I assume most of you prefer Chomsky ?
>>24678796I don't. Im team Foucault generally speaking.
>>24678796I prefer Chomsky, yes.
>>24678796No, this is a Foucault board
The Chomsky-Foucault match was a 1-1 draw, although Foucault had the more impressive goal in the second half. Chomsky pulled ahead one-nil in the first half by correctly asserting and positing the real existence of a form of "human nature" which has useful and explanatory power in describing the human condition (language acquisition as one example) , although he characterized it only in very general terms and noted that it does entail a certain variability. In reply, Foucault said relatively little, along with some Marxist silliness that did not meaningfully undermine Chomsky's assertion, or cause the officials to overrule Chomsky's score. Foucault ignored a referee's request that he put on a clown wig, wisely opting to keep his aerodynamic bald head for play.Foucault equalized in the second half, which instead focused on war and justice, particularly in the context of Vietnam. Chomsky's defenses promptly fell apart as he moved away from the net and became tangled in his own legalism, citing various laws and papers issued by countries, organizations and courts to try to establish the illegitimacy of the Vietnam war, forgetting practical political reality. Foucault took the opportunity and kicked a dazzling goal toward the opposite bottom of the net, and as he did so, on the pitch, he was heard to make the following correct observation: "One does not make war because it just. One makes war in order to win." Chomsky became visibly flustered and contested that Foucaul was offsides (more legalism), and the lead referre, Hume, issued a yellow card, informing Chomsky that he had mistaken his Ought for an Is and to watch it next time, triggering outcries from supporters of both sides. In the end, nevertheless, it was a draw, although the second half was more lively.
>>24678796I wish he were still alive so I could kill him
>>24678861Foucault pointed out that Chomsky's concept of human nature is a naive assumption, impossible to disentangle from the lattice work of social and historical influences, which risks universalizing this or that society's particular instantiation of "human nature". The legacy of Chomsky's linguistic career has vindicated Foucault's critique.
>>24678960>instantiation of human nature.The order of which doesn't necessitate language. I'd argue /lit/ confides in Chomsky solely on his linguistics alone.
>>24678796>you prefer Chomsky ?I've already talked about this. /lit/ threads barely last and most importantly are low quality on average, whats the point
>>24678861how does the Chomsky-Skinner debate fare in comparison?
>>24679046>The order of which doesn't necessitate languageCan you clarify?
>>24679046Chomsky’s linguistics are retarded, particularly the story about the origin of grammar. It’s clear he never read Heidegger
>>24678796What's the redpill on Foucault
>>24679125Chomsky's leveraging of his linguistic studies is undoubtedly the reason you were able to type that post. And not because Foucault's intrinsic understanding of the power and limitations of human will
Sorry, I don't read books written after 1600.
>>24678861>>24678960>Prima facie, claims to the effect that there is no human nature or essence cannot be anything but farcical if they are not walked back with so many caveats as to simply reintroduce the idea of a nature in some modified form. It is clear that man is a certain sort of thing. We do not expect that our children might some day soon spin themselves into cocoons and emerge weeks later with wings, because this is not the sort of thing man does. We know that we will fall if we leap off a precipice, and we understand that we are at no risk of floating away into the sky when we step outdoors. Things possess stable natures; what they are determines how they interact with everything else. Beans do not sprout by being watered in kerosene and being set ablaze, nor can cats live on a diet of rocks. Attempts to wholly remove any notion of “human nature” invariably get walked back with notions like "facticity," “modes of being,” etc.>Hence, when it comes to ethics, a blanket denial of “human nature” will not do. It is not the case that children benefit as much from healthy, regular meals as from having mercury dumped into their water. While the political theory underlying today’s hegemonic ideology, neoliberalism, might sometimes attempt to consider man as an essenceless, abstract, “choosing agent,” it can never truly commit to this in practice.
>>24679309He had aids because he was a fag.
>>24679309>Most assigned person in all of academia by a huge margin. https://analytics.opensyllabus.org/record/persons?size=100>Credibly accused of taking advantage of impoverished young boys in North African colonies and raping them (on top of graves)>User of drugs, promiscuous, died of AIDS>Somehow a major moral and political authority
>>24679859The boy rape in cemeteries is 100% bullshit made up by Guy Sorman (who admitted it was a hoax). As usual journalists just made the buzz with the accusation whereas the follow up was not covered. Foucault was a fag so I agree he shouldn't much of a moral authority on anything but there is no need for bullshit stories.
>>24679867They weren't debunked, the "debunking" was literally:>Young impoverished boys wouldn't agree to that! (Actually, we know they do all the time out of desperation).>Sorman is le old.>It was probably a joke Foucault told.>Locals 50 years later in a culture where homosexuality is extremely taboo said "that could never happen here."At any rate, he was a public defender of pedophilia.
>>24679876>Citation not needed Pedophila is defacto immoral and we're all good Christians on this site
