Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


JackGugino last won the day on July 4 2009

JackGugino had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

26 Good

About JackGugino

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 06/25/1994

Profile Information

  • Name
    Jack Gugino
  • School
    Ck McClatchy
  • Location
    Sacramento, Ca
  1. This doesnt apply how?? Space exploration & development devalue life—a perspective that positions space as special and unique trivializes life on Earth Arendt 61 (Hannah, American political philosopher, “The Conquest of Space and the Stature of Man†The New Atlantis Fall 2007 Pg. 52-54 JF) It is at this point, it seems to me, that the humanist’s concern with man and the stature of man has caught up with the scientist. It is as though the sciences had done what the humanities never could have achieved, namely, to prove demonstrably the validity of this concern. The situation, as it presents itself today, oddly resembles an elaborate verification of a remark by Franz Kafka, written at the very beginning of this development: Man, he said, “found the Archimedean point, but he used it against himself; it seems that he was permitted to find it only under this condition.†For the conquest of space, the search for a point outside the earth from which it would be possible to move, to unhinge, as it were, the planet itself, is no accidental result of the modern age’s science. This was from its very beginnings not a “natural†but a universal science, it was not a physics but an astrophysics which looked upon the earth from a point in the universe. In terms of this development, the attempt to conquer space means that man hopes he will be able to journey to the Archimedean point which he anticipated by sheer force of abstraction and imagination. However, in doing so, he will necessarily lose his advantage. All he can find is the Archimedean point with respect to the earth, but once arrived there and having acquired this absolute power over his earthly habitat, he would need a new Archimedean point, and so ad infinitum. In other words, man can only get lost in the immensity of the universe, for the only true Archimedean point would be the absolute void behind the universe. Yet even if man recognizes that there might be absolute limits to his search for knowledge and that it might be wise to suspect such limitations whenever it turns out that the scientist can do more than he is capable of comprehending, and even if he realizes that he cannot “conquer space,†but at best make a few discoveries in our solar system, the journey into space and to the Archimedean point with respect to the earth is far from being a harmless or unequivocally triumphant enterprise. It could add to the stature of man inasmuch as man, in distinction from other living things, desires to be at home in a “territory†as large as possible. In that case, he would only take possession of what is his own, although it took him a long time to discover it. These new possessions, like all property, would have to be limited, and once the limit is reached and the limitations established, the new world view that may conceivably grow out of it is likely to be once more geocentric and anthropomorphic, although not in the old sense of the earth being the center of the universe and of man being the highest being there is. It would be geocentric in the sense that the earth, and not the universe, is the center and the home of mortal men, and it would be anthropomorphic in the sense that man would count his own factual mortality among the elementary conditions under which his scientific efforts are possible at all. At this moment, the prospects for such an entirely beneficial development and solution of the present predicaments of modern science and technology do not look particularly good. We have come to our present capacity to “conquer space†through our new ability to handle nature from a point in the universe outside the earth. For this is what we actually do when we release energy processes that ordinarily go on only in the sun, or attempt to initiate in a test tube the processes of cosmic evolution, or build machines for the production and control of energies unknown in the household of earthly nature. Without as yet actually occupying the point where Archimedes had wished to stand, we have found a way to act on the earth as though we disposed of terrestrial nature from outside, from the point of Einstein’s “observer freely poised in space.†If we look down from this point upon what is going on on earth and upon the various activities of men, that is, if we apply the Archimedean point to ourselves, then these activities will indeed appear to ourselves as no more than “overt behavior,†which we can study with the same methods we use to study the behavior of rats. Seen from a sufficient distance, the cars in which we travel and which we know we built ourselves will look as though they were, as Heisenberg once put it, “as inescapable a part of ourselves as the snail’s shell is to its occupant.†All our pride in what we can do will disappear into some kind of mutation of the human race; the whole of technology, seen from this point, in fact no longer appears “as the result of a conscious human effort to extend man’s material powers, but rather as a large-scale biological process.â€27 Under these circumstances, speech and everyday language would indeed be no longer a meaningful utterance that transcends behavior even if it only expresses it, and it would much better be replaced by the extreme and in itself meaningless formalism of mathematical signs. The conquest of space and the science that made it possible have come perilously close to this point. If they ever should reach it in earnest, the stature of man would not simply be lowered by all standards we know of, but have been destroyed.
  2. The best way to critique debate is to critique debate. In whatever way debate seems problematic to you, then you can criticize that aspect of debate. Debaters start running critiques in the 90s, and yes debate did absorb these arguments, but it also changed the way most everyone prepares for and views debate as an activity, and sometimes in turn views the world. Pragmatism ftw. Also, why would someone want to take down debate?
  3. Gonzaga released some country presence turns that can be transformed into PICs. Here is a link to the open ev project... http://www.debatecoaches.org/page/open-evidence-project Good luck!
  4. I don't believe there is a specific way to go about explaining a kritik to a judge who does not read kritikal literature. I'd say your best bet is to get familiar enough with the literature that your comfortable enough to explain it to an average joe.
  5. I think Rabinow's intro for the Foucault Reader is the best explanation of Foucaults arguments. If you grasp that, read History of Sexuality, Discipline and Punish, and I really liked Power/Knowledge
  6. Hillman isn't really that at all. He uses archetypical psychology as a foundation for his argument. He says that our psyche is naturally violent, so when we try to explain war in terms of a series of events our political choices, it denies a fundamental part of the human psyche, and also makes war inevitable because we always need to express violence, and instead of imagining war, we feel at "peace" with going to war. He would compare the affirmatives attempts at explaining war to the god apollo, god of logic and rationale. The alternative is compared to the god ares, god of war. This argument takes out internal links on all violence/war scenario, and also gets you the NVTL argument by denying a fundamental part of the human psyche. It's awesome because you avoid, util, realism good/inevitable, reps, discourse.
  7. How would it be in the best interests of other nation states to have the US be a unipolar hegemon? I would agree with your "heg bad turns realism" arg, however if they are theoretically exclusive then why would it not be a turn? Also, realism and unilateralism are opposite schools of thought. A prime example is the Iraq war. Although it did destroy credibility of the UN, it also proved that other states did not have the ability to stop the US invasion of Iraq (which was clearly expressed as not in the interests of other nations). If there is no ability for powers to have a check on other powers then how would realism function? What exactly would the framework arg look like?
  8. Hegemony advantages are largely based on the United States being the unipolar hegemon in the world. However in response to many criticisms of international relations (security, IR Fem, etc.) realism is run as an answer. These two are fundamentally contradictory. A fundamental part of realism is the nation-state looking out for its own self-interests. This requires a multipolar world. If the U.S. is the hegemon other nations do not have the ability to promote their own self interests. In order to avoid great power conflicts, realism has many hegemons which shut down their own regional conflicts in order to prevent conflicts from escalating, therefore avoiding superpower confrontation. If the US is the lone hegemon then it is inevitable that it has conflicts with other rising powers in order to maintain its status as THE superpower. Is this a functional double-turn? Is the argument viable in debate? Thoughts?
  9. Hello if anyone has a free trade good backfile I have plenty for trade. I am looking mostly for blocks to impact turns to free trade. PM me and we can work something out. Thanks, Jack
  10. Can you please post your speech in a .doc or .docx for I cant convert a .pages file and do not have an updated pages on my computer.
  11. Trade-off should work fine with states, especially since the best trade-off scenario is dealing with the military, which is exclusively federal funding. However, Mdawg is right, it still grants them the link to a state trade-off disad (unless you have specific answers to their scenario).
  12. I personally feel that history of sexuality provides a very good way to begin reading Foucault. As for evidence and the such, there are some pretty good cards that are used directly from Foucault (most of the ones I use being from History of Sexuality vol. 1), however it depends on what you need cut. As for alternatives I find that a "criticism" alternative seems to work the best, there are a few good threads on it so just use the search function. Also, there is a good explanation of Foucault the author explanations thread is a very good explanation of his philosophy. Any specific questions just ask.
  13. Jack, i got a question. this is the only thing you're online on

  • Create New...