Jump to content
EveBYoung

Heidegger

Recommended Posts

Could you guys recommend some literature to check out from Heidegger please? Also any lit. on him if you find it useful.

 

Also, perhaps before we even get into that, could you guys take a second to explian to me the basic premises of Heidegger's thoughts? I realize this is a broad request, and I usually don't like it when questions like that are asked. But while I hear his name tossed around a lot, I haven't really figured out what it is he talks about.

 

Thanks guys.

 

And sorry if I'm coming off like a complete idiot haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I'm a high-school punk who hasn't opened his H-digger file four times since UTNIF this summer... (although I was taught by the best). Also, there is no 'HEIDEGGER K' that you can like... write a supergeneric block to. Also, there are about 6.022 x 10^23 different people who utilize H-daddy's thought in different contexts.

 

what i usually said was:

 

The way the aff structures its entire policy initiative is based firmly within calculative thought- that is to say, their policy or whatever calculates the use-value of human beings. They delineate a problem, proscribe a solution, and immediately attempt to solve it, generally based on metaphysical (ethico-moral) imperatives/justifications. This seems all well and good, however, the problem-solution mindset, and the paradigm of use-value as related to humans, is sort of problematic.

 

This is where the impact debate comes in- check the UTNIF heidegger file for some good stuff. The generic K impact card for Heidegger (that is also generally held up as an example of silly K impacts) is a piece of Dillon evidence that says that calcultive thought --> ability to assign arbitrary value --> ability to assign NEGATIVE or ZERO value --> genocide, judge.

 

There are a lot of impact variants, based on the authors (Spanos, Dillon, Campbell, Reid, Dillon and Campbell, Dillon and Reid, McWhorter, etc.)

 

However, your basic arg is the same- the problem solution mindset tends to fail, and it tends to fail rather spectacularly (Spanos' analysis regards the intervention in Vietnam that led to genocidal bombings etc.--- they had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it!)

 

As far as the alternative, there are many that people run. I prefer the do-nothing alternative, with the McWhorter 91/2 (don't remember) evidence as the card. The card if from Heidegger and the Earth which is edited by Ladelle McWhorter and someone else, and you can find in a university library.

 

The articulation of the alternative is usually that the only way in which we can possibly have a chance of escaping calculative thought is to refuse the ethico-moral imperative to act, and rather make a conscious choice to NOT-ACT in the face of the harms or whatever of the aff.

 

When running Heidegger, the framework question is extremely important. Check the UTNIF file for a good card, it's at the end of the Domestic Reserve 1NC shell. You basically need to win that debate shouldn't be a purely political space (or that it shouldn't be a political space at all) and thus the K alt should be evaluated... otherwise its tough to win).

 

Books/essays:

 

Basic Writings, Martin Heidegger (read "The Question Concerning Technology")

 

America's Shadow, William Spanos

 

If you go to a local bookstore, even something big-boxy (borders etc.) you can find lots of INTRO TO HEIDEGGER LOLZ type books that are a good introduction to his overall theory.

 

 

if i screwed anything up, please point it out... there are plenty of people on here more knowleadgeable about this.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NoValue2Lyfe just posted on my thread...please, shoot me now.

 

Thanks a lot Justin that was really helpful. I'm familiar with the problem/solution mindset bad argument, just didn't realize it was often heidegger.

 

Mind trading for that UTNIF file you mentioned? All I have is Michigan State but I can probably get most others from my school - somebody on my team is bound to have it haha.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Justin, I really liked your explanation.

 

Does anyone have a copy of the UTNIF Heidegger file they wouldn't mind emailing to me? (xian0422@gmail.com) I'm interested in looking at a few of those cards. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love me some justin, but i feel like i could add a bit to his explanation

 

heidegger's essay that got debaters all hot and bothered was "the problem concerning technology." what he meant wasnt ipods and computers, but rather the tecnological, manegerial mindset. this is the problem/solution stuff that justin talked about. The main reason why heidegger thought that was bad was it made us forget about being. being, or desain (i think the way heidegger said it-correct me if i'm wrong) is something that heidegger was concerned with for most of his philisophical life. how to define being, etc... he was a huge influence on the existentialists. so the reason why this technological thinking is so bad is it obscures being. people become a standing-reserve, ready to be deployed and serve their task, they become cogs in the machine. plus, technological thinking and that form of crude utilitarianism is the reason why we have the ability to destroy the planet at the flip of a switch.

 

that is my understanding

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Disclaimer: I'm a high-school punk who hasn't opened his H-digger file four times since UTNIF this summer... (although I was taught by the best). Also, there is no 'HEIDEGGER K' that you can like... write a supergeneric block to. Also, there are about 6.022 x 10^23 different people who utilize H-daddy's thought in different contexts.

 

what i usually said was:

 

The way the aff structures its entire policy initiative is based firmly within calculative thought- that is to say, their policy or whatever calculates the use-value of human beings. They delineate a problem, proscribe a solution, and immediately attempt to solve it, generally based on metaphysical (ethico-moral) imperatives/justifications. This seems all well and good, however, the problem-solution mindset, and the paradigm of use-value as related to humans, is sort of problematic.

 

This is where the impact debate comes in- check the UTNIF heidegger file for some good stuff. The generic K impact card for Heidegger (that is also generally held up as an example of silly K impacts) is a piece of Dillon evidence that says that calcultive thought --> ability to assign arbitrary value --> ability to assign NEGATIVE or ZERO value --> genocide, judge.

 

There are a lot of impact variants, based on the authors (Spanos, Dillon, Campbell, Reid, Dillon and Campbell, Dillon and Reid, McWhorter, etc.)

 

However, your basic arg is the same- the problem solution mindset tends to fail, and it tends to fail rather spectacularly (Spanos' analysis regards the intervention in Vietnam that led to genocidal bombings etc.--- they had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it!)

 

As far as the alternative, there are many that people run. I prefer the do-nothing alternative, with the McWhorter 91/2 (don't remember) evidence as the card. The card if from Heidegger and the Earth which is edited by Ladelle McWhorter and someone else, and you can find in a university library.

 

The articulation of the alternative is usually that the only way in which we can possibly have a chance of escaping calculative thought is to refuse the ethico-moral imperative to act, and rather make a conscious choice to NOT-ACT in the face of the harms or whatever of the aff.

 

When running Heidegger, the framework question is extremely important. Check the UTNIF file for a good card, it's at the end of the Domestic Reserve 1NC shell. You basically need to win that debate shouldn't be a purely political space (or that it shouldn't be a political space at all) and thus the K alt should be evaluated... otherwise its tough to win).

 

Books/essays:

 

Basic Writings, Martin Heidegger (read "The Question Concerning Technology")

 

America's Shadow, William Spanos

 

If you go to a local bookstore, even something big-boxy (borders etc.) you can find lots of INTRO TO HEIDEGGER LOLZ type books that are a good introduction to his overall theory.

 

 

if i screwed anything up, please point it out... there are plenty of people on here more knowleadgeable about this.

good explanation and all, but the K seems silly

 

if the aff has to defend all calc. though, then thats good because assigning negative/0 value to nazi's is probably good.

 

the aff should only defend the 1ac calculative though in a vacuum, and the only way for the neg to prove the 1ac prescription of X value to x group is bad would be to read a DA or a real critique.

 

 

also could you explain the f/w part?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heidegger is an awsome writer and the explanation you gave Justin is ftw. Anyways does anyone have the UTINF File?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=971266

 

2) http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=969800

 

 

Check out those two threads for more on Heidegger. Also, just hit Wikkipedia. Heidegger, like many philosophers, is trying to define 'being.'

 

As for the calculative thinking position, there is no better book than "Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action" by Jurgen Habermas.

 

What is the source from Heidegger that debaters are using this critique?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I base most of what I run from Heidegger's "The Question Concerning Technology" http://www.culturaleconomics.atfreeweb.com/Anno/Heidegger%20The%20Question%201954.htm

 

Most of my actual cards (including my 1NC) come from Hubert Dreyfus, who is amazing. I only saved links to one of his essays, but all of them are great.

 

http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/pdf/HdgerOnArtTechPoli.pdf

 

 

I've seen the UTNIF file but I didn't use much of it. They use Dillon/Spanos a lot, which is a different direction than what I wanted to take the argument.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The framework's multi-faceted. Obviously calculative thought's bad. The neg's framework then would be to focus on on the connection between the mental and bodily comportment of man when viewing nature, solves the 1AC and value to life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The framework's multi-faceted. Obviously calculative thought's bad. The neg's framework then would be to focus on on the connection between the mental and bodily comportment of man when viewing nature, solves the 1AC and value to life.

 

I don't even know what this means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~zuern/demo/heidegger/

 

the u of haiwaii provides a guide to the question concerning technology that i think is very well done. it's not the most germane piece of his work in dealing with the problem/solution aspect of Technological thought that justin was talking about, but i think it's one of the most accessible places to start understanding that/those concept(s).

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why would you start an argument in a tread like this? the person is clearly just asking for some help with putting together an argument they've alreayd decided to run. what, do you think you can persuade them not to run it? as was mentioned before, there are a number of other heidegger threads (links were even provided) that are much more theory based as opposed to assistance based. go there and make your shallow attempts at refutations.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so if i take out my calculator and start doing a word problem in my math textbook involving humans, am i justifying genocide?

 

No. And Heidegger wouldn't say you were.

 

You don't link because you use a timer during a speech either. That's just inane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so if i take out my calculator and start doing a word problem in my math textbook involving humans, am i justifying genocide?

 

Sure. Or at least justifying the destruction of the meaning of being. It'd really have to depend on what the math problem entailed, but as long as it was constructed in such a way to view individuals as resources/tools to be used to solve some sort of problem, then yeah.

 

Of course, doing a few math problems won't cause the impact to happen immediately, but it "contributes to the system of mechanized existance that threatens to enhance all beings, even us."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, you're taking the arg out of context. I mean I buy what JD's saying about it contributing to the impact but that's a pretty bad link. The Heidegger args used in debate are all from his later years when he was bitching about technology. He said that comodifying nature and the environment is bad because it turns it into a standing reserve or a resource. This is the type of calculative thought that Heidegger talks about. There are a lot of different deviations that post-medernist critics have come up with but at the core its commodification of nature (land, animals, humans, etc.) is bad, not calculations involving nature bad.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so if i take out my calculator and start doing a word problem in my math textbook involving humans, am i justifying genocide?

You'll have to go as deep as John Zerzan before you find an author that'll claim that all numbers/math are/is bad; but I'm not sure you wanna go that deep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, commodification isn't really the terminal impact, at least not the way I run it. (but it's close)

 

Through viewing people calculatively, we view them as resources to be used. This is obviously bad for their state of being, but ultimately bad for the individual as well because after living in a state of calculation and 'progress' for so long, the individual views themselves as a resource to be used. A good example of this is any sort of career. You work hard to get promoted. Once you are promoted, you continue working hard to get promoted again, only to do more work. This sort of existence doesn't lead to any end or higher cause, but just stagnates in attempts to "progress." At the terminal point where the individual views themselves as a resource, existence becomes mechanized. (mechanized existence is different and similar to commodified existence. Each individual is assigned a value that exists only to hide any 'meaning' they might assign to life outside of that value, so the technological/calculative interpretation of life eclipses being because it stifles any other sort of interpretations of what it might mean to 'exist' outside of the value assigned.)

 

Heidegger describes it best in his analogy to the Rhine in "The Question Concerning Technology...

 

(I originally intended to copy the analogy into the post, but then I realized how long and drawn out Heidegger was, and how it would take up at least two pages. If you go to the link to "The Question Concerning Technology" that I posted about and read from 'The hydroelectric plant is set into the current of the Rhine.' to the section about the man who cuts down trees in the forest, you'll get the idea.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't have the standing reserve arg as the terminal impact, I have the same one as you, but the only time I run it would be against a case involving nature like the Fire Corps for example (and I've only hit that a few times thus I rarely run the arg) but that's why I focused on nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense. We run it every round so I guess I'm more geared towards the generic impact/link debate of the K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...