Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If there is an alternative....there is a should.

 

The debaters in this case are creating shoulds about how the judge should or should not act.

Even if a debater makes a normative or ethical claim, that doesn't mean the DnG themselves are using a certain ethical system. Per your original post, nothing you described above proves that DnG use some form of ethical calculus, only that debaters apply an ethical calculus to DnGs work which is completely irrelevant to the work itself.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is an alternative....there is a should.

 

If you're looking for a normative interpretation of Deleuzoguattarian philosophy, this might be a place to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're looking for a normative interpretation of Deleuzoguattarian philosophy, this might be a place to start.

Unfortunately I can't find a free PDF online. Anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if a debater makes a normative or ethical claim, that doesn't mean the DnG themselves are using a certain ethical system. Per your original post, nothing you described above proves that DnG use some form of ethical calculus, only that debaters apply an ethical calculus to DnGs work which is completely irrelevant to the work itself.

 

 

True story.  Perhaps on the surface at least….

 

1) First.  My question, thought pointed beyond a purist discussion to the application in debate.  Because this is a debate forum.  The readers are debaters.  And the context of application is debate.

 

2) All authors have ethics and imply world views.  Why do they write?  Thats both a motive and ethic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True story.  Perhaps on the surface at least….

 

1) First.  My question, thought pointed beyond a purist discussion to the application in debate.  Because this is a debate forum.  The readers are debaters.  And the context of application is debate.

 

Problem is that your original statement made no mention of a wider debate context, but instead claimed DnG themselves followed some sort of ethical system. If you want to debate normative interpretations of DnG, that's fine, but these questions need to be separated out as they are not the same thing.

 

2) All authors have ethics and imply world views.  Why do they write?  Thats both a motive and ethic.

That's making multiple additions which aren't necessarily true.

1) Not everyone writes to argue advance a particular normative conceptualization of the world or society. Take for example works of non-fiction that are purely descriptive in nature, like a weather book or something. They aren't trying to say "this is how the world should work," but instead are saying "this is how the world works. No inherent ethico-normative motivation or what have you.

2) You assume all works are steeped in some sort of decision making framework. While this is related to the previous point, I feel it is necessary to draw this point out separately. Even if an author has some form of imperative driving them that has an ideological basis, that doesn't mean that they are advocating a specific framework within which someone should weigh (whatever). For instance, someone could present the pros and cons of a particular something, and leave it up to the reader to decide which one outweighs which, and while this involved ethical calculus, it is not on the part of the author.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True story.  Perhaps on the surface at least….

 

1) First.  My question, thought pointed beyond a purist discussion to the application in debate.  Because this is a debate forum.  The readers are debaters.  And the context of application is debate.

 

2) All authors have ethics and imply world views.  Why do they write?  Thats both a motive and ethic.

 

Certainly the second claim must be true.  It would be overly simplistic to say Deleuze and Guattari write for nothing or for no purpose.  I never meant to imply Deleuze and Guattari wrote with no imperative, only that the terms transcendent/immanent, schizophrenic/paranoic, and rhizomatic/striated are not inherently ethical signifiers but instead descriptive terms of systems and processes.  In terms of an ethics, I believe dng were writing to specifically against the forms of fascism prevalent in Europe post '68.  They write a body politics with the purpose of warding off the fascism nurtured internally (microfascism), a conclusion reached after significant historical and conceptual analysis.  There are obvious indications of an "ought" to be found throughout their writings together, separate, and interviews.  We ought to look to the self before the state, we ought to primarily foster a politics of care of the self, and we ought to approach The Situation with a fine toothed comb (it is banal to say "it's capitalism therefore it's bad" or "it's anti-hegemonic therefore it's good").  

 

I believe there are many wonderful and vibrant counter interpretations of Deleuze and Guattari which argue about the finer points, but the ultimate value of their work is expressed by Gilles Deleuze himself in an interview with Parnett: to prevent people from being reduced to pulp. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...