Chomsky vs Foucault on Creativity & Science (1971)

I believe it is not actually a ‘VS’, it is a discussion rather than a debate and ‘and’ maybe more suitable

It's amazing the clarity that both are able to conjure off the cuff. Both seem to be speaking such an exemplarly form of their native language -- for claity sake -- that one can even understand Foucault's French!

Wonderful to hear Foucault speak about a matrix that replaces another matrix and incurs a new conception of truth. In essence, science is part of culture (human enquiry) and it's alterations and new hypotheses and "truths" are a reflection of shifts in cultural ideas at that time. For example, Einstein's theories of relativity were very much in keeping with the experimental ideas that could be seen at that time; Modernism. It is, of course quite easy to conceive such ideas today, when shifts in ideas and everything else are occurring at an accelerated rate. Foucault's conceptions also circulate around the Romantic notion of the heroic genius. As in the arts, scientists were seen to shine the light of their brilliant creativity to problems that have been unanswerable for aeons. It was an individuals superior intellect and, most importantly creativity (the capacity for new ideas) that really sorted out the brilliant from the intelligent. This kind of animalistic, intuitive, instinctive accident of nature together with the refinement of an absurdly large intellect and a mind that could soak up reams of technical knowledge was seen as an intrinsic key to new ideas in intellectual fields. The notion of the creative as merely a conduit to societal tropes and an environment full of discernible phenomena reduces the abilities and status of the creative. This is in keeping with ideas such as "he death of the author" and other postmodern tropes. Foucault's ideas are much more established now but back in the '70's they must have seemed very challenging, contentious, radical and absurd.

Merci pour ce que vous faites. Il est important de publier et de partager ce genre de contenu. Greatings from France

Foucault was such a genius. uncomfortable for the status quo then and now.

I thought Chomsky was gonna start speaking French , also real handsy back then !!

They both have a point. Foucault is often misrepresented because he is misframed inside Chomsky's structures. But it is important to not pick apart Foucault on Chomsky's ground just to be able to say 'well, obviously this is the worse philosophy'. Foucault has to be understood from the place of the panoptic principle that is proliferating throughout society and that has normifying properties. In a sense Chomsky's framing even embodies this panoptic principle saying 'who are you and how do you fit in our frames?'

It's at the very end, around 13:00, where we see in Foucault's response a key difference between the two thinkers

Hello. Thanks for uploading this video. Sending you my warm greetings from Germany. ~ June 2022. ~

Merci beaucoup d'avoir partagé ce moment d'excellence humaine. Mon cerveau Gen-Z apprécie les connaissances de qualité. 🇲🇽

I'm reading (very slowly...) Foucault's 'The Archaeology of Knowledge' at the moment. I wanted to hear him talk and that's why I visited your channel today! If Foucault was still living today I do wonder if his thinking would have changed like Chomsky's. His views on popular issues has me asking "What went wrong"...

As a sociologist Foucault knowledge is based on wading his way through structuralism,post structuralism,functional structuralism, conflict theory and symbolic interactionism. These have provided Foucault with a far more sophisticated approach to macro and micro studies of the political, social and economic systems that form the framework of any discussion.

Everyone who end up making something, tangible or not, that stops the flow of human cultural evolution is a creative. Ideas and discoveries flow forward without stop, some individuals are able to see the past, the present and foresee the future in a way that they are able to synthesize an absolute factor. Some people have the cerebral capability to elaborate in a way that past, present and creation(future) always happens in the present. Not a more capable brain just a different operation system. Creative minds often find struggles in following certain imposed rhythm of understanding, not about be fast or slower, it’s just a different way to see the true essence of the present.

What is so magnificent about Science is that is has successfully indoctrinated in the popular psyche that a notion of “more or less profound” and “more or less empirical” is analogous to a truthful or factual notion.

Foucault is absolutely right. Medicine is good example. Modern, scientific medicine has totally suppressed all other local traditional medicines and healing techniques like herbalism, shamanism and other practices.

12:36 Today, this point of disagreement would not be considered a case of either-or: Surely, the constraining rules/regularities of creativity are generated both cognitively by “the mind or human nature” and epistemically by “social forms, ..., etc.”. Right?

YouTube algorithm is that you

Internalism vs. externalism. Both sides have strengths and weaknesses.

fascinating to behold Foucault, a thinker very likely sincerely attempting to contribute thought of value, who has in fact harmed so many people, so catastrophically in our time.

I love how chomsky kept flicking his hands so rapidly.