Reviews
The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature by John Rajchman, Michel Foucault, Noam Chomsky
iamnader's review against another edition
4.0
Language and time limits left Foucault on the sidelines, so this is mostly Chomsky, but remains interesting.
fhimet's review against another edition
3.0
Me sentí como en la clase de cálculo en la univ... Al final creo que no entendí un soberano carajo.
ccaedi's review against another edition
3.0
I didn't love how the essays and interviews in this book were arranged, but really enjoyed getting to understand a little more of Chomsky's work outside of linguistics.
My biggest takeaway is that often our differences in understanding come not from factual disagreement but from differences in the frameworks through which we talk about the world.
Chomsky believes that the human mind is predisposed to detect certain disciplines. He says, more or less, that the ability to categorize is at once mankind's greatest strength and one of our greatest obstacles. From behind the bars of our favored disciplines, there are some things we cannot understand.
My biggest takeaway is that often our differences in understanding come not from factual disagreement but from differences in the frameworks through which we talk about the world.
Chomsky believes that the human mind is predisposed to detect certain disciplines. He says, more or less, that the ability to categorize is at once mankind's greatest strength and one of our greatest obstacles. From behind the bars of our favored disciplines, there are some things we cannot understand.
dcunning11235's review against another edition
2.0
Chomsky's parts are interesting, if revealing of his always tendentious reasoning. (Something he is not doubt neither shy nor regretful about, nor unaware of.) This is problematic in a few passages where he seems to pretty blatantly assume what is to be proven, etc. But he makes some intersting points.
Focault... why is this guy so famous? He can't communicate clearly. He wanders all over without ever really making a point, continually begging off, continually hedging. Where he takes a stand it is to say, essentially, might makes right. As long as "right" people are powerful... maybe... except maybe not... but might does make right... sort of.
Now, let me spend 25 pages talking about shepherds, as explanation, history and analogy (you, reader, attempt to choose in what mix) for what could have been said in a page and a half.
Bleh.
Focault... why is this guy so famous? He can't communicate clearly. He wanders all over without ever really making a point, continually begging off, continually hedging. Where he takes a stand it is to say, essentially, might makes right. As long as "right" people are powerful... maybe... except maybe not... but might does make right... sort of.
Now, let me spend 25 pages talking about shepherds, as explanation, history and analogy (you, reader, attempt to choose in what mix) for what could have been said in a page and a half.
Bleh.
More...