Jump to content
Lifeline

Arendt on the Space Topic?

Recommended Posts

Do we have anyone on the forums that has a good knowledge of Arendt? It seems like she would be a great author for kritikal arguments this year. I haven't gotten through her essay on space, but it seems like it makes many implications that could be useful on this topic. Would anybody be willing to help me with turning her arguments into a kritik? Does anyone have past versions of her arguments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read her article about space exploration and the stature of man and it didn't seem that useful against typical policy affirmatives. I interpreted it as critical of 'knowledge for the sake of knowledge' actions which I don't think applies to things like space exploration and space militarization to prevent conflicts.

 

Now, that is not to say other works by her aren't criticisms of space mil/exploration/other, just that this particular article wasn't that applicable in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ahh, okay. Thanks for saving me the effort. Are there any recommendations for some of her works that would be more tailored to policy affs on this topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesnt apply how??

 

Space exploration & development devalue life—a perspective that positions space as special and unique trivializes life on Earth

 

Arendt 61 (Hannah, American political philosopher, “The Conquest of Space and the Stature of Man†The New Atlantis Fall 2007 Pg. 52-54 JF)

It is at this point, it seems to me, that the humanist’s concern with man and the stature of man has caught up with the scientist. It is as though the sciences had done what the humanities never could have achieved, namely, to prove demonstrably the validity of this concern. The situation, as it presents itself today, oddly resembles an elaborate verification of a remark by Franz Kafka, written at the very beginning of this development: Man, he said, “found the Archimedean point, but he used it against himself; it seems that he was permitted to find it only under this condition.†For the conquest of space, the search for a point outside the earth from which it would be possible to move, to unhinge, as it were, the planet itself, is no accidental result of the modern age’s science. This was from its very beginnings not a “natural†but a universal science, it was not a physics but an astrophysics which looked upon the earth from a point in the universe. In terms of this development, the attempt to conquer space means that man hopes he will be able to journey to the Archimedean point which he anticipated by sheer force of abstraction and imagination. However, in doing so, he will necessarily lose his advantage. All he can find is the Archimedean point with respect to the earth, but once arrived there and having acquired this absolute power over his earthly habitat, he would need a new Archimedean point, and so ad infinitum. In other words, man can only get lost in the immensity of the universe, for the only true Archimedean point would be the absolute void behind the universe. Yet even if man recognizes that there might be absolute limits to his search for knowledge and that it might be wise to suspect such limitations whenever it turns out that the scientist can do more than he is capable of comprehending, and even if he realizes that he cannot “conquer space,†but at best make a few discoveries in our solar system, the journey into space and to the Archimedean point with respect to the earth is far from being a harmless or unequivocally triumphant enterprise. It could add to the stature of man inasmuch as man, in distinction from other living things, desires to be at home in a “territory†as large as possible. In that case, he would only take possession of what is his own, although it took him a long time to discover it. These new possessions, like all property, would have to be limited, and once the limit is reached and the limitations established, the new world view that may conceivably grow out of it is likely to be once more geocentric and anthropomorphic, although not in the old sense of the earth being the center of the universe and of man being the highest being there is. It would be geocentric in the sense that the earth, and not the universe, is the center and the home of mortal men, and it would be anthropomorphic in the sense that man would count his own factual mortality among the elementary conditions under which his scientific efforts are possible at all. At this moment, the prospects for such an entirely beneficial development and solution of the present predicaments of modern science and technology do not look particularly good. We have come to our present capacity to “conquer space†through our new ability to handle nature from a point in the universe outside the earth. For this is what we actually do when we release energy processes that ordinarily go on only in the sun, or attempt to initiate in a test tube the processes of cosmic evolution, or build machines for the production and control of energies unknown in the household of earthly nature. Without as yet actually occupying the point where Archimedes had wished to stand, we have found a way to act on the earth as though we disposed of terrestrial nature from outside, from the point of Einstein’s “observer freely poised in space.†If we look down from this point upon what is going on on earth and upon the various activities of men, that is, if we apply the Archimedean point to ourselves, then these activities will indeed appear to ourselves as no more than “overt behavior,†which we can study with the same methods we use to study the behavior of rats. Seen from a sufficient distance, the cars in which we travel and which we know we built ourselves will look as though they were, as Heisenberg once put it, “as inescapable a part of ourselves as the snail’s shell is to its occupant.†All our pride in what we can do will disappear into some kind of mutation of the human race; the whole of technology, seen from this point, in fact no longer appears “as the result of a conscious human effort to extend man’s material powers, but rather as a large-scale biological process.â€27 Under these circumstances, speech and everyday language would indeed be no longer a meaningful utterance that transcends behavior even if it only expresses it, and it would much better be replaced by the extreme and in itself meaningless formalism of mathematical signs. The conquest of space and the science that made it possible have come perilously close to this point. If they ever should reach it in earnest, the stature of man would not simply be lowered by all standards we know of, but have been destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jackgugino, that fucking totally applies! thats what i'm saying! positivism is the dominant way of Being, this way of Being is completely different than Heidegger's holistic way of Being. The Archimedian point is a metaphor for universal truth or the "view from nowhere".

 

"the attempt to conquer space means that man hopes he will be able to journey to the Archimedean point"

 

 

thats exploration or development, either one is an attempt to conquer space. This card is a 1NC link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as long as you can explain what the archimedean point is. Its the guy who ran through the street yelling eureka and invented that screw that pressurizes stuff to make it cold, said if he had a lever long enough he could move the earth (because people thought that everything was solved with levers and pulleys back then[it was way before positive peace]). But according to wikipedia descartes used it as a metaphor for a god's eye view of the world. Which is what science believes it has located. Its completely consistent with Heidegger's critique of aristotle on down, and heidegger's critique of descartes for turning it all in to stuff about Gawd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Under these circumstances, speech and everyday language would indeed be no longer a meaningful utterance that transcends behavior even if it only expresses it, and it would much better be replaced by the extreme and in itself meaningless formalism of mathematical signs.

I don't understand the claim or warrant of this part.

 

I also don't think that article claims, or proves, that space devalues life on earth. I'm pretty sure you guys are reading it wrong. I'm going to Nebraska this weekend, and I leave in like two minutes, so I can't clarify. I will when I get back.

 

EDITZ: Aight. UNL won, awesome.

 

So.. yeah. I interpreted Arendt as saying that exploring space and doing science changes mankind, while you guys interpreted her as saying that exploring space devalues the earth. Those are two pretty different things, and I don't see the basis for your interpretation in this card. Furthermore, I think this card only links to exploring space for the sake of knowledge, not to exploring space for the sake of keeping the human race alive. If I'm missing something, please point it out.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link is positivism dude bro, specifically space positivism lol.

 

I don't understand the claim or warrant of this part.

 

I also don't think that article claims, or proves, that space devalues life on earth. I'm pretty sure you guys are reading it wrong. I'm going to Nebraska this weekend, and I leave in like two minutes, so I can't clarify. I will when I get back.

 

EDITZ: Aight. UNL won, awesome.

 

So.. yeah. I interpreted Arendt as saying that exploring space and doing science changes mankind, while you guys interpreted her as saying that exploring space devalues the earth. Those are two pretty different things, and I don't see the basis for your interpretation in this card. Furthermore, I think this card only links to exploring space for the sake of knowledge, not to exploring space for the sake of keeping the human race alive. If I'm missing something, please point it out.

 

"...For the conquest of space, the search for a point outside the earth from which it would be possible to move, to unhinge, as it were, the planet itself, is no accidental result of the modern age’s science. This was from its very beginnings not a “natural†but a universal science, it was not a physics but an astrophysics which looked upon the earth from a point in the universe."

-The conquest of space or the search for a literal archimedean point (a point of objectivity from which to view the world), is a result of the unique manifestation of our sciences, i.e. the philosophy of our current science: Positivism.

 

"...but once arrived there and having acquired this absolute power over his earthly habitat, he would need a new Archimedean point, and so ad infinitum."

-Whats that Hannah? The aff only replicates harms by seeking this archimedean point?

 

"...the stature of man would not simply be lowered by all standards we know of, but have been destroyed. "

-Pretty sure thats not saying anything about devaluing earth, shes saying our Being would have been destroyed! Thats strong words for a rock star philosopher and pupil of Heidegger!

 

This is the best 1nc Heidegger link out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link is positivism dude bro, specifically space positivism lol.

She indicts positivism, but does not give a reason that all forms of space exploration are based on the positivist desire for an Archimedean point. She also doesn't say that positivism fails to value the Earth, although that argument may arguably be implicit. Her focus is clearly on explaining the interaction between positivist forms of knowledge and mankind's conception of mankind, not on the interaction between space exploration and the value of our planet.

 

Furthermore, she explains that a certain type of space exploration could

 

add to the stature of man inasmuch as man, in distinction from other living things, desires to be at home in a “territory†as large as possible. In that case, he would only take possession of what is his own, although it took him a long time to discover it. These new possessions, like all property, would have to be limited, and once the limit is reached and the limitations established, the new world view that may conceivably grow out of it is likely to be once more geocentric and anthropomorphic, although not in the old sense of the earth being the center of the universe and of man being the highest being there is. It would be geocentric in the sense that the earth, and not the universe, is the center and the home of mortal men, and it would be anthropomorphic in the sense that man would count his own factual mortality among the elementary conditions under which his scientific efforts are possible at all. At this moment, the prospects for such an entirely beneficial development and solution of the present predicaments of modern science and technology do not look particularly good.

Please note the bolded especially. There can be no ambiguity about whether she thinks that scientific undertakings founded upon recognition of our mortality are bad because she explicitly says that they'd be "entirely beneficial". She's even okay with large scale colonization, so long as we remember that people are important.

 

Her argument about positivism is terrible for debate purposes because it is an argumentum ad consequentum. If positivism fails to value human worth, this in itself doesn't prove positivism wrong. She also doesn't provide a reason that positivism can't value human life, she just asserts that it can't because it views things scientifically, which is silly because the opposite is actually true:

 

beauty.png

 

Moreover, there may be no objective reason that humans are good, but a simple permutation of "value humans while using positivism to keep them alive" would obviously be the best solution to this problem. This is actually what the status quo 1AC is, in that no debater uses positivism to attempt to find "the meaning to life", but only as a means to the end of human life, which is assumed to be a good thing and never subjected to the type of rigorous questioning that other parts of the 1AC are.

 

If positivism doesn't value people, that doesn't mean that any value has been lost, because the people are still alive and are still valued by non positivists. The same is not true when people die because important political options are ignored. Failing to save humans lives because of a distrust of scientific methodologies shows much more disrespect for people than any positivist mindset could ever achieve.

 

EDIT: Major props for whatever mod restored the image I posted, thanks a bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but the K solves positivism which is only unique to our current historical trajectory (as concerns Being).

 

If ontology comes first and the alt solves, then why can't the link be positivism?

 

The other team can read 5 min of positivism good, but then neg team can just read 1 minute of a different link in the neg block...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say: "does not give a reason that all forms of space exploration are based on the positivist desire for an Archimedean point"

 

Arendt Sez: "the conquest of space, the search for a point outside the earth"

 

So you are saying she isn't explicit that exploring space with telecopes, or putting up satellites is this conquest of space. Think about the cases being run, any good debater can employ "conquest of space" against most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This was from its very beginnings not a “natural†but a universal science, it was not a physics but an astrophysics which looked upon the earth from a point in the universe.""

 

Shes talking about the "destining" of being in origins. She uses her own words, but its all heidegger's ontology.

 

"We have come to our present capacity to “conquer space†through our new ability to handle nature from a point in the universe outside the earth. "

 

Name an aff and I"ll insinuate they're conquering space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't triple post. Edit buttons exist for a reason.

 

Arendt says that space exploration based in positivism is bad, not that all space exploration is bad. Look at the bolded part in my above quotation. Moreover, she only thinks that positivism is bad when it is an end in itself. She's even okay with using technology as a means to expand mankind's domain. I understand that it's possible to bastardize this card into a link, but that doesn't change the fact that you're misrepresenting her argument. Don't be hatin' just cuz I showed y'all the flaws in ur sick new K card.

 

I agree that taking 5 minutes to answer this link is not strategic. Fortunately, it only takes about 30 seconds.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...