Jump to content

Shadow Boxer

Member
  • Content Count

    129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Shadow Boxer last won the day on May 19 2011

Shadow Boxer had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11 Good

About Shadow Boxer

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 09/08/1988
  1. I really do not understand this decision. "None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance" - Justice Roberts. Roberts claims that regulation is an activity upon existing commerce and not the ability to compel commerce because the framers knew it would "give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do . . . They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it." This seems to me to be Roberts saying the individual mandate is unconstitutional..... right? Instead Roberts claims you can defend the individual mandate if it is considered a tax which is inevitably how he decided... However, during the actual court arguments, the issue was brought up (by Roberts himself i believe but i could be wrong) that this fundamentally alters the relationship between individual and government. Typically, the taxing power of the government was for "actions" taken by people such as the buying of property makes one liable for property taxes. The individual mandate inverts this relationship of action-->tax to (in)action--> tax. THis is where Roberts i think was mistaken. By inverting the relationship, even as a tax, the individual mandate would become susceptible to the same restrictions as the commerce clause otherwise it falls into the same trap that our framers feared, tyrannical government controlling every aspect of their lives. What Roberts (from what i read) is saying is that its unconsitutional under the commerce clause but because its constitutional under the taxing power of the government, its legal.... maybe im wrong but doesnt a bill have to be deemed constutional in all matters it affects? Ex, Abortion is legal because it does not unreasonably restrict gun rights of american citizens... technically its constitutional if you only look at the 2nd amendment but this does not mean it does not violate other parts of the constitution. Am i right or have i missed something? idk.
  2. if you think that video is funny watch it all the way through and watch the gene ray video about time cube that should pop up on the suggestions after the wglf video lol.
  3. Shadow Boxer

    Cap K Fw

    Interpretations could include everything from "neg only has to prove the aff is a bad idea" to "ethics 1st" and kritiking their standards as products of capitalism. I dont think you really need to worry about FW though since most teams see it as the most common and 'reasonable' k out there. Always good to be prepared though.
  4. Shadow Boxer

    Cap K Fw

    could be wrong but i dont think that card is talking about "destroying the fetish of money"... the fetish of capital maybe... even non capitalist countries have a monetary system... just sayin.
  5. Thanks. This helped a bit. Still a question though, Heidegger deconstructs the ontheological tradition to what he describes as a double-forgetting, essentially i take this to mean that we forget the way our disclosure of being conceals Being from us. How is this concealment/unconcealment different from the W2P that Nietzsche discusses?
  6. So i was reading some articles on Heidegger, particularly his problem with Nietzsche regarding will-to-power as essentially a ontotheological will-to-will and i was wondering how heidegger does not see his thinking as making the same mistake as Nietzsche? I udnerstand their is a distinction between the Heidegger before and after being and time so maybe someone could elaborate? PS i cut a good heidegger card from this article which is a link to most nietzsche k's you might hit. Hope this helps. http://theearthisdying.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/recognizing-nietzsche%E2%80%99s-ontotheology-as-the-essence-of-technology/)
  7. So i finally got off my lazy streak and am preparing to read Difference and Repetition by Deleuze. Typically i find it works well to read someone elses guide to " " book along with the book your trying to read. Does anyone know a good critical introduction to Deleuze's difference and repetition or is the williams book the only one?
  8. Depends. Typically at the collegiate level, a CP and a K are legit but multiple worlds beyond those two make theory an important strat for affirmatives youll face so be ready for that. If most of those off case are DA's then i dont see why it wouldnt be. You have to be weary of args that conflict though.
  9. Depends on how much focus they put on it id say. The reality is your not arguing for "certainty" but rather "fair division of ground". Your framework doesnt say "what" affirmative they can read, it says "how" they shoud read the affirmative they choose. "How" they read and defend their affirmative is key to at the minimum the most generic link arguments: state links and other links premised off of fiat/instrumental affirmation. Ill let some others take it from here though.
  10. Does anyone have this file? Id be willing trade heavily for it. Id really like to just read it even if the africa topic is over with.
  11. I was wondering if someone could give a detailed explanation of absolute and relative deterritorialization and how this correlates to a practical political philosophy. I understand that these correspond to deleuze's virtual/actual so if you could maybe explain this in depth as well, i would greatly appreciate it.
  12. Jeffrey A. “Philosophizing the double-bindâ€. Philosophy Today; Winter 1995; 39, 4; Research Library pg. 371. www.selu.edu/Academics/Faculty/jbell/doublebind.pdf. specifically, deleuze and nietzsche's concept of becoming "The reference is to Alice in Through the Looking Glass, for when “Alice becomes larger†she becomes larger than she was and is yet smaller than she becomes. Or, as Deleuze puts it, “she is not bigger and smaller at the same time. She is larger now; she was smaller before.â€25 The claim is thus not that Alice is, at some “present†moment, bigger and smaller at the same time, but rather that in becoming larger she is simultaneously smaller than she becomes. Becoming entails this double structure, this being pulled in bother directions at once, and this “at once†is not an identifiable, present moment, but is a “self-contradictory†moment that will forever “elude the present.†As that which forever eludes the present, by being non-identifiable and “self-contradictory,†becoming also eludes being “known,†at least if knowledge is assumed to be a manner of grasping and identifying something. This is precisely what Nietzsche, after stating that becoming is “self-contradictory,†claims: “Knowledge and becoming exclude one another.â€27 But if we are to get on with our lives we must have “knowledge,†or the strange and unfamiliar (i.e., becoming as “self-contradictoryâ€) must be reduced to the habitual and the familiar (i.e., being as non-contradictory). “Consequently,†Nietzsche continues, “there must first of all be a will to make knowable, a kind of becoming must itself create the deception of beings.â€28 This will is the “will to powerâ€: “To impose upon becoming the character of being: that is the supreme will to power.â€29 Yet as “a kind of becoming†will to power must itself be “self-contradictory,†or have the double structure of being simultaneously pulled in two directions at once, and indeed this is what Deleuze claims is the case. The will to power is simultaneously pulled toward becoming both affirmative and negative, becoming and being, chance and necessity. The will which wills and affirms “being,†for example, the “will to make knowable,†is for Nietzsche a negative will. This will affirms being, it says yes to being, yet it simultaneously negates becoming, and negates it in order to have knowledge; but since the will to power, even the “will to make knowable,†is a “kind of becoming,†this will consequently negates itself, or, as Nietzsche puts it, “the condemnation of life is only a value judegment of life.â€30 With this Nietzsche concludes that this condemnation is symptomatic of a “declining, weakened, weary, condemned life.†This is a will and life that does not have the “strength of spiritâ€31 to endure the “truth†of itself-i.e., the “truth†of becoming. Consequently, this is a will that simply to reacts to and affirms the results of a fundamental negation (i.e., it affirms beings as negated becomings), and thus this affirmation is not, Deleuze argues, an affirmation of strength, or even affirmation which affirms what is. This is the affirmation of the ass in Zarathustra (IV, “The Awakeningâ€): “He carries our burden, he took upon himself the form of a servant, he is the patient of heart and never says No.â€32 In other words, as a result of negating its own becoming, the ass’s “Yea-Yuh†and affirmation does not know how to say “no†to this fundamental negation (i.e., nihilism). The ass’s “Yeah-Yuh†reacts to, or is a servant of, the consequence of this negation (i.e., the affirmation of “being,†“realityâ€), or, as Deleuze puts it, “he always answers yes, but answers yes each time nihilism opens the conversation.â€33" later on Bell goes on to describe Heideggers depart from Nietzsche "What Heidegger believed Nietzsche failed to overcome is the very opposition between an “above†and a “belowâ€; he left this oppositional, metaphysical structure intact. But did he? Heidegger grants that Nietzsche did come to question this faith in opposing values, but that he did so “only in his final creative year (1888).â€10 However, Nietzsche was well aware of this faith in opposing values, and in fact criticized, in Beyond Good and Evil (1886), the fundamental metaphysical “faith in opposite values,†suggesting that “maybe†these opposites are “insidiously related,†or even one in essence (&2). And in Human All-too-Human (1878, &1) he calls for a “chemistry of moral feelings,†a chemistry that might find that the glorious and the logical are “insidiously related†to their “supposed†opposites to the despised and the illogical, “maybe even one with them in essence. Maybe!? One must therefore question Heidegger’s claim that Nietzsche’s inversion and reversal of Platonism “means†that the sensuous “is the true . . . genuine being [as opposed to a false and counterfeit being].â€11But what is this inversion, or, to put it another way, how does Nietzsche avoid binary oppositions (e.g., supersensuous/sensuous, appearance/reality)? His answer: “will to power.†It is the will to power that imposes order on the chaos or frenzy in oneself, and it does this not by virtue of a pre-established truth or binary opposition, but rather it is this will that is constitutive of, or fictions, these oppositions and truths; or, as Nietzsche puts it, it is the will to power that idealizes: If there is to be art, if there is to be any aesthetic doing and seeing, one physiological condition is indispensable: frenzy. . . . What is essential in such frenzy is the feeling of increased strength and fullness. Out of this feeling [i.e., will to power] one lends to things, one forces them to accept from us, one violates them-this process is called idealizing.12 By idealizing, Nietzsche does not mean a process of “discounting and subtracting what is petty and inconsequential,†but rather “a tremendous drive to bring out the main features so that the others disappear in the process.†A decision, an aesthetic differentiation is made, and it is the Dionysian frenzy and chaos in oneself that makes this possible. This Dionysian frenzy, with its “increased strength and fullness,†is the medium of this decision, the condition for this difference (i.e., difference between the “main features†and the “others†that disappear). When referring to this state of “increased strength that is discharged or expended as the medium of a decision or difference, Nietzsche will most often refer to this as “will to power.â€13 Consequently, “will to power†is to be understood as the medium or condition which makes decisions (i.e., differentiation) possible. “Will to power,†as Deleuze puts it, is the genealogical element of force, both differential and genetic.â€14 What is differentiated are forces, the forces that are part of the “feeling of increased strength and fullness.†The “main features†are thus forced to disappear, and hence the decisions or differences that are made possible by will to power are decisions and differences of force." ----------- obviously youll want to read the entire article but these are some important and interesting passages for inquiring about the heidegger/deleuze debate.
  13. foucault/deleuze micro ptx aff. but like i said im looking for more structure than actual arguments. maybe more like an example of a 2ac frontline to framework or something. idk.
×
×
  • Create New...