As a citizen from South Korea, It's quite astonishing that even the very historical existence of such an active movement has been completely forgotten from the general public here. (Don't know for the North; probably no better for sure.) No mention at all as of 2024 about the anarchist and mutualist aspects of the Korean People's Association in Manchuria in the Korean Wikipedia article for it, even worse than the other language versions. Neither did I myself have as much information on it as appearing in this French-speaking video. Would be great if it had Korean subtitles.

Foucaults is a pedophile, how can you listen or even give time to such criminal 😂😂😂

I'm having trouble understanding what Foucault is saying. Around minute 33 he seems to be saying that scientific advancement, things like Newton's theory of gravity, Darwin's theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (he doesn't mention Darwin, he mentions someone I'm not familiar with as well as Newton but I think the point is the same) are not "interesting". Rather what is interesting are more fundamental changes that span different fields of science. But he doesn't really describe what those "paradigm shifts" are (he doesn't use that term, but I think it captures what he's saying... but I could be wrong) nor why they are important. I think to some extent he has a point. E.g., there are changes in our approach to science and philosophy in general that span multiple disciplines. So the notion of "falsifiability" as a requirement for a scientific theory, the realization (this is something Chomsky talks about quite a lot) that the mechanistic worldview of physics based on contact mechanic is incorrect that began with Newton and Galileo and had repercussions for chemistry as well as physics. The Cognitive Revolution that discarded behaviorism as the only legitimate way to study psychology and led to many new approaches such as Information theory, Game theory, and Evolutionary Psychology. These are all interesting for sure but if you study them they are intimately connected with advances in specific scientific disciplines. E.g., the discarding of contact mechanics for field theories and then quantum mechanics and relativity started with Newton and advanced with Einstein, Heisenberg, and many others. The Cognitive Revolution started in large part with Chomsky's critique of Skinner's approach to Language in his review of Skinner's book Verbal Behavior. I don't think these paradigm shifts are any more important than the theories that they inspired (and were inspired by them). They are all what we mean (in the broadest sense) by science. I hope that makes sense. Interested if anyone has a different view.

me, an unemployee watching this instead of finding jobs

this is the greatest film ever made

thoughts of a social science enthusiast:

Two left-wing whack jobs dueling.

thanks

Well, Chomsky is understandable because majority of the audience knows English but I haven't get the words of Michael Foucault, please add English subtitles.

Thompson Margaret Williams Daniel Thompson Gary

45:30

43:31

41:28

Cela fait bien longtemps que je n'ai pas revu ce débat. C'est assez amusant de lire dans le débat la surprise des commentateurs se demandant pourquoi tout le monde considère Foucault comme en étant le "gagnant", alors que la grande majorité d'entre eux... se situe du côté de Chomsky ! Il y a sans doute là quelque chose d'une défense projective : ne pouvant accepter le ressentit interne du constat de la faiblesse argumentative de Chomsky ( comparativement à Foucault ) avec ce que cela vient renverser de notre rapport à la vérité, il s'agit de projeter le jugement à l'extérieur : "les autres pensent que Foucault a gagné", alors que personne d'autre ne le dit ! Le rapport de Foucault à la vérité, à la prétendue nature humaine, ou simplement au sujet, vient questionner et renverser les structures logiques communes à partir desquels nous constituons l'image de notre identité. Ce n'est pas facile à entendre, ni même nécessaire de le questionner pour notre vie propre, mais indispensable à penser quand c'est notre travail de le faire ( quel qu'en soit le contexte ). Comme disait Lacan, les non-dupes errent, avec son corollaire : il nous faut être la dupe du Père ( il nous faut être des habiles comme disait Pascal, c'est-à-dire savoir par la pensée de derrière que l'ignorance est notre lot, mais c'est une ignorance qui se sait ). Dans ce débat Chomsky représente, quelque part, la pensée "commune", la pensée qui maintient l'illusion de l'existence d'un sujet acteur de sa vie. C'est une approche nécessaire pour la vie, mais c'est une illusion.

Chonsky si luis.

Everyone has a piece of the puzzle that is life.

Ultimately, Foucault never really refuted Chomsky’s basic empirical proposition: human beings share a common cognitive architecture that is subject to remarkable limitations, thereby granting all individuals the skill of being unboundedly creative. His example of “the poverty of the stimulus” - the phenomenon of a child picking out the combinatorial and recursive rules underlying the limited and degenerate linguistic data they are presented, only to then be able to generate novel, never-before seen expressions - captures how all humans share a series of built-in mechanisms and innate structures. This a kind of species-specific property worthy of being called a common human nature. Even if the concept of human nature serves as a research program for a shifting scientific domain, as Foucault suggests, it doesn’t falsify the basic facts. Now, as Foucault also pointed out, human beings are also cultural products whose social ideas are conditioned by the institutions of power and, in many cases, repression that dominate their society. But that is compatible with Chomsky’s notion of human nature that is grounded in the physical characteristics - and, by extension, cognitive characteristics - all humans have by virtue of being a human being.

Retablo de Framencos: mirò

dutch people are so awkward, couldn't even find a proper Fr language translator. Also the lack of questions directed at M Foucault reveals they are in above their heads.

Someone should upload this same video without the comments guy

Noam Chomsky is a conformist and state terrorist

Rede Schpache Schpreche Edda alte jahre

Fou: objeto del pasa

Foucault and his teachings are significantly responsible for the woke culture we have today. He is not someone to be admired. His personal life was one of perversion as well.

Disease de cuando Foucault visita al arquitecto, y sueña.

Bert o el proletariat i

:;

I just wished Frantz Omar Fanon had been alive to be in this debate. "Black Skin, White Masks," The Wretched Earth." Thank you. It's great to see this debate again.

Tostones de Temperos y Sabores ST

No me lave en un mes, cuando supe de esto y tal o sea

I'm still curious, does Chomsky understand French?

M’de monisngo: morango,;frasa

Ch: M:;por/frances

Los más mejores del Mercadona mmm

Are they literally speaking 3 different languages and understanding each other perfectly???

I realize that mastery of language is essential for effectiveness in chosen career, any activity, or living life. I came to this conclusion from following, that is, listening, reading and watching Noam Chomsky. I wish I can continue learning from Chomsky as time goes along or allows.

Reglas: mensuales icanot why

Psychological issues shelvy

Well, if I am not mistaken on this one, Chomsky (may he R-I-P) was forty on this recording, while Foucault (may he R-I-P) was a few years older :))

The orange juice on the table goes so hard

Ch: invitación a comer por ahorita🎉

The crowd doesn't understand what Chomsky is saying.

They both are right in their iwn ways, foucalt about scientific stuff and chomsky about human nature ( i.e when it comes to language things are little different than they are in physical sciences, you cannot compare the discovery of scientific facts, scientific facts are discoveries i,d say outside i.e they are the truths already waiting there fully formed to be discovered as Foucault argues, Whereas on the other hand Language in itself is not only a human discovery like scientific truths and even if it is- it is also very much a human creation involving a lot of what Chomsky talks about, there is something very instictual and creative about the progression of language and its proliferation or whatever. So, i think they both are right in their own particular ways.

Es it’s esteeedel este rodo

No salte at te te adver it tir y dale con el holandés maldita seaz

Thank you both !

‏‪4:10‬‏ 😂❤

I'm not used to listening to such high quality debates in 3 different languages, I have to watch at least 2 more times to understand it. I can't believe such quality was aired in the 70ies, the decade I was born.

Always love to return to this. Seeing Chomsky repeatedly missing Foucaults point while trying to argue against it on the bases of his own limited understanding of how knowledge must work is so funny. He is the perfect proof for the point Foucault aims at making, being an innovative and progessive scientist himself while being exceptionally wrong in this debate.

Why the fuck is everyone drinking orange juice