Jump to content
eldiablo84_06

Fear of Death

Recommended Posts

Havent had a chance to hear the warrants of this argument, if anyone is gracios enough to bless me with their knowledge on the subject it would be appreciated (if this has been discussed in previous threads you know what to do).

 

THANX

-BUTCH OPHS-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really know a lot about this, but when I was at camp I saw some x-NDT finalists debate, and they ran this. it's basically a K that says that plan has all these advantages that have big death impacts, so plan causes people to fear death. they say fearing death is bad, causes inaction, death, all kinds of stuff. the alternative is basically that everyone shoul love everyone else. it sounds alot like they are just fiating world love to me, but when I asked about it they said it wasn't a fiat. w/e.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Merkin

it isnt fiating the world to love everyone, it is embracing the ideology that we can embrace other ways of thinking..besides, as far as i know it, i am the only one who has every successfulklky fiated a ballot before :-p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really know a lot about this, but when I was at camp I saw some x-NDT finalists debate, and they ran this. it's basically a K that says that plan has all these advantages that have big death impacts, so plan causes people to fear death. they say fearing death is bad, causes inaction, death, all kinds of stuff. the alternative is basically that everyone shoul love everyone else. it sounds alot like they are just fiating world love to me, but when I asked about it they said it wasn't a fiat. w/e.

Wait, if a plan supposedly solves for death in a bunch of different areas, wouldn't that cause people to become less fearful, as many ways they could have died in are now gone?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, if a plan supposedly solves for death in a bunch of different areas, wouldn't that cause people to become less fearful, as many ways they could have died in are now gone?

 

 

Ah, there you go, trying to use logic & reason in a kritikal debate......stop that!!!!! :BB

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Merkin
Ah, there you go, trying to use logic & reason in a kritikal debate......stop that!!!!! :BB

HAHAHAHAHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, there you go, trying to use logic & reason in a kritikal debate......stop that!!!!! :BB

I haven't read any of your posts, so I'm going to assume that you are strongly anti-kritik (or at least strongly against this kritik) and take that as a compliment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, there you go, trying to use logic & reason in a kritikal debate......stop that!!!!! :BB

 

hahahaha..funny...very funny.... :Bow:Bow

 

yeah but what this K says it fearing death is bad b/c it destroy all possiblitiy to love and that idea becomes shut out in a world of death fearing.....i dont think it is a good K......at least that is the only way i have seen it run and i didnt like...if there is a different way then tell me...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The critique in itself is more of a modified representations k than anything else. Even if the case solved for death, it is through these "death spectacles" portrayed by the aff and the idea that death is something that should and can be feared, which creates the implications ok the k.

 

In the love version, though i'm sure there are others, the alternative (bell hooks) calls for us to work within what she calls the "love ethic," which allows us to broaden our perspectives rather than be consumed by an obsession with death. Unless we break free from death through love (bell hooks says their mutually exclusive) we will basically be stuck in a self fulfilling prophecy/become indifferent/my favourite, become the living dead. I agree it'd an odd k, but it has worked, and will continue to work if run well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hahahaha..funny...very funny.... :Bow:Bow

 

yeah but what this K says it fearing death is bad b/c it destroy all possiblitiy to love and that idea becomes shut out in a world of death fearing.....i dont think it is a good K......at least that is the only way i have seen it run and i didnt like...if there is a different way then tell me...

 

keyword: I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really know a lot about this, but when I was at camp I saw some x-NDT finalists debate, and they ran this. it's basically a K that says that plan has all these advantages that have big death impacts, so plan causes people to fear death. they say fearing death is bad, causes inaction, death, all kinds of stuff. the alternative is basically that everyone shoul love everyone else. it sounds alot like they are just fiating world love to me, but when I asked about it they said it wasn't a fiat. w/e.

 

wait, so the kritik is suggesting that everyone like death? if you fear death, won't you try to prevent it? *much confused*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you read hooks she talks about how we all love death and even goes as far to say necrophyliacs (sp?) umm but the K in essence talks about how we come to see death and watch it occur and come to love it, and our media is saturated by it. but hooks indicates that we can change our media, our life, etc.. and embrace an ethic of love. im pretty sure that's how it goes down, i ran it a few times, and such, i have sites if you want them. it i mischaracterized it, don't shoot me, im just trying ot help :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, wait. If the K is run on you because you talk about solving for deaths. And they say that you are causing more, but then the K technically solves for the more deaths you cause, isnt a never ending circle? I dont know much about K's. i would just like someone to help me out because I dont understand this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, wait. If the K is run on you because you talk about solving for deaths. And they say that you are causing more, but then the K technically solves for the more deaths you cause, isnt a never ending circle? I dont know much about K's. i would just like someone to help me out because I dont understand this one.

go to your local library and do some reading--the lit's not too hard to comprehend.

 

from what i understand the K is based mostly on hooks' All About Love: New Visions, particularly the chapter "Loss: Loving into Life and Death"--this would be the place to start.

 

similar arguments also abound in books written by other buddhists for western audiences, such as sogyal rinpoche's The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying (which, unfortunately, isn't nearly as religion-neutral as All About Love).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just critique fear in broader terms. not just the fear of death but fear itself.

there is nothing to fear, but fear itself

 

-logan parke in his book, an original quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it's not particularly explained as such, I've found many of the "fear of death" arguments to be essentially a window dressed version of the right to die movement. A authors such as Elizabeth Kubler-Ross argue that death should be accepted as a natural part of life and that instead of fearing this change, we should embrace it and make something out of lives. These arguments are typically surrounded by other prominent academic theories, but that doesn't change the argument very much.

 

To that end, I'm curious as to why voting for the K necessarily addresses the position. Just as people like bell hooks argue that "there is no fear in love" I find it hard to believe that someone could instantaneously cease fear. It's a gradual process full of questions and contradictions. Yet in very few debates over this argument have I seen a really serious discussion on that level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While it's not particularly explained as such, I've found many of the "fear of death" arguments to be essentially a window dressed version of the right to die movement. A authors such as Elizabeth Kubler-Ross argue that death should be accepted as a natural part of life and that instead of fearing this change, we should embrace it and make something out of lives. These arguments are typically surrounded by other prominent academic theories, but that doesn't change the argument very much.

 

To that end, I'm curious as to why voting for the K necessarily addresses the position. Just as people like bell hooks argue that "there is no fear in love" I find it hard to believe that someone could instantaneously cease fear. It's a gradual process full of questions and contradictions. Yet in very few debates over this argument have I seen a really serious discussion on that level.

 

This is why chaloupka is such a good argument. By questioning the underlying factors as to why the atomic state promotes fear (of nuclear war) and by exposing their true interest (ie: justifying the destruction of individuals in the name of national security/sacraficial genocide in order to increase their power) we as humanists can liberate ourselves from fearing nuclear annihilation (because exposure allows us to see that the threats are created in order to justify destruction/mobilize populations to promote the atomic state's goals). Plus i mean its pretty weak to argue "you dont stop me from fearing *X* so your alt doesn't solve" because all the neg has to win is that fear of the bomb is bad and that voting neg is voting against that fear/for resistance against it.

 

As per the textual "derrida-esque" version of chaloupka (with the lacanian desire for bomb impx) - the most common alternative is irony. By questioning why we fear nuclear weapons and realizing that our fear only makes nuclear catastrophe more possible (fear = arms races/build up in weapons/complete focus on nuclear war *in which we do ANYTHING to prevent an attack*) we can effectively combat our fear. As R.E.M. says "its the end of the world as we know it and i feel fine"....this ethic allows us to learn to love the bomb and confront it rather than fearing it. And i guess you can argue that you decrease fear/the possibility for nuclear war to happen since the bomb can only gain power if we fear it/take action to prevent it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to that. Chaloupka answers your question point blank. The alternative is literally to mock the bomb. Just chant the word nuke a hundred times and do exactly what anti-nuclearists tell you not to do. Anti-nuclearists argue that we should stop using terms like "nuke", "nuclear exchange" etc.. because it desensitizes us to the bomb. Chaloupka argues that rejection of such language only creates more fear of the bomb and inevitably reinforces its vary existance. Remember things like deterrence/mutually assured destruction are all a product of this "fear of the bomb" according to chaloupka. Desensitizing us to it allows us to overcome the fear of the bomb and come to grips with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
READ SOME bell hooks AND U WILL NOT ONLY UNDERSTAND THIS ARGUMENT, BUT KNOW WHY THA NAME WASNT IN CAPS.

 

Doesn't selectively using lowercase defeat the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...