Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Nietzsche


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Piedude

Piedude

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 60 posts
8
Okay

Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:57 PM

I wanna start reading nietzsche. He sounds interesting but I don't really know about him. Where should I start?


  • 0

"Why does Baudrillard sound like the final boss in a Ninja Turtles video game?"


#2 CalculusBC

CalculusBC

    Least's best

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 160 posts
91
Excellent
  • Name:Benny Cupo
  • School:UT Austin

Posted 16 February 2017 - 08:07 PM

Beyond Good and Evil is a great place to start.


  • 0

I wonder if I actually understand half the arguments I go for, or if judges are just confused and think I'm right because I sound confident in my explanation...


#3 CoolioBrah

CoolioBrah

    Champion

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts
32
Good
  • Name:Pollo
  • School:AintNobodyGotTimefodat

Posted 17 February 2017 - 12:11 AM

I think you should check out the camp k stuff first in order to see how it is utilizied in debate.

Then read literature such as der derian "the values of insecurity"


  • 0

#4 Lazzarone

Lazzarone

    Regular

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,778 posts
840
Excellent
  • Name:Kevin Sanchez

Posted 17 February 2017 - 10:48 AM

https://www.cross-x....che-k/?p=108247


  • 0

#5 Piedude

Piedude

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 60 posts
8
Okay

Posted 17 February 2017 - 11:55 AM

Ok, so I've gotten a general grasp. However, what's the answer to "'We create lives worth living for those we help, otherwise they'd rather die?" Is it just: "fine, let them die?"


  • 0

"Why does Baudrillard sound like the final boss in a Ninja Turtles video game?"


#6 CalculusBC

CalculusBC

    Least's best

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 160 posts
91
Excellent
  • Name:Benny Cupo
  • School:UT Austin

Posted 17 February 2017 - 08:22 PM

Ok, so I've gotten a general grasp. However, what's the answer to "'We create lives worth living for those we help, otherwise they'd rather die?" Is it just: "fine, let them die?"

Point out that debate is a game and we shouldn't be using suffering that we can't actually prevent or even care about in the first place just to collect ballots. We should only help those that want it and only if it is in our power to do so. Read a bunch of kain 7 cards about amor fati and eternal recurrence (we need to love our fate and be willing to re-live it perpetually without any modifications) and talk about Zarathustra from the Thus Spake Zarathustra (another Nietzsche book that wouldn't be easy for me to explain in its entirety since it has been awhile, but the argument is that we should only help those we can, but we shouldn't go out an actively seek those in need of help). I would recommend finding the old round of Steven Murray going for Nietzsche for a more nuanced explanation. In fact, as soon as Maury finds this post you will be educated and all of this will be improved upon.


  • 0

I wonder if I actually understand half the arguments I go for, or if judges are just confused and think I'm right because I sound confident in my explanation...


#7 Lazzarone

Lazzarone

    Regular

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,778 posts
840
Excellent
  • Name:Kevin Sanchez

Posted 20 February 2017 - 06:00 PM

The round in question: http://debatevision....debate-adi-2011
 

Kinda horrified by this reading of Nietzsche, honestly.
 
In the Coen brothers' film based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy, 'No Country For Old Men' (2007), a contract killer named Anton Chigurh meets the wife of his already-murdered target and invites her to call a coin-flip for a chance to save her own life. She sits down and pleads:

You got no cause to hurt me.

No. But I gave my word.

You gave your word?

To your husband.

That don't make sense. You gave your word to my husband to kill me?

Your husband had the opportunity to save you. Instead, he used you to try to save himself.

Not like that. Not like you say. You don't have to do this.

People always say the same thing.

What do they say?

They say, "You don't have to do this."

You don't.

OK. This is the best I can do. Call it.

I knowed you was crazy when I saw you sitting there. I knowed exactly what was in store for me.

Call it.

No. I ain't gonna call it.

Call it.

The coin don't have no say. It's just you.

I got here the same way the coin did.

 

Is not Anton Chigurh here the spitting image of an √úbermensch? He certainly considers himself above the law against murder. And doesn't his coin-flip routine exemplify amor fati? Life's already a roll of the dice, right? What difference does it make if Carla Jean Moss dies now or in a few decades? She lives an eternity anyway, according to Nietzsche's 'revelation' at Sils-Maria.
 

Of course, a hard-nosed Nietzschean debater might mention that this is just a movie. No one is actually threatened with death in this scene, just as no one actually gets saved by fiat. So getting worked up over it is worthless. That's existential angst and guilt-as-debt. Instead we should(?) liberate ourselves from such bovine moralistic fantasies.
 
I insist on getting worked up over this scene. I insist on the ethical fact that highlighting the contingency of existence ("I got here the same way the coin did") cannot justify a premeditated homicide. Nor can it justify callousness and glibness when confronted with genocide or global nuclear war.
 
This defense of Zarathustra's castle is a gated community of Western privilege. Syrians perish by the tens of thousands due in part to wars carried out in America's name, Egypt goes through the throes of overthrowing military dictatorships the United States helped to prop up, but we should all focus on enjoying our "glorious and beautiful" lives. If the needy can manage to arrive on our shores, fine, let them in; if they cannot, let them die outside our "sphere of responsibility".

What especially peeved me in this debate was how the affirmative team seemed put back on their heels explicating basic normative claims. The notion that there's value in considering the desirability of policies we have little possibility of enacting goes unstated. Yet 'what would happen if...?' fundamentally informs our capacity to make good choices. As for drawing a straight line from the ballot to the real world, I'd say it's appropriate to error on the side of agency; debaters grow up to be journalists, lawyers, activists and politicians: transitively speaking, what debaters find reasonable now influences what important social actors may find reasonable, and arguments affirmed as strategic in debate rounds at least partially influence what debaters find reasonable. Karl Rove was a debater. Did the kind of debate forum he grew up in reinforce his Machiavellian approach to politics? What's more, debaters are current citizens, not just future ones. Ballots shape the 'norms of discourse' of the activity you're engaged in; if the negative team did not tacitly agree with that, why are they even arguing their case before a debate judge in the first place?

Yes, debate is a game, but it's what Robert Brandom would call "the game of giving and asking for reasons". Brandom reads Kant as demonstrating that language-use itself implies normativity from the ground-up (https://youtu.be/UD5yGPDpYI4?t=1m31s). Why call a four-legged canine a 'dog' instead of a 'cat'? Because knowing how to use a word means applying a normative judgment. Nietzsche echoes this in a lecture he gave in 1872:

What would be the duty of a higher educational institution, in this respect, if not this -- namely, with authority and dignified severity to put youths, neglected, as far as their own language is concerned, on the right path, and to cry to them:

"Take your own language seriously! They who do not regard this matter as a sacred duty do not possess even the germ of a higher culture. ... If you notice no physical loathing in yourselves when you meet with certain words and tricks of speech in our journalistic jargon, cease from striving after culture; for here in your immediate vicinity, at every moment of your life, while you are either speaking or writing, you have a touchstone for testing how difficult, how stupendous, the task of the cultured is, and how very improbable it must be that many of you will ever attain culture."

 

Brandom also reads Hegel as decisively dispensing with the Nietzschean 'hermeneutics of suspicion'; please listen to this lecture: https://www.cross-x....tzschefoucault/ (and follow the accompanying text). Long story short, contingency can't do away with normative presuppositions.

 

So verbal tricks aside, if you found yourself in that room with Chigurh and Moss, wouldn't stopping that psychopath from killing an innocent woman be a good thing to do? In that moment, do you really think Nietzsche, who wept himself into insanity after seeing a horse being whipped, would contend that her life has no value?... The argument that the affirmative ought to make is that the United States military was thrown into a similar situation geopolitically, with various psychopaths vying for hegemony and slaughtering millions of innocents. After WWII, America inherited the responsibility of preventing WWIII. And to reply to this argument, to not quote Nietzsche's aphorism on 'the means to real peace' violates one's sacred duty to take his language seriously. His stance therein is the exact opposite of the isolationism suggested in the above debate.

 

I was flattered, however, that the negative team read a Bukowski poem I quoted in post #32 on this Nietzsche thread: https://www.cross-x....f-kitsch/page-2. Only wish they would've considered the post immediately preceding that one on Klossowski's reading of Nietzsche, and my take:

 

what does this mean for the nietzsche kritik? - that claiming we shouldn't say should (a self-refutation in itself) is only half the story. the love of fate brings us back to the concrete question of the fate of our cultures, but specifically, for nietzsche's debaters, it's not an excuse for incoherence... it's a challenge of direct action: will you remain a game at the margins of reality, satisfied to reproduce the dominant discourses?...

Edited by Lazzarone, 22 February 2017 - 02:04 PM.

  • 1

#8 Lazzarone

Lazzarone

    Regular

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,778 posts
840
Excellent
  • Name:Kevin Sanchez

Posted 24 February 2017 - 09:33 AM

Everybody see this video?: http://www.slate.com...ture_video.html


  • 0





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users