Jean-Jacques Lecercle identifies 'four harmful characteristics' in
Chomsky's theory of language: methodological individualism,
fetishism, the refusal of history, and naturalism. Each of these
would seem to relate to Chomsky's
innatism, the defence of which - together with the defence of the idea of 'free association' - seems to be the raison d'être for Chomsky's steadfast adherence to theoretical humanism in the face of Foucault's critique.
It is common to associate theoretical anti-humanism with the denial of agency or creativity but theoretical humanism could just as well be said to be the denial of social antagonism or the subordination of human antagonism within a narrative of the unfolding of human nature, and the attribution of creativity to a 'human essence' rather than actual, living, concrete human beings.
On 05/03/2010, at 1:44 PM, Mehmet Kentel wrote:
innatism, the defence of which - together with the defence of the idea of 'free association' - seems to be the raison d'être for Chomsky's steadfast adherence to theoretical humanism in the face of Foucault's critique.
It is common to associate theoretical anti-humanism with the denial of agency or creativity but theoretical humanism could just as well be said to be the denial of social antagonism or the subordination of human antagonism within a narrative of the unfolding of human nature, and the attribution of creativity to a 'human essence' rather than actual, living, concrete human beings.
On 05/03/2010, at 1:44 PM, Mehmet Kentel wrote:
I guess in the debate with Chomsky he rejects the idea of building a
philosophy and a political movement around a given quality of human nature
(that includes, I think, "creativity", which is attributed to human nature
by Chomsky), but not the human nature itself. I think Foucault's position in
this regard may be called as agnostic...
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Teresa Mayne <teresa.mayne@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Creativity_______________________________________________
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxxwrote:
So this is probably a rather old topic or debate that's been tossedaround
before but does anyone here actually think Foucault rejected the idea ofa
"human nature" outright as in universal human behaviors? I don't thinkthe
rejected the latter per say but I do htink he rejected the idea of a_______________________________________________
universal human "nature" or "essence" that could be discovered with
knowledge or liberty, a position shared also by Nietzsche, Von MIses and
Hannah Arendt.
what do you guys think?
And do you think a "critique" or "rejection" of human nature as a concept
is
necessarily as "flawed" as some make it out to be?
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(319)-512-9318
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
Foucault-L mailing list
Foucault-L mailing list