Re: Human Nature: Justice versus Power, Noam Chomsky debates with Michel Foucault04ab9ff25011a73b36586d9694d3143b1Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:20:28 +0800sharedcopy.comhttp://sharedcopy.com/images/logo-sharedcopy.png?V0SharedCopysupport@sharedcopy.comAnd
contrary to what you think, you can't prevent me from believing that
these notions of human nature, of justice, of the realisation of the
essence of human beings, are all notions and concepts which have been
http://www.chomsky.info.sharedcopy.com/debates/04ab9ff25011a73b36586d9694d3143b.html#shcp16Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:20:28 +0800And
contrary to what you think, you can't prevent me from believing that
these notions of human nature, of justice, of the realisation of the
essence of human beings, are all notions and concepts which have been
formed within our civilisation, within our type of knowledge and our
form of philosophy, and that as a result form part of our class
system; and one can't, however regrettable it may be, put forward
these notions to describe or justify a fight which should-and shall in
principle--overthrow the very fundaments of our society. This is an
extrapolation for which I can't find the historical justification.
That's the point.mnovendstern1true I would claim then that this instinctive knowledge, if you like,
this schematism that makes it possible to derive complex and intricate
knowledge on the basis of very partial data, is one fundamental
constituent of humhttp://www.chomsky.info.sharedcopy.com/debates/04ab9ff25011a73b36586d9694d3143b.html#shcp14Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:20:28 +0800 I would claim then that this instinctive knowledge, if you like,
this schematism that makes it possible to derive complex and intricate
knowledge on the basis of very partial data, is one fundamental
constituent of human nature. In this case I think a fundamental
constituent because of the role that language plays, not merely in
communication, but also in expression of thought and interaction
between persons; and I assume that in other domains of human
intelligence, in other domains of human cognition and behaviour,
something of the same sort must be true.
Well, this collection, this mass of schematisms, innate organising
principles, which guides our social and intellectual and individual
behaviour, that's what I mean to refer to by the concept of human
nature .mnovendstern1trueOnly creativity is possible in
putting into play of a system of rules; it is not a mixture of order
and freedom.http://www.chomsky.info.sharedcopy.com/debates/04ab9ff25011a73b36586d9694d3143b.html#shcp11Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:20:28 +0800Only creativity is possible in
putting into play of a system of rules; it is not a mixture of order
and freedom.mnovendstern1true
Obligatory behavior to confront oppressive aspects within any system - Note: doesn't require one to reject that system
http://www.chomsky.info.sharedcopy.com/debates/04ab9ff25011a73b36586d9694d3143b.html#shcp9Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:20:28 +0800
Obligatory behavior to confront oppressive aspects within any system - Note: doesn't require one to reject that system
mnovendstern1falseI would think that ultimately it would make very
good sense, in many cases, to act against the legal institutions of a
given society, if in so doing you're striking at the sources of power
and oppression in that societyhttp://www.chomsky.info.sharedcopy.com/debates/04ab9ff25011a73b36586d9694d3143b.html#shcp8Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:20:28 +0800I would think that ultimately it would make very
good sense, in many cases, to act against the legal institutions of a
given society, if in so doing you're striking at the sources of power
and oppression in that society.mnovendstern1true
I think this is really what being a progressive is about - progress despite the uncertain nature of our conceptions a just society towards which we are progressing. It means taking action despite our knowledge of the fact that intrinsic cultural conhttp://www.chomsky.info.sharedcopy.com/debates/04ab9ff25011a73b36586d9694d3143b.html#shcp6Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:20:28 +0800
I think this is really what being a progressive is about - progress despite the uncertain nature of our conceptions a just society towards which we are progressing. It means taking action despite our knowledge of the fact that intrinsic cultural conditions, parochialisms, human mind limit our access to truth.
mnovendstern1falseWell, civil disobedience in the U.S. is an action
undertaken in the face of considerable uncertainties about its
effects.http://www.chomsky.info.sharedcopy.com/debates/04ab9ff25011a73b36586d9694d3143b.html#shcp5Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:20:28 +0800Well, civil disobedience in the U.S. is an action
undertaken in the face of considerable uncertainties about its
effects.mnovendstern1trueIt seems to me that modern technology, like the technology of
data-processing, or communication and so on, has precisely the
opposite implications. It implies that relevant information and
relevant understanding can be http://www.chomsky.info.sharedcopy.com/debates/04ab9ff25011a73b36586d9694d3143b.html#shcp3Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:20:28 +0800It seems to me that modern technology, like the technology of
data-processing, or communication and so on, has precisely the
opposite implications. It implies that relevant information and
relevant understanding can be brought to everyone quickly. It doesn't
have to be concentrated in the hands of a small group of managers who
control all knowledge, all information and all decision-making. So
technology, I think, can be liberating, it has the property of being
possibly liberating; it's converted, like everything else, like the
system of justice, into an instrument of oppression because of the
fact that power is badly distributed.mnovendstern1true I think we're safer in hoping for progress on the basis of those
human instincts than on the basis of the institutions of centralised
power, which, I believe, will almost inevitably act in the interest of
http://www.chomsky.info.sharedcopy.com/debates/04ab9ff25011a73b36586d9694d3143b.html#shcp2Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:20:28 +0800 I think we're safer in hoping for progress on the basis of those
human instincts than on the basis of the institutions of centralised
power, which, I believe, will almost inevitably act in the interest of
their most powerful components.mnovendstern1true
Production at the heart of the proletariat? A society should protect those who produce value.
http://www.chomsky.info.sharedcopy.com/debates/04ab9ff25011a73b36586d9694d3143b.html#shcp1Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:20:27 +0800
Production at the heart of the proletariat? A society should protect those who produce value.
mnovendstern1false And so I think that the student-revolutionaries, if you like, have
a point, a partial point : that is to say, it's a very important thing
in a modern advanced industrial society how the trained intelligentsia
http://www.chomsky.info.sharedcopy.com/debates/04ab9ff25011a73b36586d9694d3143b.html#shcp0Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:20:27 +0800 And so I think that the student-revolutionaries, if you like, have
a point, a partial point : that is to say, it's a very important thing
in a modern advanced industrial society how the trained intelligentsia
identifies itself. It's very important to ask whether they are going
to identify themselves as social managers, whether they are going to
be technocrats, or servants of either the state or private power, or,
alternatively, whether they are going to identify themselves as part
of the work force, who happen to be doing intellectual labour.
If the latter, then they can and should play a decent role in a
progressive social revolution. If the former, then they're part of the
class of oppressors.mnovendstern1true
Loading..