Foucault Versus Chomsky

Chomsky: "Now the state has the power to enforce a certain concept of what is legal, but power doesn’t imply justice or even correctness, so that the state may define something as civil disobedience and may be wrong in doing so."



The debate of human nature has always and continues to be a debate. It is the question of whether human nature just comes already or whether it is built on experiences. It's a huge question to think about, however when though of thoroughly, DNA makes a human. There are several experiments in which twins who are separated and have different lives still end up having the same interests, etc. However, there can also be some experiences that do shape human nature. Therefore, human nature is not only based on biology or the environment but on both. Moving on to the debate, they argue about truth and justices. Foucault believes we have a motive of power behind it while Chomsky believes it is just flawed because our knowledge is limited. I, personally, agree with Chomsky because when it comes to the decisions that the US has done before, they used to believe that slavery was not wrong. Today, we view it as one of the worst things that could ever happen. I believe that it is because our understanding of what is right has developed.