Debate Noam Chomsky & Michel Foucault - On human nature [Subtitled]
Why Hacker News recommends it
HN recommends it as a famous, revealing clash between two thinkers, though some note they largely talk past each other.
What it is
The full 1971 Dutch television debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault on human nature, with subtitles. They discuss creativity, knowledge, power and politics.
Recommended by 6 HN commenters across 6 different months, 2015 to 2026.
What Hacker News said
Strong rec steveklabnik · 2015-04 · on “Foucault’s lecture notes from 1970–71 demolish caricatures of his thought (2013)”
For anyone who hasn't watched the actual, full video of the debate, you should do so. Watching them argue in two languages at the same time is super fun. [this video] Okay, here's what the video is saying, in slightly-longer form. The exchange in the video is basically Chomsky saying "human nature" and Foucault laughing. This gets at the heart of the hour-long debate: do humans have some sort of nature? Foucault, and philosophers like him, think that the idea of 'human nature' is complete and utter garbage. So when Chomsky admits that his position boils down to an appeal of human nature, Foucault just laughs at him. It's a great moment that really highlights the whole thing. I love it.
Strong rec bbor · 2026-07 · on “Claude Opus 5”
1. Languages are used for much, much more than communication, and there is good reason to think that capacity didn't evolve for communication, but rather for metacognitive problem solving. 2. The idea that Tolkein --one of the most reknowned writers in our entire canon-- did something isn't relevant to the philosophical discussion of creativity and its obvious bounds. Even Tolkein was just painting within the lines set by the linguists he had read and the obscure languages he adored, not to mention the fundamental limits set by our capacity for language in the first place. For anyone who's curious about this kind of thing, I cannot reccomend the infamous debate b/w Chomsky & Foucault enough;
Recommends enqk · 2017-01 · on “How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free”
It is quite illuminating to see the exchange for instance between Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky to get a sense of the difference of tone and focus between european and american intellectuals. [this video]
Recommends f00_ · 2017-09 · on “Michel Foucault in Death Valley: A Boom Interview with Simeon Wade”
really wierd, most of my exposure to foucault is indirect. this debate with chomsky on human nature is interesting [this video]
Recommends marnett · 2018-03 · on “The Role of Luck in Life Success”
I think he is not interested in epistemology. But I always find discussions on the origins or human knowledge just as fascinating as you. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It sounds like you may have already been exposed to it given the content of your arguments, but there is a very enjoyable debate/discussion between Foucault and Chomsky on the acquisitions of human knowledge and human nature [1] and your position sounds quite similar to the one Chomsky elaborates on. [1] [this video]
Recommends pmoriarty · 2019-10 · on “Michel Foucault: Power and Struggle”
For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, here's an interesting debate between Foucault and Chomsky: [1] Unfortunately, they're mostly speaking past each other, but it's still worth watching. [1] - [this video]
Cites dethstar · 2015-04 · on “Foucault’s lecture notes from 1970–71 demolish caricatures of his thought (2013)”
>How are they defining human nature in the context of their debate? That's what Foucault wants to know. [this video] And from my little understanding, because they don't believe there's such thing as a human nature, since society, and other things from our surrounding affect us, and the "nature" could change in a different context, which would imply it isn't some kind of force behind us.
Cites thwest · 2015-04 · on “Foucault’s lecture notes from 1970–71 demolish caricatures of his thought (2013)”
No one will deny that there are charlatans and poets posing as philosophers in the continental tradition. Tatterdemalion's post even prefaces with that. There are also straight up falsifiers and a endemic of p-value smudgers in the hard sciences. A good rebuttal to this Chomsky quote are the lovely debates he had with Foucault himself. [this video] There is a plethora of writings of substance in the continental tradition. Writings that we should not ignore. 'Discipline and Punish' is one of them. I recommend 'The Dialectic of Enlightenment' by Adorno as your complement to Popper's writings. On another note, I don't generally see the value in antagonisms between paradigms or presentation forms. I