Imagine being Foucault in that debate and having to be all like "damn, Chomsky, you fuckin' fine, all dialectical with your human nature and horrific language theory. I would totally write an article with you, both my literary persona and the real me." when all he really wants to do is write about relations of power in societal institutions. Like seriously imagine having to be Foucault and not only sit in that chair while Noam Chomsky flaunts his disgusting theory in front of you, the favorable lighting barely concealing his shitty haircut, and just sit there, word after word, hour after hour, while he perfected his argument. Not only having to tolerate his stupid fucking syntactic structure theories but his haughty attitude as everyone on the audience tells him he’s STILL GOT IT and DAMN, NOAM CHOMSKY DEBATES LIKE *THAT*?? because they're not the ones who have to sit there and hear this stupid fucking analytic contort his books into types of mental gymnastics you didn't even know existed before that day. You've been writing nothing but a healthy diet of critical theory and post-structuralist best-sellers for your ENTIRE CAREER coming straight out of the opium dens in France. You've never even heard anything this fucking disgusting before, and now you swear you can taste the sweat that's breaking out on his dirty thick-rimmed glasses as he smirks suggestively at you, smugly assured that you are enjoying the opportunity to get paid to sit there and revel in his "revolutionary (for that is what he calls it)" cognitive science, the cognitive science he worked so hard for with his anarchist buddies in the previous months. And then Fons Elders brings up another subject, and you know you could refute every single person in this room before the analytics could write a review of your book, but you sit there and endure, because you're fucking Foucault. You're not going to lose your academic prestige over this. Just bear it. Hide your face and bear it.
Imagine being Foucault in that debate and having to be all like "damn, Chomsky, you fuckin' fine...
8.75/10
did they fuck?
I saw Chomsky in the grocery store near Harvard a few months ago. Dude looked like he was on the door of death. His much younger wife was leading him by the arm. I almost bumped into them trying to get my hands on some hummus. Their cart was full of vegetables.
>Dude looked like he was on the door of death.
obvious MKultra CIA poisoning
I want the gnome POV
For those who also need a refresher of the debate but don't want to waste time on something so shitty,
youtube.com
nigga needs some meat and salt.
...
Is Foucault's accent/vocabulary different from most french-speakers today? Even the young foreign-students at my university have a much more scummy-sounding French.
Like I always thought French looked flowing, chic, and light on the page but then French-speakers were so coarse. Focuault is one of the exceptions. I've not listened to many famous/intellectual speakers though.
>french speakers
Foucault was bourgeois as fuck, are the young foreign-students at your university rich? did they grow up privileged like Foucault?
Is there a more despicable man in the history of philosophy than Foucault?
I'm not sure. But some of them looked like they were not ethnic-french, so probably not as privileged as Foucault. Plus, due to EU and ERASMUS you get students from all walks of life here.
The only other person that comes close is also in OP's image.
...
Literally Heidegger
I thought his wife just died. So Chomsky is chasing young students while his wife's body is barely cold in the ground?
It was his daughter you disgusting fuck.
>Chomsky is fucking his daughter
>But user is the disgusting one
???
en.wikipedia.org
Take your pick.
I am not fucking my daughter you twat!
Average French now sounds bassy and slurred, it's fucking disgusting
lol he died from aids.
Who was right?
youtube.com
talk about that juice. is that orange or mango?
Foucault is cryptofascist mate
The OP has cross-posted this in both Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums, so I'm also going to cross-post a good reply that I already made on Veeky Forums, here.
Chomsky won the first half, and Foucault won the second half.
Chomsky was basically right in supposing that a collection of immutable, statistically evident characteristics of human beings can meaningfully and usefully be given a label along the lines of "human nature". On this point of the discussion, the earlier part, Chomsky was right and Foucault was wrong. Foucault's insistence on checking the mores of a particular century or culture is misguided, becuase what Foucault is doing here is the original version of "muh social construction". On the contrary, there are immutable characteristics of the human condition, which Chomsky correctly asserts.
However, Chomsky loses the latter part of the discussion, which shifts from the human nature opening stuff into questions of politics. Chomsky starts insisting that just because states make laws that he doesn't like, that those laws are, more than being "wrong", themselves criminal, illegal, and so on, when the world and power don't work that way. Chomsky basically makes an is/ought confusion here, whereas Foucault more accurately explains things at this juncture. Go to 56:15 here:
youtube.com
In the French, Foucault says, "The proletariat makes war with the ruling class because, for the first time in history, it wants to take power. And because it will overthrow the power of the ruling class, it considers such a war to be just."
Chomsky: "Yeah, I don't agree."
Foucault (French): "ONE MAKES WAR TO WIN, NOT BECAUSE IT IS JUST."
Chomsky: "I don't, personally, agree with that..."
In the funniest part of the whole discussion, Foucault B's TFO of Chomsky, the latter explicating his morality for a bit, having missed Foucault's point. Foucault is describing how the world actually works, and Chomsky is describing how he would like the world to be.
The great irony of all this is that the person arguing for human nature, Chomsky, is himself a leftist who would prefer a flavor of anarchism which human nature precludes.
You saw him at the star in Porter square?
Bataille speaks French like he's giving voiceovers for a French textbook, it's so clear and enunciated and not retarded at all like actual French speakers.
Swiss people aren't as bad, they speak a lot slower I've noticed.
Quebecois French is unintelligible
Acadian is pic related
>pieve ntree
Rand exceeds him
Also lacan
The maxim of natural theory of law is "an unjust law is not a true law" and I dont think noam realized that Foucault was thinking in terms of a normative theory of law
Foucault didn't say anything during that debate
I thought this was going to be about Milky Ways
tfw love foucault's ideas but too dumb to read them in their primary source form
>innate human nature, coercion, oppression
This way of thinking measures the value of things according to pleasure and pain, which is to say according to incidental states and trivialities. A foreground way of thinking and naivety, and nobody who is conscious of both formative powers and an artist’s conscience will fail to regard it with scorn as well as pity.
Pity for you! That is certainly not pity as you understand it: it is not pity for social “distress,” for “society” with its sick and injured, for people depraved and destroyed from the beginning as they lie around us on the ground; even less is it pity for the grumbling, dejected, rebellious slave strata who strive for dominance – they call it “freedom; justice; equality.”
Our pity is a higher, more far-sighted pity: – we see how humanity is becoming smaller, how you are making it smaller! – and there are moments when we look on your pity with indescribable alarm, when we fight this pity –, when we find your seriousness more dangerous than any sort of thoughtlessness. You want, if possible (and no “if possible” is crazier) to abolish suffering. And us? – it looks as though we would prefer it to be heightened and made even worse than it has ever been!
Well-being as you understand it – that is no goal; it looks to us like an end ! – a condition that immediately renders people ridiculous and despicable – that makes their decline into something desirable!
The discipline of suffering, of great suffering – don’t you know that this discipline has been the sole cause of every enhancement in humanity so far? The tension that breeds strength into the unhappy soul, its shudder at the sight of great destruction, its inventiveness and courage in enduring, surviving, interpreting, and exploiting unhappiness, and whatever depth, secrecy, whatever masks, spirit, cunning, greatness it has been given: – weren’t these the gifts of suffering, of the disciple of great suffering?
In human beings, creature and creator are combined: in humans there is material, fragments, abundance, clay, dirt, nonsense, chaos; but in humans there is also creator, maker, hammer-hardness, spectator-divinity and seventh day: – do you understand this contrast? And that your pity is aimed at the “creature in humans,” at what needs to be molded, broken, forged, torn, burnt, seared and purified, – at what necessarily needs to suffer and should suffer?
And our pity – don’t you realize who our inverted pity is aimed at when it fights against your pity as the worst of all pampering and weaknesses? – Pity against pity, then! – But to say it again: there are problems that are higher than any problems of pleasure, pain, or pity; and any philosophy that stops with these is a piece of naivete.
Wrong
No.
...
This man doesn't agree with Foucault so neither do I
What's frenchfag endgame? Foucalt or Baud?
I'm sure that there was some sexual tension going on through the debate
he's a fan of jung, so clearly a pseud
What you want here isn't so much bourgeois as something between "faggy lite" and "weak old man"
French speakers who have never heard a Swiss talking before tend to assume they're retarded because of how slowly they speak
Jung is my bro, then again I'm a pseud myself.
Failcault only wants to see the world burn. He desires to get rid of all society as its irrevocaly tainted by capitalism but doesn't know or seem to care what will come after that.
French philosophers are only in it for the fame and pussy anyway. The French will not listen to any philosopher if they are understandable, they like impenetrable horseshit as they believe it must be deep as its so complex. The philosophers are very famous and get the flower of French womanhood throwing themselves at them, they get great leaders asking them about world affairs and a lot of money. Who wouldn't talk shite if that is the what's on offer?