psychoanalysis and popular culture.
Fascinating. I couldn't believe this was recent. It credits a talk in 2011. Of course these ideas are now riddled through the Anglo-Saxon world with "woke".
But he ideantifies a problem with academia I felt myself but hadn't seen elsewhere. That pressure to have new ideas leads to criticism as an easy answer:
Chomsky says:
"It's not easy to come up with exciting new ideas. You have to come up with exciting ideas"
"One of the ways to have exciting new ideas is to tear everything to shreds"
"Rationality is a tool that you'd better have if you want to achieve anything." "If you give up on that you'll be an easy victim for any outside force".
"In the United States it's mostly confined to comparative literature departments"
Not anymore.
As a french anarchist intellectual, I had never seen things that way, I'll think about it.
I'd like to know his clear references, though, is he talking Camus ? Sartre ? Bourdieu ? Deleuze ? Bazin ? Godard ? Léo Ferré ? Georges Brassens ? Jacques Brel (ok this one was Belgium).
To give them names would be to elevate their importance, no?
@@johnsharman7262 Well naming french intellectuals wouldn't really elevate their importance, it's lot like Voltaire, Sartre, or Bourdieu are unknown lol.
What would elevate the importance of Chomsky's analysis would be if he and/or how he does or doesn't differentiate the salons des Lumières (Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, etc.) from the french circles of Sartres, Camus, De Beauvoir, or the publications of Bourdieu, Bazin, Bensa...
Your comment was quite demeaning, I was questioning what he defines as "bubbles".
The difference between French intellectuals and Chomsky's innate grammar is merely a difference between types of subjectivism. And, too, Chomsky pretends to understand subjectivity. French intellectuals confess honestly that they are confused.
this couldn’t be more true
@@cmo5150 But, of course, French intellectuals have style. Chomsky, not. You can't even imagine him sipping a Pernod at an outdoor cafe on the Champs Elysee and watching la femme stroll on by. He seems more like Inspector Clouseau.
This couldn't be more wrong.
So, French intellectuals were all Stalinists or Maoists, but they also rejected anything that wasn't French? When did Stalin and Mao become French?
To be fair, some French philosophers interested themselves in Heidegger's Existentialism (Sartre) or in Husserl's Phenomenology (Levinas).
@@Ranger1216 This is not a philosophy course, but especially Foucault has an immense influence on California Feminism and Levinas on California Effective Altruism. Then add in J.S. Mill and C.S. Peirce and you know why the world now finds itself in general pychosis.
it is funny how he says "forgotten in the West" in contrast to Paris. He clearly doesn't mean the West as geographical direction but political concept. That he excludes France from "the West" means the only thing he considers as "the West" is the anglophone World which is very American and arrogant in my view
Lit is my heart, Deleuze and Guattari help disable inane hierarchies and allow us all to at least envision, if not breath in, sweet anarchy. Some readers love complexity and enjoy being puzzled. It's a matter of taste, not truth or clarity. It's about finding the thought you aren't aware that you're thinking. But, we love Uncle Noam too, so it's all good.
This is me man. I love DnG, Nietzsche, Foucault, but I also admire Zizek and lacan, and on another hand i also see value in Chomsky and the anarchist tradition such as max stirner or Emma Goldman.
@@HybridHalfie I am shocked at Noam's philistinism toward the entire European philosophical tradition, but even more disillusioned by the realization that he cannot respond intellectually to Literature.
@@josepholeary3286 Some people see logic and rationality as religion. Its nietzsches critique of secular humanism that although claims tpo be atheist and not Christianity still holds the same values.
i dont know how true it was 50 years ago, but this seems quite far from the current truth. I'm not french, but french-speaking belgian studying philosophy for three years now, so i've had quite a bit of contact with the milieu
Could you elaborate on this a little?
Elaborate please.
Tbh I don't remember what I had in mind exactly but I guess my impression was that it was quite open to the outside, there was little need to act as if France was 'still' leading in philosophy, logic and scientific thought was greatly respected and there werent many philosopher-stars demanding recognition from the masses, except maybe when it comes to mild social or political analysis
@@LeDingueDeJeuxVideos France historicaly didnt trust any countries. They've been a peaceful nation since the XIXe century, and yet were invaded many times (3 times by the Germans only).
I would say that with the EU. France is much more open to the world that it was after the war.
Chomsky's an old dude. He's talking about his age-peers. If he started talking about the British Music Scene, I'd expect to hear about Donovan and the Beatles.
volume too low
turn it up?
it's maxed out
Joe Eoj i find Chomsky always difficult to understand, since he mumbles a lot. Unfortunately that discourages me to watch his talks so i miss out a lot. I activated the close captions, but those have mistakes where Chomsky is unintelligible, or hardly understandable. Nevertheless i tried the "add a translation" in the "..." pop-up menu, but got a "The video you requested isn't enabled for community contribution." So, PhilosophyInsights, how 'bout it? This way the French could get a translation of what he says about'em.
Great channel mate
yep
I'm not so sure about Chomsky's claim regarding french philosophers, I believe he might hold a grief against some of them (the most influential ones in the media during the 70's - 80's up to this date) that tried to make him look as an antisemit, what he's mostly known for here for the mainstream at least.
His argument of the intellectuals being outside of the popular struggles and strikes is not true, Bourdieu, Bouteldja or the Pinçon-Charlot's couple are examples that contradicts him (for the last 30 years at least) and they're the first ones I thought about in like 2 seconds.
Quite possibly I'm too young or too stupid to have all the datas or the analytic finesse he has to decipher everything but it lacks sources or names here. Maybe if some of the commenters here have books recommandation to go further I'd be glad to read them.
Ce type est un imbécile, finalement... après toute l'admiration qu'il a suscité dans la gauche française, cela en est comique! Il a dû avoir été fait cocu par quelqu'un de français, c'est pas possible autrement😅
accusing the others to live in a bubble , from an american , is just hilarous.
He is very critical of his own country's culture and system too. You sound very triggered.
@@lllool8404 I didn't need mr Chomsky to know how bad are the USA, but accoding to 'the patriot act' those who dirt the honnor of USA are not allowed on the US soil.So I also think that mr Chomsky has the right to write what he wants about France and french society and history , even a lot of lies as he uses to do, but it's just indecent to see him in France where he dares to come.
@@renemichaelk hamburgers taste like shit.
but not to the elite intellectuals of America. Whereas it DOES apply to the elite intellectuals of France. Equalism is a myth.
Not others, the Frence.
Good point on the argument that philosophers dissociate themselves with popular struggles by talking postmo french theory garbage.
However, imo the thing about the non existence of truth does not come from french theory but from Nietzsche
I'm French. It's all true.
etbadaboum Does add up. Never met a French person I haven’t liked though so my own experience says it’s because of an influential minority rather than anything in the French psyche. Is it a Paris thing - rather than a French thing?
Yep, it is the centralisation of everything in Paris (going on since the monarchy), that made up this monster insular culture. The french "intellectuals" (meaning the one that are just omnipresent on tv or radio), are all patented narcissists that are in love with their own legend : BHL, Finkielkraut ...etc The only one who measure up in terms of celebrity and who is trying to break the model is M. Omfray. He uses his popularity to fight the Parisians. He set a free popular philosophy university in Caen, he proposes a Prouddhonian reform of the power, which would be based on the collaboration of smaller communities around the country (a more federalist than autocratic approach if you wish). In any case it is going to be a while before the failed model breaks. Les habitudes ont la peau dure!
foshou citron You're French but your English is perfect. Little miracles do happen :D
iemandmusic
;-) I am fighting the curse!
And how is your French, perfect too?
As a 45 year American resident of France I can tell you that Chomsky hit the nail on the head about French philosophers and French society which he considers as insular. Fortunately less now then when I arrived in 1977 and I didn't come here for any political affinity but for love. At that time 25 % of the population voted communist. Philosophers, as Chomsky said, were either Stalinists or Maoists. They peddled the theory that there were no absolute truths which led to generations lacking in determination other than demonstrating in the streets. The work ethic was considered as corrupted. The French public school system only reinforced this so called French cultural superiority or as I said each Frenchman had 3 or 4 differing opinions on one subject as they were taught philosophy in school and even had a subject to pass in the end of high school testing..Few people at that time had ventured outside of France other than to the east Block countries to see the marvels of communism. (Tourisme et Travail named at the time, (the Travel agency of the CGT Communist Union ) The younger generation especially those in tech are much more realists, connected, travelled and less politically oriented than the left or ultra left who still are locked into the notion of the class struggle as if they are locked in an 18th century revolutionary time warp and they are uber concerned with holding onto their state subsidized advantages which I may add are economically unsustainable in today's competitive world. Or as my former accountant once told me 40 years ago. "Don't try to change them as they never will." But I am in no way advocating for the rough and tough American style of capitalism. As far as being behind the curve, one only has to turn on the French television to hear how France is behind this or that country in innovation and entrepreneurship in spite of having a very competant educated workers pool.... Insular! Even today many French have serious difficulties to expand their vision beyond the hexagon. Taxation policies don't help to seed this vision. That's why Germany's medium size companies are more effective and present in the world than the French mid sizers.
Thirty some years ago I heard an interview with a young French man who went to California looking for seed money for a start up. He was seeking 100K$. The response that he got was that the business angels wouldn't even talk to anyone asking for under 5 million. Thinking big can be difficult in France.
I heard just the other day that Sarte once said on his return from the URSS that the russian people had total freedom. I guess so, in his mind when you are only allowed to see what they want you to see. But he didn't see!.
I don't listen to French philosophers much as I come away as if I have just heard an exercise in indecisiveness and that is the last thing france needs but still permeates many levels of society.
But hey!. I still love a good camembert with a baguette!
Pauvre gars ! Que fais-tu en France ? On n'a jamais retenu personne ! Retourne chez toi si c'est mieux !!!
@@Kalemegdan967 Faut se calmer un peu, il a le droit de répéter des poncifs de droite; d'accord ou pas c'est pas la peine d'être xénophobe non plus...
Another asshole here
Has Noam Chomsky ever spoken loudly enough to not sound like he’s grumbling? Every time I try to listen to him, I lose patience because he seems to have no ability to speak with any volume and the recorders of his speech seem to mic him very quietly. His point of view would be interesting and I would be able to take it in more easily and attempt to understand if he would open his mouth and speak like he has a pair.
A bit unfair to France's intellectual history. Chomsky could have framed its objections to a specific philosophical (post-modernism and teh like) trend a bit better? Rationalism started in France with Decartes. Enlightenment took place in France first. Positivism was initiated by Comte. I don't know about the philosophical trajectory of Neo-positivism in France, however, they had Bachelard (ok, mildly relativist, but not irrationalist)... In the post-war they had Structuralism with Levi-Strauss (and Piaget, Swiss operating in French)... and Castoriadis would have agreed with Chomsky re. anti-stalinism. With Chosmky, I def. agree on teh critique of post-structuralism and on the primacy of struggles.
Noam bong-ripped some flaming mao before this dank mumblerant
haha this mumblerant
I fucking love this comment
Inspector Clouseau has been assigned to investigate Chomsky for rationalizing subjectivism. "Is THIS what you call an idea, Professor?!
i studied in france 20 years ago and this brings back really bad memories
Nobody invited you
Why?
Hey. Can you maybe elaborate on that? Thanks in advance.
he can't because he's full of shit. also chomsky is being disingenuous here.
Chomsky is, at best, a 2nd rate scholar. I doubt if his fame will outlive him.
I honestly think this is Chomsky's weak point-he's still bitter that when he debated Foucault all those years ago, Foucault was subtler than him and drew attention to some of the weaknesses of his approach.
And I love Chomsky. There's few others I trust more to give a clear, forensic and principled account of imperial struggle, for example.
What Chomsky and others miss about the milieux he critiques here-which by the way contain many diverse and incompatible ideas, I love Deleuze, but no one will claim he is in line with Badiou-is their sincerity. It's the same thing that a reactionary like Jordan Peterson (himself a peddler of Jungian dragons and big words) also misses when complaining about "postmodernism".
If someone like Derrida arrived at pessimistic statements concerning the nature and final accessibility of truth, it's not because his enquiry was insincere or his method failed.
Put briefly, Chomsky like many others prefers not to dwell on things that are uncertain or change, falling to understand than uncertainty and change are themselves certain. But this kind of screed, in which he accuses willy-nilly a whole landscape of thinkers he hasn't read and doesn't understand of stubborn Stalinism ... it's lazy.
As a french i can confirm we all live in floating bubbles completely isolated from each other
Chomsky needs to also remember that he is also a celebrity in a country that has few on the left. He needs to stay on his point.
Noam with the noble laureate droppings...."my friend who happens to be a noble laureate" ha
Chompsky says that in the western world, postmodernism does not do much harm, but in the third world, it doesn. However, he does not want to name names. Well, without naming names or getting into more specifics about what he is talking about, it is very hard to evaluate the truth of his staements. So it comes across as gross overgeneralizations.
No, he says postmod has done great harm in the third world
He speaks like someone that you wake up at 2h00 after a few drinks.
I'm glad that finally someone brings this up; especially when it's a person like him, because at least he is listened to.
As a former professional philosopher (now in tech), I 90% agree.
They and the Franco-sphere over-values bad work. And in conferences are insufferable. They are paying for it with grossly misallocated scientific funding errors.
As to where I disagree: The French did produce good late 20th century philosophers, such as Foucault, but they were prone to hyperbole or major errors (Latour) which Science Studies mainly recovered from. But repatriated anthropology and the bulk of critical theory were BS-generating industries.
As far as the being behind, absolutely. Nothing was new in the economist Thomas Piketty’s book.
you came 40 year late guys. France is not that anymore.
@@renzoqu What is in Pikedy that wasn’t in Stieglitz or Krugman 25 years ago, except now more obvious?
@@renzoqu ITER is a total failure (international, French lead). Because in the teens it was shown that fusion could
work in something as small as a car and several companies and labs have produced net energy with smaller devices.
The Ecole for Administration produces corrupt politicians. While France had a head start in avionics and molecular biology; you will not find leaders there AND France has been lapped many times in both fields by many especially the US. The mini-tel network was ahead of its time, but did not update to Internet Protocols and left you French in the dust. There is no science and I read the four best journals weekly where France has any ascendency or is even a significant player. Anthropology? No. And no area of culture: film, literature, cuisine, music, soap operas, comedy where France competes meaningfully internationally. Really it is
just occasionally ahead of the pack in fascism having nearly elected the Front National. The US has problems but our technical elites are second only rarely. And while we have racial problems, we are far ahead when it comes to the creation of a peaceful multicultural society.
As a society France is not cosmopolitan but deeply racist and insular too: Demanding payments from Haiti for slaveholders and taking them, billions of dollars, and the. abducting President Aristide. Le Monde silent until reached the international press. Le Monde at least in the 1990s covered French war crimes in the Congo on behalf of French mining interests leading to a WW death toll war which has not ended; and given the treatment of Morracans today, I have little hope that France given its over-investment in subpar anthropology has the social technology to integrate climate migrants.
I blame the Ecole’s and French elites who think they can run an economy off luxury goods, inefficient agriculture and 1980s technology.
Are you sure? You can listen what you can hear
Die Art, wie Chomsky die französischen intellektuellen und Philosophen diskreditiert, finde ich etwas überheblich. Für mich war die Lektüre von Foucault, Derida, Levi Strauss, Guatari/Deleuze, Lacan anregend und eine Inspiration. Ich bin kein Philosophie Student, sondern ein interessierter Leser, der immer wieder versucht, sich seinen Reim auf die Welt zu machen, sein Verständnis für den Gang der Dinge zu erweitern. Natürlich stellt sich die Frage danach wie die Realität uns gegeben ist und ob es eine allgemeingültige Realität gibt - ich denke nicht, denn ich beobachte, wie sich meine Wahrnehmung der Realität immer wieder verändert.
das ändert nichts daran, dass es sich beim Geschreibsel dieser Autoren um neo-esoterischen pseudo-Intellektualismus handelt - die Beobachtungen, die von ihnen richtig wiedergegeben werden sind banal, ihre daraus gezogenen Ableitungen inkonsistent und uninformiert über die empirische Welt. Dieses verdrehte und verkürzte französische "Denken" hat die Universitäten zerstört.
He is talking about an era 50 years ago, you won't get any informations on today's french intelleuctuals from this video, so don't act like you do.
Chomsky based a big part of his carrier to argue against the French Theory. Therefore, it's not a surprise to see him, once more, being negative about French Intellectuel sphere which respected in a lot of countries. His own anti-french sphere prevent him from seing other sphere than Paris mediatic-intellectuals that he call "French Intellectuals" , while they are brilliants philosophers and intellectuals who, about some topics, are probably way ahead on USA.
Needless to mention the little war between Chomsky and "French Intellectuals", as Chomsky saw France as a land of mission that he were not able to afford, France saw Chomsky as someone who has no respect for its intellectuals. When Chomsky co-signed a text with Faurisson (who is a Negationist), France banned him from its University. And it was the good decision, seeing these stereotyp and unrespectful Americans coming to France saying everyone is saying shit, you won't be welcomed. Seeing him being the same at such an advanded age, it's sad. Chomsky got wounded in his ego and looks like he doesn't want to ahead.
Sadly for him and all the respect i have for the career he had, we (as a french) don't need Chosmky and his lack of respect in France. French intellectuals already told us what he said in his career, Bourdieu, Daniel Bensaid, Slavoj Zizek, Alain Badiou etc. All he said in his career was already known, but he could not see it because of the little war he had for his ego with some French Intellectuals.
Maybe is it time to grow up Noam ?!
@@ktn13001 French philosophers should give up their obscure "continental" philosophy and submit to the facts and logic of the anglo-american analytic philosophy. Instead of useless topics like deconstruction etc. they should focus on real philosophical issues like the mind body problem, meta-ethics, philosophy of time, epistemology, onthology etc. just like anglophone philosophers.
Stop.playing with fancy words, stop the fashionable nonsense. Clarity is the greatest virtue in philosophy. Obscurantism is a disease. Philosophy is about the taste of discovering the ideas around the world, not about talks about power structures etc. Give that topic to social scientists. French philosophy is almost like a side branch of political science. French people either sexualize or politicize everything.
@@freandwhickquest third time you've posted this nostrum, and it still makes no sense
A sharp insight not always that sharp : N. Chomsky doesn't mention the Situationists for example that France has rejected but he says how an actual intellectual must have in France to be "a media star". He is clever enough to ask a question : if the medias know that, why don't they "produce" their own intellectuals, their own so called philosophers ? And they do and that's France today : so many "philosophers" and so little philosophy.
Denis Vrain-Lucas (1818-1882) was a French forger who sold counterfeit letters and other documents to French manuscript collectors.
Over 16 years Vrain-Lucas forged a total of 27,000 autographs, letters, and other documents from historical figures including Mary Magdalene, Cleopatra, Judas Iscariot, Pontius Pilate, Joan of Arc, Cleopatra, Cicero and Dante Alighieri
He did a good job, French intellectuals fell for it “an masse”
The thing was though, all these historical documents were written in 19 century French…
Pierre Bourdieu is the biggest social scientist in my opinion. I learn about him and studied his theories while in business school in Paris …
?
@@MLouah-gp9ef ?
Bourdieu is my favourite. I'm a painter and I think a lot of my work has been influenced and inspired by his ideas. I found his work in a time when I was in a state of disillusionment, coming to terms with how the artist is viewed (valued) in society. Studying his work gave me new perspective on my role and gave me the drive to continue to pursue my interests. I often find myself pondering his theories on the different forms of capital, habitus and field, regularly in my daily life. I've taken to studying Sociology and French in university because I want to eventually be able to read and understand his works, particularly "Distinction" as he originally wrote them in French. Honestly, I've never felt anybody's writings so relevant to me since the Bible. I'm thankful for his work because it's turned me from just a guy who could draw and paint well into a being aware of the role of the artist in society and the importance of interesting oneself with intellectual pursuits as artist. It's given my work purpose and direction and I've learnt and grown as a person as well from studying his work. Much love and many blessings from South Africa 🇿🇦
Chomsky is the individual who pushes power in all its usage; he pushes the power of “the state” from his unclear, and self-stated “anarchism.” He pushes power in terms of his position as the chair of imagined linguists, faulty philosophy, and an infantile understanding of political theory. He pushes the rights of the “worker” in America, while never being one...apparently not understanding what a worker actually does or is, and not realizing the world Baudrillard talks about as being more relevant than his. He has discussed law and order as being central to his political view, the obedience to democracy, to the majority and the minority, as if this is what an anarchist should profess? Submission to the mob? So to hear his equating of someone like Baudrillard with power dynamics is just ohhh so like Chomsky; speaking for decades without actually saying anything.
Does anyone truly understand anything Baudrillard wrote? His work is impenetrable.
Spot on
"Rationality is a tool you better have if you want to achieve anything".....heh...understatement of the year :-)
What did Chumpsky achieve?
Less than fkn antivaxxers and Donald Trump if you're talking about radical changes.
But loads if you're talking about pushing conservative enlightenment ideology.
IMO more indicative of NC's own biases and/or lack of knowledge, and surprisingly crudely contemptuous... coming from a philosopher.
@@michelb9044 so rationality is bad? Explain please. In cleat language.
@@michelb9044 blah blah blaj
@@zeenuf00 yeah that was the level of argumentation I was expecting. Qualifying postmodernism as a whole of "irrational" is at best unfounded, but mostly likely dishonest, and the way he talks about its supposedly bad influence on third world countries intellectuals... patronizing.
There is some truth in what Chomsky is saying about French philosophers, although he exaggerates a bit when he characterizes their works overall as meaningless or arcane for the sake of being arcane. Yes, philosophers are almost like sports champions or rock stars in France in terms of popularity. It's the only place I know where one will define oneself as a philosopher because it has a powerful ring to it.
French is a very very precise language and is most appropriate for describing the foundations and concepts of a given philosophical school of thought, and discussing its value in a very rational way that may sound as almost incomprehensible at first. However, once you delve into the text, and assimilate the lexicon, you realize it makes plenty of sense. One musn't forget that many great texts in philosophy were written in French first: we owe some of the greatest philosophical treaties to people like Descartes, Montesquieu, Rousseau and many others. The late 20th century French philosophers were influential in psychiatry and psychology, among other areas of application.
On the other hand, there were too many philosophers in that period arguing about commas and periods whereas they were basically agreeing with one another.
In any country the philosophical intellectuals have big heads. They think about this or that and think above all that we listen to them to rebuild the world of tomorrow. The problem is there. The word bubble aptly describes their world isolated from real life. The darker the discourse, the more it deserves to be bothered.
In France there is an expression for this: intellectual masturbation.
This does not mean that all reflection is useless. The good idea is to reflect in order to move forward in a practical way.
An american saying that France is an extremely insular culture, and that everything is in France and nothing outside is important, is a bit funny. That could have been partially true in the past in some ‘parisian bubbles’. But Paris isn’t France, and that’s not even close to the truth. There are different science fields, math and many more that prove him wrong. The school programs and results nowadays may not be as good as they could be, but many international prizes have been awarded to french scientist. Nobel prizes (economy, physics, chemistry, medecine…) and the Fields medal are a few examples. For a small country that’s not too bad. And to be awarded that kind or recognition, you can not not be aware of what is happening in your field of expertise around the world. I do agree that many french think that the world revolves around France(again mostly in Paris)… but don’t this happens in almost all countries…?
Edit: for an American speaking about Darwinism and that France was the last place to accept it… isn’t the theory of creation still teached today in many American schools?
My guess is that French philosophers didn’t accept his theories and he’s still resentful. Like an heartbroken lover that finds his ex to be the worst person in the world…
Yes, his arguments were all prejudices because french philosophers expose his lies.
This kind of nonsensical talk is what makes me loose respect for Chomsky - 10 minutes of he-said she-said unsubstantiated personal anecdotes without any intellectual inquiry into WHY? Very easy to condemn a culture of 60 million people saying that they got excited about stuff you yourself knew when you were 10 years old but without asking pertinent question about WHY you come across as someone without any intellectual curiosity. Logical positivism has put such heavy blinders over your eyes that you don't even admit possibility that there must be some reason - maybe even outside of your own comprehension (gasp!) - why certain ideas ignite spirits of people at different times in history.
He did say why he think our spirits were ignited at a different time.
And he was (partially) correct (though overall incorrect).
The French understood Hegel and Heidegger, whom Chomsky gave up on after reading a few pages of each as a student.
On peut se demander aussi pourquoi il perd sont temps à parler de gens aussi insignifiants à ses yeux.
I can’t see how the French ignoring logical positivism is a ding on them, but…
00:37 who's the one Chomsky mentions here ? I couldn't hear him
This was very interesting to hear, particularly that it was a synchronicity with a debate I saw of him and Foucault, a french philosopher, it was filmed in 1971. Since I lived in Paris ten years I was always intrigued about the movie star of intellectuals on tv, as much as I was intrigued of their stubborn loyalty to Stalin and particularly Mao tze tung. In the debate with Chomsky , he siad something concerning politics, that it was was a good thing to have politics, law and order and Foucault got histerical and proudly quoted Mao´ś comment on such thing, with a quasi religious fantacism, when we were already reading the Gulag of Sholtsenitzyn in America. In this video Chomsky explains the french intelectual mentality very clearly as I saw it while I lived in france in the 80s.