Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello again debate community! Is anyone willing to explain Heidegger's thought to me in relation to kritik the major aff cases this season? Also, which impact and alternative do you recommend in the context of the Heiddy K?

 

Thank you!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he was a nazi

 

Edit: you're welcome for the help

Edited by aram
  • Upvote 9
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're going to need to be more specific. There are lots of different types of Heidegger K's. The most common high school run variant is the 'technology is evil' K, of which you can find in open evidence.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, okay good point. Could you first tell me about the Tech evil part? And yes, he was a raging nazi... but that thing only things when the world worlds so it holds no argument. Dammit Heidegger... you and your nazi shenanigans.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technological thought is the logic of problem-solution thinking.  When we use it, we start seeing everything in terms of its use to us, rather than seeing things as having inherent value.  This creates the idea of the "standing reserve", which is basically that we can exploit nature as much as we want, causing massive environmental destruction, etc.  The other impact tends to be ontological damnation; when we see everything as existing only to be used, we fail to appreciate life and nature and so on, and that destroys value to life.  The alt tends to be to do nothing or reject tech thought. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone have suggestions for what books I can read so I can commodify the digger and calculate how I can best exploit the standing reserve of debaters at tournaments with 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cut this a long time ago:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp1ccy7ee0qc9y3/Heidegger%20K.doc

 

Now the blocks suck and a lot of the analytics are shit. I did this when I was in my first year before I actually debated any round. So you'll have to fix it yourself, but the evidence is alright.

I feel you bruh - The first file I cut was a DnG K and I was having trouble translating their MASSIVE THEORIES onto "blocks" and other stuff; I nearly made it a K of debate because of how much trouble I had lol; needless to say, my blocks and analytics were pretty bad 

 

On a side note - I like how your file says 2 years ago, haven't even touched it eh? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so your heidegger  file's zimmerman impact says that you'll rape me if I use it

 

so your heidegger file makes the people who use it a standing reserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also important to know WHAT calculative thought is. Calculative thought is our way of internalizing external phenomena. In other words, it is an "inauthentic truth" derived from our attempt to know the universe around us, to use it for our benefit, to work within it. As such, calculative rationality assumes a "community" which is available to us; put shortly, it leads to a tendency to categorize or organize beings. Most people don't mind that, as calculative thought produces fast, efficient, definite answers to mundane problems, and it does so efficiently. Additionally, such thought holds that there is an objective truth to the world and that every action fits into a greater structure (we're all "cogs in a machine"). The problem is that such thinking can only transform the world into a series of categorical analyses; we go from one "problem" to the next, one "answer" to the next, and so on and so on.

 

Meditative thought is the opposite; it is an "authentic truth" derived from our relation to the natural. For Heidegger, the individual is of paramount importance, and our individual relationship with the natural (external) environment is where we can create meaning. Instead of attempting to know the world (read: ascribe a truth to the natural), meditative thought centers on the relationships an individual experiences with external phenomena. This involves a re-centering of our perspectives back into an abstract conceptualization of the natural. It is within this meditation that we find true meaning.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also important to know WHAT calculative thought is. Calculative thought is our way of internalizing external phenomena. In other words, it is an "inauthentic truth" derived from our attempt to know the universe around us, to use it for our benefit, to work within it. As such, calculative rationality assumes a "community" which is available to us; put shortly, it leads to a tendency to categorize or organize beings. Most people don't mind that, as calculative thought produces fast, efficient, definite answers to mundane problems, and it does so efficiently. Additionally, such thought holds that there is an objective truth to the world and that every action fits into a greater structure (we're all "cogs in a machine"). The problem is that such thinking can only transform the world into a series of categorical analyses; we go from one "problem" to the next, one "answer" to the next, and so on and so on.

 

Meditative thought is the opposite; it is an "authentic truth" derived from our relation to the natural. For Heidegger, the individual is of paramount importance, and our individual relationship with the natural (external) environment is where we can create meaning. Instead of attempting to know the world (read: ascribe a truth to the natural), meditative thought centers on the relationships an individual experiences with external phenomena. This involves a re-centering of our perspectives back into an abstract conceptualization of the natural. It is within this meditation that we find true meaning.

So calculative thought is the problem and meditative thought is the solution?

 

Wait a second...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So calculative thought is the problem and meditative thought is the solution?

 

Wait a second...

 

Ironic but i expected someone to say that as a not-sarcastic response. The idea isn't that one is "bad" and the other is "good," but that both are intertwined in the way we view the universe and our relation to it. Heidegger's argument is that modern technocracy has effectively pushed meditative thought aside in favor of better and more efficient calculations. The alt restores balance more than it replaces ALL calculative logic.

 

Also, this still doesn't allow a perm because the aff remains a technocratic, calculative strategy.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin Heideggers critique is a critique of:

1) Utilitarianism/Consequentialism

2) Scientific thought

 

Some people say technological thought….but whether or not technology good is an impact turn is perhaps up for debate.

 

Its important to note that Heideggers work had major influence on Anthro/Deep Eco authors….and I think if you want to impact turn it….you could arguably go there.

 

However, at a fundamental level…..dealing with the utility/consequentialism (aka calculative thought) component is key to everything else.

 

You might also check your Humanism/Spanos answers…there could possibly be some overlap.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin Heideggers critique is a critique of:

1) Utilitarianism/Consequentialism

2) Scientific thought

 

Some people say technological thought….but whether or not technology good is an impact turn is perhaps up for debate.

 

Its important to note that Heideggers work had major influence on Anthro/Deep Eco authors….and I think if you want to impact turn it….you could arguably go there.

 

However, at a fundamental level…..dealing with the utility/consequentialism (aka calculative thought) component is key to everything else.

 

You might also check your Humanism/Spanos answers…there could possibly be some overlap.

2. Nope. He has a problem with extended calculative thought, the infinitely regressive problem-solution mentality that has become so ingrained in modern society (i.e. you're tired of washing dishes? Let us cut down a few trees, build a factory, dig some minerals up and convert it into plastic to make a dishwasher.) the problem-solution mentality renders everything a "standing reserve", essentially, meaning that in your eyes, everything is meant to be used as a tool (i.e. animals aren't just living organisms in the food chain, they're leather for your new luxury item). He says this distances us from nature/being-there/dasein because if you are always thinking about how to fix a self-constructed problem, then you can't enjoy your life. There's definitely more to his theories, but i just had a problem with the dismissive nature of you saying he hates science

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video seems to have a good explanation of technical vs. meditative thought (Heidegger pros could fact check this cuz I'm not well read in the lit)

 

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...