Most Helpful Customer Reviews
21 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
A Hodge-Podge of Disparate Previously Published Pieces, October 14, 2010
This review is from: The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature (Paperback)
Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault are arguably two of the most influential thinkers of the late twentieth century - important contributors to Western intellectual history. Despite their significance, however, this small text has limited value. It is a hodgepodge of loosely related and previously published material much of which is available on line for free.
The book, as its title suggests, is notionally centered on the 1971 Dutch Television debate between Chomsky and Foucault moderated by Edlers on the question of whether or not there such a thing as an "innate" human nature. While the `debate' is largely an exercise in the two protagonists talking past each other; it is nonetheless an interesting small episode in contemporary intellectual history. The video and transcript have been available on-line for years. Had the remainder of the text been post-debate reflections or new analysis of the issues raised in the discussion the text could have been quite interesting. Sadly, this is not the case.
The remaining four essays are transcripts of interviews and presentations by Foucault and Chomsky on other subjects - Chomsky does offer a few small asides on the debate at the end of one interview. The two chapters on Chomsky are transcripts of 1976 interviews with Ronat. `The Philosophy of Language' is a collection of Chomsky's musings on the modern intellectual project while `Politics' provides a feel for his well known political views which range from insightful reflections on the nature and function of societal power structures to his more fringe conspiracy-type views. While interesting small pieces they have been previously published and have only a tenuous link to the earlier debate.
Michel Foucault's `Truth and Power' is a transcript of an interview with Fontana and Pasquino in the mid 70s that focuses on the evolution and focus of Foucault's thought. While "Omnes et Singulatim: Toward a Critique of Political Rason is based on lectures Foucault gave at Stanford in the 80s discussing power and reason in modern society (available on line). Again these are fine small pieces, however, in the current text they feel like filler.
Chomsky and Foucault are important and interesting thinkers. That said, I do not see the value of this text. Some original analysis of their debate could have been interesting.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
27 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Highly recommended, and a welcome contribution to library philosophy shelves., July 8, 2007
This review is from: The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature (Paperback)
The Chomsky-Foucault Debate On Human Nature collects and presents an integral debate held between two of the world's top intellectuals, Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, held in 1971 (during the height of the Vietnam War) to wrestle with the ancient question: Is there such a thing as "innate" human nature independent of our experiences and external influences? In addition to reproducing the debate verbatim, The Chomsky-Foucault Debate On Human Nature includes later writings by each speaker: "Politics" (1976) and "A Philosophy of Language" (1976) by Noam Chomsky, and "Truth and Power" (1976), "Omnes et Singulatim: Toward a Critique of Political Rason" (1978) and "Confronting Government: Human Rights" (1984) by Michel Foucault. "The concept of legality and the concept of justice are not identical; they're not entirely distinct either. Insofar as legality incorporates justice in this sense of better justice, referring to a better society, then we should follow and obey the law... Of course, in those areas where the legal system happens to represent not better justice, but rather the techniques of oppression that have been codified in a particular autocratic system, well, then a reasonable human being should disregard and oppose them, at least in principle; he may not, for some reason, do it in fact." Highly recommended, and a welcome contribution to library philosophy shelves.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Good Stuff, July 31, 2010
This review is from: The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature (Paperback)
I wish there were more such confrontations between thinkers of Foucault and Chomsky's stature. Regardless of whom you favor, at least they managed to wrangle over serious issues, such as whether there is an absolute justice and whether we share an independent human nature or essence. In this exchange, Foucault seems to undercut Chomsky repeatedly, first moving Chomsky to concede that issues of injustice and oppression would occur even in conditions of relative anarchy, and then pinning Chomsky to a notion of absolute justice that Chomsky admits he cannot articulate. The supplementary readings in this text are, I believe, necessary to get an accurate picture of Foucault's considered position, which is not clearly represented in the exchange (where he is playing something of a devil's advocate). While this does not amount to anything like a demonstration that Chomsky was wrong--and Foucault would not have claimed to demonstrate such a thing--it does show, I think, that defenders of Chomsky's positions have some rather heavy lifting in store.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
