So many ideological debates actually come down to different view points on what is human nature.
Chomsky's position in this debate is close to my own. I believe that there are universal notions of justice that are hard-wired to human development (just like Kant's 'categories' of causality etc that naturally emerge in the human brain).
Chomsky's position coincides with the idea of the 'justice motive' that psychologist Melvin Lerner writes about (I discovered this book whilst hanging out in the library all year for honours)-
Yet I don't know whether i'd call myself a Cartesian as Chomsky does. It sounds too linear to me!!!
BTW in the course of a google search, I found a biographical site for Noam Chomsky. It's really interesting.
...
From Amazon.com:
The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature Editorial Reviews:
Book Description:
Two of the twentieth century's most influential thinkers debate a perennial question.
In 1971, at the height of the Vietnam War and at a time of great political and social instability, two of the world's leading intellectuals, Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, were invited by Dutch philosopher Fons Edlers to debate an age-old question: is there such a thing as "innate" human nature independent of our experiences and external influences?
The resulting dialogue is one of the most original, provocative, and spontaneous exchanges to have occurred between contemporary philosophers, and above all serves as a concise introduction to their basic theories. What begins as a philosophical argument rooted in linguistics (Chomsky) and the theory of knowledge (Foucault), soon evolves into a broader discussion encompassing a wide range of topics, from science, history, and behaviorism to creativity, freedom, and the struggle for justice in the realm of politics.
In addition to the debate itself, this volume features a newly written introduction by noted Foucault scholar John Rajchman and includes additional text by Noam Chomsky.
About the Author:
Noam Chomsky is Professor of Linguistics at MIT and a world-renowned political thinker and activist. The author of numerous books, including On Language and Understanding Power (both available from The New Press), he lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Michel Foucault (1926-84) held a chair in the History of Systems of Thought at the Collège de France. The New Press has published three previous volumes of his work as well as a collection, The Essential Foucault. John Rajchman is a professor of philosophy at Columbia University and author of Michel Foucault. He lives in New York City.
Foucault's Chomp, November 27, 2006
Reviewer: Mr. Bloom
It is now widely conceded among post-modern/post-structuralist circles that Foucault broke the back of linguist-political scientist Noam Chomsky in this televised debate on Dutch television. Perhaps this conception further contributed to Chomksy's disdain with the French intellectual community entire in subsequent years. Nevertheless, regardless of one's political/philosophical disposition, this is an endlessly fascinating debate, between two thinkers working as "tunnellers through a mountain working at opposite sides of the same mountain with different tools, without even knowing if they are working in each other's direction" (2), to use the moderators' description.
The debate begins technically, Chomksy addresses his discoveries within the domain of cognitive linguistics, and Foucault outlines his historical research into the sciences in Western civilization. Chomsky is a self-described rational `Cartesian,' a philosophical disposition largely rejected by post-modernity after the detruktion of Western philosophy by Martin Heidegger. Foucault, on the other hand, (who began as a major Heideggerian) seems to adopt a Nietzschean disposition; he rejects Chomsky's assertion that a genuine concept of human justice is rooted biologically in the human species. Rather, that our knowledge of morality and human nature are always necessarily rooted in social conditioning. Chomsky actually fails (here as well as elsewhere) to really confront the philosophy of Nietzsche, who necessarily put a dent in all forms of socialism, whether democratic, libertarian, or totalitarian. To illustrate Chomsky's elusiveness: "FOUCAULT: it seems to me that the idea of justice in itself is an idea which in effect has been invented and put to work in different types of societies as an instrument of a certain political and economic power as a weapon against that power. But it seems to me that, in any case, the notion of justice itself functions within a society of classes as a claim made by the oppressed class and as justification for it. CHOMSKY: I don't agree with that. FOUCAULT: And in a classless society, I am not sure that we would still use this notion of justice" (54-55). But Chomksy replies by reasserting his belief that there must be an absolute basis in which notions of human justice are "grounded" (ibid), however, he relies once again solely on his partial knowledge of what `human nature' is.
2 Comments on this Review
J. D. Shockley
Ridiculous. Foucault got owned. Scientists like Marc Hauser have proven that we do have a moral grammar wired in the brain. Foucault's belief that every action driven by our sense of justice, freedom, love etc is in reality a "will to power" is so simplistic and idiotic, that any 12-year-old kid can refute it. Chomsky has proven over and over again that most intellectuals are servants of power. Those French elitist intellectuals have to spout fancy words and engage in endless mental masturbation and obscure/pretentious/complicated rhetoric to appear like they're smart and maintain their status, but Chomsky kicked their behind hands down, and exposed their game to their face (that's why he's hated) Like Chomsky says, the notion of human beings as selfish blank slates is one that appeals to authoritarian ideologies.
Reply
No comments:
Post a Comment