Jump to content
Felix Hoenikker

Explanation Requests

Recommended Posts

He does - that's actually Deleuze's kritik of Baudrillard: that Baudrillard believes in an original Real, while Deleuze thinks its discourse all the way down

 

It's not discourse all the way down.  Eventually you get to turtles.  

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not discourse all the way down.  Eventually you get to turtles.  

TURTLES ARE MADE OUT OF DISCOURSE

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

If anyone could explain Virilio to me that would be fantastic. I'm not a strong K debater and this K makes no sense to me. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems like it was run through google translator/someone who isn't that good at english?

 

smells like propaganda otherwise

Yeah it looks like a bad translation. Just treat it like Yoda speak and it's fairly easy to understand

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Noun before adjective consistently = bad translation job. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking for a pretty remedial explanation of DnG/ access to some of their literature base. To narrow it down, I guess:

 

Theories about smooth/striated space

nomadism

rhizome/becomings

 

Any of the philosophers' primary assertions. 

 

I see DnG being discussed a lot, but don't feel like I have a solid enough understanding of the basics to even begin to understand their more complicated theories. 

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, how about Spanos? I've seen him but never actually read into him

Spanos sez the US fights vietnam over and over again. So as a result of the trauma of losing that clusterfuck of anti-communist paranoia we're constantly trying to like overcome it with all this asymmetrical warfare. Dude was in a german POW camp and saw the fire-bombing of dresden in ww2. So he really doesn't like war, especially modern "total war". He is honestly really good at applying Heidegger to politics/IR. But thats just like the kernel of his philosophy. Hes mostly deployed in debate nowadays by people reading critical affs and accusing the neg of "ethical conditionality" or condo ethics or whatever your region calls it. He is a very rewarding read, but very dense. Sometimes it can take a nice chunk of time just to research up enough context to understand a single paragraph of Spanos. But its very rich stuff. I think if you want to get introduced to his thought that is used in debate I"d suggest reading the two ethical condo cards by him and his identity politics link to Heidegger. They might take a bit to understand, but if you can explain it to a judge I think they're decent args.

 

 

 

 

Hello,

 

If anyone could explain Virilio to me that would be fantastic. I'm not a strong K debater and this K makes no sense to me. Thanks!

Virilio is arguably the easiest K ever here it is in four words(or two words and two numbers): "2 fast 2 furious"

 

Heres the tl;dr"

Since the dawn of time! Man(hes says "man" provocatively, so as not to not conceal the fact that patriarchal culture was dominant for a large portion of time and hes going to use that as part of his analysis) has ridden vehicles!

Firstly man used woman as a vehicle. The womb being the original vehicle(pregnancy) and the metaphor of "riding" with sex is also implied (lol i'm serious he says this). Then man rode horses, etc.

 

The whole point of this acceleration and "need for speed" if you will, was that Man is a predator and the way in which a predator survives is to overtake their prey. Thusly speed(acceleration) becomes the engine of "man's" ontological development(or evolution if that makes it easier to understand).

 

But Man also preys on humans through "war". Speed and acceleration make war more destructive over time. He uses the metaphor of defense and offense to illustrate this. Prior to WW2 defense was a viable tactic for winning a war. Virilio argues that the early arms race of Greece (and neighbors) that led to the hoplyte's long ass spear was an illustration of this need to visit violence across longer and longer distances. And even though this acceleration continued from Hoplytes to today's drones, during ww1 defense was still the best option. One can read about a vein of military thought in the 1900s (not in Virilio, but whatever) about the "cult of the offensive" in which military intelligentsia argues that morale, cavalry, and bayonets were the decisive elements of war. But the fact was that by that point the decisive element of war was artillery and machine guns. Which were obviously designed to slow down and absolutely destroy infantry and cavalry pushes. But by the time technology gets speed up to the "blitzkrieg" level defense is no longer viable. WW2 becomes a series of offensives, because defense is untenable. Virilio compares Hitler's pillboxes across france as tombs (just as he paints modern cities as giant tombs[awaiting the bomb]) because there was no way they could withstand the massive offensive of D-Day: the "cult of the offensive" had proven true, not because of "morale", but because of technological development(the need for speed).

 

This impossible to stop offensive then took the form of nuclear weapons which was where defense just become out of the question and instead to survive we imagined that we were all held hostage by each other's nukes.

 

Since ww2 50% of casualties in wars are civilians(Virilio sez this). War is no longer military vs. military but society vs. society.

 

This means that when the other team sez "heg good". What they're really saying is: "we need to be able to deliver violence against civilians around the globe faster than we currently do".

 

BUT THATS JUST THE SPEED PART!

 

Virilio also argues that humans are essentially(in their essence[being]) mistake making things. So we always do something with a goal and something (over a long enough period of time) will go wrong. This is the "accident". So I could also say against a heg good aff: "you try to reorder the world in this perfect unipolar formation corresponding to your ideology, but the fact is that you really don't know that that will solve the problem of north korea or whatever." In the same vein as Heidegger this managing from "over and above" is always bad.

 

So not only do you have no solvency because you're simply trying to fit the world in to your schema of ideology which won't solve, BUT ALSO such accelerations lead to more violence against civilians. Thats called offense and defense.

 

 

Econ same thing: accidents happen. So speeding up the financial system only means George Soros can corner the Bhat more effectively. And building up the financial system means that the inevitable "accident" will be all the more devastating to our ontological savoir faire.

 

Both authors really borrow hard from Heidegger. Spanos is way more willing to admit this than Virilio. They both pretty much equate "enframing" with militarism. Which Burke, Campbell, and Der Derian do to some extent as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spanos sez the US fights vietnam over and over again. So as a result of the trauma of losing that clusterfuck of anti-communist paranoia we're constantly trying to like overcome it with all this asymmetrical warfare. Dude was in a german POW camp and saw the fire-bombing of dresden in ww2. So he really doesn't like war, especially modern "total war". He is honestly really good at applying Heidegger to politics/IR. But thats just like the kernel of his philosophy. Hes mostly deployed in debate nowadays by people reading critical affs and accusing the neg of "ethical conditionality" or condo ethics or whatever your region calls it. He is a very rewarding read, but very dense. Sometimes it can take a nice chunk of time just to research up enough context to understand a single paragraph of Spanos. But its very rich stuff. I think if you want to get introduced to his thought that is used in debate I"d suggest reading the two ethical condo cards by him and his identity politics link to Heidegger. They might take a bit to understand, but if you can explain it to a judge I think they're decent args.

 

 

 

 

Virilio is arguably the easiest K ever here it is in four words(or two words and two numbers): "2 fast 2 furious"

 

Heres the tl;dr"

Since the dawn of time! Man(hes says "man" provocatively, so as not to not conceal the fact that patriarchal culture was dominant for a large portion of time and hes going to use that as part of his analysis) has ridden vehicles!

Firstly man used woman as a vehicle. The womb being the original vehicle(pregnancy) and the metaphor of "riding" with sex is also implied (lol i'm serious he says this). Then man rode horses, etc.

 

The whole point of this acceleration and "need for speed" if you will, was that Man is a predator and the way in which a predator survives is to overtake their prey. Thusly speed(acceleration) becomes the engine of "man's" ontological development(or evolution if that makes it easier to understand).

 

But Man also preys on humans through "war". Speed and acceleration make war more destructive over time. He uses the metaphor of defense and offense to illustrate this. Prior to WW2 defense was a viable tactic for winning a war. Virilio argues that the early arms race of Greece (and neighbors) that led to the hoplyte's long ass spear was an illustration of this need to visit violence across longer and longer distances. And even though this acceleration continued from Hoplytes to today's drones, during ww1 defense was still the best option. One can read about a vein of military thought in the 1900s (not in Virilio, but whatever) about the "cult of the offensive" in which military intelligentsia argues that morale, cavalry, and bayonets were the decisive elements of war. But the fact was that by that point the decisive element of war was artillery and machine guns. Which were obviously designed to slow down and absolutely destroy infantry and cavalry pushes. But by the time technology gets speed up to the "blitzkrieg" level defense is no longer viable. WW2 becomes a series of offensives, because defense is untenable. Virilio compares Hitler's pillboxes across france as tombs (just as he paints modern cities as giant tombs[awaiting the bomb]) because there was no way they could withstand the massive offensive of D-Day: the "cult of the offensive" had proven true, not because of "morale", but because of technological development(the need for speed).

 

This impossible to stop offensive then took the form of nuclear weapons which was where defense just become out of the question and instead to survive we imagined that we were all held hostage by each other's nukes.

 

Since ww2 50% of casualties in wars are civilians(Virilio sez this). War is no longer military vs. military but society vs. society.

 

This means that when the other team sez "heg good". What they're really saying is: "we need to be able to deliver violence against civilians around the globe faster than we currently do".

 

BUT THATS JUST THE SPEED PART!

 

Virilio also argues that humans are essentially(in their essence[being]) mistake making things. So we always do something with a goal and something (over a long enough period of time) will go wrong. This is the "accident". So I could also say against a heg good aff: "you try to reorder the world in this perfect unipolar formation corresponding to your ideology, but the fact is that you really don't know that that will solve the problem of north korea or whatever." In the same vein as Heidegger this managing from "over and above" is always bad.

 

So not only do you have no solvency because you're simply trying to fit the world in to your schema of ideology which won't solve, BUT ALSO such accelerations lead to more violence against civilians. Thats called offense and defense.

 

 

Econ same thing: accidents happen. So speeding up the financial system only means George Soros can corner the Bhat more effectively. And building up the financial system means that the inevitable "accident" will be all the more devastating to our ontological savoir faire.

 

Both authors really borrow hard from Heidegger. Spanos is way more willing to admit this than Virilio. They both pretty much equate "enframing" with militarism. Which Burke, Campbell, and Der Derian do to some extent as well.

Nietzsche > Heidegger

 

Nietzsche 5ever 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nietzsche > Heidegger

 

Nietzsche 5ever 

We talking about Nietzsche, Heidegger, Nietzsche-Heidegger, or Heidegger-Nietzsche?

 

They both so similar. Nietzsche pulled out of the state died stateless, but embraced race. Heidegger didn't throw himself behind the Nazi racial programme (In what has been published[i have not read the black books yet]), but he embraced nationalism(whether opportunistic or not). They both found Hegel(the ultimate idea[eidos]) in different concepts: state and race.

 

What else. I think they both served in wars and had the job of monitoring balloons that spotted chemical warfare or something. You'd have to verify that one though.

 

 

Heidegger's main arg against Nietzsche is that the will to power, becomes a will to will.....in debate terms: Willing is goals(telos) based philosophy which is therefore "managerial"(to use simple debate words). It exposes the fault in Nietzsche, which in my opinion distinguishes the two types ways in which to read Nietzsche.

 

The fault is that he borrows western perception of eastern karmic religions to argue for the transvaluation of all values and "saying yes to everything". This means he takes the most conservative element of eastern religion: doing nothing. Then he sez each and every one of us is super awesome because you can create and will things in to being through your power. So he is simultaneously saying: do nothing because everything will change of its own accord AND do everything! be the most epicurean of epicureans be the avant-garde ex nihilio creative force of a future group of ubermenschen intellectuals(who he is always addressing his intros to).

 

Which is why there are two ways of reading Nietzsche which I like to caricature as either 1.HItler or 2.Fanon. 

1.Nietzsche can be read as an objectivist justification of the power the powerful have. Because trying to destroy someone and then having them survive means you made them much stronger!

 

2.It can also be read as a mind and will strengthener of oppressed peoples. Because the quotidian shitshow that is life in poverty or without self-determination makes you stronger if you can get through that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We talking about Nietzsche, Heidegger, Nietzsche-Heidegger, or Heidegger-Nietzsche?

 

They both so similar. Nietzsche pulled out of the state died stateless, but embraced race. Heidegger didn't throw himself behind the Nazi racial programme (In what has been published[i have not read the black books yet]), but he embraced nationalism(whether opportunistic or not). They both found Hegel(the ultimate idea[eidos]) in different concepts: state and race.

 

What else. I think they both served in wars and had the job of monitoring balloons that spotted chemical warfare or something. You'd have to verify that one though.

 

 

Heidegger's main arg against Nietzsche is that the will to power, becomes a will to will.....in debate terms: Willing is goals(telos) based philosophy which is therefore "managerial"(to use simple debate words). It exposes the fault in Nietzsche, which in my opinion distinguishes the two types ways in which to read Nietzsche.

 

The fault is that he borrows western perception of eastern karmic religions to argue for the transvaluation of all values and "saying yes to everything". This means he takes the most conservative element of eastern religion: doing nothing. Then he sez each and every one of us is super awesome because you can create and will things in to being through your power. So he is simultaneously saying: do nothing because everything will change of its own accord AND do everything! be the most epicurean of epicureans be the avant-garde ex nihilio creative force of a future group of ubermenschen intellectuals(who he is always addressing his intros to).

 

Which is why there are two ways of reading Nietzsche which I like to caricature as either 1.HItler or 2.Fanon. 

1.Nietzsche can be read as an objectivist justification of the power the powerful have. Because trying to destroy someone and then having them survive means you made them much stronger!

 

2.It can also be read as a mind and will strengthener of oppressed peoples. Because the quotidian shitshow that is life in poverty or without self-determination makes you stronger if you can get through that day.

Yes, and Heidegger accomplishes none of that...his work amounts to a mere ontic/ontological inquiry about Being and its relationality to the world. To me, Heidegger reads like a copy of Nietzsche, except with a focus on ontology (did Nietzsche not do this as well?!) and a criticism of "western metaphysics" without actually escaping them all-together

 

Nietzsche is known for aleatory...so why not!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We talking about Nietzsche, Heidegger, Nietzsche-Heidegger, or Heidegger-Nietzsche?

 

They both so similar. Nietzsche pulled out of the state died stateless, but embraced race. Heidegger didn't throw himself behind the Nazi racial programme (In what has been published[i have not read the black books yet]), but he embraced nationalism(whether opportunistic or not). They both found Hegel(the ultimate idea[eidos]) in different concepts: state and race.

 

What else. I think they both served in wars and had the job of monitoring balloons that spotted chemical warfare or something. You'd have to verify that one though.

 

 

Heidegger's main arg against Nietzsche is that the will to power, becomes a will to will.....in debate terms: Willing is goals(telos) based philosophy which is therefore "managerial"(to use simple debate words). It exposes the fault in Nietzsche, which in my opinion distinguishes the two types ways in which to read Nietzsche.

 

The fault is that he borrows western perception of eastern karmic religions to argue for the transvaluation of all values and "saying yes to everything". This means he takes the most conservative element of eastern religion: doing nothing. Then he sez each and every one of us is super awesome because you can create and will things in to being through your power. So he is simultaneously saying: do nothing because everything will change of its own accord AND do everything! be the most epicurean of epicureans be the avant-garde ex nihilio creative force of a future group of ubermenschen intellectuals(who he is always addressing his intros to).

 

Which is why there are two ways of reading Nietzsche which I like to caricature as either 1.HItler or 2.Fanon. 

1.Nietzsche can be read as an objectivist justification of the power the powerful have. Because trying to destroy someone and then having them survive means you made them much stronger!

 

2.It can also be read as a mind and will strengthener of oppressed peoples. Because the quotidian shitshow that is life in poverty or without self-determination makes you stronger if you can get through that day.

 

Read em, he thought the Jews lacked Dasein and were "lost in the world"

http://www.critical-theory.com/martin-heidegger-society-chair-steps-down-after-reading-the-black-notebooks/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and Heidegger accomplishes none of that...his work amounts to a mere ontic/ontological inquiry about Being and its relationality to the world. To me, Heidegger reads like a copy of Nietzsche, except with a focus on ontology (did Nietzsche not do this as well?!) and a criticism of "western metaphysics" without actually escaping them all-together

 

Nietzsche is known for aleatory...so why not!?

Heidegger is very much influenced by Nietzsche. And one could argue that it is the Nietzsche he borrowed that he uses to radicalize phenomenology to the point that it collapsed in on itself. Digger's arg is freddy did not do ontology properly, because of the will.

Nietzsche says: do nothing (but at the same time strive to get to the post-human[lets say that instead of ubermensch]). "Take your time/ hurry up/ choice is yours/ don't be late"

 

its not a paradox its a contradiction. A fissure in his groundless ground.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read em, he thought the Jews lacked Dasein and were "lost in the world"

http://www.critical-theory.com/martin-heidegger-society-chair-steps-down-after-reading-the-black-notebooks/

 

 

 

I have read this article. And I probably can take them at their word. But I really really REAAAALLLLY like to read primary texts for myself. And I don't sprachen the deutch. So I kind of want to wait until I am in possession of most of the facts until making a judgement on this. But Slate's shit is probably true and his philosophy was entwined with his anti-semitism. Consequently this is also an indictment of post-structuralism writ large. Is there any piece of post-structuralism that is not tainted if its foundation is built on hokey racist tropes?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heidegger is very much influenced by Nietzsche. And one could argue that it is the Nietzsche he borrowed that he uses to radicalize phenomenology to the point that it collapsed in on itself. Digger's arg is freddy did not do ontology properly, because of the will.

Nietzsche says: do nothing (but at the same time strive to get to the post-human[lets say that instead of ubermensch]). "Take your time/ hurry up/ choice is yours/ don't be late"

 

its not a paradox its a contradiction. A fissure in his groundless ground.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have read this article. And I probably can take them at their word. But I really really REAAAALLLLY like to read primary texts for myself. And I don't sprachen the deutch. So I kind of want to wait until I am in possession of most of the facts until making a judgement on this. But Slate's shit is probably true and his philosophy was entwined with his anti-semitism. Consequently this is also an indictment of post-structuralism writ large. Is there any piece of post-structuralism that is not tainted if its foundation is built on hokey racist tropes?

Ehhh that sounds like a convenient misreading of Nietzsche IMO

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anybody explain Spanos to me and like an overview of the arguments he makes?

 

Also about Heidegger,whenever i run his K, people always say hes a NAZI and thats a reason not to listen to his arguments. What are some arguments to make for this other than something like polical affialistions are distinct from philosophical though

 

 

Heidegger was a nazi because he didn't follow his own ideology!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Here is what I would read:

 

1.) Wallace- The only reason Heidegger fell to Nazism was his attempt to combine potentiality with political solutions, resulting in the banality of the nazi extermination.  This means Nazism is an independent disad to the perm, only the alt divorced from political apparatuses can solve.

 

2.) Turn: Their attempt to exclude our position is an act of fascist censorship.  Our ability to use Heidegger’s philosophy in this round allows us to explore where he went wrong in the narrative of Nazism and fix his past mistakes.  They prevent us from preventing future holocausts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone help me with a Blackness K aff, how do I beat it?

As an anti-black debater, I have learned that there are three major arguments that judges vote over anti-black criticisms (and which I still don't understand): capitalism, framework, and policy impacts.

 

Capitalism - The main argument that i've seen people lose on is the root cause claim. So, saying capitalism is the root cause of anti-blackness appeals to judges very much, although doesn't make any sense as it is a question of anti-blackness, not racism or other vectors.

 

Framework - The more better known and easy argument to make against any K aff for that matter is framework. The key argument here when winning on framework against blackness is probably unpredictability or SSD/TVA. Any team that understands anti-blackness will easily answer these arguments, then again, all it takes is a judge to not believe the ontological scheme of anti-blackness for you to garner all of the offense against blackness affs (i.e. TVA and root cause).

 

Policy Impacts - Not much explaining here other than winning util and it's better to prioritize the most lives. At that point, all you have to worry about is being called out on racism because, obviously, when was the last time black life (or any colored folk) was prioritized.

 

Personally, however, I prefer to either PIP/PIM out of some aspect of the aff or just run another form of anti-blackness k against it. Since, different from what your white peers have told you, anti-blackness is a wide study not composed of a monolithic "blackness ontological, burn it all down!!" For example, bell hooks is a wonderful black optimism writer than opens a wide possibility to PIP/PIM out of the aff's use of pessimism.

  • Downvote 3

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...