6/29/2023 0 Comments The chomsky foucault debate![]() ![]() If it’s more open-ended than Chomsky predicts, it’s probably not too useful a guide to, say, complex human social structures. There are questions remaining about what this innate structure looks like and how narrowly it guides people. But the basic idea is easy enough to understand and not obviously wrong. At least according to some people who talk about, say, affordance theory. Chomsky very well might overplay his hand a bit. ![]() This, plus whichever other innate structures go along with it, is a part of something called ‘human nature.’ Therefore, there must be some kind of innate linguistic schema and guide to representation. The environment is too impoverished to account for even the everyday creativity people show in language, which is only one example of human creativity among many (i.e., psychological behaviorism is false). It’s more that they approach issues from different angles.Ĭhomsky’s argument for the existence of something called ‘human nature’ is pretty straightforward and analytic. ![]() On human nature, it’s not so much that Chomsky and Foucault disagree. But I did come away with a few impressions and lessons learned. And the short debate format has its clear limits. I wasn’t new to either Chomsky or Foucault when I watched and read the Chomsky-Foucault debate. It’s known as the Chomsky-Foucault debate. The transcript, along with some related essays from both Chomsky and Foucault, is available to buy as a book. Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault sat down for a debate in the early 1970s. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |