Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Can anyone please help me understand what exactly this says if anyone has heard of it at all? The cards on this seem all over the place. For some context we read a Baudrillard aff critiquing debate as distanced from real world education. I am trying to answer it, but it's difficult when I don't exactly know what it says or what the link is. 

 

**Edit: The affirmative is also ironic, forgot about that part. That seems like something important

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not heard this argument, but am going to make some assertions based on a very minimalist interpretation of Baudrillard. For context: I did cut his book (Simulacra) & cut some answers (from a volume edited by Kellner).

I'm going to make the case for 5 different arguments:

Impact turns. The distance is good. We need distance to make decisions about ourselves and others.

I'm curious if the perm would be distance & the alternative. This would give you 2 perspectives, which theoretically could create better problem solving.

Baudrillard takeouts.
a) You can probably assert this, but he's rather theoretical/ivory tower.
b] And the "subaltern" or the other and his/her perspective really isn't included.
The Baudrillard takeout I was thinking would focus on that his philosophy causes distancing. Ideally you would include his worldview as part of the argument. Basically this would be a performative contradiction, with multiple levels of implication.

Or....there are some authenticity turns. The search for the super authentic is flawed.
His argument here as well as his copy of a copy of a copy type argument is about authenticity in one sense. The attempts to achieve pan-ultimate-authenticity are flawed & harmful. I forget what the warrants to this argument are.

Clarify what they are calling for (aka what types of media/images/representations would better fit the K).
a) This seems to be calling for Sally Struthers style images of the "real." Right--instead of getting a bad perspective due to distance.....we get very close. There is zero intrinsic advantage from being close.
b] there is a double bind. I'm not sure what kind of images Baudrillard would call for that he wouldn't critique. His argument is a cul de sac. An intellectual dead end. (he wouldn't be happy with narratives, hege good, hege bad, or your irony--theres no way out of his system except either paralysis, silence, and apathy. That alternative is worse.) At least the permutations gives you chance.

* I do worry that you probably link in some ways to these ivory tower arguments perhaps. So, it may be that authenticity turns are a better option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no reason why you couldn't perm public deliberation. Your argument is the irony has a unique power in the context of public dilberation.

 

Although I guess you have to read the first article to fully understand the link.....and thus how they would answer the perm.

 

Also the last card seems to be an independent argument....that is a case turn. It seems to have nothing to do with the K (I may be wrong).....except the K is like a takeout or tradeoff argument.....and the bottom then is therefore ALL offense versus your aff.

 

I'm not sure what it is....but the deliberative evidence....seems to develop an idea of critical realism, which **might** be somewhat mutually exclusive with irony. Or it could be spun as such.

 

Baudrillard in my understanding is concerned about the nature of the sign & the signified....it seems to be the basis of his argument. Therefore, I'm not sure how their first piece of evidence works exactly.

 

Also, I don't think Baudrillard & the critical realists would get along at all. Not even close. (but it may be up to you to find those tensions & exploit them & impact them)

------------------------------------------------------

Based on the link above....I've included the shell:

 

Its seems to be a critique of the focus on language/representations.

 

 

Signification DA

By reducing reality to signification, the affirmative posits the nonexistence of being

Attias 96(Ben, Professor of Rhetoric at CSU-Northridge and Gordon Mitchell’s former debate partner, “Welcome to the World of Jean Baudrillard,â€http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/baud/)

 

The tautology of unlimited …. burn," (163).

 

Existence of an independent external world allows us to reach common pragmatic decisions through public deliberation

McGandy 5(Michael, The Journal of Speculative Philosophy 19.4 (2005) 266-270,http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_speculative_philosophy/v019/19.4mcgandy.html)

 

Deliberativism is, Talisse argues, …. as the process of inquiry and debate.

 

 

Ironic confrontations seek to exploit insecurity and powerlessness—through humorous interpretations they create an ontological distancing that causes collective social suicide

Michael Marder is Ikerbasque Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of the Basque Country, 10/16/11,http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/jokes-and-their-relation-to-crisis/, “Jokes and Their Relation to Crisesâ€; hhs-ab

 

In June, the Republican presidential …. having a good, hearty laugh.

  • Upvote 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...