And He was asking him, "What is your name?" And he said to Him, "My name is Multitude; for we are many."

wtf is a chomsky

I am guessing most of you have already heard of this debate, but in case you haven’t seen it, and for those who haven’t heard of it, I thought it would be nice to do just a short post about it.




Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky had a public debate in 1971. The debate was aired on Dutch television and focused on the politics of justice, power, scientific knowledge and human nature. More interesting than the sectioned topics, however, is to see the debate of the two radical left wing  thinkers as a clash between the titans of new structuralism and poststructuralism. Of course these tags are anachronistic, and probably neither of them would recognize themselves in them. But while Chomsky constructed a new linguistic perspective that left intact the notion of reality, we can see the disagreements with Foucault emerging precisely where the later thought in and conceived a completely different idea of what language and reality mean – questioning in fact to which extent reality can exist without language or, inversely, to what extent reality must be conceived as a language or part of one.


There is much to say about the debate, but I just wanted to leave it here because I think it’s a nice intro to Foucault’s thought.


You can also read the transcript of the full debate HERE.


Anyway, I thought of doing this post because I friend sent me this quote yesterday, and I had to share it:



It clearly didn’t work. The Dutch audience was sober, Chomsky was the usual bore, and Foucault kicked ass even without being high. (well, he was high in the usual arrogant intellectual humiliation, but no trace of hash as far as i can see). Also, anarchist or not that was probably one of the most wasting moderation I’ve ever seen.

But this quote just comes as reason #453 why I love petit Michel.



2 comments on “wtf is a chomsky

  1. 01100110011101010110001101101011

    do you even have any argument against Chomsky?
    not appealing to your amusement is not a sign of rationality


    • platypuss38

      thankfully i’m not aiming at rationality in any way. i also have no intention of convincing anybody about what to think of chomsky.
      I’m simply sharing a nice piece of philosophy and leaving a lighthearted comment with it.

      but if you do want to share your opinion on this debate, please go ahead : )


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: