From: Omar Nasim <umnasimo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 12:05:14 -0500 (CDT)
> I've not seen the debate, but, in taking some linguistics courses to
> suplament my degree in philosophy, I've come into contact with
> Chomsky to a fair degree. He is a rationalist to a great degree, and
> while not an emperacist in the sense that John Lock was, Foucault has
> called himself an emperacist at times. My impression of Chomsky is
> that he is more interested in how he thinks things _must_ be, even
> when this goes against the evedence, then how things actualy are.
> This seems to go against Foucault, or at least my impression of his
> program. I hope this helps, at least a little.
> M. Lister
> Philosophy Student,
> Boise State University
Yes I would have to agree with your analysis of each's
epistemological and ontological positions. But would you say that
Chomsky is a structuralist, in that he makes truth and molds reality,
while Foucualt is a post-structuralist ( I think he even called himself
one). If this is true, then we find that there is some sort of implicit
tension between Foucualts works and Chomsky's. Another question I have
is that, Is Chomsky a post-modernist like Foucault???
University of Manitoba.