Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Friday, March 20, 2015
Debate: Humans have no nature, what they have is history
IUAES World Anthropology Congress, Manchester, 2013. Venue: Bridgewater Hall.
Plenary Debate: "Humans have no nature, what they have is history".
Chair: Marilyn Strathern (Cambridge University).
Speakers:
Motion
Tim Ingold (Aberdeen University) - social anthropologist
Second
Veena Das (Johns Hopkins University) - anthropologist/philosopher
Oppose
Ruth Mace (University College London)- evolutionary anthropologist
Second
Juichi Yamagiwa (Kyoto University) - primatologist
http://www.livinganthropologically.com/anthropology/human-nature/
Labels:
Debate
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Thursday, December 4, 2014
1963 'Open Mind' - Race Relations in Crisis
Given the contemporary U.S. climate, I thought this might be appropriate...
Malcolm X, Alan Morrison, Wyatt Tee Walker and James Farmer participate in an open round debate on the PBS show "Open Mind". Original air date: June 12, 1963.
Malcolm X at UC Berkeley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTOn8JtN4c0
Malcolm X, Alan Morrison, Wyatt Tee Walker and James Farmer participate in an open round debate on the PBS show "Open Mind". Original air date: June 12, 1963.
Malcolm X at UC Berkeley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTOn8JtN4c0
Labels:
Debate,
Discussion
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Saturday, July 27, 2013
The Chomsky-Zizek Show
Act I.
In an interview, Chomsky expresses his opinion of Lacan, Derrida, and Zizek as empty posturing. His attack is, in a way, on the culture of French philosophy. Foucault once mentioned that a degree of obscurity and layers of analysis is necessary for the French to respect philosophy (don't remember the citation here). I was also told that the culture of writing philosophy in France is to state one's position but also address several levels of critique, which tends to obscure but that this was the practice of writing (not sure about the extent of this - I, unfortunately, don't read french). But Chomsky takes a jab at that tradition and calls "theory" as posturing and with little empirical testability.
Chomsky to Zizek:
http://www.openculture.com/2013/06/noam_chomsky_slams_zizek_and_lacan_empty_posturing.html
Act II
Zizek is made aware of Chomsky's comment during a conference and states that he has never known an academic so "empirically wrong". This was recorded and transcribed by a PhD student from the University of York (though, I think Zizek says that this was incorrectly transcribed...).
Zizek to Chomsky:
http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/slavoj-zizek-responds-to-noam-chomsky.html
Intermission
Note: There is the issue of translation and hearsay. One person relays what somebody else says. So miscommunication is possible and both may be addressing very different things.
Some commentary and advertisement from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/19/noam-chomsky-slavoj-zizek-ding-dong
Act III
Chomsky writes a brief response to Zizek's comments from the transcript above. And still maintains that Zizek has nothing empirical to offer or any corrections. Shit is getting serious...
Chomsky to Zizek
http://www.zcommunications.org/contents/194150
Act IV
Zizek responds to Chomsky. Zizek perks up to attention here and gives an essay with citations and empirical references. Shit just got real...
Zizek to Chomsky
http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1365-some-bewildered-clarifications
*Note: so after the miscommunications are cleared and the real jabs have been thrown instead of a shadow boxing through hearsay. The debate is now legitimate and has taken on some academic value. I hope Chomsky responds and takes this further... shit's better than television.
Assessment by PEL; podcast:
http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/07/30/chomsky-vs-zizek/
*Update: another podcast on the debate by 'Diet Soap Podcast', posted by critical-theory.com
*Update: Commentary by Greg Burris, 'What the Chomsky-Zizek debate tells us about Snowden's NSA Revelations'
In an interview, Chomsky expresses his opinion of Lacan, Derrida, and Zizek as empty posturing. His attack is, in a way, on the culture of French philosophy. Foucault once mentioned that a degree of obscurity and layers of analysis is necessary for the French to respect philosophy (don't remember the citation here). I was also told that the culture of writing philosophy in France is to state one's position but also address several levels of critique, which tends to obscure but that this was the practice of writing (not sure about the extent of this - I, unfortunately, don't read french). But Chomsky takes a jab at that tradition and calls "theory" as posturing and with little empirical testability.
Chomsky to Zizek:
http://www.openculture.com/2013/06/noam_chomsky_slams_zizek_and_lacan_empty_posturing.html
Act II
Zizek is made aware of Chomsky's comment during a conference and states that he has never known an academic so "empirically wrong". This was recorded and transcribed by a PhD student from the University of York (though, I think Zizek says that this was incorrectly transcribed...).
Zizek to Chomsky:
http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/slavoj-zizek-responds-to-noam-chomsky.html
Intermission
Note: There is the issue of translation and hearsay. One person relays what somebody else says. So miscommunication is possible and both may be addressing very different things.
Some commentary and advertisement from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/19/noam-chomsky-slavoj-zizek-ding-dong
Act III
Chomsky writes a brief response to Zizek's comments from the transcript above. And still maintains that Zizek has nothing empirical to offer or any corrections. Shit is getting serious...
Chomsky to Zizek
http://www.zcommunications.org/contents/194150
Act IV
Zizek responds to Chomsky. Zizek perks up to attention here and gives an essay with citations and empirical references. Shit just got real...
Zizek to Chomsky
http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/1365-some-bewildered-clarifications
*Note: so after the miscommunications are cleared and the real jabs have been thrown instead of a shadow boxing through hearsay. The debate is now legitimate and has taken on some academic value. I hope Chomsky responds and takes this further... shit's better than television.
Assessment by PEL; podcast:
http://www.partiallyexaminedlife.com/2013/07/30/chomsky-vs-zizek/
*Update: another podcast on the debate by 'Diet Soap Podcast', posted by critical-theory.com
*Update: Commentary by Greg Burris, 'What the Chomsky-Zizek debate tells us about Snowden's NSA Revelations'
Labels:
Debate
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Dershowitz v. Chomsky debate Israel
Chomsky recently gave the Edward W. Said lecture in London on March 18, 2013, which is adapted here under the title 'The Cruelty That Keeps Empires Alive': http://www.alternet.org/world/chomsky-cruelty-keeps-empires-alive?paging=off
The actual lecture can be seen here: http://www.mosaicrooms.org/edward-w-said-london-lecture-2013-full-video/
Labels:
Debate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)