> In the most obvious terms, language serves as the center of the
>debate between
> Foucault and Chomsky. Yet, even with that common "ground" the interesting
> aspect of the exchange is how little it constituted a "debate" at all. Miller
> (in his Bio. of Foucualt) has some great quotes from Chomsky responding to the
> debate. Chomsky was nonplussed to say the least; he simply could not believe
> the things that came out of Foucault's mouth. Everything that Chomsky assumed
> to be a matter of simple common-sense agreement turned out to be directly
> contradicted by Foucault.
I've not seen the debate, but, in taking some linguistics courses to
suplament my degree in philosophy, I've come into contact with
Chomsky to a fair degree. He is a rationalist to a great degree, and
while not an emperacist in the sense that John Lock was, Foucault has
called himself an emperacist at times. My impression of Chomsky is
that he is more interested in how he thinks things _must_ be, even
when this goes against the evedence, then how things actualy are.
This seems to go against Foucault, or at least my impression of his
program. I hope this helps, at least a little.
Yours,
M. Lister
Philosophy Student,
Boise State University
mliste@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>debate between
> Foucault and Chomsky. Yet, even with that common "ground" the interesting
> aspect of the exchange is how little it constituted a "debate" at all. Miller
> (in his Bio. of Foucualt) has some great quotes from Chomsky responding to the
> debate. Chomsky was nonplussed to say the least; he simply could not believe
> the things that came out of Foucault's mouth. Everything that Chomsky assumed
> to be a matter of simple common-sense agreement turned out to be directly
> contradicted by Foucault.
I've not seen the debate, but, in taking some linguistics courses to
suplament my degree in philosophy, I've come into contact with
Chomsky to a fair degree. He is a rationalist to a great degree, and
while not an emperacist in the sense that John Lock was, Foucault has
called himself an emperacist at times. My impression of Chomsky is
that he is more interested in how he thinks things _must_ be, even
when this goes against the evedence, then how things actualy are.
This seems to go against Foucault, or at least my impression of his
program. I hope this helps, at least a little.
Yours,
M. Lister
Philosophy Student,
Boise State University
mliste@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx