Jump to content

JackGugino

Member
  • Content Count

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by JackGugino

  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. 1. No, I am not sure how you would permute your own K. His argument is that if you win a link to the aff then the permutation fails 2.The argument is made very well by Wendy Brown (forgot the book) but that when you put all "power" in one object (the state in this case) it destroys agency -- if the only way to solve an issue is by the state doing something, then on the flipside individuals cannot solve an issue. 3. Normalization can be a macropolitical action, I cannot think of a good example between micro and macro politics right now, sorry! 5. Criticism is the best alternative in my opinion, The Scu explained how the alt solves (avoids your impacts would be more appropriate) in a much better way than I can, if you are looking for some cites shoot me a PM.
  14. The biopower k is a bit story than Andy presents. For the link I read in my K, there are a few ways in which social services are biopolitical. First of all the affirmative generates a panic discourse of social issues (i.e. poverty and homelessness, or sexuality), this is bad because when times of panic dominate debates it increases policing, and making sure everything is going according to the biopolitical agenda. Second is normalization -- if someone is receiving welfare, they have to abide by a certain set of rules or they get kicked off of welfare. This is the kill to save mentality under which biopolitics functions, getting rid of one group to protect the rest. A third link (similiar to number 2) is that people who do abide under these rules set up by social services are brought up believing in the moral, social, economic, and political thoughts of the biopolitical hegemonic discourse. This has a few impacts -- first of all you get your big impacts from the fact that they operate under that kill to save mentality and also recreate a system of power which can only kill. The impact is also magnified due to the fact that the affirmative gives people consent with biopolitical tactics. Your alternative gives you uniqueness on this impact. However, I feel that the K turns case arguments are pretty strong. The aff views poverty as an issue which can only be solved by the government, putting all power in the state, this is bad because the state will always suboordinate a certain group, and it denies agency for those who are facing systemic impacts. As for the alt, rejection is not too common of an alternative for this K, because it links back to your criticism and doesnt show up in the literature too often. Instead there are a few alts, which intertwine at many points. The three I have seen are specific intellectualism, criticism, and genealogy. I will focus on criticism because that is the alternative I am used to. Criticism of this specific instance of biopower reveals biopolitical power relations, this arguably solves for the impact because it allows subordinated groups to realize they have power, but also opens up resistance against biopolitics. Criticism generates more criticism, and if we criticize instances in which biopolitics is exercised we can solve the impact because people will not be automatons in a system which will eventually kill them, if people are not operating under the norm, biopolitics cannot identify an abnormal to destroy, and also cannot function. Thats my two cents, hope this is what you were looking for.
  15. Is this nixon, as in the nixon that was across the hall at GDI from me and John?
  16. C-X 1) What is the continuum of care? 2) Is it in use today? If so how widespread? 3) How is poverty dehumanizing? 4) How many people died in Vietnam? 5) What's your internal link between your GDP down and econ collapse? 6) Where in your Herbert evidence does it mention anything about spending towards people in poverty? 7) Do you have any evidence that says that other countries perceive our block grant spending? 8) Do you read any evidence saying that soft power is collapsing now? If so why, we have had people in poverty for America's whole existence? 9) If other countries also have high poverty rates, why would America having high poverty rates effect its influence? 10) Can you highlight down your solvency? More questions later probably...
  17. Just post it now, we can get judges along the way, if thats cool with you.
  18. JackGugino

    Whatever Being

    Thanks Scu, this helped me understand Whatever being a bit better!
  19. JackGugino

    Whatever Being

    Life is the biological, the bare. The sovereign thrives on a distinction between the political and the biological. So if the whatever being does not have any presuppositions he destroys the distinction made by the sovereign between the political and the natural. A politicized life is different because the sovereign is not accustomed to governing a politicized life. The sovereign governs bare life. If the Whatever being has no identity then the sovereign cannot classify him in any way and therefore cannot function. Here is where my understanding of whatever being came: Caldwell 4 [Anne – assistant professor poli sci @ Louisville – Theory & Event – vol 7 issue 2, http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/tae/v007/7.2caldwell.html] "Whatever being," as described by Agamben, lacks the features permitting the sovereign capture and regulation of life in our tradition. Sovereignty's capture of life has been conditional upon the separation of natural and political life. That separation has permitted the emergence of a sovereign power grounded in this distinction, and empowered to decide on the value, and non-value of life (1998: 142). Since then, every further politicization of life, in turn, calls for "a new decision concerning the threshold beyond which life ceases to be politically relevant, becomes only 'sacred life,' and can as such be eliminated without punishment" (p. 139). This expansion of the range of life meriting protection does not limit sovereignty, but provides sites for its expansion. In recent decades, factors that once might have been indifferent to sovereignty become a field for its exercise. Attributes such as national status, economic status, color, race, sex, religion, geo-political position have become the subjects of rights declarations. From a liberal or cosmopolitan perspective, such enumerations expand the range of life protected from and serving as a limit upon sovereignty. Agamben's analysis suggests the contrary. If indeed sovereignty is bio-political before it is juridical, then juridical rights come into being only where life is incorporated within the field of bio-sovereignty. The language of rights, in other words, calls up and depends upon the life caught within sovereignty: homo sacer. Agamben's alternative is therefore radical. He does not contest particular aspects of the tradition. He does not suggest we expand the range of rights available to life. He does not call us to deconstruct a tradition whose power lies in its indeterminate status. Instead, he suggests we take leave of the tradition and all its terms. Whatever being is a life that defies the classifications of the tradition, and its reduction of all forms of life to homo sacer. Whatever being therefore has no common ground, no presuppositions, and no particular attributes. It cannot be broken into discrete parts; it has no essence to be separated from its attributes; and it has no common substrate of existence defining its relation to others. Whatever being cannot then be broken down into some common element of life to which additive series of rights would then be attached. Whatever being retains all its properties, without any of them constituting a different valuation of life (1993: 18.9). As a result, whatever being is "reclaimed from its having this or that property, which identifies it as belonging to this or that set, to this or that class (the reds, the French, the Muslims) -- and it is reclaimed not for another class nor for the simple generic absence of any belonging, but for its being-such, for belonging itself."
×
×
  • Create New...