Jump to content
ZombieMao

Matrix Permutation

Recommended Posts

Okay, so there's this team on my circuit that reads an argument that goes like this:

 

-Philosophy is inaccessible to the common person

-People don't understand philosophy

-Narratives like the Matrix that engage pop culture are best for public engagement 

 

And sometimes there is a permutation that is "Create a narrative based on the Matrix to explain the kritik". (It's based off the book The Matrix and Philosophy)

 

Thus my question: what are some ways you all would answer this argument?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's basically ivory tower. also you should argue that in the context of the "common person" they don't access any more in depth education than you do. i doubt they take to the streets talking about the matrix to the "common person"

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here I was hoping this was going to be a counter-K to the effect of: "accept the counter-K in the matrix, only apply it to reality if its actually good. Do plan in the meantime"

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their arguments are fairly generic. Many philosophical arguments are accessible to the public. Make them prove that yours specifically isn't, and that yours specifically is best explained in terms of the Matrix.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a K, or an answer to Ks or framework??

(if it's a K)

What aff would it link too critical philosophical aff? 

 

Is there impact exclusion from debate?

 

How is this mutually exclusive

(If it's a counter K)

how is this responsive to a criticism off the plan?

(if its framework)

is the plan a matrix narrative/pop culture reference/ or whatever engages the public?

 

is this key to education?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so there's this team on my circuit that reads an argument that goes like this:

 

-Philosophy is inaccessible to the common person

-People don't understand philosophy

-Narratives like the Matrix that engage pop culture are best for public engagement 

 

And sometimes there is a permutation that is "Create a narrative based on the Matrix to explain the kritik". (It's based off the book The Matrix and Philosophy)

 

Thus my question: what are some ways you all would answer this argument?

I'd ask them what counts as "philosophy" and who counts as a "common person". 

 

Likely, they'll describe a common person that's de facto white and male (or isn't subject to the same norms, moors and oppressions as nonwhites and nonmales) which gives you solid kritik ground. The "voice from nowhere" cards that Yancy writes are pretty on point that the abstracted "common person" is really a white person. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snarf's answer is best (although probably not a good idea if you are running a K more in the postmodern/not caring vein). Like the only reason that argument seems somewhat sensible is because of the fact that we have these accepted arbitrary notions of what constitutes 'philosophy' and what constitutes the 'common person'. I mean the idea of something being inaccessible is really just a matter of subject standpoint. I think some of Ray Brassier's analysis on Heidegger is dense, someone else might think Nietzsche is dense, and some people in my AP English class can't read a Kafka book without being confused. Ultimately these arguments serve to a) underestimate the public and B) block out important criticisms of commonly accepted notions that are actually violent (like women being inferior)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophy good.  I realize they supposedly control the access to that--but not really.  Their real argument is some people don't understand this argument....therefore we should never talk about it. I would think it was "try or die" for you.

 

Assumption & Worldview DA.

 

Philosophy key to democracy & marketplace of ideas.

 

Part of the public can't read too.....should we burn our tubs?

 

This is a bit cheesy....but I'm sure that there are arguments that say appeals to populism....are really veiled power grabs.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument is read on the affirmative as a turn on kritiks, for those wondering. 

 

I think that this is just generally a really terrible argument; there seem to be much better ways to perm and I think there is probably a ton of offense you can garner off of the assumptions of the perm.  First, sometimes you need a philosophical/leftist lens to attack normative/well-established squo mindsets.  Second, there is no brightline for what counts as philosophy (e.g. some people really do use geurilla tactics that DnG talk about) making the argument a bit silly.  Third, it assumes that the population can't understand complicated arguments but in reality it just serves to hold us back.  Finally, and most damningly, they assume that they have both the subject positionality and knowledge to generate a cultural artifact with both a) enough meaning to the philosophy and B) enough breadth to become applicable to the 'common man.'  As was pointed out earlier, this really doesn't exist but assuming that such a piece of culture can be foudn is potentially damaging. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this argument depends on there being an abstract universalized "common man". It only requires that most people wouldn't understand philosophy. The word choice is a bit questionable, is all, and for all we know that's OP's word choice rather than his opponents'.

Edited by Squidpaste
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Philosophy is easily accessible by the layman, because a) philosophy is simply the extension of human understanding into a dialogue concerning base knowledge/basis for the knowledge and is therefore simply critical thought, B) it can easily be accessed in any form in the easy-to-use tool we know and love, the internet, and c) philosophy is clearly accessible if it exists prevalently in pop culture as per the perm.

 

-Does it matter? Unless they run some type of framing along with this, or you know you have a policy judge, simply ask "why does it matter?" Even with a policy judge, it could be argued that only the policymaker must understand the philosophy being implemented. Or, you can simply offer counterpoints after you find evidence supporting said counterpoints.

 

-If pop culture understands the Matrix, then they understand tons of philosophy: basic ontology, epistemology, modernism (cogito), etc. "Why can't they relate to (insert your kritik here) if they can relate to the Matrix as intimately as you suggest?" is a valid question.

 

Cards that would work for this perm would be "the layman doesn't care about philosophy", which is much better considering all the aff is trying to accomplish is proving the kritik would only be effective if it was framed in terms that the average person could understand. Grab a card that says "philosophy is relatable"/"philosophy is widely understood" and your set for most things in this perm.

 

Hopefully this was as helpful for you as it was for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Matrix is proof that the public understands philosophy, seeing how it's based off of Jean Baudrillard's Simulation and Simulacra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so there's this team on my circuit that reads an argument that goes like this:

 

-Philosophy is inaccessible to the common person

-People don't understand philosophy

-Narratives like the Matrix that engage pop culture are best for public engagement 

 

And sometimes there is a permutation that is "Create a narrative based on the Matrix to explain the kritik". (It's based off the book The Matrix and Philosophy)

 

Thus my question: what are some ways you all would answer this argument?

How does it solve? Like, if you aren't running baudrillard, how do explain, for example, Schmitt using the Matrix?

 

Also if you do run baudrillard, pretty sure he himself has said the matrix is a poor vessel for his philosophy.

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...