Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ok so I'm an LDer and fell in love with the K at camp. However, I'm essentially a lone wolf and don't have much resources, so I'm deciding to invest my time in working on one solid K file. Which do you think is the most strategic to read - in terms of how many people prep it, how easy it is for opponents to understand, how many generic links there are, and how I can preclude the AC. Right now, I'm think of starting an OOO file, but feel free to change my mind.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Virtually all LD is K level thinking.  Or at least it used to be.

 

Honestly, LD will be better for you, education-wise, if you spend your time reading philosophy classics rather than hyper-focusing on something trendy.  As an LDer, I read Aristotle, Plato, Hobbes, Locke, Paine, Rousseau, Mills, Bentham, Thoreau, Kant, Marx, Neitzsche, Orwell, Huxley, Rand, Nozick, and Rawls (and Aquinas on the side for non-LD reasons).  Admittedly, at the time, no one expected LDers to read cards, so understanding and ability to apply was key, but now everyone can read (most) of these on the internet, which makes cutting cards vastly more trivial today than it used to be, and understanding is still key.  I also can't overstate how important it is to be *broad* in your reading across the philosophical spectrum.

 

If you feel the need to insert some Heidegger or Foucault into your reading list, that's up to you.  But the harder the author is to read, the less ground you'll cover.  (And Kant is already painful to read, but more important than any of the 20th century stuff, so I'd definitely give him priority.)  But if you're going to read something Continental, I strongly recommend Foucault first.  (And I can't in good consciousness recommend reading Heidegger unless you want a headache).

 

Other authors that are worth reading: Voltaire, Montesquieu, Edmund Burke, Sun Tzu, Karl Popper, Bertrand Russell, Frege, Wittgenstein, Hegel, Hume, Berkeley, Machiavelli, Sartre, Mary Wollstonecraft, Simone de Beauvoir, Emma Goldman, John Dewey, Avicenna, Ludwig von Mises, Quine, Spinoza, Kierkegaard, Max Weber, Friedrich Hayek, William of Ockham.

 

Note that I'm mostly shying away from post-1950 authors.  The ones who do make it have generally had a large impact on public discussions of ethics (See esp. Rawls, probably the most influential philosopher of the last 70 years).  Also: not a complete list - I'm sure I forgot several someones who belong on it (like some other early communist anarchists, who I can't be bothered to look up right now, and some other early Analyticals like Moore, Carnap, and Ayers might belong here, but my recollection of them is fuzzy).

 

FWIW, someone got 900 "working" philosophers to cordocet vote on the top 20 philosophers of all time, and this was their list: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/05/the-20-most-important-philosophers-of-all-time.html

Some of that is a little baffling, but it feels mostly accurate.  (I personally wouldn't rate Socrates at all, since we only know him through others, for example, and I find it baffling that Popper isn't on the list).

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Squirelloid, reading in general is really helpful. I think that reading articles that critique common arguments people read (especially framework args) can help you come up with better arguments analytically as well as just make you smarter.

 

But to answer your question, there's a lot of K topics that are somewhat prevalent in policy that no one seems to read in LD. If you type into the NDCA LD wiki and search for OOO, or baudrillard, or heidegger, you probably won't find too many results. So those have potential. I think Tuck and Yang (their main article critiques narratives) had like 3 results, but on the policy wiki there were a bunch. But I personally think that you shouldn't worry about reading arguments that people have prepped out- if you know your stuff, you can beat them. And you are more likely to know your stuff with simpler arguments (so not DnG and all those words you've never heard of like deterritorialization or rhizomatic). And to be honest, unless you're hitting tough competition, i.e. TOC quals, they probably won't have prepouts to semi-common Ks in LD like biopower or ones that aren't specific to the topic like representations Ks.

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...