/lit/ - Literature

>>13065503

Derrida always wins.

>>13065509
based

>>13065509
based AIDS going over Foucaultetty

>>13065509
Foucault wasn't living to be an individuated subjectivity in capital, and therefore his dead from HIV/AIDS did not limit the project he was a section of.

>>13065503
Foucault two nil.

Chomsky advances the idea that language has meaning in the first half. Foucault asks him for evidence. Chomsky says it would be nice if there were evidence, but there isn't, and CANNOT BE. Foucault chuckles, historically materialistically. GOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!

Second half, after the debrief from the commentators.

Chomsky is forced to answer the question, "If the proletariat acted immorally, ought we still support it?" He answers, "No." Chomsky here advocates a universal, ie: liberal, morality. OWN GOAAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!!!!!

Foucault is brilliant here because he is acting politically, rather than academically. Foucault would love it language could be proved to have meaning, but knows it cannot be so. In this context all claims and moral statements are purely the results of the material reproduction of social relations: ie: the historical material relations of production or extraction (there is a question as to whether production existed prior to capital.) Foucault here backs the proletariat.

Secondly, Foucault backs the proletariat. If we are forced to make a pyre of cop, officer and boss children to implement our own power in history, we will. If we are forced to sit through pronoun preference discussion after pronoun preference discussion to implement our own power in history, we will. We are *not* a moral class. We are our coming to power.

p.s.: Chomsky supported genocide.

>>13065503
looking at this picture of foucalt cured my homophobia

>>13065557
are you proletariat anon?

>>13065581
No, but your mother is (sex proletariat)

>>13065581
>>13065620
I exchange the promise of labour power for a wage. Currently in logistics. Previously in logistics. Previously in food. Previously in administration (academic). Previously in administration (academic). Previously in administration (medical). Previously in academia.

>>13065620
No that's my great grandmother and 4x great grandmother.

>>13065503
Nosferatu

>>13065503

What is winning? Most postmodern philosophers weren't FOR postmodernism, including Foucault. Quite on the contrary, they're mostly so jaded and critical about current events that any kind of revolutionary potential they come up with seems weak in comparison to their unbridled criticisms. But yeah, I'd say Foucault had that one in the sense of describing things better

>>13065503

What was the premise of the debate anyway? Who would you prefer for global Hall Monitor, a fag or a grandma?

>>13065557
>p.s.: Chomsky supported genocide
The Khmer Rouge did nothing wrong.

>>13065923
Did I say that?

Foucault's answer revolves around the proletarian composition of the Khmer Rouge; not, right or wrong.

>>13065503
Imo Foucault.
The entire debate is a little beating around the bush and obligatory meddling in the beginning.
But when the concept of "justice" comes up foucault fucks chomsky upside down, since bleeding heart chomk cant take the thought that there is no morality behind a revolution of the proletariat or a shift in the dynamics of power. Its simply rational that those who are "opressed" for the lack of a better word, should try to turn around the situation. But chomsky as a little queer cant take the thought of it.
based aidsboy, i say.

>>13065942
Adequate description. Up your reliance on the historical praxis of the class to fully deliberalise your analysis.

When I was watching their debate, chomsky came across like a massively arrogant idiot which he is. I really liked how Foucault tried to explain his epistemology which was basically finding stuff that all fields understand each other. While chomsky was like lmao language xdd.

>>13066016
>>13065942
>>13065557
What's ironic about all these posters is none of them can speak proper English.

>>13066099
Yes, because the English is the Truth!

>>13065653
>Foucault
>postmodern philosopher

>>13066099
>everyone is a filthy a*glo

>>13066099
>My English is so bad that I would be ashamed... to answer in English

>>13065557
>language could be proved to have meaning

dafuq. Of course it has meaning. Transmits information.

>>13066450
No, languages transmit references for the meaning.

>>13066450
There’s probably some sophistry here about how information does not necessitate meaning and meaning is a subjective experience, etc. etc.

>>13066475
It's not sophistry. The words refer to something else which is the meaning in itself. Words aren't magical incantations.

>>13065915
>chomsky is a grandma
seems right

>>13066489
When I say, "that is a dog," and point to a particular dog, then you could say I "meant" that dog when I said "dog." But does the word "dog" removed from the sentence contain the same meaning? Evidently not, a dog in general is a set of qualities: fur, quadrupedal, dew claws, etc. But would you know that a dog "in general" has these qualities if you had not already compared the word "dog" with a specific physical referent? The information transmitted in the language is not a product of the language itself, but of your association with the language. You know a steering wheel because you have seen it in a car, seen its function therein; but if you just saw it lying on the ground, and had never seen it in a car, it could be a plate, a weapon, an ornament: anything or nothing at all.