Jump to content
exile05

Ontological Damnation

Recommended Posts

What in gods name is this, and how do i get a link to it? Is it an impact to otherization, and if not what would be a good impact to otherization that isn't policy oriented. I'm not looking for nuke war or extinction.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a common impact card that many teams read for this argument:

 

Zimmerman, 1993.

(Zimmerman, Michael E. Professor. Philosophy. University of Tulane. Contesting Earth's Future: Radical Ecology and Postmodernity. Pg. 119-120. 1993.)

 

Heidegger asserted that human self assertion, combined with the eclipse of being, threatens the relation between being and human Dasein. Loss of this relation would be even more dangerous than a nuclear war that might “bring about the complete annihilation of humanity and the destruction of the earth.” This controversial claim is comparable to the Christian teaching that it is better to forfeit the world than to lose one’s soul by losing ones relation to God. Heidegger apparently thought along these lines: it is possible that after a nuclear war, life might once again emerge, but it is far less likely that there will ever again occur in an ontological clearing through which life could manifest itself. Further, since modernity’s one dimensional disclosure to entities virtually denies that any “being” at all, the loss of humanity’s openness for being is already occurring. Modernity’s background mood is horror in the face of nihilism, which is consistent with the aim of providing material happiness for everyone by reducing nature into pure energy. The unleashing of vast quantities of energy in a nuclear war would be equivalent to modernity’s slow destruction of nature: unbounded destruction would equal limitless consumption. If humanity avoided a nuclear war only to survive as contended clever animals, Heidegger believed we would exist in a state of ontological damnation: hell on earth, masquerading as material paradise. Deep ecologists might agree that a world of material human comfort purchased at the price of everything wild would not be a world worth living in, for in killing wild nature, people would be as good as dead. But most of them could not agree that the loss of humanity’s relation to being would be worse than nuclear omnicide, for it is wrong to suppose that the lives of millions of extinct and unknown species are somehow lessened because they were never “disclosed” by humanity.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What in gods name is this, and how do i get a link to it? Is it an impact to otherization, and if not what would be a good impact to otherization that isn't policy oriented. I'm not looking for nuke war or extinction.

 

So basically to answer your first question ontalogical damnation is the loss of ones soul (or the feeling thereof). The loss of feeling of existence or why you exist. Just imagine living life, and every day feels like every other day, you just go through your bodily functions (essentially everything human) but not being happy, truly not being anything but a shell. A body, in a world of bodies. That's ontological damnation. Im not sure if you could effectively and truly link otherization to ontological damnation, but I do know a great impact to otherization is dehumanization. Otherization gives you a cool link.

BTW It's not a "policy" impact unless it ends in extinction or the destruction of the world itself. Even ontological damnation threads into extinction.;)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Zimmerman 94 card is talking about the crisis of nihilism. It was Heidegger's argument that real catastrophe would not be the occurance of some natural traumatic event (some environment thing that kills us all or makes our lives harder) but the prevention of that event. The real "hell on earth" is a world without trauma, a pure appolonian "paradise" without pain that makes all of existence meaningless. Think of it like this, you have to have pain for pleasure to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love this impact beyond belief!!! for the new africa topic i have this in the 1ac. and also what it says is basically that the loss of ones self leads to this thing of ontalogical damnation that is worse than nuclear war since life can once again emerge after a nuc war but an ontalogical clearing cant. we ran it in dadt and this year i got a link to it for war.....and it is africa specific so yea....it rocks...

but this year with dadt i won alot of rounds on it.....its a good card! use it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i love this impact beyond belief!!! for the new africa topic i have this in the 1ac. and also what it says is basically that the loss of ones self leads to this thing of ontalogical damnation that is worse than nuclear war since life can once again emerge after a nuc war but an ontalogical clearing cant. we ran it in dadt and this year i got a link to it for war.....and it is africa specific so yea....it rocks...

but this year with dadt i won alot of rounds on it.....its a good card! use it!

 

Unless you read Heidegger, you're using this card WAY out of context. I'm guessing your evidence doesn't make any claim about 'ontological destruction,' meaning you don't access the internal links, as articulated by the rest of the book.

 

For answering it, just read nuclear war doesn't lead to extinction, meaning there is a 'clearing through which we could re-emerge.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fizelly27
so is Ontological Damnation a Heideggar concept or a Zimmerman concept?

 

heideggar

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in which work(s) does he talk about it?

 

"The Question Concerning Technology" is what most debaters use, but I'd recommend finding a secondary source, the essay is dense. The card above is a Zimmerman card/argument, and won't jive with your Heidegger cards, so don't read them together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you read Heidegger, you're using this card WAY out of context. I'm guessing your evidence doesn't make any claim about 'ontological destruction,' meaning you don't access the internal links, as articulated by the rest of the book.

 

For answering it, just read nuclear war doesn't lead to extinction, meaning there is a 'clearing through which we could re-emerge.'

 

We did use it sorta outa context......my argument clearly states that war in africa destroys ____ that leads to the destruction the african peoples identity and thier connection to thier very selves causing ont dam. the card is only like 2 highlighted sentences long or m,aybe three but it is good!!

 

soin a way it is outa context but it sorta is in context with the impact at the same time. cuz we solve for the relationship with oneself not being destroyed and losing thier individual identity.

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...