Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky 1971 Debate

Chomsky and Foucault have different methods of seeing things, but what they have in
common is that they focus on critique the issues of the 20th century in ways the thinkers of the
Enlightenment have tried( they expand Nietzsche’s own beliefs; before the eighteenth century,
people had no real sense of “human nature”- this is how Foucault thinks.). Chomsky says that
human nature exists as long as children build their own system of language (although they
belong to different cultures). What I found interesting is that Chomsky sees science as a tool to
progress in knowledge in order to improve the society. Chomsky adds that it is important to
follow some conditions to ‘progress towards a theory of scientific creativity, or in fact towards
any question of epistemology.’ As for science, Foucault stresses the idea that as we develop new
theories or methods in science some of our beliefs dissapear while we come up with new beliefs.
Chomsky says unpleasant words about behaviorists. Behaviorists have no real theory and
Chomsky thinks this is bad for scientists since it harms their studies(‘ behavioural science, is that
it is a negation of the possibility of developing a scientific theory. That is, what defines
behaviourism is the very curious and self-destructive assumption that you are not permitted to
create an interesting theory.’)
Chomsky goes forward, to justice vs the law, saying it is morally right to break a law if
the law is wrong ( ‘For example, in the United States the state defines it as civil disobedience to,
let's say, derail an ammunition train that's going to Vietnam; and the state is wrong in defining
that as civil disobedience, because it's legal and proper and should be done. It's proper to carry
out actions that will prevent the criminal acts of the state, just as it is proper to violate a traffic
ordinance in order to prevent a murder.’) To Foucault, justice means many things to different
classes of people. But it is the ruling class that has the authority to turn its desires and values into
law (‘ it seems to me that the idea of justice in itself is an idea which in effect has been invented
and put to work in different types of societies as an instrument of a certain political and
economic power or as a weapon against that power. But it seems to me that, in any case, the
notion of justice itself functions within a society of classes as a claim made by the oppressed
class and as justification for it.’ ) Foucault says something that I found nice to bare in mind ‘How
can I not be interested in politics? Everything is somehow political and relevant to me.’
Further, Chomsky emphasizes the international law. International law was created by the
most influencial politicians and military leaders. But this types of laws can have positive effects
upon societies so the ideas behind them try to make a better world( in order to sustain his idea he
brings the Nuremberg principles in front of the debate).
Both philosophers believe in some kinds of activism and link politics to philosophy: ‘I think that
in the intellectual domain of political action, that is the domain of trying to construct a vision of a
just and free society on the basis of some notion of human nature.’ ( Chomsky)

I am sorry for being a bad student.