Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Power vs Justice - Part 2 (1971)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 มิ.ย. 2022
- A few more clips of Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault discussing justice, power, and the notion of human nature in their famous 1971 debate. This is a version of an upload from the previous channel. The translation is my own and the audio has been improved.
The debate was about human nature and took place in November 1971 at the Eindhoven University of Technology, in the Nederlands, as part of the “International Philosophers Project” initiated by the Dutch Broadcasting Foundation and arranged by the Dutch philosopher Fons Elders, who was also the moderator.
Part 1 can be found here: • Chomsky-Foucault Debat...
#Philosophy #Chomsky #Foucault
This debate is very representative of the difference in perspectives and worldview between continental Europe and America
I don’t think so at all, it’s just representative of two different schools of thought or philosophies that might be more prominent in the corresponding nations, but at the same time there’s plenty of adherents of in each nation of opposing and alternate philosophies, pethaps it’s tempting to characterise it in this way because these philosophies had their intellectual roots in these nations c but I still think it’s inaccurate to characterise it European vs American.
@@Vgallo Here I have an impression that they are talking about completely different things. It's interesting to trace the origins of philosophical thought and traditions back to their geographical roots. Investigating them in the context of the general discourse and culture shaping them in one spot (like America) provides insight into history and politics of that place and it's unique ways. I'm not qualified to speak on this but this is why they have the term "continental philsophy" in opposition to "analytic philosophy" which was developed and is more popular in Britain and USA. Otherwise, I agree.
when both of your uncles are absolutely correct
We still relatively far away for have the perfect balance in what is right and what is wrong, is complicate humanity make the structure of society and we can't not change, in this world is simple, do the job and keep repeating the same principal act in are society, try to be better human, the More you can, we ready know is crazy acts in are society. Again the structure of are society is repiting it's self. Don't give me wrong fucault and Chomsky great inteligente people.... but I don't see something different or change..👍....🕊️❤️🌎
Nicely put! But I can’t help but lean towards Uncle Noam’s side. Any class struggle , or proletariat grab for power, is only justified by a pursuit of higher justice, even if (at this moment in the course of human social evolution) that higher justice is somewhat characterised by class systems that are currently in place.
I was waiting for Chomsky to ask Foucault to elaborate. Create that view of culture as both elastic and mostly toxic - the long view of history. Chomsky’s reactions would have been imminently quotable.
Chomsky dominates in the debate, leaving Foucault speechless. Foucault attempts to convey the idea that notions like heroism or goodness are subjective, which is clearly false, as a heroic act is perceived before being explained, thus occurring in reality and later being perceived and explained in words. Goodness is also something concrete that happens in reality: If I kick a dog in the street and claim that it's a good thing, wouldn't I be operating with a distorted notion of reality? According to Foucault, no, because everything is subjective, and thus, a cardboard box can be a refrigerator, although cardboard boxes do not cool food... How does that work? But is cooling food also subjective? Following this line of reasoning, we descend into madness, or the asylum, much like Foucault entered twice during his lifetime
@@rgs7885 While I agree with Noam, and diagree with Foucault, your explanation here...
"the idea that notions like heroism or goodness are subjective, which is clearly false, as a heroic act is perceived before being explained, thus occurring in reality and later being perceived and explained in words."
is totally false. Something perceived =/= objectivity. (For the principle, think of a mirage). As for the topic, goodness is indeed something concrete that happens in reality, as that type of thing that objectively occurs has been given the label "good." Foucault's mistake is thinking that, because the label is constructed, the concept is disempowered.
"Is kicking that dog good?" is a different type of question to "does this box cool food?" unless we all agree about what "good" is. Otherwise, you might as well be asking "Is kicking that dog green?"
Chomsky-There are such things as human decency and justice and they’re reflective of the essentially positive values that humans feel internally and strive to obtain within our institutions. And these values of justice and decency are appropriate goals for humanity to be working to try to perfect as much as that’s possible, while remaining open to the idea of evolving what our values and goals are based upon evidence that we will receive at future times while working to achieve these stated ends.
Foucault-Because we currently are and always have lived in a class society as humans, any value or any possible notion of what is right or wrong for humanity to try to strive towards that we know of at this point in our specie’s history cannot be used as a measuring stick or as a goal for humanity to work towards in any future classless society that we could ever try to commit to achieving, because of this supposed inability to transfer knowledge pertaining to our class based society and have it be applicable in a future classless society.
I hope that’s fair to both parties. Especially Foucault, who I am much less familiar with…That is a good summary of what Foucault was saying though, right? That’s what I got out of it.
Foucault's view seems more like "these notions of justice exist only to perpetuate class society. Any post-revolutionary society should not exist on the basis of such notions because there will be no need to justify class oppression".
In terms of their takes on those specific subjects id say yes, but I’ve also read very little of these two so I’m also only operating from info given in this video for the most part.
I found myself nodding much more along with Chomsky as someone who seems to be more grounded in reality; ideals are great but if there’s no path there then Focoult is ultimately just pontificating which isn’t really helpful to oppressed people IRL.
@@JustRightPinedo If anything I think that Chomsky's reformist approach to the concept of justice is the most idealist thing being presented here. A sort of dialectical process by which the social body of a society wrings out the contradictions in an acting system of justice in order to develop a pure concept in practice. However, from the perspective of peoples within a society that has shaped our 'ideals', how can we obtain the knowledge from which changes would lead to a better or purer justice in a system which fundamentally includes and requires inequalities or classes?
Foucault is arguing the people need to wage war on institutions precisely because justice is an immanent technique by the state, an act, from which the concept emerges an apparition. So too is war but its fundamental nature is to destroy completely its object, whereas justice as a process can only maintain the status quo--what it has always been meant to do. New concepts must be created to fulfill the promises of justice. The post-structuralists like Foucault or Deleuze often critique power but deconstruction isn't their fundamental goal. Its where we must start in a world where much of philosophy and particularly ethics, have been captured by the state for a long, long time. Deconstruction is the predicate for the creation of the truly new concept.
Focaults point is from Hegel ... the forces of history shape your moral stance. When he opposes this to Sartre idea of universal right and wrong Chomsky simply redefines a bunch of terms and ends up with a idealistic stance couched in legal this legal that jargon and focault looks frustrated
@@dannyslammy4379 I agree with your assessment on all that for the most part. I feel like Foucault seems like he’s more bewildered than frustrated, but, i do I think they’re both emoting bit of frustration with each other. I also don’t think that “ the forces of history shape all moral thinking” is Foucalt’s claim- it’s just a premise (a meaninglessly faulty one in my view also as it goes without saying-everything is shaped by the forces of history) that he uses to justify his claim concerning the lack of human ability to speak upon the nature future human institutions that will exist after a true communist revolution… the more I thought about what Foucault was saying the father away from having watchedthe video that I got, I think I understood his argument better and can see where it’s coming from at least. I just fundamentally disagree with it for an array of reasons based on the faulty premises concerning morality with which he constructed the argument… I agree with you that Chomsky clouds the issue with all the talk of legal standards and bullshit. It’s a pretty idealistic view based on how human institutions ought to function no way based on an analysis of what their functioning actually produces in the real world.
I think Chomsky’s a little too idealistic and Foucault is a little bit way too cynical.
What a spectacle this is! The pessimistic idealist and the optimistic pragmatist debating beautifully... Sublime stuff!
Delícia de debate. Foucault comendo os cantinhos das unhas de excitação e Chomsky no auge do Woody Allen.
ah well put. focault wouldnt admit that his pessimism was idealistic-- which was a measure of its bad faith/cynicism. when he abandoned justice as an invention of evil people, he could not think of any grounds on which to justify a revolution of the oppressed except in terms of power and violence, and thats probobly why he didnt care if it would turn into dictatorship. poor guy ideologically thought himself into a corner
@@hafty9975 🤯
@@hafty9975 no Foucault was literally saying exactly the opposite. It’s not that he doesn’t care if proletarian revolution ends up being bloody violent. He’s saying if things go wrong that way, it must be because a small group of proletariat has taken control(the Russian and China revolution for example)
@@hafty9975 no Foucault was literally saying exactly the opposite. It’s not that he doesn’t care if proletarian revolution ends up being bloody violent. He’s saying if things go wrong that way, it must be because a small group of proletariat has taken control(the Russian and China revolution for example)
At a very basic simplified level, Foucault is basically saying "you cannot use the master's tools to dismantle the master's house", no?
But in reality you can😂
@@ethics_academyif you plan to create another masters house sure. I think engels was right when talking about Robespierre. There is nothing more authoritarian than a revolution.
This definitely is an overdose of philosophy, you have gotten a new subscriber in me. I have a seminar on "power" in political theory at my uni tomorrow, maybe I will raise some of the points disscussed by these gentlemen when time comes.
Im also surprised that I understood a great deal of what Foucault was saying in french, even though im not so good at french. He is very articulate in his speach.
"Im also surprised that I understood a great deal of what Foucault was saying in french, even though im not so good at french. He is very articulate in his speach."
Be that as it may.
The late Peter Tosh said: "We do not want peace, we want justice".
Most French words used was English. Modern word's too. But Chomsky replies with the question at start. Maybe not to be misunderstood, but media was more honest then. These days you hear 0 about serious stuff going on.
Samee usually French speakers go so fast but I was shocked when I just tried and could keep up after not taking French for a few semesters
Oh my God! Seeing Michel Foucaul alive and moving is too much for me!
Really enjoyed the second part. I appreciate the points both were making, especially the diversity of thought here. I find that after watching both parts they could reconcile these opinions more with one another. There is great opportunity for further discussion here now that time has gone by and our thoughts may be less constrained by the circumstances of this time period.
Thank you so much for sharing this footage.
I think in this and the previous part Chomsky and Foucault talk past one another a fair amount- a fact that is nicely demonstrated by their speaking to one another in different languages
Foucault's point that our ideas and ideals with which we critique the status quo are (at least largely) contextually conditioned and thus bound up with the status quo we seek to critique is a cogent one- he may present it in too absolute a fashion but- to some degree at least it is undeniable.
Chomsky's point that we clearly have a sense of justice which is independent from the legal or instrumental instantiation of power is also clear and on point- this even to me follows from within Foucault's world view in that what is is always the product of pressures, perspectives and capacities and the amalgam of these things that makes up "the state" is perforce going to be different than the amalgam making up an "individual' or 'sub culture- as such there is no structural impossibility of critique, only of "objective" critique.... I feel like they could have gotten further by working together to restate there positions and untangle their different points..... As a result this feels more like drama than a debate.
but its good drama!
lol yeah I agree. I can't say I agree with Chomsky's perspective of their being some "absolute morality" that the state merely refuses to conform to - because the state is made up of and created by individuals who have that same notion of absolute morality. Morality is fundamentally shaped by incentives, and incentives aren't always as simple as selfish incentives - ideological incentives/motives are incredibly common across the political spectrum and frequently cause people to act not only against their own interest, but also against the interests of the majority. You don't need to be selfish to desire a certain power structure.
It is especially illuminating that Chomsky has since become a genocide denier - he is genuinely willing to deflect criticism of genocidal conflict because he ideologically favors one side. There is so much irony from this clip now because he genuinely believes that a socialist society could never do anything wrong - and in some format he still believes that, against all evidence. Chomsky believes genocide is okay, if done for the "right reasons".
Not saying Foucault wasn't a freak either - but at least he was philosophically consistent.
In Foucault and Chomsky, I see a couple of commies that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Exchanging trivialities.
@@svalbard01 great!
@@ThorfinnMacbeth I mean, this was known long ago. On 20 December 1973, the Wall Street Journal quoted Wallace Sayre as saying: "Academic politics is the most vicious and bitter form of politics, because the stakes are so low."
@@svalbard01 hah, thats a really good line! ...Although was that intended to apply to academics discussing politics or politics *within* academia? (I get that you think both).... As for me, im not particularly interested in academics discussing politics per se (to the extent this debate is about political action I find it quaint)... I AM interested in what academics have to say about the structure and limitations of thought and discourse and at the most broad what they have to say about the 'nature of things' doesn't mean i agree with what they say- but i find (almost any) discussion interesting on those terms.
Such a heart-touching and thought-provoking debate is taking place with such a wonderfully reserved admiration for each other!
Admiration for each other? No, respect for the right of each to speak? Yes. Foucault defends an indefensible point, pure subjectivism: The sky isn't blue because blue is subjective; if I call the car a refrigerator, I won't be wrong because that's also subjective. Heroism, courage, goodness, all subjective. He doesn't believe in an ideal of justice but believes that his ideas are just. It's hilarious and borders on the insane. The funny thing is that he ended up in the psychiatric hospital twice.
I just want to throw into the conversation ... I really like cheeseburgers. Always have. Especially when the cheese melts real good over the burger so that when I bite into it the ensuing taste is really good, burger-like, and delicious.
so real
I’m so proud of me. I am really happy of be able to tout compris en anglais ou français. Being a Brazilian man. Thank you for the opportunity. Merci beaucoup ! Grazie mille! Muchas Gracias! Danke! Muito obrigado!
calm down boss
I'm Norwegian, I'm proud that I have read at least 20 books about the Brazilian state of Acre.
Chomsky's laugh when Foucault brings up Spinoza is cute.
Muito, muito bom! Esse canal me chegar aqui no Brasil, onde vivemos, em 2022, uma crise civilizacional!
Vai Brasil
E o mais legal é ver como os ideais de sociedade de cada um estão igualmente presentes aqui, e isso torna um debate como o deles ainda mais difícil pra gente
Muito top esse debate
they both make their points, no real surprises if you're somewhat familiar with their writings, I just think it's funny that Foucault is so determined to undermine any universal basis for militant action that Chomsky's comfortable humanism begins to slide towards an apology of revolutionary violence and terror
this is awesome
Amazing!
Chomsky puts merit in the abstract ideal that somehow existing beyond ones own perspective and facticity. Focualt realizes the ideal doesn't exist
The entire debate.
Foucault makes a well thought out point.
Chomsky: I disagree ( doesn't explain why): proceeds to ramble about unrelated things, and redefines all of his previous terms.
The discussion appears to reify terms such as 'legality,' 'justice,' and 'better' without contextual definitions. These terms serve as a cover for essentially metaphysical moral constructs rather than quantifiable states of affairs. Then, those terms are being used to justify preferential and arbitrary roadmaps that often circle back to themselves (for example, 'to attain justice, we must do X'). These roadmaps are implied to fit into a vague framework of validity that neither party cares to define or even acknowledge.
Chomsky's' vaulting idealism about a "just" society is charming but an atypical example of an American value system not shared around the world, something Faucault points out brilliantly by quoting Spinoza ( 7:40 ). Obviously, American style Democracy gets us no closer to a peaceful, purposeful and just social order on this planet... but that's another story :)
Chomsky quite reasonably says that just societies or « more just » societies can take the place of less just societies. He is right to keep that « charming « notion in the debate, otherwise what’s the point? You wouldn’t want to see the proletariat rise up and make an even more bloody and more unjust society just for the sake of revolution, I hope.
@@geoycs as Foucault points out, the proletariat would not really have achieved power if they were able to turn it against themselves- that's a contradiction as far as proletarian revolution is concerned. This essentially boils down to the reform vs. revolution debate. Ironically much of the reforms put forth today would fall well short of Chomsky's ideal while their proponents share his same conviction. In practice reform ends up as constantly shifting goal posts. Foucault's approach is more straight forward in my estimation: seize power (and your blueprint for society will likely change after)
@@riahmatic
Because Chomsky happens to be right and Foucault is essentially arguing in a historically idealistic manner. If there is no "grounding" or "absolute" basis then the "proletariat" by definition cannot be "oppressed." The problem is that Foucault says everything is socially constructed (something Marx never did and was very careful never to do) but simultaneously makes assumptions that, if we were to say were "socially constructed" would be tautological.
In an extreme example, most humans would say picking up a newborn baby and bashing his brains out would be "immoral" or "bad" or however you'd wish to characterize it. Foucault would have to argue that our horror at it is entirely socially constructed. I think he has it upside down: We are intrinsically disgusted by such an act but we may be, in certain instances, be socially indoctrinated to "look away" or excuse it in some manner. That isn't the same thing.
Will we ever see this kind of elevated public discourse again? I hope so. I can't look forward to a world run by Kari Lakes.
No! Next philosophical debate would be who twerks better on stage of the 2. The Pessimistic idealist or Optimistic pragmatic ;-)
Clearly the answer is deez nutz
Yes why not. Rollercoasters go up and down. We may be in a down but there is no reason it cant go up again.
If you consider this elevated discourse you’ve been duped.
@@omara6292 what would be one ?
I’d have loved to hear more of Foucault, and was slightly peeved by the way Chomsky interjected immediately after a sentence.
To me, Foucault was operating on a structural level that needed a lot more fleshing out while Chomsky operated within the confines of the contemporary Western political structure.
Would love to hear a version of this where they establish their paradigms individually before sparring, if it exists.
Good
Foucault is arguing in the realm of philosophical ideals, whereas Chomsky is arguing in the realm of human experience.
Think Foucault would tell you it's the other way around: he's arguing that the proletarian revolution or social transformation cannot / should not be justified by philosophical ideals (the ideal of justice, for example), which is precisely what Chomsky is arguing must be the case.
Foucault has a more Nietzschean basis that´s why he always denies any kind of inherent truth, in the other hand Chomsky has a more teleological way of thinking because he is already identified with anarchosindicalism. Both of them have great takes based on their own way of thinking, for example what I think is an excellent argument made by Foucault is the one about the fragility of the concept of justice, and how this kind of concepts can be miss used to impose an absolute not only by the current force in power but by the next one too in case of a revolution happens, leaving the basis of the same mistakes that have lead to the problems that we are facing now. But I still think that Chomsky has a better approximation on how the praxis is done, not just by the intellectuals but the ones in power too, and even if it can seems more teleological and more of an idealistically point of view, it is way more practical. But still this is what it is a great debate.
Yes. Foucault is a deluded continental philosopher, that went into solipsist nihilism in his post-structural thinking. His philosophy is basically a negation of all tradition and values, but of all science (because science is also cultural) and knowledge. That’s why it’s solipsistic. Chomsky comes from the anglo-saxonic empirical tradition in the form of analytical language philosophy derived from, mostly, Wittgenstein II.
philosophical ideals are a realm of human experience
I think exactly the opposite. Chomsky looks a little bit naive in his willing to find in an idealistic idea of "justice" or "human nature" principles that can organise society, while Foucault is trying to explain how, in the real world, these ideas are a part of an existing society and can't be isolated from their functions as justifications of power. (Sorry for the bad English)
I'm using this video as a sorbet to clear the palate after listening to one of our former president's rallies.
I believe the following excerpt is why some people say "communism has never been tried', and why so many social discussions and issues seem so intractable. Any violent, dictatorial and bloody power on the part of the proletariat is justified. And if any of those 'powers' continue to be exerted on the 'proletariat', then it isn't really the proletariat that is exerting them. If x assaults y, it is justified. But if x assaults x, it was actually y that exerted the assault, and not x.
‘When the proletariat takes power it may well be that the proletariat exerts itself, regarding the class over which it has triumphed, and exerts a violent, dictatorial, and even bloody power. I don’t see what objections can be made against this possibility. But if you ask me what would happen if the proletariat exerted this bloody, tyrannical, and unjust power toward itself, the same proletariat, then I’d say that it could only happen if the proletariat had not really taken power, but that some class outside the proletariat or group of people inside the proletariat or bureaucracy, or traces of the bourgeois had seized power.’
8:40 great reply
Within the jaws of the land
from the little that i understand, foucaults point that our
definition of "just" may be skewed by its conception in an obviously
unjust world seems like its diametrically opposed to chomkys perception
that there is an obvious, ideal justice that we can already establish or
define. it's such a strange stilted debate, because they don't seem to respond directly to eachother. it doesn't help that he keeps using a personal "legal" as opposed to what the state considers "legal" which is confusing, and not very concrete since what a personal "legal" could mean might differ wildly from one person to another, which again presupposes that there is an objectively just "legal" that he already knows. it seems like two wildly different worldviews, chomksys that there is an ideal justice that we can already define concretely and we should make steps towards it, and foucaults that it's arbitrary(?) and our perception of justice is based on one's position in the totem pole
I think Chomsky is missing Foucault's point completely and I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that he's a linguist - and grammarian - and thus thinks about language in a completely different way than Foucault does. As a linguist Chomsky tried to arrive at some universal formula on which grammar works (generative grammar) that would be applicable for every language that has ever existed - basically trying to find that "god's particle" of where language comes from. So him believing that there must be some core universal maxims that are inherent to human nature is not surprising.
But Foucault's philosophy is based around the language meaning. He holds the opinion that language shapes the way we think - in other words, it allows us to think only about things that we have a language for. Therefore he believes that a system built upon the language of oppressive society will always end up recreating the oppression in one way or another because the ideas of oppression will always be ingrained in the language used and inseminated through those words. So for a society to not repeat this vicious circle, an entire new language would have to evolve to enable a new way of thinking. Basically, our notion of justice is based on something that's been defined by our ancestors as such to cater to their values and reward the adherence to them and punish those that act outside of those values, and though our values have shifted quite a bit since, it will always be a tool of oppression because it has been used to oppress and thus that the possibility of oppression is already attached to it.
Just to give a random concrete example: you have the often cited example from the Bible about homosexuality. If the idea of homosexuality doesn't exist, it cannot be used to identify and persecute homosexuals, but because the idea does exist, it now carries with it the risk that it will be used to oppress them. That's what Foucault's arguing. Whereas Chomsky is saying that in an ideal justice system set up based on some abstract human maxim of decency rather than somebody's interpretation of the Bible, persecuting homosexuals would not happen... but to Foucault the idea of the persecution exists and thus the possibility. In other words Chomsky is a bit naive.
The major difference here is that Foucault can't use specific, historically grounded examples. He is using a Marxist hypothetical the whole time. Chomsky (and this is why he is so good) will often root his answers in specifics and historical context. Either way, a really enjoyable discussion.
Foucault’s writings are loaded with historically accurate examples. He mentioned the institutions of psychiatry and university as examples in part1 of the debate. The justice system can be seen as a similar example that he didn’t elaborate on
Foucault’s writings are loaded with historically accurate examples. He mentioned the institutions of psychiatry and university as examples in part1 of the debate. The justice system can be seen as a similar example that he didn’t elaborate on
Foucault ‘s writing was all about historicity of our concepts, which was rooted from his analysis on histories of societies, ideas, and institutions. He may not using specific example in this debate, but to say he can’t use specific examples to justify his argument is an unfair accusation. In fact, Chomsky, if you watched other debates, has stressed the ideal concept of human nature, which he admits that he can’t put it into words.
everything chomsky argues is rooted in the idea that there is some universal concept of things like decency, justice, etc. different cultures and individuals have very different concepts of these things, most importantly they can be dynamic based on the context of any given situation. is it "decent" to kill someone that is suffering horribly? also his idea that he considers something "legal" that the state considers "illegal" is playing definitional word games with the concept of legality. legality comes from law, which comes from the state. you can consider something wrong, immoral, unjust, or whatever - but that doesn't make it "legal" in any way that makes sense in commonly understood language. it seems like the wrong terminology, and i am not sure why he seems intent on continuing to use those phrases.
@Great Saharuminati by imagining a system that is universally just I think we get into a different argument. What is a system that is universally just? Who defines what is universally just? Is justice more about balance, harmony or unity? If the world was in universal/absolute harmony, balance and/or unity then a sense of justice could not exist. Nothing would be just of unjust, it would simply be.
@Great Saharuminati I think that arguing for universal morality is more of a religious argument than a rational one. Plato isn't a good citation - he's an absolutely ancient and massively debunked philosopher who is more important historically than for legitimate discourse.
Plato believed in all sorts of weird crazy shit, because his was a philosophy that thought that anything logically consistent had to be true. The ancient Greeks were so impressed by their study of what is now basic geometry, it became a religious cult and they thought that merely being right about some things meant they were implicitly right to extrapolate to others irregardless of real observations.
I mean, Freud is obsolete yet historically significant to psychiatry, and he isn't even close to being as outdated as Plato.
@Great Saharuminati How are you saying that it's more just? By what metric? You only know that it's 'more just' by checking how close it is to some conception of absolute justice. Without that, there is no metric to say something is better or worse. But people have different ideas on what that absolute justice may be, as even you seem to admit. Yet you seem to imply that we can still move towards 'better' even without that standard. How does that work? How do you know it's better sans a standard?
I also got hung up on "he considers something "legal" that the state considers "illegal". For a linguist, I thought he could have made this more clear.
His justification seems to depend on making international law supersede national law, which is an odd argument for someone wary of centralized power.
from the little that i understand, foucaults point in pt 1 that our definition of "just" may be skewed by its conception in an obviously unjust world seems like its diametrically opposed to chomkys perception that there is an obvious, ideal justice that we can already establish or know. i agree with foucault
It's crazy how this debate depends much on each part's conception of society: Chomsky, coming from a comunitarist, fragmented north-american society can see room for changing thoughts and ways of conducting it; whereas Foucault, from a universalist and republican point of view, has his own critiques working for the maintenance of societal opression by defending that our ideals make any change impossible.
Here in Brazil, where these two views and structures are equally present, this debate becomes even more important and complex.
Is it, though? lol I wouldn't call Bolsonaro a "complex" figure in the same way I wouldn't call Trump or Marine La Pen. I don't think Foucault or Chomsky would really disagree on much about recent Brazilian politics. The leading political party is Brazil is the antithesis of both their views.
Brazil is just not unique in this regard - I can make the same criticism of most countries right now. Chomsky is an activist (and a dubious one at that), while Foucault is a genuinely accepted philosopher (who also has dubious morals, but to his credit his ideas aren't meant to be moralistic). Foucault's work focuses on how power works in historical and contemporary societies, while Chomsky fervently believes in a specific set of moral ideals and works to impress them upon others.
That's why they're arguing past each other - Foucault's argument doesn't imply morality, while Chomsky is basing his argument entirely based on his own morality as being transcendent or leading/closer to ideal.
@@monsieurdorgat6864 totally agree with you about how they end up talking past each other, but not totally about Bolsonaro. Of course, individually he's not a complex figure, but he represents the synthesis of the collision of these two conceptions - not the antithesis. The rise of a political party like his (not only in Brazil, but in Latin America as a whole) is the result of the absence of fruitful political debate and the lack of seriousness our media deals with this subject, and that is partially due to the way our republic's structure is antithetic to our societal organization.
No country os exactly unique in their political situation in our globalized era, but Brazil represents the mechanics that have been ruling latin america for many, many years.
@@luccascomitre1429 I guess I'm trying to understand what "equal sides" of Chomsky versus Foucault's understanding you're referring to? My point is that neither of them represent the majority party in Brazil right now, so they'd be equal parts within the minority party? They'd both just call Bolsonaro's party fascist lol.
So we've established that their collision is that Chomsky believes that properly tuned communist morality could never do wrong, while Foucault implies that all power structures are self-preserving at all costs by nature, and I'm trying to understand what "synthesis of this collision" (a phrase I might require more explanation for) relates to contemporary Brazilian politics besides what they'd universally agree upon - that we're all getting fucked by corporate corruption and the fascist political parties they support.
Foucault doesn’t think change is not possible. He’s arguing that the “platonic”/Christian tradition of change is “Will of power” disguised as good intentions. Something similar to Nietzsche.
Actually Foucault proposed that all criminal charges should be suppressed (penal abolitionism), as well as we should reconstruct our conception of madness and sexuality since it’s all cultural created.
Habermas once asked Foucault: “how can you legitimize your speech if you deligitimize everyone’s else? How can you say that your theory is not only “Will to power” disguised as intellectual deconstruction?”
That question left Foucault silent and raging, because Foucault can’t explain why his ideas and morals and “truer” than those given by society.
"I don't agree with that!"🤣
Foucault has such clear French
Justice is always there, but the matter is whether leaders want to follow or not
True !!!
Philosophy Overdose,
Thank you very much for uploading this discussion.
It seems to me that Foucault neglects the intellect that can tame the subconscious's destructive tendencies. Moreover, he seems to project his apparently sinister nature onto the rest of mankind.
Foucault's ideas are only useful, I think, as destructive tools to show the weaknesses of the current systems to be improved. They do not offer any constructive alternatives.
People who propagate his ideas beyond the realm of intellectual discussions at universities just frighten people who have to work several jobs to pay their bills and have neither the intelligence nor the education nor the energy to follow these highly sophisticated arguments: They drive these people into the hands of populists.
The assertion about the working people is not condescending: How many people who are not philosophy majors can follow these arguments? Even if you have some knowledge of philosophy, who could follow these discussions after a hard day's work, exhausted and in need of regeneration to be able to do the same thing the next day again?
I think to this Foucault might say that you cannot you cannot separate the intellect from the "subconscious" (although I think he would prefer to avoid the term subconscious). Whenever we think about anything we cannot escape the language and the logic of our society. The idea that the intellect could tame our culture's destructive tendencies, overlooks the fact that these tendencies constrain and inform the intellect in the first place. Foucault's perspective may be complicated, disheartening and exhausting, but it is better than the alternative, which is naïve ignorance. To overcome any problem we must first have a clear picture of what the problem is, even if this reveals it to be intimidating and seemingly insurmountable.
But yes, I think it's certainly a fair criticism to say that Foucault's thinking falls short in terms of a practical politics. But we can't expect him to have solved everything on his own. What is clear is that we cannot ever construct an effective practical politics without fulling confronting Foucault. To simply dismiss or dumb down his critique would be to sabotage our attempts before we've even started.
@@themovingkitchen5238well said
I don't see the problem people in the comment section are having with what Foucault is saying. While I'm certainly leaning more towards Chomskys approach here, I find Foucault position fascinating. What he is saying, basically, is that in a classless society, there would be no further need for a justice system. At least not like we know it today.
He's redefining justice as 2 separate forms which are arbitrarily completely distinct from one another. I imagine he takes this position to reject current claims of justice as something to ignore in order to further a war to end classed society. As Chomsky rightly points out this is merely smuggling in a current conception of justice, namely the premise that in the face of class oppression the only just action is the destruction of a class system. A stupid premise, but nonetheless a claim to justice. Sure, conceptions of justice may be different in a classless society but that doesn't mean that all current conceptions and implementations of justice are unjust by nature, only represent the interests of one class over another, etc.. Such an idea means Foucault must reject Foucault's idea for being an appeal to justice from a position that he claims can make no such claims.
It’s such a complete and groundless speculation. What exactly is a “classless society”? How would it work? Would a barista at Starbucks make as much as a software engineer or a doctor? I certainly wouldn’t want to live in that kind of society. I worked my butt off with school and when I develop software and I expect to be compensated for that just as I expect my Neurologist or the guy who did surgery on my spine to be compensated for their years of study and performing stressful complex jobs. Even the earliest Hunter gatherer tribes that we know of, dating back to the Late Pleistocene before farming and culture, even those tribes had people with different status (I.e., class). So for one thing before you make a claim that a classless society won’t need a justice system you need to define what a classless society exactly is. And even once you do that, it seems a stretch to claim no system of justice would be needed. Again, even Hunter gatherers that predate culture had tribal norms and punishment for those who violated them. In addition, we know that there is a small section of the population called sociopaths who (quite likely due to an abnormality in their genome) feel no remorse or compassion and will be drawn to crime even in a perfectly just or classless society.
@@michaeldebellis4202 if everyone's house is big enough and up date cars are all affordable no matter da name clothes so and so you wouldn't have to worry about your quality of life because you would have and he da Starbucks worker wouldn't have to worry his quality of life because he would have it .
@@michaeldebellis4202 Closest example of classless society would be your relationship with your coworkers as independent contractors whom you must pay negotiated price vs your employees whom you pay average pay for their profession set by other employers like you. Similar to artisan to artisam relationship until slavery came to the picture. In second case you hire people only if you can steal part of their salary and enforce the status quo via government. This is how class society works.
@@michaeldebellis4202 You have sold your soul to the toxic notion of meritocracy to such a degree that persuasion would find no purchase. I have my doubts about the
“worked my butt off” claim; my butt is still intact, yet through privilege and luck I have obtained greater income than you, I assure you my house is bigger, my cars are faster, my partner is better looking than yours, and my kids are far superior. Shall we get out the measuring stick? I’m afraid you’ll lose, my friend. Frankly, your vision of society strikes me as sociopathic, hopefully it’s more a case of you being insincere or misinformed. Concerning sociopathy, there may be some genes that increase the risk of acquiring such behavior, but environment is the more determinative factor. Furthermore, hunter-gatherers may have had some social stratification, but they were egalitarian, effectively lacking class hierarchies.
it seems like the fundimental conflict in the argument comes from the argument of subjectivism and objectivism. Foucault believes that the ideals we have come from some sort of a subjective experience which is often from the authority, meanwhile chomsky believes that the morality which comes from the subjective experience has some common similarities in a universal ideal which leads it to be objectively wrong or right. This argument im sure would be made for the system of science as well as morality between those two. Which in a sense, they are both right. Maybe because we believe subjectivity and objectivity in such oppasites that we believe that its contradicting to subjectify an objective information or vice versa. In reality, our experiences, have objectivities, since for our own experiences, its the objective experience which is experimental and fundementally coming from the nature of reality. This would mean that the subjectivity in itself is objective, and objectivity can be in itself subjective since we all include our limited perspectives as observers in an unknown reality. So in a way, subjectivity and objectivity are a part of each other, theyre not oppasites, they dont have to be oppasites.
I smoke weed and watch this like a boxing match... amazing stuff!
... a belated BRAVO Chomsky!!!
French Revolution vs. English Revolution
Does Chomsky understand French and Foucalt English? Or do they have some sort of translator in their ear? I don't see any such device so I'm confused lol
Chomsky understood French very well at that time in his career, and Foucalt understood English. This is quite common in European countries, where speakers can engage with their neighbors, each in their own language, and still understand one another.
Chomsky is a genius 👏
I disagree with your statement. Also, I think the personality cult is futile and sterile for any discussion, it says zero about the idolized personality and a lot about the idolater.
Foucault keeps insisting that all notions of "justice" are formed from within the current class system so they must be overthrown. However, he doesn't seem to see that all the notions he prefers are also formed within the same system - class, power, war etc etc
Maybe "class"... but, power and war? I would say that they existed pretty much in the so-called pre-societal state or human life. Rousseau, though, would disagree with that. At least at the most primitive stage of that state.
I think Foucault acknowledges your point when he says (earlier in the debate on another vid in this channel) that he doesn't feel confident proposing the form of an ideal society (Chomsky proposes anarcho-syndicalism) precisely because F. is not an exception to the power dynamics he describes.
@@Kharisma1980 Fair enough, but why does F propose 'war'? If he's not an exception to the power dynamics, then isn't he simply enacting the power dynamics he despises? Or is he just proposing violent chaos as a better alternative to the current system?
Foucault un vrai “gangster” who practiced a lot of maniacal, less acceptable attitudes in the area of sex, pederasty, pedophilia, who overspeeds about le proletariat but yet he exhales a foul smell of burgeoisie and protection of the higher classes…
@@Karmazinov22grave digging this comment because you never got a reply.
Foucault seems to be separating notions of power from notions of justice/evaluation/morality. The power is “real” to the extent that one class experts power over another. Justice/evaluation/morality follows from power: those in power define justice.
Further, Foucault argues that if the proletariat takes power, it will not yield such power against itself (he argues that if the proletariat does use power against the proletariat, then the ruling “proletariat” is not actually the proletariat.) The justice/evaluation/morality of the proletarian dictatorship is not knowable until the proletariat takes power
Falsafah banyak diperlekehkan sebagai satu aliran berbentuk teori dan ideologi kemasyarakatan dari barat (westernisation)yang memperjuangkan cita-cita masyarakat tertentu dalam membentuk semula masyarakat ideal daripada pelbagai sudut seperti politik, ekonomi, perundangan, pendidikan dan beberapa hal lain sambil mengenepikan ajaran agama, bahkan, orang Malaysia harus ingat! Bahwa zaman kegemilangan Islam sendiri dibangunkan dengan ‘konsep dan nilai hak asasi manusia’ (universal human values) yang mana sehingga sekarang konsep itu sama sekali tak berlawanan sepertimana dinyatakan hukum-hukum Tuhan di dalam kitab-kitab suci seperti Quran, Hebrew Bible dan Rig Veda.
Namun, masyarakat dalam Melayu tak tahu bahwa falsafah dan agama sendiri memang ‘parallel’ antara satu sama lain. Falsafah bererti, “philo” (Cinta - Love) dan “sophy” (Hikmah - Wisdom).
Apabila kita teliti semula, zaman abad ke-21, ramai kalangan orang-orang “Islam” dalam bahasa Arab bererti “submission”, sudah berada dalam keadaan terkebelakang dengan bangsa-bangsa sejagat yang lain - dalam banyak aspek terutama dalam “perkembangan bidang sains & teknologi”
- dalam menyediakan ketamadunan yang mementingkan maruah seorang individu - bagi menghadapi ‘unexpected’ masa hadapan - penyediaan serta pelangsungan idea dan penciptaan sesuatu untuk tingkatkan “quality of life” adalah suatu aspek yang orang-orang Islam leka serta bangsa Melayu kurang mengambil berat lagi.
Bahkan , dalam Quran mengajak kita ‘berfikir’ secara intelektual (logik akal, etika, punca sebab, epistimologi) bagi meneliti seluruh alam - bukannya percaya kepada amalan “taghut” dan mengikuti pemimpin-pemimpin yang kurang cerdik atau ahli-ahli kitab menjual menyumpah ayat-ayat suci Quran demi kepentingan politik.
Does Chomsky understand French or has the video been edited to take out the translation?
Interestingly enough, he doesn't claim to be bilingual. He did, however, possess enough French knowledge to not need a translator for this debate, and apparently his Hebrew is better than his French.
Of the world
Maybe i missed something but I wish Chomsky had provided his definition of the terms “justice” and “decency.” In the end, I see some kind of emotionalism and rationalism permeating but not affecting each other - a somewhat predictable outcome of a synthetism of oil and water.
If you understood Wittgenstein II you would know why Chomsky can’t offer a “definition” of Justice. Because Justice is a language game, and therefore it can’t be defined, but only “played”. That means: we are stuck in Da-Sein (human world) temporality, therefore all human abstract concepts are relative (because of time), but at the same time some of them can be general to human spieces (like the need for certainty or Justice). No one can define Justice, but no one can’t deny Justice has practical implications (without being an irresponsible nihilist like Foucault) that are needed by every human society. This is a pragmatic approach.
The theory has to suit the World, not the World the theory.
No one can* deny
The synthesism of emotionalism and rationalism is not "oil and water", it is the the essence of being human.
I feel like Foucault is arguing that the ideal state would align legality in the face of a core definition of justice because the dynamic construction of people and social class should be guided by an idealized justice and other idealized big notions despite the fact that, to Foucault, there is no essential human nature or essential justice. Even if there were, the actions of humans and power systems would prevent us from reaching essential unless we can define the ideal.
Chomsky seems to be saying that there is essential nature or essential justice and because we are called to act legally by multiple, contradictory power structures we just have to act within the best version of justice we can regardless of where it comes from. In that we should examine the situation with an eye toward the most justice for the most oppressed people in the system and essential justice will begin to emerge from pragmatic solutions despite the social constructions we have experienced.
Perhaps the core question disagreement is Foucault wants a system built from the ground up to be the most just it can be while Chomsky is arguing waiting to act is more injust than making an imperfect decision.
Addendum: Foucault I thunk misses something else in his viewing of the proletariat as a singular entity who, when in power, have been coopted by those constructed before the rise to power. The act of war and a counter reaction to reactionaries and hold out is going to construct new people and institutions. Even if every person enters the revolution as a pure being with intiial connected knowledge of the ideal justice or ideal system, coordinating a revolution will create logistic networks, spy organizations, tribunals, shape those who enact violence (justified or not), and more. The dynamics of funding will create labels and labels will create subclasses and subcastes until we end up with sliding scales of those who rule and those who are ruled. This is inevitable.
I think he has a point that a full on class war OR even nonviolent social movements are more likely to be caused by those who don't have something(money, stability, power, justice, reduction of historic guilt) now and reach a critical mass of being able to unite for the sole purpose of getting more of that thing. What I mean is its not really acting altruistically but acting selfishly with a hope that a better world for least one person (the self on a metric of their own devising) and maybe a better world for a a subclass of people (the worker, the disabled, national or racial groups[even if we would prefer to be raceless and nationless, we have to account for those who prefer race or nation], or even small labels like Teachers or Psychiatrists).
There are values and principles that we carry through millennials (Justice, Love, Freedom, Fraternity, Equality etc..) and trying to build a new system based on these values is not an idealisation, it's what make us human. Foucault vision of society is so pragmatic and desincarnating. It's not the individuals who have to conform to the ruling class, but each one of us who need to see in the same direction, for the sake of humanity. We are all responsibles of each other.
there are certainly such universal values, but the thing is, they are deeply personal, spiritual, and cannot be imposed on an individual by any society, however just this society imagines itself to be. Because they cease to be universal when exercised by a society, and become a matter of vague interpretation and coercion of individuals into "common good" as understood by a few chosen ones. These values do not have a politically correct definition and are understood by everyone in a personal way. That is why there is a law that defines what is simply legal and what is simply illegal, and not an "administrative state" of "communal values" and "rules based order" that assumes a role of parenting, as Sunstein wants it. To force people to adhere to universal values is in fact forcing people to adhere to a specific UNDERSTANDING of these values, not to the values themselves. That is why Foucault is right when he says that understanding of such universal values strongly depends on what class understands them and understands how they should be applied. There is a song by a Soviet dissident singer-songwriter, Aleksandr Galich, which goes: "People, do not fear hunger, imprisonment, contagion or poverty - only fear the guy who says "I know what is good for you". He further sings: "Chase him out, expel him - because he is lying. He knows nothing". We have seen the "application of communal values" during the years of the pandemic recently and we continue seeing them - when the law and legality do not apply anymore, and instead we have a society based on some understanding of what is "good for the community".
@@lenablochmusic To you, a political program and agenda has to be pragmatical and exempt of caracteristics that could be interpreted as something philosophical or ideological. I understand your point of view, like "Laïcité" in France, it allows every mindsets to live together.
But, this would not be a human society anymore. Democracy allows the majority of the population to serve a new way of thought. The problem is when someone with dangerous ideas is elected, as Hittler in 1936. But that's not a reason to avoid those who carry humanism through their politics.
If i follow your way of thinking, there is no need of democracy and elections, cause the administration and the public services would be self sufficient to make texts and laws without the participations of politicians.
Every politicians have a program tainted with values and principles, sometimes religious : work, family, country, faith, solidarity, ecology etc..
So, does a country should be only directed by bureaucrats with the only aim to optimize the way the society evolves without opinions whatsoever ?
I do not think that is possible, except if a country is ruled by computers.
@@Mehdi.Ouassou No, all what I am saying is that a society cannot fulfill a parenting role for an individual. Personal duty of an individual to oneself and his spiritual development cannot be taken over by a society, however just and benevolent this society imagines itself to be. A person is always in an opposition to the State apparatus and to his societal self. Mixing personal duties to oneself (such as altruism, kindness, generosity, chivalry) with politics will always lead to severe coercion and totalitarianism. Once again, Sunstein with his idea of the society of parental controls is a monster and cannot be considered democratic in any way, unless one understands democracy in the Bernays' way. A society can only create laws and constitutions, but cannot and should not moralize and pretend to be ethical. Like I said, the current pandemic response oppression and inhumanity unfold in an unprecedented way. Everything that society claims to be (care for others, altruism, solidarity) is a plain lie. Just the opposite of. That is the price of hypocritical virtue-signaling and moral policing.
@@lenablochmusic My bad if i misunderstood your first reply. Anyway, the border is tenuous between laws and some values intrinsic to a politician or a political party. A newspaper may be objective and truthful in appearance judgind by its articles, but the editorian line is influenced by the motivations of the editor in chief. The laws are profoundly directed by a political program, so personal values. Maybe a real democracy does not impose values to oneself but indirectly does with laws. For example, laws in USA and France are quite different, but follow an agenda based on personal opinions. In France, i am well positionned to note that the social politics are the results of a deep anchored way of thinking in our way of living and philosophy, where values and principles are closely linked to our laws and our constitution.
Whatever i agree with your statement that in crisis times, when politicians plume themselves to act with solidarity or altruism, it is just plain hypocrisy and lies.
As human beigns we cannot prevent ourselves to put our subjectivity in all what we are doing.
(sorry for my bad english, as you understood i'm french)
@@Mehdi.Ouassou Merci, pas de problème, j'apprends le français et je serais heureux de parler en français. Ce que j'essayais de dire et (je crois) ce que Foucault voulait dire, c'est que ces "valeurs", bien qu'elles existent manifestement dans la psyché de la nation, sont vagues et on peut soutenir qu'elles sont en fait le contraire de ce que l'on croit qu'elles sont. Par exemple, tant les sionistes que les antisionistes revendiquent une haute moralité, tant les interventionnistes que les anti-interventionnistes, tant les guerres pro- et anti-impérialistes, tant l'hégémonie américaine dans le monde. Certains disent que si nous voulons défendre la liberté, nous devons détruire la Chine (ou la Russie). D'autres disent que si nous voulons défendre la liberté, nous devons nous opposer fermement à l'hostilité envers toute autre nation et éliminer la xénophobie. Au bout du compte, qui remporte le débat ? Ceux qui appartiennent à la classe dirigeante. Pas les dissidents et les manifestants anti-guerre, qui sont diabolisés comme des amoureux de Poutine. D'après mon expérience et mes observations, je constate que Foucault a raison.
Foucault: We are what we are. Time and tradition have shaped this imperfect relationship between classes. Accept it because upsetting the rhythm of 20 generation would be fucking bloody and a pain in the ass. Just sit back and enjoy your rape, peons.
Chomsky: What we have sucks and is unsustainable. There has to be a way out of this because society, the economy and the planet cannot endure what worked when there were only 3 billion of us and the highest technology was the telephone and coal-driven factories.
That's what I got out of this.
I also got out of this how much more decent and smart and accepting of debate we were fifty years ago. And how fucking stupid our political debate has become. Can you imagine Marjorie Taylor Green or Trump standing up against either one of these guys?
That orange juice, though.
La classe!
6:20 wt a reply
Legal or moral? Legal is whatever the law allows. Moral or justice is a different matter
Justice is just officially sanctioned revenge.
Morality/justice is what the heart allows.
@@drunkenpikachu morality is subjective social consensus. Religion is the bullshit to enhance morality.
Moral realism vs moral relativism
Chomsky is BRILLIANT!
Are you kidding? He's totally full of shit. Self-serving, neurotic shit.
Brilliant Foucault! What would Chomsky say now to Foucault?
I think they had good debates on the last video from both sides but I gotta give this one to Focault… the stuff Chomsky said can’t really be applied much aside to the examples he gave…
"International Law is the instrument of the powerful"...well and who makes the Law since the inception of the State?. Even though, this is a tremendous simplification of reality, because Law is the result of social transactions and International Law also is the result of transactions between the States. I don't think that this way of reasoning can bring us far.
Guys or girls, can someone explain to a novice like me what Foucault's philosophy is? (in simple terms) thanks
When the commentariat overthrows the content creators, it won't be for the sake of a better algorithm, but in order to create a world where there's no algorithm at all
Oppression is not achieved economically without first justifying it politically through any kind of human division - whether it be class, education, race, gender or even culture. The proletariat achieving power does not eradciate inequality and creates a new oppressed class or classes.
Could Foucault even begin to declaim a man walking down the street , chopping off every head in sight . He didn’t have the slightest legitimacy to ; not by the lights of his outrageously glib amorality.
3:54
7:53 rare Chomsky chuckle
Good observation. Never seen such a genuine chuckle before by Chomsky
Bookmark 0:40
Chomsky does not lose sight of the intrinsic value of human life, but Foucault certainly does. For Foucault, abstract categories of 'class' seem non-negotiable, though in living, changing contemporary societies these are blurred and often transient. Pursuit of 'class warfare' as an end in itself calls into play the worst aspects of human nature.
How does a society find healthy equilibrium following a bloodbath?
It is not as though the Soviet and Chinese experiences were completely unknown to Western thinkers in the early 1970s, granted that we have richer hindsight today.
As the Scripture says, 'for where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing.'
'What is the source of conflicts and quarrels among you? is not the source tour pleasures that wage war in your members?'
The evils of class oppression must be addressed by other means, including labor-friendly legislation, formation of unions and cooperatives, charitable work, and spiritual revival
(which pertains to all classes).
'Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries which are comong upon you.'
(This speaks of spiritual judgment, not revolution.)
'You have condemned and put to death the righteous man; he does not resist you.'
But the one who emulates the ways of oppressors simply becomes another oppressor,
who will in his turn be overthrown.
Os fins não justificam os meios...Como é possível o caminho do vício nos conduzir para a virtude? Chomsky se revelou idealista e Focault mais pragmático.
Just the other way around
Errado. Foucault faz parte da tradição continental, sendo um desiludido dessa tradição idealista. Portanto, se tornou um idealista pessimista - que acredita que a natureza humana é ruim e mesmo assim defende a liberdade total (uma teoria totalmente irresponsável).
Chomsky faz parte da tradição da filosofia analítica da linguagem e do empirismo anglo-saxão, oferecendo uma abordagem muito mais pragmática, que aceita a Justiça não porque ela pode ser definida em termos absolutos (como pede Foucault), mas porque ela é útil na vida real. Mais pragmático que isso impossível.
Chomsky sustenta o óbvio: sem leis, Justiça, moral e etc nossa sociedade irá sucumbir a um estado inevitável de totalitarismo do mais forte.
Portanto, a força dos conceitos como Justiça e Bem não está em sua existência absoluta e “supra” humana, mas na sua utilidade pragmática ao homem.
So there is no interpeter betwen them?
I think this lends credence to the claim that Foucault was a post-modernist, despite his tendency to disown the label. His theory of justice and knowledge being entirely entrenched within a bourgeois/proletariat framework sounds a lot to me like the claim that all attempts at moral actions are purely power struggles between social classes, something synonymous with post-modern ideology.
As an idealist I would side with Chomsky but as a cynic I can't disagree with some points Foucault was making. I think the debate isn't really about power and classes but about how much you still believe mankind to be capable of good.
What do you mean by "as an idealist"?
Chomsky doesnt seem to understand that he's speaking from within the same social paradigm that focault is asking him to be more objective about.
Foucault keeps saying that the powerful class will oppress the weaker class through the legal system. But if that is always the case, it should be easy to spot, but he gives no specific example (unless part of his argument is that the abused can also not recognize their own plight, which at least here he does not seem to say.)
So who's winning?
Chomsky is the moral victor and Foucault is the practical victor
Power is assumed to come from the state, what if power comes from corporations. It seems this debate is questioning socialism vs capitalism instead of power and justice. As discussion of 1971 makes sense, but now to consider the question of power without accounting corporations seems anachronic.
The Vietnamese Communist Party was a national liberation movement that rightly combated French colonialism and sought a more just society. But its measures against the landlords were extremely bloodthirsty and oppressive, and it was willing to subject the Vietnamese people to unspeakable suffering for decades in order to conquer south Vietnam, when it could have reached a compromise with the US that would have enabled it to accomplish many of its goals peacefully. Furthermore, by openly acting as a tool of Russian imperialism in east Asia, it provoked the US into conducting a huge war whose consequences are still felt many decades later. With its typically Bolshevik contempt for the people’s will, it has established the totalitarian tyranny and severely oppressed and even committed genocide against minorities, like the Hmong and the Cham. In what way is the Vietnamese Communist Party less criminal than the US?
I'll just throw this out there generally, after reading so many comments and seeing an impasse to describe the difference b/w F and C. What F is arguing is an end to class society, period. He reluctantly poses that the proletariat would function with a different system, that justice would look totally different (if it would exist as such at all). What's missing is a description of the providential character of our current political systems, both left and right. The perfect blah blah blah state is always pushed into the future. If "we" only could do such and such, then "our" political system (again, right or left) will work perfectly. It's this sense of a perfect society that is always in the future - that is what F is pushing against. The radical idea is to simply bring everything to and end and NOT imagine what's next.
An odd, but relevant case in point would be the Occupy Wall Street Movement. The demand was to end the 1%. Not much beyond that. I was irritated at this at first, but it became interesting to watch the crowd "self-organize". They came up with systems to pass messages, signals for the crowd to give a speaker a sense of how they were being received etc etc. This, to me, is a tiny glimpse of a form of contextual self-organization, by no means perfect, of where a post-class society might begin. I'm not recommending this! It's just an example of what happens when a group has taken power of a situation without really planning or mapping it ahead of time. Know what I mean?
This, btw, could be properly anarchistic, but I do not intend to evoke any of the formalizations of anarchy out there (a ridiculous thing in itself).
Noam Chomsky on Moral Relativism and Michel Foucault in 2015:
"I think Foucault wildly exaggerates. There’s kind of a truism which is not controversial that power systems have some effect on how scientific work proceeds so that it can be accepted and so on. At the extreme it’s Stalinist biology, there’s corporate influence on how drug trials are conducted, that’s true, there are professional constraints, I’ve lived through them in my entire life, when I started my work I couldn’t publish because it was too inconsistent with accepted ideas.
In fact, the first book I wrote in 1955, it didn’t come out for 20 years. When it came out then it was submitted but rejected. When it came out later it was more a historical interest as the field had grown. But it’s marginal. There are self-correcting procedures in the sciences which work pretty well…not perfectly…but pretty well. So there is an element of power relations that enter into say, scientific work, to talk about regimes of power that seems to me to be radically overstating the case. Like moving from non-controversial moral relativism to incoherent moral relativism."
Again, all fascinatingly ironic takes given that Chomsky is a genocide denier. He massively conflates his own morality with "ideal morality" - the dangers of which is kind of the major takeaways of Foucault's work. Foucault mostly wrote about how morality is simply your own rationalization for creating a structure for power. It doesn't matter so much as why you do it - what matters is what it does and is doing.
Chomsky really aught to have learned more about this. His moral absolutism has some very deep flaws, even by his own reasoning.
Every action will result in another action it is good to talk
12:55 Foucault's "legal" justice: "as a claim made by the oppressed class & as a justification for the oppressive class ..."
13:24 Chomsky's "better" justice: "Well here I really disagree ... I think there is a sort of absolute basis ... ultimately residing in fundamental human qualities in terms of which a REAL notion of human justice is grounded ... I think it's too hasty to classify our existing systems of justice as merely systems of class oppression ... the also embody the human a kind of a groping towards the true truly humanly valuable concept of justice and decency and kindness and love, which I think are real."
14:20 Foucault's response: It's impressive. He rejects Chomsky's justice on cultural and historical grounds. The clip ends abruptly, interrupted, with no response from Chomsky. He could have countered Foucault on biological grounds: e.g. love in mammalian families, altruism in mammalian social groups, etc.
Chomsky like a boss
Chomsky passe à côté d'une distinction fondamentale. La loi protége-t-elle le fort contre le faible ou le faible contre le fort. Si la force d'État renforce la force ou renforce la faiblesse cela fait une différence intrinsèque, sans fondements moral réel, un peu comme la règle d'or.
Is a young Steve Jobs moderating this?
not by accident US has most incarcerated per capita or most laws on the books. It's all that justice law and order and of course freedom. the US also claims that its own understanding of justice is universal. Just what Chomsky says. And everyone else in the world sees that it is a lie.
I was under the impression that Foucault was a Marxist figure. His views in this debate seem to go against that understanding, or am I missing something?
He is not a Marxist figure at all, despite Jordan Peterson and the likes constructing an imaginary Marxist enemy from him for their own purposes
My understanding is that whilst he was a socialist figure, he wasn't a marxist one. Marx didn't invent this stuff, he just had a really popular school of thought and wrote some pretty influential stuff.
he rejected marxism early in his career
@Josh Miklandric correct
I wish Foucault would explain how a violent uprising wouldn't just result in a new social class order without using semantics as a defense. Seems like "winning," war" and "conflict" are concepts only a person in a class system could grasp, but he's over here crying over how ephemeral "justice' is. "Winning" is no more attainable than "justice." "Power" is fleeting.
Agreed, and he doesn't seem to entertain the idea that power exerts a force on whoever wields it, that the structures themselves are populated only incidentally by various groups. To him, the transfer of power and ownership from one class to another will destroy the structure of class itself, and if it fails to, it is because of residual 'bourgeois tendencies', which seems quite circular
I'm not too fond of Chomsky's analogy of running a red light to save several people's lives to derailing an ammo train based on a position that the state is conducting an illegal war.
For several reasons. The least of which is perhaps the most fundamental. Red lights are designed to prevent damage to property and injury and death to people, and running them does not in every instance cause an accident or injury or death. Whereas derailing a train controlled by live human beings does, in fact, cause, "in every instance" in which the train is in fact derailed, damage to property, and also causes a higher likelihood of injury or death to people than any random running of a red light might do, especially if the runner of the red light is coldly aware of the circumstances of traffic density and proximity and can prevent any collision by exercising intelligent control of the vehicle during the running of the red.
Not the world's best analogy, it seems.
What Chomsky calls the "State", is an abstraction.
State IS an abstraction. It’s an idea. In real life there only exist a bunch of people discussing something. The idea that This is a State comes from our minds and only exist in Da-Sein (the human world).
@@ScoobyBoteco-nl8qq I suppose you could say it is the product of 'reification'. It was what people say to exercise political power. It is definitely a social construct which societies find useful. It is a 'system' that is rife with abuse.
Comment 320: Is "war" ever "legal?"
2:34 pm CST
March 22, 2023
Charity Colleen Crouse
At 2:26 - NO. Don't move from "class war" to "imperialist war." It was a direct question.
2:36 pm CST
March 22, 2023
Charity Colleen Crouse
At 2:56 - So is Chomsky saying that the "people" are inherently "unlawful?" That there is no "law" for or of the "people?" It would perhaps have been prudent to continue this argument by answering the question asked.
2:37 pm CST
March 22, 2023
Charity Colleen Crouse
At 3:15 - But the "United Nations Charter" was a result of imperialist war. And what was that imperialist [war] relative to "class war" which preceded and was impacted by it?
2:38 pm CST
March 22, 2023
Charity Colleen Crouse
[2:39 pm CST]
At 5:58 - So it appears Foucault asked the question again...
2:43 pm CST
March 22, 2023
Charity Colleen Crouse
At 6:50 - I do not think that is what Chomsky is arguing. I think he is saying he does not consider ownership of the institutions of justice by the people to be an "ideal" but merely that one might position "better" representatives into the institutions.
2:45 pm CST
March 22, 2023
Charity Colleen Crouse
7.55 when he says Spinoza and Chomsky laughs at his typical of French "intellectualism"...
Chomsky and Snowden are lookalikes and both are brilliant. Having said that, everybody can be wrong.
Dumber people can be wrong in/on mostly everything most of the time. Smarter people can also be wrong most of the time, only about much fewer things.
When smart people specialize in something to be wrong about, they can easily be more dangerous than most people being wrong about everything all the time.
(Having said that, am I dumb or am I smart? 😅)
I love both Chomsky and Snowden, but Chomsky in particular developed an obsession with America and capitalism that makes him systematically biased and unfair on any remotely connected issue.
Having said that... Chomsky's reasoning here is better and even healthier than Foucault's. 😅
I can understand what Chomsky is saying. Foucault on the other hand….
Foucalt's ideas are based in the notion that language shapes our thoughts and that we can only think about things the language we possess allows us to think. Therefore if we use the language of an oppressive society to build another one, the ideas of oppression will inevitably carry over to it through the language we're using in it. In other words, if the idea of oppression exists within the language, it will happen one way or the other. So what he's saying is that a classless society without such oppression would be so different from what we recognise based on what is ingrained in our language that the systems therein would be entirely alien to us. Their justice system would be completely different from ours and not based on anything we know today and we would likely not even recognise it as such.
@@hawkins347Do you mean the words of the language or the way we use the words? It’s all too abstract for me. I need concrete examples 😕
I think critical to understanding Foucault's argument is his idea of "proximity and distance" as ways of describing "discursive objects." Chomsky is trying to argue that justice is this and not that and class is this and not that. Foucault argues elsewhere that even discussing that justice is this or that is agreeing to the premise of justice as a thing that exists on its own. Thus, not getting any where near the nature of justice.
The implications are important because objects are how the powerful stay in power. Controlling how objects can be discussed maintains disciplinary power. For any group of people, class, race, religion, etc. to gain power, they need to control how objects are discussed.
@@barryballinger6023 Can you give me an example of how an object is discussed that keeps the powerful in power? I can have a go at guessing what you mean but it’s much easier to understand if I have concrete examples. That’s the trouble with so much philosophy. It’s authors speak in the abstract. Chomsky is easier to understand because he usually speaks about real events
@@kennethmarshall306 I think I can answer your question. Foucault gives the example of psychopathology, we can use that. psychopathology was not something that existed in nature waiting to be discovered. It was formed under specific condition (surfaces of emergence) , has people who're allowed to discuss it (authorities of delimitation), and systems, theories, language that authorities accept for discourse (grids of specification). These are positive conditions, meaning they were constructed intentionally and serve the people who constructed them.
The surfaces of emergence for psychopathology was rationalism, bourgeois relations between institutions, government, and industry. Limiting, categorizing, sorting, ranking, etc. served the powerful interests. Any discussion about psychopathology is limited to only discursive relations that maintain the power structures. Psychopathology is never questions as something that's true or useful. The debates about psychopathology all happen within it.
Chomsky is a big fan of marginalizing people who question mRNA tech as a means of fighting COVID-19. That's because he's a fan of 'objects' like epidemiology (as we know it) and that it allows for the marginalization of reactionaries. Where did epidemiology come from? Who gets to talk about it? What's allowed to be said about it? Who controls it?
This is revealing. When Chomsky talks about "justice" it's only useful for overthrowing reactionaries. Foucault saw through all of these arguments from the left, right, middle, etc. For him, the power itself was the end. He didn't care about anything like justice. Chomsky is being very clear because he's being reductive. He wants people to see things his way and no other way.
The judge does not calculate
Foucault fait froid dans le dos avec son concept de pouvoir indépendamment de tout. Et plus encore je ne vois pas de différences fondamentales avec le fascisme où la violence est mise en avant parce que dans la pensée fasciste elle résout les problèmes. Ici c'est le pouvoir qui resoud les problèmes, mais la différence entre les deux est ténue.
Foucault seems so agressive meaning his thought is unable to stand the calm, composed force of Chomsky...
6:12 "if you thought that you were fighting an unjust war, you couldn't follow that line of reasoning".
Checkmate.
Tang.
Chomsky's "No Leninist would dare to say 'we have a right to take power' and then throw everyone else into crematoria" would be unjust is extremely hypocritical given his genocide denial. He absolutely defended genocides simply because they fought for a socialist state. I'm a socialist myself and even I'd never condone such a thing.
These are both flawed men, but Chomsky's inability to ever think or consider that his moral code isn't absolute or for all the times he acts to speak for all socialists is frankly appalling. Foucault had him right from the first part: "You seriously deign to say you know what the ideal human government is?!" (paraphrased)
You are just regurgitating right wing propaganda. Chomsky has NEVER defended genocide and he has done more than you or I have by about a thousand times to fight for people (like the people of East Timor and the Vietnamese in the 1950's) that most Americans have never heard of. If you are claiming he supported the Khmer Rouge that is absolute bullshit. What he actually said is that you could trace the violence of the Khmer Rouge to the hell that the US unleased on Cambodia (and the rest of that region) by indiscriminate bombing and use of Agent Orange. That's analysis it's not defending the Khmer Rouge, it's giving a very credible explanation for why they were able to achieve power. He was always completely clear that in no sense did he support the Khmer Rouge. It's just that in the minds of the mainstream US media, attacking US war crimes equals defending anyone that is a US enemy. In fact Chomsky was vocal in his criticisms of the USSR and Red China when most people on the far left thought it was still chic to support them.
@@michaeldebellis4202 Look, I'm a socialist and I appreciate most of what Noam's done for us all. Still, neither of us should deify the guy. He's got some bad, hypocritical takes.
Dude pretty unequivocally "doesn't consider the Bosnian Genocide a real genocide", and mostly cites arguments directly from the Serbian war criminals who first made them during their failed war crime trials.
th-cam.com/video/VCcX_xTLDIY/w-d-xo.html
I'm not defending the US at all, or making a relative comparison - I think that all of Noam's critiques of US foreign policy are incredibly valid.
@@monsieurdorgat6864 Bullshit. I'm not deifying anyone. Even if I were the kind of person to deify someone, I know that is the last thing Chomsky would want. I took a Linguistics class from him once. We had traded several emails but never met (all about linguistic and psych theory not politics) and when I went to introduce myself he looked me in the eye and said "I expect hard questions from you". And he got them. We had some really interesting debates about evolution. Of course I admire him. I've met several people who were famous in philosophy, anthropology, and computer science and Chomsky is the one that I have the most respect for and who was the most open to debate. So many people (cough Searle, Lakoff) expect people to genuflect and kiss their butt in seminars, Chomsky WANTS you to argue.
Just saying "he's got some bad hypocritical takes" is meaningless as is saying "Dude pretty unequivocally "doesn't consider the Bosnian Genocide a real genocide". If you have some real example of him condoning genocide than do what a serious researcher would do and give me a quote with the context so I can look it up.
@@michaeldebellis4202 "X person can do no wrong in my eyes" is more or less the bar for deification in this context.
If you want those quotes, that was what the link I added was for. It's about 40 minutes dedicated very explicitly and only to the cases where Noam Chomsky explicitly talked about how he doesn't consider the Bosnian Genocide a "true genocide".
I'm glad you've had good experiences with him, and like I said, there are lots of folks who do a lot of good for the world who have some pretty bad opinions that are hypocritical, but that doesn't nullify the majority of the good he's done.
It's just something worth considering when you think about his opinions and character. Lots of great historical figures were also flawed people. I think it's a little absurd to suggest that Noam doesn't have flaws - and I'd consider his uncompromising support of the Serbian military despite their actions is one of them.
Are they drinking orange juice?