Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What would you do to weigh the aff vs. an ontological kritik, like ooo.

OOO has no coherent impact, and the link isn't solved by the alt.

Focus more on turns K/solves K arguments, link mitigation, alt doesn't solve aff, etc.

Edited by BobbyTables

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOO has no coherent impact, and the link isn't solved by the alt.

Focus more on turns K/solves K arguments, link mitigation, alt doesn't solve aff, etc.

Very not true on both accounts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but that requires you to interpret what it means to refuse interpretation; it also requires you to interpret the act of voting neg.

Yeah but a world post-seduction means a world where the affs value-judgment didn't take place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very not true on both accounts

What impacts do you think it accesses?  Bryant specifically wrote an article saying that OOO had no ethical implications, and the most that the politics arguments get you is turns case, which doesn't get you anywhere against an aff that can defend the specificity of its solvency mechanism.

 

Given that basically nobody defends ontological anti-realism, most of the links have to be premised on epistemological anti-realism, but there's no reason that the existence of an objective reality means that we have access to it.

 

It's entirely possible that I'm misreading OOO, and I'd appreciate it if you could correct my misconceptions on the literature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but a world post-seduction means a world where the affs value-judgment didn't take place

I'm not sure what that means or how it implicates the question of whether the neg has interpreted or been interpreted.  Could you elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what that means or how it implicates the question of whether the neg has interpreted or been interpreted.  Could you elaborate?

Hmmm think about it like the "Must work within the strata" arguments that DnG debaters make - we need to employ some form of striation if only to find places to turn it against itself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but a world post-seduction means a world where the affs value-judgment didn't take place

That's bullshit.  It's like saying "alt solves the fact that the K links to itself."  Nah.

 

What impacts do you think it accesses?  Bryant specifically wrote an article saying that OOO had no ethical implications, and the most that the politics arguments get you is turns case, which doesn't get you anywhere against an aff that can defend the specificity of its solvency mechanism.

 

Given that basically nobody defends ontological anti-realism, most of the links have to be premised on epistemological anti-realism, but there's no reason that the existence of an objective reality means that we have access to it.

 

It's entirely possible that I'm misreading OOO, and I'd appreciate it if you could correct my misconceptions on the literature.

It's traditional impacts are basic anthro and correlationism.  The fact that OOO is not primarily normative, but rather descriptive, does not mean that there are not impacts.

 

The ethic maintained by Morton specifically says that we don't have access to an objective reality in the sense that we can never access a direct relationship to the object (a logical consequence of correlationism).  Other than that, I'm not really sure what the rest of that sentence is trying to prove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's bullshit.  It's like saying "alt solves the fact that the K links to itself."  Nah.

 

 

It's traditional impacts are basic anthro and correlationism.  The fact that OOO is not primarily normative, but rather descriptive, does not mean that there are not impacts.

 

The ethic maintained by Morton specifically says that we don't have access to an objective reality in the sense that we can never access a direct relationship to the object (a logical consequence of correlationism).  Other than that, I'm not really sure what the rest of that sentence is trying to prove.

Well it's more along the lines of alt solves the link - I means it's not like the alt ACTUALLY links to itself: tell me, how can we interpret the singularity of death? Can we ask a suicide bomber why they committed the act after they've done it? No, of course not. The only thing we CAN DO is impose value-judgements on the suicide bombers act (i.e. they did it because they were religious fundamentalists) but we can never really know why they did it, we can only assume

 

The gift of death is an impossible exchange that can only be countered with the gift of death - it's a form of seduction whereby systems spiral towards their implosion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Morton agrees with correlationism that we don't have access to objective reality, how does OOO solve the correlationism impact?  Also, what's the impact to correlationism?

 

I'm also somewhat unclear how OOO accesses an anthro impact; why does recognizing that nonhuman actors exist imply that we give them equivalent ethical standing to humans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's more along the lines of alt solves the link - I means it's not like the alt ACTUALLY links to itself: tell me, how can we interpret the singularity of death? Can we ask a suicide bomber why they committed the act after they've done it? No, of course not. The only thing we CAN DO is impose value-judgements on the suicide bombers act (i.e. they did it because they were religious fundamentalists) but we can never really know why they did it, we can only assume

 

The gift of death is an impossible exchange that can only be countered with the gift of death - it's a form of seduction whereby systems spiral towards their implosion

I think that's exactly how the alt links to itself.  It's inevitable.  I'm not saying that there's a solution to the problem, but the alt isn't one. I don't see how the counter-gift can resolve any part of this dilemma; I think you're overthinking this and making it way more complicated than it is.

 

If Morton agrees with correlationism that we don't have access to objective reality, how does OOO solve the correlationism impact?  Also, what's the impact to correlationism?

 

I'm also somewhat unclear how OOO accesses an anthro impact; why does recognizing that nonhuman actors exist imply that we give them equivalent ethical standing to humans?

OOO solves correlationism by accepting the object as it is, by not trying to understand or know the object.  The impact could be phrased as loss of being.  You deny the object the right to exist as it is, but rather only as a product of human cognition.  This creates a hierarchy of objects that have more of a right to exist than others, which is the same logic of racism, sexism, et al.

 

I guess your confusion lies in what anthro is in the instance of OOO.  For object oriented philosophers, correlationism implies that the right to existence exists more so for humans than for objects.  It is anthropocentric in the sense that we grant humans the right to exist, but not to objects, so we place ourselves in the center once again.  While it is slightly different than traditional deep ecology, it is still anthropocentrism

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's exactly how the alt links to itself.  It's inevitable.  I'm not saying that there's a solution to the problem, but the alt isn't one. I don't see how the counter-gift can resolve any part of this dilemma; I think you're overthinking this and making it way more complicated than it is.

 

 

OOO solves correlationism by accepting the object as it is, by not trying to understand or know the object.  The impact could be phrased as loss of being.  You deny the object the right to exist as it is, but rather only as a product of human cognition.  This creates a hierarchy of objects that have more of a right to exist than others, which is the same logic of racism, sexism, et al.

 

I guess your confusion lies in what anthro is in the instance of OOO.  For object oriented philosophers, correlationism implies that the right to existence exists more so for humans than for objects.  It is anthropocentric in the sense that we grant humans the right to exist, but not to objects, so we place ourselves in the center once again.  While it is slightly different than traditional deep ecology, it is still anthropocentrism

That debates a wash - obviously both teams engaged in discursive acts, but the aff hits the link harder - the gift of death via suicide bomb destroys the meaning of the 1AC; the point of the k is that making value-judgments on discourse is bad because discursive objects exist independently from our constructions, a suicide bomb via a reading of poetry, which is supposed to be enigmatic and unintelligible, solves the links - the fernando '10 Evidence talks equally as much about poetry as it does about The gift of death

 

Then there's the Land '92 evidence that says poetry is a form of mysticism that breaks down resources of articulation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That debates a wash - obviously both teams engaged in discursive acts, but the aff hits the link harder - the gift of death via suicide bomb destroys the meaning of the 1AC; the point of the k is that making value-judgments on discourse is bad because discursive objects exist independently from our constructions, a suicide bomb via a reading of poetry, which is supposed to be enigmatic and unintelligible, solves the links - the fernando '10 Evidence talks equally as much about poetry as it does about The gift of death

 

Then there's the Land '92 evidence that says poetry is a form of mysticism that breaks down resources of articulation

What constitutes poetry and why doesn't any definition of poetry make it at least partially known?  If you don't define poetry, why isn't the 1ac a poem?

How does saying "the 1ac is bad because it makes a value judgement on discourse" not make a value judgement on discourse?

If the debate is a wash, why doesn't a 1% risk the aff did something good outweigh?

Why does the aff necessarily link harder?

Why doesn't your normative description of the function of poetry link to all your arguments and turn solvency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.  That clarifies a lot.

 

Given that both OOO and correlationism claim to be descriptive, how do they get to the right to existence?

Object oriented philosophers never really phrase it that way.  It is just a descriptive claim that all objects exist equally.  Any attempt to prevent that is a denial of the truth.  It is "bad" although they are not normative in that sense.

 

That debates a wash - obviously both teams engaged in discursive acts, but the aff hits the link harder - the gift of death via suicide bomb destroys the meaning of the 1AC; the point of the k is that making value-judgments on discourse is bad because discursive objects exist independently from our constructions, a suicide bomb via a reading of poetry, which is supposed to be enigmatic and unintelligible, solves the links - the fernando '10 Evidence talks equally as much about poetry as it does about The gift of death

 

Then there's the Land '92 evidence that says poetry is a form of mysticism that breaks down resources of articulation

Seems like if I couldn't beat the K on the fact that it links to itself, the permutation would seem to solve 100%.  Even if you're right, intuition is so far against this K that it'd be very hard to win in the context of a debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What constitutes poetry and why doesn't any definition of poetry make it at least partially known?  If you don't define poetry, why isn't the 1ac a poem?

How does saying "the 1ac is bad because it makes a value judgement on discourse" not make a value judgement on discourse?

If the debate is a wash, why doesn't a 1% risk the aff did something good outweigh?

Why does the aff necessarily link harder?

Why doesn't your normative description of the function of poetry link to all your arguments and turn solvency?

All questions that are only relational to an aff in question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Object oriented philosophers never really phrase it that way. It is just a descriptive claim that all objects exist equally. Any attempt to prevent that is a denial of the truth. It is "bad" although they are not normative in that sense.

 

 

Seems like if I couldn't beat the K on the fact that it links to itself, the permutation would seem to solve 100%. Even if you're right, intuition is so far against this K that it'd be very hard to win in the context of a debate

Permutation is incoherent as the alt destroys meaning - I'll stick with the Fernando '10 evidence, it's won me debates and people have made that argument against me, which I answered based on the aff; so to each their own opinion Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bryant specifically wrote an article saying that OOO had no ethical implications, and the most that the politics arguments get you is turns case, which doesn't get you anywhere against an aff that can defend the specificity of its solvency mechanism.

Could you send me the link to that article?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone tell me what kinds of PICs or PIKs someone would run against the Heidegger aff?

PIK out of their anthropocentric representation of bringing forth while still advocating for anti-managerialism.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PIK out of their anthropocentric representation of bringing forth while still advocating for anti-managerialism.

What would its alt be? How would it solve for eco-managerialism? How would its methodology be any different from the aff?

 

If you can answer these questions how else could I answer this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would its alt be? How would it solve for eco-managerialism? How would its methodology be any different from the aff?

 

If you can answer these questions how else could I answer this?

You could read a number of alts; easiest one would be to affirm meditation or whatever the aff does absent their conception of being.  You could also just read the alt to any other ecomanagerialism K.  Competition would be essentially like it is with counterplan+DA - your method doesn't link to anthro, theirs does.

You could probably read the Bataille nonknowledge stuff with some degree of effectiveness - also the intimacy with animality args.

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...