Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hey there,

 

So, I'm having trouble understanding Nevada Union's Levinas affirmative, or Levinas in general. I can't seem to grasp what exactly Levinas argues, and how that functions in the context of the 1AC.

 

What does Levinas say (un)intelligibility is?

What is the absolute other/otherness in the context of his work?

What is his view on ontology?

 

It's cites are under "1AC - Unintelligibility -- La Costa"

 

http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/Nevada+Union/Fenner-HillWeld+Aff

 

Explanations contextualized towards this particular affirmative and surveillance would be appreciated.

 

Thanks ahead of time

Edited by ConsultVerminSupreme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey there,

 

So, I'm having trouble understanding Nevada Union's Levinas affirmative, or Levinas in general. I can't seem to grasp what exactly Levinas argues, and how that functions in the context of the 1AC.

 

What does Levinas say (un)intelligibility is?

What is the absolute other/otherness in the context of his work?

What is his view on ontology?

 

It's cites are under "1AC - Unintelligibility -- La Costa"

 

http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/Nevada+Union/Fenner-HillWeld+Aff

 

Explanations contextualized towards this particular affirmative and surveillance would be appreciated.

 

Thanks ahead of time

The aff: 

Surveillance attempts to know the other. A teams explanation from the same school that read this against our aff was that the Other is whatever is considered distinct from the Western liberal subject. The attempts to constantly know and predict the actions/life of the Other (surveillance) is part of a broader construct of fear-based politics that makes violence inevitable, because everything becomes a threat (securitization, somewhat).  

 

They also probably make a claim about how the process of knowing the world precludes an authentic confrontation with Being/the world because we constantly see the world through attempts to know the Other, and therefore seek to FORCE a confrontation with Being and find MEANING for ourselves, creating bad forms of meaning/representations along the way. 

 

Based on some of your posts, I'm pretty sure you might wanna read anti-blackness against this aff. 

 

Tag from the 1AC: 

"When ontology is treated as fundamental, or first philosophy, we capture the entirety of existence in the totalizing finitude of Being, excluding the infinity of the absolutely exterior, unintelligible, or Other, resulting in violence against the Other through reducing that which is Other to same, or Being; that which is intelligible" 

 

This will probably be their criticism of focusing on ontology, although it definitely presumes that your ontological focus is from a western/whitened perspective, and I think you could spin the alt in a pretty good way by talking  about the "unintelligibility" of blackness, and how that is the only act of affirming the unintelligibility of the ACTUAL "Absolute Other". 

 

 

As for his view on ontology, I have no idea. I presume it is somewhat Heideggarian, considering they're reading this Burke evidence. The explanation will probably be one centered around Heidegger's discussion of "Being" though, which is too long for me to post rn. 

Edited by CapitalismIsNotCool
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Levinas in a nutshell

You can never know the other. Attempting to know the other is violent because reasons. We should be instead be open to the other.

 

Answers if they're topical

Terror DA. Not trying to know the other means they do bad things. Default to magnitude.

 

Answers if they're not

T. Your author would almost certainly agree with curtailing surveillance. We should be able to actually impact turn an implementation of your theory so we can have debates that don't suck.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Levinas in a nutshell

You can never know the other. Attempting to know the other is violent because reasons. We should be instead be open to the other.

 

Answers if they're topical

Terror DA. Not trying to know the other means they do bad things. Default to magnitude.

 

Answers if they're not

T. Your author would almost certainly agree with curtailing surveillance. We should be able to actually impact turn an implementation of your theory so we can have debates that don't suck.

 

What does this entail? How is one open to the other and why isn't being open to the other a form of attempting to know the other? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does this entail? How is one open to the other and why isn't being open to the other a form of attempting to know the other? 

He says that you shouldn't FORCE a knowledge of the other, but instead you should let the Other willingly engage with you on their terms. 

 

Basically it's Heidegger's concept of "letting the world reveal itself to you" instead of placing constraints upon the world, (b/c will to power/control, etc.) but you replace "world" with "the Other". 

  • Upvote 2

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...