Jump to content
EveBYoung

Heidegger

Recommended Posts

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.

 

this is a pretty gross misreading of heidegger. to say that he isn't critical of calculations involving nature ignores everything heidegger says about the way modern science is conducted (as compared to that of the greeks). this is a large part of the essay "the question concerning technology" but occupies an even larger place in another essay in "the question concening technology" the boo, namely "science and reflection". he argues that modern science no longer relates to nature in a way that allows Being to reveal itself or remain disclosed, but rather science is now involved in challenging forth (forcing) a specific revealing of nature (truth about how nature is) to conform to a predetermined set of rules. this is due in large part to how calculatively we approach the natural world as a causal system that we can stand outside of and understand and predict. most biodiversity advantages are guilty of this in that they claim to understand the functioning of nature such that X (intervention) will definately cause Y (pollution/species loss, etc) will definately cause Z (collapse, extinction). but it's also revealed in how calculative our interactions with nature are; this is where heidegger talks about how rigged most "scientific experiments" are in that they presuppose a groundplan and control the atmosphere to such a degree as to presuppose the outcome. the result is that modern science places man as the arbiter of what gets to be called nature. we define things as "natural" or "unnatural" based on their living up to the expectations of those expirements (that we set up). we are further set outside nature, limiting it's revealing.

 

on a more basic level, the commodification of nature and the calculation of nature are inseperable. to view a vast mountain range as an oil field involves both it's commodification and a calculation of how it best (most efficiently) serves a function as a resource waiting to be used (you have to calculate to commodify).

 

so to say that there's no heideggerian critique of calculations of nature is umm...wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I said calculations involving nature I meant math equations and calculations as mentioned in the posts above, not that calculations involving nature don't link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's slavoj zizek's summary of the heideggerean 'alternative' - from page 11 of the ticklish subject:

 

"In his project of 'overcoming' metaphysics, Heidegger fully endorses this Nietzschean dismissal of quick and easy exits from metaphysics: the only real way to break the metaphysical closure is to 'pass through it' in its most dangerous form, to endure the pain of metaphysical nihilism at its most extreme, which means that one should reject as futile all false sedatives, all direct attempts to suspend the mad vicious cycle of modern technology by means of a return to premodern traditional Wisdom (from Christianity to Oriental thought), all attempts to reduce the threat of modern technology to the effect of some ontic social wrong (capitalist exploitation, patriarchal domination, 'mechanicist paradigm' . . .). These attempts are not only ineffectual: the true problem with them is that, on a deeper level, they incite the evil they are fighting even further. An excellent example here is the ecological crisis: the moment we reduce it to disturbances provoked by ou excessive technological exploitation of nature, we silently already surmise that the solution is to rely again on technological innovations: new 'green' technology, more efficient and global in its control of natural processes and human resources. . . . Every concrete ecological concern and project to change technology in order to improve the state of our natural surroundings is thus devalued as relying on the very source of the trouble.

 

For Heidegger the true problem is not ecological crisis in its ontic dimension, including a possible global catastrophe (hole in the ozone layer, melting of the ice caps, etc.), but the technological mode of relating to entities around us - this true crisis will confront us even more radically if the expected catastrophe does not occur; that is, if humankind does succeed in technologically 'mastering' the critical situation. . . . For that reason, Heidegger also denies philosophical relevance to the standard liberal problematic of the tension between 'open' and 'closed' societies, between the 'normal' functioning of the democratic capitalist system, with its respect for human rights and freedoms, and its (Fascist or Communist) totalitarian 'excesses'. Implicitly, at least, Heidegger devalues the effort to constrain the system - to maintain its 'human face', to compel it to respect basic rules of democracy and freedom, to provide for human solidarity, to prevent its sliding into totalitarian excess - as an escape from the inner truth of the system that becomes perceptible in such excesses: such half-hearted efforts to keep the system in check are the worst way to remain within its horizon."

 

anyone wanna tag that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-JD, what alternative do you read?

 

The alternative I read is derived from the Dreyfus 93 essay I posted a link to earlier. The text is "Reject the affirmative for the application of technological thought onto free thinking individuals and enter into a mindset that is critical towards the concept growth and progress being the goals of existence." The card we read along with it is where Dreyfus talks about how questioning the ideals of technological existance can open up new interpretations of being and allow for the technological to be seen for what it is - a process that advances another end, not it's own end. (when we get locked into meaningless cycles of work and progress with no greater purpose we become mechanized, but once we are questioning we use technology as a means to whatever end we think it should be used for).

 

And Lazzarone, I don't know what to make of that card. I honestly can't tell if you are trying to say Heidegger's alt fails or not.

 

If you are trying to say Heidegger's alt fails, then you are just goofy. You have genuinely liberated that card from all context if that is what you are trying to say. The card says that attempts to improve calculative technology without losing the technological mindset fails (IE, green technology that conserves, but still views the environment as a resource).

 

If you are trying to use it for alt solvency, then it is nearly as goofy because the good parts of the card aren't underlined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - I was going to say - I did not realize that Heidegger drifted into this green politics thing. What he is saying is essentially the very same 'Anthropocentrism' argument that Fritjof Capra makes in the book Green Politics.

 

I essentially don't buy most of these mindset arguments. Certainly, there is something to be said about a 'band-aid' program that is nothing more than 'quiessense.' But how do you know when and if a particular policy is done in the spirit of the environment as a whole of if it is done in the mindset of a band-aid program?

 

When we say the academy awards on Sunday, was Melissa Etheridge speaking to this truth that Heidegger asserts, or was she merely applying a band-aid to a broken leg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that we can't identify certain assumptions about a policy by it's implications and language is a rather absurd proposition.

 

as to melissa etheridge, that's already been answered...

here's slavoj zizek's summary of the heideggerean 'alternative' - from page 11 of the ticklish subject:

 

"In his project of 'overcoming' metaphysics, Heidegger fully endorses this Nietzschean dismissal of quick and easy exits from metaphysics:the only real way to break the metaphysical closure is to 'pass through it' in its most dangerous form, to endure the pain of metaphysical nihilism at its most extreme, which means that one should reject as futile all false sedatives, all direct attempts to suspend the mad vicious cycle of modern technology by means of a return to premodern traditional Wisdom (from Christianity to Oriental thought), all attempts to reduce the threat of modern technology to the effect of some ontic social wrong (capitalist exploitation, patriarchal domination, 'mechanicist paradigm' . . .). These attempts are not only ineffectual: the true problem with them is that, on a deeper level, they incite the evil they are fighting even further. An excellent example here is the ecological crisis: the moment we reduce it to disturbances provoked by ou excessive technological exploitation of nature, we silently already surmise that the solution is to rely again on technological innovations: new 'green' technology, more efficient and global in its control of natural processes and human resources. . . . Every concrete ecological concern and project to change technology in order to improve the state of our natural surroundings is thus devalued as relying on the very source of the trouble.

For Heidegger the true problem is not ecological crisis in its ontic dimension, including a possible global catastrophe (hole in the ozone layer, melting of the ice caps, etc.), but the technological mode of relating to entities around us - this true crisis will confront us even more radically if the expected catastrophe does not occur; that is, if humankind does succeed in technologically 'mastering' the critical situation. . . . For that reason, Heidegger also denies philosophical relevance to the standard liberal problematic of the tension between 'open' and 'closed' societies, between the 'normal' functioning of the democratic capitalist system, with its respect for human rights and freedoms, and its (Fascist or Communist) totalitarian 'excesses'. Implicitly, at least,Heidegger devalues the effort to constrain the system - to maintain its 'human face', to compel it to respect basic rules of democracy and freedom, to provide for human solidarity, to prevent its sliding into totalitarian excess - as an escape from the inner truth of the system that becomes perceptible in such excesses: such half-hearted efforts to keep the system in check are the worst way to remain within its horizon."

 

anyone wanna tag that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).
citation or (preferably) explanation? i don't think i've heard this sort of argument before (and it's sort of boggling)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I can see Heidegger's point, and I have to admit that through my own life experiences, stop-gap, temporary, band aid actions often are the underlying cause for the absense of real change.

 

However, I overall don't really see this as a reasons to reject a particular action. I would need a very case specific set of cards - specific links - suggesting that the affirmative plan is a bone thrown out for quiessense, or that it would have that effect, rather than a general kritik card.

 

I think that if there was a good example of this it is the Fois Gras debate in Chicago. If you are unfamiliar with this, allow me to elucidate....

 

In Chicago, the city government has banned the serving of fois gras, a french delicasy of goose liver, from restaurant menus. The reasoning is that to make fois gras, the geese have to pretty much be tortured with feeding tubes and where their livers become bloated, and the animals die a cruel and premature death.

 

It is only one animal, and one particular method of French culinary preparation.

 

In an animal rights context, this is precisely the type of limited action that Heidegger might suggest is a short sighted, and will lead to the mere quiessense of any real change.

 

The flip side is this.....if the ban in put in place, some 3,000 geese won't be tortured. So we should not do it because of quiessense? Because it doesn't get to the real problem?

 

I see the banning of Fois Gras as a positive, albeit small, step for the anti-cruetly movement. I think that it will do more to generate anti-cruelty sympathies than to elimate the impetus for any real change as Heidegger might suggest.

 

I am not saying the Heidegger position is never true, but I think for the most part, I would need case specific cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do realize that my post about the Fois Gras involves me misreading the post on Heidegger to a degree. I decided to just leave the post up there anyway, though, because I think it speaks to the ideas of stop-gap solutions, which Heidegger does make reference to.

 

That is a tough card to tag. I am not sure why a technological solution is necessarily misguided just because it also relies on technology.

 

I would agree with Heidegger that it is misleading to blame everything on (1) technology, (2) capitalism, (3) the government, or whatever.

 

I think that Heidegger is also right when he states that efforts of contraint fuel the hostility. That is true in many spheres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And Lazzarone, I don't know what to make of that card. I honestly can't tell if you are trying to say Heidegger's alt fails or not. If you are trying to say Heidegger's alt fails, then you are just goofy. You have genuinely liberated that card from all context if that is what you are trying to say. The card says that attempts to improve calculative technology without losing the technological mindset fails (IE, green technology that conserves, but still views the environment as a resource). If you are trying to use it for alt solvency, then it is nearly as goofy because the good parts of the card aren't underlined."

 

i find this comment goofy. i wasn't 'trying to say' anything; i highlighted the more general principles of reasoning in the card. as for zizek, he began as a heideggerean but has since had severe reservations about the a-political nature of his philosophy. in subsequent pages, zizek criticizes heidegger for (basically) 'making the perfect the enemy of the good'. waiting around for a political party that'll represent the inner greatness of a people is what lead to heidegger's endorsement of the nazis and then his rejection of any political engagement whatsoever (both of which are mistakes, to zizek). instead we need to read heidegger (and kant and derrida) against heidegger to realize that the incapacity to reduce ontological essences to ontic conditions is what makes politics possible. this isn't some deplorable sin to overcome or escape; it's the very horizon of our creative possibilities.

 

as for what i think, to me zizek offers further explanation for why heidegger's concept of 'the silent call of conscience' is so important, and zizek misses the fundamental importance of this in most of his writing... i could go on, but this isn't really the place.

 

hephaestus, heidegger is making an ontological point that doesn't require any specificity, or rather is easily applicable to specific contexts. ok, 3,000 geese won't be tortured, heidegger would say, but isn't this a false sedative? we'll think to ourselves, we're less cruel, when the origin of our cruelty isn't in our acts, but in our ways of relating to the world around us. we still set ourselves up as 'masters of the earth', who have the authority to torture or spare those lower animals we claim dominion over. the point isn't reforms like these really do nothing, but that's it's better to do nothing (to reject such reforms) than further entrench the very mindsets you're claiming to oppose. if we succeed in eliminating our cruelty towards animals, we may find we've gained a proper 'ecological balance' but lost our soul -- remember the card says the greatest danger isn't the ontic threat from technology (from species extinction on up to global thermonuclear annihilation), but the ontological threat that can't be calculated or weighed. so let them eat goose liver, heidegger seems to say, and maybe a more militant heidegger would take pictures of the geese being tortured and display them to the patrons of the establishments which served fois gras, in order to generate disgust, and pass through nihilism at its most extreme if we ever wish to reach a brighter day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do realize that my post about the Fois Gras involves me misreading the post on Heidegger to a degree. I decided to just leave the post up there anyway, though, because I think it speaks to the ideas of stop-gap solutions, which Heidegger does make reference to.

 

That is a tough card to tag. I am not sure why a technological solution is necessarily misguided just because it also relies on technology.

 

I would agree with Heidegger that it is misleading to blame everything on (1) technology, (2) capitalism, (3) the government, or whatever.

 

I think that Heidegger is also right when he states that efforts of contraint fuel the hostility. That is true in many spheres.

 

first of all, it's tough to respond to you if you keep changing your post. ;)

 

secondly, (and like lazzarone is saying) heidegger isn't critisizing the application of machine technology to a given problem. when heidegger says "Technology", he generally means a way of thinking about and relating to nature (not just gadgets and inventions). so the reason a technological solution is misguided is that 1. when heidegger says "a technological solution" he doesn't mean "a solution using machines" so much as "a solution that thinks in a certain way, which i call technologically" and 2. positing machine technology as the answer is an indication of that way of thinking, so that solution (by yuor way of speaking) probaly falls into the general criticism.

 

if you do a google search for "the question concerning technology" there's 1. a full text version available of the essay where he most explicitly makes most of these arguments. and 2. that U of Hawaii website i posted a link to earlier that is very good at explaning heidegger's position (if you're interested in more depth than zizek gives us).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

neg rep Heidegger February 28th, 2007 05:04 PM .

 

do not post evidence requests in the critiques forum. all evidence requests must be posted in the evidence trading forums. second attempts result in a (temporary) ban.

why?

because this forum is meant to be educational, and your camp file and your "learning" from a camp file is moronic and deters from the quality of discussion occurring. more importantly, your request is more likely to be fulfilled in those forums than here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TLF

 

that we can't identify certain assumptions about a policy by it's implications and language is a rather absurd proposition.

 

TLF - In some instances I think you can, but I think for the most part it is hard to identify the mindset that anyone has in dealing with an environmental issue. How much the author of a policy (or a singer of a song as in the case of Melissa Etheridge) might be assimilating the magnitude of the ecological crises, or whether they approach the issue with a kind of homocentric disposition or attitude is indeed difficult to say.

 

At a certain point, I would disagree with Heidegger in considering the magnitude of the human mindset. I personally think its wrong to hurt animals unnecessarily, and how much we assimilate a particular cognitive attitude towards animals is secondary.

 

hephaestus, heidegger is making an ontological point that doesn't require any specificity, or rather is easily applicable to specific contexts. ok, 3,000 geese won't be tortured, heidegger would say, but isn't this a false sedative? we'll think to ourselves, we're less cruel, when the origin of our cruelty isn't in our acts, but in our ways of relating to the world around us. we still set ourselves up as 'masters of the earth', who have the authority to torture or spare those lower animals we claim dominion over. the point isn't reforms like these really do nothing, but that's it's better to do nothing (to reject such reforms) than further entrench the very mindsets you're claiming to oppose. if we succeed in eliminating our cruelty towards animals, we may find we've gained a proper 'ecological balance' but lost our soul -- remember the card says the greatest danger isn't the ontic threat from technology (from species extinction on up to global thermonuclear annihilation), but the ontological threat that can't be calculated or weighed. so let them eat goose liver, heidegger seems to say, and maybe a more militant heidegger would take pictures of the geese being tortured and display them to the patrons of the establishments which served fois gras, in order to generate disgust, and pass through nihilism at its most extreme if we ever wish to reach a brighter day.

 

Lazz - I think that Heidegger needs to think a little bit 'smaller,' don't you? Remember those environmental advocates that had the stickers that said 'think globally, act locally?' It seems like Heidegger is asking people to do a great deal to change their mindsets, attitudes, or 'ontological framework' before we can do anything. I would counter that by saying 'think what you want, just don't beat up chickens with a baseball bat at KFC for sport.'

 

There is a lot that can be said about the significance of a change in mindset, but I hold with my original position, that being that it is hard to just assume that someone advocating an environmental proposal does not have the right mindset. Rosa Parks is an example of how a movement can rally around something rather simple.

 

I would vote on the Heidegger Kritik, but it would take specific link cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so specific analyticals aren't enough? i need to find some heideggerean at some university who has written about goose livers? why can't i apply the reasoning in the card i've already given you?

 

i'm sorry i used the word 'mindset' now, because it absolutely does NOT mean an opinion in someone's head. that's precisely the cartesian subjectivism heidegger wrote being and time to overcome; he writes somewhere, our immersion in reality isn't "a returning of one's booty to the cabinet of consciousness". there's a materialism at work here, enabling foucault to later theorize this as regimes of thought and structures of discourse. as hiedegger implies, we're not in control here - we're not using language as a self-expression; language is using us to perpetuate itself. so basically, it doesn't matter whether someone is saving the geese out of their love for water foul or because they're selling livers from other tortured animals; it's still a way of adapting us to a sick technological economy, of alleviating our disgust, appeasing our conscience, while the horrors go on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that ethics and ontology are traditionally separated. But through all of this discussion of technology and being, does someone have an ethical responsibility to achieve an authentic ontology?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I would need specific cards.

 

Your analysis of how 'language is using us' is interesting. If I follow you, what you are saying is that opinions (or frameworks) are like clouds that decend upon groups of people at different historical times, and that the language, the discourse, is actually controlling us. That is an interesting angle, and I am reading Being and Time right now, and I will look to see if that is what he means.

 

You said that Heidegger is trying to break us of what? Using the conceptuatlization implicit in the term 'mindset?'

 

I plan on studying Heidegger much more. If it is different than your run of the mill quiessense links to say Socialism DA, or Peace Movements DA, or Greens DA, then I will keep an eye on it.

 

Somehow, I get the sense though, that if I guess the color is 'yellow', the Heidegger and other Kritik advocates are going to tell me 'no, its kind of an off-yellow.' Whether its a dialogue, a consciousness, or whatever, I still say we save the geese.

 

Whether its a movement, a consciousness, or a dialogue, I still say this......

 

1) It is hard to tell whether someone has accepted a new gestault/movement/consciousness/dialogue/rhetoric or whether they are just acting within the old gestault/movement/consciousness/dialogue/rhetoric.

 

2) We should act now, and change the context later.

 

I know that the purpose of Being and Time is to restructure the Aristotelian conceptions of what Being means. He does that by tipping his hat to Dilthey, Husserl, Kant, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In some instances I think you can, but I think for the most part it is hard to identify the mindset that anyone has in dealing with an environmental issue. How much the author of a policy (or a singer of a song as in the case of Melissa Etheridge) might be assimilating the magnitude of the ecological crises, or whether they approach the issue with a kind of homocentric disposition or attitude is indeed difficult to say.

 

At a certain point, I would disagree with Heidegger in considering the magnitude of the human mindset. I personally think its wrong to hurt animals unnecessarily, and how much we assimilate a particular cognitive attitude towards animals is secondary.

 

what does it mean to "assimilate the magnitude" of the something?

 

as to the supposition that it is difficult to discover assumptions in peoples speech or writing, you are simply wrong. i wish you had left the other post up where you used the example about how recycling can save the planet, because there are easily at least 5 unspoken assumptions in that statement just in terms of heideggerian critique. for instance, in your above post you assume that there is a stable "environment" that reacts in predictable ways (ecologically), you also assume that within this framework there is a "crisis", an "issue" (a problem), you also assume that there is some human morality that exists outside of the natural world, that there is a division between "us" and "animals", etc, etc. it really is not difficult to look at something at decide which philosophical things it takes for granted and then to call those things into question. since the field of possible assumptions is basically infinite, and every statement has to contain some assumtpions, it really just becomes a question of how perceptive you are of said assumptions (and in debate, then impacting them).

 

"we should act now, and change the context later" --?? that doesnt strike as you as...foolhardy? if the context is wrong, does that not imply that the action wont be beneficial in the long run? you are essentially arguing "i dont care if im doing something for the right reasons, i just wanna do something"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reread your post, and it seems like you are saying two things.

 

1) We don't really care about the animals, we are just getting obtaining release, getting our ya-yas out, feel good about ourselves, feel sancimonious, etc.

 

2) That Heidegger is trying to get out of a strict Mind/Body distinction implicit in Descartes.

 

I know that there are many philosophers that maintain that Decartes' mind/body distinction is mistaken. I would agree - you have to give the material aspects of the mind their due, and understand us a within the world. I know this from a Wittgensteinian perspective more than Heidegger, but I see that where he going the the Being-In-The-World, and this acting upon the mind.

 

He prefers Augustine to Decartes for this reason.....

 

The Genesis of Heidegger's Being and Time, Theodore Kiesel

With this deeper reason in mind, Heidegger can readily concur with Dilthey's conclusion that Augustine's self-certainty is more profound than Descartes's :"This intimate awareness (Innewerden) includes not just thinking but the totality of my person. Using an expression both profound and true, Augustine calls the object of self-certainty life-p.106

 

My position is that if a debater can show me a specific reason or a card showing why one isolated environmental policy is (1) Just us having a self-congratulations party, or (2) doing something to drive a particular bad mindset in deeper, I will buy it. Certainly, a ban on Fois Gras sounds that way, but I myself would go to the ballot box and vote for the ban anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TFL - Let's go through the assumptions you listed......

 

 

1) I assume that there is a such thing as a stable environment.

 

Yes, I do assume that because it is basically true. Maybe not at the molecular level, but at some point, there is some predictability in the environment. Why build a bridge across the Mississippi river? Because that river has been there for well over 200 years, and it will be there again. There's an example of a stable environment.

 

2) Are we in a Crisis? Well, it doesn't matter if we are in a Crisis or not: we do know that we are torturing Geese. Certainly, I am not the person that invented the term 'crisis,' and Al Gore and a lot of other people seem to think we are.

 

3) Issue - There is an issue; it has been in the front page of the Chicago Tribune for the last couple of months.

 

It's never good to assume, but you can't reinvent the wheel every time you get into a discussion.

 

Now - the last assumption you say I make is that I presume that I am better than the animals. You are saying that I, by bringing up the issue, presume that I am better than the animals, and that therefore I should not save them from torture, I disagree with this strongly. If anything, the chef that is serving the Fois Gras, and the guy in Chicago that was serving Fois Gras hotdogs REALLY THINKS that he is better than the animals, and we should stop him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am not particularly interested in arguing with you about the validitiy of your assumptions. you said it's difficult to isolate assumptions in texts or speeches, i said it is not and you respond by addmitting that i am correct that you made those assumptions. it seems to me ive proved that it is not difficult to point out assumptions in any given speech or text, and thats all i set out to do. you ought to at least know that there are philosophical objections to each of the assumptions you made that i pointed out, smart people, etc. im not interested in having six different K debates with you, while explaining their premises, during midterms week.

 

as a closing note, perhaps do some more rereading. i never accused you of assuming you were better than animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly there are assumptions that people do make. If we did not take a few things for granted, that we would be starting from zero every time we entered into a discussion.

 

I have read a great deal of philosophy in my life. I have not read that many of what debaters call 'kritik authors,' although I have read pretty much everything by Foucault.

 

I think that people that are in debate are stuck in there own little intellectual language game (to use a Wittgensteinian term). Perhaps we all are.

 

Good luck on your midterms.

 

- Hephaestus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yup, I would need specific cards."

 

that's nutty. some ph.d student has to publish in some esoteric journal before i can run what i wanna run, no matter how specific my application of the cards.

 

"I know that ethics and ontology are traditionally separated. But through all of this discussion of technology and being, does someone have an ethical responsibility to achieve an authentic ontology?"

 

heidegger says that an ethic of care is fundamental to being a self-questioning subject-in-the-world (dasein, in a nutshell). so you always and already have 'ethical responsibilities' - it's just a question of whether they're ill-thought moral conventions of 'the they' (das man, or as i like to say given our cultural lingo, the man) or whether they're 'anticipatorily resolute' -- i.e. authentic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i haven't judged a debate round in years, but when i did i tried to do so as fairly as possible; to me, an important part of that is being open to any argument and allowing the debate to unfold on its own terms. so yes, i'd vote against the fois gras ban on a heideggerean kritik grounded in the rejection of "false sedatives" (as zizek puts it), and i think requiring 'specific evidence' (something mentioning heidegger and fois gras in the same text) means imposing an illegitimate criteria on the participants, especially since disadvantages aren't held to anywhere near as high a standard: would you seriously not weighing a politics d.a. because the debaters couldn't find a card citing some french delicacy's impact on w. bush's political capital?

 

as for my own opinion, i think we've given governments enough laws with which to intrude upon our lives. if you don't want people smoking cigarettes, or having abortions, or mistreating geese, then convince them to stop. if you can't, don't go running to the bullies with the guns and prisons to fight your wars for you -- be willing to put your own being and time at risk to advance your cause by whatever means you deem necessary. if that means getting arrested handling out pamplets outside restaurants which serve this sadistic shit, if it means showing patrons videotape of the cruelty, if it means fasting or organizing protests, then do what you feel called upon to do. see, i think heidegger could've (and should've) meant something more concrete when he wrote about 'the silent call of conscience', and i think we've only had a taste of its power in melville's bartleby, thoreau's civil disobedience, even gandhi's satyagraha and martin luther king's non-violent resistance... (i could go on a bit more here, but i wish to avoid sounding pedantic, and trust my position is clear.)

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...