Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Digger

Answers to Heidegger

Recommended Posts

I am going to be running Heidegger on Aff and Neg, so I need to know what kinds of Blocks I am going to need to cut, so if you can help me out with this, I would be very happy!

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By poking through a few old Heidegger files, I'm seeing these commonalities:

1) Author indicts (HEIDEGGER WAS A NAZI LOLZ, but this is actually true, he was anti-Semetic and personally identified as a Nazi. Oh well, easy enough to handle.)

2) Daesin is patriarchal, Daesin is the foundation of Heidegger's philosophy, your K is patriarchal.

3) Daesin is alienating (some cards say it reduces workers to things, others claim it's too abstract to make real change, etc)

4) Alt doesn't solve

5) Perms (duh, you should have answers to perms or have an alt that makes it clearly severance to be on the true side of perm theory)

 

Some less common answers that might still be good to block out:

1) Alt --> Nazism/ authoritarianism

2) Alt --> no ethics, perpetuates suffering

3) Impossible to do nothing in the context of the environment, there's constant change

4) Refusal of ethics --> Nazism

5) Ethics proposed are too vague to be acted on

6) Release --> passivity

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the most common answers are indicts of ontological thought, coming usually from either the Levinas crowd or the Rorty crowd. I would also add that good answers to Wolin's argument (which is a bit more nuanced than "heidegger was a nazi party member for a bit") are a necessity when reading heidegger.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the most common answers are indicts of ontological thought, coming usually from either the Levinas crowd or the Rorty crowd. I would also add that good answers to Wolin's argument (which is a bit more nuanced than "heidegger was a nazi party member for a bit") are a necessity when reading heidegger.

This. You should have some "ontology good/ comes first" blocks and you should block out Wolin in particular, who says that Heidegger's own philosophy is so rooted in the idea that ideology is inherently manifest in action that Heidegger's Nazism spills over into his philosophy. I was just trying to give you the quick-and-dirty of it, just google "a2 Hedegger" and see what the blocks say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which is a bit more nuanced than "heidegger was a nazi party member for a bit"

 

In all fairness to those who make this objection, it's usually a strategic choice, not something anyone believes will win the round. It's often a good time trade-off because the temptation is to overcover it when you answer it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all fairness to those who make this objection, it's usually a strategic choice, not something anyone believes will win the round. It's often a good time trade-off because the temptation is to overcover it when you answer it back.

 

except i have a kick ass turn to nazi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the most common answers are indicts of ontological thought, coming usually from either the Levinas crowd or the Rorty crowd. I would also add that good answers to Wolin's argument (which is a bit more nuanced than "heidegger was a nazi party member for a bit") are a necessity when reading heidegger.

 

Do know where I could find answers to Wolin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do know where I could find answers to Wolin?

 

You don't need a card to answer it, at least none of the cuttings I've seen. Probably Wolin has an actual argument about the political applications of Heidegger's thought (I haven't read anything by him), but I've never seen that in a Wolin card read in a round. If their argument is "Heidegger was a Nazi", the answer is: Yes, but we're not. In my experiences, most judges refer to this as the "Hitler wore pants" argument, as in: Hitler was a Nazi, Hitler wore pants, you're wearing pants, so you're a Nazi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just explain why their argument is an ad hominem and why that's a logical fallacy. Now, if they have a card that actually connects your application of his ideas to Nazism, you might need a card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just explain why their argument is an ad hominem and why that's a logical fallacy. Now, if they have a card that actually connects your application of his ideas to Nazism, you might need a card.

 

I have ad hominem cards, but also a HUGE turn, saying his philosophies avoid nazism, but trying to act affirmaitvely and using his philosophies (a perm) are what made him a nazi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trying to act affirmaitvely and using his philosophies (a perm) are what made him a nazi.

 

This argument is absolutely correct. Good job finding that card.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument is absolutely correct. Good job finding that card.

 

Thanks! I am trying to complete a HUGE Heidegger file by camp time... what does Wolin exactly say y'all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! I am trying to complete a HUGE Heidegger file by camp time... what does Wolin exactly say y'all?

 

It is a bad argument that tries to link heidegger's nazism to his philosophy. You can easily answer this by saying that the will to will/technological paradigm/calculative thinking/whichever term you choose to call it is a direct critique of the terminally mechanical aspect of nazi governance. Clearly, the idea of cleansing a population's inefficiencies by getting rid of those "money hoarding jews who subvert the German state" is an idea that is entirely centered within the idea of productivity-as-life.

 

Honestly, there are few good arguments against Heidegger. This is because the critique covers more than simply a single specific link- it critiques a worldview that is commonly used, including within debate. This means that most teams won't catch on to the fact that the framework of the round has shifted until too late, or that they will be incapable of thinking outside of a productive framework in time to win things.

 

The best answers to Heidegger will always be ones specific to the aff that you are debating. Solve this by cutting specific links to every affirmative you can think of.

 

If you do it properly, 95% or more of your rounds lost will be due to a stupid mistake that you will make (it is a complicated argument) or your inability to explain the argument to the judge (it is a complicated argument.) Your main focus should be learning heidegger, once you know the argument backwards and forwards, you will find that most common "answers" are answered with a well-written overview with cross applications on the line by line.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...