Jump to content

dancon25

Member
  • Content Count

    1157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by dancon25

  1. dancon25

    Spreading Kritik

    Sorry for getting to this so late. Here's the document, y'all. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_MEhz6Cg_aJR1I4M1BOX0piQzg/view?usp=sharing
  2. dancon25

    Spreading Kritik

    No need for trades -- if someone PMs me tomorrow I'll try to update this thread with a new upload of the file. PMs send an email notification, which will remind me. I'd do it now but I'm swamped with classes, clubs, and newspaper work, also I'll probably forget about this by tomorrow lel
  3. You should provide more information on what exactly you're wanting to criticize. What's the angle for "International Law Bad" (I assume) that you're going for? You can find links to I-Law in most cap, neolib, colonialism, afro-pessimism/race kritik files that camps put out. Look through the caselist wikis as well.
  4. Not sure would differentiate this from a neoliberalism K. Check caselists and camp files for Cap and Neolib files.
  5. I highly recommend using the cross-x search function to find more on this; there are a lot of older threads with great posts that explain K debate very well, but you should look for them. I'd link, but my familiarity with this site has waned over the past year or so. The search bar is in the top-right corner of cross-x webpages. I also recommend looking at the bottom of this page, in the "Similar Topics" box, which has some relevant threads for you to look through.
  6. dancon25

    Schopenhauer

    We completed another test, so I updated the folders. First, I added my reading notes to Schopenhauer in the newly-reorganized "Schopenhauer" folder. Second, I uploaded a "Wagner - Birth of Tragedy - Genealogy(1)" folder with my class notes and reading guide entries. We went over Schopenhauer's influence on Wagner and their influence on Nietzsche, Nietzsche's use of the Apollonian and Dionysian concepts in The Birth of Tragedy, the idea that life is an aesthetic phenomenon, and then we got to the first essay of The Genealogy of Morals. We discuss ressentiment, bad conscience (some), and Nietzsche's physiological approach to philosophy and his genealogical approach to history. Further explored are topics like the distinction between active and reactive forces, affirmation and denial, why there's no such thing as a person, that everything is a force and there is no such thing as what you may call fixed "substance" ontology, why will to power doesn't really seek power, and more! Included are my copious reading notes of the Deleuze readings we had to do from his Nietzsche and Philosophy. If you've ever wanted Deleuze's passages on Nietzsche condensed to 14-page summation essays, your dream is now fulfilled. If not, you're a normal person, which is to say a boring one. If you read Deleuze, if you read Nietzsche or Schopenhauer, if you've ever tried to use ressentiment as an impact (or tried to debate against it), if you've ever wondered where Foucault gets so damned much of his influence from: this will be a helpful resource for you. Here's the link again: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_MEhz6Cg_aJb0EtcXdFTWlueGs I hope this is helpful.
  7. dancon25

    Edelman aff

    A pessimistic literature base lends itself to providing the K aff with strong offense against topicality and framework. An optimistic base, if you're not advocating a topical plan, will make those debates much more difficult.
  8. dancon25

    Schopenhauer

    Oh, I forgot to mention: there's not very much on the fourth book of World as Will and Representation, the one on ethics, which is crucial for the debate-kritik version of his philosophy. I missed classes for the GSU tournament. But you should read the last three sections of his book on your own, and reading the notes will prime you sufficiently for that. It'll introduce you to the "alt," so to speak, and why suicide is not the answer, and what we should (un)expect once committed to the cessation of willing. There are other sections in the fourth book that are important, but those last three are probably the most insightful.
  9. dancon25

    Schopenhauer

    This semester I've had the fortune to take a course called "Nietzsche and German Philosophy," taught by Dr. Judith Norman of Trinity University. Besides being an intelligent and entertaining lecturer, Dr. Norman has translated Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation Vol. 1 and Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, The Antichrist, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols, The Case of Wagner, and "Nietzsche Contra Wagner." To say she's familiar with the material, and much of the underpinnings of contemporary continental philosophy, is an understatement. Since we've finished the unit on Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation, I decided I'll upload my notes from lectures here. Anybody that enjoys going for Lacan, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, or Deleuze in debate rounds will benefit greatly from the background knowledge and articulations, page cites, etc. Anyone that likes the history of philosophy or continental philosophy's forerunners especially should check them out, too. And if you like having well-informed answers to these kritiks, then it's good to check these out, as they question and highlight inconsistencies in Schopenhauer's writing. As the semester goes on, we'll be reading various works by Nietzsche, Deleuze's Nietzsche and Philosophy, and some Freud. I'll be glad to update this thread with notes as we finish the units. Hope you all enjoy, Daniel https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_MEhz6Cg_aJb0EtcXdFTWlueGs
  10. lol Curry is a Men's Rights Activist and has some pretty misogynistic shit on his facebook, you should pass him up
  11. Actually this kinda like what the original(?) aff for this did: this v-debate's 1AC. Yeah, queercripping is basically what Snark says. finding this changed me as a novice debater
  12. dancon25

    MAJOR NOTICE

    how much did he pay you to say this Alec how much
  13. Use this site to find colleges that do the kind of debate you wanna do in college: http://www.collegeforensics.org/list-of-college-programs This list has info on scholarships for college policy programs: http://www.climbthemountain.us/schools/list-of-policy-colleges.htm Email the directors of debate for any school you're interested in, it shows you're interested and gets them excited and ups your chance for getting more money from a debate scholarship (or you might find that a school has a new debate scholarship, or recently lost it, or other things that the lists above won't be on top of). Most of all, don't factor debate into what school you go to. Rest of your life > debate. You may be super gung-ho about debate going into college and then wish that you could quit (but can't b/c of scholarships) after a year or two. It happens more than you'd think; college debate is totally different from high school. Conversely, you may not want to debate in college but realize it's exactly what you need. But these are helpful resources to find what your top schools have to offer in terms of debating!
  14. Well, no, I don't think it's self-defeating. You could argue that their idea of what argumentation is, or the warrants they present about what assumptions it carries, are wrong. Like, one could argue that argumentation doesn't imply property rights the way that Kinsella describes. It'd be purposeful obfuscation to say that would be contradictory--the argument wouldn't be an argument against argumentation itself, but the opponent's understanding of argumentation. But yeah, you're right about why it's meta. They're using it as a side-constraint on speech acts they take to violate argumentation, though, so that's why it functions as a side-constraint in the round; they present it as the impact to a d-rule, and they're waiting for the next speech to give them a link so the NR can bounce the trap. I assume the link is just gonna be the aff continuing to defend rehabilitation... Tricky tricky LD! I'm interested to hear what sorts of things that you were used to seeing as an LD debater then! I agree with Bdawg, all I see in the progressive TFA circuit is morality as a value and then various moral frameworks defended as the standard. Occasionally you see frameworks out of left-field, though, like an aesthetics aff or monism or other things, usually tricky NCs or weirdly-constructed K affs & negs. Those aren't as good as a typical "The value is morality because ought is a moral obligation, the standard is [whatever]" though. I used to really strongly believe that valuing morality was tautological and useless myself, but I think that the standard (or 'criterion,' same thing) debate makes up for it. In the end, you're right, all normative LD debate is about value, almost invariably moral in nature (I'm of the opinion that not all value has to do with morality, though, but I've never seen that become particularly important in an LD round). Setting up the value as morality gets that fact out of the way and then allows for the AC or NC to explain their conception of moral value through the standard debate. Barring the tautology consideration, though, Bdawg does a great job of explaining more strategic & games-playing reasons to prefer valuing morality and focusing on the standards debate, props to you man.
  15. "Meta-constraint" here is being used in the same way you'd use the phrase "side-constraint" or "decision-rule" (often written "D-rule"). The argument's function is written out, though: if you violate the constraint, which is consistency with property rights, then they lose. The reason they should lose, or what it takes to violate that constraint, or why the supposed inconsistency of rehabilitation with property rights has anything to do with how argumentation works, is not explained well though.
  16. Here are some Levinas notes and cards I have around, not exactly what you're looking for but it may help if you continue to look for stuff on hospitality. Try and find the Levinas/Derrida affs about Cuba from the Latin America topic notes—Levinas’ ethicsFrom pp. 37-39 of Zeiler 12: Self and Other The “self will make the world its own. This is fine as long as the self does not relate to the Other,” which is “irreducible to the self’s own thinking.” Levinas’ argument is that “the self must refrain from seeking to reduce [the Other] to its own categories.” SensibilitySensibility “refers to a basic level of [consciousness] which is affective and prereflective rather than cognitive and thematic.” In other words, it’s about sense-ability. “It can be exemplified … when we enter a room and ‘feel’ whether the atmosphere is tense or relaxed, before anyone utters a word. We may even ‘understand’ the situation … before we start thinking about what to do, because of this sensibility to others and the world.” “Levinas … states that sensibility is prior to reason. It is prior to any reflection on who the other is or on how we should act when the other needs our help. … we can be affected by the other before we start to deliberate … Sensibility makes the subject open and vulnerable to the other.” Primacy of ethicsLevinas uses the example of your neighbor knocking on your door: the “knocking on the door disrupts what I may previously have been engaged in and calls me to the world of infinite possibilities: anyone can be on the other side of the door asking for anything. … I am always sensible to others and the world, and cannot choose not to be called by the other to the door, to the face-to-face encounter.” Subjectivity“Levinas can be read as seeking to elaborate a new conception of subjectivity which takes its starting point in the experience of the other. … I am ‘defined as a subjectivity, as a singular person … because I am exposed to the other. Iti s in my inescapable and incontrovertible answerability to the other that makes me an individual ‘I’ to the extent that I agree to dispose or dethrone myself—to abdicate my position of centrality—in favour of the vulnerable other.” By being “called forth by the other, … I come to exist as a singular ethical self: as me, the one being called by the other.” Subjectivity is ethical subjectivity. Confrontation with the Other is the cornerstone in the search for the meaning of human existenceKowalski 8. Dean A. Kowalski (Asst. Prof. @ Univ. Wisconsin in Waukesha). “Steven Spielberg and Philosophy: We’re Gonna Need A Bigger Book”, 2008, Page 51 //dtac – This card has been gender modified. Emmanuel Levinas turned away from traditional metaphysical understandings of existence to posit that “ethics,” the relationship of one (the “I”) to the “other,” is the first and central philosophical domain of human existence. In the work of Levinas (most notably in Existence and Existents in 1947 and Totality and Infinity in 1961), the other is unknowable, not tied within the bounds of subject or object. Man’s [Humanity’s] existence, therefore, is primarily and most importantly a function of one’s “ethical responsibility” to the “face” of the other.3 The face is the presence of the other before us, at any time and in whatever form, that we are compelled to engage and take responsibility for.4 Thus, the ultimate understanding of mankind, according to Levinas, is found in alterity, the sublime differences that exist between the “I” and the other. Within this philosophical argument, Levinas sought to turn human understanding from “knowledge as wisdom” to that of “love as wisdom”. It is important here to understand briefly what Levinas is really saying in terms of ethics. The concept of the Levinasian ethical response relies on his assertion that the other truly is “unknowable” in terms of its true self - that no matter how recognizable the other is to us, we can never comprehend its “self” as we do ourselves. To Levinas, the mere notion of a need for ethics in the first place arises from the interaction of the “I” (self) with the other. In other words, if one could truly “know” the other then one would not need to take ethical responsibility for that difference at all. Likewise, Levinas posits the concept of the “face” as being that part of the other that we can engage, that we can see and therefore “know,” and thus his ethical philosophy suggests that it is only through interaction with this face that human existence finds its meaning. To Levinas, then, the danger of engaging the face of the other resides in trying to breach the unknowable part of the other behind the face, whereas responsibility occurs when one accepts the unknowable nature of the other and engages it merely through “love.”5 we should focus on how we approach alterity rather than taking particularities to be descriptive of others Zeiler 12.Kristin Zeiler (Assoc. Prof. Medical Ethics @ Division of Health and Society, Linköping Univ.). “With Levinas against Levinas,” in The Body as Gift, Resource, and Commodity: Exchanging Organs, Tissues, and Cells in the 21st Century, edited by Martin Gunnarson & Fredrik Svenaeus, Södertörns högskolebibliotek (2012), Pages 48-49 //dtac – this card is gender modified It is now high time to discuss the meanings of the terms otherness and particularities, and I will do so by turning to Sarah Ahmed’s (2002) examination of what she sees as a problematic tendency in some feminist and postmodernist work to abstract otherness. This abstraction implies that differences between others dissolve, with the consequence that it will be difficult to examine the historical and social processes that have made some others appear as more other than other others (see Ahmed 2000, 25–37). This also matters for the present discussion of what it means to see the other human being in the face-to-face encounter. On the one hand, Ahmed cautions against this abstracting of otherness. On the other hand, and when relating to Levinas’s face-to-face encounter, she also emphasizes that attendance to the other’s graspable “this-ness”, understood as a set of fixed properties, would be problematic. Contra Levinas, as I read him, she holds that we should locate the face-to-face encounter in time and space and ask what conditions make the face-to-face meeting, here and now, possible. Pro Levinas, she argues that we should not attend to the particularities of the other. She also qualifies this statement: we should not attend to the particularities of the other if by so doing we use particularities as a description of the other. Ahmed’s suggestion is a third route: we should attend to the particular modes of encountering the other. She suggests that this would have the benefit of not reducing the other to the set of properties: to “discuss the particular modes of encounter (rather than particular others) is … to open the encounter up, to fail to grasp it” (Ahmed 2002, 562). This is a fascinating approach that seeks to acknowledge that perception is always situated and that encourages us not to attend, thematically, to the particular features of the other as a set of fixed properties. In her words: To describe, not the other, but the mode of encounter in which I am faced with the other is hence not to hold the other in place, or turn her into a theme, concept of thing. Rather, it is to account for the conditions of possibility of being faced by her [the other] in such a way that she [the other] ceases to be fully present in this very moment of the face-to-face encounter. (ibid.) Ahmed (2002, 561) also states that particularity, in this approach, “does not belong to an other, but names the meetings and encounters which produce or flesh out others, and hence differentiate others from other others.” Responsibility must supersede the right to self-survival in order for ethics to be possible – any other approach devalues life.Levinas 86. Emmanuel Levinas, Face to Face with Levinas (1986). Pages 23-24 //dtac – This card is gender-modified. The approach to the face is the most basic mode of responsibility. As such, the face of the other is verticality and uprightness; it spells a relation of rectitude. The face is not in front of me (en face de moi) but above me; it is the other before death, looking through and exposing death. Secondly, the face is the other who asks me not to let him [them] die alone, as if to do so were to become an accomplice in his [their] death. Thus the face says to me: you shall not kill. In the relation to the face I am exposed as a usurper of the place of the other. The celebrated ‘right to existence’ that Spinoza called the conatus essendi and defined as the basic principle of all intelligibility is challenged by the relation to the face. Accordingly, my duty to respond to the other suspends my natural right to self-survival, le droit aitale. My ethical relation of love for the other stems from the fact that the self cannot survive by itself alone, cannot find meaning within its own being-in-the-world, within the ontology of sameness. That is why I prefaced Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence with Pascal's phrase, "'That is my place in the sun: That is how the usurpation of the whole world began." Pascal makes the same point when he declares that "the self is hateful." Pascal's ethical sentiments here go against the ontological privileging of ‘the right to exist.’ To expose myself to the vulnerability of the face is to put my ontological right to existence into question. In ethics, the other's right to exist has primacy over my own, a pri­macy epitomized in the ethical edict: you shall not kill, you shall not jeopardize the life of the other. The ethical rapport with the face is asymmetrical in that it subordinates my existence to the other. This principle recurs in Darwinian biology as the "survival of the fittest" and in psychoanalysis as the natural instinct of the ‘id’ for gratifica­tion, possession, and power - the libido dominandi
  17. but wat'll happen to all my sick rep and mod status bruh
  18. Yeah, lots of accelerationists are Deleuzians. Here's a blog post on drugs, production, Deleuze, and accelerationism; here's a post on Deleuze, Nietzsche, and left accelerationism; here's an article on accelerationism that draws a bit on Anti-Oedipus and What is Philosophy?; the Wikipedia article cites p. 260 of Anti-Oedipus and also Robin Mckay's article "So, Accelerationism, What's All That About?"; Nick Land is something of a Deleuzian, insfoar as he's something of an anything at all. Really I just googled "Deleuze and Accelerationism" to find these though.
  19. 20 mins every day, fit it in whenever you can... I mean, nobody knows the rest of your schedule, so just make it happen.
×
×
  • Create New...