For someone as distanced from any notion of politics, philosophy or human nature as myself, being engrossed in my daily world of stocks,oil prices and their analysis, this video has turned out to be quite the feedstock for a long chain of thoughts in an understandably large number of directions given the scope of the topics discussed.
I may be entirely wrong and I am sure a lot of learned people on these subjects will correct me (if they care) but as the debate progressed and both parties had had ample time to lay down their fundamental viewpoints and the pace (and vigour) of the debate quickened I noticed a disconnect in the line of thought between the two remarkably gifted individuals involved in the dialogue. Focault laid emphasis on the fact that humans merely discover what already exists, through various examples he elucidates on the point and explains how we have certain barriers(religious, political, social) which prohibit us from seeing things in totality and arriving at logical conclusions which may even, at times refute earlier beliefs. I personally think his core point was that humans are limited by their own society and themselves in discovering things that already exist in nature, hence it is safe to assume that Foacault was speaking on a dimension beyond just the evolution of human science and humanity. Chomskey on the other hand, was more inclined to think of it from human achievement point of view, and how their "innate" nature and creativity enabled them in performing various activities from mere survival to performing acts of genius. The disconnect, in my view was in this level of thought. While Chomskey was a bit superficial (relatively) and limited his thesis to the level of human understanding, perception, and reaction to the various stages of the scientific evolution, Focault went beyond the human aspect and was attempting to highlight the fact that what we merely term innate creativity may someday turn out to be something quantifiable and understandable to scientists in another day and age. Simply put, his view was that our knowledge is limited, as a species, by the level of our understanding of the world around us and the barriers that we create further limit us in progressing and expanding the base of this knowledge. The answers are already there, we are yet to find them. May I humbly add that Chomskey's "innate creativity" was a means to find the ultimate end of "scientific progress", which in Foacault's view was waiting to be discovered. Anyone see the disconnect yet? Or am I wrong in my understanding?
Nonetheless now that we are on the topic and I am putting across my views we might as well move along further into the dialogue. As the debate progressed I was beginning to think of Foacault as the sharp and practical one of the two and Chomskey as the idealist. While my opinion hasn't changed much towards the end there were a few things that slightly altered my views. Both these men, learned and experienced, travelled and respected in their own fields were right in their own way and from their own perspectives but until the 55th minute I was more inclined to agree wholeheartedly with each and every point that Focault had mentioned simply because he was speaking and questioning the very base, or foundation of humanity and society. However, once the conversation turned to politics and the class struggle, Foacault's view (in my mind) took a slightly impractical stand. While he was right in questioning the very base and causes of the "ideal justification" of their actions, we cannot simply undo centuries and millennia of human evolution and thinking.
No doubt that at times, we need to take a few steps back and correct our approach at the foundation if we are to solve a problem in an advanced stage, however we also need to know where to draw the line and at what cost we execute these corrections. We are way beyond the stage of questioning "innate" human emotions like kindness, compassion, or even revenge. After all many of these things are what make us human. It is my belief that, even if we assume for an instance that we can alter the trajectory of our evolution and the way society functioned, or its very existence, there would still be the "core" human tendency and nature intact.
The one point that both speakers agreed upon was that the current form of society laid too much emphasis on and revolve around the authorities and political establishments who wield all the power. We see today, in a democratic republic like India the flip side of that coin - where these political establishments have gone corrupt at the very core, where the common man is almost invisible and the world is losing confidence in India's ability to grow. Every few hundred years, the human society has seen events which have changed the course of its evolution. From cave dwellers to small settlements to aristocracy and finally to democracy. There will come a time when this will begin to crack at its seams too, and there will be another revolution- another system. It is almost impossible to contain the emotions and ambitions of billions of humans in a manner that appeases everyone, especially with the current situation of high conflicts of interest between the governed and the governing.
Where we end up, only time can tell. But a change we need - or a storm will brew.
