Who was in the right here?

Noam was doing journalism, Foucault was doing philosophy, no debate ;)

You're a moron.

I know you are but what am I :^)

Chomsky, as always.

To stave the tide of these kinds of threads i made this.

coming from le 'u dun know nuthing i'm bettter than you cuz i know i dun know nuthin' man

sm h

but you, obviously, know what you're talking about
kek'd

Chomsky wins in the debate and as a philosopher.

Foucault is overrated although still interesting.

If you knew anything about ideas you wouldn't care if the thought came from Satan himself.

I'm reading the transcript and it's kind of tedious, because like the overview dude says about 15 minutes in, and like Chomsky says a few minutes later, they're talking at cross-purposes and kind of gliding past one another.

Chomsky is talking about the semiotic linguistic ability of humans, at kind of a low conceptual level. Foucault is barely even talking Foucauldian, he's basically giving the usual Canguilhem or Bachelard, which should be recognisable to anyone vaguely familiar with Kuhn. Chomsky is describing human nature and the nature of creativity as semiotic "play" within certain strictures. Foucault is talking about epistemes (as "grids") structuring (imperfectly, and not as a single structural-functional system) knowledge and "pointing out" knowable or researchable things.

Chomsky then vaguely agrees with Foucault, in the sense that he agrees with the basic "Kuhnian" idea of axiomatic presuppositions, and the idea of epistemes. But without saying much of interest.

Foucault then vaguely agrees with Chomsky about semiotic free play, which is equally commonplace. Then he kind of tries to mush it back to talking about his thing, the limitations of epistemes.

Chomsky makes his most interesting reply so far, basically showing familiarity with the whole Kuhnian thing and discussing post-positivist theory-ladenness, but describing it in a typically Chomsky-esque simplified way ("jagged" but progressive, not neo-positivist but not relativist-constructivist) that doesn't turn it into a big pomo wankoff thing. For him the epistemological rupture points to conceptual revolutions, not relativism.

Foucault replies not necessarily as a relativist but at least that we need to be attentive to how epistemes are shaped ideologically by political or social determinants (typical post-Marxian analysis). Foucault elaborates that he's not interested in the biographical form of intellectual history; he's interested in fields of discourse, and in ideology primarily, not in a progressive twist on Kuhnian "revolutions." The history of knowledge as structured by power, not the history of science in its own right.

Now I have to go take a dump

I want to lick those adorable toes!
Any more?

I always want to kill myself when I see how smug Chomsky is in debates.

Then I remember that he has to stick to linguistics nowadays, because he proved himself to be politically retarded when it came to the Communists and their crimes.

>Then I remember that he has to stick to linguistics nowadays

wew lad

he's booked like 3 years in advanced for political talks mainly

>Political retards want to hear a political retard

Wow, you're right.

I'm so shocked and wrong.

couldn't give 2 fucks about his politics or what you think of them. You are wrong. That's the point.

Dumbest post I've read on Veeky Forums in a long time.

>Implying Chomsky didn't have to run with his tail between his legs when people started calling him out on his wilful ignorance

doesn't chomsky know way, way more about linguistics than focault? why is he coming at him with that right off the bat?

The funny thing is that Chomsky's linguistic knowledge is hugely overblown.

of?

With regards to Cambodia? He admitted he was wrong about that. Outside of that?

The orange juice.

t. pataphysician

gj user

shit tier