The New Death Critique.docx - The Death Critique Michael Hellie UC-Lab UC-Lab Hippie Bus The Death Critique Michael Hellie UC-Lab The Death Critique The

The New Death Critique.docx - The Death Critique Michael...

This preview shows page 1 out of 751 pages.

Unformatted text preview: The Death Critique Michael Hellie UC-Lab UC-Lab Hippie Bus The Death Critique Michael Hellie UC-Lab The Death Critique The Death Critique Michael Hellie UC-Lab Death Good The Death Critique Michael Hellie UC-Lab Notes Kat and I got a license to terrorize the TOC this weekend. Thank you to the awesome whitney young alum, my coaches, friends, and the Xylum Debate Institute for making this possible. I love you all to death (pun intended) #deathgood Shout out to Michael Leap for being awesome and giving me most of this file. He’s a really good debater and a pretty tricky dude when it comes to CrossX, so you should try and be Michael Leap. Actually on second thought, don’t try. You will fail. He is too awesome. That being said cross X is extremely important when planning to go for this argument. There are offensive and defensive components that you need them to concede. The first defensive question is “What is death?” (There isn’t a time when the body perishes, but the perishing of the body is not the death of it. Organic existence is not the terms for life) If they don’t have a definition of what death is they shouldn’t be able to advance a reason as to why it’s a bad thing, or why they should be voted up for it. The offensive component that you should be asking them is “Why is death bad?” You’re going to have a lot of really good cards that talk about reasons for death being really good later on in the debate. It’s also important to remember that you defend consciousness (the Lanza Evidence/Experiments). Consciousness is the thing that can continue, and the thing that continuously gets imprisoned. The physical body is imprisoning it. Some of this is more important depending on the quality of your opponent’s response. The 1NC – The Cross X of the Short 1NC shouldn’t be too hard, since Lanza is a trick that I usually save for the block (it is hard as hell to get crossxed on quantum physics if they know what they’re talking about). Other than that the Mark evidence is very straightforward. Mark says that there is this type of a-subjective that has no subject. Without organic reality we are united in a-subjectivity or “pure immanence” that gets projected from another place. The Heisman evidence is really really good. Heisman says that “viviocentrism” or life centeredness has been used to justify impacts that are every K debaters wet dream (racism, sexism, homophobia ect…) White life is better than dark life. Masculine life is superior to feminine life. Rich life is more valuable than poor life. Viviocentrism has been used to quantify modes of existence. There are different “kinds” of death which is more important than the perishing of the biological organism. If creating more organic death worse, it will be preventing future generations from the same oppression as we do. Don’t forget your interpretation of death. It looks bad if you ask them to define it and you can’t tell them what it is yourself. My interpretation of death is it is an artificial construct that is very binary, based on our perception of physical existence. Organic perishing is the releasing of consciousness from material existence. The Death Critique Michael Hellie UC-Lab You should also have an interpretation of life…There are two kinds of life, material/organic and nonmaterial/nonorganic. Life always slips on in the middle and it is only enframed by that separation. Think of it as the Mind Body Dualism. Your body is not a “thing” at all. It is just a part of physical existence. My body is not really an organic whole. This is the illusion of continuity. I can’t explain quantum physics. SO I’ll let Robert Lanza do that for me… “The usual interpretation of why we see an interference pattern is that photons or electrons have two choices when they encounter the double slit. They do not actually exist as real entities in real places until they are observed, and they aren’t observed until they hit the final detection barrier. So when they reach the slits, they exercise their probabilistic freedom of taking both choices. Even though actual electrons or photons are indivisible, and never split themselves under any conditions whatsoever, their existence as “probability waves” are another story. Thus, what goes “through the slit” are not actual entities but just probabilities. . THE PROBABILITY WAVES OF THE INDIVIDUAL PHOTONS INTERFERE WITH THEMSELVES! When enough have gone through, we see the overall interference pattern as all probabilities congeal into actual entities making impacts and being observed – as waves.” “It doesn’t matter how we set up the experiment. Our mind and its knowledge or lack of it is the only thing that determines how these bits of light or matter behave. It forces us, too, to wonder about space and time. Can either be real if the twins act on information before it happens, and across distances instantaneously as if there is no separation between them?” CX Questions What is death? Why is death bad? What is the distinction between when you are dying and when you are dead? Can one phenomenologically experience death? What if I cut your arms and legs off, would you still have value to life? (The idiots will say yes :P) Do you think you can stop child sex trafficking? (If they say it doesn’t matter then it gives your arguments more weight) PS’s Be funny in your speech, because this is some seriously depressing stuff, and you need to remind the judge not to hate himself. Read a K that doesn’t have an extinction impact in the 1NC and if need be, don’t go for this argument and instead read an extinction impact in the block. The Death Critique Michael Hellie UC-Lab The Castronovo evidence sets up a metaphysical claim as well as a distinction between active and passive nihilism. Either destroy the world or let the world get destroyed. We choose the latter. Let’s just destroy everything. Castranova says if it is true that suffering is caused by the removal of pleasure, it must be true that a world without space and time cannot have suffering. As soon as they make a metaphysical claim that suffering is embodied then this argument logically follows from it. There’s not a lot of support other than Schopenhauer from reading a metaphysical distinction. Definitions Anthropomorphism or personification is any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to other animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities. Immanence, meaning "existing or remaining within" generally offers a relative opposition to transcendence, a divine or metaphysical beyond or outside. Deleuze, however, employs the term plane of immanence as a pure immanence, an unqualified immersion or embeddedness, an immanence which denies transcendence as a real distinction, Cartesian or otherwise Pure immanence is thus often referred to as a pure plane, an infinite field or smooth space without substantial or constitutive division. The Death Critique Michael Hellie UC-Lab 1NCs The Death Critique Michael Hellie UC-Lab 1NC - Death Good Our lives exist perpetually in the middle – subjects in the middle of becoming objects – people in the middle living – people in the middle of becoming corpses. Life is an asubjective current of folded consciousness, a stream of life, and we slip on and on through the middle of it – never seeing the forest for the trees. The truth is that the river runs through us too – united in pure immanence. However, the restrictive identity of “self” survival imprisons us in the ego and the body, preventing any lines of flight or becoming. Mark ’98 (John, Gilles Deleuze: Vitalism and Multiplicity, p. 29-33) It's organisms that die, not life. Any work of art points a way through for life, finds a way through the cracks. Everything I've written is vitalistic, at least I hope it is, and amounts to a theory of signs and events. (N. 143) In the final piece of work published before his death, a short article entitled 'Immanence: a life .…’ Deleuze presents a concise statement of his philosophical concerns. Although he does not use the word 'vitalism', the ideas presented here arc undoubtedly vitalist in inspiration. The article begins by defming a transcendental field. That is to say the field which constitutes the basis of his philsophy: transcendental empiricism. This field is defined as '[…] a pure a-subjective current of consciousness, an impersonal prereflexive consciousness, a qualitative duration of consciousness without self’.24 Obviously, this 'pure' current of consciousness has links with the notions of impersonal, indefinite discourse dealt with above. Pure immanence exists in opposition to the world represented and mediated through the framework of the subject and the object. The notion of immanence goes to the heart of Deleuze's transcendental empiricism which embraces both vitalism and multiplicity: Pure immanence is A LIFE, and nothing else. It is not immanence to life, but the immanence which is in nothing is itself a life. A life is the immanence of immanence, absolute immanence; it is sheer power, utter beatitude. Insofar as he overcomes the aporias of the subject and the object Fichte, in his later philosophy, presents the transcendental field as a life which does not depend on a Being and is not subjected to an Act; an absolute immediate consciousness whose very activity no longer refers back to a being but ceaselessly posits itself in a life.25 To illustrate what he means by this use of the definite article, a life, Deleuze describes a scene in Dickens' Our Mutual Friend, in which 'a universally scorned rogue' is brought back to life. Those working to bring him out of his coma respond not to the individual, but to a pre-individual power of life which is 'impersonal but singular nevertheless'. Deleuze also perceives the pre-individual nature of life in young children; Very young children, for example, all resemble each other and have barely any individuality; but they have singularities, a smile, a gesture, a grimace -events which arc not subjective characteristics. They are traversed by an immanent life that is pure power and even beatitude through the sufferings and weaknesses.26 Deleuze's problematising approach to the question oflife and work derives in part from his vitalist perspective. The act of writing itself is an to free life from what imprisons it' (N, 143). One of the aims of philosophy and art is to render visible the forces that have captured life. Artists and philosophers may be frail individuals, but they are literally 'vital' penonalities by virtue of the excess of life that attempt to make of life something more than personal, '[ ... ] they have seen, experienced or thought about: 'There's a profound link between signs, events, life and vitalism: the power of nonorganic life that can be found in a line that's drawn, a line of writing. a line of music. It's organisms that die, not life' (N, 143). The writer comes into contact with things that threaten to overwhelm the individual; […] he possesses irrnistible and delicate health that stems from what he has seen and heard of things too big for him, too strong for him, suffocating things whose passage exhausts him while nonetheless giving him the becomings that dominant and substantial health would render impossible. The writer returns from what he has seen and heard with red eyes and pierced eardrums. 27 Deleuze's vitalism is in this way linked to his A sign is created when thought encounters 'non-organic life' . The 'outside' 85 Deleuze calls it. Signs are also an expression of the flux and indeterminacy of life. The sign is an expression of the pre-individual, of the flux of life where the constraints of identity have yet to be applied. Philip Goodchild has argued that Deleuze's project represents a 'practical vitalism', which enables thought to come into 'anti-humanism'. sometimes contact with the power of life.28 The theme of vitalism in Deleuzc's work has also been taken up in some detail recently by Mireille Buydens in Sahara: l'esthetique de Gilles Deleuze (1990).29 Buydens argues that Deleuze's 'transcendental' field is constituted by a 'swarm' of pre-individual singularities. This fluid structure is that of the rhizome or the multiplicity. Vitalism is a way of connecting with, of being in the presence of, this preindividual world of flux and becoming. Deleuze's vitalism is expressed in his preference for verbs, particularly in the infinitive form, over nouns: 'infinitives express becomings or events that uanscend mood and tense' (N, 34). For Buydens, the theme of vitalism comes first and foremost from Bergson. She draws attention in particular to Bergson's Creative Evolution (l911), The Death Critique Michael Hellie UC-Lab where the 'elan vital' is described as a form of becoming, which eludes analysis and the material form in which it can be perceived. Buydens also points to Nietzsche and Spinoza as thinkers who influence Deleuze in his development of vitalism. Of course, the theme of vitalism requires a discussion of Deleuze's reading of Bergson, and this will be dealt with in the following chapter. However, it is important to understand that other thinkers, such as Nietzsche and Spinoza, help Deleuze to develop the question of vitalism. For example, Perra Perry claims that Deleuze's innovative reading of Nietzsche in the 1960’s enabled Deleuze, in his subsequent work, to reactivate some of the debates generated by turn-ofthe-cenrury vitalism in France.) Also, in the introductory chapter,'The Life of Spinozs', in Spinoza: Practical Philosophy (Spinoza: Deleuze presents a portrait of a frail individual whose very individuality is the product of powerful lines of force. Spinoza's life was on one level startlingly ascetic, Philosophie pratique 1981) undermined as it was by illness and characterised by a nomadic, propertyless existence. However, Spinoza was able to embrace an affirmative, joyous conception of life. He pre-empts Nietzsche's distaste for resentment and bad conscience, the tendency to turn against life and to fight for one's own enslavement. It is this later tendency that marks Spinoza out as pre-empting the 'modern' question of fascism. In his Theological Treatise Spinoza is preoccupied with the question of why people are apparently so willing to Why do they submit so willingly to the forces that imprison life? Why are the people so deeply irrational? Why are they proud of their own enslavement? Why do they fight 'for' their bondage as if it were their freedom ? Why is it so difficu.lt not to win but to bear freedom? Why does a religion that invokes love and joy inspire war, intolerance, hatred, malevolence, and remorse? (S:PP, 10) Ultimately, as Todd May claims, this is the question which makes all of be separated from the positive force of life. Deleuze's work political. 32 Theories of ideology and false consciousness only recognise the injustices and oppressions we suffer against our will or because we are somehow duped into believing that they are good for us. Deleuze, however, poses a question which is both much more direct and more subtle: why do we desire what oppresses us? This is one of the aspects of Anti-Oedipus that Foucault so admires, when he talks of Deleuze and Guanari's attempt to tackle the problem of fascism; '[ ... ] the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us' (AD, xiii). Becoming: Starting in the Middle One never commences; one never has a tabula rasa; one slips in, enters in the middle; one takes up or lays down rhythms. (S;PP, 123) It is never the beginning or the end which are interesting; the beginning The 'indefinite life' that Deleuze talks of in his very last article 'Immanence: a life ... ' takes place 'in the middle'; 'This indefinite life does not have moments, however close they might be, but only meantimes [des entremps], between-moments.''' Starting in the middle, becoming, constitutes a guiding principle in Deleuze's work: 'being is becoming'. As Bergson points out, the intellect tends to spatialise, to immobilise the flux of life which is being. In this way, perception of being is reduced and impoverished. For this reason, Bergson promotes the and end are points. What is interesting is the middle. (D, 39) development of a philosophical intuition. This is a problematising method which attempts to come to terms with the irreducible flux of being. In developing this Bergsonian perspective Deleuze goes some way to creating an image of thought which is subtle enough to seize the flow of life.l4 This is also a question of the indirect, impersonal 'style' that Deleuze develops; 'Your writing has to be liquid or gaseous simply because normal perception and opinion are solid, geomeuic' (N, 133). Deleuze also admits that the middle is the most comfortable place for him to be. It corresponds to his 'habit' of thinking of things in terms of lines rather than points (N, 161). For Deleuze, the 'English' have a particular tendency to begin in the middle, whereas the 'French' are obsessed with tools, beginnings and foundations: The English zero is always in the middle. Bottlenecks are always in the middle. Being in the middle of a line is the most uncomfonable position. One begins again through the middle. The French think in tenns of trees too much: the tree of knowledge, points of aborescence, the alpha and omega, the roots and the pinnacle. (0, 39) In the later part of his career Deleuze continued to develop the question of that which is in the middle with his work on Leibniz and the Baroque concept of the fold. Leibniz's 'monadic' conception of matter undermines distinctions between organic and inorganic matter, interior and exterior, and bodies and souls. If matter is continuous and endlessly folded, it must express a concept of movement which is always in the middle: Everything moves as if the pleats of matter possessed no reason in themselves. It is because the Fold is always between two folds, and because the between-two-folds seems to move about everywhere: Is it between inorganic bodies and organisms, between organisms and animal souls, between animal souls and reasonable souls, between bodies and souls in general? (LB, 13) The conjunction 'and' helps us to think in terms of the middle, to escape the way in which thought is conventionally modelled on the verb 'to be'. 'And' is a tool for producing a sort of 'stammering' in thought and language; it is the possibility of diversity and the destruction of identity. Multiplicity is not the sum of its terms, but is contained in the 'and'; AND is neither one thing nor the other, it's always in between, between two things; it's the there's always a border, a line of flight or flow, only we don't see it, because it's the least perceptible of things. And yet it's along this line of flight that things come to pass, becomings evolve, revolutions take shape. (N,45) borderline, The tautological rationality of viviocentrism – that is life-centeredness – is a noble lie, a binary logic of natural mastery that justifies racism, sexism, and anthropocentrism. The Death Critique Michael Hellie UC-Lab Opening our minds to death allows a transcendence of the tyranny of life and creates the conditions for the ultimate erosion of all borders and conceptions of the natural – put the burden on them to justify physical existence as a roll for the ballot Mitchell Heisman (University at Albany bachelor's degree in psychology) 2010 [Suicide Note, online @ , loghry] This belief that life is inherently preferable to death is one of the most widespread superstitions . This bias constitutes one of the most obstinate mythologies of the human species. This prejudice against death, however, is a kind of xenophobia. Discrimination against death is simply assumed good and right....
View Full Document

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture