Jump to content
Sir Blocksalot

Best Way to Answer Agamben

Recommended Posts

they say: in using rhetoric of poverty, prolif, famine etc. you reinscribe social demarcations and reinforce the sovereign, they claim case turn and petro 74, alt is to reject aff and its "lines" of seperation

 

(I know, its b.s.)

 

what cards are there to answer this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biopolitics, sovereignty, Western values, imperialism, capitalism are all beautiful things. Critiques of the former are pathetic excuses to sell books by leftist university professors who've found their Philosophy PhDs worthless in the real world.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Biopolitics, sovereignty, Western values, imperialism, capitalism are all beautiful things. Critiques of the former are pathetic excuses to sell books by leftist university professors who've found their Philosophy PhDs worthless in the real world.

 

that's a lot like real america.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's a lot like real america.

that just shows how we don't need more philosophy majors to alert us to George, Dick, and Sarah's obvious excesses. the mainstream media does that well enough for those willing to be informed, and those than watch fox news couldn't care less what agamben thinks. come Nov 4, i almost feel sorry for all these intellectuals who've sold books shooting fish in barrel because virtually everyone informed agrees Bush isn't a good president. agamben'll be more washed up than britney spears because in referencing some arcane philosophy theory when most of the public doesn't see it at all these scholars are just communicating in their small closed circle of those that already think alike. james, you really think anyone outside some vegan hippies cares about the stuff you write about animal rights? your papers will never amount to anything persuasive to the idiot populace in america because kfc is delicious and we secretly hate the environment

 

you'll never make any money or public admiration writing philosophy. no go convince yourself you'll still be happy knowing 'the truth'

Edited by Synergy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

synergy,

The introduction to my current project i think best answers your claims.

 

Introduction: Dali as Leftist Propaganda

 

I would like to begin this text with a reading of the small but accountable response the centential celeration of Dali’s birth had garnered. 4 years ago the international art communities put forth an expansive effort to recognize the life, and influence of Salvador Dali. In this effort, many embitterd commentators on the Left saw an approbation or disawoval of Dali’s moderately infamous praise for the politics of the far Right, especially his loyal support of Franco. In a short essay Vicente Navarro submitted to the American political and cultural journal, Counterpunch, while expressing his disgust in exposition of Dali’s “belligerent support for Spain's fascist regime, one of the most repressive dictatorial regimes in Europe during the twentieth century”, Navarro goes on to attack the Spanish Aznar government on the basis of their ‘public relations’ role:

 

Now the Spanish establishment, with the assistance of the Catalan establishment, wants to mobilize international support for their painter, Dali, portraying him as a "rebel," an "anti-establishment figure" who stood up to the dominant forces of art…[1]

 

Is this not a most pertinent example of the ‘reversal of roles’ in the post-modern machine of ideology, the equalizing intermediate of Capital? Here, the neoliberal state is stepping forward on behalf of its supposed dialectical enemy (and thus, justification for its own political existence), nationalist fascism, in order to pay homage to a renowned empathizer. Navarro is all too easily duped into obliterating his own ‘point of enunciation’. When the position of the Left is tricked into defending either capitalist-democracy or cultural traditionalism (usually dressed up in populist robes) it forsakes its distance to the locus of contemporary politics, the battlefield of the ‘culture-wars’, from whence nothing of import is at stake. The appropriate answer to the outmoded argument in which the criticisms posed by radical Left are depicted as ‘academic’ or as ‘using a scalpel for a hatchet’s job’, one should echo Craig McFarlane:

 

While it is often said that academic politics are vicious because the stakes are so small, it can just as reasonably said that “real” politics (which is anything but, of course) is so vicious because the differences between positions are so small.[2]

 

However, to get beyond the practical analysis of the roles being played, there exists a more immediate problem with Navarro’s disscussion itself. The truth of the matter is that Dali really does “[stand] up to the dominant forces of art”.

 

[1] The Jackboot of Dada: Salvador Dali, Fascist, Counterpunch, December 6 / 7, 2003. Vicente Navarro is a Professor of Public Policy, Sociology and Policy Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

 

[2]Liberal Fascism, Theoria (http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/category/commentary). Craig McFarlane is lecturer in the Department of Law at Carleton University and the Department of Sociology at Queen's University.

Edited by automatic-flow
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't understand what that said at all. please dumb down the language and simplify your point. but let me just say i am not a big fan of art, postmodern art, salvador dali, and the spanish in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that just shows how we don't need more philosophy majors to alert us to George, Dick, and Sarah's obvious excesses. the mainstream media does that well enough for those willing to be informed, and those than watch fox news couldn't care less what agamben thinks. come Nov 4, i almost feel sorry for all these intellectuals who've sold books shooting fish in barrel because virtually everyone informed agrees Bush isn't a good president. agamben'll be more washed up than britney spears because in referencing some arcane philosophy theory when most of the public doesn't see it at all these scholars are just communicating in their small closed circle of those that already think alike. james, you really think anyone outside some vegan hippies cares about the stuff you write about animal rights? your papers will never amount to anything persuasive to the idiot populace in america because kfc is delicious and we secretly hate the environment

 

you'll never make any money or public admiration writing philosophy. no go convince yourself you'll still be happy knowing 'the truth'

 

Karl Marx, Peter Singer, Subcommandate Marcos. Just to name a few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

99% of the population doesn't understand anything bio-medical researchers, physicists, political scientists, economists, etc. do, but their work is still relevant to those people's lives and important.

 

I can understand making a distinction between "hard" and "soft" science, but if you think political science, economics, or psychology are important while philosophy isn't, that's just a product of your bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Biopolitics, sovereignty, Western values, imperialism, capitalism are all beautiful things. Critiques of the former are pathetic excuses to sell books by leftist university professors who've found their Philosophy PhDs worthless in the real world.

 

What the hell does western values mean. And no one says biopolitics is bad, just that it can be bad. Healthcare is definately a good thing that results from BP. Forced sterilization is arguably a bad thing (brush up on US law cuz its LEGAL).

 

Also Philisophy degrees are worth atleast a few cents via recycling so there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Biopolitics key to hegemony.

 

Heg outweighs your silly lines argument.

lul thayer.

at that point might as well read the "engaging in critical reflection allows the Chinese to destroy us."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

public static void troll(String kJargon)

{

System.out.println("Heg is good and outweighs " + kJargon + ".");

}

 

Edit: corrected by PhilIanDumer?

Edited by Destroyer1717

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
public static void troll(String kJargon)

{

System.out.println("Heg is good and outweighs " + kJargon ".");

}

I haven't written any java in about a year, but I'm pretty sure you need another plus sign. Not that printing to stout gets you much on a web forum or in a debate round...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scu, did you mean to drop this post on this thread?

[the underlining is mine]

 

RASCH 2004 (William Rasch, professor of Germanic studies at Indiana University Sovereignty and its Discontents.p. 2-4).

 

Now, if the triumph of a particular species of liberal pluralism denotes the de-politicization of society, one would think that theoretical opposition to this trend would seek to rehabilitate the political. But rather than asserting the value of the political as an essential structure of social life, the post-Marxist left seems intent on hammering the final nails into the coffin. In the most celebrated works of recent years, Giorgio Agamben's Homo Sacer (1998) and Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's Empire (2000), the political (denoted by the notion of sovereignty) is irretrievably identified with nihilism and marked for extinction. In both instances, the political is the cause of the loss of 'natural innocence’ (Agamben, 1998, p 28), that flowering of human productivity that the Western metaphysical tradition has suppressed; and the logical paradox of sovereigns is to be overcome by the instantiation of a new ontology. In this way, violence, which is not thought of as part of the state of nature but is introduced into the human condition by flawed or morally perverse social institutions, is to be averted. That is, the faulty supposition of ineluctable violence that guides political theory from Hobbes to Weber is to be replaced by a Heideggerian, Deleuzean, Spinozan or Christian ontology of original harmony. In the words of John Milbank, a Christian social theorist who currently enjoys a modest following among political thinkers on the Left, there is no 'original violence’, but rather an originary 'harmonic peace' which is the 'sociality of harmonious difference'. Thus violence 'is always a secondary willed intrusion upon the possible infinite order' (Milbank, 1990, p 5). This, then, is the great supposition that links the ascetic pessimism of an Adorno with the cheery Christian optimism of Milbank: the world as it is is as it is because of the moral perversity of (some) human agents who willfully construct flawed social institutions. To seek to remedy the perversity of the world as it is from within the flawed social and political structures as they are only increases the perversity of the world. One must, therefore, totally disengage from the world as it is before one can become truly engaged. Only a thorough, cataclysmic cleansing of the world will allow our activities to be both 'innocent' and 'productive'. Clear, though only partially acknowledged, is the fact that this cleansing, which aims at ridding the world of intrusive violence, is itself an act of fierce and ultimate violence—ultimate in its purported finality, but also, certainly, in its extreme ferocity. What remains equally clear, though not acknowledged, is that whoever has the power to determine the nature of this harmonious sociality is the one who can determine which acts of violence are to be judged as intrusions into the placid domain and which acts of violence are to be condoned as the necessary means of re-establishing the promise of perpetual peace. Determining the nature this desired, nay, required originary peace is itself a sovereign act, not the abolition of such sovereignty. What our ultimate sovereign of harmonious peace will do with the willfully violent intruders can only be guessed, but it certain that they will not be looked upon as legitimate political dissenters, and the unconditional violence that will be used to eliminate their presence will be justified by invoking the 'harmonic peace' or 'natural innocence' they have deliberately and maliciously disturbed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhm, maybe I did. Who knows?

 

However, that is some really piss-poor underlining. No offense intended, but most of the bottom (and some of the top, but particularly the bottom) is pretty sweet and should be underlined.

  • Downvote 1

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...