Jump to content
ConsultVerminSupreme

Bataille Explanation

Recommended Posts

What's up yo, so i was looking through wikis in preparation for a tournament next month, and noticed the Saint Vincent de Paul has been reading this argument quite often, cites are below, can someone explain the arg to me (in general, or what you can make of the tags)

 

Action fragments existence – the greater, sharper and more persistent our search for truth only ensures the more effectively it eludes us.

Bataille 45 (Georges, Originally written in French as Sur Nietzsche, 1945. On Nietzsche translated by Bruce Boone, published 2004. p. xxii-xxvi)
But what does that fragmentation mean? Or better, what causes it if not 
AND
a clown, partly a God, partly crazy…and is transparence. 

 
This constitution of use value is the foundation of the self-other dialectic that makes mass genocide possible

Stoekl 7 professor of French and comparative literature at Penn State University (Allan, 8 October 2007, "Bataille's Peak : Energy, Religion, and Postsustainability," ¬¬¬131-132, Ebrary) 'man' used one purpose
The rise of subjectivity, of the isolated, active self, conquering nature, 
AND
fully human (with an identity and consciousness) and put to use. 

 
Work has become a deity – this limitless valorization of productivity that stems from protestant theories of predestination continuously informs our understanding of utility. Such an ethos grounds exclusion of blackness from society and maintains willful ignorance that perpetuates mass police violence and dogmatic conceptualizations of race

Massey 15 (Alana, sociologist, and researcher on post-colonial gender and race studies and the work ethic, May 26, 2015 "The White Protestant Roots of American Racism") AMM
"The Apotheosis of Washington," painted in 1865 by Constantino Brumidi, is a 
AND
building—with their blood, sweat, and tears are consistently forgotten.

 
This posture is a revengeful hatred of the status quo – this is the founding principle of psychology which outweighs every other impact

Deleuze 83 (Gilles, 1983, Nietzsche and Philosophy, pg. 34-36) AMM
Is this difference only psychological? A difference of mood or tone? Nietzsche's philosophy 
AND
and dialectic pathos, caricature of the tragic, comedy of bad conscience. 

 
Vote negative to adopt an ethos of passivity. Take this opportunity to look the affirmative's moral imperative in the face and declare you'd prefer not to act.

Bifo 11 (Franco Berardi, 2011, "After the Future", p. 135-139) AMM
Time is in the mind. The essential limit to growth is the mental impossibility 
AND
new concatenation, where collective intelligence is only subjected to the common good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam Martin has an account on here; maybe he'll pop in and answer e _ e

 

Edit 1: It's basically action bad lol; the first Bataille card explains how when people try to search for and attain "truth" in life, they necessarily have to distance themselves from their environment and how they interact with it because you're more focused on the "out-there" (the goal) than the "now" (life in the moment and the world around you); I believe Bataille explains it pretty well in these few sentences:

 

"In order to will knowledge, by an indirect expedient I tend to become the whole universe. But in this movement I can't be a whole human being, since I submit to a particular goal, becoming the whole. Granted, if I could become it, I would thus be a whole human being. But in my effort, don't I distance myself from exactly that? And how can I become the whole without becoming a whole human being? I can't be this whole human being except when I let go. I can't be this through willpower: my will necessarily has to will outcomes! But if misfortune (or chance) wills me to let go, then I know I am an integral, whole humanness, subordinate to nothing."

 

The rest of the evidence seems to be an extension of that "thesis" and then identifies an alternative to that (i.e. "passivity") 

 

Most of your usuals on here know more about Bataille than I do so if we could have some of them in here to explain it more in depth (or make corrections thereof) that'd be great : ^ )

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Def reading this against you now. Pablo's explanation is sufficient probably, the rest is just jargon and debate tricks.

 

Camus is a response. Sadly it is a shitty one. But it is a response.

 

See you at what I think is Fullerton.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Def reading this against you now. Pablo's explanation is sufficient probably, the rest is just jargon and debate tricks.

 

Camus is a response. Sadly it is a shitty one. But it is a response.

 

See you at what I think is Fullerton.

 

Lol sweet, hope we have the chance to debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to pre-empt this by saying that this is my interpretation of the tags/authors/works cited above, since I lack access to the cards themselves. If the author of the K would like to dispute my claims, feel free.

 

Well part of the problem is that, it seems like the position being taken isn't super coherent on its own and is rather a mishmash of satellite K's that get spun off in the block.

 

Let's start with the first Bataille card. It sounds like the argument being made is related to the idea of nonknowledge:

"Bataille holds reservations about the subject who gains knowledge through discourse because, as Andrew Mitchell and Jason Winfree explain in their introduction to The Obsessions of Georges Bataille, “to know is to possess knowledge. But once the known is possessed and internalized, the relation to what lies beyond the self is severed and our contact with the outside regulated and neutralized.”18 The communication that belongs to the community of inner experience cannot be possessed or internalized in any such fashion. Therefore, Bataille’s community suggests a space where we, as selves, can account for one another as truly sharing and not as severed by our determinate knowledge of one another. The community of inner experience clears a space for the ontological condition of the self ecstatically communing with others “which is opposed to the ‘turning in on oneself’”19 that characterizes the knowledgeable subject of discursive practices.20"

http://scholar.oxy.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=ctsj

 

The next card is the first impact card which is related to the above, and is basically saying otherization is bad. The internal link to that is probably something similar to the passage I cited above. 

 

The article in the third card is making the argument that Cap + Religion = Racism. Not a new claim, considering criticisms of the interlinkages between religion and slavery extend back well before the 1800's. 

 

The next card (the Deleuze card) is almost certainly a ressentiment impact, both from the tag and from the book (it's Deleuze's book on Nietzsche which is where that concept comes from). I'm not sure if it's a 'Wounded Attachments' argument, but I'm guessing it can turn into that in the block against identity based affs.

You can read about ressentiment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment

And Wounded Attachments here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191795?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents 

If you don't have JSTOR, you can read about it instead here: http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/doezema-ouch.html

 

Finally, there's the good old Bifo card. Bifo is the semio-cap stuff. His 'do nothing' alt is basically stolen straight from Baudrillard if you're familiar with that. This should be answered fairly easily by pointing out that doing nothing...does nothing. Won't break down cap. 

 

The 'meta-thesis' of this K, if I had to give it one, is that it's basically a giant impact turn of taking action. Thus, you should prove that the plan is a good idea, and doing nothing in other instances probably solves. You might want to try and argue that your form of surveillance curtailment makes doing nothing more effective, but without the aff I'm not sure how'd that go. As long as you defend the aff and can get your stock K answers down to avoid any dirty tricks you should be pretty good to go. Expect pivots to Cap and Race based args in the block if you're a policy team, and Nietzsche based args if you're a soft left/'we care about the peoples' team. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Def reading this against you now. Pablo's explanation is sufficient probably, the rest is just jargon and debate tricks.

 

Camus is a response. Sadly it is a shitty one. But it is a response.

 

See you at what I think is Fullerton.

Camus is only a shitty response if you enjoy losing. On the other hand, if you enjoy winning then reading the author that directly and explicitly contradicts the thesis of this K is probably not the worst idea. Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Camus is only a shitty response if you enjoy losing. On the other hand, if you enjoy winning then reading the author that directly and explicitly contradicts the thesis of this K is probably not the worst idea. Just saying.

I get that its a thesis level response, I just don't get how exactly one could have success defending it. It seems somewhat unwarranted and flimsy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems somewhat unwarranted and flimsy.

Tell that to his Nobel Prize

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol I mean, I'm pretty sure his Nobel Prize in Literature doesn't mean his response to ressentiment is flawless

Logically incoherent arguments don't get a Nobel prize in any field. If you don't believe me, the Myth of Sisyphus might be worth your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol I mean, I'm pretty sure his Nobel Prize in Literature doesn't mean his response to ressentiment is flawless

I agree, Camus is a bit too absurd for me. 

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logically incoherent arguments don't get a Nobel prize in any field. If you don't believe me, the Myth of Sisyphus might be worth your time.

yeah, I've read most of it, still don't get how exactly "imagining Sisyphus happy" overcomes psychology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Camus is only a shitty response if you enjoy losing. On the other hand, if you enjoy winning then reading the author that directly and explicitly contradicts the thesis of this K is probably not the worst idea. Just saying.

So maybe your deployment of Camus is different from how it usually goes in HS debate, but from what I've seen, how is 'The world is absurd so we can't really do anything' responsive to 'we shouldn't do anything?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol sweet, hope we have the chance to debate.

You're attending the Fullerton tournament? I'll be there judging/watching rounds; just look for the only kid dressed in full black and with long hair (trust me, I stand out). 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're attending the Fullerton tournament? I'll be there judging/watching rounds; just look for the only kid dressed in full black and with long hair (trust me, I stand out).

 

 

Lol you know you judged me at Long Beach, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So maybe your deployment of Camus is different from how it usually goes in HS debate, but from what I've seen, how is 'The world is absurd so we can't really do anything' responsive to 'we shouldn't do anything?'

Camus doesn't say we can't really do anything. He says that life is ultimately absurd and meaningless. However, he then says that we can give action meaning when we embrace the absurd. For Sisyphus, he is the absurd hero because every time he pushes a rock to the top of a hill it rolls back down again and he has to start all over. Camus says that it is when he is walking back down the hill to retrieve the rock that consciousness occurs, and Sisyphus is able to contemplate his position. If he embraces the absurd, he can walk down the hill willingly, which is the only way for him to exert his agency in a world in which he has no real choice. So, action is not only possible but good because acting in the face of the meaninglessness of existence is actually life affirming.

 

yeah, I've read most of it, still don't get how exactly "imagining Sisyphus happy" overcomes psychology

Because that's a misreading of Camus. He's not saying that you should imagine Sisyphus happy, he's saying that you will if you understand what I just said above. "Imagining Sisyphus happy" as you put it isn't an alt, which is what I think you think it means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bataille vs Camus would boil down to an Apollonian Nietzsche vs Dionysian Nietzsche debate imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bataille vs Camus would boil down to an Apollonian Nietzsche vs Dionysian Nietzsche debate imo.

Which side would be Apollonian Nietzsche? They both seem pretty Dionysian to me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which side would be Apollonian Nietzsche? They both seem pretty Dionysian to me.

I can agree with you to a degree, as Camus would often say that rebellion could most often be through the whim of the subject (like in the Stranger how Meursault had shot the Arab), however, Camus has written about the absurd hero to have a distance from emotion which is more Apollonian than Bataille's fixation upon emotion such as laughter.

Edited by FUDGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can agree with you to a degree, as Camus would often say that rebellion could most often be through the whim of the subject (like in the Stranger how Meursault had shot the Arab), however, Camus has written about the absurd hero to have a distance from emotion which is more Apollonian than Bataille's fixation upon emotion such as laughter.

How does that relate to the K OP is talking about though? You're not wrong, I just don't understand why it's relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does that relate to the K OP is talking about though? You're not wrong, I just don't understand why it's relevant.

I just saw Camus is an Answer to Bataille lol

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...