[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 126 KB, 850x1160, p16nabgbqp6dl1bo5eog1ejrue20_58280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7201492 No.7201492 [Reply] [Original]

CHOMSKY BTFO --- CHOMSKY BTFO --- CHOMSKY BTFO

BAKUNIAN ANARCHISTS ON SUICIDE WATCH!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8

>> No.7201501

Do you even understand what this 'debate' was about?

>> No.7201522

>>7201501
This tbh. They just talked past each other.

>> No.7201529

the only thing I know about him is that he had bdsm gay sex in the early 80's and got AIDS

LOL what a n00b

>> No.7201539

>>7201529
butsex is nice, it feels good on the ass

>> No.7201577

>>7201492
Noone really won, Fuckoult was just more imposing in his arguments.

>> No.7201629

>>7201522
The debate goes through two points:

1) Whether language is determinate.
Clear win for Foucault.

2) Whether politics must be moral, or whether it is the exercise of class power.
Clear win for Foucault.

>> No.7201661

>>7201629
this tbh

>> No.7201664

>>7201629
seemed to me like Foucault just tries to reframe the issues until he is correct tautologically.

he's not even arguing. at least Chomsky is trying to make a point.

>> No.7201718

>>7201629
I don't understand why Chomsky would disagree with the idea that politics is the exercise of class power. It seems like you're exaggerating.

>> No.7201726

>>7201718
class has a different meaning for each other

>> No.7202380

>>7201629
Don't forget the debate over who could pleasure your mother better.
Another clear win for Foucault.

>> No.7202392

>>7202380
He could pleasure someone with AIDS better lmao

>> No.7202415

>>7201664
Chomsky doesn't provide the possibility of an evidential test for his claims, and retreats into liberal normativity.

>>7201718
When chomsky is asked whether he would support the working class even if they were wrong, he says no. Foucault knows that the working class necessarily cannot be wrong.

>> No.7202570

Chomsky: Science, science, biology, science, fuck history, creativity yeah, imagination fuck yeah science

Foucault: Data Data, psychology, physiology, Data, yeah motherfucka, data, bang bang bang bang, linguistics, outside, inside bang bang

Winner: Foucault

>> No.7202608

chomsky: ugly moleface loser
foucault: kawaii bald qtpi

>> No.7202621

dat chomsky hash do bruh

>> No.7202624

>>7201726
>>7202415
So instead of discussing the concept of class and class conflict, they just talked past each other?

>> No.7202662

>>7202624
I skimmed through it. it's
80% talking to themselves within their field of interest
15% using one small snippet the other said to go off on a non related tangent
5% Foucualt being a dick to the moderator

Chomsky came across as well-mannered, and at least willing to consider Foucault.

Foucault came across as an autistic dickhead.

>> No.7202670

Damn, Chomsky rekt Foucault. I didn't think OP was being facetious.

>> No.7202725

>>7201492

I have the little recent book which textualizes this happening. I have yet to read it (went a bit in but got bored), but this makes me want to pick it back up.

Per wiki and other pleb sources, Chomsky came away from the contest with a disturbance as to Foucault's total "amorality" (IIRC). Meanwhile, Foucault got some money or weed as a result of the thing (from the moderator?) and smoked it up with his butt buddies. They called it "Chomsky Hash".

The little that I remember from the above readings (and watching past videos), they really do talk past each other just like today's political pundits, just in a much more polite fashion and without the screaming match.

>> No.7203003

>>7202415
Is a concept like "we should try to imagine a better future so we can enact it" really falsifiable though, and should it have to be? It's not like Foucault has a better idea of how to get to a more desirable state.

Foucault just seems totally impractical to me, at least Chomsky is putting in effort. In a way Foucault's vaguely left-ish near-nihilism is more depressing to me than that of his leather daddy Nietszche. Which isn't really an argument against Foucault per se, but I think does get at how Foucault's almost a reactionary in a sense.

>> No.7203019

>>7202725
Chomsky has never believed in the proletariat, he is not part of us. We are not moral.

>> No.7203061

here is where chomsky actually gets pwned

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OUkztFhUeI

>> No.7203172
File: 82 KB, 555x526, 1439149288411.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7203172

>>7203003
>Foucault just seems totally impractical to me, at least Chomsky is putting in effort. In a way Foucault's vaguely left-ish near-nihilism is more depressing to me than that of his leather daddy Nietszche. Which isn't really an argument against Foucault per se, but I think does get at how Foucault's almost a reactionary in a sense.

Ladies & gentlemen: the New Left

>> No.7203201

>>7201492
I literally just watched that

this shit keeps happening i dont know how or why

>> No.7203484

>>7203003
>I find Foucault more depressing than Niestzche
>isn't really an argument against Foucault per se, but I think does get at how Foucault's almost a reactionary in a sense

are you retarded?

>> No.7203723
File: 126 KB, 417x283, whoisthis.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7203723

>>7203061
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OUkztFhUeI
Who is this guy? he looks so familiar but I can't place it.

>> No.7203758

>>7203723
Willem Dafoe

>> No.7203826

CHOMSKY: We need to create a decent and moral society, anarcho-sindycalism is the answer

FUCKLOT: Wait a minute, are you trying to impose your own concept of ideal society to me again, m8?

CHOMSKY BTFO

>> No.7203833

>>7203758
Damn, was about to post this.

>> No.7203852

>>7203723
John Hurt

>> No.7204498

>>7203172
>>7203484
Yes, I am retarded. But throw me in with the idealistic hippies if you want, I'd rather hang with them than with the "we cannot even imagine a future because our minds are poison by capitalism" reductionism of Foucault.

>> No.7204856

>>7203723
my aesthetic

>> No.7204893

>>7201492
The undergrad Chomsky Defense force is out in force on /lit/, suggesting he has ever been wrong or that he isn't LE SMARTEST GUY IN DA WORLD!!!1 is a capital offense here you'd better fuck off before they drop their wikipedia knowledge on you OP.

>> No.7204926

>>7202570
Thank you for participating

>> No.7204927

>>7202415
>Chomsky doesn't provide the possibility of an evidential test for his claims, and retreats into liberal normativity.
This.

Chomsky's "anarchism" is really just a more lefty version of classical liberalism, something he admits to.

>> No.7204948

>>7204927
That is fine and not totally inaccurate, but Foucault's leftism is really just a verbose way of saying, "Fuck everything."

>> No.7204950

>>7202662
>his name sounds like 'fuck you' in a heavy french accent
>he's a dick
God is in Heaven, all is right with the world.

>> No.7205129

>>7204948
In all honesty, Chomsky's form of "anarchism" is highly moralistic and economistic, as anarcho-syndicalism usually is. That brand of anarchism views anarchism almost like virtue ethics where the goal is to have society slowly but surely progress towards a rigid moral end. It puts a heavy emphasis on rationality and a huge amount of faith in human progress, similar to the Soviet Union at its most economistic when Stalin thought that increasing industry would naturally lead to full communism.

Anarcho-syndicalism is also heavily economistic. The Spanish anarchists fell into the same trap as the USSR did, only they believed workers' control of factories would be enough to undo all of the authoritarianism of society. In reality, they became authoritarians in their own right.

>> No.7205206

>>7205129
I don't think Chomsky's anarchism is nearly as deterministic or ideological as you're painting it. He has lofty ideals but he's basically a pragmatist - this is clear in his disdain for the heavily theoretical "obscuritanist" likes of Lacan and Zizek (his term, not mine, I like both of them significantly more than Chomsky does).

I can't speak to how similar Chomsky is to the Catalonian anarchists, but he is pretty emphatically not a Hegelian, not a Marxist, doesn't believe in irrepressible forces carrying the world to an economic endpoint, doesn't have a theory of history. He has ideas about how the world could and should be better, and I think they are mostly right.

>> No.7205308

>>7205206
>I don't think Chomsky's anarchism is nearly as deterministic or ideological as you're painting it.
Chomsky's obsession with "human nature" and the idea that all humans naturally desire some kind of anarchist society is very deterministic.

>He has lofty ideals but he's basically a pragmatist
Well, "common sense" is a pretty ideological notion that carries a lot of baggage. "Pragmatism" can mean forfeiting your principles in order to take the easy way out, which Chomsky does quite often.

>doesn't believe in irrepressible forces carrying the world to an economic endpoint, doesn't have a theory of history.
Again, he puts far too much weight on the idea that all humans naturally desire a uniform notion of justice and freedom, which is metaphysics.

>He has ideas about how the world could and should be better, and I think they are mostly right.
Which proves my point. His anarchism seeks to teach people a moral lesson, which is ultimately restricted to a conventional idea of how humans ought to behave.

She explains my position much better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VIJglD_vRU

>> No.7205329

>>7205308
Chomsky's concept of human nature is more primitive than marx's discarded species-being.

Foucault, at least, backs the power of the proletariat.

>> No.7205346

>>7205329
Chomsky has admitted that his belief in a static "human nature" is the backbone to his anarchism.

Foucault was arguably more radical than Chomsky. At least Foucault had periods in his life where he did favor all-out revolution. Hell, his teacher was Althusser.

>> No.7205348

Why does Foucault keep sticking his index finger in his mouth?

>> No.7205366

>>7205348
>Why does Foucault keep sticking his index finger in his mouth?
He wants the cock.

He doesn't speak English so good and is trying to listen intently to Chomsky.

He is listening intently to Chomsky and is utterly pissed off by how primitive Chomsky's ideas are.

>>7205346
>At least Foucault had periods in his life where he did favor all-out revolution. Hell, his teacher was Althusser.

Althusser isn't a great example, given that his political work was entirely conservative and his academic work was desultory. In comparison, Foucault at least did some political work of worth.

>> No.7205420

>>7205346
how radical was Althusser tho?

>> No.7205422

>>7205420
More radical than Noam.

>> No.7205443

>>7205422
but less than foucault?
idk. althusser seemed to think basically everything that existed was just serving capitalism and we couldnt even think at all. foucault seems to me to think that we can think from our very own nodes of power, and thus the system is already very weak and it would follow am uch less radical change needs to take place for progress

>> No.7205453

>>7205420
Well the PCF sidelined him for being a bourgeois academic as a matter of policy, and rightly so.

I think Althusser's political work consisted of [badly] running his University CP section.

>> No.7205470

>>7205453
meh, i figured his work was important in pushing the PCF into a party that was bordering on old the old Russian Nihilists ideas of revolution, and would have saved France from heading towards state socialism/state capitalism aka bourgeois notions that 'work' is still very good and we must work for the community but still work.

>> No.7205477

>>7205443
Althusser's ideology viewed the structure of social reality as pre-determined ("over" or "sur" determined) by the material relations of production, which in effect produced a metaphysical idealism with the IDEA being the PCF line. Pretty weak.

Foucault's account of power relations centres the possibility of collective subjectivities, but this requires more than just replacing De Gaulle with the PCF, it requires a radical transformation of all collectives.

>> No.7205507

>>7205470
Bit bourgeois idealist tbh comrade.

Remember that Althusser was repeatedly hospitalised and came out of a dominating catholic background.

He was hyped for a bunch of lectures he did in a small group, and for the ability to conservatise and pedagogise Marxist ideology as a didactical system, without too much Stalin, through his structuralist approach.

>> No.7205621

>>7205346
>Chomsky has admitted that his belief in a static "human nature" is the backbone to his anarchism.

Except it's not. Chomsky said his linguistic work has nothing to do with his political work.

>> No.7205633

>>7205621
>makes claims about an essential human nature in linguistics

>no relevance to his politics which relies on an essential human nature

sure sure.

>> No.7205644

>>7205308
Personally I think talking calling Chomsky a moralizer and saying he's "restricted to a conventional idea of how humans ought to behave" is a really convenient way of dodging the entire issue, and exactly what Foucault does constantly during the debate. State how you disagree with Chomsky's ideas directly rather than dismissing them on some meta-ideological grounds.

I can't watch that vid right now but I will when I have a minute.

>> No.7205699

>>7205644
Given that the debate is between ideology and praxis, demonstrating that Chomsky is mired in ideology is the debate.

>> No.7205713

>>7205699
Okay, if the criticism is "Chomsky doesn't murder capitalists enough" then I honestly got nothin. Hope Foucault has some big name scalps though.

>> No.7205728

>>7201664
>just tries to reframe the issues until he is correct tautologically

What's wrong with that? That's a perfectly valid way to develop a logical argument?

A(x) => B(x)
B(x) => C(x)
C(x) <=> T

>> No.7205796

Chomsky is a man who has seriously theorized that people are biologically tuned to understand physics.

>> No.7206023

Why does Foucault sound like he's making up shit as he goes

>> No.7206458

>>7206023
Because he's actually thinking, not regurgitating a line.

>> No.7206557

>>7206458
i'm no intellectual but it seems like Foucault talks in vague philosophical bullshit while Chomsky actually deals with concrete ideas and examples.

>> No.7206614

>>7203003
This is late Foucault when he had already mostly ditched Marxism and started to turn neo-liberal.

>> No.7206615

>>7205477
althusser thought ownership, even at the level of the workers owning the means of production, was still bourgeois. althusser wanted to replace everything with something more radical than collectives/collective ownership

>> No.7206737

>>7206615
which was?

>> No.7206743

>>7206737
That the PCF should totalise the proletariat and force the PCF line.

>> No.7207112

>>7201629
>1) Clear win for Foucault
kek