At Heidegger Alternative Energy DDI KO 2008

8/9/2019 At Heidegger Alternative Energy DDI KO 2008

1/104

Heidegger AFF AnswersDDI 2008 Kernof/OlneyTakumi Murayama

Heidegger AFF Answers

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................1

Notes/Strategies ..........................................................................................................................................4

2ACLong ...................................................................................................................................................5

2ACMedium ...........................................................................................................................................11

2ACShort ................................................................................................................................................15

2ACunaid!s "lo#$ ................................................................................................................................1%

2AC&rame'or$ .....................................................................................................................................21

No (m)a#t*ne+dimensionalit, ..............................................................................................................2-

No (m)a#turit, ....................................................................................................................................24

TurnAuthenti#it, 10 ..............................................................................................................................25TurnAuthenti#it, 20 ..............................................................................................................................2

TurnAuthenti#it, -0 ..............................................................................................................................2

Turn3ehumaniation .............................................................................................................................2%

Turn3is#ourse ........................................................................................................................................2

Turn&as#ism 10 .....................................................................................................................................-6

Turn&as#ism 20 .....................................................................................................................................-1

Turn&as#ism -0 .....................................................................................................................................-2

Turn7eno#ide 10 ...................................................................................................................................--

Turn7eno#ide 20 ...................................................................................................................................-5

Turn8umanism ......................................................................................................................................-

Turn9e, to *ntolog, 10 .......................................................................................................................-

Turn9e, to *ntolog, 20 .......................................................................................................................-%

Turn9ills 3ebate ....................................................................................................................................-

TurnMoralit, 10 ....................................................................................................................................46

TurnMoralit, 20 ....................................................................................................................................41

TurnNu#lear Annihilation .....................................................................................................................42

Turn*ntolog, &irst "ad ........................................................................................................................4-

Turnra#ti#al :eason ............................................................................................................................44

Turnubli# (gnoran#e ............................................................................................................................45

Turnurit, ..............................................................................................................................................4

Turn;alue to Life 10 .............................................................................................................................4%

Turn;alue to Life 20 .............................................................................................................................4


2/104


Turn;alue to Life -0 .............................................................................................................................56

Turn;alue to Life 40 .............................................................................................................................51

Turn;alue to Life 50 .............................................................................................................................52

Alt Can!t Sol>eNatural 3isasters .........................................................................................................5-

Alt Can!t Sol>eNu$e ?ar/@n>ironment/Totalitarianism ..................................................................54

Alt &ailsAnar#h, ....................................................................................................................................55

Alt &ails3omination ...............................................................................................................................5

Alt &ails@ndless C,#le ...........................................................................................................................5

Alt &ails(gnores Natural 3isasters .......................................................................................................5%

Alt &ails9 of S#ien#e ..............................................................................................................................5

Alt &ailsLa#$ of A#tion ..........................................................................................................................6

Alt &ailsLo#al *))osition .....................................................................................................................1

Alt &ailsNo Truth ...................................................................................................................................2

Alt &ails*ntolog, @rror ..................................................................................................................-

Alt &ails*ntolog, &ails ..........................................................................................................................5

Alt &ailsubli# Mindset .........................................................................................................................

erm Sol>en#,Cal#ulation @nsures Sur>i>al ......................................................................................%

erm Sol>en#,7ood @#o+Management ...............................................................................................

erm Sol>en#,Lo#al *))osition ..........................................................................................................6erm Sol>en#,*ntologi#al "lindness ...................................................................................................1

erm Sol>en#,oliti#iation .................................................................................................................-

erm Sol>en#,ubli# arti#i)ation ......................................................................................................4

erm Sol>en#,S#ien#e in So#ial Contet .............................................................................................

erm Sol>en#,Ste))ing Stone ..............................................................................................................

erm Sol>en#,Sustainabilit, ................................................................................................................

Alternate Causalit,atriar#h, ..............................................................................................................%1

Cal#ulati>e Thought 7oodCommuni#ation .........................................................................................%2

Cal#ulati>e Thought 7ood3ebate ........................................................................................................%-

Cal#ulati>e Thought 7ood@man#i)ation ............................................................................................%4

Cal#ulati>e Thought 7ood@motional @)istemolog, ..........................................................................%5

Cal#ulati>e Thought 7oodMeaningful 3is#ourse 10 .........................................................................%


Cal#ulati>e Thought 7oodMeaningful 3is#ourse -0 .........................................................................%%


3/104



Cal#ulati>e Thought 7oodMoralit, 10 ...............................................................................................6

Cal#ulati>e Thought 7oodMoralit, 20 ...............................................................................................1

Cal#ulati>e Thought 7oodMoralit, -0 ...............................................................................................2

Cal#ulati>e Thought 7oodMoralit, 40 ...............................................................................................-

Cal#ulati>e Thought 7oodNe#essar, for Coherent &rame'or$ 10 .................................................4

Cal#ulati>e Thought 7oodNe#essar, for Coherent &rame'or$ 20 .................................................5

Cal#ulati>e Thought 7oodNe#essar, for Coherent &rame'or$ -0 .................................................

Cal#ulati>e Thought 7ooder>ersion of (n#al#ulable usti#e ...........................................................

Cal#ulati>e Thought 7oodre>ents ;iolen#e ......................................................................................%

Cal#ulati>e Thought 7ood:eBe#tion of 7eno#ide ...............................................................................

3is#ourse 3oesn!t Matter3oesn!t Sha)e :ealit, ..............................................................................166

&rame'or$ 7ood:e#on#ile Truth .....................................................................................................161

S#ien#e 7oodClimate Change 10 .......................................................................................................162

S#ien#e 7oodClimate Change 20 .......................................................................................................16-

S#ien#e 7oodClimate Change -0 .......................................................................................................164

S#ien#e 7oodubli# @n>ironmental A'areness ................................................................................165

S#ien#e 7oodTruth ..............................................................................................................................16


4/104


Notes/Strategies

1. Hey look! Takumi produced a 2AC fle! And its long! W00t! Wait, its a it Tlong.

2. First of all, there are many duplicates in this le, especially between AltFails and Perm Solves (those two categories mean basically the samething a lot of the time). hey A!" tagged di#erently, so be careful when

you pic$ out cards.

". %urns& refers to Plan 'ood (in$ urn) and Alt ad both in the sameplace. *t+s because * got lay and because it doesn+t matter too muchanyway.

#. here are various -A modules / a %short& module, a %medium& answersmodule, a %long& one, and a Framewor$ module (that fran$ly is not too

good). 0unaid+s bloc$ is also included, since somehow, * don+t thin$ *managed to ma$e a bloc$ that was a) as concise and b) as good. Anyway,*+ve found framewor$ $ind of useful, but it+s not needed 1223. 4ote thatthere are debate5specic cards by 0oseph 6agner on 2782-827 (yes, veryrecent9).

$. Sorry * had no time to write 1A! e:tensions. hat will be an e:ercise leftto the reader.

%. * thin$ the alculative hought 'ood section got !"A; muddled withsome generic %


5/104


2ACLong

1. )erm * do not+ing in all ot+er instances ecept t+e plan.

-. Perm Solves / he Dhands5o#+ approach of the alt isn+t enough to guaranteealt solvency.

ohn Barry rofessor of oliti#s 9eele. 199. :ethin$ing 7reen oliti#s.

As indicated in the last section, maintaining e#ologi#al di>ersit, 'ithin so#ial+en>ironmental relations reDuires a#ti>e

so#ial inter>ention.

Added to this is the controversy over the whole idea that diversity and ecosystem complexity are positively related toecosystem stability. According to Clar, and contrary to pop!lar perception, "#he highest diversity o$ species tends to occ!r not

in the most stable systems, b!t ion those s!b%ect to constant dist!rbance, e.g. rain$orests s!b%ect to destr!ction by storm, and

rocy intertidal regions b!$$eted by heavy s!r$" &1992' 42(. )ne implication o$ this is that if biodi>ersit, is a desired >alue

this ma, im)l, human inter>ention in e#os,stemsto maintain high degrees o$ biodiversity, )erha)s b, disturbing

e#os,stems in the reDuisite manner. 1* )$ the many concl!sions one can draw $rom this perhaps the most important is that aEhands+offE a))roa#h ma, not guarantee the t,)es of e#os,stems that man, dee) greens desire. @#os,stemscharacteri+ed

by diversity, balance, and complexity ma, ha>e to be a#ti>el, #reated and managed. The normati>e stand)oint from'hi#h to >ie' so#ial im)a#ts on the en>ironment isnot a "handso$$" position which $rames the iss!e o$ the relation betweensociety and environment in terms o$ "!se" and "non!se", b!t rather that proposed in the last chapter as the Eethi#s of useE 'hi#hattem)ts to distinguish EuseE from EabuseE.)nce this ethical iss!e has been settled, e#ologi#al s#ien#e #an then be used to

hel) distinguish EgoodE from EbadE e#ologi#al management, i.e. s!stainability $rom !ns!stainability. #he type o$ social

reg!lation implied by collective ecological management involves the normative constraining o$ permissible policy options. -eco!ld imagine this as the democratic character o$ collective ecological management. t is not that each socialenvironmental

iss!e is to be dealt with by all citi+ens taing a vote on the iss!e/ rather it is that citi+ens &as opposed to b!rea!crats and

experts( can participate in what 0acobs &199' 13( calls "decisionrecommending" rather than decisionmaing instit!tions. #hatis, s!ch $orms o$ pop!lar democratic participation lay o!t the parameters o$ "!se" and "ab!se" in partic!lar cases, that is, the

normative bo!nds o$ environmental management which can then be carried o!t thro!gh state instit!tions.

?. urn / Antihumanism / -etting t+ings e empirically leads to genocide/ only t+e

plan can estalis+ separation eteen ends and means, preenting t+e alts paralyinganti+umanism t+at puts 1 ird oer % million people. 3ont let t+e neg 4usti5y ouretinction impacts ecause o5 an irrational 5ear o5 1AC discourse.

Murra, Boochin &ounder of the (nstitute for So#ial @#olog, and &ormer rofessor at :ama)o College.

19. :e+en#hanting 8umanit, ). 1%+16.

nso$ar as eidegger can be said to have had a pro%ect to shape h!man li$eways, it was as an endeavor to resist, or sho!ld

say, dem!r $rom, what he conceived to he an allencroaching technocratic mentality and civili+ation that rendered h!man

beings "ina!thentic" in their relationship to a pres!mably sel$generative reality, "isness", or more esoterically, "Being" (Sein).5ot!nlie many 6erman reactionaries, 8eidegger viewed 7modernity" with its democratic spirit, rationalism, respect $or the

individ!al, and technological advances as a "$alling" &6e$allen( $rom a primal and naive innocence in which h!manity once

"dwelled,8 remnants o$ which he believed existed in the r!stic world into which he was born a cent!ry ago.

"A!thenticity", it canbe said witho!t any philosophical $rills, lay in the pristine #e!tonic world o$ the tribal 6ermans who retained their ties with7the 6ods8, and with later peoples who still tried to no!rish their past amidst the blighted traits o$ the modern world. ince

some a!thors try to m!ddy eidegger"s prelapsarian message by $oc!sing on his ass!med belie$ in individ!al $reedom and

ignoring his hatred o$ the :rench ;evol!tion and its egalitarian, "herd"lie democracy o$ the "#hey", it is worth emphasi+ing

that s!ch a view withers m the light o$ his denial o$ individ!ality. #he individ!al by himsel$ co!nts $or nothing", he declareda$ter becoming a member o$ the 5ational ocialist party in 1933. "#he $ate o$ o!r


6/104


most !nsavory remars were directed in the lect!res, $rom which these lines are taen, "$rom a metaphysical point o$ view",

against "the pincers" created by America and ;!ssia that threaten to s!ee+e "the $arthermost corner o$ the globe ... by

technology and ... economic exploitation."29#echnology, as eidegger constr!es it, is "no mere means. #echnology is a way o$

revealing. $ we give heed to this, then another whole realm $or the essence o$ technology will open itsel$ !p to !s. t is therealm o$ revealing, i.e., o$ tr!th.83A$ter which eidegger rolls o!t technology"s trans$ormations, indeed m!tations, which give

rise to a mood o$ anxiety and $inally h!bris, anthropocentricity, and the mechanical coercion o$ things into mere ob%ects $orh!man !se and exploitation. eidegger"s views on technology are part o$ a larger weltanscha!!ng which is too m!lticolored to

disc!ss here, and demands a degree o$ interpretive e$$ort we m!st $orgo $or the present in the context o$ a criticism o$technophobia. !$$ice it to say that there is a good deal o$ primitivistic animism in eidegger"s treatment o$ the "revealing" that

occ!rs when techne is a "clearing" $or the "expression" o$ a cra$ted material not !nlie the simo sc!lptor who believes &!ite

wrongly, may add( that he is "bringing o!t" a hidden $orm that lies in the walr!s ivory he is carving. B!t this iss!e m!st be

seen more as a matter o$ metaphysics than o$ a spirit!ally charged techni!e. #h!s, when eidegger praises a windmill, incontrast to the "challenge" to a tract o$ land $rom which the 7ha!ling o!t o$ coal and ore" is s!b%ected, he is notbeing "ecological".

eidegger is concerned with a windmill, not as an ecological technology, b!t more metaphysically with the notion that "its sails

do indeed t!rn in the wind/ they are le$t entirely to the wind"s blowing". #he windmill "does not !nloc energy $rom the air

c!rrents, in order to store it". 31Die man in relation to Being, it is a medi!m $or the "reali+ation" o$ wind, not an arti$act $orac!iring power. Basically, this inter)retation of a te#hnologi#al interrelationshi) refle#ts a regression socially and

psychologically as well as metaphysically E into Duietism. eidegger advances a message o$ passivity or passivity conceived

as a h!man activity, an endeavor to let thingsbe

and "disclose" themselves. "Detting things be" wo!ld be little more than a triteFaoist and B!ddhist precept were it not that 8eidegger as a National So#ialist be#ame all too ideologi#all, engaged rather

than Eletting things beE 'hen he 'as busil, undoing Eintelle#tualismE demo#ra#, and te#hno logi#al inter>entioninto the

"world". Considering the time, the place, and the abstract way in which eidegger treated h!manity"s ":all" into technological

7ina!thenticity8 E a 7:all8 that he, lie ll!l, regarded as inevitable, albeit a metaphysical, nightmare it is not hard to see 'h,

he #ould tri>ialie the 8olo#aust 'hen he deigned to noti#e it at all as )art of a te#hno+industrial F#ondition!."Agric!lt!re is now a motori+ed (motorsierte) $ood ind!stry, in essence the same as the man!$act!ring o$ corpses in the gas

chambers and extermination camps," he coldly observed, "the same as the blocade and starvation o$ the co!ntryside, the same

as the prod!ction o$ the hydrogen bombs.832(n )la#ing the industrial means b, 'hi#h man, e's 'ere $illed before the

ideologi#al ends that guided their Nai eterminators 8eideggeressentially dis)la#es the barbarism of a specific state

a))aratus of 'hi#h he 'as a )art b, the te#hni#al )rofi#ien#, he #an attribute to the world at large! #hese immensely

revealing o$$handed remars, drawn $rom a speech he gave in Bremen m 1949, are beneath contempt. B!t they point to a way

o$ thining that gave an a!tonomy to techni!e that has $ear$!l moral conse!ences which we are living with these days in the

name o$ the sacred, a phraseology that eidegger wo!ld $ind very congenial were he alive today. ndeed, te#hno)hobia,

$ollowed to its logical and cr!dely primitivistic concl!sions, finall, de>ol>es into a dar$ rea#tionism and a )aral,ingDuietism. &or if our #onfrontation 'ith #i>iliation turns on )assi>it, beforea 7disclosing o$ Being8, a mere 7dwelling8 on

the earth, and a Fletting things be!, to !se eidegger8s verbiage E m!ch o$ which has slipped into deep ecology8s vocab!lary as

well E the #hoi#e bet'een su))orting barbarism and enlightened humanism has no ethi#al foundations to sustain it.

&reed of >alues grounded in obBe#ti>it, 'e are lost in a Duasi+religious antihumanism a s)iritualit, that #an 'ith the

same eDuanimit, hear the #r, of a bird and ignore the anguish of si million on#e+li>ing )eo)le 'ho 'ere )ut to death

b, the National So#ialist state.


7/104


E. urn / @uman survival does not lead to more management realiation thatdeath is imminent is $ey for ontology and the ability to save lives.

"rent 3ean ;obbins do#toral student in #lini#al )s,#holog, at 3uDuesne Gni>ersit, 199. HMedard

"ossI htt)J//m,thosandlogos.#om/"oss.html

3eath is an unsur)assable limit of human eisten#e, writes Boss &119(. Grimarily, however, h!man beings $lee $rom death

and the awareness o$ o!r mortality. B!t in o!r con$rontation with death and o!r morality, we discover the relationship which

is the basis $or all $eelings o$ reverance, $ear, awe, wonder, sorrow, and de$erence in the $ace o$ something greater and morepower$!l. &12(. Boss even s!ggests that the most digni$ied h!man relationship to death involves eeping itas a possibility

rather than an act!alityconstantly in awareness witho!t $leeing $rom it. As Boss writes' *nl,s!ch a being+unto+death #an

guaranteethe precondition that the 3asein be able to free itself from its absor)tion in, its s!bmission and s!rrender o$ itsel$

to the things and relationships o$ e>er,da, li>ingand to ret!rn to itsel$. &121( !ch a re#ognition brings the human being

ba#$ tohis res)onsibilit, forhis eisten#e. This is notsimply a in'ard 'ithdra'al$rom the world$ar $rom it. ;ather, thisres)onsible a'areness of death as the !ltimate possibility $or h!man existence frees the human being to be 'ith others in a

genuine 'a,. :rom this $o!ndationbased on the existentials described above"oss is able to arti#ulate an understanding

of medi#ine and )s,#holog, 'hi#h gi>es )riorit, to the freedom of the human being to be itself. By $reedom, Boss doesnot mean a $reedom to have all the possibilites, $or we are $inite and limited by o!r $actical history and death. Het within these

$inite possibilities, 'e are free to be 'ho 'e are and to ta$e res)onsibilit, for 'ho 'e are in the 'orld 'ith others andalongside things that matter.

G. Perm / >o oth / we can engage in constructive policy while still remainingcritical of what we do.

H. Perm Solves / T+e searc+ 5or ontological trut+ 5ails ecause e allo atrocities tocontinue * e must use rationality to improe t+e status 6uo ut remain critical o5 ourprocess.

Sla>oB Ii+e Senior :esear#her at the (nstitute for So#ial S#ien#es in LBublBana 199. The Ti#$lish

SubBe#t ). 1-+15.

Apropos o$ this precise point, mysel$ r!n into my $irst tro!ble with eidegger &since began as a eideggerian my $irst

p!blished hoo was on eidegger and lang!age(. -hen, in my yo!th, was bombarded by the o$$icial Comm!nist

philosophers" stories o$ eidegger"s 5a+i engagement, they le$t me rather cold/ was de$initely more on the side o$ theH!goslav eideggarians. All o$ a s!dden, however, became aware o$ how these H!goslav eideggarians were doing exactly

the sa!ce thing with respect to the H!goslav ideology o$ sel$management as eidegger himsel$ did with respect to 5a+ism' in

exH!goslavia, eideggerians entertained the same ambig!o!sly assertive relationship towards ocialist sel$ management, the

o$$icial ideology o$ the Comm!nist regime in their eyes, the essence o$ sellmanagement was the very essence o$ modernman, which is why the philosophical notion o$ sel$managemrnt s!its the ontological essence o$ o!r epoch, while the standard

political ideology o$ the regime misses this "inner greatness" o$ sel$management ... 8eideggerians areth!s eternall, in sear#h

of a )ositi>e onti# )oliti#al s,stem that 'ould #ome #losest to the e)o#hal ontologi#al truth, a strategy 'hi#h ine>itabl,

leads to error&which, o$ co!rse, is always a#$no'ledged onl,retroactively, post $act!m, after the disastrous out#ome of

oneEs engagement(. As eidegger himsel$ p!t it, those who carne closest to the )ntological #r!th are condemned to err at the

ontic level ... err abo!t whatJ Grecisely abo!t the line o$ separation between ontic and ontological. The )aradonot to be!nderestimated is that the >er, )hiloso)herwho $oc!sed his interest on the enigma o$ ontological di$$erence 'ho 'arned

again and again against the meta)h,si#al mista$e of #onferring ontologi#al dignit, on some onti# #ontent&6od as thehighest ntity, $or example( fell into the tra) of #onferring on Naism the ontologi#al dignit, of suiting the essen#e ofmodern man. #he standard de$ence o$ eidegger against the reproach o$ his 5a+i past consists o$ two points' not only was his

5a+i engagement a simple personal error &a 7st!pidity >K!mmheit?", as eidegger himsel$ p!t it( in no way inherently related to

his philosophical pro%ect/ the main co!nterarg!ment is that it is eidegger"s own philosophy that enables !s to discern the tr!eepochal roots o$ modern totalitarianism. owever, 'hat remains unthoughthere is the hidden #om)li#it, bet'een theontologi#al indifferen#e to'ards #on#rete so#ial s,stems&capitalism, :ascism. Comm!nism(, in so $ar as they all belong to

the same hori+on o$ modern technology, and the se#ret )ri>ileging of a #on#rete so#io)oliti#al model&5a+ism with

eidegger, Comm!nism with some "eideggerian Farxists"( as closer to the ontological tr!th o$ o!r epoch. ere one sho!ldavoid the trap that ca!ght eidegger"s de$enders, who dismissed eidegger8s 5a+i engagement as simple an anomaly, a $all


8/104


into the ontic level, in blatant contradiction to his tho!ght, which teaches !s not to con$!se ontological hori+on with ontic

choices &as we have already seen, eidegger is at his strongest when he demonstrates how, on a deeper str!ct!ral level,

ecological, conservative, and so on, oppositions to the modern !niverse o$ technology are already embedded in the hori+on o$

what they p!rport to re%ect' the ecological criti!e o$ the technological exploitation o$ nat!re !ltimately leads to a more"environmentally so!nd" technology. etc.(. eidegger did not engage in the 5a+i political pro%ect "in spite o$" his ontological

philosophical approach, b!t beca!se o$ it/ this engagement was not "beneath" his philosophical level on the contrary i$ one isto !nderstand eidegger, the ey point is to grasp the complicity &in egelese' "spec!lative identity"( between the elevation

above ontic concerns and the passionate "ontic" 5a+i political engagement. )ne can now see the ideological trap that ca!ghteidegger' when he critici+es 5a+i racism on behal$ o$ the tr!e "inner greatness" o$ the 5a+i movement, he repeats the

elementary ideological gest!re o$ maintaining an inner distance towards the ideological text o$ claiming that there is

something more beneath it, a nonideological ernel' ideology exerts its hold over !s by means o$ this very insistence that the

Ca!se we adhere to is not "merely" ideological. o where is the trapJ -hen the disappointed 8eideggert!rns away $rom activeengagement in the 5a+i movement, he does so beca!se the 5a+i movement did not maintain the level o$ its "inner greatness",

b!t legitimi+ed itsel$ with inade!ate &racial( ideology. n other words, what he e)e#ted$rom it was that it should legitimie

itself through dire#t a'areness of its Einner greatnessE. And the problem lies in this very expectation that a political

movement that will directly re$er to its historicoontological $o!ndation is possible. This e)e#tation, however, is in itsel$pro$o!ndly metaphysical, in so $ar as it fails to re#ognie that the ga) se)arating the dire#t ideologi#al legitimiation of amo>ement from its Einner greatnessE&its historicoontological essence( is #onstituti>e a )ositi>e #ondition of its

Efun#tioningE. #o !se the terms o$ the later eidegger,

ontologi#al insight ne#essaril, entails onti# blindness and error and

>i#e >ersa that is to say, in order to be "e$$ective" at the ontic level, one m!st disregard the ontological hori+on o$ one"sactivity. &n this sense, eidegger emphasi+es that "science doesn"t thin" and that, $ar $rom being its limitation, this inability is

the very motor o$ scienti$ic progress.( n other words, 'hat 8eidegger seems unable to endorse is a #on#rete )oliti#al

engagement that 'ould a##e)t its ne#essar, #onstituti>e blindness + as if the moment 'e a#$no'ledge the ga)

se)arating the a'areness of the ontologi#al horion from onti# engagement an, onti# engagement is de)re#iated loses

its authenti# dignit,.

I"comanagerialismJK. 4o in$ / 6e are not the instrumental rationality they describe. ec$ Gac$nowledges that we are a specic instance of rationality to improve upon the

world.


9/104


7. urn / Practical !eason / T+e plan allos 5or a re7ection o5 ends to counter t+e+egemony o5 instrumental reason, t+e cause o5 ad tec+nological t+oug+t.

:i#hard -olin 3istinguished rofessor of 8istor, at the Cit, Gni>ersit, of Ne' Kor$ 7raduate Center.

9. The Politics of Being ).1.

8eideggerEs theor, of te#hnolog,!ltimately #olla)ses under the 'eight of its own sel$imposed concept!al limitations .And

th!s, the intrinsic shortcomings o$ his theoretical $ramewor prevent him $rom entertaining the prospect that the )roblem of

te#hnologi#al domination o'es more to the dearth of reasonin the modern world rather than an e#ess .:or in modern li$e,

the parameters o$ rationality have been premat!rely restricted' $ormal or instrumental reason has attained de fa#to

hegemon,/ practical reasonre$lection on endshas been e$$ectively marginali+ed. (nstead ofthe o>er#omingo$ reason

recommended by eidegger, 'hat is needed is an e)ansion of reasonEs boundaries su#h that the autonomous logi# of

instrumental rationalit, is subordinated to a rational refle#tion on ends.imilarly, 8eideggerEsincessant lamentations

#on#erning the 'ill to 'illthe theoretical prism thro!gh which he views the modern pro%ect o$ h!man sel$assertion in itsentirety onl, ser>e to #onfuse the )roblem at issueJ* #hat the $orces o$ technology and ind!stry $ollow an independent

logic.

. Perm / >o the plan and all part of the alt that don+t e:plicitly re=ect the plan/ *f the alt can theoretically solve case, vote a# / vague alts are bad becausethey+re a shifting target, ma$ing it impossible to win.

12. *mpacts inevitable / Lanagement of nature still happens because of statusMuo policies worse than the plan. urrent companies and individuals are largelydriven by selshness than considerations of their actions+ e#ects on theenvironment.

11. 4o impact / he alt+s one5dimensionality lumps together 6esternrationalism with Stalinism, proving that the plan does not %=ustify all forms of

violence.&

Lu# :erry rofessor of oliti#al S#ien#e Sorbonne andAlain ;ena!t rofessor of hiloso)h, Nantes.

19. 8eidegger and Modernit, trans. &ran$lin hili) . %+%%

:rom this viewpoint, it is $irst o$ all clear, as we have noted, that this criticism o$ technology as the global concreti+ation o$ an

idea o$ man as conscio!sness and will implies, lie it or not, a deconstr!ction o$ democratic remains on and hence, in some

sense, o$ h!manism. t is also clear, however, that 8eideggerEs thin$ing, even $ixed !p this way, #ontinuesin some odd wayto misfire be#ause of its one+dimensionalit,. 0!st as, on the strictly philosophical level, it leads to lum)ing the >arious

fa#ets of modem subBe#ti>it, together in a sha)eless mass andto %!dging that the progression $rom Kescartes to Lant to

5iet+sche is linear and in $act inevitable/ %!st as, on the political level, it leads to the brutal in#lusion of Ameri#an liberalism

in the same #ategor, 'ith Stalinist totalitarianism.5ow this is no mere matter o$ taste' anyone has the right to loathe roc

concerts, Kisney -orld, and Cali$ornia. 5onetheless, no one ma,annah Arendt and Deo tra!ss, who lived in the =nitedtates, did not mae this mistae identif,, in the name o$ a higher a!thority, the barbarism of the So>iet gulags 'ith the

de)ra>ities of a ?estern so#iet, 'hose etraordinar, )oliti#al so#ial and #ultural #om)leit, allo's areas of freedomthat it 'ould be 'holl, un'arranted to Budge a )riori as mere fringes or remnants of a 'orld in de#line.


10/104


1-. urn / Authenticity / he alt is predicated o# of a notion of authenticitythat separates practical reason from human eing5in5the5world.


9. The Politics of Being ).--+-4

Altho!gh an !nderstanding o$ eidegger"s political tho!ght sho!ld in no way be red!ced to the concrete political choices made

by the philosopher in the 193s, neither is it entirely separable there$rom. And while the strategy o$ his apologists has been to

dissociate the philosophy $rom the empirical person, thereby s!ggesting that eidegger"s 5a+ism was an !nessential aberrationin the hope o$ exempting the philosophy $rom political taint, this strategy will not wash $or several reasons. #o begin with,

eidegger"s philosophy itsel$ wo!ld seem to r!le o!t the arti$icial, traditional philosophical separation between tho!ght and

action. n tr!th, m!ch o$ Being and #ime is concerned with overcoming the conventional philosophical division between

theoretical and practical reason/ a $act that is evident above all in the pragmatic point o$ depart!re o$ the analytic o$ Kasein'Beingin theworld rather than the Cartesian thining s!bstance. Fore importantly, tho!gh, what is perhaps the central

category o$8eideggerEs existential ontologythe category o$ authenti#it,EE a!tomatically )re#ludess!ch a fa#ile

se)aration bet'een )hiloso)hi#al outloo$ and #on#rete life+#hoi#es. As a 'or$ of$!ndamental ontolog, "eing and Time

aims at delineating the essential eistential determinants of human "eing+in+the+'orld. eidegger re$ers to thesestr!ct!res &e.g., care, $allenness, thrownness, Beingtowarddeath( as xisten+ialien. #he category o$ authenti#it,

demands thatthe ontologi#al stru#tureso$ Being and #ime re#ei>e )ra#ti#al or onti# fulfillment/ that is, the reali+ation o$these categorial determinations in act!al, concrete li$e contexts is essential to the coherence o$ the eideggerian pro%ect. #his

concl!sion $ollows o$ necessity $rom the nat!re o$ the category o$ a!thenticity itsel$' it 'ould be nonsensi#al to s)ea$ of an

authenti# 3asein that 'as unrealied, existing in a state o$ mere potentiality. Authenti#it, reDuires thatontic or practical

choices and involvements#on#rete de#isions, engagements, and )oliti#al #ommitmentsbe#ome an essential feature of an

authenti# eisten#e.

1?. *mpact / his notion of authenticity =usties the imposition of totalitarian%higher spiritual mission& on those who live everyday lives.

:i#hard -olin 3istinguished rofessor of 8istor, at the Cit, Gni>ersit, of Ne' Kor$ 7raduate Center.9. The Politics of Being ).4

#he political philosophical implications o$ this theory are as !ne!ivocal as they are distaste$!l to a democratic sensibility. *n

the basis ofthe )hiloso)hi#al anthro)olog, outlined b, 8eidegger, the modern conception o$ pop!lar sovereignty becomes

a sheer non se!it!r' $or those 'ho d'ell in the )ubli# s)here of e>er,da,ness are >ie'ed as essentiall, in#a)able of self+

rule.nstead, the onl, >iable )oliti#al )hiloso)h, that follo's from this stand)oint 'ould be braenl, elitist' since the

ma%ority o$ citi+ens remain incapable o$ leading meaning$!l lives when le$t to their own devices, their onl, ho)e for

redem)tion lies in the im)osition of a higher s)iritual mission$rom above. ndeed, this 'as the e)li#it )oliti#al

#on#lusion dra'n b, 8eidegger in 1--. n this way, 8eideggerEs )oliti#al thought mo>es )re#ariousl, in the dire#tion of

the:!hrerprin+ip or leadershi) )rin#i)le.n essence, he reiterates, in eeping with a characteristic antimodern bias, a

strategem drawn $rom Glatonic political philosophy' since the ma%ority o$ men and women are incapable o$ r!ling themselves

inso$ar as they are driven by the base part o$ their so!ls to see a$ter in$erior satis$actions and am!sements, we in e$$ect do

them a service by r!ling them $rom above.**#o date, however, there has never been a satis$actory answer to the !estion Farxposes concerning s!ch theories o$ ed!cational dictatorship' -ho shall ed!cate the ed!catorJM


11/104


2ACMedium

1. )erm * do not+ing in all ot+er instances ecept t+e plan.

-. Perm Solves / he Dhands5o#+ approach of the alt isn+t enough to guaranteealt solvency.








e#os,stems in the reDuisite manner. 1* )$ the many concl!sions one can draw $rom this perhaps the most important is that aEhands+offE a))roa#h ma, not guarantee the t,)es of e#os,stems that man, dee) greens desire. @#os,stemscharacteri+ed

by diversity, balance, and complexity ma, ha>e to be a#ti>el, #reated and managed. The normati>e stand)oint from'hi#h to >ie' so#ial im)a#ts on the en>ironment isnot a "handso$$" position which $rames the iss!e o$ the relation betweensociety and environment in terms o$ "!se" and "non!se", b!t rather that proposed in the last chapter as the Eethi#s of useE 'hi#hattem)ts to distinguish EuseE from EabuseE.)nce this ethical iss!e has been settled, e#ologi#al s#ien#e #an then be used to




experts( can participate in what 0acobs &199' 13( calls "decisionrecommending" rather than decisionmaing instit!tions. #hatis, s!ch $orms o$ pop!lar democratic participation lay o!t the parameters o$ "!se" and "ab!se" in partic!lar cases, that is, the

normative bo!nds o$ environmental management which can then be carried o!t thro!gh state instit!tions.

?. urn / Antihumanism / -etting t+ings e empirically leads to genocide/ only t+e

plan can estalis+ separation eteen ends and means, preenting t+e alts paralyinganti+umanism t+at puts 1 ird oer % million people. 3ont let t+e neg 4usti5y ouretinction impacts ecause o5 an irrational 5ear o5 1AC discourse.

Murra, Boochin &ounder of the (nstitute for So#ial @#olog, and &ormer rofessor at :ama)o College.

19. :e+en#hanting 8umanit, ). 1%+16.

nso$ar as eidegger can be said to have had a pro%ect to shape h!man li$eways, it was as an endeavor to resist, or sho!ld

say, dem!r $rom, what he conceived to he an allencroaching technocratic mentality and civili+ation that rendered h!man

beings "ina!thentic" in their relationship to a pres!mably sel$generative reality, "isness", or more esoterically, "Being" (Sein).5ot!nlie many 6erman reactionaries, 8eidegger viewed 7modernity" with its democratic spirit, rationalism, respect $or the

individ!al, and technological advances as a "$alling" &6e$allen( $rom a primal and naive innocence in which h!manity once

"dwelled,8 remnants o$ which he believed existed in the r!stic world into which he was born a cent!ry ago.

"A!thenticity", it canbe said witho!t any philosophical $rills, lay in the pristine #e!tonic world o$ the tribal 6ermans who retained their ties with7the 6ods8, and with later peoples who still tried to no!rish their past amidst the blighted traits o$ the modern world. ince

some a!thors try to m!ddy eidegger"s prelapsarian message by $oc!sing on his ass!med belie$ in individ!al $reedom and

ignoring his hatred o$ the :rench ;evol!tion and its egalitarian, "herd"lie democracy o$ the "#hey", it is worth emphasi+ing

that s!ch a view withers m the light o$ his denial o$ individ!ality. #he individ!al by himsel$ co!nts $or nothing", he declareda$ter becoming a member o$ the 5ational ocialist party in 1933. "#he $ate o$ o!r


12/104


most !nsavory remars were directed in the lect!res, $rom which these lines are taen, "$rom a metaphysical point o$ view",

against "the pincers" created by America and ;!ssia that threaten to s!ee+e "the $arthermost corner o$ the globe ... by

technology and ... economic exploitation."29#echnology, as eidegger constr!es it, is "no mere means. #echnology is a way o$

revealing. $ we give heed to this, then another whole realm $or the essence o$ technology will open itsel$ !p to !s. t is therealm o$ revealing, i.e., o$ tr!th.83A$ter which eidegger rolls o!t technology"s trans$ormations, indeed m!tations, which give

rise to a mood o$ anxiety and $inally h!bris, anthropocentricity, and the mechanical coercion o$ things into mere ob%ects $orh!man !se and exploitation. eidegger"s views on technology are part o$ a larger weltanscha!!ng which is too m!lticolored to


occ!rs when techne is a "clearing" $or the "expression" o$ a cra$ted material not !nlie the simo sc!lptor who believes &!ite

wrongly, may add( that he is "bringing o!t" a hidden $orm that lies in the walr!s ivory he is carving. B!t this iss!e m!st be






as a h!man activity, an endeavor to let thingsbe

and "disclose" themselves. "Detting things be" wo!ld be little more than a triteFaoist and B!ddhist precept were it not that 8eidegger as a National So#ialist be#ame all too ideologi#all, engaged rather











name o$ the sacred, a phraseology that eidegger wo!ld $ind very congenial were he alive today. ndeed, te#hno)hobia,

$ollowed to its logical and cr!dely primitivistic concl!sions, finall, de>ol>es into a dar$ rea#tionism and a )aral,ingDuietism. &or if our #onfrontation 'ith #i>iliation turns on )assi>it, beforea 7disclosing o$ Being8, a mere 7dwelling8 on



&reed of >alues grounded in obBe#ti>it, 'e are lost in a Duasi+religious antihumanism a s)iritualit, that #an 'ith the

same eDuanimit, hear the #r, of a bird and ignore the anguish of si million on#e+li>ing )eo)le 'ho 'ere )ut to death


E. Perm / >o oth / we can engage in constructive policy while still remainingcritical of what we do.


13/104


G. Perm Solves / T+e searc+ 5or ontological trut+ 5ails ecause e allo atrocities tocontinue * e must use rationality to improe t+e status 6uo ut remain critical o5 ourprocess.

Sla>oB Ii+e Senior :esear#her at the (nstitute for So#ial S#ien#es in LBublBana 199. The Ti#$lishSubBe#t ). 1-+15.


p!blished hoo was on eidegger and lang!age(. -hen, in my yo!th, was bombarded by the o$$icial Comm!nist

philosophers" stories o$ eidegger"s 5a+i engagement, they le$t me rather cold/ was de$initely more on the side o$ the

H!goslav eideggarians. All o$ a s!dden, however, became aware o$ how these H!goslav eideggarians were doing exactlythe sa!ce thing with respect to the H!goslav ideology o$ sel$management as eidegger himsel$ did with respect to 5a+ism' in

exH!goslavia, eideggerians entertained the same ambig!o!sly assertive relationship towards ocialist sel$ management, the

o$$icial ideology o$ the Comm!nist regime in their eyes, the essence o$ sellmanagement was the very essence o$ modern

man, which is why the philosophical notion o$ sel$managemrnt s!its the ontological essence o$ o!r epoch, while the standardpolitical ideology o$ the regime misses this "inner greatness" o$ sel$management ... 8eideggerians areth!s eternall, in sear#hof a )ositi>e onti# )oliti#al s,stem that 'ould #ome #losest to the e)o#hal ontologi#al truth, a strategy 'hi#h ine>itabl,

leads to error&which, o$ co!rse, is always a#$no'ledged onl,retroactively, post $act!m, after the disastrous out#ome ofoneEs engagement(. As eidegger himsel$ p!t it, those who carne closest to the )ntological #r!th are condemned to err at theontic level ... err abo!t whatJ Grecisely abo!t the line o$ separation between ontic and ontological. The )aradonot to be

!nderestimated is that the >er, )hiloso)herwho $oc!sed his interest on the enigma o$ ontological di$$erence 'ho 'arned

again and again against the meta)h,si#al mista$e of #onferring ontologi#al dignit, on some onti# #ontent&6od as the

highest ntity, $or example( fell into the tra) of #onferring on Naism the ontologi#al dignit, of suiting the essen#e of

modern man. #he standard de$ence o$ eidegger against the reproach o$ his 5a+i past consists o$ two points' not only was his

5a+i engagement a simple personal error &a 7st!pidity >K!mmheit?", as eidegger himsel$ p!t it( in no way inherently related to

his philosophical pro%ect/ the main co!nterarg!ment is that it is eidegger"s own philosophy that enables !s to discern the tr!e

epochal roots o$ modern totalitarianism. owever, 'hat remains unthoughthere is the hidden #om)li#it, bet'een the

ontologi#al indifferen#e to'ards #on#rete so#ial s,stems&capitalism, :ascism. Comm!nism(, in so $ar as they all belong to

the same hori+on o$ modern technology, and the se#ret )ri>ileging of a #on#rete so#io)oliti#al model&5a+ism with

eidegger, Comm!nism with some "eideggerian Farxists"( as closer to the ontological tr!th o$ o!r epoch. ere one sho!ld

avoid the trap that ca!ght eidegger"s de$enders, who dismissed eidegger8s 5a+i engagement as simple an anomaly, a $allinto the ontic level, in blatant contradiction to his tho!ght, which teaches !s not to con$!se ontological hori+on with ontic

choices &as we have already seen, eidegger is at his strongest when he demonstrates how, on a deeper str!ct!ral level,


what they p!rport to re%ect' the ecological criti!e o$ the technological exploitation o$ nat!re !ltimately leads to a more"environmentally so!nd" technology. etc.(. eidegger did not engage in the 5a+i political pro%ect "in spite o$" his ontological

philosophical approach, b!t beca!se o$ it/ this engagement was not "beneath" his philosophical level on the contrary i$ one is

to !nderstand eidegger, the ey point is to grasp the complicity &in egelese' "spec!lative identity"( between the elevation

above ontic concerns and the passionate "ontic" 5a+i political engagement. )ne can now see the ideological trap that ca!ghteidegger' when he critici+es 5a+i racism on behal$ o$ the tr!e "inner greatness" o$ the 5a+i movement, he repeats the

elementary ideological gest!re o$ maintaining an inner distance towards the ideological text o$ claiming that there is


Ca!se we adhere to is not "merely" ideological. o where is the trapJ -hen the disappointed 8eideggert!rns away $rom activeengagement in the 5a+i movement, he does so beca!se the 5a+i movement did not maintain the level o$ its "inner greatness",

b!t legitimi+ed itsel$ with inade!ate &racial( ideology. n other words, what he e)e#ted$rom it was that it should legitimieitself through dire#t a'areness of its Einner greatnessE. And the problem lies in this very expectation that a political


Efun#tioningE. #o !se the terms o$ the later eidegger, ontologi#al insight ne#essaril, entails onti# blindness and error and

>i#e >ersa that is to say, in order to be "e$$ective" at the ontic level, one m!st disregard the ontological hori+on o$ one"sactivity. &n this sense, eidegger emphasi+es that "science doesn"t thin" and that, $ar $rom being its limitation, this inability is




14/104




I"comanagerialismJH. 4o in$ / 6e are not the instrumental rationality they describe. ec$ G

ac$nowledges that we are a specic instance of rationality to improve upon theworld. er#omingo$ reason


instrumental rationalit, is subordinated to a rational refle#tion on ends.imilarly, 8eideggerEsincessant lamentations#on#erning the 'ill to 'illthe theoretical prism thro!gh which he views the modern pro%ect o$ h!man sel$assertion in its

entirety onl, ser>e to #onfuse the )roblem at issueJ* #hat the $orces o$ technology and ind!stry $ollow an independent

logic.

. Perm / >o the plan and all part of the alt that don+t e:plicitly re=ect the plan/ *f the alt can theoretically solve case, vote a# / vague alts are bad becausethey+re a shifting target, ma$ing it impossible to win.


15/104


2ACShort

1. Perm / >o oth / we can engage in constructive policy while still remainingcritical of what we do.

-. Perm Solves / T+e searc+ 5or ontological trut+ 5ails ecause e allo atrocities tocontinue * e must use rationality to improe t+e status 6uo ut remain critical o5 ourprocess.

Sla>oB Ii+e Senior :esear#her at the (nstitute for So#ial S#ien#es in LBublBana 199. The Ti#$lishSubBe#t ). 1-+15.

Apropos o$ this precise point, mysel$ r!n into my $irst tro!ble with eidegger &since began as a eideggerian my $irstp!blished hoo was on eidegger and lang!age(. -hen, in my yo!th, was bombarded by the o$$icial Comm!nist

philosophers" stories o$ eidegger"s 5a+i engagement, they le$t me rather cold/ was de$initely more on the side o$ the

H!goslav eideggarians. All o$ a s!dden, however, became aware o$ how these H!goslav eideggarians were doing exactly

the sa!ce thing with respect to the H!goslav ideology o$ sel$management as eidegger himsel$ did with respect to 5a+ism' inexH!goslavia, eideggerians entertained the same ambig!o!sly assertive relationship towards ocialist sel$ management, the

o$$icial ideology o$ the Comm!nist regime in their eyes, the essence o$ sellmanagement was the very essence o$ modern

man, which is why the philosophical notion o$ sel$managemrnt s!its the ontological essence o$ o!r epoch, while the standard


of a )ositi>e onti# )oliti#al s,stem that 'ould #ome #losest to the e)o#hal ontologi#al truth, a strategy 'hi#h ine>itabl,leads to error&which, o$ co!rse, is always a#$no'ledged onl,retroactively, post $act!m, after the disastrous out#ome of

oneEs engagement(. As eidegger himsel$ p!t it, those who carne closest to the )ntological #r!th are condemned to err at the

ontic level ... err abo!t whatJ Grecisely abo!t the line o$ separation between ontic and ontological. The )aradonot to be!nderestimated is that the >er, )hiloso)herwho $oc!sed his interest on the enigma o$ ontological di$$erence 'ho 'arnedagain and again against the meta)h,si#al mista$e of #onferring ontologi#al dignit, on some onti# #ontent&6od as the

highest ntity, $or example( fell into the tra) of #onferring on Naism the ontologi#al dignit, of suiting the essen#e of

modern man. #he standard de$ence o$ eidegger against the reproach o$ his 5a+i past consists o$ two points' not only was his5a+i engagement a simple personal error &a 7st!pidity >K!mmheit?", as eidegger himsel$ p!t it( in no way inherently related to

his philosophical pro%ect/ the main co!nterarg!ment is that it is eidegger"s own philosophy that enables !s to discern the tr!eepochal roots o$ modern totalitarianism. owever, 'hat remains unthoughthere is the hidden #om)li#it, bet'een the

ontologi#al indifferen#e to'ards #on#rete so#ial s,stems&capitalism, :ascism. Comm!nism(, in so $ar as they all belong tothe same hori+on o$ modern technology, and the se#ret )ri>ileging of a #on#rete so#io)oliti#al model&5a+ism with

eidegger, Comm!nism with some "eideggerian Farxists"( as closer to the ontological tr!th o$ o!r epoch. ere one sho!ld

avoid the trap that ca!ght eidegger"s de$enders, who dismissed eidegger8s 5a+i engagement as simple an anomaly, a $all

into the ontic level, in blatant contradiction to his tho!ght, which teaches !s not to con$!se ontological hori+on with onticchoices &as we have already seen, eidegger is at his strongest when he demonstrates how, on a deeper str!ct!ral level,


what they p!rport to re%ect' the ecological criti!e o$ the technological exploitation o$ nat!re !ltimately leads to a more

"environmentally so!nd" technology. etc.(. eidegger did not engage in the 5a+i political pro%ect "in spite o$" his ontologicalphilosophical approach, b!t beca!se o$ it/ this engagement was not "beneath" his philosophical level on the contrary i$ one is

to !nderstand eidegger, the ey point is to grasp the complicity &in egelese' "spec!lative identity"( between the elevation

above ontic concerns and the passionate "ontic" 5a+i political engagement. )ne can now see the ideological trap that ca!ghteidegger' when he critici+es 5a+i racism on behal$ o$ the tr!e "inner greatness" o$ the 5a+i movement, he repeats theelementary ideological gest!re o$ maintaining an inner distance towards the ideological text o$ claiming that there is


Ca!se we adhere to is not "merely" ideological. o where is the trapJ -hen the disappointed 8eideggert!rns away $rom active

engagement in the 5a+i movement, he does so beca!se the 5a+i movement did not maintain the level o$ its "inner greatness",b!t legitimi+ed itsel$ with inade!ate &racial( ideology. n other words, what he e)e#ted$rom it was that it should legitimieitself through dire#t a'areness of its Einner greatnessE. And the problem lies in this very expectation that a political


Efun#tioningE. #o !se the terms o$ the later eidegger, ontologi#al insight ne#essaril, entails onti# blindness and error and


16/104


>i#e >ersa that is to say, in order to be "e$$ective" at the ontic level, one m!st disregard the ontological hori+on o$ one"s

activity. &n this sense, eidegger emphasi+es that "science doesn"t thin" and that, $ar $rom being its limitation, this inability is





I"comanagerialismJ?. 4o in$ / 6e are not the instrumental rationality they describe. ec$ Gac$nowledges that we are a specic instance of rationality to improve upon the

world.


17/104


realm o$ revealing, i.e., o$ tr!th.83A$ter which eidegger rolls o!t technology"s trans$ormations, indeed m!tations, which give

rise to a mood o$ anxiety and $inally h!bris, anthropocentricity, and the mechanical coercion o$ things into mere ob%ects $or

h!man !se and exploitation. eidegger"s views on technology are part o$ a larger weltanscha!!ng which is too m!lticolored to


occ!rs when techne is a "clearing" $or the "expression" o$ a cra$ted material not !nlie the simo sc!lptor who believes &!itewrongly, may add( that he is "bringing o!t" a hidden $orm that lies in the walr!s ivory he is carving. B!t this iss!e m!st be






as a h!man activity, an endeavor to let things be and "disclose" themselves. "Detting things be" wo!ld be little more than a trite

Faoist and B!ddhist precept were it not that 8eidegger as a National So#ialist be#ame all too ideologi#all, engaged rather











name o$ the sacred, a phraseology that eidegger wo!ld $ind very congenial were he alive today. ndeed, te#hno)hobia,$ollowed to its logical and cr!dely primitivistic concl!sions, finall, de>ol>es into a dar$ rea#tionism and a )aral,ingDuietism. &or if our #onfrontation 'ith #i>iliation turns on )assi>it, beforea 7disclosing o$ Being8, a mere 7dwelling8 on



&reed of >alues grounded in obBe#ti>it, 'e are lost in a Duasi+religious antihumanism a s)iritualit, that #an 'ith thesame eDuanimit, hear the #r, of a bird and ignore the anguish of si million on#e+li>ing )eo)le 'ho 'ere )ut to death


H. urn / Practical !eason / T+e plan allos 5or a re7ection o5 ends to counter t+e+egemony o5 instrumental reason, t+e cause o5 ad tec+nological t+oug+t.


9. The Politics of Being ).1.

8eideggerEs theor, of te#hnolog,!ltimately #olla)ses under the 'eight of its own sel$imposed concept!al limitations .And

th!s, the intrinsic shortcomings o$ his theoretical $ramewor prevent him $rom entertaining the prospect that the )roblem of

te#hnologi#al domination o'es more to the dearth of reasonin the modern world rather than an e#ess .:or in modern li$e,the parameters o$ rationality have been premat!rely restricted' $ormal or instrumental reason has attained de fa#to

hegemon,/ practical reasonre$lection on endshas been e$$ectively marginali+ed. (nstead ofthe o>er#omingo$ reason


instrumental rationalit, is subordinated to a rational refle#tion on ends.imilarly, 8eideggerEsincessant lamentations

#on#erning the 'ill to 'illthe theoretical prism thro!gh which he views the modern pro%ect o$ h!man sel$assertion in itsentirety onl, ser>e to #onfuse the )roblem at issueJ* #hat the $orces o$ technology and ind!stry $ollow an independent

logic.


18/104


2ACJunaids Bloc

1. )erm * do not+ing in all ot+er instances ecept t+e plan

-. he hands5o# anarchist approach of the alt is not enough to guarantee thesolvency claimed by the alternative








e#os,stems in the reDuisite manner. 1* )$ the many concl!sions one can draw $rom this perhaps the most important is that a

Ehands+offE a))roa#h ma, not guarantee the t,)es of e#os,stems that man, dee) greens desire. @#os,stemscharacteri+edby diversity, balance, and complexity ma, ha>e to be a#ti>el, #reated and managed. The normati>e stand)oint from

'hi#h to >ie' so#ial im)a#ts on the en>ironment isnot a "handso$$" position which $rames the iss!e o$ the relation betweensociety and environment in terms o$ "!se" and "non!se", b!t rather that proposed in the last chapter as the Eethi#s of useE 'hi#hattem)ts to distinguish EuseE from EabuseE.)nce this ethical iss!e has been settled, e#ologi#al s#ien#e #an then be used to




experts( can participate in what 0acobs &199' 13( calls "decisionrecommending" rather than decisionmaing instit!tions. #hat

is, s!ch $orms o$ pop!lar democratic participation lay o!t the parameters o$ "!se" and "ab!se" in partic!lar cases, that is, thenormative bo!nds o$ environmental management which can then be carried o!t thro!gh state instit!tions.

". Alternatie doesn8t sole t+e case * doing not+ing ill only perpetuate poerty andinstaility ia natural disasters. Terrorists ill arm * making etinction ineitale

#. )erm * do ot+ * e can engage in constructie policy to address constant issues ute can continue to e critical o5 +at e do.

$. )erm soles * t+e searc+ 5or ontological trut+ 5ails ecause e allo atrocities tocontinue9 e must use rationality to improe t+e status 6uo ut remain critical o5 ourprocess

Sla>oB Ii+e Senior :esear#her at the (nstitute for So#ial S#ien#es in LBublBana 199. The Ti#$lish

SubBe#t ). 1-+15.


p!blished hoo was on eidegger and lang!age(. -hen, in my yo!th, was bombarded by the o$$icial Comm!nistphilosophers" stories o$ eidegger"s 5a+i engagement, they le$t me rather cold/ was de$initely more on the side o$ the

H!goslav eideggarians. All o$ a s!dden, however, became aware o$ how these H!goslav eideggarians were doing exactly

the sa!ce thing with respect to the H!goslav ideology o$ sel$management as eidegger himsel$ did with respect to 5a+ism' in

exH!goslavia, eideggerians entertained the same ambig!o!sly assertive relationship towards ocialist sel$ management, theo$$icial ideology o$ the Comm!nist regime in their eyes, the essence o$ sellmanagement was the very essence o$ modern

man, which is why the philosophical notion o$ sel$managemrnt s!its the ontological essence o$ o!r epoch, while the standard


of a )ositi>e onti# )oliti#al s,stem that 'ould #ome #losest to the e)o#hal ontologi#al truth, a strategy 'hi#h ine>itabl,


19/104


leads to error&which, o$ co!rse, is always a#$no'ledged onl,retroactively, post $act!m, after the disastrous out#ome ofoneEs engagement(. As eidegger himsel$ p!t it, those who carne closest to the )ntological #r!th are condemned to err at the

ontic level ... err abo!t whatJ Grecisely abo!t the line o$ separation between ontic and ontological. The )aradonot to be

!nderestimated is that the >er, )hiloso)herwho $oc!sed his interest on the enigma o$ ontological di$$erence 'ho 'arned

again and again against the meta)h,si#al mista$e of #onferring ontologi#al dignit, on some onti# #ontent&6od as the

highest ntity, $or example( fell into the tra) of #onferring on Naism the ontologi#al dignit, of suiting the essen#e ofmodern man. #he standard de$ence o$ eidegger against the reproach o$ his 5a+i past consists o$ two points' not only was his

5a+i engagement a simple personal error &a 7st!pidity >K!mmheit?", as eidegger himsel$ p!t it( in no way inherently related tohis philosophical pro%ect/ the main co!nterarg!ment is that it is eidegger"s own philosophy that enables !s to discern the tr!e

epochal roots o$ modern totalitarianism. owever, 'hat remains unthoughthere is the hidden #om)li#it, bet'een the

ontologi#al indifferen#e to'ards #on#rete so#ial s,stems&capitalism, :ascism. Comm!nism(, in so $ar as they all belong to

the same hori+on o$ modern technology, and the se#ret )ri>ileging of a #on#rete so#io)oliti#al model&5a+ism witheidegger, Comm!nism with some "eideggerian Farxists"( as closer to the ontological tr!th o$ o!r epoch. ere one sho!ld

avoid the trap that ca!ght eidegger"s de$enders, who dismissed eidegger8s 5a+i engagement as simple an anomaly, a $all

into the ontic level, in blatant contradiction to his tho!ght, which teaches !s not to con$!se ontological hori+on with ontic

choices &as we have already seen, eidegger is at his strongest when he demonstrates how, on a deeper str!ct!ral level,ecological, conservative, and so on, oppositions to the modern !niverse o$ technology are already embedded in the hori+on o$

what they p!rport to re%ect' the ecological criti!e o$ the technological exploitation o$ nat!re !ltimately leads to a more

"environmentally so!nd" technology. etc.(. eidegger did not engage in the 5a+i political pro%ect "in spite o$" his ontologicalphilosophical approach, b!t beca!se o$ it/ this engagement was not "beneath" his philosophical level on the contrary i$ one isto !nderstand eidegger, the ey point is to grasp the complicity &in egelese' "spec!lative identity"( between the elevation

above ontic concerns and the passionate "ontic" 5a+i political engagement. )ne can now see the ideological trap that ca!ght

eidegger' when he critici+es 5a+i racism on behal$ o$ the tr!e "inner greatness" o$ the 5a+i movement, he repeats the

elementary ideological gest!re o$ maintaining an inner distance towards the ideological text o$ claiming that there issomething more beneath it, a nonideological ernel' ideology exerts its hold over !s by means o$ this very insistence that the

Ca!se we adhere to is not "merely" ideological. o where is the trapJ -hen the disappointed 8eideggert!rns away $rom active

engagement in the 5a+i movement, he does so beca!se the 5a+i movement did not maintain the level o$ its "inner greatness",

b!t legitimi+ed itsel$ with inade!ate &racial( ideology. n other words, what he e)e#ted$rom it was that it should legitimie

itself through dire#t a'areness of its Einner greatnessE. And the problem lies in this very expectation that a political

movement that will directly re$er to its historicoontological $o!ndation is possible. This e)e#tation, however, is in itsel$

pro$o!ndly metaphysical, in so $ar as it fails to re#ognie that the ga) se)arating the dire#t ideologi#al legitimiation of a

mo>ement from its Einner greatnessE&its historicoontological essence( is #onstituti>e a )ositi>e #ondition of its

Efun#tioningE. #o !se the terms o$ the later eidegger, ontologi#al insight ne#essaril, entails onti# blindness and error and>i#e >ersa that is to say, in order to be "e$$ective" at the ontic level, one m!st disregard the ontological hori+on o$ one"s

activity. &n this sense, eidegger emphasi+es that "science doesn"t thin" and that, $ar $rom being its limitation, this inability is





%. We aren8t t+e instrumental rationality t+ey descrie * e are a specifc instance o5rationality to improe t+e orld * t+e 1ac is an opening step to prooke discussion *t+eir eidence assumes a orld in +ic+ e re5use to discuss our rationality


20/104


21/104


2ACFramewor

1. Framewor$/Allow us to weigh our impacts against the B.A. 'ateway issues allow contradiction/they can contradict themselves

on di#erent levels.. *nnitely regressive/there can be an innite number of

representations we+d have to get through.. "ducation/lac$ of plan focus turns into vague alt+s and incentivies

theory to win.>. urden of re=oiner/as the team spea$ing rst, we deserve the right

to pic$ framewor$". "rr a# on theory/there is a @N'" neg bloc$ imbalance already.

-. ist :elati>ismI originall, )rinted in Criti#al Thin$ingJ &o#us on

So#ial and Cultural (nDuir, 110 ed. ?end, *man+Mi#helli and Mar$ ?einstein ). 1+2.

htt)J//has#all.#olgate.edu/B'agner/3o'nload&iles/:e>olt.do# Ta$umi Mura,ama

#hese artic!lations are o$ten associated with the doctrines o$ postmodernism, postpositivism and m!ltic!lt!ralism. hope to

show these claims are inde$ensible on epistemic, moral, and political gro!nds. intend to challenge progressive thiners to

consider how relativism ill serves and dishonors their ends and to see how trans#ultural and ahistori#al #laims of reason #an

be ad>an#ed as uni>ersall, and obBe#ti>el, true 'hile also den,ing that human beings #an o##u), a godEs e,e )oint of

>ie'. :inally, wish to show that despite $irm ass!rances abo!t the death o$ uni>ersalism and obBe#ti>it,, these standardsare ne#essar, for an, #oherent e)istemi# )osition and essential for an,one 'ho )res#ribes an obligation to honor

)res#ri)tions for eDualit, Busti#e and the mutualit, of res)e#t.#o see the de$ects o$ postmodern relativism it is necessary to see the $ail!re o$ relativism in its simplest and most ancient $orm.

n its simplest $orm, relati>ismasserts the inherent s!b%ectivity o$ each individ!al"s claims. Het despite the rec!rrent

pop!larity o$ s!b%ectivism, it is onl, an etreme and unso)histi#ated egoism that ine>itabl, #olla)ses into soli)sism.

Artic!late postmodern defenders of relati>ism reBe#t it as irremediabl, fla'ed&Barnes and Bloor 19@, Lra!s+ 19@9, alsosee iegal 19@9(. #hey appreciate that meaningful dis#ourse reDuires transindi>idual )resum)tions of truth right andobBe#ti>it,, and that relativism can only be de$ended by employing what will call, $ramewor relativism. #he claim that

val!es as tr!th, meaning$!lness, rightness, reasonableness, appropriateness, aptness, or the lie are relative to the contexts in

which they appear . . . ;elativism denies the viability o$ gro!nding the pertinent claims in ahistorical, ac!lt!ral, or absol!tistterms. &Lra!s+ 19@9, 1(


22/104



23/104


No !m"act#ne$dimensionalit%

he alt+s one5dimensionality lumps together 6estern rationalism withStalinism, proving that the plan does not %=ustify all forms of violence.&

Lu# :erry rofessor of oliti#al S#ien#e Sorbonne andAlain ;ena!t rofessor of hiloso)h, Nantes.

19. 8eidegger and Modernit, trans. &ran$lin hili) . %+%%

:rom this viewpoint, it is $irst o$ all clear, as we have noted, that this criticism o$ technology as the global concreti+ation o$ an

idea o$ man as conscio!sness and will implies, lie it or not, a deconstr!ction o$ democratic remains on and hence, in somesense, o$ h!manism. t is also clear, however, that 8eideggerEs thin$ing, even $ixed !p this way, #ontinuesin some odd wayto misfire be#ause of its one+dimensionalit,. 0!st as, on the strictly philosophical level, it leads to lum)ing the >arious

fa#ets of modem subBe#ti>it, together in a sha)eless mass andto %!dging that the progression $rom Kescartes to Lant to

5iet+sche is linear and in $act inevitable/ %!st as, on the political level, it leads to the brutal in#lusion of Ameri#an liberalism

in the same #ategor, 'ith Stalinist totalitarianism.5ow this is no mere matter o$ taste' anyone has the right to loathe roc

concerts, Kisney -orld, and Cali$ornia. 5onetheless, no one ma,annah Arendt and Deo tra!ss, who lived in the =nited

tates, did not mae this mistae identif,, in the name o$ a higher a!thority, the barbarism of the So>iet gulags 'ith the

de)ra>ities of a ?estern so#iet, 'hose etraordinar, )oliti#al so#ial and #ultural #om)leit, allo's areas of freedomthat it 'ould be 'holl, un'arranted to Budge a )riori as mere fringes or remnants of a 'orld in de#line.


24/104


No !m"act&urit%

4o *mpact / 4o one forgets eing, preventing a view of 4ature as pure Dstoc$.+

"runo Dato!r )rofessor of so#iolog, S#hool of Mines. 19. ?e 8a>e Ne>er "een Modern trans. orter

). 5+. Ta$umi Mura,ama

B!t immediately the philosopher loses this wellintentioned simplicity. -hyJ ronically, he himsel$ indicates the reason $or

this, in an apolog!e on eraclit!s who !sed to tae shelter in a baer8s oven. 7inai gar ai enta!tha theo!s8 E 7here, too, thegods are present,8 said eraclit!s to visitors who were astonished to see him warming his poor carcass lie an ordinary mortal

&eidegger, 19**b, p. 233(. 7A!ch hier nNmlich wesen 6Otter am.8 B!t 8eideggeris taen in as m!ch as those naive visitors,

since he and his e)igones do not e)e#t to find "eing e#e)t along the "la#$ &orestol+wege. "eing #annot reside in

ordinar, beings.verywhere, there is desert. #he gods #annot reside in te#hnolog,E that p!re n$raming &Iimmerman,199( o$ being >6etell?, that inel!ctable $ate >6eshic?, that s!preme danger >6e$ahr?. #hey are not to be so!ght in science,

either, since science has no other essence b!t that o$ technology &eidegger, 19**b(. #hey are absent $rom politics, sociology,

psychology, anthropology, history E which is the history o$ being, and co!nts its epochs in millennia. #he gods cannot reside in

economics E that p!re calc!lation $orever mired in beings and worry. #hey are not to be $o!nd in philosophy, either, or inontology, both o$ which lost sight o$ their destiny 2, years ago. #h!s eidegger treats the modern world as the visitors treat

eraclit!s' with contempt.And ,et Fhere too the gods are )resent!J in a h,droele#tri# )lant on the ban$s of the :hine in subatomi# )arti#les, in

Adidas shoes as well as in the old wooden clogs hollowed o!t by hand, in agrib!siness as well as in timeworn landscapes, inshopeepers8 calc!lations as well as in Olderlin8s heartrending verse. B!t why do those philosophers no longer recogni+e

themJ Beca!se they believe what the modern Constit!tion says abo!t itsel$P #his paradox sho!ld no longer astonish !s. #hemodernsindeed de#lare that te#hnolog, is nothing but )ure instrumental master,, science p!re n$raming and p!re

tamping >Kas 6etell?, that economics is p!re calc!lation, capitalism, p!re reprod!ction, the s!b%ect p!re conscio!sness,G!rity everywhereP #hey claim this, b!t we m!st be care$!l not to tae them at their word, since 'hat the, are asserting isonl, halfo$ the modern world, the 'or$ of )urifi#ation that distilswhat the wor o$ h,bridiations!pplies.?ho has forgotten "eingO No one, no one ever has, other'ise Nature 'ould betr!ly a>ailable asa )ure Fsto#$!.Doo

aro!nd yo!' scienti$ic ob%ects are circ!lating sim!ltaneo!sly as s!b%ects and disco!rse. 5etwors are $!ll o$ Being. As $ormachines, they are laden with s

Documents

At Heidegger Alternative Energy DDI KO 2008