Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011

USS Reliant

1 Astronoetics

Heidegger Kritik
Heidegger Kritik.........................................................................................................................................................1

Heidegger Kritik............................................................................................................................ 1
1NC.............................................................................................................................................................................6

1N ..................................................................................................................................................!
***Links***................................................................................................................................................................9

"""#inks"""....................................................................................................................................$
Arendt in Space.........................................................................................................................................................10

Arendt in S%ace............................................................................................................................10
Technological Space.................................................................................................................................................12

&ec'nological S%ace.....................................................................................................................12
Space !ploration.....................................................................................................................................................1"

S%ace ()%loration........................................................................................................................1*
Technolog#................................................................................................................................................................1$

&ec'nolog+....................................................................................................................................1,
arth%&orld...............................................................................................................................................................16

(art'-.orld................................................................................................................................. 1!
'istance (Har)an*....................................................................................................................................................1+

Distance /Har0an1.......................................................................................................................12
Necessit#...................................................................................................................................................................19

Necessit+........................................................................................................................................1$
Science......................................................................................................................................................................21

Science...........................................................................................................................................21
Kno,ledge-.rod/ction.............................................................................................................................................2"

Kno3ledge45roduction................................................................................................................2*
Hege)on#.................................................................................................................................................................26

Hege0on+..................................................................................................................................... 2!
Hege)on# 0od/le....................................................................................................................................................21

Hege0on+ 6odule....................................................................................................................... 27
cono)#...................................................................................................................................................................29

(cono0+........................................................................................................................................2$
.ri2ati3ation..............................................................................................................................................................40

5ri8atization................................................................................................................................. 90
'e2elop)ent.............................................................................................................................................................41

De8elo%0ent.................................................................................................................................91

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011
USS Reliant

2 Astronoetics

5ree &ill...................................................................................................................................................................44

:ree .ill....................................................................................................................................... 99
n2iron)ent..............................................................................................................................................................4"

(n8iron0ent.................................................................................................................................9*
thics.........................................................................................................................................................................4$

(t'ics.............................................................................................................................................9, 6ars olonization........................................................................................................................9!
A%T6 Link T/rn..........................................................................................................................................................41

A-&; #ink &urn............................................................................................................................ 97
A%T6 Link T/rn (7aia H#pothesis*............................................................................................................................4+

A-&; #ink &urn /Gaia H+%ot'esis1.............................................................................................92
A%T6 Link T/rn (82er2ie, 99ect*............................................................................................................................49

A-&; #ink &urn /<8er8ie3 (==ect1............................................................................................. 9$
A%T6 .er)/tation (:ntelligi;ilit#*.............................................................................................................................."0

A-&; 5er0utation /Intelligibilit+1...............................................................................................*0
A%T6 .er)/tation (Cro,d-8/t*................................................................................................................................."1

A-&; 5er0utation / ro3d4<ut1..................................................................................................*1
A%T6 .er)/tation (A/seinanderset3/ng*.................................................................................................................."2

A-&; 5er0utation /Auseinandersetzung1...................................................................................*2
A%T6 .er)/tation (A/seinanderset3/ng*.................................................................................................................."4

A-&; 5er0utation /Auseinandersetzung1...................................................................................*9
***:nternal Links***................................................................................................................................................""

"""Internal #inks"""...................................................................................................................**
Technolog# < =ed/cti2e..........................................................................................................................................."$

&ec'nolog+ > Reducti8e.............................................................................................................. *,
n9ra)ing.................................................................................................................................................................."6

(n=ra0ing.....................................................................................................................................*!
Calc/lation................................................................................................................................................................"1

alculation....................................................................................................................................*7
All o9 the A;o2e........................................................................................................................................................"+

All o= t'e Abo8e............................................................................................................................*2
All o9 the A;o2e> pt. 2..............................................................................................................................................."9

All o= t'e Abo8e? %t. 2.................................................................................................................. *$
***:)pacts***..........................................................................................................................................................$0

"""I0%acts"""..............................................................................................................................,0
Atrocit#.....................................................................................................................................................................$1

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011
USS Reliant

9 Astronoetics

Atrocit+......................................................................................................................................... ,1
?ero .oint..................................................................................................................................................................$2

@ero 5oint..................................................................................................................................... ,2
8ntological 'a)nation.............................................................................................................................................$4

<ntological Da0nation................................................................................................................,9
!tinction..................................................................................................................................................................$"

()tinction......................................................................................................................................,*
Standing-=eser2e......................................................................................................................................................$$

Standing4Reser8e......................................................................................................................... ,,
!t @ Standing =eser2e ............................................................................................................................................$6

()t A Standing Reser8e ...............................................................................................................,!
'isposa;le 7lo;e......................................................................................................................................................$+

Dis%osable Globe..........................................................................................................................,2
&ar............................................................................................................................................................................$9

.ar................................................................................................................................................,$
No Sol2enc#..............................................................................................................................................................60

No Sol8enc+...................................................................................................................................!0
***Alternati2e%5ra)ing***......................................................................................................................................61

"""Alternati8e-:ra0ing"""........................................................................................................ !1
CritiA/e......................................................................................................................................................................62

ritiBue.........................................................................................................................................!2
CritiA/e Ke#..............................................................................................................................................................64

ritiBue Ke+................................................................................................................................. !9
CritiA/e Sol2es .olic#)aking...................................................................................................................................6"

ritiBue Sol8es 5olic+0aking.....................................................................................................!*
BCDE.........................................................................................................................................................................6$

CUDE..............................................................................................................................................!,
'o Nothing................................................................................................................................................................66

Do Not'ing....................................................................................................................................!!
Nat/ral =eintegration................................................................................................................................................61

Natural Reintegration..................................................................................................................!7
8ntolog# 5irst @ 7eneral...........................................................................................................................................6+

<ntolog+ :irst A General.............................................................................................................!2
8ntolog# 5irst @ .rereA/isite....................................................................................................................................69

<ntolog+ :irst A 5rereBuisite......................................................................................................!$
8ntolog# 5irst @ Fal/e..............................................................................................................................................10

...........................29 Link T/rn (.......2............72 A%T6 Heidegger < Na3i..........+1 No #ink A &ec'nolog+......+1 A-&. Heidegger > Nazi.......... Link T/rn @ Critical Technolog# ......................................................................+" #ink &urn /5'eno0enolog+1...............7$ A%T6 Heidegger < Na3i..................................................................................................................................+9 5er0utation / ritical &ec'nolog+1.......7...................... A%T6 Technolog# :ne2ita........................................ 5olic+0aking Good.............................................+0 A-&......................................................................................................................................................................eGre all deadE.......................16 A-&........................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 A%T6 Heidegger < Na3i..........19 A-&.............................................................................................................................................ositi2is)*..............................................................................................................................................................er)/tation (..................................................................................................................................................................................................................er)/tation (Critical Technolog#*..................heno)enolog#*........................................................................................................................................................ 72 5ra)e..........+$ #ink &urn /5'eno0enolog+1.ers***.....................77 A%T6 Heidegger < Na3i..........................................91 5er0utation /5ositi8is01......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................rag)atis)*........................2* Link T/rn (................................................................................. Heidegger > Nazi..............................................................................................$1 .................................11 A-&....................... &ec'nolog+ Ine8itable.............................................92 5er0utation Net4Hene=it /Nazis01...............................ork B............................ropositionsE...................le................................................................................90 5er0utation /5rag0atis01......................................................................70 A-&...............................................er)/tation Net-Hene9it (Na3is)*............................................................................................................................ $2 .................................12 A-&..........................................................+4 """A==ir0ati8e Ans3ers"""..............................................................................................................+6 #ink &urn A ritical &ec'nolog+ ................................................heno)enolog#*..................... 2$ ...........................................................71 A%T6 .....................................................................................................................7! A%T6 BCanGt ha2e 2al/e to li9e i9 ..Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant * Astronoetics <ntolog+ :irst A Falue........................................................................................................................................................................................ C anGt 'a8e 8alue to li=e i= 3eGre all deadE...................................................................21 ***A99ir)ati2e Ans................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Heidegger > Nazi.... Heidegger > Nazi..........................................27 ... $0 .....................................2! No Link @ Technolog#............................................1$ :ra0e3ork C5ro%ositionsE...........................................................olic#)aking < d/cation............................................................................................................er)/tation (........................................................................... 5olic+0aking > (ducation...........................1+ A-&.........................................................................................

......................9$ 5ositi8is0 Good /5olitics1...............................heno)enolog# 5ails....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ositi2is) 7ood (.......96 <ntolog+ :ocus Had............................$2 Cede the .......................................................100 ede t'e 5olitical...................................................................................................................................................102 ()t A 5'eno0enolog+ :ails...................................................................... 8ntolog# 5oc/s Had.........................................................................................................................9+ Nazis0 Ke+...........olitical.............................. Astronoetics Technolog# 7ood (......................................................... 10* .......heno)enolog# 5ails............................................................................................101 5'eno0enolog+ :ails............................$.....................................................................................................................................olitics*............................................................................................................................ 101 !t @ ..................................................................................................................................................10" Non4:alsi=iable............................................................................................................................................ 102 Non-5alsi9ia.........................................................olitics*........................................................................................................le.................................................................................................................... $9 ......................94 &ec'nolog+ Good /5olitics1.......................................................................................Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant ...............................................................................................$! Na3is) Ke#...................................................100 ......................................

entieth cent/r#> the 7er)an Le.torian.E Not. :or all t'eir di==erences? S%utnik and totalitarianis0? 0odern science and 0odern %olitics s'ared a co00on %at'olog+.ack /pon arth 9ro) .ict/re>E in The American Historical Review 116.E In 'er 8ie3? 3e did not need to de%art =ro0 t'e sur=ace o= t'e (art' to create a deat' star.ish eM)igreM Hannah Arendt.ith a )etal . He e!pected that the 2ie.o/t the trans9or)ation o9 the arth into a )an-)ade planet> ideas that cr#stalli3ed in re9lections on .itions .$ :t .as likel# to 9ollo.s the arth hal9-cloaked in shado.+ Hl/)en. The H/)an Condition appeared not long a9ter ArendtGs 9a)o/s st/d# The 8rigins o9 Totalitarianis) (19$1*> and she ad2anced thro/gh Sp/tnik so)e o9 the the)es .erg .# radicali3ing the Copernican re2ol/tion that had /nder)ined arthGs centralit# in the 9irst place.eit .# all that )/ch. Hl/)en. :ndeed> he )a# .1 &hether Arendt .itions o9 )odern )an la# re2ealed. :t is the s/.E* &o4 talitarianis0Gs art=ul =iction? 'o3e8er? 'ad its all too real a%ot'eosis in t'e concentration ca0% uni8erse? a real0 in'abited b+ a %o%ulation o= t3ilig't creatures t'at Arendt called Ct'e li8ing dead.as not.o).# propelling hi)sel9 as . .hen he declared the A/estion o9 organis) and arti9act the the)e o9 )odern intellect/al histor#N. <ne sho.ithstanding the Cold &ar conte!t in . Historians o9 /r.as shared .er9/l ideas a. 8nl# the )orall# )aladroit . These t.hat it )eans .idel# disse)inated photograph in h/)an histor#. ArendtGs approach . o9 t.s the disk o9 o/r terraA/eo/s planet s/spended in the 2oid. Her concern .ell ha2e .o/ld re-2indicate arthNand the )odern proJect itsel9Nal. as it 9loats o2er a li9eless )oonscape.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant ! Astronoetics 1N &'e de8elo%0ent and e)%loration o= s%ace occurs entirel+ 3it'in t'e 'orizons o= tec'nological t'inking.n .9 H/t in 191$> Hl/)en.roached in that earlier e99ort. Arendt and other )id-cent/r# intellect/als concocted po.ated since. An!iet# a. The B arthrise eraE had .as a . &'is i0%ulse 0irrors t'e structure o= totalitarianis0. H/t to desire to de%art =ro0 t'e scene o= t'e 3orld> she 9elt> 0eant also to t'ink o= t'e 3orld as so0et'ing 3ort' lea8ing.10 &ithin the span o9 a decade> so)ething had changed Ne2ident .ro9essor o9 Histor# and H/)anities at =eed College> B arthrise6 or> 7lo.o i)ages and their progen# no. The# had also in part . grace T-shirts and tote .ell.6 The 9ield o9 en2iron)ental histor# is rooted in this an!iet#> and it is a ke# iss/e in other 9ields as .ed it.or (s/ch as Ta#loris) or 5ordis)*> o9 9ashion and cra9t> o9 technolog#Nin s/)> an#one concerned .* :ts B9ra)elessE 9ra)eNthe 2oidNhas le9t it especiall# open to appropriation./t hardl# to panic. S%utnik t'ere=ore e0bodied an i0%ulse alread+ 0uc' in e8idence on (art'Jto create an arti=icial %lanet .ar)ing> the engineering o9 transgenic organis)s> the ind/striali3ation o9 agric/lt/re> and the A/estion o9 legal standing 9or nat/ral o.o/t a second satelliteN Sp/tnik.* A second photograph> 9ro) 'ece).ell.erg descri.eg/n./t perhaps not . :n 1966> 9or e!a)ple> ArendtGs teacher 0artin Heidegger> perhaps the )ost conseA/ential philosopher o9 the t.e#ond> and he . (ac' testi=ied to t'e 0odern dis%lace0ent o= t'e gro3n b+ t'e 0ade? o= li8ing organis0s b+ tec'nical arti=acts.hat it has )eant to )ake in the )odern eraNi)plicitl# re9lects on the iss/e.as la/nched or the shock it /nleashed> Sp/tnik . S%utnik e0bodied a desire to =abricate an arti=icial substitute =or t'e li8ing (art' .e#ond .rit large. The 9irst is t'e rise o= an C(art'l+ 8ision?E or a %ictorial i0agination c'aracterized b+ 8ie3s o= t'e (art' as a 3'ole.2 A9ter all> she opened her philosophical )asterpiece The H/)an Condition (19$+* .ord B arth>E and the i)ages likel# to 9lash thro/gh the )ind are descendants o= t3o 8ie3s a==orded b+ t'e A%ollo 0issions. :t is o==iciall+ titled CHlue 6arbleE and is rep/ted to .as 9or so)e J/st a har)less piepende K/nst)ond> as the 7er)an philosopher Hans Hl/)en.hich it .# a sle. :n Sp/tnik the a).orked in the sa)e in9l/ential tradition o9 thinking a.n.o/t the tri/)ph o9 the )ade o2er the gro. #azier 2011 IHenJa)in> Associate .ers. Nonetheless> Arendt appealed to the sa)e 2oca.orlds.o/t technolog# and )odernit# that ani)ated Heidegger and Arendt. :t arri2ed on Christ)as 196+ and is called B(art'riseE6 hence> the B arthrise era. &o e0anci%ate oursel8es =ro0 its %'+sical li0its Ngra2it#N0eant also to e0anci%ate oursel8es =ro0 t'e gra8it+ o= its e)istential clai0s u%on us.er that helps organi3e a )#riad o9 political> )oral> scienti9ic> and co))ercial .entieth-cent/r# 9ig/res across 2irt/all# e2er# do)ain o9 tho/ght and c/lt/re> and it has hardl# a.e the )ost . Hroadl# speaking> the arthrise era co)prises se2eral i)portant de2elop)ents.al .# 2oicing gra2e concerns a.e look .Jects. :n so)e .e#ond.eeping> di)in/ti2e )oon-)anA/eM> a sti)/l/s to re9lection> .een reali3ed.hen . (See 5ig/re 2. This holds 9or the )aking not onl# o9 things> . :n 19$1> )an had 9or the 9irst ti)e propelled his arti9acts into the . .as idios#ncratic.erg e!aggerated .een that traditionGs )ost s/perlati2e interpreter and his.anis) and the cit#> o9 ind/str#> o9 regi)es o9 la./t also o9 sel2es and o9 .estern ci8ilization 'ad alread+ 0anaged it? rig't 'ere. &otalitarianis0? in turn? distinguis'ed itsel= =ro0 e8er+ ot'er =or0 o= rule in its a0bition to create a ne3 3orld =it to co0%ete 3it' t'is one? t'e nontotalitarian 3orld? and its success 3as to be 0easured in t'e consistenc+ o= its art=ul =iction.o/ld ha2e appreciated the gest/re is /ncertain.E (See 5ig/re 1.1 To . o9 arth 9ro) .ags> cartoons and co99ee c/ps> sta)ps co))e)orating arth 'a# and posters 9eting the e!ploits o9 s/icide .o/ld think to co)pare the death ca)ps .ali3ation o9 the &orld . Hear the . &otalitarian regi0es create an Carti=iciall+ =abricated insanit+?E and Ct'eir art consists in using and at t'e sa0e ti0e transcending t'e ele0ents o= realit+. As a stand-in 9or the idea o9 the &hole arth itsel9> it has acA/ired an iconic po./lar# to )ake sense o9 the) .er 1912> sho.ords> this pictorial i)agination is not si)pl# that.oth.te!t 9or a host o9 pressing concerns> incl/ding the anthropogenic origins o9 glo. &otalitarianis0? it turns out? s'ared so0et'ing i0%ortant 3it' t'e Russian satellite.entieth cent/r#> s%oke 3it' consternation about %'otogra%'s o= t'e %lanet s'ot =ro0 s%ace.a#s> it is also o/r o.4 These a).all called BCo)panion. :n other .ith the histor# o9 . All o9 this is c/rio/s. :or tec'nolog+? outer s%ace is Iust anot'er %'eno0enological resource =ro0 3'ic' tec'nological being trans=or0s t'e cos0os into standing reser8e.4K :N 1990> TH 7 =0AN AST=8N80 =S 5rei)/t Hoerngen and L/t3 Sch)adel na)ed an asteroid a9ter one o9 the 9ore)ost political philosophers o9 the t.est grasp the i)portance o9 this the)e> consider arth> on so)e co/nts the largest organis) o9 the) all. C&'is is no longer t'e eart' on 3'ic' 0an li8es?E 'e co0%lained.oth in philosophical re9lection and in &estern c/lt/re .erg decisi2el# re2ersed their clai)s and declared their an!ieties )isplaced.ere o)ino/s.

al econo)#>E and Bglo.al h/)anit#E si)pl# did not e!ist .as .ict/re>E in The American Historical Review 116. He .its o9 speech> a 2oca.e talk is part and parcel o9 changes in the &estern pictorial i)agination that at 9irst glance see) /ns/ited to it./t also an acceptance that reason> like arth> is all )an has.ilit# 9or a Copernic/s.o/t .alE as B arthl#>E i9 not )ore so> and it is pec/liar .erg also had philosophical reasons 9or insisting on the priorit# o9 a 2is/al enco/nter .12 &'e alternati8e to tec'nological t'oug't is astronoetics.hat )ade photographs o9 the arth di99erent 9ro) their astronoetic predecessors. Hl/)en. It 0eant to +oke (art' back to t'e center o= our attention b+ insisting on an (art'l+ eccentricit+ t'at not e8en o%ernicus 'ad countenanced .led still 9/rther co/ld it . :t is one o9 the )ost a).anted to gi2e the Copernican t/rn a 9inal t. Still> there is no a2oiding the 9act that as co))on e!pressions> the .itio/s re2isions o9 &estern intellect/al histor# e2er 2ent/red.stract.erg proposed =or t'e =elt illegiti0ac+ o= t'e 0odern age 3rit large. Hut t'is 0akes t'e0 all t'e 0ore i0%ortant? and t'eir e==ects 'istoricall+ no8el.ith . Tr/e Copernicanis) entailed )odest# a.a#> pre-Copernican>E Hl/)en.e .ali3ation o9 the &orld .ith his reason> )ight acco)plish> . #ike (art'? reason 3as eccentric? and it 3as eccentric? in %art? because it 3as (art'4bound. It 3as? in =act? (nlig'ten0ent unease about t'e Cterrestrial contingenc+E o= reason? 'e 'eld? t'at 'ad led to t'e %ostulate o= in'abited? ot'er3orldl+ 3orlds in t'e =irst %lace.hat )an> . BA decade o9 intensi2e attention to astrona/tics has prod/ced a s/rprise that is> in an insidio/s .ith respect to reason.eings> not speci9icall# h/)an .ital space .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant i)aginations as .# )en. He . &'is 0eant? abo8e all? to %ut (art' in its %lace. 8nl# . 8nl# this co/ld acco/nt 9or the alacrit# .as in part a )atter o9 aesthetic pleas/re.# the inha. :t co/ld> ho.al en2iron)ent>E Bglo. In turn? o8erco0ing t'ese traditions entailed t'e in8ention o= a ne3 science t'at soug't t'e art=ul do0ination o= nature b+ 8esting in 0an t'e creati8e ca%acit+ o= a God. H/t there is so)ething pec/liar a.itants o9 the )oon than on arth and . 5ontenelle had conJect/red that reason )ight .e enno.etter e!ercised .eing h/).ist.# e)ancipating /s 9ro) its 9elt need. Hl/)en.ook titled The Legiti)ac# o9 the 0odern Age. Hl/)en. ha.# .o/t this 2oca. &'e =irst 3as associated 3it' t'e ancient inIunction t'at art 3as to i0itate nature? t'e second 3it' ancient and 0edie8al ideas about di8ine creati8it+.ord Bglo.ser2ed .11 Fie3s 7 Astronoetics o= (art' are no3 so ubiBuitous as to go unre0arked.as si)pl# Btoo deserted> too )onotone> too poor>E Hl/)en. #azier 2011 IHenJa)in> Associate . Kant> 9or e!a)ple> . He ai0ed to sa8e t'e 0odern age =ro0 its =elt co0%ulsion to rebel against t'e %re0odern sources o= aut'orit+ it soug't to o8erco0e. Hut Hlu0enberg 3anted to go one ste% =urt'er.$$ This> in part> is . These int/itions ha2e do2etailed ./lar#.erg decided> to satis9# /s 9or long. &rue o%ernicanis0 3as t'ere=ore t'e astronoetic e)%ression o= t'e cure Hl/)en. .erg appealed to a si)ilar line o9 tho/ght .# the )athe)atician-philosopher L/les Henri .E$2 &'e radical eccentricit+ o= t'e (art' 0ade it %arado)icall+ all4i0%ortant.ergGs classic state)ent on this co/nt arri2ed in 1966> in a .e2er> generate a 2is/al e!perience that )ade the A/estions o9 e!o.ell.$" Astrona/tics . C&'e (art' 'as turned out to be a cos0ic e)ce%tion.ith arth.hich the )anned e!ploration o9 e!tra-or. He ai)ed to sa8e t'e o%ernican insig't? but to te0%er so0e o= t'e bale=ul? i= unintended? e==ects o= its associated science.led in post-Copernican e#es.4K Hl/)en.e. 8nl# as a Bp/rel# sensor# pheno)enonE co/ld it ha2e pro)pted the geotropis) it did. H# contrast> the arth .erg o.oincareM.ondered .e9ore the arthrise era> and this e!plosion o9 glo. Reason 3as neit'er Ct'e su00it o= natureGs acco0%lis'0entsE nor Ca logical continuation o= t'e0.E It 3as instead an accident o= e8olution? a de8iation in t'e ani0al )an> and to call it uni8ersal 3as in trut' to seek a =alse? i= %o3er=ul? ant'ro%ocentric consolation =or t'e original o%ernican trau0a. :n the age o9 astrona/tics> the 2ie. A Ctrue o%ernicanis0E 3ould 'a8e no need =or suc' solace? 3ould insist instead on a t'oroug'going ant'ro%o4eccentris0Jin t'e =or0 o= 'u0an reason understood as 0erel+ 'u0an? as all too 'u0an? 3it' bot' t'e %ro0ise and t'e de=icienc+ t'e locution i0%lies .eings> .ro/ght to an end. This e!perience . <ur ideas and intuitions about in'abiting t'e 3orld are no3 0ediated t'roug' i0ages t'at dis%lace local? eart'bound 'orizons 3it' C'orizonsE t'at are %lanetar+ in sco%eJt'e distinction bet3een eart' and sk+ sur0ounted b+ t'at bet3een (art' and 8oid. :t> too> 'ad its %lace. The cos)os .iolog# and e!orationalit# a practical dead letter.erg reJected.oincareM asked a.ali3ationE and the phrases Bglo. teleological nature and t'e biblical God.as /nlikel# to con9ir) or 9alsi9# these positions in the a. To consider the point> he looked to a tho/ght e!peri)ent .eca/se the arth as seen 9ro) space is o9ten percei2ed as the nat/ral or organic antithesis o9 an arti9act/al glo. tec'nological t'inkingGs atte0%t to uni8ersalize t'e %o3er o= 0anage0ent t'roug' t'oug't %roduces an absolute 8iolence against t'e trau0a o= Heing? 3'ereas astronoetic ackno3ledge0ent o= Heing can ground 'u0an 8aluation o= Heing in non48iolent ter0s.$1 His astronoetic enter%rise %roceeded along si)ilar lines.erg hoped to rein in t'e radicalis) o9 this o2erco)ing . &'e 0odern %roIect> he conceded> su==ered =ro0 an illegiti0ac+ co0%le)? and its tec'nological e)cesses 3ere un=ortunate but understandable reactions to t'is =elt de=icienc+. :t is J/st as Bglo.entieth cent/r# .ith ne.o/t the conditions o9 possi. &'is ran contrar+ to t'e e)%ectations o= 0an+ (nlig'ten0ent t'inkers? 3'o %roceeded as i= t'e uni8ersalit+ o= reason 0eant Iust t'atJt'at it 3as a %ro%ert+ in t'e uni8erse at large. &'ese 3ere t3o abo8e all. (ac' in its 3a+ belittled 'u0an arti=ice./lar#Nand a second ke# de2elop)ent o9 the arthrise era.$4 All o9 this Hl/)en.hen he o/tlined his )etaph#sics o9 )orals. o/t had pro2ed disappointing.ro9essor o9 Histor# and H/)anities at =eed College> B arthrise6 or> 7lo.roached earl# in the t.as a sight to )ar2el.as care9/l to speak o9 rational . &'e utter eccentricit+ o= eart' and reason is t'e s%ring o= 8aluation.

.hether an arth 9ore2er shro/ded in clo/ds> or the )elanchol# circ/)stance o9 h/)an . The arthrise era> Hl/)en.eings .as B.as no.le)s o9 )agnit/de and eccentricit# irrele2antNthe 9act that arth is tin#> )an still s)aller> and at the center o9 a.et.ts. . So)eho.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 2 Astronoetics .erg had his do/.itho/t its ha2ing .o/ld ena.> i)ages o9 the arth 9ro) space )ade the pro.reakthro/gh. &'e decisi8e t'ing about t'e 8ie3 =ro0 s%ace? t'at is? 3as Ca re8ision t'at broug't to an end t'e o%ernican trau0a o= t'e (art'Gs 'a8ing t'e status o= a 0ere %ointJo= t'e anni'ilation o= its i0%ortance b+ t'e enor0it+ o= t'e uni8erse.et. So)ething that .eing locall#.lind. The Copernican disco2er#> he reasoned> . :t .as in the end as a ph#sicist> not an astrono)er> as a )athe)atician> not a spectator> that Copernic/s had achie2ed his . Copernic/s co/ld opt 9or ph#sics onl# .as so)ething a.E$1 Heidegger .orried that thinking glo.ser2ation.as 9irst an astrono)erO he co/ld opt 9or .le /s to do .as intelligi.eca/se he .le onl# against its historical . Still> Hl/)en. o9 arth adri9t in a cos)ic desert that allo.oincareMGs ans.een )an and totalit#> ha2e lost their signi9icanceN.een the arth and the /ni2erse> .e do not #et 9/ll# /nderstand has r/n its co/rse6 The s/ccessi2e increases in the disproportion .o/t the 2ie.een necessar# to retract the theoretical e99ort.sol/tel# nothing.eca/se he 9irst co/ld see.$6 nter B arthrise.o/ld ha2e precl/ded the Copernican concl/sion.lind science onl# . Seeing t'e %lanet =ro0 a=ar did not %roduce ne3 scienti=ic kno3ledge to blunt t'at trau0aGs =orce. The radicalis) o9 the Copernican re2ol/tion> a9ter all> .ed 9or a pre-Copernican e!perience Joined to a post-Copernican science. &'e sig't o= an inco0%arabl+ lonel+ li8ing (art'? 'o3e8er? did %roduce a =elt e)%erience o= a %lanet so eccentric? so e)ce%tional? t'at it beca0e t'e onl+ t'ing 3ort' attending to in t'e =irst %lace.ho had ne2er seen s/n or stars> trapped in an Bat)ospheric ca2e>E .er .erg tho/ght> .E :t relied not on sense i)pressions .E There .oth at once.ackgro/ndNthe )illennia-old tradition o9 sensor# o./t on dispelling the optical ill/sion that )ost readil# presents itsel9 to the precritical )ind6 that the s/n re2ol2es aro/nd the arth.all# precl/ded .

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant $ Astronoetics """#inks""" .

lished not .stractionNis being =ollo3ed b+ a bodil+ obser8er 3'o 0ust be'a8e as t'oug' 'e 3ere a 0ere c'ild o= abstraction and i0agination.ritten at the 2er# .ildering perple!ities> the 2er# 9act that a . All 'e can =ind is t'e Arc'i0edean %oint 3it' res%ect to t'e eart'? but once arri8ed t'ere and 'a8ing acBuired t'is absolute %o3er o8er 'is eart'l+ 'abitat? 'e 3ould need a ne3 Archi)edean %oint> and so ad in=initu0. Atlantis 5all 2001K The sad tr/th o9 the )atter> ho.orld 2ie.hel)ing )aJorit# o9 all Bresearchers>E ha2e .e 'a8e reac'ed t'e stage 3'ere t'e artesian radical doubt o= realit+ as suc'? t'e =irst %'iloso%'ical ans3er to t'e disco8eries o= science in t'e 0odern age? 0a+ beco0e subIect to %'+sical e)%eri0ents t'at 3ould 0ake s'ort s'ri=t o= DescartesG =a0ous consolation? I doubt? t'ere=ore I a0? and o= 'is con8iction t'at? 3'ate8er t'e state o= realit+ and o= trut' as t'e+ are gi8en to t'e senses and to reason? +ou cannot Cdoubt o= +our doubt and re0ain uncertain 3'et'er +ou doubt or not. It is as t'oug' (insteinGs i0agined Cobser8er %oised in =ree s%aceE Js/rel# the creation o9 the h/)an )ind and its po. :n ter)s o9 this de2elop)ent> t'e atte0%t to conBuer s%ace 0eans t'at 0an 'o%es 'e 3ill be able to Iourne+ to t'e Arc'i0edean %oint 3'ic' 'e antici%ated b+ s'eer =orce o= abstraction and i0agination.ords> 0an can onl+ get lost in t'e i00ensit+ o= t'e uni8erse? =or t'e onl+ true Arc'i0edean %oint 3ould be t'e absolute 8oid be'ind t'e uni8erse.hole technolog# co/ld de2elop o/t o9 his res/lts de)onstrates the Bso/ndnessE o9 his theories and h#potheses )ore con2incingl# than an# )erel# scienti9ic o.ill necessaril# lose his ad2antage.eset . &'is 3as =ro0 its 8er+ beginnings not a CnaturalE but a uni8ersal science? it . It is %er=ectl+ true t'at t'e scientist 'i0sel= does not 3ant to go to t'e 0oonK 'e kno3s t'at =or 'is %ur%oses un0anned s%aces'i%s carr+ing t'e best instru0ents 'u0an ingenuit+ can in8ent 3ill do t'e Iob o= e)%loring t'e 0oonGs sur=ace 0uc' better t'an dozens o= astronauts.een re-esta. had . Pet e8en i= 0an recognizes t'at t'ere 0ig't be absolute li0its to 'is .ith the scientist.o/nd> co00on sense.E22 &'e eart' is t'e ontological 3ell =ro0 3'ic' t'e 0eaning=ulness o= 'u0an e)istence s%rings.eginning o9 this de2elop)ent6 6an> he said> C=ound t'e Arc'i0edean %oint? but 'e used it against 'i0sel=K it see0s t'at 'e 3as %er0itted to =ind it onl+ under t'is condition.e s/re> all 3e %lan to do no3 is to e)%lore our o3n i00ediate surroundings in t'e uni8erse? t'e in=initel+ s0all %lace t'at t'e 'u0an race could reac' e8en i= it 3ere to tra8el 3it' t'e 8elocit+ o= lig't. And e2en tho/gh the scientist is still .er.et.# the p/re scientist . :t is as tho/gh the sciences had done .E :or t'e conBuest o= s%ace? t'e searc' =or a %oint outside t'e eart' =ro0 3'ic' it 3ould be %ossible to 0o8e? to un'inge? as it 3ere? t'e %lanet itsel=? is no accidental result o= t'e 0odern ageGs science.e2er> is that the lost contact .orld o9 the senses and appearances and the ph#sical .een the .# the B pl/).er o9 a. .ho acco/nt toda# 9or the o2er.n to earth./t an astroph#sics . Atlantis 5all 2001K :t is at this point> it see)s to )e> that the h/)anistGs concern .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 10 Astronoetics Arendt in S%ace S%ace e)%loration re%resents t'e =inal ad8ance o= science to se8er 'u0anit+ =ro0 its original %erce%tion Arendt !1 IHannah> A)erican political philosopher> BThe ConA/est o9 Space and the Stat/re o9 0anE The Ne.ith )an and the stat/re o9 )an has ca/ght /p .hat the h/)anities ne2er co/ld ha2e achie2ed> na)el#> to pro2e de)onstra. Ho./t . He 3ould? =or instance? be con=ronted in realit+ 3it' (insteinGs =a0ous Ct3in %arado)?E 3'ic' '+%ot'eticall+ assu0es t'at Ca t3in brot'er 3'o takes o== on a s%ace Iourne+ in 3'ic' 'e tra8els at a sizable =raction o= t'e s%eed o= lig't 3ould return to =ind 'is eart'bound t3in eit'er older t'an 'e or little 0ore t'an a di0 recollection in t'e 0e0or+ o= 'is descendants. &'e situation> as it presents itsel9 toda+? oddl# rese0bles an elaborate 8eri=ication o= a re0ark b+ 5ran3 Ka=ka? . Hut e8en =or t'is li0ited Iob? 3e 'a8e to lea8e t'e 3orld o= our senses and o= our bodies not onl+ in i0agination but in realit+.E21 :or alt'oug' 0an+ %'+sicists 'ad =ound t'is %arado) di==icult to s3allo3? t'e Cclock %arado)?E on 3'ic' it is based? see0s to 'a8e been 8eri=ied e)%eri0entall+? so t'at t'e onl+ alternati8e to it 3ould be t'e assu0%tion t'at eart'bound li=e under all circu0stances re0ains bound to a ti0e conce%t t'at de0onstrabl+ does not belong a0ong Ctrue realities?E but a0ong 0ere a%%earances.hich looked /pon the earth 9ro) a point in the /ni2erse.e.e2er> in doing so> he .ro/ght the res/lts o9 the scientists do.ser2ation or e!peri)ent e2er co/ld. It is at t'is %oint t'at all t'e t'eoretical %er%le)ities o= t'e ne3 %'+sical 3orld 8ie3 intrude as realities u%on 0anGs e8er+da+ 3orld and t'ro3 out o= gear 'is Cnatural ?E that is> earth. And +et > an actual c'ange o= t'e 'u0an 3orld? t'e conBuest o= s%ace or 3'ate8er 3e 0a+ 3is' to call it? is ac'ie8ed onl+ 3'en 0anned s%ace carriers are s'ot into t'e uni8erse? so t'at 0an 'i0sel= can go 3'ere u% to no3 onl+ 'u0an i0agination and its %o3er o= abstraction? or 'u0an ingenuit+ and its %o3er o= =abrication? could reac'.l# the 2alidit# o9 this concern. In 8ie3 o= 0anGs li=e s%anNthe onl# a. :n other .sol/te li)itation le9t at the present )o)entNit is Buite unlikel+ t'at 'e 3ill e8er go 0uc' =art'er. Arendt !1 IHannah> A)erican political philosopher> BThe ConA/est o9 Space and the Stat/re o9 0anE The Ne. &'e call o= t'e to%ic is =ra0ed on all sides b+ a 0erel+ tec'nological relations'i% to sel= and 3orld and t'us e0%ties e)istence o= ontological signi=icance. To .# parado!es and the )ost .E The technicians> .as not a ph#sics .

le.n> altho/gh it took hi) a long ti)e to disco2er it.le at all. that )a# concei2a. Seen =ro0 a su==icient distance? t'e cars in 3'ic' 3e tra8el and 3'ic' 3e kno3 3e built oursel8es 3ill look as t'oug' t'e+ 3ere? as Heisen.e appl# the Archi)edean point to o/rsel2es> then these acti2ities .e /se to st/d# the .o/ld . .eing the highest .n in the ho/sehold o9 earthl# nat/re. These ne.eha2ior>E ./ild )achines 9or the prod/ction and control o9 energies /nkno.eing the center o9 the /ni2erse and o9 )an .hat is his o.e act/all# do .e 'a8e co0e to our %resent ca%acit+ to CconBuer s%aceE t'roug' our ne3 abilit+ to 'andle nature =ro0 a %oint in t'e uni8erse outside t'e eart'.eha2ior o9 rats.n 9ro) this point /pon . I= t'e+ e8er s'ould reac' it in earnest? t'e stature o= 0an 3ould not si0%l+ be lo3ered b+ all standards 3e kno3 o=? but 'a8e been destro+ed.E21 Under t'ese circu0stances? s%eec' and e8er+da+ language 3ould indeed be no longer a 0eaning=ul utterance that transcends . &'e conBuest o= s%ace and t'e science t'at 0ade it %ossible 'a8e co0e %erilousl+ close to t'is %oint.orld 2ie.erg once p/t it> Bas inesca%able a %art o= oursel8es as t'e snailGs s'ell is to its occ/pant.est )ake a 9e.hat is going on on earth and /pon the 2ario/s acti2ities o9 )en> that is> i9 .o/ld .ise to s/spect s/ch li)itations .o/ld co/nt his o. disco2eries in o/r solar s#ste)> t'e Iourne+ into s%ace and to the Archi)edean point 3it' res%ect to t'e eart' is =ar =ro0 being a 'ar0less or uneBui8ocall+ triu0%'ant enter%rise.lished> the ne.eha2ior e2en i9 it onl# e!presses it> and it 3ould 0uc' better be re%laced b+ t'e e)tre0e and in itsel= 0eaningless =or0alis0 o= 0at'e0atical signs.e the processes o9 cos)ic e2ol/tion> or .e can st/d# .hen .o/ld ha2e to .e release energ# processes that ordinaril# go on onl# in the s/n> or atte)pt to initiate in a test t/. .o/ld onl# take possession o9 . 5or this is . o/t o9 it is likel# to .hat . .n 9act/al )ortalit# a)ong the ele)entar# conditions /nder .it'out as +et actuall+ occu%+ing t'e %oint 3'ere Arc'i0edes 'ad 3is'ed to stand? 3e 'a8e =ound a 3a+ to act on t'e eart' as t'oug' 3e dis%osed o= terrestrial nature =ro0 outside? =ro0 t'e %oint o= (insteinGs Cobser8er =reel+ %oised in s%ace. :n that case> he .hich his scienti9ic e99orts are possi.hene2er it t/rns o/t that the scientist can do )ore than he is capa.e look do. .e ./t at .hich .le o9 co)prehending> and e2en i9 he reali3es that he cannot BconA/er space>E .eing there is.e anthropo)orphic in the sense that )an . possessions> like all propert#> . :t .E All our %ride in 3'at 3e can do 3ill disa%%ear into so0e kind o= 0utation o= t'e 'u0an raceK t'e 3'ole o= tec'nolog+? seen 9ro) this point> in 9act no longer a%%ears Cas t'e result o= a conscious 'u0an e==ort to e)tend 0anGs 0aterial %o3ers? but rat'er as a large4scale biological %rocess.l# gro.e geocentric in the sense that the earth> and not the /ni2erse> is the center and the ho)e o9 )ortal )en> and it .ill indeed appear to o/rsel2es as no )ore than Bo2ert .e once )ore geocentric and anthropo)orphic> altho/gh not in the old sense o9 the earth .ith the sa)e )ethods .e li)ited> and once the li)it is reached and the li)itations esta.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 11 Astronoetics searc' =or kno3ledge and that it )ight . At this )o)ent> t'e %ros%ects =or s/ch an entirel# bene=icial de8elo%0ent and sol/tion o9 the present predica)ents o= 0odern science and tec'nolog+ do not look partic/larl# good.e at ho)e in a Bterritor#E as large as possi. :t co/ld add to the stat/re o9 )an inas)/ch as )an> in distinction 9ro) other li2ing things> desires to .E :9 .

&'us t'e 0odern astronaut is seen as one o= t'e %ri0ar+ agents o= 0odern 3orldlessness in Heideggerian %'iloso%'+ (and one is i))ediatel# str/ck .#ssG (&ood> 20026 1$*.otto)less 2oid @ . And )an# . :or Heidegger? once %ercei8ed and concei8ed as a 8isual re%resentation o= a %lanetar+ bounded 3'ole? t'e eart' beco0es Lde3orldedG.ake /p to the tr/l# 9rightening placelessness o9 )odernit#Gs Copernican and 'ar.e ter)ed Qthe astrona/tic condition o9 )odernit#G (19+9O 200*> as> in =o)an#sh#nGs 2ie. :or 3'en t'e eart' is seen =ro0 an astronautic %oint o= 8ie3? all traditional 'u0an concerns are deterritorialized and strangel+ di0inis'ed to t'e e)tent t'at inter%lanetar+ re%resentations o= t'e eart' t'reaten to se8er t'e connection bet3een 'u0anit+ and its traditional ontological su%%orts . cos)olog# has /nder)ined traditional conceptions o9 earth. &hen seen in Heideggerian ter)s> Copernicanis) red/ces the earth to )ere Qplanetar# )atterGO an a.eco)es a Qspectral earthG @ a )ere 9licker o9 light in the cos)ological 2oid.lanetar# &orld>E in Theory.al Heing in the .ithin a .o/t the . 5or in Niet3scheGs 2ie.orld (that is> to think . /p to .e not perpet/all# 9allingR Hack. :n s/ch a conte!t Niet3scheGs )ad)an is not a prophet o9 lost archaic theological certainties> .et. it is t'e ontological 3ells%ring =ro0 3'ic' 'u0an e)%erience is 0ade %ossible.> 3it' t'e Buest =or greater e%iste0ological sel=4assuredness? 0odern 'u0anit+ is in danger o= not onl+ sacri=icing its traditional bases o= 0eaning? but o= losing t'e 8er+ idea t'at t'e 3orld e)ists as so)ething 9i!ed> sta.roader appreciation o9 the .as no si)ple co/ntertheological state)ent> .est.s/rd and inh/)an cos)ic accident de2oid o9 an# /lti)ate sense or signi9icance.inian 9or)s o9 li9e.eG @ is a 0eta%'or =or a '+%er0odern cultural4%s+c'ological drea0 o= distance? de%arture and esca%e =ro0 0atter t'at re8eals . Culture.ho ha2e 9ollo.here .e can no longer speak o9 a )eaning9/l .> t'e 0odern astronaut @ . Heideggerian scholars s/ch as =o.ed Niet3sche in this regard ha2e noted that the ke# to /nderstanding the signi9icance o9 )odernit#Gs /nhei)lich ontolog# resides .Khither are . In 'is 8ie3? rat'er t'an %roducing L(nlig'ten0entG and liberating 'u0anit+ =ro0 t'e dead 'and o= religious dog0a and su%erstition? t'ese t'eories t'reatened to under0ine t'e 0oral and intellectual =oundations o= li=e in t'e . 2oice o9 sanit#> castigating> .e not stra#ing as i9 thro/gh an in9inite nothingRG (Niet3sche> 19116 204*.e#ond the territoriali3ation o9 &estern philosoph# as so)e.arning a.ithin the Qne.a# 9ro) all s/nsR Are .e )o2ing no. =o)an#sh#nGs is a critiA/e o9 .et. ssentiall#> Niet3scheGs clai) is that Copernicanis) and 'ar. &urnbull 200! INeil> Senior Lect/rer in .ard in all directionsR :s there an# /p or do.n le9tR Are .hat )ight .le and signi9icant.lanet Contra Nihilis) IN &H( L%arable o= t'e 0ad0anG? Nietzsc'e addressed 3'at 'e belie8ed to be t'e conseBuences o= o%ernican astrono0+ and Dar3inian e8olutionar+ t'eor+ =or .e 0ust ground oursel8es in =idelit+ to t'e (art'. Society 24K The .e ter)ed the Qspatial nihilis)G @ i)plicit .arning and e!horting his Q)etaph#sicall# so)na)./t a ne. Niet3sche encaps/lated the theological di)ensions o9 these an!ieties in his clai) that Q7od is 'eadG. As L#otard clai)ed> as a o%ernican tec'nologized obIect t'e eart' LisnGt at all originar+G but 0erel+ a Ls%as0odic state o= energ+? an instant o= establis'ed order? a s0ile on t'e sur=ace o= 0atter in a re0ote corner o= t'e cos0osG (L#otard> 19916 10*.ert =o)an#sh#n ha2e de2eloped this idea and /sed it as the .orks @ an a.inis) 9orce /s to A/estion the signi9icance o9 .oth the 7reek H/)anist and the L/deo@Christian conceptions o9 h/)anit# and its . a%%earing as Iust one 0ore casual s+ste0 3it'in a 0uc' 3ider cos0ological causal order.e#ond all 9ra)e.asis 9or an e!istential critiA/e o9 Qthe )ad astrona/tG6 the A/intessentiall# )odern a2atar that stands as the highest e!pression o9 )odernit#Gs /nhei)lich rootlessness./t stands as so)ething that Qtranscends all tacitl# shared ass/)ptionsG.a# in .e2er> as )an# ha2e pointed o/t> this .d6 QI. &'e tec'nological relations'i% to (art' reduces it to C0ereE scienti=ic trut'? standing read+ to be e)%loited b+ t'e tec'nical 0isad8entures o= 'u0anit+.hat so )an# )odern &estern children . In Nietzsc'eGs 8ie3? 0odern 0eta%'+sics is bot' LgroundlessG and Lsi0ianG because? a=ter o%ernicus and Dar3in? Lt'e eart' does not stand =astG (Niet3sche> 199+6 2* and Q)an is )ore o9 an ape than an# apeG (Niet3sche> 19696 "2*.orld at all> .e a conte!t o9 signi9icance . As s/ch> it is Q.een the spatial nihilis) o9 Niet3scheGs )ad)an and the 9ree-9loating placeless e!perience o9 the )odern astrona/t*. cos)olog#G. As Niet3scheGs heir 0artin Heidegger =a0ousl+ clai0ed? 3'en seen in o%ernican %lanetar+4cos0ological ter0s? t'e eart' is no longer t'e eart' in an+ 8ital or li8ed sense but si0%l+ an obIect co0%rised o= L%urel+ tec'nological relations'i%sG and an obIect? 0oreo8er? t'at is subIecti8ized into a re%resentation? a 8orstellung? t'at Lstands be=ore usG rat'er t'an as so0et'ing in Lour 0idstG (Heidegger> 19946 10$@6*. Ho.R A.ard 9or. According to Niet3sche> o%ernicanis0 and Dar3inis0 endangered t'e ancient? residual? +et still ubiBuitous? 0eta%'+sical idea t'at t'ere is an ulti0ate =oundation or LgroundG to t'e uni8erse? ca%able o= cognizance? and o= Lrationall+ su%%ortingG Iudg0ent in all its =or0s .estern cultureGs 0ost c'eris'ed and dee%l+ 'eld 0oral and 0eta%'+sical con8ictions (Niet3sche> 19116 202@4*.een QAthensG and QLer/sale)G*.hilosoph# and Social Theor# at Nottingha) Trent Cni2ersit#> BThe 8ntological ConseA/ences o9 Copernic/s6 7lo.eca/se .hich the ne. And t'is is 3'+ =or Heidegger @ in his )/ch-cited re9lections on this )atter @ t'e inter%lanetar+ i0ages o= t'e eart' =ro0 s%ace are not si0%l+ t'e end %roduct o= a rat'er co0%le) and %o3er=ul set o= tec'nological %rocess t'at en=ra0e t'e eart' as a 0ass industrialized obIect? but are i0ages t'at radicall+ di0inis' t'e 0eaning o= t'e eart'? rendering 'u0anit+ 3it'out a 3orld 3it'in 3'ic' to d3ell (a the)e that : ret/rn to later*.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 12 Astronoetics &ec'nological S%ace . :n s/ch a conte!t . :t .hen the earth is Qred/cedG to a 2is/al representation> it ceases to ./lantG a/dience to .ard> side.ant to Qgro.# the pheno)enological si)ilarities . Th/s the )ad)an asks the cro.hat )ight ./t a .

er that renders the Qsphere o9 e!perienceG as Qa s#nthesis o9 ho)e and non-place> a no. And according to .ith )ore orthodo! Heideggerian anal#ses> the representation o9 the earth as planet is seen as a s#). &'ese Heideggerian concerns are ec'oed in t'e clai0 t'at t'e L%lanetar+ eart'G is a s+0bol o= .ling perception to escape 9ro) the Breal space o9 o/r planetEG into . Seen t'us? t'e i0age o= t'e eart' =ro0 s%ace can be seen as t'e aest'etic core o= t'e ideolog+ o= t'e e)%ansionar+ A neo4liberal A %'ase o= global ca%italis0 and t'e subli0e obIect o= t'e %ost4ideological .ringing a.al capitalis)6 a po. . This placeless space o9 the planet is seen as challenging traditional notions o9 space and perhaps e2en traditional conceptions o9 the real itsel9. It is an obIect t'at con8e+s a ne3 Lsatellite geogra%'+G (see =ed9ield> 1996* and a %laceless 0a% t'at is t'e re%resentational condition o= %ossibilit+ =or t'e establis'0ent o= global sur8eillance and co00unication s+ste0s (&estern capitalGs co))and-and-control s#ste)*.ol o9 the deterritoriali3ing technological po.o/t an Qe!otic reorganisation o9 sight ena.est .eca/se> in his 2ie.a/l Firilio> the interplanetar# idea o9 the earth is not onl# internall# related to the idea o9 li)itless capitalist e!pansion (see Firilio> 20026 64* .here placeG (Heck> 20026 40*.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 19 Astronoetics a 3orld o= %ure Ls%ectacular 3onderG? and t'at disguises and %er'a%s e8en obliterates t'ose dee% and e0otional connections to t'e eart' t'at 0aintain a sense o= ontological securit+ and li8ed realit+ .> planetar# technologies are .hat he ter)s Qa hori3onless perception /nder a 2anished sk#G (see Firilio> 19916 2> 20006 64*.estern ca%italis0Gs do0ination o= nature and global e)%loitation o= cultural li=e.er o9 glo. Here> as .

Soccio in 0$ ('o/glas L. 0# disc/ssion shall e2ol2e aro/nd the A/estion6 &hat is the danger o9 )odern technolog# as interpreted .iesO o9 )o./rg in Hresga/ and its a.H:L:.sessi2el# t.# 0artin HeideggerR HeideggerGs )ind on this )atter is a)pl# sketched in a collection o9 essa#s called The D/estion Concerning Technolog# and 8ther ssa#s (1911* .E As t'e danger like no ot'er? its t'reat is 0ore enduring.#tes and that )eans practicall# e2er#thing. SL:F> No.> .le o/r sal2ation 9ro) it. As enduringl+ dangerous in itsel=? t'is out3eig's nuclear and biological 3ar=are. &e seek o/t ne.hich lasted 9or 2>400 #ears*O it also la/nched another episode o9 inc/. S%ace e)%loration results =ro0 our 8ie3ing o= s%ace as an in=inite standing reser8e? t'e su%re0e 0ani=estation o= t'e danger o= tec'nolog+. Pet in t'ese 8er+ atte0%ts to control t'e 3orld and to co0e to tec'nicall+ CcorrectE understandings o= t'e 3orld? Ct'e trut' 3ill 3it'dra3>E Heidegger .# older dr/gs cra9ted to kill o99 older .# )odernit# as the persistent dri2e 9or the calc/lation o9 things. . This ill/sion gi2es rise in t/rn to one 9inal del/sion6 it see)s as tho/gh )an e2er#.le and .isdo0.e2er> precisel# no.# technolog#> 3e e0%lo+ tec'nolog+ to count and record (BorderE* endangered species 2ia . An Introduction to 5'iloso%'+ Se8ent' (dition The Age of Technology: Danger %. so/rces o9 energ# to add to t'e e8er4e)%anding standing4reser8e. orrect? calculati8e? obIecti8e understanding o= %articulars? t'oug' not su==icient =or gras%ing t'e trut' o= e)istence? is %otentl+ use=ul? seducti8e? and distracting and induces co0%lacenc+ .hilosoph# T Shasta Cni2ersit# Arc'et+%es o= .e. precisel# as the one so threatened> I)anK e!alts hi)sel9 to the post/re o9 the lord o9 the earth.ation period o9 the principle o9 reason (. Then> ironicall# and )onstro/sl#> .e read ho.here and al.ation . So long as 3e are c'ie=l+ inter4 ested in t'ings as 0eans> as instr/)ents> as standing-reser2e> 3e ine8itabl+ co0e to a %oint 3'ere 3e take oursel8es =or standing4reser8e.er> 2009 pp.a#s enco/nters onl# hi)sel9.. It is t'e age o= s%ace e)%lorationK o= t'e searc' =or traces o= li=e in %lanet 6ars O o9 H/)an 7eno)e ..oth the lect/re series and the shorter address> Heidegger takes /s thro/gh the la.hich .hole is threatened .? 200$1 N6 .ni3 as nihil est sine ratione> Bnothing is .ith )odern science and the ancient 7reeks. :n tr/th> ho. 142 Septe).ile phones .here does )an toda# an# longer enco/nter hi)sel9> i. .a# the ill/sion co)es to pre2ail that e2er#thing )an enco/nters e!ists onl# inso9ar as it is his constr/ct. &'is> sa#s Heidegger> is Ct'e su%re0e dangerE o= tec'nolog+? a danger rooted in our o8erall indi==erence to e8er+4 t'ing t'at is not %art o= t'e standing4reser8e.> .rinciple o9 =eason (1991* .hat shall )ake possi. &'is danger is 0ore t'an 0ere dangerous because as Heidegger 'i0sel= sa+s it is Cdanger as suc'. A co)panion )aterial is The .re2iated 9or)> an address entitled BThe ./gs created .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 1* Astronoetics S%ace ()%loration S%ace e)%loration is a %ri0e e)a0%le o= t'e danger o= HeideggerGs 0odern tec'nological age.ro9essor o9 .ith its canoni3ation o9 the r/le o9 reason posited .:N:ANA SAC=A> Fol.itho/t reason.e red/ced to .hich contain 2irt/all# an#thing that can .> his essence.roJectO o9 ste) cell research> o9 trains s/rging in speedO o= nanotec'nolog+O o9 designer . .ill disc/ss . :n this paper> : .here . s/perdr/gs to kill o99 s/per.ni3ian 9or)/la> sa#s Heidegger> signaled not onl# the end o9 the inc/.hich contains the transcript o9 his lect/res deli2ered in the &inter Se)ester o9 19$$-$6 in Cni2ersit# o9 5rei.er 2"> 19$6 respecti2el#.arns.eak additi2es and s/pple)ents to enhance o/r 9ood s/ppl#.o/t that danger @ .er-'ece).as deli2ered at The Hre)en Cl/.hat Heidegger has to sa# a.e 0easureJCorderEJt'e cos0os itsel=? looking to outer s%ace 9or ne. . he p/shed to the li)it the A/estion o9 technolog# as he dialog/ed .1. :n this . "91$0" Heidegger and t'e Danger o= 6odern &ec'nolog+? Introduction1 N6 &'e 0odern age? to paraphrase 0artin Heidegger? is t'e age o= 0odern tec'nolog+ (he called it in 9act> the ato)ic age 1 1. &e scienti9icall# anal#3e soil and air sa)ples> track stor)s 2ia satellite> and o./gs.# Lei.rinciple o9 =easonE . :n . ariMo in 0$ (Lo2ito F. . &hen nat/re as a .E The Lei. It continues to %ersist o8er and around us as long as t'e age o= 0odern tec'nolog+ 'olds s3a+. Heneat' t'e dazzle t'at acco0%anies t'e %roli=eration o= t'ese tec'nological 3onders? t'ere lurks a certain kind o= danger? a danger 0ore %otent? 0ore 0enacing t'an t'e %ossibilit+ o= nuclear 0eltdo3n or an outbreak o= a bioc'e0ical 3ar=are.hat )ade it possi. and the Cni2ersit# o9 Fienna on 0a# 2$> 19$6 and 8cto.ireless trans)itters..a. .#rinthine paths o9 the histor# o9 &estern philosoph# 2ia his her)ene/tic o9 the principle o9 rationalit# 9or)/lated .

ith terrestrialit#.as e2ent/all# to gi2e rise to the relati2ist idea> no.le> .orld that Qis all that is the caseG (&ittgenstein> 19226 1* and concei2ed as identical . &ith the ro)antic philosophers o9 c/lt/re at the .hich> strangel#> is representati2e o9 all the restG (0erlea/-.Jecti2i3ation o9 .ist and so)e additional sociological 2italit# .ho speak to #o/ o9 s/perterrestrial hopesU The# are poisoners . &urnbull 200! INeil> Senior Lect/rer in . and heightened 9or)s o9 nihilis) and scepticis).le)atics 2ia a ne.as . Hot' recognized t'at s%ace tec'nologies o%en t'e %ossibilit+ =or a less eart'4bound ontolog+ (and as s/ch pose a 9/nda)ental challenge to the terrestrial and territorial hori3on proJected . :n Also Sprach ?arath/stra> Nietzsc'e 'as @arat'ustra %lead 3it' t'e cro3d in t'e 0arket %lace to.rated c#clical conception o9 te)poralit# @ da#.reak> )orning> Qthe great noonG and the Qeternal ret/rnG @ that stands in stark opposition to )odernit#Gs linear histor#. in .orldhoodG> . :n Niet3schean philosoph#> the 9ig/re o9 the earth is /sed as a )etaphor o9 'ion#sian 2italit# and a philosophical ter) o9 art that pro2ides the .hat he ter)ed t'e Lage o= t'e 3orld4 %ictureG? 3orld8ie3 'as beco0e L=reezing? =inalit+? end? s+ste0G and as suc' %'iloso%'icall+ i0%enetrable (Heidegger> 20006 1++*.as gi2en a ne.e gone.al Heing in the .it' t'e e0ergence o= %'+sical science? t'e 3orld is reduced to t'e status o= a L%ictureG and? as suc'? so0et'ing Lset be=oreG 'u0anit+ as series o= obIects =or calculation and 0ani%ulation (see Heidegger> 1911*. re0ain true to t'e eart'> and do not . As suc'? t'e 3orld as traditionall+ concei8ed disa%%ears? re%laced b+ re%resentations o= t'e 3orld (o9 .holeG @ a . Generall+? t'e 0odern . Society 24K &'e %'iloso%'ical %roble0atic o= 3orld'ood 'as been so0et'ing o= %erennial concern =or t'e 0odern %'iloso%'er.ho) the .as seen as a logical space o9 p/re 9acticit# and a Qli)ited .orld .orldsG*. Heidegger and &ittgenstein> ho.estern %'iloso%'ical tradition 'as de=ined Lt'e 3orldG as so0et'ing constructed b+ t'e subIectK t'at is? constructed b+ t'oug't (and it .asis 9or Niet3scheGs )/ch cele.orlds are /nderstood as spaces .l# .oth cases> .ith the e)ergence o9 .# traditional /ropean . Culture.orldG shaped .orldG and Q.orldhood 9irst e)erged in earnest*. .eing concei2ed as pri)aril# a Q. In Nietzsc'ean %'iloso%'+ 3e can see a nascent 0o0ent in 0odern %'iloso%'+Gs atte0%t to construct a ne3 terrestrial ontolog+ eart' and eart'liness.le)atic stat/s o9 .eltanscha//ng as a philosophical concern (an idea that .e can see an atte)pt to interrogate )odern philosophical pro. &ith Schopenha/er and the earl# Heidegger> ho.orldG*.lanetar# &orld>E in Theory. .eltanscha//ngen*.orldlinessG (.a#> is a Qpict/re o9 the . Ric'ard Rort+ 'as suggested t'at t'e %roble0atic o= L3orldG is 0odern %'iloso%'+Gs LobsessionG 3it' t'e Line==able cause o= sense and goal o= t'e intellectG (=ort#> 19126 664*.ear#6 so let the) . :ile &itle &ec'nolog+ <ntologicall+ 0eaning=ul action can onl+ occur 3it'in t'e =ra0e o= t'e eart'? but tec'nolog+ sets t'e 3orld against t'e 'orizons o= 'u0an terrestrialit+.ent .ith li9e itsel9 (see Stokho9> 2002*.orld . philosophical concern .ho) the earth is . t.orld-pict/reG that> in a 2er# literal .ritings o9 .e2er> . a post)odern staple> that people .eca/se o9 the pro. it or not.e seen in the ideas o9 the earl# &ittgenstein> 9or .# )odern space and transport technologies.eldligkeit* in the 20th cent/r# that> in the later . :or t'e earl+ Heidegger too? L3orldG is also concei8ed less subIecti8el+ because 3e cannot si0%l+ s%eak o= Lt'e 3orldG? but o= t'e LitG t'at L3orldsG (see Hearn> 199"6 6"O Kisiel> 20026 140*.hich the earth 9ro) space is perhaps the /lti)ate e!a)ple> a kind a Q.ere )ore ali2e to the ontological iss/es e)erging 9ro) the 9or)s o9 spatialit# prod/ced .hilosoph# and Social Theor# at Nottingha) Trent Cni2ersit#> BThe 8ntological ConseA/ences o9 Copernic/s6 7lo. This can .# portending> respecti2el#> ne. .estern %'iloso%'ical tradition.o/nded space o9 )eaning and signi9icance> Qan organi3ed ense).ith Kant that this )odern s/.here e2ents happen (te)porali3ed spaces*.Jecti2ist conception o9 the .elie2e those . :t is possi.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 1.ont#> 196+6 244* @ 'as been %er'a%s t'e nodal concern o= t'e . 5or the)> )odern technolog# threatens to /proot a/thentic tho/ght and speech 9ro) its Qtr/e hei)atG @ the terra 9ir)a o9 /ropean soil @ . :n .oth Heidegger and &ittgenstein> . The# are despisers o9 li9e> atroph#ing and sel9-poisoned )en> o9 . Hot' t'ese %'iloso%'ers =ollo3 Nietzsc'e in t'is regard. :n HeideggerGs 2ie.Jecti2ist conception o9 Q.# artisanal acti2ities. &'e idea o= La 3orldG @ de9ined as a .'at Nietzsc'e is suggesting 'ere is t'at 3it' t'e re=uting o= t'e idea transcendental LgroundsG in %ost4Kantian %'iloso%'+? t'e eart' is t'e onl+ 8iable idea o= ontological su%%ort a8ailable to t'e 'onest %'iloso%'er .e#ond Niet3sche in )an# respects in that their philosophical conceptions o9 the earth .hether the# kno.hat is a 9/nda)ental precondition o9 Q.ho speak di99erent lang/ages and di99erent c/lt/res li2e in Qdi99erent . 6ore generall+? 'o3e8er? as t'e 8alidit+ o= t'e subIecti8ist notions o= L3orldG deri8ed =ro0 t'e (nlig'ten0ent 3ere slo3l+ eroded b+ 0odern scienceGs LobIecti8eG 0at'e0atical 3orlds> t'e 8er+ idea o= t'e 3orld> as Heidegger o. In 20t'4centur+ %'iloso%'+? Lt'e 3orldG begins to be concei8ed L0ore realisticall+G and loses its %ri8ate and subIecti8e c'aracter .ith .ork-. ./t .e2er> the )odern s/. In t'eir 8ie3? t'e role o= %'iloso%'er is to Lt'ink againstG t'e deterritorializing d+na0ics o= /s%ace1 tec'nolog+ b+ de0onstrating t'at 0eaning=ul t'inking and s%eaking are onl+ %ossible 3'en t'inkers and s%eakers are rooted and i00ersed in %articular terrestrial =or0s o= li=e and-or 3a+s o= being4in4t'e43orld .eginning o9 the 19th cent/r#> the )odern s/. .ser2ed> 3as rendered %roble0atic.hich is closed> .oth Q.orldG is rendered )ore practicalO . (Niet3sche> 19696 "2O original e)phasis* .

/lar#Nearth.as so)ething a.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 1! :ile &itle (art'-.# the )ade.ork o9 art. Take> 9or e!a)ple> an i)portant earl# lect/re (No2e).orld &'e relations'i% bet3een t'e 0ade and t'e gro3n is ecli%sed b+ t'e 3a+ tec'nolog+ calls =ort' t'e cos0os to a%%ear to 'u0anit+. <ur cities 3ould a%%ear as 'i8es? t'e act o= 0aking as t'e unconscious? un3illed acti8it+ o= a s%ecies.ork. :n part> their concern is e!e)pli9ied . Like Heidegger> she )ade reco/rse to the categories o9 BearthE and B.E The lang/age is ad)ittedl# strange.# a le!ical spill6 9ro) the . There he spoke at length a. 8r as Heidegger p/t it> eart' oug't not be understood as a C0ass o= 0atter de%osited so0e3'ere. There .orks> his re9/se at allUE26 &hate2er HeideggerGs an!ieties a.eing opened /p .e di)ensions o9 the h/)an condition.oth Heidegger and Arendt. 5'+sis and teleolog+? b+ contrast? entailed a causal %rinci%le e0bedded in t'e li8ing bod+ itsel=K organis0s? in t'is 8ie3? are bot' t'eir o3n cause and e==ect. The te)ple also helps /s see .eit di99erentl#* in his 1921 )asterpiece Heing and Ti)e.hen . t'e ecli%se o= 3orldliness b+ eart'liness? and t'e subsu0%tion o= 'u0an being into t'e 0etabolic s3a+ o= li=e and deat'.# the te)ple> earth and . &ec'nolog+ can onl+ gras% t'e relations'i% bet3een t'e 0ade and t'e gro3n in ter0s o= a 'ierarc'+ 3'ic' 0akes %ossible t'e e)%loitation o= t'e distinction in ter0s o= standing reser8e.2" In t'e i0ages o= (art' =ro0 s%ace? 'e sa3 eart' undone.s o9 planet and glo.E &hat so)e 7reeks called ph#sis> he e!plained> B.o/t the sight> Bas i9 there had ne2er . Arendt 2oiced si)ilar an!ieties in The H/)an Condition. &'eir ai0 3as to resist t'e i0%ulse to reduce li=e to a set o= 0ec'anical? causal relations'i%s.e.orried .e (or .e.h#.orldE to descri.a#s acti2e and independent o9 )an6 Bthe .orld. Altho/gh the concept e2ol2ed o2er the co/rse o9 HeideggerGs career> in this lect/re it re9erred to a real) 9or h/)an . Heidegger and Arendt enJoin /s to ask .24 :n this> Heidegger )irrored a n/). he de9ined it6 eart' is Ct'at 3'ence t'e arising brings back and s'elters e8er+t'ing t'at arises as suc'.o/t nat/re as antidotes.e hear Bearth>E and . categor# in his 2oca.E The lang/age is o.erg later re)arked a.hen he spoke o9 earth and .o/t the eclipse o9 the gro. o9 the planet as s/ch that .eit in a prod/cti2e str/ggle that )akes each .orldE re=ers to a scene =or 'u0an li=e? =or Ct'e destin+ o= a 'istorical %eo%leE to %la+ itsel= out.2+ So)e o9 her )ost potent lang/age> ho.n.ords> the 7reek co/ld .o/t )odern technolog# .sc/re to )oderns.21 And like Heidegger> she .o/t 7reek te)ples6 BThe te)ple> in its standing there> 9irst gi2es to things their look and to )en their o/tlook on the)sel2es. Here is ho.E &orldliness had .# arti9acts> . Stone and the space opened /p . &'e %er8erse e==ect o= 0odern tec'nological acu0en 3as to reduce t'e 0ost arti=actual o= creatures to 0ere organis0s. :n this lect/re> ho.ord BearthE to the .ith so)e )odi9ications* to an ancient 7reek conception o9 teleological nat/re or ph#sis.e are led to consider that =or 0oderns to t'ink o= %lanets is .E Heidegger . &'ese i0ages occluded a second e)istential 'orizon also? t'e one 3it' 3'ic' eart' 3as %aired. Hut =ro0 a certain re0o8e? t'at 8er+ %rocess a%%eared as Iust t'e o%%osite.o/t the categories o9 BearthE and B.orks o9 art a.entieth-cent/r# thinkers an!io/s a.orld. The te)ple Broots itsel9E in the )o/ntainO the stone o9 the )o/ntain BJ/ts thro/ghE the te)ple-. As an ill/stration> consider .4K :n so)e respects> it is eas# to see .een )en> his .all.# rd. Sho/ld .ict/re>E in The American Historical Review 116.E &e o9ten see arth .e re9er to 2ie.ho looked to ancient ideas a. C. CNot a trace o= 'u0an beings?E Hl/)en.s o9 arth al)ost indiscri)inatel# as 2ie.n .orld>E that is> t'e 3ork o= art also Clets t'e eart' be an eart'.o/t a 2ie. as an un3illed strateg+ =or 'olding %o%ulation gro3t' in c'eck.anted also to resist a second red/ction.hat Heidegger had in )ind .ere legion> a st/. :n Bsetting /p a . :t )ight ha2e )ade )ore sense> ho.ro9essor o9 Histor# and H/)anities at =eed College> B arthrise6 or> 7lo.een a pro)inent Heideggerian the)e 9or so)e ti)e> addressed (al.# the te)ple. 3orld.e2er> to so)e ancients. :or Aristotle? %'+sis re=erred to an autono0ous source or %rinci%le o= 0o8e0ent in a li8ing organis0K Heidegger re=erred to it as an Ce0erging and arising in itsel= and in all t'ings.orld> are there9ore Joined> al.40 Arendt 0a+ 'a8e o%%osed t'e ecli%se o= t'e gro3n b+ t'e 0ade =or =ear o= doing a3a+ 3it' one di0ension o= t'e background conditionJt'e biologicalJ out o= 3'ic' 'u0an beings e0erge. That is> Heidegger appealed openl# (. At a still4%ro)i0ate reser8e =ro0 t'e sur=ace o= t'e %lanet? =or e)a0%le? arti=acts and t'e 3ork reBuired to %roduce t'e0 3ould a%%ear as t'ose o= ants a%%ear to 'u0an beings.# great .e2er> . :t is also in so)e .hat pro)pts this slippage and .orn 9act re)ains6 3it'out 'u0an arti=ice? t'ere can be neit'er eart' nor 3orld? no scene =or being4'u0an.ork in t/rn.e2er> he e!plored its relation to a ne.E (art' is a Cs'eltering agent?E he e!plained> =or t'ose t'ings t'at Carise.e do so> . I= t'e 8ie3 trans=or0ed eart' into (art'? e)istential ground into %lanetar+ bod+? it did a3a+ 3it' 3orld b+ erasing e8idence o= arti=ice altoget'er.ords B arth>E Bplanet>E and Bglo.o2e all.E :n other .E2$ Hut t'e 8ie3 o= (art' =ro0 s%ace t'reatened bot' o= t'ese 'orizons =or 'u0an being.29 (8en nuclear 3ea%ons? s'e '+%ot'esized? could be understood in t'is 3a+. It is a Csel=4o%ening o%enness. S%ace de8elo%0ent and e)%loration add Iust one %'eno0enological angle b+ 3'ic' 3e can seek t'is 'ierarc'+ in t'e cos0os.er o9 t.hat it is. He 3orried about t'e dis%lace0ent o= eart' b+ t'e C0erel+ astrono0ical idea o= a %lanet?E o9 rde .e call earth>E or in the 7er)an> rde. #azier 2011 IHenJa)in> Associate .o/t the character o9 )odern )aking> and the# .orlds>E Heidegger sa#s.as reser2ed 9or a related> in2erted 9ear6 the red/ction o9 the )ade to the gro.hat it i)plies.orried a..ali3ation o9 the &orld .er 14> 194$* that Heidegger deli2ered on the origins o9 the . :ro0 s%ace? t'e =uture o= t'e 'u0an condition looked bleak.eco)e* 7reek onl# in the space opened /p .hat Heidegger had to sa# a.orld .

een earth and . :or? in HeideggerGs 8ie3? onl+ a 3orld su%%orted b+ t'e eart' can gi8e t'ings t'eir %ro%er 0easure.een e!istent things> gi2ing the) pro!i)it# or distance> their pec/liar te)poral stat/s and their scope and li)its. &'e 3orld and eart' are constantl+ disclosed to Dasein as such? but tec'nolog+ tears 'u0anit+ out o= t'is ontological 3ells%ring o= 8alue and reduces e8er+t'ing to standing reser8e. . . .ork (and it is 9or this reason that )an# Heideggerians read hi) as a proto-ecological philosopher Isee 5olt3> 199$O ?i))er)an> 199"K*.ell kno.orld as a pheno)enological space that conditions Qthe totalit# o9 o/r in2ol2e)ent .ith thingsG (19616 "1$*.et. &'e later Heidegger t'us stri8es to de=end an eart'bound notion o= t'e 3orld and t'is? in 'is 8ie3? reBuires t'at 3e reIect o%ernican ideas o= t'e %ri0ac+ o= s%ace in t'at? =or 'i0? Ls%aces recei8e t'eir essential being =ro0 locales and not =ro0 Cs%aceEG (191+a6 4$6*.ithin . 6ore generall+? Heidegger concei8es t'e eart' as t'e ground o= all a%%earance and t'e %'+s+s out o= 3'ic' t'e 3orld e0erges /a ground t'at su%%orts t'e no0os o= t'e 3orld1. In HeideggerGs 8ie3? t'e eart' is t'e ontological basis =or our localized sense o= %lace.ithin . It is 3'at 'e ter0s Lt'e ser8ing bearerG A an idea related to t'e %agan conce%tion o= t'e eart' as t'e gi8er o= li=e A and as suc' a %ri0ordial ground Lblosso0ing and =ruiting? s%reading out in rock and 3ater? rising u% in %lant and ani0alG (19116 1"9@$0*.e seen in the 8rigins o9 the &ork o9 Art> . 5or hi)> t'e 3orld is constituted b+ a tacit set o= basic e)istential attitudes to t'e 3orld A care? understanding? 0ood and so on A and is related to L3'at lies be=oreG in t'e sense o= being 'and+ or readil+ a8ailable. . &'us? in t'e earl+ HeideggerGs 8ie3? it is t'e 3orld t'at %ro8ides t'e conditions o= %ossibilit+ =or t'e basic s'a%e and c'aracter o= %'eno0enological e)%erience as suc' .lanetar# &orld>E in Theory. &urnbull 200! INeil> Senior Lect/rer in .a# the# co)e to stand s/ch that the opening o9 a .hich Q'asein isG is replaced . to things as that .ellingG @ as a ke# ele)ent o9 the Q9o/r9oldG o9 arth> Sk#> 7ods and 0ortals @ is the )ore pro)inent 9eat/re o9 his later . As one co))entator has p/t it6 the .orld . .here Heidegger recogni3es that LO3Porld and eart' are essentiall+ di==erent =ro0 one anot'er and +et ne8er se%arated. Society 24K As is .6 160*.orld 9or Heidegger can again .'at a%%ears as t'e . As t'e eart' is trans=or0ed into a cos0ological re%resentation? t'e eart' loses its ontological status as a site o= d3elling and is reduced to an obIect o= %ossible kno3ledge =or 0odernit+Gs tec'nological subIect . At least =or 0oderns? it is Cset u%E or disclosed as a globe? as a 0a%? clot'ed in an arti=actual? i= in8isible? net. Culture.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 17 :ile &itle alread+ to t'ink o= globes? or t'at =or 0oderns to 0ars'al t'e intellectual resources reBuired to t'ink about %lanets i0%licitl+ 0eans to relate to t'e0 in 3a+s enabled b+ t'eir intensi8e and e)tensi8e 0a%%ing.e are =ated to a globalization o= t'e 3orld %icture? in t'is 8ie3? e8en 3'en? strictl+ s%eaking? 3e see no globe at all.ithin .hich Lgi8es t'ings t'eir 0easureG > Qan open spaceG .orks s/ch as The 8rigin o9 the &ork o9 Art> t'e 3orld contin/es to .orld )eas/res the relations .oth technolog# and .hilosoph# and Social Theor# at Nottingha) Trent Cni2ersit#> BThe 8ntological ConseA/ences o9 Copernic/s6 7lo.ellsG*.'ole (art' is in =act Iust anot'er instance o= t'e tec'nological globeJand still 3orse? a tec'nological globe t'at 0asks its =act.al Heing in the . &'us? =or t'e later Heidegger 3orlds are onl+ concei8able as suc' A suc' t'at t'e 3orld is attained as 3orld @ onl+ 3'en t'e+ =ra0ed b+ t'e sk+ abo8e and t'e eart' beneat' (see 0alpas> 20006 221*.et.2 .orldG is concept/all# insepara.e 2ie. &'e 3orld grounds itsel= in t'e eart' and t'e eart' Iuts t'roug' t'e 3orldG (191+. e)phasis gi2en to earth in HeideggerGs later philosoph# is an Qatte)pt to think the essence o9 things in a ne. So)e Heidegger scholars recogni3e that the ne. The close relationship .orld in the conte!t o9 Qd. gi2es its r/le or la. .le 9ro) that o9 Qthe earthG (and in )an# . (5#nsk> 19946 1"1* Ho.# the idea o9 the 9o/r9old .hich Q)an d.ed in a si)ilar . &'e naked (art'? in t'is 8ie3? is an+t'ing but.n> in Heing and Ti)e> the earl# Heidegger concei2ed o9 the . Th/s> 9or the later Heidegger> a/thentic 3a+s o= li8ing stand radicall+ o%%osed to 3'at 0ig't be ter0ed L o%ernican 0odes o= e)istenceG? =or to li8e aut'enticall+ on t'e eart' is to Lrecei8e t'e sk+ as sk+G and to Llea8e t'e sun and 0oon to t'eir Iourne+? t'e stars to t'eir coursesG (191+a6 4$2*. and 3it'out t'is relation? t'ings 'a8e no LtrueG 0easure /and in suc' a case? t'e 0easure0ent o= t'e 3orld in ter0s o= an abstract 0at'e0aticized =acticit+ A reBuired =or t'e e==icient 0aintenance o= %urel+ tec'nological relations'i%s A beco0es t'e ant'ro%ocentric 0easure o= all t'ings1.hich things Qrecei2e protectionG (191+.a#G (0/lhall> 19906 169* and that> 9or the late Heidegger> Q aut'entic d3ellingG is no longer a 0atter o= a te0%oralized Lbeing4in4t'e43orldG @ as it .a# as the Qgo2erning e!panseG> .e2er> the A/estion o9 the signi9icance o9 the earth and its relationship to . Clearl#> 9or the later Heidegger> the idea o9 Qthe . :n later .6 11"*.hich directs the .'en seen in t'is 3a+? t'e eart' is 8ie3ed as =or0ing t'e ontological basis =or 3'at Heidegger ter0s Lt'e 3orkG A o= bot' artist and artisan A and its corollar+ t'e Lt'ingl+ c'aracter o= t'e 3orldG (191+.6 1+0*.as in Heing and Ti)e @ but is reconcei8ed as a d3elling L%oeticall+ on t'e eart'G and Lunder t'e sk+G (Heidegger> 191+a6 4$1*.orld .a#s> 9or the later Heidegger> the idea o9 the .

.n depth o9 . 4"(1*> Technolog#> o.standlose.ing tendenc# to treat all technolog# as the sa)e. I= 3e call so0et'ing LnearG 3'en it is a s0all %'+sical distance a3a+? or instead call it QnearG because it is an i00ediate obIect o= our concern> in .hen .le that once .ords o9 HeideggerVs 19"9 Hre)en lect/res.ith the . At ti)es Heidegger also sho.th o9 plants. &rue nearness to t'e t'ing co0es not =ro0 0aking it as close as %ossible in %'+sical or 0ental ter0s. &'is Lstanding reser8eG is 3it'out distance? 3it'out true nearness? and is ontologicall+ identical 3it' 3'at 3as earlier called %resence4at4'and. All science is ruled in ad8ance b+ tec'nolog+Ja =orgetting o= t'e 'iddenness o= being and a reduction o= t'ings to t'eir %resence or out3ard look. a )otori3ed no/rish)ent ind/str#> essentiall# the sa)e as the 9a.n.11-2$* L0 QAll distances in ti)e and s%ace are s'ri8elingG (Heidegger> 199"> p.hat Heidegger )eans. 21*.are thro/gh stop-action photograph#.sG (Heidegger> 199"> p. $*. Har0an in 0$ (7raha)> .o). H/t Heidegger is /ni)pressed .e held responsi.ser2ed that the e#eglasses on )# 9ace are 9/rther than the acA/aintance : see approaching on the street> since the glasses are /s/all# ignored as long as the# are clean and in good .# aircra9t.oth cases .h#sical distance is dissol2ed . 6*. $*.hilosoph# T A)erican Cni2ersit# in Cairo> BCa). &ec'nolog+ turns e8er+t'ing into an accessible sur=ace? de8oid o= distance.e )ake the sa)e )istake6 3e reduce t'e t'ing to its %resence4at4'and. &'e inabilit+ to let an+t'ing be distant =ro0 us is 3'at Heidegger calls t'e LdistancelessG> or das A.eing . The 9or)erl# slo.here Heidegger o. :n this . at Hiroshi)a 9o/r #ears earlier is not so i)portant> since the real disaster happened long ago .eing itsel9 )/st .# these technological gi))icks6 Lt'e 'ast+ re0o8al o= all distances brings no nearnessK =or nearness does not consist in a s0all a0ount o= distanceG (Heidegger> 199"> p.e seen in his clai) that the e!plosion o9 the ato)ic .as 9orgotten in 9a2o/r o9 presence (Heidegger> 199"> p. 8r e2en )ore )e)ora.rication o9 h#drogen . Pet e2en nearness to h/)an concern is not Qtr/eG nearness6 9or Heidegger> a stop-action 9il) gi2es /s no tr/e nearness to the gro. Distance is not a discrete %'+sical s%an? but re=ers %ri0aril+ to distance and nearness =or 'u0an concern.ithdra.a#> all o. The radio )akes in9or)ation instantl# a2aila. :nstead> true nearness reBuires distance. $*. 6*.orking order.Jects and things in Heidegger p.th o9 plants is laid .e9ore stea)ships and co)p/ters appear.ers and e!ter)ination ca)ps> the sa)e as the . 2$@6*. and )#sterio/s gro.le 9or the era o9 technolog#.e )ani9ested in so)e 9or) o9 o2ersi)pli9ied presence> it is e2en the case that . Tr/e nearness and tr/e distance are one and the sa)e.rication o9 corpses in gas cha).eing itsel9 can . None o9 this sho/ld co)e as a s/rprise to readers o9 Heing and Ti)e> .eing .l#6 QS)all distance is not alread# nearness.ro9essor o9 . :nso9ar as .as no longer /sed in 19"9> it is still . And this leads to one o9 HeideggerVs )aJor technical ter)s pertaining to technolog#6 Q&'e distanceless is ne8er 3it'out a stance IStandK.ent /nkno. It 0a+ be a 0ore %oliticall+ sinister =or0 o= suc' %resence t'an 0ost? but it s'ould be re0e0bered t'at Ltec'nolog+G =or Heidegger is alread+ %resent in 'u0an 'istor+ long . 7reat distance is not #et 9arnessG (Heidegger> 199"> p.o). Q(8er+t'ing dissol8es toget'er into a uni=or0 lack o= distanceG (Heidegger> 199"> p. 8r> e2en )ore contro2ersiall#6 QAgric/lt/re is no.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 12 :ile &itle Distance /Har0an1 The a99ir)ati2eGs technological atte0%t to re0o8e t'e CdistanceE bet3een 'u0anit+ and s%ace reduces it to an ontological standing reser8e." So go the opening .s the dist/r. It stands? inso=ar as e8er+t'ing %resent is standing reser8e IHestandKG (Heidegger> 199"> pp.ridge Lo/rnal o9 cono)icsE> 2009> Fol.lockade and star2ation o9 nations> the sa)e as the 9a.Jects are red/ced to a single )o/rn9/l 9eat/re6 their s/per9icialit# in co)parison . This can . Tho/gh the phrase Qpresence-at-handG .

ill de)and a di99erent set o9 Qphilosophical ideals and 2oca.hile at the sa)e ti)e .e#ond its re)it. 7ro/nds . 'ele/3e and 7/attari note that> at t'e birt' o= 0odernit+? 0odern %'iloso%'+ Lturns back against itsel= so as to su00on =ort' a ne3 eart' and a ne3 %eo%leG (199"6 99*. Ho3e8er? 3'en t'is issue is concei8ed in a Deleuzian 0anner? %'iloso%'+Gs task is again to su00on =ort' a ne3 conce%tion o= t'e eart' a%%ro%riate to t'e global cos0o%olitan age.s in all directions> 9ree intensities and no)adic sing/larities (19+16 "0*. Society 24K 'ele/3e and 7/attari stand o/t as the t. Clearl#> this .ittgenstein and late Heidegger as 0eta%'+sical illusions as e)istentiall+ %ernicious as t'e Aristotelian 0eta%'+sics t'at t'e+ re%laced . but onl+ 3'en t'e idea o= t'e eart' is s'ar%l+ di==erentiated =ro0 t'at o= territor+.ere th/s located else.e philosophicall# artic/lated. &hen concei2ed in this )anner> the earth is no longer concei2ed as a . In o%%osition to t'e idea o= t'e LcodedG eart'? t'e+ o==er an idea o= t'e eart' as decoded and unengendered? an Li00obile 0otorG? LOsPu==ering and dangerous? uniBue? uni8ersalG it is t'e L=ull bod+G and an Lenc'anted sur=ace o= inscri%tionG (19+46 1$"*.> Heidegger 0ade t'e 0istake o= con=lating eart' and territor+> 9or no.e sit/ated. H/t> in t/rn> the e)ergence o9 the planetar# di)ension to )odern li9e /nder)ined their territoriali3ed conceptions o9 philosoph#> creating a hiat/s in the histor# o9 &estern philosoph# (that so)e ha2e )istaken 9or the end o9 philosoph# itsel9*. To conceive of the earth in this manner requires a rejection of the basic assumptions of ‘subjectivist’ modern philosophy – for when rendered ‘earthly’.hat the# ter) Qdesert earthG and the sense o9 a Qne.lanetar# &orld>E in Theory.orld . :n their 2ie.e 0ust gi8e u% on 0odern %'iloso%'+Gs insistence on t'e necessity o= trut'K t'roug'out t'e (nlig'ten0ent? t'is resulted in t'e denigration o= t'e eart' and all t'ings associated 3it' its ra3 0aterialit+Je0otion? %assion? 'u0an =initude. t'e old Greek eart' Lbroken? =ractalised and e)tended to t'e entire uni8erseG ('ele/3e and 7/attari> 199"6 10"*.hilosoph# and Social Theor# at Nottingha) Trent Cni2ersit#> BThe 8ntological ConseA/ences o9 Copernic/s6 7lo.hich all )inds and .ider heliocentric interplanetar# s#ste) (the Qthird stone 9ro) the s/nG*.ho ha2e pro2ided the )ost s#ste)atic atte)pt to philosophi3e in a QpostCopernicanG )ode 9or an age . Its continual 0o8e0ent and de%endence u%on 0uc' larger and scienti=icall+ 0ore signi=icant inter%lanetar+ =orces 0ade it a %oor candidate =or certaint+ and necessit+.eing rede9ined and repositioned as one ele)ent o9 a . &urnbull 200! INeil> Senior Lect/rer in . the earth has . &'e eart' =or Deleuze and Guattari re%resents a uto%ia (see 7oodchild> 1996* and stands in stark o%%osition to t'e eart' o= L(nglis'G ca%italistic e)%ansion. It is onl+ in t'e last centur+ t'at suc' 0o8es 3ere e)%osed b+ t'e late . This conception o9 the earth can longer 9/nction as an a priori cogniti2e sel9-J/sti9#ing principleO 9or the glo. :t is the Qsingle planeG that escapes the territorial codings o9 the )odern nation-state> and is the e!traterritorial gro/nds 9or thinking and acting .here gro/nd> sk# and .# )odern philosophers @ in )ore anthropological locations s/ch as s/.o philosophers ./lariesG @ ones less Qgro/ndedG in narro. Instead? to sa+ 3it' Nietzsc'e? in order to C'a8e =idelit+ to t'e (art'?E 3e 0ust recognize t'at onl+ Not'ing can ground a C0eaning=ulE relations'i% to t'e os0os.eco)e .here . but something that takes place in a deterritorialized space between territory and earth ('ele/3e and 7/attari> 199"6 +$*. Th/s> =or Deleuze and Guattari? t'e eart' is LOtP'e Deterritorialised? t'e Glacial? t'e giant 6olecule A Ca bod+ 3it'out organsEG (19+16 "0*. planetar# idea o9 the .odies can .al earth is a d#na)ic and 9l/id @ largel# QoceanicG @ earth .eco)e so)ething other than territor# in its cos)opolitical separation 9ro) cartographic control.Jecti2it#> lang/age and%or the hidden teleologies o9 histor#. Nietzsc'ean %'iloso%'+Gs atte0%t to re4ground 'u0an 0eaning in t'e c'aotic =lu) o= eart'liness re%licates t'e structure o= (nlig'ten0ent t'inking b+ insisting t'at 0eaning is? b+ de=inition? grounded.ackgro/nd . 5or the)> the iss/e o9 t'e nature and signi=icance o= t'e eart' re0ains one o= t'e central concerns o= %'iloso%'+.l# de9ined ideas o9 earth as . t'e eart' re0o8ed =ro0 its nodal %osition as t'e ulti0ate ground o= t'e Aristotelian uni8erse and Le)%lodedG into Lt'e uni8erseG . According to t'e0? t'e %lane o= t'e eart' Lkno3s not'ing o= di==erences in le8el? orders o= 0agnitude? or distancesG (19+16 6+*O suc' codings can onl+ co0e =ro0 t'e social tec'nological L0ac'inic asse0blagesG t'at straddle and Lcartogra%'iseG t'e eart'./t a destrati9ied plane /pon .# 9lo. &'is ne3 eart' 3as t'e o%ernican eart'.ater con2erge to 9or) a ne. &'e i0%lication o= t'is clai0 is t'at t'e 0aIor issue =acing conte0%orar+ .hen the old earth has . &'e eart' is t'us not Lone ele0ent a0ong ot'er ele0entsG (199"6 +$*> =i)ed in s%eci=ic %lace in ti0e under a Ls%eci=ic sk+G? but a =luidit+ Lt'at brings all ele0ents 3it'in a single e0braceG (199"6 +$*. earthG has #et to . Culture. thinking is neither a line drawn between subject and object nor a revolving of one around the other.oth terra and its political corollar# territor#. The earth is a space per)eated .estern %'iloso%'+ toda+ is 'o3 to Lde8iseG a %'iloso%'+ t'at interrogates and gi8es Lontological senseG to %lanetar+ deterritorialization A t'e e%oc'al 0o0ent 3'en t'e eart' loses its ancient association 3it' territor+ A 3'en? as Deleuze and Guattari %oint out? %'iloso%'+ itsel= is still territorialized on Greek soil? suc' t'at Greece A and i%so =acto (uro%e A is still Lt'e %'iloso%'erGs eart'G (see 'ele/3e and 7/attari> 199"6 +6*.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 1$ :ile &itle Necessit+ .al Heing in the .

ith a single plane o9 co)position.rings all ele)ents .al .a# o9 Qd. And> 9or 'ele/3e and 7/attari> this ne.e the Qtao o9 glo.orld> is /nderstood> in an :rigara#an )anner> as largel# QairG*.# the Q2ast sea o9 darkness s/rro/nding a . kind o9 philosopher @ in their 2ie.l/e and green point o9 /ni9ied> sing/lar h/)an spaceG (=ed9ield> 19966 2$+*> .orld that )/st .e shared . It is t'e condition o= %ossibilit+ =or a %lanetar+ ideal o= a ne3 'u0anit+ A t'e non4'u0an basis and destin+ o= e8er+ 'u0an A t'at brings toget'er t'e %lanetGs cultural and ecological ele0ents in a singular cos0ological e0brace (s/ggesting that . Hut 20 :ile &itle t'is does not necessaril+ i0%l+ t'at %lanetar+ re%resentations are si0%l+ anot'er i0%erialistic a8atar Lt'at uni8ersalises loss o= 0eaning? t'e societ+ o= t'e 8oidG (Lato/che> 19966 14*. No? =or t'e ne3 uni8ersal e)%resses a ne3 %olitical i0aginar+ outside t'e ideological strictures o= t'e 0odern nation4state.oth nat/ral and c/lt/ral li9e are holisticall# related as 2i.ide a.# all.itho/t territor#O an idea o9 glo. . This is earth is not the h#per)odern Copernican earth> .rant )/ltiplicities*. earth reA/ires a )ore topological artic/lation .alisationG (see Anderson> 200"6 11* and the Qlast /ni2ersalG6 the planetar# .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant (.odeG (see =adhakrishnan and 0oore> 19+96 11@12*. This idea o9 the earth is also 9o/nd in :ndian philosoph# @ especiall# in Fedic traditions ./t a d#na)ic and open earth that is an e!pansi2e plane that . planetar# 0itsein.# a ne.eing 9or a ne. :t stands 9or the idea o9 a .eco)e nonphilosopher @ in order to )ake /lti)ate sense and signi9icance o9 .here h/)an 2al/es and 2italities are rendered di)in/ti2e .ellingG .here the earth> as .hat )ight .here the earth is concei2ed as Qthe 9arspreading oneG and a Qgreat . the philosopher )/st .

&o understand %'+sical realit+ see0s to de0and not onl+ t'e renunciation o= an ant'ro%ocentric or geocentric 3orld 8ie3? but also a radical eli0ination o= all ant'ro%o0or%'ic ele0ents and %rinci%les? as t'e+ arise eit'er =ro0 t'e 3orld gi8en to t'e =i8e 'u0an senses or =ro0 t'e categories in'erent in t'e 'u0an 0ind. &'e %rogress o= 0odern science 'as de0onstrated 8er+ =orce=ull+ to 3'at an e)tent t'is obser8ed uni8erse? t'e in=initel+ s0all no less t'an t'e in=initel+ large? esca%es not onl+ t'e coarseness o= 'u0an sense %erce%tion but e8en t'e enor0ousl+ ingenious instru0ents t'at 'a8e been built =or its re=ine0ent.# the h/)anistGs concern .as so alien to the 7reeksG 9ra)e o9 )ind that the# had not e2en a .E 6 &'at t'e Buestion %ro%osed 'ere 0akes no sense to t'e scientist Bua scientist is no argu0ent against it.ork has helped to )ake o. &'e Buestion c'allenges t'e la+0an and t'e 'u0anist to Iudge 3'at t'e scientist is doing because it concerns all 0en > and this de.n . .solete> descri.eing there is.# .areness o9 realit#.e kno.e coordinate the perception o9 o/r 9i2e senses into the total a. Hut all ans3ers gi8en in t'is debate? 3'et'er t'e+ co0e =ro0 la+0en or %'iloso%'ers or scientists? are non4scienti=ic (altho/gh not anti-scienti9ic*O . Scienti=ic sense is in'u0an sense. &'e ans3er is not likel+ to con8ince t'e scientist? because 'e 'as been =orced? under t'e co0%ulsion o= =acts and e)%eri0ents? to renounce sense %erce%tion and 'ence co00on sense > .e ans.E" &'e %oint o= t'e 0atter is t'at (ddington? 3it'out t'e slig'test 'esitation? assu0es t'at t'ese %'+sical data e0erge =ro0 a Creal 3orld?E 0ore real b+ i0%lication t'an t'e 3orld 3e li8e inK t'e trouble is t'at so0et'ing %'+sical is %resent but ne8er a%%ears.hich . Atlantis 5all 2001K &'e goal o= 0odern science? 3'ic' e8entuall+ and Buite literall+ 'as led us to t'e 0oon? is no longer Cto aug0ent and orderE 'u0an e)%eriences (as Niels Hohr>$ still tied to a 2oca.ith )an> as disting/ished 9ro) the ph#sicistGs concern . (The reason 9or the a.a#s. Arendt !1 IHannah> A)erican political philosopher> BThe ConA/est o9 Space and the Stat/re o9 0anE The Ne. He 'as also been =orced to renounce nor0al language? 3'ic' e8en in its 0ost so%'isticated conce%tual re=ine0ents re0ains ine)tricabl+ bound to t'e 3orld o= t'e senses and to our co00on sense.# the scientists the)sel2es inso9ar as the# are 9ello.ord h/)anitas 9ro) 7reek lang/age and tho/ght .ered at all*. Atlantis 5all 2001K Has )anGs conA/est o9 space increased or di)inished his stat/reRE1 The A/estion raised is addressed to the la#)an> not the scientist> and it is inspired .elie9 atopos> Ba.hat disting/ishes h/)an 9ro) ani)al li9eR> he . citi3ens.here )odern science stands toda#. :or t'e scientist? 0an is no 0ore t'an an obser8er o= t'e uni8erse in its 0ani=old 0ani=estations.orld nor in the la.ith the realit# o9 the ph#sical .ate )/st o9 co/rse . And t'is e==ect? in t'e telling i0age o= (ddington? 0a+ C'a8e as 0uc' rese0blanceE to 3'at t'e+ are Cas a tele%'one nu0ber 'as to a subscriber.sence o9 the .here> neither in o/r e2er#da# .s/rd.ed it*O it is 0uc' rat'er to disco8er 3'at lies be'ind natural %'eno0ena as t'e+ re8eal t'e0sel8es to t'e senses and t'e 0ind o= 0an.e )eet the) no. &'e data 3it' 3'ic' 0odern %'+sical researc' is concerned turn u% like C0+sterious 0essengerOsP =ro0 t'e real 3orld.e ha2e inherited 9ro) the =o)ans> . &'e Buestion assu0es t'at 0an is t'e 'ig'est being 3e kno3 o=> an ass/)ption . The ans.e Joined .h# does )an p/rs/e kno./lar# that his o.'at conseBuences 3ill t'e result o= 0+ in8estigations 'a8e =or t'e stature /or? =or t'at 0atter? =or t'e =uture1 o= 0anQ It 'as been t'e glor+ o= 0odern science t'at it 'as been able to e0anci%ate itsel= co0%letel+ =ro0 all suc' ant'ro%ocentric? t'at is? trul+ 'u0anistic? concerns. &'e Buestion %ro%ounded 'ere? inso=ar as it is addressed to t'e la+0an? 0ust be ans3ered in ter0s o= co00on sense and in e8er+da+ language (i9 it can .hat sho/ld .ord 9or it.orator#O .o/ld ha2e acted as de9initions and hence as li)itations o9 his e99orts. In t'e 3ords o= Niels Ho'r? C<nl+ b+ renouncing an e)%lanation o= li=e in t'e ordinar+ sense do 3e gain a %ossibilit+ o= taking into account its c'aracteristics.E*2 &'is 8ie3 o= 0an is e8en 0ore alien to t'e scientist? to 3'o0 0an is no 0ore t'an a s%ecial case o= organic li=e and to 3'o0 0anGs 'abitatJt'e eart'? toget'er 3it' eart'bound la3sJis no 0ore t'an a s%ecial borderline case o= absolute? uni8ersal la3s? t'at is? la3s t'at rule t'e i00ensit+ o= t'e uni8erse.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 21 :ile &itle Science &'e e)%loration and de8elo%0ent o= s%ace assu0es 'u0anit+ to be t'e 'ig'est being Arendt !1 IHannah> A)erican political philosopher> BThe ConA/est o9 Space and the Stat/re o9 0anE The Ne. Surel+ t'e scientist cannot %er0it 'i0sel= to ask.hich . Had the scientist re9lected /pon the nat/re o9 the h/)an sensor# and )ental apparat/s> had he raised A/estions s/ch as &hat is the nat/re o9 )an and .E 4 &'e+ are not %'eno0ena? a%%earances? strictl+ s%eaking> 9or .ledgeR or e2en &hat is li9e and .as that the 7reeks> in contrast to the =o)ans> ne2er tho/ght that )an is the highest . o9 their presence onl# .o/ld ne2er ha2e arri2ed .e his stat/reR &hat is the goal o9 science and .ers to these A/estions . Aristotle calls this .hose h/)anitas .eca/se the# a99ect o/r )eas/ring instr/)ents in certain .orld.

ho listens and hears .eco)e )ani9est to /s )en onl# later. B6odern scienceGs 3a+ o= re%resenting?E according to Heidegger? C%ursues and entra%s nature as a calculable co'erence o= obIects. ariMo in 0$ (Lo2ito F.eing ad)itted to .horterGs e!pression> )anage e2er#thing.hat is re2ealed that decei2es )an to .hose . 42 .# ignorance and there9ore are irrele2ant.e the# h/)anists> scholars> or philosophersNall those> in short> . The scientist has not onl# le9t .ork in the la./t once he opens hi)sel9 to the essence o9 )odern technolog#> he can .hat is re2ealed in the sense o9 ordering and challenging 9orth.E 41 That is ho.e s.hat is concealed re2eals itsel9 to /s @ as a conceal)ent that /nconceals itsel9 in re2ealing and a re2ealing .e gotten aro/nd.ilit# o9 )an p/rs/ing nothing .elongs to destining .E The# .er> 2009 pp.o possi.E 40 :n another essa#> Heidegger descri. :t is this penchant 9or . The 9act is not )erel# that the scientist spends )ore than hal9 o9 his li9e in the sa)e . "91$0" Heidegger and t'e Danger o= 6odern &ec'nolog+? Enframing and the History of Western Thought – The Danger of Modern Technology1 N6 Hu0an subIecti8it+ as 0ere calculation o= obIects =irst dis%la+s itsel= in the appearance o9 )odern ph#sics as a 0odern science.ho raise pre-scienti9ic A/estions .elongs to destining> to 7eschick.e in a position o9 the B9e.here the naW2e A/estions and an!ieties o9 the la#)an ha2e )ade the)sel2es 9elt 2er# 9orce9/ll#> al.hen he goes to .hich re)ains concealed in /nconceal)ent.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 22 :ile &itle t'e+ can ne8er be de0onstrabl+ true or =alse. 2en .ehind a part o9 hi)sel9 and his o.een the scientist and the la#)an> ho.session to . SL:F> No.hich> especiall# in recent ti)es> ha2e the /nco)9orta.e a)ong the li2ing.1 &'e t'eoretical %er%le)ities t'at 'a8e con=ronted t'e ne3 non4 ant'ro%ocentric and nongeocentric /or 'eliocentric1 science because its data re=use to be ordered b+ an+ o= t'e natural 0ental categories o= t'e 'u0an brain are 3ell enoug' kno3n.ith regard to the arising that holds s.er-'ece). &'eir trut' rese0bles rat'er t'e 8alidit+ o= agree0ents t'an t'e co0%elling 8alidit+ o= scienti=ic state0ents . 6odern 0an tho/gh> t'roug' t'e enc'anting e==ect o= 0odern tec'nolog+? 'as been =i)ated 0erel+ 3it' 3'at is re8ealed./t it 9reA/entl# o/tlasts the co)pellingl# and de)onstra. :n the destining that destines .elonging to . can an#one do/. In t'e 3ords o= (r3in Sc'rRdinger? t'e ne3 uni8erse t'at 3e tr+ to CconBuerE is not onl+ C%racticall+ inaccessible? but not e8en t'inkable?E =or C'o3e8er 3e t'ink it? it is 3rongK not %er'a%s Buite as 0eaningless as a Ltriangular circle?G but 0uc' 0ore so t'an a L3inged lion. Ho.locked.:N:ANA SAC=AE> Fol./t .ilit# o9 the .hen the ans.N.hose s/perior kno.hich )ani9ests itsel9 onl# later as the Binaccessi.locking o9 )an 9ro) . 142 Septe).hich is still h/)an /nderstanding . As a )ode o9 re2ealing> en9ra)ing also .ling )an to conA/er space and go to the )oon has increased his stat/reR &'is sort o= b+%assing t'e Buestion 3ould be 8er+ te0%ting indeed i= it 3ere true t'at 3e 'a8e co0e to li8e in a 3orld t'at onl+ t'e scientists Cunderstand.ers are gi2en .a#s go hand in hand.> B.er o9 /nderstanding> . In ot'er 3ords? notions suc' as li=e? or 0an? or science? or kno3ledge are %re4 scienti=ic b+ de=inition? and t'e Buestion is 3'et'er or not t'e actual de8elo%0ent o= science 3'ic' 'as led to t'e conBuest o= terrestrial s%ace and to t'e in8asion o= t'e s%ace o= t'e uni8erse 'as c'anged t'ese notions to suc' an e)tent t'at t'e+ no longer 0ake sense.es that .le and not to .elie2e that he can grasp e2er#thing or to /se 0c. :n s/ch an e2ent> the other possi.o/ld then .egins to co))/nicate in )athe)atical lang/age. 0an also .a# o9 li9e is solit/de> the# are arri2ed at .E 21 The description B)odern>E Heidegger 9/rther added> points not so )/ch to the sciencesG application o9 e!peri)ents on nat/re .ilities co)e to 9ore6 9irst> the possi. It is in this sense that )odern ph#sics is t'e 'erald o= (n=ra0ing> 2+ and as t'e essence o= 0odern tec'nolog+? en=ra0ing Cstarts 0an u%on t'e 3a+ o= t'at re8ealing t'roug' 3'ic' t'e real e8er+3'ere? 0ore or less distinctl+? beco0es standing reser8e .hich is earlier .ehind the la#)an . :or t'e %oint o= t'e 0atter is? o= course? t'at 0odern scienceJno 0atter 3'at its origins and original goalsJ'as c'anged and reconstructed t'e 3orld 3e li8e in so radicall+ t'at it could be argued t'at t'e la+0an and t'e 'u0anist? still trusting t'eir co00on sense and co00unicating in e8er+da+ language? are out o= touc' 3it' realit+K t'at t'e+ understand onl+ 3'at a%%ears but not 3'at is be'ind a%%earances (as tho/gh tr#ing to /nderstand a tree . &hat is s/ch dangerR : shall e!plore HeideggerGs ans.orld o9 sense perception> o9 co))on sense> and o9 e2er#da# lang/age as his 9ello.ho) )a# no longer .eca/se o9 ignorance.eit in a di99erent )anner.'en 3e delude oursel8es t'is 3a+? 3e =orget not onl+ oursel8es but t'e %assing o= unconceal0ent itsel=. 5ollo.ilit# o9 .oth )an and n9ra)ing> t.o ele)ents> concealing and re2ealing> al.et. The t.# an e!change o9 opinions a)ong )an# )en> )ost o9 .itho/t taking the roots into acco/nt*O and that their A/estions and an!ieties are si)pl# ca/sed .H:L:. .# philosophers . citi3ens> . Suc' =orgetting is an ele)ent o9 3'at Heidegger %oints out as CdangerE.a#ed to the p/rs/it onl# o9 .ledge entitles the) to r/le the B)an#>E na)el#> all non-scientists> la#)en 9ro) the scientistGs point o9 2ie.t that a science ena./t that he has co)e in his o.l# tr/e state)ents o9 the sciences .n pri2ileged 9ield o9 acti2it# to a point .orator# and .ing the 7reeks> Heidegger )aintains that6 BThat .er to this A/estion in the third part o9 this paper. 6a) 5lanck 3as rig't? and t'e 0iracle o= 0odern science is indeed t'at t'is science could be %urged Co= all ant'ro%o0or%'ic ele0entsE because t'e %urging 3as done b+ 0en .GE+ 6odern science atte0%ts to calculate and en=ra0e obIects b+ re8ealing t'e0? causing 0an to =orget t'at concealing belongs 3it' re8ealing.E n9ra)ing is a )ode o9 re2ealing that challenges 9orth and orders.n po.hat is /nconcealed is also .le inclination ne2er to sta# p/t> altho/gh at an# gi2en )o)ent the# are> and )/st .hat is re2ealed in ordering and challenging 9orthO and second> the possi./t to 0odern sciences penchant to set u% nature t'at it 0a+ be calculated in ad8ance.eca/se he is the one .. The 'anger o9 0odern Technolog#.hat is /nconcealed and apparentl#> gi2en the conte)porar# )anGs o.E . 2en this> sa#s Heidegger> is part o9 the destining o9 )an and part o9 the destining o9 all co)ing to presence. S/ch tr/th can ne2er co))and general agree)ent> .ith his li)ited /nderstandingO he has le9t .e> 2alid 9or all. This di2ision . &'is =orgetting is t'e ulti0ate danger to Heidegger because en=ra0ing causes 0an to beco0e a standing4reser8e unable to encounter or realize 'i0sel=.e2er> is 2er# 9ar 9ro) the tr/th.a# .

# do)esticating hi) in their o.# Heidegger> the deter)inations )a# .hat is calc/la.E . . &hat )akes the sit/ation do/.orld lies not> then > in . 6anGs belonging to 3'at is concealed alt'oug' o=tenti0es =orgotten b+ 0an 'i0sel= is 3it'in t'e destining o= 0an? t'e sa0e destining 3'ic' introduces itsel= to 0an as danger. .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant r/le and control the B)ega-energiesE o9 nat/re.a# in the )anner o9 (n=ra0ing. Heidegger calls this representation o9 the /nconcealed Bcorrect deter)inations.hat is /nconcealed .le and can .e2er> this is not #et the /lti)ate danger 9or Heidegger. :t see)s that the 9or)er possi.l# called the ca/se or ca/sa e99iciens or .e represented . (art'Gs resources are a %lent+ 'ence t'e necessit+ o= 0anage0ent as a strateg# 9or do)ination and control> but t'e 0ore 'e tries to 0anage e8er+t'ing? t'e 0ore 0an distances 'i0sel= =ro0 3'at is essential.a#> )an can t/rn a.e correct .hate2er is con2enient 9or those .ilit# is the one holding s.ise persist> that Bin the )idst o9 all that is correct the tr/e . :t is danger or as Heidegger calls it> Bdanger as s/chE .s @ not in its penetration into the secrets o9 galactic e)ergence or n/clear 9ission @ .e can ne8er 'a8e? or kno3? it allK 3e can ne8er 0anage e8er+t'ing.eca/se once the destining o9 re2ealing holds s.E 46 5/rther> Heidegger holds that 7od hi)sel9 is not 9ree 9ro) this representational thinking. &'is leads to 3'at Heidegger c'aracterizes as Ct'e ulti0ate delusionE 3'ic' 0an e)%eriences 3'en 'e Cstands so decisi8el+ in attendance on t'e c'allenging4=ort' o= (n=ra0ing t'at 'e does not a%%re'end (n=ra0ing as a clai0? t'at 'e =ails to see 'i0sel= as t'e one s%oken to and 'ence? also =ails in e8er+ 3a+ to 'ear in 3'at res%ect 'e eksists? =ro0 out o= 'is essence? in t'e real0 o= an e)'ortation or address? and t'us can ne8er encounter 'i0sel=.l# /n9ort/nate is that t'is =act is 'idden =ro0 0an 'i0sel=? t'at is? t'e =act o= 'is belonging to 3'at is concealed . Heidegger calls it t'e ulti0ate danger because in its 'olding s3a+? (n=ra0ing does not onl+ reduce obIects as standing4reser8e? as t'e orderer o= t'e standing4reser8e? 0an 'i0sel= is reduced to t'e status o= standing4reser8e. As pointed o/t . He is in2aria.hen the destining holds s.hat it kno./t in 3'at it =orgets? 3'at it itsel= conceals./t in the )idst o9 these correct 9or)/lations> the danger can like. 0c&horter .a# 9ro) .rites6 The danger o9 a )anagerial approach to the . 29 :ile &itle Since nature is seen as a store'ouse o= resources? 0anGs relation 3it' it is reduced in ter0s o= 0anage0ent.# red/cing it to .ho think the# e!alt 7od .ill 6an encounters t'e ulti0ate danger .a#.n categories. It =orgets t'at an+ ot'er trut's are %ossible? and it =orgets t'at t'e belonging toget'er o= re8ealing 3it' concealing is =ore8er be+ond t'e %o3er o= 'u0an 0anage0ent..ithdra.E Ho.

Heidegger . The state o9 science since the t/rn o9 the cent/r# @ it had re)ained /nchanged despite a certain a)o/nt o9 ho/se cleaning @ is eas# to see. Let /s consider the e!a)ple o9 science> . . &e )a# choose to call the instit/tion .hether it is applied to t'e organization and regulation o= a nationGs 8ital resources and race @ in an# case t'e s%irit as intelligence beco0es t'e i0%otent su%erstructure o9 so)ething else> .hich is o9 partic/lar concern to /s at the /ni2ersit#.ar.o/ndless .eco)es 9alse once . :9 the spirit is taken as intelligence> as is done in the )ost e!tre)e 9or) o9 0ar!is)> then it is per9ectl# correct to sa#> in de9ense against it> that in the order o9 the e99ecti2e 9orces o9 h/)an .ngrade o9 )isinterpretation and e)asc/lation o9 the spirit.hich> . The cle2erness itsel9 is s/. &'is cle8erness is a 0atter o= 0ere talent and %ractice and 0ass di8ision o= labor . Here . Their s/.at one another @ science as technical> practical> pro9essional kno.ased on the a. These . An a3akening o= t'e s%irit cannot take its de%arture =ro0 suc' science.od#> all s/reness and . The con9/sion o9 spiritlessness can e2en go so 9ar as to lead the /pholders o9 the technical> practical 2ie. &'e s%irit is =alsi=ied into intelligence t'us =alls to t'e le8el o= a tool in the ser2ice o9 others> a tool the )anip/lation o9 . It is indes%ensible i= t'e %eril o= 3orld darkening is to be =orestalled and i9 o/r nation in the center o9 the &estern .ork o9 dis)e).e ranked . &'ese standards o= %roduction and consu0%tion are called 8alues. In t'e end t'e s%irit as utilitarian intelligence and t'e s%irit as culture beco0e 'olida+ orna0ents culti8ated along 3it' 0an+ ot'er t'ings./t this is no )ore than a na)eO the B/ni2ersit#E has ceased to . The# di99er onl# in this6 in the present sit/ation t'e tec'nical? %ractical conce%tion o= science as s%ecialization can at least la+ clai0 to =rank and clear consistenc+? 3'ile t'e reactionar+ inter%retation o= science as cultural 8alue no3 0aking its rea%%earance seeks to conceal t'e i0%otence o= t'e s%irit be'ind an unconscious lie.'et'er t'is use o= intelligence relates to t'e regulation and do0ination o= t'e 0aterial conditions o= %roduction (as in 0ar!is)* or in general to t'e intelligent ordering and e)%lanation o= e8er+t'ing t'at is %resent and alread+ %osited at an+ ti0e (as in positi2is)* or .s (: shall A/ote 9ro) the address : deli2ered on the occasion o9 )# appoint)ent as rector> . Toda# t'is 'odge%odge o= disci%lines is 'eld toget'er onl+ b+ t'e tec'nical organization o= t'e uni8ersities and =aculties and %reser8es 3'at 0eaning it 'as onl+ t'roug' t'e %ractical ai0s o= t'e di==erent branc'es./t soon . The spirit/al . &'e cultural 8alues %reser8e t'eir 0eaning onl+ b+ restricting t'e0sel8es to an autono0ous =ield6 poetr# 9or the sake o9 poetr#> art 9or the sake o9 art> science 9or the sake o9 science.ranches.h# the asking o9 the A/estion o9 .e /nderstand the tr/e essence o9 the spirit.le pla# o9 the . "6-$0* &'e cru) o= t'e 0atter is t'e reinter%retation o= t'e s%irit as intelligence > or )ere cle2erness in e)a0ining and calculating gi8en t'ings and t'e %ossibilit+ o= c'anging t'e0 and co)ple)enting the) to )ake ne.at c/lt/re or 9a2or .hole> t'e asking o= t'e Buestion o= being> is one o9 the essential and 9/nda)ental conditions 9or an a.ea/t# o9 the .eginning =/ssian Co))/nis) took a p/rel# negati2e attit/de . o9 science to pro9ess their . The# are .a#s and at ti)es )ore essent.e ta/ght and learned.eing-there. The last )isinterpretation o9 the spirit is .le tool .it> nor the .arel# )anage to li2e /p to the).er)ent carried on .h#> .elie9 in science as a c/lt/ral 2al/eO then the t.a#s.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 2* :ile &itle Kno3ledge45roduction &ec'nolog+ reduces kno3ledge4%roduction to a 0ere tool and robs us o= 3'at it 0eans to be t'inking beings.oth are )o2ing along the sa)e do.eco)e 9ields o9 9ree endea2or> .le third 9actor.ited as a proo9 that there is no intention to co).hich> along . :n the .e can e!plain onl# in these .ent o2er to propagandist tactics o9 this kind.eco)es c/lt/re and the indi2id/al stri2es to per9ect hi)sel9 in the creation and preser2ation o9 this c/lt/re.eing-there> the spirit> ie intelligence> )/st al. &here spirit pre2ails> the essent as s/ch .o2e-)entioned 9alsi9ications .E Science toda+ in all its branc'es is a tec'nical? %ractical business o= gaining and trans0itting in=or0ation.road o/tlines . H/t this order .Ject to t'e %ossibilit+ o= organization? 3'ic' is ne8er true o= s%irit. health# ph#sical acti2it# and character.orld o9 historical .itho/t spirit or e2en opposed to the spirit> is taken 9or the act/al realit#.o see)ingl# di99erent conceptions o9 science see) to co). things. As soon as t'e 0isinter%retation sets in t'at degrades t'e s%irit to a tool? t'e energies o= t'e spirit/al %rocess> poetr# and art> states)anship and religion> beco0e subIect to conscious culti8ation and %lanning.o /nderstand eachother per9ectl# in the sa)e spiritlessness. 5or all tr/e po. &hat : said here in 1929> in )# ina/g/ral address> is still tr/e o9 the 7er)an /ni2ersit#6 BThe scienti9ic 9ields are still 9ar apart. The attit/de o9 the litterate/r and esthete is )erel# a late conseA/ence and 2ariation o9 the spirit 9alsi9ied into intelligence. &'e sciences 'a8e lost t'eir roots in t'eir essential ground.oldness in standing> are gro/nded in the spirit and rise or 9all onl# thro/gh the po.hich sets its o.n standards and .$ (0artin> An :ntrod/ction to 0etaph#sics> .eco)es al.here the speciali3ed sciences are gro/ped together 9or p/rposes o9 teaching and research a /ni2ersit#> .eing is in itsel9 thro/gh and thro/gh historical> and . Tho/gh toda# t. :n opposition to this )/ltiple )isinterpretation o9 spirit> .ranches .e a 9/nda)ental 9orce 9or /nit# and responsi. 6ere intelligence is a se0blance o= s%irit? 0asking its access.Jects are treated in 9/nda)entall# di99erent .hich can .ith its prod/ct> is sit/ated in the real) o9 c/lt/re.hich represent the spirit as intelligence> and intelligence as a ser2icea. The# are split into . The spirit is the s/staining> do)inating principle> the 9irst and the last> not )erel# and indispensi.orld-reasonO no> s%irit is a =unda0ental? kno3ing resol8e to3ard t'e essence o= being.eca/se it is .ilit#.e de9ine the essence o9 the spirit as 9ollo.orld is to take on its historical )ission.orld .elo.akening o9 the spirit and hence 9or an original .er or i)potence o9 spirit.# the %ractical intelligenceO )/ch less is it .a#s .ro/ght o/t and e!hi.eca/se o9 its s/ccinct 9or)/lation*6 BS%irit is neit'er e0%t+ cle8erness nor the irresponsi.E S%irit is t'e 0obilization o= t'e %o3ers o= t'e essent as suc' and as a 3'ole. It is itsel= in need o= an a3akening. Th/s the inA/ir# into essent as s/ch and as a .ledge and science as c/lt/ral 2al/e per se @ .er and ..aris).

:ile &itle accordingl#> o/r A/estion as to .eco)e the destin# o9 the &est is an#thing .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 2.ill re)ain a )ere 2apor 9or /s or ./t an e!aggeration and a rhetorical 9ig/re. .eing .hether .

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 2! :ile &itle Hege0on+ &'e a==Gs 3orld4ordering engages in a t+%e o= t'inking t'at reduces all li=e on eart' to a tool to be instru0entalized? =urt'er disconnecting oursel8es =ro0 3'at it 0eans to be.hen one gi2es /p the Christian 9aith> one p/lls the right to Christian )oralit# o/t 9ro) /nder oneVs 9eet.e trans)/ted into the political do)ain.Jecti2it# is that o.# an Xorder o9 rankX in . The t. . That is> Niet3sche recogni3es the persistent> tho/gh declining> in9l/ence o9 the Christian ideal .ilight o9 the :dols> XThe .as he a)iss in appreciating its hesitant approach> despite its ine!ora.X :t is not #et reali3ed> o.est disc'arges t'e energ+ o= its 0oral essence? doing so as aut'or o= t'e %re8ailing 0oralit+ and as t'e locus o= t'e do0inant subIecti8e egois0s 3'ic' 'a8e been ine8itabl+ di==used to deter0ine all %olitical cultures? t'e latter o= 3'ic' are no3 bound to t'e . .estTs 'ege0on+ o8er 3orld %olitical culture.S (8er+t'ing 3'ic' is Sis trans=or0ed into obIectS and Ss3allo3ed u% into t'e i00anence o= subIecti8it+. H/t this> pres/)a.ill to po. . And .orld order )o2e)ent is transnational> the &est co-opting s#)pathetic 9orces in the de2eloping .orld> t. The conte0%orar+ 3orld order in structure and 8alue orientation is instituted on t'e basis o= .? a sel=4 grounded 8alue4%osit? t'at entails t'e tec'nocratic conce%tion o= 3orld order and? t'us? eli0inates a 0eaning=ul distinction bet3een t'e nor0ati8e and tec'nocratic a%%roac'es .ard total sel9-a99ir)ation> total so2ereignt# in the a.hat Niet3sche recogni3es in &estern )oralis)6 :t is %at'ologicall+ conditioned.al go2ernance> anticipating that this ideal . It ..ro.ith this s/.# li9e itsel9 in all its pre2alent patholog#> %osits its 8alues4%eace? Iustice? econo0ic 3ell4 being? ecological balance4o8er against all t'at s'o3s itsel= as t'e conte0%orar+ %at'olog+ o= S%ett+ %oliticsS and all t'at is counter8aluation in t'e stri=e 0oti8ated b+ t'e reBuire0ents o= global 'ege0on+.er-politics.sence o9 7od and transcendent nor)s.elie2e Al the )ore 9ir)l# that the# )/st cling to Christian )oralit#. Niet3sche . It is %recisel+ t'is gro/nd> i.le) o9 glo.e a Xh#.hich> in the essence o9 the technological> is total> and .entieth cent/r#> i.er heightening the de)ands o9 )odern )anVs sel9-deter)ination> the Christian conscience #et restraining-in short> a X9etteredX )o)ent in h/)anit#Vs )o2e)ent to.X That is> inso=ar as t'e creation o= secureness is grounded in 8alue4%ositing and 3orld order t'inkers on t'eir o3n essential aut'orit+ (/nderstood )etaph#sicall#> not personall#* seek to secure a 3orld order? t'en 3orld order t'inking cannot but be so grounded.o/ld .XXV Co))ens/rate . soR Heidegger ans.as not a)iss in his artic/lation o9 the great task that . .ill to po.estern 8aluation? t'e <ccident re8eals its near e)'austion> i9 not its desperation> in t'e =ace o= co0%eting 0odes o= subIecti8it+ as 0ani=est b+ a =rag0ented and antagonistic Ss+ste0S o= nation4states? eac' 3it' its Ss%linter43ill.ro9essor o9 .orld order )o2e)ent e!presses a co))it)ent to trans9or)ing the philosophic orientation (2al/es* as . .e.rites Niet3sche in his T. &'at 3orld order t'inking is 8alue t'inking is e8idence o= its essential debt to t'e Nietzsc'ean 0eta%'+sic? to t'inking t'e 3orld order =ro0 t'e 8antage o= subIectness? =or it is onl+ 3it' Nietzsc'e t'at 8alue t'inking co0es to %redo0inate in t'e t3entiet' centur+.orld order t'inking> th/s> co)pelled .ilit# o9 s/ch a 9ight iss/es 9ro) the patholog# o9 nihilis)N all political tho/ght and practice in o/r ti)e cannot .l#> is li9e (.ords that indict all 2al/e thinking6 St'inking in ter0s o= 8alues is a radical killing.XV As Heidegger p/ts it> XFal/es ste) 9ro) 2al/ationO 2al/ation corresponds to the . strikes do3n t'at 3'ic' is as suc'? in its being4in itsel=.o/ld .ith respect to the pro.orld order thinking> : s/.al go2ernance.e Xpathologicall# conditionedX (T.X Accordingl#> the conte)porar# . XThe# are rid o9 the Christian 7od>X .entieth cent/r#Vs e)erging order .ridX o9 sickness> the .ilit#.ser2es Niet3sche> that X.ilight o9 the :dols (XSkir)ishes o9 an Cnti)el# 0an>X note $*> #et Xno. Neither .Jecti2it# .estern reason> and as s/ch it is characteri3ed .orld order6 Not.er*O and> as Niet3sche p/ts it> X li=e itsel= =orces us to %osit 8aluesK li=e itsel= 8alues t'roug' us 3'en 3e %osit 8aluesX (T.hat is this patholog#R It is not'ing ot'er t'an t'e stri=e o= subIecti8e egois0s as +et un0astered .e.> are hege)ono/s 2is-a-2is all XotherX (Asian> A9rican> Latin A)erican> etc.ill to po. 110-11* The ine2ita. :n . &'e attraction to Srational designS o= t'e 3orld order is toda+ 0oti8ated b+ a Sense o= i00inent catastro%'e and? t'us? b+ t'e 'u0an i0%ulse to sel= %reser8ation.le) o9 glo. Ho.le) o9 Socrates>X note 10*.hilosoph# at the Cni2ersit# o9 Alaska (Nor)an K.it her this e!ha/stion nor this desperation is restricted to the &est6 &'e ScrisisS is e==ecti8el+ %lanetar+ .etra#ed .hich /ropean 2al/es ha2e pri)ac#> i.o/ld #et iss/e in the call 9or a )oral . In t'is %ositing o= %ri0ac+ to t'e . S3azo 02 @ .S 7i2en that this .o/ld de9ine the t.ilight o9 the :dols> X0oralit# as Anti-Nat/re>X note $*.ell as trans9or)ing instit/tional str/ct/res and patterns o9 . S/ch is the essence o9 po.ithstanding the death o9 7od> Christian 2al/e J/dg)ents .. .e.l# a/tochthono/s 2al/ations.> the pro. Here> ho.hich 9inds its instr/)ent in technocrac#.)it> t'e .ers in ./t . &orld order thinking is> th/s> nor)ati2e.> Crisis Theor# and &orld 8rder6 Heideggerian =e9lections> p.* pla/si.er.eha2ior.e2er> it is li9e itsel9 that co)pelsO and precisel# in this attraction to rational design o9 the 3orld order is there .

le) )/st .ith the inception o9 )odern science in the se2enteenth cent/r# and /nresol2ed since then.e. Does talk o= creating a 3orld4order still 0ake sense i=? =ro0 t'e start? 3e are =aced 3it' irreconcilable ideas on t'e constitution o= a rig't orderQ an one %lan according to a standard o= 3orld4order i= one is ignorant o= t'e end to3ards 3'ic' all 0ediating and %ossible ste%s %roceedQ 'oes not all planning on a .> Crisis Theor# and &orld 8rder6 Heideggerian =e9lections> p.ro9essor o9 .ilit#> as the possi..eca/se it goes 9/rther .hich order sho/ld r/le> .orld scale the A/estion is6 According to .ith . This> 9or 7ada)er> is the real antino)# con9ronting . The pro.ith o/r )oral and religio/s traditions.X Like 7ada)er A/estioning the legiti)ac# o9 the Xscienti9icX planning the i)ple)entation o9 a .> techne> and practical kno.ledge or phronesis.rongl# posited> 9or here is Xan ideal o9 ad)inistration .le . the)sel2es in the pheno)ena .ed /nder the na)e a). These sho.le and learna.hich s/rro/nds the standards.orld scale depend on the e!istence o9 a de9inite )/t/al conception o9 the goalR Gada0erTs concern in t'is 3riting is 3it' 3'at is 'eld to count as Sa 0eaning=ul standardS =or %olitics 3'en %olitics S%resu%%oses t'e c'angeabilit+ o= conditions .hile o.X This is nothing less than Xthe idea o9 a s/perior techneX-as 7ada)er p/ts it> Xthe political techne>X Xthe /lti)ate e!pertise..ilit# o9 li2ing together> reA/ires a Xco))/nal tr/th.elie2es that t'e Sactual taskS to3ards 3'ic' 3orld order t'inking 0ust contribute? Son 3'ose success t'e %ossibilit+ o= a true 3orld %eace stands or =alls? is t'e realization o= t'e 'u0an sel=.# 9irst s/.X Pet> this possi.orld-order as it sho/ld .hich does not speci9# its contentX and in .# a religio/s tr/th and .ser2es6 There is a pl/ralis) o9 tr/ths and 9or)s o9 peace. :or t'at in trut' is t'e %roble0 o= 3orld4order 3'ic' occu%ies us at %resent? because? b+ 2irt/e o9 the ci2ili3ing achie2e)ents o9 /ropean science? t'e %roble0 'as been raised to a uni=or0 le8el o= i0%ortance t'roug'out t'e 3orld .e.# the tr/th o9 science and the technocratic peace it )akes . o9 the X2ictorio/s co/rse o9 )odern scienceX and Xthe de2elop)ent o9 scienti9ic )ethods to g/ide the li9e o9 societ#>X i. S'ould so0et'ing t'at does not +et e)ist be %lanned and i0%le0entedQ .# the peace it )ade possi. :t has to ..orld order thinkers6 The A/estion .X :t is 2on &ei3sackerVs insight that X&hat this .> the per2asi2eness o9 scienti9ic thinking in Xall aspects o9 social pra!is. Traditional societies li2ed . $$-$+* 7ada)er poses 9/nda)ental A/estions in 2ie.9/scating the /ncertaint# .ards itRX :n asking this A/estion 8on .e )eas/redR To the e!tent that scienti9ic precision /nderscores planning 9or the 9/t/re> 7ada)er is concerned that %recise %olitical arrange0ents 0a+ rat'er S%ro8oke all t'e 8er+ o%%osite ideas o= 3orld4order.le.hat right do .# religion.# science> in ter)s o9 o/r o.SS <nl+ t'us can it be e)%ected t'at Sa 3'ole societ+ s'ould co0e o= age. :t see)s to )e less /rgent to 9ind .hat concepts are . .ed in a )ore general conte!t> as a . .eizsacker e)%resses concern =or 3'at 'e calls t'e uncann+ %'eno0enon o= Sa0bi8alenceS4St'at =rig'tening %'eno0enon t'at 3e 'a8e all seen and e)%erienced in our o3n actions? na0el+ t'at a %osition taken 3'ic' t'en reBuires a radical =or0 destro+s itsel= and %roduces its o3n negation.hilosoph# at the Cni2ersit# o9 Alaska (Nor)an K.S Des%ite t'e desirabilit+ o= t'e 3orld order 8alues and t'e rationalit+ o= assent to t'e0> 2on &ei3sacker notes that Sinsig't into a0bi8alence si0ultaneousl+ s'akes t'e naV8etWS o= t'is set o= 8alues? inas0uc' as t'ere re0ain 8ital Buestions 'a8ing to do 3it' t'e %rocess o= Ssel=4enlig'ten0entS 3'ic' cannot be ans3ered or resol8ed b+ 0eans o= a S%rogra0.X 7i2en his 2ie.hich Xthe iss/e is not .ringing the) to a 9r/it9/l s#). The )odern .elie9 in science so characteristic o9 o/r age.XX :n short> 7ada)er thinks the task to .e asked .* considers that it 0a+ rat'er be St'e o8erde%endence on scienceS t'at S'as increased t'e uncertaint+ regarding t'e intended goals> the content o9 a .e 2ie.s on h/)an nat/re> 2on &ei3sacker .i2alence.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 27 :ile &itle Hege0on+ 6odule &ec'nological relations'i%s to t'e 3orld and ot'ers are c'aracterized b+ t'eir utterl+ 0anagerial essence? and t'e+ can onl+ %roduce s+ste0s o= 8alue 3'ic' =ind t'eir o3n 8alidit+ in total 3orld4ordering.X The ke# A/estion> then> is6 X'oes the ideal o9 techne> the teacha..a#s o9 reconciling s/ch progress .orld to scienti9icall# in9or)ed and g/ided planning> .e pose goes co)pletel# against the grain o9 the /nA/estioned .iosis> than to e2al/ate the signi9icance o9 the ci2ili3ing progress> )ade possi.orld cannot )aster are the realities in )an that are not present in his e!pressed ideas. As 2on &ei3sacker o.ack in ti)e.a#s o9 reconciling occidental ci2ili3ation .hat criteria is correctness o9 a /ni2ersal political order to . descri.X Th/s> ..n c/lt/ral heritage and to disco2er .X He (a* contends that St'ere e)ists no rational basis =or belie8ing t'at t'e e)%ansion o= t'ose areas in 3'ic' rational %lanning and ad0inistration is success=ul 3ould bring a reasonable 3orld43ide %olitical s+ste0 an+ closer to realization>X and (. S3azo 02 @ . Uet? t'e 0eans to real %eace is rooted in t'e a0bi8alence o= t'e 'u0an soul.hen speaking o9 politics at the .e think to.X Here lies a 9/nda)ental di99ic/lt#.XX <bser8ing /a1 t'at t'e a%%lication o= science in 0an+ areas o= social %ra)is Sgi8es e)%ertise a co00anding %osition in the econo)# and societ+S and /b1 t'at t'ere 'as been a s'i=t =ro0 Ssi0%l+ understanding t'e e)isting order o= t'ingsS to St'e di==iculties o= %lanning and creating an order not +et in being?S Gada0er asks.ith alien traditions in distant lands and ./t that e2er#thing sho/ld ha2e its order..Jecting the design o9 o/r .e> ..e to think into the 9/t/re> and .orld 8rder> 2on &ei3sacker raises the A/id J/ris A/estion> X&ith .le e!pertise> satis9# the de)ands con9ronting )anVs political e!istenceRXX &'e %'iloso%'ic issue 'ere is t'at bet3een t'e 0oderns and t'e ancients concerning t'e nature and %ur%ose o= %olitics? bet3een science a%%lied to societ+> i. All re=lection about t'e %otential ordering o= our 3orld 0ust %roceed =ro0 t'e dee% tension 3'ic' e)ists bet3een t'e asserted aut'orit+ o= science and t'e et'ics and custo0s o= national =or0s o= li=e trans)itted . .roader A/estion posited .orld li2es .e .

elongs to /ropean c/lt/re> o.ho 9inds peace .hen : can reno/nce the /nA/estiona.ith 7ada)er> the a/thorit# o9 tradition in contradistinction to that o9 )ode) science is at iss/e here.hich res/lt in enantiodro)ia6 &'ere can be no lo8e in one 3'o does not lo8e 'i0sel=? and one can onl+ lo8e 'i0sel= i= 'e 'as t'e co0%assion t'at gro3s out o= t'e terri=+ing con=rontation 3it' oneTs o3n sel=. )an# . Societ+ 3ill al3a+s gi8e cause enoug' =or acts o= 8iolenceO : can o2erco)e the 2iolence in )#sel9 onl# .ith .> to the o2erco)ing o9 indi2id/al and gro/p egois)> and .ilit# o9 sel9-reali3ation is to /nderstand that onl# the great traditions o9 religio/s tho/ght pose and ans. I= 3orld %eace is a %rinci%al desideratu0 o= t'e 3orld order Buest? is tec'nocratic %eace t'e =itting res%onseR That is> i9 a process o9 sel9-enlighten)ent is .hat onl# 7od .een .ser2es 2on &ei3sacker> #ields its Xans.ack> can Xt/rn the other cheekUX The o2erco)ing o9 2iolence )/st al.ith hi)sel9> and that )eans peace .X Pet> this is so Sonl+ 3'en t'e ot'er realities in 0an are not de8elo%ed? realities t'at set li0its to t'is s%'ere and gi8e it content .le6 &'e actual o8erco0ing o= 8iolence can occur onl+ 3'ere its roots are? in t'e 'u0an soul. 8nl# he . is to learn co)passion 9or the shado.ith 7od> can radiate peace.X The L/deoChristian tradition . in a ca)paign to do good> not 9or lo2e> .hole societ# co)e o9 age .ill and /nderstanding>X i.le right : ha2e to hit . H/t it is i)possi.orld peace . &o understand t'e %'eno0enon o= a0bi8alence is to understand t'at St'e s%'ere o= t'e 3ill and understanding 'as t'e c'aracter o= t'e e0%t+ boundlessness o= %o3er .a#s originate in )#sel9.le./t ps#cholog#> in e!act 9or).hich . Sa#s Tho)pson> St'e 0ost %er%le)ing =or0 o= e8il? and es%eciall+ so =or all idealists? is t'at kind o= e8il 3'ic' co0es out o= our e==orts to do good.hat does tr/th )eanRX Again> as .hat c/lt/ral historian &illia) :r.hat is and is not achie2a.ill .> o9 .le in ter)s o9 e!pedient rationalit#>X Tho)pson speaks o9 lo2e in the conte!t o9 those egoistic )oti2ations to do good .S ./t in a distinction .X :n short> t'e 3orld t'at clai0s us out o= t'e =uture in 3'ic' 3orld %eace is ac'ie8ed is 9or 2on &ei3sacker not Sa 3orld o= .ill .in Tho)pson> in his )editation on the ineradica.hen technocratic peace pre2ailsR 5or 2on &ei3sacker> to think the possi.hich is essential to sel99/l9ill)ent> i.e sec/red .hich re)ains Xco)pletel# inco)prehensi.ring a. o9 others> and i9 one has no co)passion 9or hi)sel9> then he can ha2e no co)passion 9or others.o/t> th/s in co)prehension o9 .o/t and . Hut t'e %eace t'at arises =ro0 a grou% o= suc' )en is no %ossible target o= a %lan an+ longer? no S%re=erred 3orldS =or intellectual acti8ists.erX in its ethic o9 non2iolence-.X Fon &ei3sackerVs concern 9or the pheno)enon o9 a). :9 #o/ hate #o/rsel9 .hat is essential> does a .XX Like 2on &ei3sacker .itho/t this 9orce.e.asis in tr/th.i2alence is consonant . :n the e#es o9 ho.et./t to resc/e #o/r ego and con2ince #o/rsel9 that #o/ are not e2il.ilit# o9 e2il 9ro) the h/)an order> has called the pheno)enon o9 enantiodro)ia.er the A/estion in depth.e see dissonance> an!iet#> 9ear> and sel9-loathingR &'e+ 3ould re=or0 t'e 3orld? but t'e+ cannot e8en re=or0 t'e0sel8es.orld-trans9or)ing acti2ists do .estern reason.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 22 :ile &itle possi.ring a.ith a 9ierce loathing> #o/ )a# tr# to r/n 9ro) #o/r o. Scienti9icall# speaking this is no political progra))e> . To look into oneVs shado.le that a gen/ine> e2erlasting . Here the ethic o9 non2iolence has its . H/t in the 9ace o9 this pl/ralis) .n shado.ho speaks o9 the pheno)enon o9 lo2e as that .hat )en can .e.

ing e99icienc# and co)petiti2eness. ConseA/entl#> econo0ic sur8i8al struggle and t'e glori=ication o= co0%etiti8eness 'ide t'e =act t'at t'e+ ai0 at 0assi8e ordering> t'us ad0iring t'e 0egalo0ania o= endless gro3t' and e)%ansion.eings /nder the logic o9 technological )anip/lation> t'e tec'no4ca%italist logic o= o%ti0ization o= %roducti8it+ and co0%etiti8eness t'at constantl+ seeks to o%en ne3 0arkets b+ turning t'ings into %roducts o= %ro=it )aking e2ent/all# present one o9 the ontic realities that ha2e accelerated the glo. 7lo. 2010 http6%%.s (Heidegger 1911d614"@14$O See also Loronen 200+O 0oisio 200+6+9@90*.lanetar# Space Planetary System of Ordering.ilit# e8er+t'ing is establis'ed as %roducible %roducts and hence deli2ered to the )arkets in ter)s o9 gro.een po..# the co)petition .ali3ation t/rns into a str/ggle .pd9RseA/ence<1* L0 Cnder s/ch coloni3ation o9 calc/la..een di99erent technological .ali3ation o9 7estell..ali3ation @ gro.et./siness calculation. Cnder s/ch econo)ic )allea.ing giganticis) 9/elled .9i%. t'e )etaph#sical essence o= 0arkets is to bring all beings into a Buasi4Dar3inian struggle =or sur8i8al bet3een t'e %o3ers o= .orld2ie. H# penetrating and spreading> and hence> . .oth )ani9estations o9 the operational logic o9 technological 7estell. 8/t o9 the colossal co)petition .le price )echanis)> t'e 3'ole globe e8entuall+ beco0es an area o= do0ination.een the 9ig/res o9 calc/lation and )achination> glo.doria.# t/rning all .et.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 2$ :ile &itle (cono0+ lai0s o= econo0ic sur8i8al onl+ ser8e to 'ide t'e in'erent tec'nological %rocess o= global do0ination and calculation o= resources.eings /nder the pre-delineating 9ra)e.ers o9 e99icient )anip/lation @ and s/r2i2al @ a str/ggle to )a!i)i3e the /tilit# and control o9 .ork o9 gigantic calc/lation @ are .et. Noronen in 10 (0ikko> 'octoral candidate in H/)an 7eograph# T The Cni2ersit# o9 T/rk/> The Age o9 . It is %recisel+ because t'is sur8i8al is based on success=ul accu0ulation and e==icient co00odi=ication o= beings? t'at under t'e conte0%orar+ global ca%italis0 t'e 3'ole globe beco0es conBuered =or its 0arket.itstrea)%handle%1002"%66144%AnnalesA::2$1Loronen.

hich )eanings are constantl# shi9ting> in .e )eaningless as a g/ide to practical action in a 9ast changing ./siness ethics literat/re> and t'e %roli=eration o= Ccodes o= conductE .rites6 BY)an# no.# the kind o9 response o9ten e2oked .herein no one is .e are enco/raged to ackno. HeideggerVs Notion o9 X'.# /niA/e sit/ations> .h'.ing case st/d# ill/strates s/ch a scenario and the iss/es it raises. .h# )an# see . 1 (Apr./siness ethics as onl# ./siness ethics a)o/nts to> as so general as to .eing c#nicall# or instr/)entall# adhered to on an Qas neededG . t'e )odern . is s/pported . This 2ie.elie2ed to ha2e an /ndisp/ted corner on Btr/thE. (t'ics born o= t'is a%%roac' are? parado!icall#? in o%%osition to .ro9essor in Leadership and thics T Cran9ield School o9 0anage)ent B&hen 'eontolog# and Ctilitarianis) ArenVt no/gh6 Ho.ledge the pl/ralit# o9 stories in9or)ing organi3ational li9e> and .orld characteri3ed .> 2006*> pp.orating on this idea he .hich are e8er 0ore lacking in 0eaning =or t'e 3orld in 3'ic' 3e o%erate. 5ro) their perspecti2e> initiati2es to )ake the) )ore a.orld o9 oganisations to .# organi3ational leaders enco/ntering the topic o9 . He notes the iron# o9 the gro.een altered in order to preser2e the anon#)it# o9 those in2ol2ed.are o9 the need to adhere to certain codes o= %ractice can see0 irrele8ant in t'e =ace o= t'ose situations 3'ic' trul+ test their et'ical sensibilities.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 90 :ile &itle 5ri8atization 5ri8ate actors =ail A t'e codes o= Cbusiness et'icsE under 3'ic' t'e+ act %er%etuate t'e obIecti=ication critiBued b+ Heidegger and are 0eaningless in t'e %ost40odern 3orld. 6$> No. +1-9+* L0 Li)itations o9 c/rrent approaches to BH/siness thicsE :n conte)porar# ti)es> business et'ics 'as largel+ co0e to 0ean ad'erence to codes o= %ractice? or the de2elop)ent o9 those codes o9 practice./siness ethics.hich . As C/))ings (2000* points o/t> t'ese conce%tions o= business et'ics 'a8e t'eir legac+ in the nlighten)entGs proJect o9 obIecti=ication? rationalit+? and t'e %ursuit o= 0eta4 narrati8es una==ected b+ conte)t.th o9 .hat .asisE (214*. The details o9 this act/al case ha2e . #adkin in 0! /'onna> .ellingX 0ight Help 8rganisational Leaders =esol2e thical :ss/esE Lo/rnal o9 H/siness thics> Fol. Accordingl#> business et'ics 'as co0e to be associated 3it' beureaucrac+? s+ste0s 3'ose intent is to control? delineate? or %rescribe be'a8iors.hat )an# o9 /s kno. regard the c/rrent codes that constit/te peopleGs appreciation o9 .e @ that is> %ost40odernO in . la.h# ethics is o9 little /se in the de2elop)ent o9 co)pan# strateg# (e!cept in the restricti2e sense* . The 9ollo.

(The )etaphor o9 the X2irgin land>X .itedX e)ptiness> in .rites6 The 2is/al descriptions pres/ppose . The i))at/rit# (C)rei 9e* )arking A)erica is total and ph#sicalO e2en the 2egeta.that is> as it )o2es 9ro) indeter)inate .hich the nati2es do not co/nt as h/)an .ithin this recon9ig/red trope o9 the circle is no longer .le> a8ailable =or i0%ro8e0ent..a 2ast X/ninha.e represented as /ncontested.Vs representati2e (enlightened* XanticonA/estX narrati2e a.olic 9/nctions> histories> places in indigeno/s kno.itants 9ro) acco/nts o9 their ha.ack to Hegel> '/ssel .sistence ha. It =ails to see t'at t'e r'etoric o= Si0%ro8e0entS is a ca%italist e)tension o= a 0uc' older s+ste0 o= i0%erial tro%es? one t'at? in naturalizing t'e latter? obscures t'e 3ill to %o3er o8er t'e <t'er t'at is 8isible in its earlier =or0..ith the . 5ro) the point o9 2ie.riters (and social historians* in2aria.e2er> the panoptic /rocentric e#e o9 the nlighten)ent co)es to see in the space .e s/ggesting. /rope is a.le s/rpl/s.e. &'is is t'e tro%e /3'ic' is also an aest'etics1 t'at? along 3it' t'e gaze and t'e centered circle? in=or0s t'e 8er+ et+0olog+ o= S0eta%'+sicsS and t'at is encoded and naturalized in t'e trut' discourse o= t'e <ccident.orld>X t'e (uro%ean %ano%tic gaze =alls on an Suni0%ro8edS s%ace. #ike so 0uc' S%ostcolonialS criticis0? its 'istoricist %roble0atic is blind to t'e ge nealog+ o= t'is 0odern Santi4conBuestS conce%t. "1-""* &hat> ho.> X/n9/l9illedX or X/ncirc/larX* s%ace 0ust? as t'e %ri8ati8e %re=i)es de0and? be de8elo%ed? i0%ro8ed? culti8ated (i. /ropean aspirations )/st .ill.1$ This is an ac/te o.sol/te kno. Indeed? it is t'e 3ildernessTs destin+.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 91 :ile &itle De8elo%0ent &'eir notion o= de8elo%0ent is %art and %arcel 3it' t'e (urocentric tradition o= tec'nocratic 0anage0ent o= Cuni0%ro8edE or Cunin'abitedE s%aces. The /ropean i)pro2ing e#e prod/ces s/.ickl/ng* pla#s a central role. &'is 3ord? t'at is? not onl+ looks =or3ard to Sunderde8elo%ed?S t'e sedi0ented counter3ord t'at constitutes t'e base o= t'e neocolonialist discourse o= late ca%italis0> as .r/tal> )onstro/s> or si)pl# )ore .orld histor#..# its characteristic restriction o9 the .rites6:n the Forles/ngen ii. As the te!ts o9 earl# /ropean tra2el .ert# (5reiheit*> and as a process o9 nlighten)ent (A/9klar/ng*. &'e S3ildernessS as Sunderde8elo%edS or Suni0%ro8edS or Sunculti8atedS (i.. :t 9ocali3es the identi9ication o9 the panoptic ga3e that percei2es this X/ni)pro2edX circ/lar space .eings 4 is seen and encoded not so )/ch as threatening> tho/gh that )eaning is clearl# there as .itats> 9/l9ills its logic.or at least not e!cl/si2el# . H/t this alleged ast-&est )o2e)ent clearl# precl/des Latin A)erica and A9rica 9ro) . =ather> it co)es pri)aril# to see an /nin9or)ed terra incognita.ord Xi)pro2e)entX to the historical conte!t o9 )odern capitalis) (tho/gh the aside re9erring to the e!pression o9 the 2ision o9 i)pro2e)ent in aesthetic ter)s is s/ggesti2e*.ith local histor# and )eaning> .nat/rali3e .riting.r/tal phallic .ro9 o9 nglish T Hingha)ton> America’s Shadow> p.eginning. S%anos 2000 (&illia) F. Tracing the genealog# o9 Ha.ser2ation a.here plants> creat/res> and geographical 9or)ations ha2e na)es> /ses> s#).er die .eing to the a.ledge 9or)ations..> 9/l9illed or circ/lari3ed*.eak or degenerate. Asia is the .hilosophie der &eltgeschichte> Hegel portra#s Z .ith .16 (8en 0ore =unda0entall+? 5rattTs Suni0%ro8edS 'as its origins in t'e 0ore dee%l+ inscribed 0eta%'orics o= t'e seed and its culti8ation? as DusselTs recurrent in8ocation o= t'e r'etoric o= Si00aturit+ t'at in4.itats as Xe)pt#X landscapes> )eaning9/l onl# in ter)s o9 a capitalist 9/t/re and o9 their potential 9or prod/cing a )arketa.l# characteri3e this a)orpho/s and ahistorical Xne.orld histor# (&eltgeschichte* as the sel9reali3ation o9 7od> as a theodic# o9 reason and o9 li.> . ste% to re%resenting t'e0? as A0erican 3riters and 'istorians did t'e Indian race in t'e nineteent' centur+? as eit'er sel=4doo0ed79 or a%%ealing to t'e (uro%ean to sa8e t'e0 =ro0 t'e0sel8es b+ 3a+ o= i0%osing 'is %eace on t'eir 0ulti%l+ 3aste=ul stri=e .:n Hegelian ontolog#> the concept o9 de2elop)ent ( nt. =or0s t'e Hegelian discourse suggests.ledge in the Logic. /n9olds according to a linear dialecticO altho/gh originall# an ontological categor#> toda# it is pri)aril# considered as a sociological one . 89ten the proJect s/r9aces e!plicitl# in Harro. Here the te!t/al apartheid that separates landscapes 9ro) people> acco/nts o9 inha.. H/t it is li)ited .ith i)plications 9or . This concept deter)ines the )o2e)ent o9 the concept (Hegri99* /ntil it c/l)inates in the idea .o/t the Xanti-conA/estX i)perialist disco/rse o9 nlighten)ent tra2el .les and the ani)als are )ore pri)iti2e> ..eings. o9 their inha. It is t'e task o= t'e ad8anced scouts =or ca%italist Si0%ro8e 0entS to encode 3'at t'e+ encounter as Suni0%ro8edS and? in kee%ing 3it' t'e ter0s o= t'e anti4conBuest > as disponi. &'at is to sa+? t'e genealog+ o= t'e 3ord Si0%ro8e0entS in t'e discourse o= %ost4 (nlig'ten0ent tra8el literature is traceable to t'e origins o= <ccidental 'istor+.er)as.hose 2al/e is o9ten e!pressed as aesthetic.1" =e9erring to Lohn Harro.hich> as : ha2e inti)ated> is eA/all# per2asi2e in the disco/rse o9 earl# colonialis)> constit/tes a partic/larl# telling gendered allotrope o9 this )etaphorical s#ste) circ/lating aro/nd the seed. It also 'arks back to 3'at nriA/e Dussel calls t'e Sde8elo%0ental =allac+X in9or)ing nlighten)ent philosoph# o9 histor# 9ro) Ada) S)ith and Lohn Locke thro/gh Hegel Xand a certain 0ar! to Ha..ratt see)s to .ratt .itants> o9 co/rse> these sa)e spaces are li2ed as intensel# h/)ani3ed> sat/rated ..72 &'e %redestinarian 0eta%'orics o= t'e cir cle %reci%itates a 3'ole r'etoric o= 0oral necessit+.. As the pri2ati2e pre9i! e)phaticall# s/ggests? it is a s%ace4ti0e in 3'ic' e8er+t'ing in it 9lora> 9a/na> )inerals> ani)als> and> later> h/)an .sol/tel# the end o9 /ni2ersal histor#.odied in the /ropeans. :ro0 t'is re%resentation o= t'e colonial <t'ers as 0ired in and b+ t'eir o3n c'aotic %ri0ordial condition? one o= t'e 0ost debilitating o= 3'ic' is un%roducti8e %er%etual 3ar? it is an eas+.Vs te!t> in 2isions o9 Xi)pro2e)entX .*11 A retrie2al o9 the eA/all# ina/g/ral 2is/al )etaphorics .ell> as 3aste=ul or unecono0ical and t'us as an untended =allo3 /=e0ale1 terrain calling =uturall+ =or t'e bene=icial 0inistrations o= t'e /adult? 0ale1 center.er)asVs /rocentric representation o9 )odernit# .hich it is .o/t his tra2els as an agent o9 the Hritish colonial go2ernor in the interior o9 the Cape Colon# at the end o9 the eighteenth cent/r#> 0ar# Lo/ise . .a trans9or)ati2e proJect e).e.orld histor# and characteri3es Asia as essentiall# con9ined to a state o9 i))at/rit# and childhood (Kindheit*. 5/rther)ore> this de2elop)ent has a direction6 Cni2ersal histor# goes 9ro) ast to &est. 'e2elop)ent.

.ith the aA/eo/s ele)ent in .i)> and .orld o9 nat/re .e one o9 nat/reVs la.ith light (the spatiali3ation o9 di99erential te)poral pheno)ena* s/ggests> its /lti)ate origin lies in the 8ccidentVs appropriation o9 the .enign connotations o9 the )etaphor o9 Xi)pro2e)ent. ..hich the# s.ith an oak. This )i!t/re is indeed so general and so )/lti9ario/s that it appears to .ilit# the ideological agenda hidden in the .ith the Logos> na)ing the .ro/ght together .s.s side .i.asa con9/sed )ingling o9 ./tion to the i)perial proJect proper> .aters.ant to li)it its origins to the nlighten)ent. :n co).eings that see) to ha2e .ring into 2isi.ith the plants gro.X 92 :ile &itle In t'e %ositi8ist (nlig'ten0ent? t'e Suni0%ro8edS s%ace o= t'e S3ildernessS is understood as a darkness in t'e sense not so 0uc' o= sa8age or barbarous (tho/gh> again> that )eaning6 resonates in the . . in the depth o9 the .ith earthO there> the 2iolet gro.een.easts. .ell*> as o= a %otentiall+ kno3able and usable unkno3n.ledge-prod/cing na)ing-this Linnaean classi9icator# )oti9 -: do not> despite its decisi2e contri.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant a99iliated .# chance6 here> gold is )i!ed .ander the A/adr/ped> the reptile> and the insectO the 9ishes are con9/sed> one )ight sa#> . 5or the 5rench--nat/ral scientist 0ichel Adanson> 9or e!a)ple> the .ith the classical apotheosis o9 the s/n%seed? t'is narrati8e 'as %la+ed a decisi8e role o= %ersuasion t'roug'out t'e 'istor+ o= 'ristian (uro%ean i0%erial conBuest? not least in t'at 'istor+ o= genocidal A0erican e)%ansionis0 inaugurated b+ t'e Ada0ic 5uritansT %aci=ication o= t'e A0erican 3ilderness.ith stone> .# side .lical narrati2e o9 Ada)> ar)ed .'at its e+e be'olds %ri0aril+ is a ter rain t'at? as t'e (uro%ean clic'e about t'e Sinscrutabilit+S o= t'e <rient 'as it? co0%els kno3ing and na0ing %recisel+ because its darkl+ uni0%ro8ed state resists scrutin+4 and do0estication .ith another )etal> . A)ong these plants> too> . As the nat/ral a99iliation o9 seed .ill .1:n the)ati3ing this kno.inations .ord as ..

. Rat'er? 8aluing lets beings.ro9essor o9 .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 99 :ile &itle :ree .e#ond the sel9-.ill &'eir assu0%tions about =reedo0 under0ine our %otential to ac'ie8e itK =reedo0 beco0es 8alue =or t'e0 as o%%osed to an ine8itable condition o= our e)istence.er to calc/late and assess.eing to glance .le against Heing.'en one %roclai0s SGodS t'e altoget'er S'ig'est 8alue?S t'is is a degradation o= GodTs essence.eing an o.e#ond .. I= 3e are to in8estigate =reedo0 as t'e ground o= %ossibilit+ o= 'u0an being? t'en its essence is 0ore %ri0ordial t'an 'u0an.e#ond oneVs po. 5reedo) is the gi9t that allo. (8er+ 8aluing? e8en 3'ere it 8alues %ositi8el+? is a subIecti8izing. Heidegger o. Nor either> is =reedo0 a 0eta8alue? t'e S8alue o= all 8aluesS t'at allo3s one to c'oose bet3een and secure ot'er 8alues (Cranston> 1961> "2*.lasphe)# i)agina. H/)an 9reedo) is the 9reedo) .here> thinking in 2al/es is the greatest . 5or Heidegger-and in stark contrast to the &estern )etaph#sical tradition-=reedo0 is not a 8alue? but be+ond 8aluationK =reedo0 is e8idenced not in decisionistic 3ill=ulness but t'roug' care=ul non3illingK =reedo0 is not an unbounded %o3er to do but a disco8er+ and disclos 4 ing o= oneTs %lace 3it'in bounds. . Here> as else..olitical not 0etaph#sical>E American Political Science Review> Fol. :reedo0 is be+ond 8aluation? to assu0e ot'er3ise destro+s it.2+4-2+"* 'isclosi2e 9reedo)> Heidegger insists> is not )erel# one 2al/e a)ong others.eing and its )aster# in tho/ght> .. H/t . . 2> p..le.. because =reedo0 trans%oses us into t'e occurrence o= Heing? not in t'e 0ere re%resentation o= itS (19+$a> 162*. (1916> 22+* (8er+t'ing Heidegger sa+s 'ere o= God or Heing 0ig't also be said o= =reedo0.e#ond oneVs po. 5reedo)> there9ore> is that /niA/e capacit# o9 h/)an . 0an is onl# a g/ardian o9 9reedo)> .hat is . According to Heidegger> ho.olitical Science Cni2ersit# o9 5lorida> L/ne 199"> BHeidegger on 5reedo)6 . That is to sa#> b+ t'e assess0ent o= so0et'ing as a 8alue 3'at is 8alued is ad0itted onl+ as an obIect o= 'u0anTs esti0ation. :reedo0 is not a 0aster+ o= t'e 3orld around us? but t'e %otential =or its 0+ster+.s a reaching . It does not let beings. X:reedo0?S Heidegger 3rites? is not a %articular t'ing a0ong ot'ers? not so0et'ing lined u% as %art o= a ro3? but rat'er it %rescribes and %er0eates t'e totalit+ o= beings as a 3'ole. 'u0an =reedo0 signi=ies no3 no longer. &'eile $* (Leslie .ord> or deed.. (1919r+9> 41614"14$O see also 19+$a> 9* &raditional .estern t'inking %osits =reedo0 as t'e autono0ous subIectTs 0ost 8alued asset? as its ca%acit+ to de=ine and control 3'at it con=ronts.# its . =reedo0 as a %ro%ert+ o= 'u0an? but t'e re8erse.eing that allo. Heideg4 ger? contrari3ise? understands =reedo0 as t'at 3'ic' e)%oses 'u0an being to t'e unde=inable and un0asterable? to Heing.a/l Thiele> Assistant . be 8alid4 solel+ as t'e obIects o= its doing .er to )aster or de9ine is also .hata thing is in its Heing is not e!ha/sted . .s h/)an . 'u0an as a %ossibilit+ o= =reedo0.hich in2ades and s/stains )an> there. SubIecting =reedo0 to 0eta%'+sical or re%resentational t'oug't4allo3ing its desig4 nation as a 8alue4is an e==ecti8e assertion o= t'e sel= s ca%acit+ to e8aluate and control its relation to Heing conce%tuall+ i= not %'+sicall+. be. . H/t .e#ond calc/lation and 2al/ation.e2er> X=reedo0Ts inco0%re'ensibilit+ consists in t'e =act t'at it resists co04%re'ension .ser2es that t'roug' t'e c'aracterization o= so0et'ing as Sa 8alueS 3'at is so 8alued is robbed o= its 3ort' . ++ No.# rendering )an possi. <nce =reedo0 beco0es a 8alue4e8en t'e 'ig'est 8alue4it ceases to identi=+ t'at 3'ic' enables us to %artake o= t'e 0+ster+ o= Heing.Ject.

ags . <n t'e %olitical =ront? carbon4co%+ blo34dried %residential candidates %roclai0 t'eir allegiance to t'e en8iron0ent? an allegiance t'at is 0ore a sign o= =ealt+ to o%inion %olls t'an a concern 3it' en8iron0ental issues. 8n the intellect/al 9ront> a con9/sing arra# o9 re9or) en2iron)entalists> deep ecologists> social ecologists> eco9e)inists> .oth institutionalized and insi%id. Certainl#> A/otes 9ro) s/ch . 5or e!a)ple> a poor reading o9 an essa# s/ch as XThe D/estion Concerning Technolog#X prod/ces the concl/sion that Heidegger .ant to t'ink Heidegger in distress6 in t'e distress o= 0ac'inationK in t'e distress o= t'e tec'nological en=ra0ing o= t'e eart'K in t'e distress o= t'e en8iron0ental crisis. As a practice o9 e2er#da# li9e> en8iron0entalis0 'as de8ol8ed into anot'er li=est+le c'oice. The 2ast )aJorit# o9 A0ericans clai0 to be en8iron0entalists 3'ile bu+ing e8er 0ore SUFs? lea=4blo3ers? and uncountable %lastic consu0er goods. 5rancis o9 Assisi> 7iordano Hr/no> Spino3a> Thorea/> Chie9 Seattle> Her)an 0el2ille> Lohn 0/ir> Aldo/s H/!le#> 7andhi> =ainer 0aria =ilke> Aldo Leopold> =o. This is cr/cial> 9or at a le2el that is /n/s/al 9or social )o2e)ents> en8iron0entalis0 'as al3a+s 'ig'lig'ted t'e i0%ortance o= 'o3 3e t'ink about t'e en8iron0ent? t'at ideas o= nature are %o3er=ul because %ractices =ollo3 =ro0 ideas.1 p.as anti-technolog#.roken pro)ises a. . 8ne is to cha)pion Heidegger as so)e proto-en2iron)entalist. &ith 9e.age 61K a political practice> )ainstrea) en2iron)entalis) has degenerated into a )arginal special-interest gro/p.herein Heidegger Joins a potpo/rri o9 thinkers> incl/ding 'ogen> Lo. The challenge o9 Heidegger is not engaged to de2elop en2iron)ental theor#O rather> Heidegger is cited to lend so)e . :ndeed> en8iron0entalis0 itsel= 'as beco0e Iust anot'er %ractice o= consu0eris0 > a )atter o9 . 8/tspent and o/t)ane/2ered> )ainstrea) en2iron)ental gro/ps preach at the altar o9 . S/ch readings> ho.elling Thinking>X and XThe Age o9 the &orld .ords> 'o3 3e t'ink about nature guides 'o3 3e act to3ard nature.aiting the . The )ost pro)inent e!a)ple o9 this )o2e occ/rs in 'e2all and SessionsV 'eep colog#> . De#uca in 0.ro9essor o9 Speech Co))/nication T the :nstit/te o9 colog# at the Cni2ersit# o9 7eorgia> Thinking . :9 on the le2el o9 practice an e!ha/sted en2iron)entalis) has achie2ed . e!ceptions>1 t.ning> XThe D/estion Concerning Technolog#>X XH/ilding '. : .rong-headedness and in9idelit#. 61-+1./t a res/lt o9 the goal o9 the citation.er 9ro) a host o9 traditions> incl/ding Taois)> Hind/is)> ?en H/ddhis)> Christianit#> Nati2e A)erican tho/ght> =o)anticis)> and ecological science (19+$> 19@10+*. :t is a )o2e)ent . In other . :n reJecting a Heideggerian her)ene/tics> a piet# to te!t/al e!egesis> : hope to stress Heidegger in order to stress en8iron0ental t'eor+.ith oneVs Sierra Cl/.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 9* :ile &itle (n8iron0ent Their en2iron)entalis) clai)s are J/st 9alse perpet/ations o9 the 9ailed> .2 These )isreadings are not )erel# accidental . The res/lt is con9/sion> at .age 6+K 'a2id Hro.ed legiti)ac# to the 9ledgling enterprise./#ing A/d/.a# to tr/l# sol2e.ith Heidegger6 =ethinking n2iron)ental Theor# and .on )e).hile e!changing charges and co/ntercharges o9 . :n the )idst o9 this )elee I 3ant to suggest 3e reconsider t'e 3ork o= 0artin Heidegger.ict/reX inspire s/ch a reading.hile a.orro.oth instit/tionalis) and irrele2ance> intellectuall+ en8iron0entalis0 'as reac'ed se8eral stasis %oints.iodegrada.ilderness ad2ocates> social J/stice acti2ists> social constr/ctionists> and Christian ecologists o99er a cacophon# o9 co)peting paradig)s and progra)s .est.inson Le99ers> 0ar# A/stin> =achel Carson> Harr# Co))oner> Stanle# 'ia)ond> and I nd . (Ke2in 0ichael> Associate . 200$* L0 (n8iron0entalis0 is tired.landish)ents o9 the ne!t candidate.orks as Heing and Ti)e> Contri.hilosoph#6 5ro) no.leV plastic ./tions to . Heidegger sa#s . In t'e 3orld o= real4%olitic? en8iron0ental regulations are gutted as cor%orations 3rite legislation =or t'e %oliticians t'e+ 'a8e boug't.o/t the potential o9 lo.erships> Ansel Ada)s calendars> and V.ractice> thics [ the n2iron)ent 10.e2er> present a si)pli9ied Heidegger..#ing and insider access . credit card. As I nd .orn-o/t political en2iron)ental )o2e)ent.o ins/99icient responses t#pi9# the reception o9 Heidegger in en2iron)ental thinking.e that rethinking o/r relationship .> St.ith nat/re is the onl# .

ith reading and trans)itting the philosophical tradition> cannot identi9# as s/ch.hich that speci9ication takes place. The clai0 about t'e a0biguit+ o= tec'nolog+ runs. <ne suc' conseBuence is t'at it beco0es unclear 3'at t'e essence o= 'u0an beings is."9> 199$> S0> Accessed6 1%1%11K &'e essence o= tec'nolog+ is th/s a0biguous> in .hich pres/)e that speci9#ing the nat/re o9 entities is the pri)ar# ai) o9 philosophical enA/ir#. o9 tr/thV (DT6 44*.hich connect to an a). T&'e essence o= tec'nolog+ is in an ele8ated sense a0biguous. .# Heidegger as central to philosophical enA/ir#./t illogical de2elop)ent> in .'at Heidegger calls t'e end o= %'iloso%'+ in the co)pletion o9 0eta%'+sics is 'ere inter%reted as t'e e0ergence o= an et'ical c'allenge to t'e do0ination o= %'iloso%'+ b+ 0eta%'+sical concerns> .a#s .hilosoph# at 0anchester 0etropolitan Cni2ersit#> B:ntrod/ction>E Heidegger and thics pg.e. :n VThe A/estion o9 technolog#V> Heidegger discusses t'e oddness o= t'ere being so little re=lection on t'e i0%act o= t'e s%read o= tec'nical relations in o/r . Suc' a0biguit+ %oints to t'e 0+ster+ o= alI re8elation6 i. :nstead o9 HeideggerVs e)phasis on a c/)/lati2e .ig/it# diagnosed .eing disappear> the lect/res in &'e 5rinci%le o= Reason can be read as locating a tension bet3een t'at e0%'asis and an atte0%t to identi=+ t'e conseBuences =or t'e essence o= 3'at it is to be 'u0an resulting =ro0 t'is disa%%earance and t'e conseBuent unin'ibited s%read o= tec'nical relations in our 3orld.hich e2en the traces o9 a histor# o9 .hich Heidegger> as a res/lt o9 his preocc/pation .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 9.orld. .o/t the location 9ro) . This challenge pro)pts a recognition o9 the priorit# o9 a A/estion a. &'is =ailure to re=lect 0arks an et'ical crisis> . :ile &itle (t'ics &ec'nolog+ is a0biguous? =ailure to recognize t'is results in an et'ical crisis t'at stri%s us o= 3'at t'e essence o= 'u0an being is Hodge 9$ OLoanna> .ro9essor o9 .

Heidegger 3arns? C&'e rule o= (n=ra0ing t'reatens 0an 3it' t'e %ossibilit+ t'at it could be denied to 'i0 to enter into a 0ore original re8ealing? E adding his so)e. .ro.er o/tlets> and th/s re2ealing the concealed po.ellGs once pop/lar canal theories> .e do not reali3e that the pheno)ena .hich is as s/ch.ing .eco)es that . &'is c'allenge to nature? to sto% being and to beco0e a resource-co00odit+ =or 0odern 'u0an beings? is 'o3 0odern tec'nolog+ ser8es as re8ealer.e reasse0ble and recon=igure t'e natural 3orld =or our o3n use? pla#ing the part o9 the sel9-)ade> 9rontier-9orging indi2id/alNthe )odern )an./ting it to 7er)an po. .e9ore /s are o9 o/r o. &'e Social and 5'eno0enological onstruction o= 6ars?E S6? Accessed. Heidegger e!plains> B0an . $" &'e (art' beco0es 0inerals? t'e sk+ beco0es gases? and t'e 6artian sur=ace beco0es 3'ate8er t'ose 3it' 0eans 3ill it to be.E $4 &hen tec'nological ordering co0es to be t'e onl+ 3a+ 3e %ercei8e t'e 3orld? t'en t'e 3orld beco0es re8ealed to us onl+ t'roug' t'e banal act o= securing natural resources> no longer allo. $0 .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 9! :ile &itle 6ars olonization &'e conce%t o= 6artian olonization en=ra0es t'e uni8erse? (art'? 6ars? Nature as a recourse to be e)tracted.# Lo. 0an .le) o9 n9ra)ing :or 6ars? t'e %ros%ect o= en=ra0ing is e)tre0el+ %roble0atic? gi8en its %'eno0enological nature. As inter%reti8e discourse directs t'e narrati8es o= 6ars (scienti9ic and other.es the en9ra)ing o9 a tract o9 earth as Ba coal@)ining districtEO can t'e en=ra0ing o= 6ars as a natural resource be =ar =ro0 Heideggerian t'oug'tR $$ &o a%%reciate =ull+ t'e 0eaning in t'is 3orld and o= t'e Cred %lanet?E 3e 0ust co0e to ter0s 3it' our 0odern %redilection =or tec'nological en=ra0ing and be acce%ting o= ot'er? 0ore long4 ter0? o%en40inded and inclusi8e %ers%ecti8es o= %lace40aking.eing /pon .eco)es the relational center o9 that . Heidegger descri.e 8ie3 t'e Buestion o= 6ars as C. The .E "+ As obIects in nature are relegated to standing4reser8e? Heidegger e)%lains? Ce8er+t'ing 0an encounters e)ists onl+ inso=ar as it 'as 'is construct.e are 9ar 9ro) grasping in its s/.hat ro)antic call to )odernit#> Band hence to e!perience the call o9 a )ore pri)al tr/th.E $1 &'e dizz+ing rise in 0odern tec'nolog+ 'as %reci%itated a =unda0ental c'ange in our %erce%tion o= obIects and? ine8itabl+? in oursel8es .hat is said o9 it.orse> ca/se per)anent da)age to a planet . Lerkins 09 ONae? 5ro=essor o= 5'iloso%'+ :lorida State Uni8ersit+? :lorida 5'iloso%'ical Re8ie3 Fol.E "9 Since not'ing e)ists outside o= 'u0anit+Gs construction? 3e end u% onl+ e8er encountering oursel8es. &ec'nolog+ unlocks t'e energ+ in nature> trans9or)ing the r/shing .er in nat/re.'en 3e gaze at 6ars 3it' an e+e to3ard tec'nologicall+ en=ra0ing it? 3e den+ oursel8es t'e %ossibilit+ o= ot'er =or0s o= re8elation 3'ic'? gi8en t'e great %assage o= ti0e? 0a+ co0e to 0ake our generation a%%ear Buite near4sided and audaciousNor .'en 6odernit+Gs gaze u%on t'e 3orld calls =ort' t'e %roIect o= colonization? t'is causes t'e %rocess o= en=ra0ing to begin? 3'ereu%on 3e 0ark t'e 3orld =or our o3n usage until t'e da+ co0es 3'en 'u0anit+ itsel= 0a+ be co00odi=ied as a standing4reser8e.areness that 0ars is> in the p/. .ater o9 the =hine into energ#> storing /p that energ#> distri. Pet .hich all that is> is gro/nded as regards the )anner o9 its Heing and its tr/th.'en 'u0anit+ gazes out at t'e 3orld? C'e =ails to see 'i0sel= as t'e one s%oken to.n constr/ction> a distortion ca/sed . H+ turning t'e 3orld into tec'nolog+? 'u0ankind turns itsel= into t'e 3orldGs tec'nicians. !-2$P This is a central point o9 concern : ha2e o2er the iss/e o9 coloni3ation. .E $2 HeideggerGs %oint is 3ell4takenJ 3'at is da0aging to our %artici%ation in t'e 3orld is t'e e)clusi8it+ tec'nolog+ brings to bear as a =or0 o= 0odern re8elation.'at can 6ars do =or usQE As long as 3e 8ie3 t'e uni8erse as a recourse to be e)tracted 3e can ne8er trul+ encounter oursel8es and our %ur%ose o= being.hat Heidegger calls the B9/nda)ental characteristicsE o9 o/r reso/rces to appear to /s.e )/st proceed in the a.# en9ra)ing> Heidegger contends t'at 3e =ail to gras% an i0%ortant e)istential trut'J3e can ne8er trul+ encounter oursel8es? our 3orld? or 6ars =or t'at 0atter.lic )ind> .eca/se . IX? issue 2 %g1914192? CHeideggerGs Hridge.lic discourse? asking? C.ise*> en=ra0ing co0es rat'er easil+ and o=ten a%%ears as a benign =orce in the )edia and p/. .'at can 6ars do =or usQE Hecause t'e inter%retation o= 6ars %recedes an+ obIecti8e kno3ledge> as ill/strated .li)e entiret#. Heidegger e)%lains t'at 3'en tec'nological en=ra0ing takes %lace? Cit dri8es out e8er+ ot'er %ossibilit+ o= re8ealing.

/laries> and at ti)es philosophical disco/rse can co)e o99 as alien indeed.a#s o9 .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 97 :ile &itle A-&.ith technolog# circ/)stantiall# endo.ali3ation o9 the &orld .el9are state testi9ied still )ore to its c/rrenc#6 (8er+t'ing is =unctioning. The# do so> o9 co/rse> .T 0H = 1966>0A=T:N H :' 77 = agreed to an inter2ie.# &ilhel) 'ilthe# .ith .er to the na)e.hich attends to pre-cogniti2e .le)Gs greatest e!e)pli9ication or s#)pto)R1+ Cs/all# o2erlooked in the . :n parentheses> he added that Bthe inner tr/th and greatnessE o9 the )o2e)ent inhered instead in its . &'is is no longer t'e eart' on 3'ic' 0an li8es.ho do not ans. .e are le9t . onsider in t'is conte)t t'e 3ords o= A%ollo 2 astronaut :rank Hor0an. His re0ark 8oiced so0et'ing 0ore like t'e condition =or 0odern 'u0an e)%erience in t'e =irst %laceNand i9 Heidegger .ith a repositor# o9 concept/al tools .s )aga3ine 'er Spiegel.ith di99erent 2oca.hich the# .ith the Na3i regi)e. Arendt and co)pan# .E16 This crisis had a.ere the)sel2es a part. o9 arth 9ro) space alongside those o9 their non-philosophical conte)poraries> on the pre)ise that philosophers and 7r/. &'is is e)actl+ 3'at is so uncann+? t'at e8er+t'ing is =unctioning and t'at t'e =unctioning dri8es us 0ore and 0ore to e8en =urt'er =unctioning> and t'at tec'nolog+ tears 0en loose =ro0 t'e eart' and u%roots t'e0. Street pa)phleteers alike re9lect on the shared e2ents o9 the da#.al technolog#.ith enor)o/s depth> and so it can help> second> to think . #azier 2011 IHenJa)in> Associate .ith the Bplanetar#E itsel9. :t is also a di99erence 9or historians to e!ploit. &'e u%rooting o= 0an 'as alread+ taken %lace. This is a di99erence to ackno. e)%lained.ith the leading ne.E B&orld pict/reE is the nglish eA/i2alent o9 &elt.ar #ears> he no. 0ore literall#> it )eans Bplanetaril# deter)ined technics.as right> o/r condition in this alleged age o9 the .ith 0artin Heidegger.11 A great deal o9 ink has .E The translation s/ggests a concern .orld pict/re. .ict/re>E in The American Historical Review 116.o/t the arthrise era6 the scope o9 its 2ision> the pec/liarit# o9 its 2oca.E To address these A/estions> it helps> 9irst> to sit/ate the reactions o9 these philosophers to the 2ie.eing in the . &'e onl+ t'ing 3e 'a8e le=t is %urel+ tec'nological relations'i%s.e9ore> that Bt'e =unda0ental e8ent o= t'e 0odern age is t'e conBuest o= t'e 3orld as %icture .ed .e the )ost de9initi2e con9ir)ation possi.ith the)> on the pre)ise that philosophers ha2e so)ething to sa# e2en to those o9 /s . The appeal o9 National Socialis)> Heidegger had re)arked in a 194$ lect/re> had little to do .eca/se it . #ink &urn &'eir t'inking about t'e de8elo%0ent and e)%loration o= s%ace is structured b+ a %lanetaril+ deter0ined tec'nological %icture o= t'e 3orld. C#ook at t'at %icture o8er t'ereZE &'e =irst 'u0an to la+ e+es on an (art'rise 0ade intuiti8e a%%eal to a language t'at is t'e sta%le o= tourists e8er+3'ereJto describe not t'e sig't itsel=? but t'e conditions in 3'ic' t'e sig't could =irst be disclosed or co0e into 8ie3? its =ra0e./lar#> and the changes it ina/g/rated in the conditions 9or h/)an e!perience> or .le o9 HeideggerGs clai)> )ade thirt# #ears .E The 7er)an original> planetarisch .al reach> the 7er)an . associated .as that pro.E14 Thinkers in the pheno)enological tradition> .as to e!plain his coll/sion . :t )a# . 8stensi.ild> a philosophical ter) o9 art coined .ith se2eral A/estions a.le) o9 technolog# or .ledge.l#> the ai) .al technolog# and conte)porar# )an.esti))ten Technik> has a di99erent point o9 e)phasis.e donGt need an+ ato0 bo0b.ar .ith a glo. At the 2er# least> the# pro2ide /s .orld> help /s see that this . I do not kno3 3'et'er +ou 3ere =rig'tened? but I at an+ rate 3as =rig'tened 3'en I sa3 %ictures co0ing =ro0 t'e 0oon to t'e eart'.et. Heidegger did not /se it to re9er literall# to i)ages o9 the planet.as no 9ail/re o9 i)agination on Hor0anGs part.# )ost o9 its s#)pathi3ers. . :N S .hich to reassess the era o9 .ated not at all in the post. &as Na3is) great .eca/se it 9aced /p to the pro.ro9essor o9 Histor# and H/)anities at =eed College> B arthrise6 or> 7lo.een glo.e2er> is the phrase translated as Bglo. :9 an#thing> the achie2e)ents o9 the post. The i)plication6 0odern tec'nolog+? 3'ere8er it 'a%%ens locall+ to be de%lo+ed? alread+ %resu%%oses a global or %lanetar+ sco%e.alis) o9 technolog# is a historical accident or e99ectO in the original> it is J/st as )/ch a ca/se.ith the J/sti9ications o99ered . 5'eno0enologicall+Jat least in t'e 0odern eraJt'e %lanetar+ co0es =irst. :n the translation> the glo.een spilled o2er the )eaning o9 HeideggerGs re)arks.ro/haha> ho. %'eno0enologicall+? a tec'nical relations'i% to t'e 3orld co0es be=ore 3'at 3orlds are %ossible to %icture.hat so)e philosophers call the Bh/)an condition.illingness to con9ront a sing/lar crisis6 Bthe enco/nter .1" So . =ather> he )eant that t'e 3a+s 3e co0%ort oursel8es 8is4aY48is our natural and 'u0an4built 3orlds are %re4structured b+ a gras% o= t'e 3orld and e8er+t'ing in it as a %icture? as so0et'ing to sur8e+ and =ra0e =or our %leasure and use .rote ./t no.4K &o 0ake sense o= t'ese de8elo%0entsJt'e co0bination o= (art'l+ 8ision 3it' global 8ocabular+J3e 0ig't t'ink o= t'e (art'rise era as a stage in a longer 'istor+? a Cglobalization o= t'e 3orld %icture.

ho like to . The 7aia h#pothesis )a# ha2e . 5or e!a)ple> he h#pothesi3ed that 9/t/re generationsNrecogni3ing the)sel2es as 7aia co)e to conscio/sness o9 itsel9> their technological po.as so)eti)es e!pressed in a rhetoric that .titled BAccess to Tools.as 9or people like Heidegger> .ict/re>E in The American Historical Review 116.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 92 :ile &itle A-&."1 Take again the case o9 one-ti)e NASA engineer #o8elock.ell get /sed to it.race o9 c#.as s/. 6an+ o= t'ose credited 3it' in8enting /or re8i8ing1 t'e idea o= an organic (art' i0agined it as a tec'nologicall+ ordered globe as 3ell. . . In t'e ne)t? 'e could in8oke t'at belie= on be'al= o= so0e 3ild ideas =or %lanetar+ 0anage0ent.E His e).ledNnot contestedN .4K :n this series o9 readings> t'e co00ercial and en8iron0ental globes 0a% neatl+ onto t'e distinction bet3een organis0 and arti=act.E4+ His inJ/nction also .ro9essor o9 Histor# and H/)anities at =eed College> B arthrise6 or> 7lo.elie9 (Gaia* and an ancient /nderstanding o9 nat/re (akin to ph#sis*. .andering> Bplanetar#E in the original sense o9 the .ernetic technoscience .a# glaciation . In one breat'> he could s%eak o= t'e return o= an ancient .arning.as ena.alk or si)pl# stand and stare>E he e!plained. :t .rote in the initial lines o9 his catalogGs 9irst iss/e> Band )ight as .# instigating a greenho/se e99ect. So0eti0es it 3ent b+ t'e na0e eart' s+ste0s science? so0eti0es b+ geo%'+siolog+. Gaia? t'e+ sa+? is no3 0ore liable to 8isit deat' u%on 'u0ankind t'an li=e.ho co)pared his 2ersion o9 thinking to . Hut t'ere is 0ore to t'is 3orld %icture t'an 0eets t'e e+e.it' S%utnik? t'at is? Ct'e natural 3orld 3as co0%letel+ enclosed in a 0an40ade container. HrandGs catalog> 9or e!a)ple> ."$ 0ean. clothedN and it is clothed> as an# )ap o9 satellite paths and space J/nk can attestNtook ti)e to de2elop. B&e are as gods>E he .oth Lo2elock and Hrand ha2e .eco)e leading prophets in this> o/r age o9 glo.ord. In t'is series o= readings? Heidegger and Arendt 3ere 3rong.e no3 %icture Antarctica? =or e)a0%le? 0uc' t'e 3a+ 3e look at an ailing brain."0 (See 5ig/re 6.as right to s/ggest that ecolog# co/ld constit/te arth as an o.*! In su0? t'e organic globe 0a+ be as 0uc' a tec'nologicall+ ordered globe as t'e co00ercial globe t'at so 0an+ en8iron0entalists decr+Jand in 0an+ instances? it no doubt is.ons> there. At t'e 0o0ent t'at t'e (art' 3ent inside t'is ne3 arti=act? Nature ended and (colog+ 3as born. #ink &urn /Gaia H+%ot'esis1 Gaia '+%ot'esis gets co4o%ted b+ tec'nological t'inkingK e8en i= 3e t'ink o= t'e eart' as an organis0? itGs Iust anot'er li=e=or0 3e tr+ to reduce to standing reser8e.ali3ation o9 the &orld .* H/t 0cL/han .al .ork o9 art.ith chloro9l/orocar."" The neo48italist language o= %lanetar+ ail0ent (Bthe arth has a 9e2erE* is o=ten cou%led 3it' a tec'nical language o= 0edical diagnosis and cure ."2 H/t Gaia 3as in =act Iust anot'er na0e =or a scienti=ic disci%line? 3'ic' ai0ed at t'e tec'nical control o= t'e %lanet.o/ld ha2e )ade the )ost assid/o/s o9 arth-e!ploiters pro/d.nN)ight sta2e o99 r/na. S'e 3ill 'a8e 'er re8enge? #o8elock 3arns? unless =orestalled? as Hrand urges? b+ t'e C. Hot' 'a8e trans=or0ed t'e .'ole (art' Disci%lineE o= %lanetar+ engineering under cor%orate s%onsors'i%.hile> .ers as 7aiaGs o.een 9or those B.E49 0cL/han e!aggerated.Ject o9 technical decree. #azier 2011 IHenJa)in> Associate .# a grasp o9 the planet as a .ears o/t 0arshall 0cL/hanGs assess)ent> at 9irst glance p/33ling> that ecological tho/ght .hich arth is no.'ole (art' icon into its a%ocal+%tic t3in? an u%date to t'e 0us'roo0 cloud it once dis%laced."4 In t'e +ears since? #o8elockGs e)a0%le 'as %roli=erated. The arti9act/al en2elope in .# loading the at)osphere .

ali3ation o9 the .as the saccharine cri)e o9 'isne#> in a s)all .ell point o/t that t'is enduring uncertaint+ onl+ rea==ir0s t'e need =or astronoetics in t'e =irst %lace ./t . (8en i= (art'rise 3as %icture =irst? e)%erience second? it could still %ro0%t a trans=or0ation. Hl/)en.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 9$ :ile &itle A-&.as a . (See 5ig/re +.orld pict/re> or to initiate a ne.ict/re>E in The American Historical Review 116.hose 'isne# ad2ent/re .ro. He 9retted o2er those .ro9essor o9 Histor# and H/)anities at =eed College> B arthrise6 or> 7lo.l# not. The sight .4K Arendt 'ad des%aired o8er t'e i0%ulse to 0anu=acture a %lanet? and to look back u%on t'e (art' =ro0 its arti=icial ground. It re%laced one %'otogra%'ic 0e0or+ 3it' anot'er? one 'allucination 3it' a second. :t . His e)%erience 3as born also o= desireJ t'e desire =or a =ra0e be+ond t'e tec'nological ordering t'at Heidegger 'ad identi=ied> a counter4en=ra0ing %er'a%s? but an en=ra0ing nonet'eless.* I= t'e sig't dis%elled Hlu0enbergGs %'otogra%'ic 0e0or+ o= (art' in t'e =or0 o= a globe? it could do so onl+ a=ter it 'ad been re=ra0ed to con=or0 to a %re4critical e)%ectationJt'e geos%atial intuition t'at t'ere is indeed eart'? 3'et'er terrestrial or lunar? beneat' our =eet.ith 9ir) gro/nd /nder the 9eet as the condition 9or e2er# co)ing-to-restER .it di99erent.a#> to precl/de it.62 Still> there is a deep iron# in all this. Hlu0enbergGs e)%erience 3as born in %art o= realit+? but not t'e one 'e t'oug't ca%tured in C(art'rise.as )ore likel# to con9o/nd than to con9ir) H/sserlGs dict/) that the original origin> earth> does not )o2e.E It 3as born o= t'e %re4cogniti8e recalcitrance o= 'is eart'bound condition .64 Astronoetics> he )ight sa#> 'el%s us see 'o3 in looking back at t'e (art' 3e esca%e so0e entangle0ents? but 3it' a ne3=ound sense =or ot'ers 3e 3ould like to a==ir0. &ere Hl/)en. one altogether. It is an e)ercise? a=ter all? 0eant to %itc' to and =ro bet3een t'e co0%eting attractions o= C%astoral id+ll?E on t'e one 'and? and Ct'e %lain %re%aration o= %recise kno3ledge?E on t'e ot'erNor> p/t a .erg still . a return to (art' b+ 3a+ o= t'e rise o= (art' in t'e %ictorial i0agination .ith /s> he )ight . It 3as 0ade a8ailable onl+ b+ a reorientation o= t'e =ra0e so t'at t'e lunar 'orizon a%%ears belo3? as our e8er+da+ e)%erience o= our eart'bound condition 3ould lead us to e)%ect. &o/ld .a.andering> .it di99erentl#> . Heidegger did> too.ergGs .as s/pposed to re2erse the glo.scienti9ic proJect o9 planetar# )anage)ent.ith spaceships and planetar# .andering and the techno.et. &'e sig't Hlu0enberg t'oug't 3as trans=or0ati8e? t'e one no i0aginati8e e)ercise could 'a8e antici%ated? t'e one t'at Ccould not 'a8e been in8ented?E t'at Cin t'e sk+ abo8e t'e 0oon one sees t'e (art'EJt'e iron+ is t'at t'is 8ie3 3as in8ented. #azier 2011 IHenJa)in> Associate . .C8T lead its 2isitors to concl/de that 9or )an Bthe na)e Q arthG has nothing to do .o/ld s/pplant the tr/e )eaning o9 the sight that Arendt and Heidegger decried.een HeideggerGs errant . The e!perience o9 B arthriseE .orr# . #ink &urn /<8er8ie3 (==ect1 &'ings like t'e <8er8ie3 (==ect 0ask t'eir o3n reliance on tec'nolog+ and en=ra0ing.ali3ation o9 the &orld .

elie2e that the earth is onl# a stockpile or a set o9 co))odities to . It 3ill take tre0endous e==ort to t'ink t'roug' t'is danger? to t'ink %ast it and be+ond? tre0endous courage and resol8e to allo3 t'oug't o= t'e 0+ster+ to co0e =ort'K t'oug't o= t'e ine8itabilit+? along 3it' re8ealing? o= conceal0ent? o= loss? o= ignoranceK t'oug't o= t'e occurring o= t'ings and t'eir %assage as e8ents not ulti0atel+ under 'u0an control. 5er0utation /Intelligibilit+1 &'e %er0utation is unintelligible.a#s right> .edded in and constit/ti2e o9 &estern c/lt/re and has .'orter $2 (Ladelle> . No %lant? no ani0al? no ecos+ste0 'as a li=e o= its o3n? 'as an+ signi=icance? a%art =ro0 'u0an desire and need. it is 3ell on its 3a+ to e)tinguis'ing all ot'er 0odes o= re8ealing> all ot'er 3a+s o= being 'u0an and being eart'. &'is 0anagerial? tec'nological 0ode o= re8ealing> Heidegger sa#s> is e).elie2e that 7od ga2e 0an do)inion or si)pl# that h/)an )ight (so)eti)es called intelligence or rationalit#* in the 9ace o9 ecological 9ragilit# )akes /s al. 6* &'e danger o= a 0anagerial a%%roac' to t'e 3orld lies not? t'en? in 3'at it kno3s 4 not in its %enetration into the secrets o9 galactic e)ergence or n/clear 9ission .hilosoph# and &o)enGs St/dies at =ich)ond> Heidegger and the earth: ssays in environmental !hiloso!hy> Tho)as Le99erson Cni2ersit# . No.e can ne8er 'a8e? or kno3? it allK 3e can ne8er 0anage e8er+t'ing.'at is no3 es%eciall+ dangerous about t'is sense o= our o3n 0anagerial %o3er? born o= =orget=ulness? is t'at it results in our 8ie3ing t'e 3orld as 0ere resources to be stored or consu0ed. 6anagerial or tec'nological t'inkers? Heidegger sa+s? 8ie3 t'e eart'? t'e 3orld? all t'ings as 0ere Hestand? standing4reser8e. =or t'e a==ir0ati8e? Heing just is 3'at can be a%%ro%riated and used tec'nologicall+. &hether .e sa#> ot'er t'an 'u0an beings? 'as an+ intrinsic 8alue. And o= course e8en t'e call to allo3 t'is t'inking 4 couc'ed as it so o=ten 0ust 'e in a gra00atical i0%erati8e a%%ealing to an agent 4 is itsel= a %arado)? t'e =irst t'at 0ust be =aced and allo3ed to s%eak to us and to s'atter us as it scatters t'inking in ne3 directions? directions o= 3'ic' 3e 'a8e not +et drea0ed? directions o= 3'ic' 3e 0a+ ne8er drea0.e )anaged> . 6c.ress> pp. .hat it 9orgets> 3'at it itsel= conceals. (8en %eo%le 'a8e beco0e resources? 'u0an resources? %ersonnel to be 0anaged? or %o%ulations to be controlled.e .e )anagerial> technological thinkers tend to .een gathering strength 9or cent/ries. It =orgets t'at an+ ot'er trut's are %ossible? and it =orgets t'at t'e belonging toget'er o= re8ealing 3it' concealing is =ore8er be+ond t'e %o3er o= 'u0an 0anage0ent. &'e =orest is ti0berK t'e ri8er? a %o3er source. All t'ings are instru0ents =or t'e 3orking out o= 'u0an 3ill.o/ght> and sold. &'is 0ode o= t'inking is totalizing and cro3ds out ot'er %ossibilities o= t'oug't. . Not'ing> . All is 'ere si0%l+ =or 'u0an use.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant *0 :ile &itle A-&. .but in .ro9essor o9 .

0ost dist/r.2iated .# social en engineering.o/ld .hat is co/nt a.o/ld atroph# as a res/lt o9 end less inno2ati2e prod/ction> and political action .retoria> BHeidegger> Technolog#> and colog#>E So/th A9rican Lo/rnal o9 .here e2er# thing that h/)an kind co)es into contact .orld in its o.asis o9 the conseA/ential correctness o9 its proce d/reE (Heidegger> 199+624$*. ing is that tec'nological calculation and inno8ation 0a+ satis=+ our needs to suc' an e)tent t'at 3e 3ould not e8en notice 3'at 3e 'ad lost.its a BthereE and so can ne2er enco/nter onl# her sel9 (Heidegger> 19946442*.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant *1 :ile &itle A-&. &'is blurring o= borders is t'e 0ain indicator o= an unc'ecked ant'ro%o0or%'is0. &'e danger> there 9ore> is 9or Heidegger not the potential ph#sical sel9-annihilation o9 h/)anit#> .e o./t rather t'at intensi8e tec'nological %roduction 3ill o8er %o3er 'u0anTs ca%acit+ =or di8erse 0odes o= disclosure. Pet> h/)an .eing as 'asein necessaril# inha.e co)e accepted as realit#. The 'anger.. HeideggerTs =ear is t'at so0e da+? calculati8e t'inking 3ould be acce%ted and %ractised as t'e onl+ 3a+ o= t'inking. e2er> not .eco)es an e!tension o9 it sel9. Here> Heidegger is re9erring to distance as an e!istential sense o9 o/r pro!i)it# to hori3ons6 those . &'is ant'ro%o0or%'is0 t'at obIecti=ies t'e 3orld in order to e)%loit it is also one that creates the . Hot'a 02 (Catherine> 'ept o9 .le and the )eas/ra.eing-in-the-.ith the A/anti9ia. Since h/)an . :ts so2ereignt# .ith . BCalc/lation re9/ses to let an# thing appear e!cept .orld> a sit/ated and li)ited ..it' e8er+ t'ing standing in reser8e =or our use? CdistanceE disa%ears (Heidegger> 19946441*. 5er0utation / ro3d4<ut1 &ec'nological t'inking cro3ds out ot'er 3a+s o= t'inking.ord (19946440*> still lie in the . .le .eing is a thinking .eing> Heidegger can clai) that t'e ulti0ate 8ictor+ o= tec' no logical 'u0an kind is a delusion. Calc/lati2e thinking is the t#pe o9 tho/ght that deals onl# .e ca/se del/sion )a# .alance.hilosoph#> Fol 22> :ss/e 2* &ec'nolog+ is ontologicall+ de8astating? because it usur%s all ot'er 0odes o= re8ealing.o/ld> ho.een earth and sk#> )ortals and i))ortals.et. 5'iloso%'ic t'oug't 3ould be re %laced 3it' utilitarian cognition O artistic creati2it# . Calc/lati2e thinking co)pels it sel9 into a co)p/lsion to )aster e2er# thing on the . H/)an nat/re and h/)an 9reedo)> in HeideggerVs special sense o9 the .e an# less catastrophic> .hilosoph# T Cni2 o9 . .le.n i)age> .

e present to the other.ellingX 0ight Help 8rganisational Leaders =esol2e thical :ss/esE Lo/rnal o9 H/siness thics> Fol.hich )ight other. 5er0utation /Auseinandersetzung1 &'e %er0utation =ails A t'e a== needs to abandon its %reconcei8ed notions o= sel=4concern and e)isting goals to trul+ engage in t'e 0ani=estation o= CHeingE #adkin in 0! /'onna> .ith Xenlighten)entX> the kind o9 co)plete e)pt#ing o9 the sel9 in order to . In Ssta+ing 3it'S? t'e %erson 3'o is attending 0ust parado!icall# %a+ so 0uc' attention to t'e ot'er? t'at t'e+ sus%end t'eir sense o= sel=. ?i))er)an (2000* descri. his . &'is kind o= 3it'dra3al is t'e second aspect o9 Ssta+ing 3it'S :Vd like to e!plore in )ore detail. 6$> No. Suc' attending reBuires ti)e and a.ehind their concerns> Seeking to understand 0ore =ull+ t'e 'istor+ o= t'e situation and 3'ic' =actors 'a8e broug't +ou to t'e current state? ()%loring t'e e0otional terrain in'erent 3it'in a situation and re0aining o%en to .point is 2er# present in)aking J/dge)ents> interpretations> and decisions.ro9essor in Leadership and thics T Cran9ield School o9 0anage)ent B&hen 'eontolog# and Ctilitarianis) ArenVt no/gh6 Ho.o2e all> co))it)ent to letting go o= oneGs %reconcei8ed %erce%tions and goals.ork to re)ain open and inA/iring.ords> t'e 3a+ o= being 3'ic' enables this kind o9 Csta+ing 3it'E to occur is one in 3'ic' sel=4concerns are absent? or at least te0%oraril+ sus%ended. Thro/gh this A/alit# o9 openness> the other can re2eal aspects o9 hi) or hersel9 .a# o9 .asic . Taken to its)ost e!tre)e 9or)> it co/ld in2ol2e a capacit# )ost o9ten associated . &'is kind o= attending ai0s to %ercei8e belo3 t'e sur=ace o= a%%earance o= t'ings? to t'e 8er+ 'eart o= t'eir 0eanings.> 2006*> pp.ing it> ha2ing others dra. 1 (Apr. +1-9+* L0 Understanding t'e SlanguageS o= being itsel= de0ands a 8er+ =ocused and acti8e kind o= attention .les hi) or her to reall# percei2e the )eanings . HeideggerVs Notion o9 X'.its o9 J/dging and J/)ping to concl/sions> and instead .eha2io/rs s/ch as6 :nA/iring o9 the 2ario/s stake holder gro/ps and reall# listening to their concerns and the ass/)ptions and e)otions .eing.oth negati2e and hard to hold e0otions as . It also de0ands a certain %s+c'ological ca%acit+? t'at o= allo3ing sel=4concerns to Stake a backseatS in t'e encounter.hat is proposed as e99ecti2e leadership practice.a# .sensingG> or a clearing or opening in .es this capacit#6 Bs/ch QpresensingG> parado!icall#> reA/ires an Qa.egin to practice )editation or other conscio/sl# re9le!i2e disciplines in order to . It could be enacted t'roug' .o/t leadership> the leader is the person . . :n other . :n other .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant *2 :ile &itle A-&. In t'e 0ost %ractical sense? to reall+ Csta+ 3it'E anot'er? 3e 0ust let go o= our o3n inter%retations? anal+ses? and 0ost i0%ortantl+? our Iudg0ents? in order to be =ull+ a8ailable. :n )/ch literat/re a. it./ild the capacit# to Xsta# .e seen as antithetical to )/ch o9 .hich to occ/r (2$1*. XSta+ing 3it'S? reBuires a 8er+ di==erent kind o= leaders'i% %resence? one t'at attends to t'e ot'er rat'er t'an necessaril+ asserting oneGs o3n %osition .ehind the s/r9ace appearance o9 di99ic/lt sit/ations.ho in9l/ences (H/rns 191+O 'rath 2001O Ho/se 1916* and her or his 2ie. Heidegger re=ers to t'is as S%resencingS? and he suggests t'at t'roug' suc' %resencing? t'e SHeing o= HeingsS co0es into 0ani=estation (Heidegger 19116 1$1*. &o attend in t'is 3a+ reBuires an o%enness o= 'eart as3ell as %erce%tual acuit+.a#s o9 . Ho.ell as )ore pleasant ones> Heing o%en to intuiti8e insig'ts? drea0s? c'ance encounters 3'ic' 0ig't s'ed lig't on t'e situation? reating ne3 3a+s o= conce%tualizing t'e situation O re. At a .ords> t'e leader 3'o is concerned 3it' de8elo%ing his or her ca%acit+ to Ssta+ 3it'S a gi8en situation can build t'is in a nu0ber o= 3a+s.ithX the other in a.hich ena. BSta#ing .riting it as a stor#> dra.e2er> Xsta+ing 3it'S could also> at a)ore A/otidian le2el> in8ol8e engaging an acti8e and conscious o%enness to t'e situation at 'and.asic le2el> the leader co/ld practice attending )ore conscio/sl# to his or her ha.ise re)ain hidden. Alternati2el#> the leader )ight .eing co/ld .ithX e!ists along a contin//) o9 .h'.

oth pheno)enolog# and her)ene/tics> .a#s o9 9or)/lating old A/estions or> rather> . =ather than diso.as a )ore original> tho/ght9/l> and tho/ghtpro2oking appropriation o9 that tradition.Ject .e do not genuinel+ Buestion i= our ans3ers do not risk our lea8ing e8er+t'ing be'ind Oi.# pre2io/s A/estions. 'estr/ct/ring .eings> presencing rather than presence> di99erence as s/chO the 2er# /ncanniness o9 Heing and th/s o9 h/)an . .as so)e rei9ied o. S/ch destr/ct/ringNlike the later 'erridaean 2ersion o9 deconstr/ction42N.# ne.et.41 :nstead> it co)es thro/gh ne.46 The release o9 the present into a di99erent 9/t/re is> then> propelled less .hich .hat it co2ered-o2erO na)el# the ontological di99erence . A/estions .ice> t'e critiBue o= t'is deconstructi8e Auseinandersetzung is not L=ault =inding or underlining o= errorsG.olitics and :nternational =elations at the Cni2ersit# o9 Lancaster> The Politics of Security> pp.? t'e a== beco0es a Buestion in t'e alt? but t'e a== re0ains unconditionall+ true in t'e %er0utationP Dillon 1$$! I0ichael> pro9essor . HeideggerGs 3a+ o= doing t'is? Auseinandersetzung? 3as deliberatel+ and =orce=ull+ agonistic 6 Auseinandersetzung brings %'iloso%'ers into t'e s'ar%est =ocus and it un=olds t'eir 0eaning in t'e 'istor+ o= %'iloso%'+ b+ taking eac' t'inker seriousl+ as an ad8ersar+? as so0eone 3'o de0ands t'at certain decisions be 0ade about essential understandings o= t'e 3orld and o= Heing.# the ne. "$-"6K Heidegger th/s ontologises .ants. In con=rontation? 3'atJor rat'er 'o3J3e are is at stake .# the reocc/pation o9 positions esta.as conseA/entl# not the tradition as i9 it .as not> o9 co/rse> a radical t/rn a. &hile it seeks to redisco2er so)ething in the past> rather than o9 the past> like genealog#> ho.as> there9ore> a radical ne.een neither pheno)enological nor her)ene/tical eno/gh 9or hi)> .ards the histor# o9 philosoph#> or step .e as tradition> its pri3e .eca/se tradition is not so)ething .hich Heidegger /ses t.e rene.hat he thinks is at stake thereNhas . ans.ersNarchitectonic principles and s#ste)sNor .een Heing and .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant *9 :ile &itle A-&./t the processes o9 reception .on and ne.hat has gone .# s/ch appropriati2e A/estioning.hich hitherto had conseA/entl# .eing re-.ho has taken HeideggerGs )ethod )ost to heartNand> indeed> practised it )ost directl# and 9orce9/ll# /pon Heidegger hi)sel9> precisel# . 5er0utation /Auseinandersetzung1 .n standpoint> so that he also cannot get at the opposition he .hich s/ch re9or)/lation poses in and to the challenges o9 a present .hen enlisting the) to deconstr/ct the philosophical tradition in order to get at .9* Rat'er? it is an insistence u%on =or0ulating and 0eeting toda+Gs c'allenges b+ %osing 0ore originall+ t'ose Buestions t'e ans3ers to 3'ic'? 'a8ing =or0ed t'e %resent? t'reaten to entra% us? unsustainabl+ and unsur8i8abl+? 3it'in it i= t'e+ are not re=or0ulated and re4%osed /reco8ered1 in res%onse to our %resent need to t'ink and li8e4out our e)istence =uturall+ .ack into it. :9 the target o9 the destr/cti2e )o2e o9 this deconstr/ction .ned.eco)es a 9atal c/l de sacNdeathl# enclos/reNi9 it cannot .hich each is disclosed.e.4$ 5or6 Q(8er+ ans3er kee%s its =orce as ans3er onl+ so long as it is rooted in BuestioningG. &radition is onl+ tradition in t'e act o= taking so0et'ing u% in one 3a+ or anot'er? 3'ic' is to sa+ also sa+ing in t'e %rocess 3'at t'at so0et'ing is.lished .ed .eca/se o9 the 2ital i)portance o9 .hich the tradition co)es to .hich is 9irst gi2en and then decided /pon.ning .e2er> a ter) . &itho/t this principle o9 interpretation> a thinker cannot )ake o/t his o. H+ =orcing a con=rontation 3it' oneGs =ait'? ideas o= nature? or ideals o= %olitical belonging? suc' decisions can 3ound? e8en kill? be=ore t'e+ are co0%lete in t'is duelJde0anding t'at 3e de=end? gi8e4u% or trans=igure c'eris'ed belie=s and conce%tions 3'ic' order our li8es.44 Here it is .eco)es tradition in .a# 9ro) or step o/t o9 tradition> .# .orth rein9orcing the point that the conte)porar# thinker .e9ore> the tradition here .een ))an/el Le2inas.l# o.eing and o9 Lang/age> in . Suc' t'inking is not onl+ =orce=ull+ ai0ed at t'e %resent? t'ere=ore? it is also ai0ed at ret'inking %ast Buestions and 3a+s o= %osing Buestions? t'e ans3ers to 3'ic' 'a8e gi8en rise to t'e %resent . t/rn to. .

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant ** :ile &itle """Internal #inks""" .

#azier 2011 IHenJa)in> Associate . .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant *. He did> ho.ehind in his papers.it )isleading.o/ld insist that t'e %lanet as suc' could not be t'e %ro%er scene =or 'u0an being. 8r at least not the kind he had in )ind. &aken to its logical conclusion> he 9eared> t'e o%ernican t'eor+ dislodged 0an =ro0 'is eart'l+ 'orizon. &'e+ con=ound one o= t'e %resu%%ositions o= %'eno0enological anal+sis? t'at t'e bod+ 'as a custo0ar+ orientation in s%ace.eing> Dasein> 0eans being4t'ere.ali3ation o9 the &orld .holl# to e).orld 2ie. He .ritten on his en2elope> B&'e original ark Iarc'eK> earth> does not 0o8e./rg. :ts title> B5o/ndational :n2estigations o9 the . Heidegger . H/sserl> the 9o/nder o9 the pheno)enological )o2e)ent> did not li2e to see photographs o9 the arth 9ro) space. the photos he did ha2e at his disposal (9ro) L/nar 8r. nature as it is intuiti8el+ =elt and li8ed.# post-Copernican science6 CGalileo?E 'e once 3rote? Cis not 0ore true t'an Aristotle.led on the en2elope in . &'e %lanet 3as si0%l+ too big.race it*. This held as )/ch 9or ancient ca2e d.as disco2ered re2ealed his tr/e ai)6 B82erthro.ished to contest the Copernican t/rnR &h# on earth6 that> precisel#> .E22 &'e rise o= t'e %lanetar+ in t'e 0odern i0agination 3as s+non+0ous =or Heidegger 3it' t'e de0ise o= t'e eart'l+ and t'e 3orldl+? and t'ese i0ages =ro0 s%ace onl+ consolidated a %rocessJa globalization o= t'e 3orld %ictureJalread+ long in t'e 0aking.* The# are stark and austere .le). &o enter into a relation 3it' so0et'ing o= suc' size t'ere=ore de0ands a =or0 o= 0anage0ent and radical reduction? and a 0ode o= being4'u0an es%eciall+ suited to t'e %rocess. A note scra.iter 1* )ight ha2e .ro9essor o9 Histor# and H/)anities at =eed College> B arthrise6 or> 7lo.hich the )an/script .er is prosaic.as not pri2# to the tote)ic shots o9 C(art'riseE and CHlue 6arble.4K &h# . :ile &itle &ec'nolog+ > Reducti8e &ec'nolog+ reduces e8er+t'ing to a resource to be 0anaged and e)%loited b+ 'u0an arti=iceK t'e tec'nological relations'i% to eart' inaugurated b+ t'e s%ace age 0akes DaseinGs relations'i% to Heing i0%ossible.E21 He too .ith s/ch ill 9eelingR :n part> the ans. He . He 3ould look 3it' dis=a8or on t'e tendenc+ o= 0odern astrono0ical science to 0ake obsolete t'e distinction bet3een eart'l+ and celestial bodies b+ reducing all natural bodies to s%eci0ens o= a single kind . &'e+ are also 8ertiginous in a .ict/re>E in The American Historical Review 116. 'ence 'is talk in a later essa+ o= t'e C%lanetar+ i0%erialis0E o= Ctec'nologicall+ organized 0an.ilit# in a tho/ght e!peri)ent . Not3it'standing our %ost4 o%ernican kno3ledge t'at t'e (art' re8ol8es around t'e sun> H/sserl insisted that our e8er+da+ e)%erience is %re4 o%ernican t'roug' and t'roug'.ord 9or h/)an .E20 H/sserl there9ore reco))ended that 3e recall an e)%erience o%ernicanis0 'ad su%%ressed. o9 the Copernican theor# in the /s/al interpretation o9 a .a# that the iconic B arthriseE is not.o/ld Heidegger react . 8r as he had .o/ld H/sserl ha2e . :n 1966> Heidegger .. (See 5ig/re 4.een 9rightening in the e!tre)e. u% and do3n? =ront and back? abo8e and belo3? be=ore and be'ind.as the pro.19 The re9lections o9 HeideggerGs teacher d)/nd H/sserl attest to the i)portance o9 this point.o/ld disp/te the e!cl/si2e tr/th clai)s )ade .o/ld ask a9ter the prospect o9 retreating 9ro) B)athe)atical 9or)alis)E in 9a2or o9 an Bi))ediate ret/rn to int/iti2el# gi2en nat/reE (i9 ne2er .ellers as 9or his st/dents at the /ni2ersit# in 5rei.E &h# on earth .heno)enological 8rigin o9 the Spatialit# o9 Nat/re>E is a . HeideggerGs .o/ld consider so)ething o9 the sa)e.roached in an /np/.E :ndeed> it is eas# to see ho.e2er> consider the possi. It %resu0es local? situated? and =inite? not global or %lanetar+? 'orizons.lished essa# le9t .

XX The do)ain o9 the political and the re2ealing o9 political things are not e!cl/ded 9ro) this happening> as is to .X &'us is it t'at (n=ra0ing la+s clai0 to %olitical t'inking and doing in t'e ser8ice o= a tec'nocratic 3orld order and a tec'nocratic %eace.eing A/a .X Hence> t'e %lanetar+ do0ination o= tec'nolog+ clai0s t'e 'u0an being to concei8e t'e 3orld order as a 3orld s+ste04as Sstructured i0age X (7e.ate on the origin%length o9 .e seen in the application o9 s#ste)s philosoph# to the conception o9 .h# it is that the sciences cannot .ild*-in accordance 3it' t'e go8erning constellation o= being as %resence.ill not /nderstand .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant *! :ile &itle (n=ra0ing (n=ra0ing =or0s t'e 'orizon o= 3orldl+ co'erence S3azo 02 @ ./t )o2e 9or.'at 0atters? 'o3e8er? is t'at t'e tec'nocratic conce%tion o= 3orld order be understood not 0erel+ as a 'u0an acti8it+ but? rat'er? in ter0s o= t'e essence o= tec'nolog+.#> one co0es to see t'at a =uture 3orld order Bua tec'nocratic is not a course eit'er ine8itable or unalterable.orld histor#Vs s#ste)ic tendencies represents an e99ort at 9or)/lating distinctl# glo./t also i)plies that the )otor o9 historical change operates at this distinctl# .> a di99erent historical deter)ination o9 h/)an .iological> social> ecological> and arti9icial s#ste)s.orld order. That is6 X:9 n9ra)ing is a destining I7eschickK o9 the co)ing to presence I&esenK o9 Heing itsel9> then 3e 0a+ 8enture to su%%ose t'at (n=ra0ing? as one a0ong HeingTs 0odes o= co0ing to %resence? c'anges.l# s/ita.XX This is o9 /t)ost signi9icance 9or .> Crisis Theor# and &orld 8rder6 Heideggerian =e9lections> p.ard . &orld-s#ste) theor#> con2ersel#> s/ggests not onl# net.2" This he can do .hether as social 9or)ation> )ode o9 prod/ction> nation state> or si)pl# societ#.X There.orld le2el.ith the Xepiste)ological taskX o9 concern to s#ste)s theor# Xto deri2e and 2alidate the .eing.asic /nit o9 anal#sis has .ert Hergesen has p/t the )atter rather s/ccinctl#6 XSince the ad2ent o9 )odern science the .eca/se o/r )o)ent in the histor# o9 Heing is that o9 n9ra)ing that so)ething like s#ste)s theor# can co)e to the 9ore to pro2ide ostensi.# trans9or)ing> #et contin/ing> the )etaph#sical task6 XTraditionall# de9ined as the science o9 .XX .een the societal> . .o/t this )ethdological co))it)ent is that Bthe de.le canons 9or the /ni9ication o9 )odern science6 (n=ra0ing> the dispensation o9 Technolog#> is 3'at =irst grants t'e %ossibilit+ o= s+ste0 as s+ste0s %'iloso%'+ and conte0%orar+ %ositi8e science understand and e0%lo+ itK (n=ra0ing is 3'at =irst grants all t'at attends s+ste0s t'eor+ in its e0%'asis on iso0or%'+ o= conce%tual S=ra0e43ork.orld order thinking inas)/ch as Technolog#> as an essential deter)ination o9 Heing> /nderlies Xt'e structure o= relations'i%s o= a certain t+%e o= 'u0anit+ to beings as a 3'ole?S +et e8er+ c'ange in t'e understanding o= Heing brings about Sa trans%osition o= anot'er t+%e o= 'u0anit+ to t'e 3'ole o= beings>X i.hilosoph# at the Cni2ersit# o9 Alaska (Nor)an K.X :t is onl# .al theor#. 12$-26* &e .e. Al. &'roug' suc' a 3orld order? =abricated b+ 0an> X)an contends =or t'e %osition in 3'ic' 'e can be t'at %articular being 3'o gi8es t'e 0easure and dra3s u% t'e guidelines =or e8er+t'ing t'at isX.orks on a scale larger than a single societ#> .ro9essor o9 .XX &hat is signi9icant a.eco)es the general theor# o9 s#ste) A/a s#ste).eing> ontolog# in s#ste)s philosoph# .asic principles and )etaprinciples that co))onl# go2ern ph#sical> .

e o/rsel2es al.le .orld o9 appearances i9 it .le to pose the A/estion . :t has> /lti)atel#> to .1" :n as )/ch as these .hate2er .e o/rsel2es are also )ortal and 9alli. Consider the o/tco)e o9 the g/iding A/estionN.# re9erence to s/ch a standard> principle or re9erence.eca)e a sec/rit# e!pert> then> in the sense o9 .eG. to sec/re s/ch a thing e2en a9ter the# had co)e-/p .itho/t the) no .as saidN )eantO doneO /nderstoodO estee)edO or 2al/edN.hich the ans.e located sec/rel#> and sec/rel# policed> so that it co/ld ne2er . &'e sa8age iron+ is t'at t'e 0ore t'is insistence is co0%lied 3it'? t'e greater is t'e 8iolence licensed and t'e insecurit+ engendered. :n s/ch .ise the gro/nd that is so/ght .as said> . /pon.hich 5o/ca/ldian genealog# alerts /s.e sec/red (g/aranteed*.ledge> .hich antecedes> .o/ld .o/ld .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant *7 :ile &itle alculation 6odern %olitical relations are reduced to obIects o= calculation b+ t'e i0%erati8e to secure securit+K calculation re%laces 8aluation? and 3e are con=ronted 3it' t'e tec'nologized ar0 o= 0odern %olitics 3'ic' 3ould reduce us to cogs in t'e 0ac'ine Dillon 1$$! I0ichael> pro9essor .as a/thorised and sec/red .le (read insec/re* as the co)ing and going> and apparentl# endless 2ariation> o9 the . . In essence indi==erent to an+ %articular 8alue? and co00itted as it 0ust ulti0atel+ be 0erel+ to rendering t'ings calculable so t'at t'e %olitical arit'0etic o= securing securit+ can o%erate? it 0ust relentlessl+ also destro+ 8alues 3'en t'e+ con=lict 3it' t'e =unda0ental 0at'esis reBuired o= t'e i0%erati8e to secure . &'e c'arge le8elled at %'iloso%'+ at t'e end o= 0eta%'+sicsNthe Qend o9 philosoph#G thesis .ittingl# an aid here> 9or it .eO hence the rise o9 theor# and o9 )ethod.ith the )ani9est i)possi.hile it re)ains nonetheless integrall# related to> the task o9 genealog#.ell> insec/re.hich and according to ./t onl# intensi9#.'ate8er is 0ust t'ereb+ be rendered calculableN.ring sec/rit# into A/estion and e!plore that A/estion thro/gh the so/rces .orld.ithin> and there9ore also conta)inated .e a. &'e essence o= 0eta%'+sics? t'en? is ni'ilistic? as t'e best o= t'e realists =ear t'at it is? %recisel+ because it does not 0atter 3'at +ou secure so long as securit+ itsel= is secured. S/ch 9o/ndations )a# go .ith its clos/re .hat . The philosopherGs task had to .eing a.itho/t the)> it .e s/prasensi. the# .ithin itsel9.hilosoph# .hich : ha2e /sed 5o/ca/lt to pose> : ha2e to /se it to .a#s enco/nter the) 9ro) a )ani9old o9 perspecti2es and .here .e 9orgotten or lost again.ere alread# located .le to tell #o/ ho.tedness not onl# to Niet3sche . Securing securit+ does not si0%l+ create 8alues. Hence> tho/gh Niet3scheGs .here li)it is> ho. 20-22K &'e reduction o= 0eta%'+sics? and so also o= %olitical understanding? to calculation? results =ro0 t'e 8er+ ince%tion o= 0eta%'+sical t'oug't. 0etaph#sics is itsel9 /n. A sec/rit# e!pert not )erel# in respect o9 .orld itsel9. 5or the# are tooY. He or she . :t co/ld not ser2e> there9ore> as the g/arantor .e di99erentiated as sel9-o2erco)ingN against the 'ar.# . to sec/re sec/rit#. .le> sit/ated o/tside the real) o9 the appearance o9 things> other./t also to Heidegger . :t is that the philosopher cannot> in 9act> sec/re an# partic/lar 2al/e 9or #o/ and is> there9ore> con9ronted .eR &'e %'iloso%'er t'ere=ore s%oke as a securit+ e)%ert .ise> . .e to tell #o/ ho.ere> .hate2er the# . The philosopher .n deconstr/ction . 5or . Their sec/rit# proJect co/ld not then cease> . Hence? t'e res%onsibilit+? traditionall+ incu0bent u%on t'e %'iloso%'erNhis Qtr/eG )issionNconsisted in securing ulti0ate re=erents or %rinci%les.e .e as )/ta.een placed /pon itNi= 3e are to be as certain o= it as 0eta%'+sics insists t'at 3e 'a8e to be i= 3e are to secure t'e 3orld.1$ :n order to p/rs/e the reco2er# o9 the A/estion o9 the political 9ro) )etaph#sics> there9ore> : not onl# ha2e to .ith an essential 2al/e o9 one description or another. Hecause t'e a%%earance o= t'ings is ine8itabl+ 8arious > . :t is conseA/entl# 5o/ca/ltGs inde.ledge to .eings are to .ill to po.# di99erent na)es .h# is there so)ething rather than nothingRN9or .ea/t# in art> or 2al/e in li9e .le that this represents the sec/rit# proJect \ lGo/trance .er to )etaph#sicsG g/iding A/estion reA/ires.er )a# .stantial 2al/es .lic and pri2ateNto t'e =oundation so secured.inian> or e2en Spino3an> principle o9 sel9-preser2ationN it is arg/a.hich has conseA/entl# t/rned philosophical tho/ght into a conte)plation o9 the li)itO ./t increasingl# onl# in ter)s o9 ho.itho/t calc/lation ho.ere to .le standards to esta. Its raison dG[tre? in ot'er 3ords? 0asBuerading as t'e %reser8ation o= 8alues? is ulti0atel+ not 8aluation at all but calculation ./t that o9 the proJect itsel9 does not.er and kno.ill to po.as so)eone skilled in deter)ining the )eans .le creat/res> 3'ate8er t'e secure ground o= t'ings is t'at 0eta%'+sics seeks? it cannot actuall+ be t'e sensible 3orld o= t'e a%%earance o= t'ings t'e0sel8es.e taken to . co/ld sec/rit# .Jecti2it# in kno.ere precisel# . &'at is to sa+? so long as t'ings are 0ade certain? 0astered and t'ereb+ controllable.e2er> tho/ght li)inall# and not ter)inall#Nis t'at t'e %'iloso%'er 'as si0%l+ run out o= t'ings to sa+.#> the 2er# 6eta%'+sics? t'en? is t'e 0asBue o= 0aster+K securing so0e =oundation u%on 3'ic' to establis' t'e su0 total o= 3'at is kno3able 3it' certaint+? and con=or0ing oneGs e8er+da+ conductNp/.e sec/red> 9or .lish )eaning in disco/rse> so/ndness in )ind> goodness in action> o.eings .eca/se .olitics and :nternational =elations at the Cni2ersit# o9 Lancaster> The Politics of Security> pp.eings> to sec/re itsel9 it has contin/o/sl# to e!tend itsel9O that is to sa#> it sec/res itsel9 in its essence as ne2er-ending increase contin/o/sl# e!tending itsel9.ere to .ere to .hich 5o/ca/lt hi)sel9 dre.estern understanding o= t'e %olitical is? t'ere=ore? continuousl+ suborned b+ 0eta%'+sicsG 3ill to t'e calculati8e trut' o= corres%ondence? and its 2ario/s regi)es o9 po.e> .hich the in2aria.as> as insec/rit# o9 the co)ings and goings o9 that . 5or ha2ing sec/red this sec/re 2al/e> the 2al/e then had to .e sec/redR And calculation reBuires calculabilit+.estern %'iloso%'+? t'en? is t'e continuing? increasingl+ 8iolent? insistence u%on t'e need to secure securit+K 'ence its ni'ilis0.hat the s/. All t'at re0ains o= t'e great %roIect o= .e are challenged to rethink the A/estion.eca/se> 9inall#> .o/ld .hich all .lish)ent o9 the /pper)ost 2al/e in ter)s o9 .ere to . Niet3sche p/t it> a )atter o9 2al/ation> Qthat is> esta.ears its o. 2en .ilit# o9 discharging the traditional sec/rit# 9/nction> other than to insist /pon sec/ring sec/rit# itsel9.er> as the essence o9 the Heing o9 . .hate2er other 2al/e )ight once ha2e . Literall#> it co/ld not o99er an# sec/rit# 9or the sensi.ith Niet3sche> in order 9or the .e Sec/rit#> philosoph# and politics 21 sec/red> .

> reso/rceK no longer stands o8er against us as obIect . Heidegger ter0s t'e essence o= tec'nolog+> 7e-stell.Ject as 9/nctional ele)ents o9 a larger s#ste) co/ld . No.eco)e h/ge shopping-)alls )eant to distract /s 9ro) the act/al o.a#> the co)ple! s#ste) o9 Xinterlocking processesX that constit/tes conte)porar# technolog# t/rns into an end in itsel9O it threatens to dissol2e s/. X&'e current talk about 'u0an resources? about t'e su%%l+ o= %atients =or a clinic? gi8es e8idence o= t'is. !-22-11P :or Heidegger? t'e tec'nological ageN./t a reso/rce 9or rela!ation XstoodX there 9or the) . 5ost0odern %eo%le are no longer subIects in t'e sense o= beings u%on 3'ic' all t'at is? is grounded. &'e dissolution o= t'e obIect is %aralleled b+ t'e disa%%earance o= t'e subIect.leXN. 6" Pet on the other hand> X. 8n the one hand> in t'e tec'nological 3orld t'e 'u0an being co0es to be so caug't u% in t'e task o= e==icientl+ SorderingS 'is en8iron0ent and 'i0sel=? t'at t'e obli8ion o= t'e 6+ster+ 0ust see0 total.e board t'roug' air4conditioned gang3a+s t'at %re8ent us =ro0 seeing t'e bod+ o= t'e aircra=t 3e are about to enterK and once 3e are inside? a tele2ision screen lights /p> e2en .e.X :n 7er)an> #o/ . Nonetheless> Heidegger e)phasi3es that> in contradistinction to the o.JectR XCertainl#.orld in HeideggerGs ter) o9 Bstanding reser2eE as a reco/rse to .Ject and o. :s an airliner sitting on a r/n.a# not an o. :n 9act> post)odern technolog# re2erses the process o9 the grad/al di99erentiation and 9rag)entation o9 the /nit# o9 the 7reek .orld. The 7er)an . &e can represent (2orstellen* the )achine so.age $12K 8n the 9ace o9 it> tec'nolog+ t'us a%%ears as a 'ardening o= 0odernit+? o= t'e subIectTs do0ination o8er t'e obIect.eco)e tied /p in the task o9 de2eloping the technological ./t also Xto a%%re'end.*? CHeideggerGs &rancendental Histor+E? 2002? S6? Accessed.ed into the s#ste)> XIsKince )an dri2es technolog# 9or.e /sed to 9/rther o/r technological ad2ance)ent.ada#s airports ha2e .e are gi2en 9/rther opport/nities to eat> drink> and shop.e2er> it constit/tes the dissol/tion o9 )odernit#.X 10 Pet t'e aircra=t is no longer e)%erienced as an ob4Iect > that is to sa#> an entit# 3it' a certain degree o= autono0+ t'at li0its t'e subIectTs s%'ere o= action.e a.ing HeideggerVs great conte)porar# rnst Cassirer> the post)odern tendenc# to regard s/.hich creates the prosses o9 en9ra)ing the .Ject alike as it trans9or)s .ord stellen 0eans Sto %lace? to %ut? to standXNin the sense o9> X: stood the J/g on the ta.stance to 9/nction.'ate8er stands b+ in t'e sense o= standing4reser8e Ii.hich e2en .orld . Heidegger s%eaks o= t'e SobIectlessnessX (das 7egenstandslose* 6+ o= standing4reser8e6 X.e9ore .X 69 An e!a)ple ser2es to el/cidate HeideggerVs )eaning.hich stellen connotes so)e kind o9 chase and s/.S 11 5eo%le are no longer concei8ed o= as t'e ulti0ate agents and ends o= t'e tec'nological %rocess? but as one 0ore ele0ent t'at needs to be =actored into t'e s+ste0ic 3'ole.er alsoXNnot onl# in the sense t'at art 0a+ lead us to t'e =orgotten? 0+sterious essence o= tec'nolog+? but also inso=ar as t'e 8er+ triu0%' o= tec'nological ordering could %re%are its o3n de0ise6 St'e =renziedness o= tec'nolog+ 0a+ entrenc' itsel= e8er+3'ere to suc' an e)tent?S Heidegger 3rites? St'at so0eda+? t'roug'out e8er+t'ing tec'nological? t'e essence o= tec'nolog+ 0a+ un=old essentiall+ in t'e %ro%riati8e e8ent o= trut' . Heidegger /ses the e!a)ple o9 the ri2er =hine> .oth into He-stand> standingreser2e to pro)ote and sec/re its o.a#> a ret/rn to antiA/it#> tho/gh /nder radicall# di99erent a/spices. Nature? in t'e tec'nological age? is cornered to suc' an e)tent t'at it beco0es i0%ossible to encounter it as an+t'ing but a resource =or t'e e==icient =unctioning o= t'e tec'nological s+ste0.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant *2 :ile &itle All o= t'e Abo8e The a99ir)ati2es has .ed as a )o2e 9ro) s/. 66 HeideggerTs anal+sis o= t'e essence o= tec'nolog+ con=ir0s t'is suggestion.here danger is gro.o/ld sa# o9 a thie9 that he is gestellt> apprehended> an e!pression in . :n this . =ose)ann 02 O5'ili%%? Assistant 5ro=essor o= 5'iloso%'+ at t'e Uni8ersit+ o= Dallas? Nournal o= t'e Histor+ o= 5'iloso%'+ *0.e co/ld perhaps sa#> post)odernit# 64 Nis dee%l+ a0biguous> perhaps )ore so than an# other econo)# o9 presence.e2er> acA/ires a ne.sor. S(n=ra0ing?S t'e essence o= tec'nolog+? co0%letes t'e 0odern %roIect o= re%resenting> 2orstellen> nature in a s+ste0aticall+ ordered S%icture.seA/ent cornering. . rigor> indeed rigidit#> s/ch that the )odern Forstellen trans)/tes into a si)ple Stellen.Ject and o. 14 .Ject o9 o/r presence there> na)el#> to tra2erse space rapidl#. Heidegger t'us s%eaks o= t'e Ssu%re0e dangerS tec'nolog+ %oses.ell)eaning holida#-)akers can no longer e!perience as an#thing .n e99icienc#.X 6$ This opport/nit# is> : think> d/e to the 9act that technolog# represents> in so)e .# the 2acation ind/str#.Ject> the s/.e descri.ard.s the sa2ing po.S This proJect> ho. At the sa)e ti)e> ho. 61 I nd .Ject can ne2er 9/ll# .X 12 5ollo.

B&o t'e en=ra0ed belongs also 0an? ad0ittedl+ in 'is o3n 3a+? be it t'at 'e ser8es t'e 0ac'ine or t'at 3it'in ordering 'e designs and constructs t'e 0ac'ine.E 1+ &'e staggering i0%lication is t'at 0ac'ine tec'nolog+ is so0e'o3 su%er=luous =or understanding t'e essence o= tec'nolog+ . &'e a%%arent autono0+ and sel=4deter0ination 'u0ans enIo+ gi8es t'e i0%ression t'at t'e+ can o%t out o= continuous ordering but t'is is 0erel+ t'e 3a+ t'at en=ra0ing dissi0ulates itsel= as the ill/sion o9 agenc#. is onl+ an instru0ent concordant 3it' tec'nolog+? 3'ereb+ t'e nature o= tec'nolog+ is establis'ed in t'e obIecti8e c'aracter o= its ra3 0aterials .ers o9 the seedO it sheltered the) in their thri2ing.e concei2ed onl# ontologicall#> as openness to ./t a )echanical and nihilistic reprod/ction o9 the sa)eR &hen Heidegger insists on the /ni2ersal character o9 en9ra)ing he /nderscores this point. 5or instance> the technological ordering o9 nat/re is o9 a di99erent kind than the one thro/gh . Agriculture is no3 t'e 0otorized =ood industr+ > in essence t'e sa0e as t'e %roduction o= cor%ses in t'e gas c'a0bers and t'e e)ter0ination ca0%s> the sa)e as the e). 2$ . &'e 'u0an being is in 'is o3n 3a+ a stock-piece in the strongest sense o9 the . Unable to c'ange 'is urge to order and control? t'e tec'nicized being is sub4Iected to t'e i0%erati8es o= t'e s+ste0. 2 6odern or 0ac'ine tec'nolog+ en=ra0es 'u0an beings as standing4reser8e to be used b+ t'e s+ste0? eit'er as t'e designer tec'nolog+ uses to beco0e 0ore %o3er=ul? t'e builder 3'o %uts toget'er t'e tec'nolog+? or t'e user 3'o is used b+ t'e tec'nolog+ to o%erate.hen one represents it as )achine technolog#.argo and star2ation o9 co/ntries> t'e sa0e as t'e %roduction o= '+drogen bo0bs.ords> stock and %iece. :n 9act> B6odern tec'nolog+ is 3'at it is not onl+ t'roug' t'e 0ac'ine? rat'er t'e 0ac'ine is 3'at it is and 'o3 it is =ro0 out o= t'e essence o= tec'nolog+ . :n his )ost e!tre)e state)ents o9 the case the di99erence . :9 %eo%le Care in t'eir essence alread+ en=ra0ed as standing4reser8e E> 22 .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant *$ :ile &itle All o= t'e Abo8e? %t. .le . .ination thereo9..et. Hecause all acti8ities toda+ are in one 3a+ or anot'er tec'nologicall+ 0ediated e8er+one is en=ra0ed as either a technical )aker> /ser and%or designer or a co). Substanti8e goals and 0eaning=ul di==erences are le8eled b+ t'e ubiBuit+ o= tec'nical reason and re%laced 3it' a sel=4o%ti0izing s+ste0.E 20Ho3 does t'is a==ect 'u0an beingsR Heidegger clai0s t'at Cbecause 0an cannot decide? out o= 'i0sel= and b+ 'i0sel=? regarding 'is o3n essence it =ollo3s t'at t'e ordering o= standing4reser8e and en=ra0ing is not onl+ so0et'ing 'u0anE. 19 Heidegger underscores t'is %oint 3'en 'e sa+s> else. !-2$-11P 6ac'ine tec'nolog+ is> 9/nda)entall#> no 0ere 0ec'anis0 (=]der.o/t the essence o9 )odern technolog# .erk* and it is not a %articular instantiation o= en=ra0ing as a uni8ersal conce%t. *4. .hich the earlier peasant ordered his acres. :n the )eanti)e the ordering o9 the 9ields crosses o2er in the sa)e ordering> red/cing the air to o!#gen> the earth to coal and ore> the ore to /rani/)> the /rani/) to ato)ic energ# and this to an ordera.E 2" Th/s> as technical )akers> users and designers> 'u0an beings are resources too.hat kind o9 9reedo) is this .een h/)ans and things is e99aced. Hel/ 10 ODana? De%art0ent o= 5'iloso%'+ ali=ornia State Uni8ersit+? InBuir+ Fol. S6. The peasantGs doing did not i)pose /pon> nor challenge the earthO it concerned itsel9 . 11 =ather? en=ra0ing is an essential dis%ensation as that sine A/a non 3it'out 3'ic' 0ac'ines cannot e)ist.9 Issue 1? %g.eca/se the# e!ercise a capacit# (5]higkeit* 9or deter)ined participation.ilit# o9 the a/tono)o/s agent to choose a)ong a 2ariet# o9 options*.ith the potential gro. 21 H/t inso9ar as it is so)ething h/)an> h/)ans are coresponsi.le destr/ction. 9reedo) is to .eing in the 9or) o9 en9ra)ing> rather than onticall# or instr/)entall# (as the a. &otal en=ra0ing t'us totall+ enco0%asses 'u0ans. 24 :n HeideggerGs 2ie.here> that Bt'e utilization o= 0ac'iner+ and t'e 0anu=acture o= 0ac'ines. Accessed. 8ne sa#s nothing a. CHeideggerGs A%oretic <ntolog+ o= &ec'nolog+?E :ebruar+ 2010.ing po.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant .0 :ile &itle """I0%acts""" .

Pork6 Fiking*. Detac'0ent? 3'ic' =inall+ breeds alienation? conte0%t? and 0istrust? results ine8itabl+ in t'e deca+ o= ci8itas? t'e 8irtue o= co00unit+ lo+alt+ and res%onsibilit+ 3it'out 3'ic' a culture risks 0ortal decline .o/t the . Has not eac' o= t'e ad8ances o= science> since the ti)e o9 Copernic/s> al)ost auto0aticall+ resulted in a decrease in 'is statureQ And is the o9ten repeated arg/)ent that it . She e!pressed reser2ations a. .eside the point.orth# p/rposes )a# co)e to )indNsound to )e slig'tl+ absurd? out o= tune 3it' t'e t'ings t'at are at stake and 3'ose conseBuences toda+ a%%ear still Buite un%redictable.eca/se the scientists are in possession o9 )ore precise in9or)ation. At an# e2ent> )an> inso9ar as he is a scientist? does not care about 'is o3n stature in t'e uni8erse or a.o/t his position on the e2ol/tionar# ladder o9 ani)al li9eO this BcarelessnessE is his pride and his glor#.it and the changes in attit/de this 2antage point . Huc'ingson 1$$0 ILa)es> Associate .n /pon arth 9ro) or.as realistic.hate2er other .'o 3ould not be sus%icious a=ter t'e tragedies o= Guernica? Dresden? Hiros'i0a? and Fietna0? 3'ic' illustrate t'e detac'0ent o= tec'nocratic control and t'e destruction o= large %o%ulations t'roug' air %o3erQ &'e %roIected 0ilitarization o= s%ace? t'e ulti0ate 'ig' ground? b+ SDI and so%'isticated reconnaissance satellites does little to relie8e 'er %essi0is0.arnings are candid e!trapolations o9 the e2ents o9 o/r cent/r#. his s/periorit# and e2en increasing his stat/re> )ore than a sophis)R .arnings not to /se the ne. :l+ing 'ig'er and =aster see0 onl+ to o==er better o%%ortunities =or so0e %eo%le? so0e states? to control and destro+ ot'er %eo%le? ot'er states. All too o9ten> alienation in t'e %olitical real0 %ro8ides o%%ortunit+ =or t'e de8elo%0ent o= totalitarian regi0es t'at? b+ 0agni=+ing t'eir detac'0ent =ro0 t'e %eo%le? go8ern b+ re%ression and 8iolence . In t'e =or0 o= uncaring? it =ractures t'e integrit+ o= 'u0an co00unit+ b+ %er0itting 0e0bers o= one grou% to neglect t'e critical needs o= ot'er grou%s? suc' as Ar0enians? Ne3s? A0erindians? and 3o0en.erhaps it . Indi8iduall+? detac'0ent allo3s one %erson to e)%loit or abuse ot'ers in t'e 0arket%lace? in %ersonal relations'i%s? and in t'e 'ouse'old.ere .etter spent on ed/cation and the i)pro2e)ent o9 the citi3ens> on the 9ight against po2ert# and disease> or .hilosoph# and =eligio/s St/dies at 5lorida :nternational Cni2ersit#> B arthstr/ck>E in "ygon 2$.4K :n 196+ in an essa# responding to e!hilaration o2er A)erican s/ccesses in space> Hannah Arendt 3rote cautiousl+ about t'e %otential o= s%ace=lig't =or good (XThe ConA/est o9 Space and the Stat/re o9 0an> V V in Het.ring. po.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant .ast and . &'e si0%le =act t'at %'+sicists s%lit t'e ato0 3it'out an+ 'esitations t'e 8er+ 0o0ent t'e+ kne3 'o3 to do it? alt'oug' t'e+ realized =ull 3ell t'e enor0ous destructi8e %otentialities o= t'eir o%eration? de0onstrates t'at t'e scientist Bua scientist does not e8en care about t'e sur8i8al o= t'e 'u0an race on eart' or> 9or that )atter> about t'e sur8i8al o= t'e %lanet itsel=.o/ld .n de. . Arendt !1 IHannah> A)erican political philosopher> BThe ConA/est o9 Space and the Stat/re o9 0anE The Ne. &'e distance and detac'0ent broug't about b+ t'e ac'ie8e0ent o= (insteinTs ideal o= t'e scientist /t'e Sobser8er =reel+ %oised in s%aceT T1 3ould encourage us to see oursel8es as a =or0 o= collecti8e biological be'a8ior? ca%able o= s+ste0atic 0ani%ulation b+ St'e sa0e 0et'ods 3e use to stud+ t'e be'a8ior o= rats. Falid and %lausible argu0ents against t'e CconBuest o= s%aceE could be raised onl+ i= t'e+ 3ere to s'o3 t'at t'e 3'ole enter%rise 0ig't be sel=4de=eating in its o3n ter0s.1 :ile &itle Atrocit+ &ec'nological detac'0ent is t'e root cause o= 'istorical atrocit+.ase)ent in his search 9or tr/th> th/s pro2ing ane. 5or in all these e99orts the scientists acted not as scientists .ill t/rn o/t that . All associations 9or BAto)s 9or .isel#> and e2en t'e %angs o= conscience 0an+ scientists =elt 3'en t'e =irst bo0bs =ell on Hiros'i0a and Nagasaki cannot obscure t'is si0%le? ele0entar+ =act. &'e tec'nological relations'i% to t'e cos0os re%licates t'e sa0e t'oug'tless 8iolences 3'ic' in=or0s t'e 3orst atrocities in 'istor+.een . Atlantis 5all 2001K &'e 0agnitude o= t'e s%ace enter%rise see0s to 0e be+ond dis%ute? and all obIections raised against it on t'e %urel+ utilitarian le8elNthat it is too e!pensi2e> that the )one# .resentO Ne.h# : think t'ese argu0ents are .S ArendtV s pessi)is) .a#. :n the larger historical sense> ArendtVs .ene9its o9 looking do./t as citi3ens> and i9 their 2oices ha2e )ore a/thorit# than the 2oices o9 la#)en> the# do so onl# .ro9essor o9 . The# are singularl+ ina%%licable because t'e enter%rise itsel= could co0e about onl+ t'roug' an a0azing de8elo%0ent o= 0anGs scienti=ic ca%abilities. There is> )oreo2er> another reason .er /n. Speci9icall#> Arendt 9eared that t'e s'eer re0oteness o= t'e astronautTs orbital g+re =ro0 t'e sur=ace o= t'e %lanet 3ould nu0b 'is /or 'er1 e0%at'etic connections 3it' t'e 3orld belo3. &'e 8er+ integrit+ o= science de0ands t'at not onl+ utilitarian considerations but t'e re=lection u%on t'e stature o= 0an as 3ell be le=t in abe+ance. Here t'e 8icti0 is t'e custo0er? lo8er? s%ouse? and c'ild.ho achie2ed his o.as )an . Detac'0ent is t'e sine Bua non o= 8iolence o= 0an+ sorts.eace>E all .

Nor is this si)pl# a )atter o9 asking .s/)ption o9 the ethical . &'ere is not'ing abstract about t'is.n de9er.# the political as Le2inas charges> then> .92 Hut onl+ deconstruction gi8es us it to t'ink? and onl+ deconstructi8el+ sensible %'iloso%'+ t'inks it t'roug'.o .elonging together o9 the t. &'e 8er+ inde)icalit+ reBuired o= so8ereign subIecti8it+ ga8e rise rat'er to a co00ensurabilit+ 0uc' 0ore a0enable to t'e e)%endabilit+ reBuired o= t'e %olitical and 0aterial econo0ies o= 0ass societies t'an it did to t'e singular? in8aluable? and uncann+ uniBueness o= t'e sel=. 5or Le2inas the ethical co)es 9irst and ethics is 9irst phi.2 :ile &itle @ero 5oint &'e econo0ies o= 8alue created b+ t'e tec'nologisation o= t'e %olitical allo3 =or all subIect to t'e %olitical to be bot' 8alued and conseBuentiall+ de8alued? because deat' is t'e =ra0e o= re=erence 3it'in 3'ic' t'ese calculations o%erate an+ co0%arati8e de8aluation o= an as%ect o= 'u0anit+ is Iusti=iable? t'ere is not'ing abstract about t'is? t'is is t'e zero4%oint o= 'olocaust. Nor is it surrender to t'e necessit+ o= contin4 genc+ and circu0stance. Rat'er? it is an encoun4 ter 3it' a reser8e c'arged 3it' %ossibilit+.e retho/ght against Le2inas . It is %recisel+ undecidable. De8aluation? logicall+? can e)tend to t'e %oint o= counting as not'ing.races the A/estion o9 .)atel# to adJ/dicate e2er#thing.ral to a Ho.hether or not the political can .as ne2er in possession o9 that sel9-possession . Dillon 1$$$ I0ichael> BAnother L/stice>E Political Theory 2162K 5'iloso%'+Ts task> 9or Le2inas> is to a8oid con=lating et'ics and %olitics. Neit'er is it so0et'ing taken blindl+? 3it'out re=lection and t'e 0obilisation o= 3'at can be kno3n. :t e).le it /lti.9$ And onl+ deconstruction t'inks it t'roug' to t'e inti0ate relation bet3een TdecisionT and t'e assu0%tion o= res%onsibilit+? 3'ic' e==ect egress into a =uture t'at 'as not +et been4could not as +et 'a8e been4kno3n.ed there. &'e e8ent o= t'is lack is not a negati8e e)%erience. In t'e real0 o= undecidabilit+? decision is %recisel+ not t'e 0ec'anical a%%lication o= a rule or nor0.42 In t'is essa+ I understand t'e c'allenge instead to be t'e necessit+ o= t'inking t'e co4%resence o= t'e et'ical and t'e %olitical. <n t'e contrar+? kno34 ing is necessar+ and? indeed? integral to TdecisionT.hich .hich poses> in addition> the A/estion o9 the ci2il co)pos/re reA/ired o9 a political li9e.hether or not there can . :t . Hence? no 0ensuration 3it'out de0ensuration eit'er. <nce rendered calculable? 'o3e8er? units o= account are necessaril+ sub0issible not onl+ to 8aluation but also? o= course? to de8aluation. Undecidabilit+ 0eans being in a %osition o= 'a8ing to decide 3it'out 'a8ing alread+ been =ull+ deter0ined and 3it'out being ca%able o= bringing an end to t'e reBuire0ent =or decision. . Hut it does not e)'aust TdecisionT? and cannot do so i= t'ere is to be said to be suc' a t'ing as a Tdec4 isionT. &'at dut+? as 3it' t'e ad8ent o= anot'er Nustice? is integral to t'e lack constituti8e o= t'e 'u0an 3a+ o= being.S46 Hut 'o3 does t'at necessit+ %resent itsel=Q Anot'er Nustice ans3ers. &'e instant o= decision? i= t'ere is to be a decision? 0ust be 'eterogeneous to t'is accu0u4 lation o= kno3ledge. &'us no 8aluation 3it'out 0ensuration and no 0ensuration 3it'out inde)ation. &'e %oint about t'e 'u0an? betra+ed b+ t'is absence? is %recisel+ t'at it is not so8ereignl+ sel=4%ossessed and co0%lete? enIo+ing undis%uted tenure in and o= itsel= .'at t'is also 0eans is t'at t'e 'u0an is not decided. <t'er3ise t'ere is no res%onsibilit+. as t'e sur%lus o= t'e dut+ to ans3er to t'e clai0 o= Nustice o8er rig'ts.99 It deri8es =ro0 t'e lack? absence? or ineradicable inco0%leteness 3'ic' co0es =ro0 'a8ing no securit+ o= tenure 3it'in or o8er t'at o= 3'ic' t'e sel= is a %articular 'er0eneutical 0ani=estationK na0el+? being itsel=.Ject lack the 2er# 9o/ndations in the sel9 that the# )ost 2iolentl# insist /pon seeing inscri. . <t'erness is born/e1 3it'in t'e sel= as an integral %art o= itsel= and in suc' a 3a+ t'at it al3a+s re0ains an in'erent stranger to itsel=. &'is does not? 'o3e8er? 0ean t'at t'e dissolution o= t'e subIect also entails t'e dissolution o= Nustice.o/ld ena.standing o9 the so/rce and character o9 political li9e that 9lo. t'e declension o= econo0ies o= 8alue leads to t'e zero %oint o= 'olocaust. :or 3e 0ust ne8er =orget t'at? S3e are dealing al3a+s 3it' 3'ate8er e)ceeds 0easure.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant .ork> Totalit# and :n9init#> and /nderscores its entire reading./t the .e do not need deconstruction? o= course? to tell us t'is. Duite t'e re8erse. Ho3e8er liberating and e0anci%ating s+ste0s o= 8alue4rig'ts40a+ clai0 to be? =or e)a0%le? t'e+ run t'e risk o= counting out t'e in8aluable. H/t that lea2es the political /nregenerated> as Le2inasVs o. &'e 0anage4 0ent science o= decision 'as long since kno3n so0et'ing like it t'roug' t'e earl+ re=lections o=? =or e)a0%le? Herbert Si0on and Geo==re+ Fickers.e ethical.as s/pposed to sec/re the certaint# o9 itsel9> o9 a sel9-possession that . The opposition o9 politics and ethics opens his 9irst )aJor . ounted out? t'e in8aluable 0a+ t'en lose its %urc'ase on li=e..*0 Ulti0atel+ one cannot kno3 e8er+t'ing because one is ad8ancing into a =uture 3'ic' si0%l+ cannot be antici%ated? and into 3'ic' one cannot see.le 2ehicle 9or the reception o9 the call o9 another L/stice.e s/ch a thing as an ethic o9 the political. Here3it'? t'en? t'e necessit+ o= c'a0%ioning t'e in8aluable itsel=. This raises the di99ic/lt A/estion o9 . . :t arises as )/ch 9or the ontopolitical interpretation as it does 9or the /nder. Herein> then> lies an i)portant challenge to political tho/ght. &o t'ink decision t'roug' is to t'ink it as 'et4 erogeneous to t'e =ield o= kno3ing and %ossible kno3ing 3it'in 3'ic' it is al3a+s located. In t'is sense onl+ 0ust t'e %er4 son taking t'e decision not kno3 e8er+t'ing.recisel# not the s/.9.esian politics> as . &'e subIect 3as ne8er a =ir0 =oundation =or Iustice > )/ch less a hospita.ell as his 2er# li)ited political inter2entions> indicate.losoph#. &'e 8alue o= t'e subIect beca0e t'e standard unit o= currenc+ =or t'e %olitical arit'0etic o= States and t'e %olitical econo0ies o= ca%italis0. (cono0ies o= e8aluation necessaril+ reBuire calculabilit+. 0odes o9 J/stice there9ore reliant /pon s/ch a s/. &'e tec'nologisation o= t'e %olitical 'as beco0e 0ani=est and global.9* &'e+ trade in it still to de8astating global e==ect.hether or not politics can .97 . As %ossibilit+? it is t'at 3'ic' enables li=e to be li8ed in e)cess 3it'out t'e o8erdose o= actualit+.ith Le2inas.s 9ro) the ret/rn o9 the ontological.

le in the calc/lation o9 ordering? t'e 'u0an being re0ains in its essence? 3'et'er consciousl+ or not? set u% as so0et'ing to be ordered b+ ordering I.# losing oneGs relations to 7od./siness> its stopping or dist/r.ith t'e ecli%se o= being? t'reatens t'e relations bet3een being and 'u0an Dasein.'at is %er0anent and constantl+ %resent is standing4reser8e. 0achines .ilities o9 relating to an# and all t#pes o9 )achine technolog# are s/))ed /p .E HeideggerGs description o9 this s#ste) in these essa#s is re)arka.K The h/)an .> Assistant .ilit# and is in ad2ance represented as per)anence . I= 'u0anit+ a8oided nuclear 3ar onl+ to sur8i8e as contented cle8er ani0als> Heidegger .eing is orderingGs )an I./siness (Hetrie. Th/s> a le8eled do3n? i0%ersonal and 0ec'anical =or0 o= e)c'ange de=ines all 'u0an acti8it+.# red/cing nat/re to p/re energ#. n9ra)ing descri.er o9 ordering allo.'. 'eep ecologists )ight agree that a 3orld o= 0aterial 'u0an co0=ort %urc'ased at t'e %rice o= e8er+t'ing 3ild 3ould not be a 3ould 3ort' li8ing in? =or in killing . &hat presences is set-/p as ordera.eing is alread# occ/rring.o/ld eA/al li)itless cons/)ption. This po.etter to 9or9eit the . #oss o= t'is relations 3ould be e8en 0ore dangerous t'an a nuclear 3ar t'at 0ig't Cbring about the co)plete anni'ilations o= 'u0anit+ and t'e destruction o= t'e eart'.ild nat/re> %eo%le 3ould be as good as dead.Ject.hilosoph# o9 Technolog# T Si)on 5raser Cni2ersit#> HeideggerGs Aporetic 8ntolog# o9 Technolog#> p.hilosoph# T T/lane> Contesting arthGs 5/t/re> p.# en9ra)ing.ith the ai) o9 pro2iding )aterial BhappinessE 9or e2er#one . &ec'nological t'inking reduces e8er+t'ing to being4erasing ordering Helu \ :eenberg in 10 ('ana S. This constraint is> pres/)a./t is not restricted to this real).e*> that orders (.E This contro2ersial clai) is co)para.ro9essor o9 .heels and gears in )otion is the sa)e as the circ/lation o9 ind/str#> in9or)ation and the 9lo. .orld than to lose oneGs so/l . :t stands onl# inso9ar as it )o2es. :t r/ns in the h/stle and . C<rdering strikes nature and 'istor+? e8er+t'ing t'at is? and in all 3a+s? 'o3 3'at %resences is.ard a totali3ed acco/nt o9 en9ra)ing.ackgro/nd )ood is horror in the 9ace o9 nihilis)> . Its essence is so0et'ing 0ore t'an C0erel+ a 0ac'ination (0achenscha9t* o= %eo%le? consu00ated in t'e 3a+ o= e)%loitation>E (7A 19> p. 5/rther> since )odernit#Gs one-di)ensional disclos/re o9 entities 2irt/all# denies the) an# B.* ro/nd and ro/nd (Kreisgang* in a chain o9 ordering (Kette des Hestellens*> .itho/t s/.> .l#> )ost e2ident in o/r handling o9 )achine technolog# . o9 )arkets.h.estellt* h#droelectric po. (n=ra0ing Csnatc'es e8er+t'ing t'at %resences into orderabilit+ and is in this .es the on-going co))otion (Hetrie. n9ra)ing is6 nsnatching (7era99*E. .119-120* Heidegger asserted that h/)an sel9 assertion> co). . .K :nso9ar as h/)an representation readil# sets /p . 0odernit#Gs .* o9 rotation and t/rning or spinning ('reh/ng* o9 gears (7etrie.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant ./siness as t'at 3'ic' is ordered as resource b+ en=ra0ing .a# a gathering o9 this snatching.stanti2e goals and )eaning. .hilosoph# T Cali9ornia State Cni2ersit# 'o)inig/e3 Hills [ Andre.er plants> a/to)o. The h/stle and . &'e trut' or /nhiddenness (aletheia1 o= tec'nical beings and t'ings re0ains concealed. .s the s/pposition that> .iles and .le.elongs to its e!ec/tion I. 0achine technolog# does not )erel# replace eA/ip)ent and )echanis)s. Heidegger apparentl# tho/ght along the lines6 it is %ossible t'at a=ter a nuclear 3ar? li=e 0ig't one again e0erge? but it is =ar less likel+ t'at t'ere 3ill e8er again occur an ontological clearing t'roug' 3'ic' suc' li=e could 0ani=est itsel=. :t is J/st as little an o. <rdering is a =unda0ental =eature o= t'e tec'nical li=e3orld.le to the Christian teaching that it is .r/ar# 2010* L0 :n B'as 7e-StellE Heidegger tends to.eing . . The possi.le. :t )o2es inso9ar as it r/ns.elong inside a )achiner#.o/nded destr/ction ./stle dri2es as the intrig/e o9 the ordering o9 the ordera.ro9 o9 . . &'e unleas'ing o= 8ast Buantities o= energ+ in nuclear 3ar 3ould be eBui8alent to 0odernit+Gs slo3 0otion destruction o= nature6 /n.> =esearch Chair in . H/t this )achiner# is not a heap o9 )achines. &'is 0ac'iner+ runs o/t o9 the ensnatching o9 .hich is consistent .rites> 0achine technolog# does not e!ist separatel# .hat presences as the ordera. 5/rther)ore> the rotating )echanis) that sets .ance.elie2ed 3e could e)ist in a state o= ontological da0nation. Heidegger . 29* because in t'e tec'nical age %eo%le are t'e0sel8es constrained to order.K &'e essence o= 0an is conseBuentl+ set4u%? bringing ordering into 'u0an 3a+s Th/s 3e in t'e tec'nological age are deter0ined or Cset4u%E b+ being as en=ra0ing./siness. 'ell on eart' 0asBuerading as 0aterial %aradise.hat is here called BorderingE is not )erel# a h/)an doing> e2en tho/gh the h/)an . &hen the )achine idles> then its rest constit/tes a circ/)stance o9 ./stle o9 .eing at all>E the loss o9 h/)anit#Gs openness 9or .9 :ile &itle <ntological Da0nation #oss o= Heing obliterates t'e 8alue to li=e and is a =ate 3orse t'an nuclear anni'ilation @i00er0an $* (0ichael> .4> 5e. .ined .hose stand is deter)ined 9ro) o/t o9 ordering.

. 5ollo.ith.'at calls =or %oliticsQSV :n this A/estion 3e 'a8e a %at'3a+ =or essential %olitical t'inking. :n .X Th/s> . Like Niet3sche> Heidegger seeks to o2erco)e the spirit o9 2engeance.hat is terrestrial> in per)itting the spirit o9 2engeance to deter)ine his )editationR I= it is a Buestion o= sa8ing t'e eart' as eart'? it is necessar+ =ro0 t'e outset t'at t'e s%irit o= 8engeance disa%%ear. o9 a .hat is .orld-do)ination.X :t )a# .XO essential thinking asks and hears X. .hilosoph# at the Cni2ersit# o9 Alaska (Nor)an K.hat calls 9or. Heidegger is the 9irst to think this decisi2e A/estion essentiall# inas)/ch as he thinks this A/estion in ter)s o9 the histor# o9 Heing.e 'a8e also understood so0et'ing o= t'e relations'i% bet3een t'is 0eta%'+sics and t'e nor0ati8e and tec'nocratic di0ensions o= conte0%orar+ 3orld order t'inking? inso=ar as Buiescent in t'is t'inking is t'e Nietzsc'ean a%%eal to t'at autono0ous creati8it+ 3'ic' %osits ne3 8alues on t'e basis o= 'u0anit+Ts sel=4a==ir0ation. .e 0ust recognize? 'o3e8er? t'at bot' t'e 0anner o= %re%aration and t'e c'aracter o= t'is 3orld4do0ination are %roble0atic? es%eciall+ to t'e e)tent t'at 0odern subIecti8it+ dri8es 'u0anit+ to3ards t'is goal.et.sc/rit#> /ncertaint#> and precario/sness hold s.a# along this path.e said that> despite the lack o9 an e!plicit the)atic treat)ent o9 the political in his tho/ght> Heidegger concerns hi)sel9 ..ases . ..er 9orth. S3azo 02 @ . =ather> 'e destro+s it as eart'.. 1$1-60* The gro/nding A/estion clai)s /s toda# in the historical )o)ent o9 philosoph#Vs co)pletion.> 9ro) a standpoint #et ha2ing to o2erco)e X)etaph#sical 2engeance.'at is %oliticsQS but? rat'er S.orld order scholar =ichard 5alk has .arned. Global do0inion under t'e s3a+ o= 0eta%'+sical 8engeance4in 3'ic' t'e 'u0an 'i0sel= succu0bs to t'e en'ance0ent o= 'is %o3er4 ulti0atel+ entails %recisel+ t'at crucible o= traged+ and catastro%'e a.e.a# o9 transitionO to think other. can he take /nder his protection the earth as earth> i9 and 9or so long as he de..oth to co0e to 'is o3n essence and to be %re%ared to rule t'e eart'? 0an 0ust be 'ealed o= 8engeance.ise is to s/rrender the a/thentic 9/t/re to that ina/thentic 9/t/re in . his re9lections on techniA/e> Heidegger has pointed o/t t'e 8engeance in8ol8ed in t'e tec'nocratic reduction o= nature =irst to an obIect o= researc' and ulti0atel+ to 0ere ra3 0aterial to be dis%osed o= at 0anTs %leasure. HeideggerVs Xsol/tionX (to /se the . :t is in recognition o9 this i))inent conseA/ence that Heidegger asks6 H/t> ho. &'e logic o= t'is 0o8e0ent e8entuall+ engul=s 0an 'i0sel= so t'at 'e? too? is onl+ ra3 0aterial.o/t .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant ..> Crisis Theor# and &orld 8rder6 Heideggerian =e9lections> p.XV :n the preceding chapter> ..orld histor# e)erging 9or the 9irst ti)e> asks the decisi2e A/estion and thinks thro/gh its )etaph#sical i)plications. :nas)/ch as there is an essential connection ..hich . :t cannot .as the 9irst to see that ..# Niet3sche.e2er> is /nlike Niet3scheVs inso9ar as Heidegger does not think ontologicall# in ter)s o9 2al/es or a )ere re2ersal o9 .hich historicis) and act/alis) gi2e deter)ination to the political.ho> in 2ie.ro9essor o9 . &ith this in )ind> 'a/enha/erVs re)arks are especiall# pertinent6 Heidegger tells us that Niet3sche .e ha2e considered ho.# Niet3sche is Xnot . Fengeance . The A/estion is6 Is 0an? as 0an in 'is nature til no3? %re%ared to assu0e do0inion o8er t'e 3'ole eart'QXV Hernard 'a/enha/erVs co))ents on this iss/e are ill/)inating. .e /nderstood in ter)s o9 Xa preparation o9 )an 9or taking o2er a .* :ile &itle ()tinction &ec'nological t'oug't can onl+ con=ront its in'erent li0itations 8ia t'e 0anu=acture o= catastro%'e and 8iolence.S .itho/t pres/)ing to ans.ith the sa)e decisi2e A/estion raised ./t clai) /s o/t o9 the a/thentic 9/t/re and> hence> in a trans9or)ed )anner6 0etaph#sical thinking asks and hears X. Since 'e 3ould debase it to ra3 0aterial =or 'is o3n %ur%oses? 'e cannot rule t'e eart'. &o t'ink along t'e %at'3a+ o= t'is Buestion is to understand t'e relation bet3een %lanetar+ t'inking and %lanetar+ building in ne3 lig't.# Niet3sche. Niet3sche is the 9irst thinker to recogni3e o/r historical )o)ent as J/st s/ch a preparation> notes Heidegger6 XNiet3sche is the 9irst thinker .ell 9or)/latedX inas)/ch as Xit is still asked 9ro) the standpoint o9 )etaph#sics>X i.een planetar# politics and the planetar# do)ination o9 technolog#> the A/estion o9 the relation o9 planetar# thinking and planetar# ./ilding )/st 9irst .X &'e 3'ole o= HeideggerTs later t'inking? as a 0editation on t'is %re%aration o= 'u0anit+ =or global go8ernance? attends to t'e decisi8e Buestion in a 3a+ t'at is no longer 0eta%'+sical but essential.oth t'e nor0ati8e and tec'nocratic di0ensions o= 3orld order t'inking? grounded as t'e+ are in n subIecti8ist 0eta%'+sics? entail a 3orld4do0ination 3'oll+ inde=ensible. is t'at res%onse to 3'at is ot'er t'an onesel= 3'ic' debases t'e ot'er in order to %lace onesel= in a su%erior %osition and t'us to 0aintain t'at t'e onl+ t'ing 3'ic' counts is oneTs o3n i0%ortance.X &'e grounding Buestion %ro%erl+ =or0ulated > then> is not 0erel+ S. It is incu0bent u%on us to understand t'e Buestion> to hold o/t the A/estion as a possi. a X9/nda)ental )etaph#sical positionX is artic/lated .latonis). co/ld )an accede to r/lership o2er the earth> ho. Fengeance c/l)inates> then> in nihilis).ilit# o9 thinking . 8.V :n short> sa#s 'a/enha/er> X&'e 0an o= 8engeance cannot %rotect t'e eart'. <nl+ t'us is it %ossible to o8erco0e 0eta%'+sical 8engeance? =or in Buestioning concerning t'e 0eaning o= Heing in general t'e tension bet3een a Ytranscendent4%er0anentT and an Yeart'l+4te0%oralG is trans=or0ed ..ord loosel#*> ho.ing HeideggerVs re9lections> 'a/enha/er clai)s that the Xdecisi2e A/estionX as posed .

He sees nature as e)isting =unda0entall+ =or 'i0 3'ile being dri8en b+ a %o3er greater t'an 'i0sel=? a %o3er 3'ic' not onl+ distorts nature but ob=uscates 0anGs understanding o= 'is o3n sel= . &ith )odern technolog#> 0an is 'ood3inked into belie8ing t'at 'e =ul=ills 'is true essence to t'e 8er+ e)tent t'at 'e do0inates 'is surroundings. &ith )odern technolog#> the . :t is a .> 5ordha) Cni2ersit#> B82erco)ing the 'estining 89 Technological Heing>E 5all 2001 S#)posi/)6 H/)anit#Gs .orks o9 the cra9ts)an> strikes /s as straighta.ed/%philosoph#%9ps%s#)posia%20019all%condella. He+ond e2en t'is challenging> ho.ht)* &hat> then> is the essence o9 technolog#R :n searching 9or an ans.hich .lace in the Cos)os> No2e).er to this all-i)portant A/estion> Heidegger (as he so o9ten does* looks .2io/s? is its c'allenging o= nature.e )/st deter)ine .ringing so)ething 9orth 9ro) conceal)ent to /nconceal)ent. Not /ntil . &'is gat'ering concentrates 0an u%on ordering t'e actual as standing4reser8e. 6odern tec'nolog+ essentiall+ trans=or0s nature into an energ+ source 3'ic' it 0ani%ulates and uses at its o3n discretion. Heidegger calls t'is c'allenging4=ort' o= 0an to order nature as standing4reser8e Ge4stell /en=ra0ing1 and th/s locates the essence o9 )odern technolog# o/tside o9 h/)an control. There9ore .s /s to grasp technolog#Gs essence> ..hat it is e!actl# that )akes the technolog# o9 )odernit# so /niA/e.er 6> 2001> http6%%.E Herein 3e encounter t'e essence o= 0odern tec'nolog+ as a c'allenging4=ort'? along 3it' its rendering o= nature as standing4reser8e. . To 9ind the latter> .a# o9 .egin to o2erco)e the danger har. That challenging gathers )an into ordering. According to Heidegger> B&'e re8ealing t'at rules in 0odern tec'nolog+ is a c'allenging? 3'ic' %uts to nature t'e unreasonable de0and t'at it su%%l+ energ+ 3'ic' can be e)tracted and stored as suc'.s itsel9. 6odern tec'nolog+? as a re8ealing t'at orders? is t'us no 0ere 'u0an doing. As a =or0 o= re8ealing or unconceal0ent? tec'nolog+ e8inces itsel= =unda0entall+ as a 'a%%ening o= trut' @ an occ/rrence re9erred to .hich .hich incl/ded the 9ine arts no less than the ./t not the danger .e see )odern technolog# as so)ething o/tside o9 o/r control can .ringing-9orth o9 techne is 9/nda)entall# trans9or)ed into a challenging-9orth. .ringing-9orth.ack to the ancient 7reeks to locate techne as a 9or) o9 !oiesis> i. :ile &itle Standing4Reser8e A tec'nological a%%roac' to t'e 3orld =orces a conce%tualization o= t'ings as co00odities to be used and 0ani%ulated b+ 'u0ans./t then again .a# it sho.# Heidegger> .'ereas 0an %rides 'i0sel= on using tec'nolog+ to 'is o3n ad8antage? it is 0odern tec'nolog+ 3'ic'? in all realit+? uses 0an.ithin its 2er# essence.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant .e )/st take the challenging that sets /pon )an to order the act/al as standing-reser2e in accordance .rings so)ething into presence. &ithin s/ch a sit/ation> 0an beco0es blind to all ot'er 0odes o= re8ealing outside o= t'e tec'nological. Nature? at t'e 'ands o= 0odern tec'nolog+? is reduced to Hestand /standing4reser8e1.ored . 5or Heidegger> then> the 7reek notion o9 techne allo.o/t the ancient 7reek notion o9 techne> ..h# sho/ld itR A9ter all> nothing a..# the 7reeks as aletheia.e presentl# enco/nter.e e2en . .'at 0odern tec'nolog+ c'allenges can be see as t3o=old.e2er> are t'e de0ands %laced u%on 0an 3'o> p/t si)pl#? is c'allenged4=ort' into t'e c'allenging o= nature. C/rio/sl# eno/gh> nothing o2ertl# dangero/s e)erges 9ro) the essence o9 technolog# as identi9ied . :irst? and perhaps )ore o. a .9ordha). :n the end> 0odern tec'nolog+ as Ge4stell creates a situation in 3'ic' 0an orders nature and t'us %osits 'i0sel= as Clord o= t'e eart'E 3'en? in all realit+? 'e 'i0sel= is being ordered in Iust t'e sa0e 3a+.e. ondella 2001(Craig A. :n s/)> the essence o9 technolog# is a .a# threatening.ith the .e lose our abilit+ to stand4o%en to natureGs re8ealing o= itsel= and belie8e oursel8es to be t'e L#ords o= t'e (art'?G =ailing to realize t'at it is bot' nature and oursel8es t'at 'a8e beco0e t'e 8icti0s o= tec'nological 0ani%ulation.. .ringing-9orth 9ro) conceal)ent to /nconceal)ent and> conseA/entl#> an occasioning o9 tr/th. Technolog#> si)pl# p/t> is a )ode o9 re2ealing .

e 'a8e alienated oursel8es =ro0 all t'ings and %laced t'e0 into a standing reser8e> a stand.E No2e). To .eing.e 0a+ s'a%e t'e 3orld? but t'e 3orld ine8itabl+ s'a%es us. "$ &'e obIects t'at 0ake u% our 3orld 'a8e beco0e resourcesJsubIects =or us to 0aster? %urc'ase? and o3n.E "1 .eing.l#K co0es to t'e %oint 3'ere 'e 'i0sel= 3ill 'a8e to be taken as standing4 reser8e.reathtaking castles> 'as been relegated to a C3ater %o3er su%%lier.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant .E "" &'is 0odern abilit+ to take nature out o= its original conte)t o= being and reassign it 3it'in a use48alue tec'nological conte)t is kno3n as en=ra0ing . A 8ast ecological s+ste0 > the ancient so/rce o9 legends and songs> the ho)e o9 l/sh 9orests and .! :ile &itle ()t A Standing Reser8e &'e de0and o= 0odern tec'nolog+ 'as reduced natural recourses into not'ing 0ore t'an CStanding4 Reser8eE? 3ort' not'ing 0ore t'an t'e su%%l+ and energ+ 3e can e)tract =ro0 t'e0 Lerkins 09 ONae? 5ro=essor o= 5'iloso%'+ :lorida State Uni8ersit+? :lorida 5'iloso%'ical Re8ie3 Fol.ling the %ossibilities =or aut'entic being.here. #inking t'is conce%t o= being to t'e %roble0atic o= tec'nolog+? Heidegger (1911a* %ro%osed that QQt'e essence o= tec'nolog+ is b+ no 0eans an+t'ing tec'nologicalGG (p. IX? issue 2 %g12$4190? CHeideggerGs Hridge.arns that the ri2er =hine is no.er 2001> S0> Accessed6 1%4%11K Heidegger belie8ed t'at t'e reduction o= nature to a standing reser8e alienates us not onl+ =ro0 t'e ele0ents o= our en8iron0ent? but also? in a =unda0ental e)istential sense? =ro0 our 8er+ being .hate2er stands . "*O rather> it is 0ani=ested in 0odes o= t'inking? language? and action t'at are oriented to3ard en=ra0ing.orld to BStanding =eser2eE re)o2es o/r possi. &'e Social and 5'eno0enological onstruction o= 6ars?E S6? Accessed.hen in realit#> Heidegger 0aintains? tec'nolog+ is not a 0eans but rat'er Ca 0ode?E or Ca 3a+ o= re8ealing.# t'e entire natural 3orld ine8itabl+ beco0es Corderable as standing reser8e?E is t'at C0an in t'e 0idst o= obIectlessness is not'ing but t'e orderer o= t'e standing4 reser8eY I. &ell a.# n/clear .E "2 &'is re8ealing that )odern technolog# is res%onsible =or is a c'allenge? a Cde0andE to nature Ct'at it su%%l+ energ+ t'at can be e)tracted and stored as suc' .ilit# to an a/thentic .e a/thenticall#> t'is engage0ent reBuires 0eeting t'e 3orld not onl+ on our ter0s? but also on its o3n ter0s O onl# thro/gh s/ch )eeting can .Ject.ho ine2ita. &'e R'ine 'as been da00ed u% in order to %ro8ide '+draulic %ressure =or a '+droelectric %o3er %lan t. . !-2$P 0artin Heidegger also clai0s t'at %eo%le in t'e 20 t' centur+ =alsel+ 8ie3 tec'nolog+ as a Kantian B0eans to an endEN. &'ese a%%roac'es alienate us =ro0 the radical otherness o9 the pheno)ena that s/rro/nd /s> disa.are o9 the )aterial ha3ards posed . 196> BHeidegger and Heing at the Han9ord =eser2ation6 Standing =eser2e> n9ra)ing> and n2iron)ental Co))/nication Theor#. . =ed/cing the . Kinsella 01 I&illia)> Associate pro9essor in the 'epart)ent o9 Co))/nication at North Carolina State Cni2ersit#> n2iron)ental Co))/nication Fol. a po. 1 :ss/e 2 pg. a )ineral deposit> and the re9reshing )o/ntain air is si)pl# a s/ppl# o9 nitrogen.eapons and n/clear .er so/rce> the once )#stical 7er)an soil is no. Heidegger 9inds that the conseA/ence o9 en9ra)ing> .e reali3e tr/e .astes> Heidegger ne2ertheless sa3 an e8en greater t'reat in t'e %ros%ect t'at 'u0an being 0ig't be reduced? along 3it' t'e rest o= nature? t'roug' t'e 0odalit+ o= en=ra0ing.E "4 Heidegger uses t'e ri8er R'ine as an e)a0%le o9 the de)ands o9 )odern technolog#.# )ode in . :n the )odern age> 3e 'a8e begun to reorganize e8er+t'ing around us into tec'nological =ra0es o= re=erence and usage O Heidegger .#Yno longer stands o2er /s as o.E "6 <ur general disregard =or t'e 0eaning=ulness o= t'e 3orld is %recisel+ 3'at causes obIects to lose an+ co'erent status =or /s. 2 Hu0an being"understood b+ Heidegger as bot' actor and acti8it+"is al3a+s being4in4t'e43orld? in8ol8ing ongoing engage0ent 3it' t'e ot'er %'eno0ena o= t'at 3orld.hich B. &'is use o= tec'nolog+ c'anges our %'eno0enological %erce%tion o= t'e R'ine.

7 :ile &itle 6odern scienti=ic tec'nolog+ creates an Cen=ra0ingE in 3'ic' all beings and nature are not %er0itted to be 3'at t'e+ are and instead are =ra0ed as a standing reser8e o= resources =or use and dis%osal. 6ore and 0ore? not'ing is %er0itted to be 3'at it is. <%enness to being? to uncertaint+? to s%ontaneous and res%onsi8e a3arenessJsuc' 3a+s o= li8ing =all a3a+ and 'u0an being beco0es =urt'er estranged =ro0 sel= and en8iron0ent . .Jh/.'at t+%i=ies 0odern tec'nological rationalit+ is its desire =or order? control? do0ination? securit+K its 0aster+? 3ill=ulness? utilitarianis0K its dedication to calculation? obIecti=ication? re%resentationK its =rantic trans=or0ation o= e8er+t'ing including nature and 'u0an beings into e==icient 0ac'ines and resources.oli3es t'e 0o0ent 3'en science and tec'nolog+ get 'arnessed toget'er? creating t'e tragic %roIect o= S(n=ra0ingX (7estell*> 3'ic' is c'aracterized b+ its de8otion to standing4reser8e or storing u% resources (Hestand*6 S(8er+3'ere e8er+t'ing is ordered to stand b+? to be i00ediatel+ at 'and? indeed to stand t'ere Iust so t'at it 0a+ be on call =or a =urt'er ordering X(11*. #etting t'ings be a%%ears increasingl+ i0%ossible.> Chair o9 nglish T the Cni2ersit# o9 8klaho)a> 5ost0odern &'eor+ o= &ec'nolog+. 5or Heidegger tec'nolog+? in its dangerous late 0odern scienti=ic =or0? contends 3it' e8er+t'ing? sets u%on it? and reBuisitions it =or use.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant . Agendas? 200*? http6%%)/se.1leitch. . Not s/rprisingl#> n/)ero/s strands o9 )odern and %ost0odern t'eor+ seek to reclai0 o%enness to being.ed/%Jo/rnals%s#)ploke%2012%12. #eitc' in 0* (Fincent H.ht)l 1 N6 In HeideggerTs account> 'escartes s#).

as .oosted into its technological 9or) .ehind the )etaph#sical 9or)/lations o9 earl# 7reek philosophers> 9/rther .lanetar# Space #ntroduction.erneticsE (i.oosted .ar and catastrophe*> as Haar adds (19946+0O see also 7illespie 19+"612+O 0/gera/er 200+6!2-!2iii*.o2e all as a )etaph#sical proJect. As .e later sho.itstrea)%handle%1002"%66144%AnnalesA::2$1Loronen. 6odern tec'nological de8ices> 9ro) the B)an/al technolog# and )an/9act/reE o9 the ind/strial age to the re2ol/tions )ade 9irst . In suc' a %lanet? concei8ed as a 0ass o= 0atter 3andering in e0%t+ uni8erse? e8er+t'ing is called to be useable? %enetrable? 0ouldable? LdecodableG and )o.# .lish)ent o9 colossal stocks o= energ+ 3it' 0assi8e %otentialit+ o= destruction as .hich allo.ide 'o0ogenization o= 0odes o= li8ing> the constant )o.n in )ore detail> s/ch sense o9 /nit# is 9irst and 9ore)ost t#pical 9or a )etaph#sical )echanis) o9 /n9olding operati2e thro/gho/t the 2400 #ear tradition o9 &estern thinking> a )echanis) still . 2010 http6%%.eter SloterdiJk (2009* .ili3ation o9 c/lt/ral and econo)ic practices> the glo. :n spite o9 the see)ingl# di2erging characters> the 9or)er pheno)ena are nothing .2 :ile &itle Dis%osable Globe 6odern tec'nolog+ 8ie3s t'e C%lanetar+ globeE as a dis%osable resource =loating in s%ace? to be cast aside at our con8enience.pd9RseA/ence<1* L0 Accordingl#> Heidegger /nderstands )odern technolog# a.e. As the thesis .ernetic s#ste)s o9 ordering cast /pon the planet.al circ/lation o9 in9or)ation> goods> capital> people> and kno.as 9irst initiated and started as a L0at'e0atical globalizationG @ as a proJect that in Heideggerean reading . Noronen in 10 (0ikko> 'octoral candidate in H/)an 7eograph# T The Cni2ersit# o9 T/rk/> The Age o9 .s 9or )/ltiple set o9 pheno)ena to e)erge.ith the .# earl# )odern philosophers and )athe)atical ph#sicists @ =urt'er %roceeding as a Lterrestrial globalizationG? =inall+ leading to an age o= L%lanetar+ globeG? 3'ic' e8entuall+ turned t'e eart' into a 0ere %lanet under totall+ %enetrable net3orks o= orderings (Thri9t 200+624"@24$O 0orin 2009O See also Heidegger 199+h6144O 'all)a#r 200$6""O =adlo99 2001.# the Bengine technolog#E and then ..as 9irst initiated .ilit# .le a/to)ation o9 co))and*> all 0ani=est a %eculiar 0ode o= re8ealing t'at is not Iust total in nature? but an e8er4gro3ing i0%erial dri8e structured to constantl+ reac' to3ards global enlarge0ent and intensi=ication.ill sho.doria.ledge> the esta.orkG o9 calc/lati2e dri2e> the technological re2ealing o9 Qen9ra)ingG> ..ell (.ill ..ile.ith regard to tragedies o9 s/99ering (9or instance thro/gh the tele2ision spectacles o9 .eapons o9 )ass destr/ction1? and t'e co00odi=ication and %roductisation o= all as%ects o= li=e =ro0 nature to c/lt/re> 9ro) genetic in9or)ation to consu0%tion culture @ e2en a certain insensi. As a )atter o9 9act> it is t'e %lanetar+ outco0e o= suc' a tec'nological 0ode o= un=olding? 3'ic' according to . the rise and irr/ption o9 the s#ste)s o9 )a!i)/) possi.# the latent gro/nd o9 tho/ght .# the )athe)atical de2elop)ents o9 earl# )odern thinkers> 9inall# co)ing 9orth as c#.> the conte)porar# planetar# /n9olding .orld. 2ent/all# suc' tec'nological un=olding leads to a di2ersit# o9 pheno)ena> incl/ding the .9i%.646@"+*.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant .hat Heidegger (199+h6142@144* calls the r/ling deter)ination o9 )odern technolog# as Bc#./t epipheno)ena o9 the age de9ining )etaph#sical sca99olding o9 technological re2ealingO it is the Q9ra)e.eing constit/ti2e 9or the conte)porar# technological Qen9ra)ingG (7estell* and sel9-heightening Q)achinationG (0achenscha9t* o9 all things. .

ar e)plo#s ar)s that t/rn against those that .it3. 5.ords o9 one 9a)o/s Cold &ar strategist -.in the .es 9irstl# t'e ontolog+ o= t'e national securit+ state (.# .# . &.ing ho.es> Carl Sch)itt and 7.ield the)V* take on added signi9icance.--0use. .ales 8ntologies o9 &ar6 Fiolence> !istence and =eason> &ar as a &a# o9 Heing6 Le. Neit'er> ho.edu-Iournals-t'eor+^and^e8ent-8010-10. Hurke in 07 (Anthon#? Associate 5ro=essor o= 5olitics and International Relations ] &'e Uni8ersit+ o= Ne3 Sout' . the# cr+stallise into a 0utuall+ rein=orcing s+ste0 o= su%%ort and Iusti=ication? especiall# in the tho/ght o9 Cla/se.I'u.can be t'oug't o= as a T%o3er to 'urtT. &'is creates bot' a %ro=ound et'ical and %rag0atic %roble0.it3ian ter)s>20 the arg/)ents o9 Hannah Arendt (that 2iolence collapses ends into )eans* and ))an/el Le2inas (that Ve2er# .ar on terrorV do)inantl# concei2ed in Sch)ittian and Cla/se.anon 2006> 2001 'tt%.a# o9 the political philosoph# o9 Tho)as Ho. &'e %rag0atic %roble0 arises because =orce so o=ten %roduces neit'er t'e linear s+ste0 o= e==ects i0agined in strategic t'eor+ nor an+t'ing 3e could 0eaning=ull+ call securit+? but rat'er turns in u%on itsel= in a ni'ilistic s%iral o= %ain and destruction . Hegel* and secondl# t'e rationalist ontolog+ o= strateg+ (.a# o9 the geopolitical tho/ght o9 Henr# Kissinger*> sho. &'e et'ical %roble0 arises because o= t'eir 0ilitaristic =orce 44 t'e+ e0bod+ and rein=orce a nor0 o= 3ar 44 and because t'e+ enact 3'at 6artin Heidegger calls an Ten=ra0ingT i0age o= tec'nolog+ and being in 3'ic' 'u0ans are 0erel+ utilitarian instru0ents =or use? control and destruction? and =orce -.'t0l* L0 This essa# descri.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant ..2burke.e2er> e)%lored 3'at occurs 3'en 3ar and being are 0ade to coincide> other than Le2inasV intrig/ing co))ent that in 3ar %ersons T%la+ roles in 3'ic' t'e+ no longer recognises t'e0sel8es? 0aking t'e0 betra+ not onl+ co00it0ents but t'eir o3n substanceT.$ :ile &itle . :n the era o9 a V.ar &ec'nolog+ goes 'and in 'and 3it' t'e en=ra0ing 0ilitaristic =orce o= nation states t'at de8alues 'u0an beings and re=uses to recognize t'eir o3n substance.

idespread )aln/trition> depletion o9 nonrene.. This . o9 =o)eVs .ill o9 the /topian and the i)agination o9 the .redica)ent o9 0ankind perhaps ser2ed )ost to generate a.areness o9 the i))inent crisis. :ndeed> )an# o9 the )aJor 9/t/res st/dies are e!tre)el# ethnocentric and are there9ore resisted . :utures researc' concerned 0ore 3it' e0%irical nor0s tends to concentrate on Buantitati8e 0et'ods and co0%uter anal+sis? %roducing S'ardS 0odels or scenarios o= alternati8e =utures.riter o9 science 9iction. .a.hilosoph# at the Cni2ersit# o9 Alaska (Nor)an K.ST Scenarios o= t'e =uture> as : ha2e noted> de%end on 0et'odological orientations? on 3'et'er t'e anal+sis is concerned 3it' e0%irical nor0s %ri0aril+ or so0e balance o= e0%irical nor0s 3it' 0oral nor0s.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant !0 :ile &itle No Sol8enc+ &ec'nological t'inking is al3a+s in t'e ser8ice o= 0aintaining t'e status Buo. T &'e %roble0 3it' =utures researc'? 'o3e8er> notes Cl/te> is t'at t'e 0ost 8isible 3orks 3'ic' S%ur%ort to be global in a%%roac' are? in t'e 0ain? biased to3ard scenarios t'at are concerned 3it' 0aintaining t'e s+ste0s and 8alues :9 the )arket econo)#> de2eloped states.th on this planet-pop/lation> agric/lt/ral prod/ction> nat/ral reso/rces> ind/strial prod/ction> and poll/tion>X this research gro/p constr/cted a .. =o.eco)e kno.n as 9/t/rolog#> .X The polic# aspect o9 international 9/t/res is in essence an atte)pt at long-ter) planning.hich> according to Fictor 5erkiss> Xco).XV &'e 0ain conclusion o= t'e re%ort is t'at SI= t'e %resent gro3t' trends in .ro9essor o9 . Concerned .es s/ch e99orts th/s6 International =utures researc' atte0%ts to e)a0ine current interrelated global issues in order to proJect or =orecast t'e =uture conseBuences o= %ast and %resent trends and to suggest alternati8e scenarios in an atte0%t to a8oid undesired conseBuences. "4* .orld pop/lation> ind/striali3ation> poll/tion> 9ood prod/ction and reso/rce depletion contin/e /nchanged> t'e li0its to gro3t' on t'is %lanet 3ill be reac'ed so0e ti0e 3it'in t'e ne)t one 'undred +ears.'et'er t'e subIect 3as understood as 3orld order studies? global %olic+ anal+sis? or =uturolog+? a sense o= t'e %roble0 and t'e need =or drastic global re=or0 ca0e o= age.le reso/rces> and a deteriorating en2iron)ent.ork has .ert Cl/te descri.al concern accelerating ind/striali3ation> rapid pop/lation gro. The report o9 the 9irst phase o9 the Cl/.orld.# )/ch o9 the .ledge o9 the scientist> the .th> .roJect in the . S3azo 02 @ .> Crisis Theor# and &orld 8rder6 Heideggerian =e9lections> p.ith X9i2e ./ilt speci9icall# to in2estigate 9i2e )aJor trends ^^^o9 glo.ines the kno.orld )odel X.XV .asic 9actors that deter)ine and there9ore> /lti)atel# li)it> gro.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant !1 :ile &itle """Alternati8e-:ra0ing""" .

#azier 2011 IHenJa)in> Associate .ro9essor o9 Histor# and H/)anities at =eed College> B arthrise6 or> 7lo.tle and .hole arth e!erts its )ost s/.hat Heidegger )eans .ro9essor o9 Histor# and H/)anities at =eed College> B arthrise6 or> 7lo. Hut to begin? Iust re=lect on t'e 8ertigo t'at can 3ell u% 3'en . Like glo.6+ Hut 3'at o= t'e rest o= us? t'ose =or 3'o0 t'e (art'rise era is no astronautic ad8enture but an astronoetic one? launc'ed b+ t'e %ictures t'e astronauts broug't backR Ha2e .here the e!pression Bglo. &'e+ also 'el% re8eal t'e structural tensions bet3een organis0 and arti=act at t'e core o= canonical en8iron0ental te)ts o= t'e (art'rise era (s/ch as Ste.e told. 5or e!a)ple> .ali3ation o9 the .erg help /s see ho. Hut =or e8er+ i0%ulse to care? t'ere are inIunctions to 0anage and control. &o be sure? t'ere is en8iron0ental a3areness? concern =or t'e %lanet? e8en =eelings o= 0+stical co00union 3it' t'e (art'.arthrise condition in . In t'is lig't? t'e state0ent t'at Ct'inking globall+E is no3 less our c'oice t'an our lot oug't to be e0ended? to allo3 =or a %ost4(art'rise condition in 3'ic' t'e global is so0eti0es coe8al 3it'? not %osterior to? t'e t'inking? and in 3'ic' t'e t'inking is ent3ined 3it' =eeling and sensing. it in its entiret# in direct line o9 sight> grasped all at once as a . And the di2ersit# o9 those .o/t the rise o9 en2iron)entalis).Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant !2 :ile &itle ritiBue ritiBue destabilizes rei=ied distinctions bet3een eart' and 'ea8en u%on 3'ic' t'e 0ost 8iolent as%ects o= t'e age o= t'e 3orld %icture are %re0ised. :t opens HeideggerGs totali3ing 2ie.ict/re>E in The American Historical Review 116. Here is .ith ne. Stated a bit di==erentl+? t'e e)%ression illu0inates t'e 'istorical %redica0ent in t'e inIunction to C&'ink globall+? act locall+ZE &'e =irst 'al= o= t'is %'rase is not so 0uc' a 0oral directi8e? 3'ic' 3e 0a+ or 0a+ not o%t to =ollo3? as it is one descri%tion o= t'e 'u0an condition in t'e (art'rise era. &'ere no3 'olds s3a+ a 3orld %icture in 3'ic' t'e condition o= Ceart'linessE is conIured b+ 3a+ o= a 8ie3 =ro0 t'e 0ost uneart'l+ o= %lacesJt'e 8oidK in 3'ic' t'e 'orizons o= eart'bound e)%erience co0%ete 3it' 'orizons t'at are %lanetar+? or ca%ital4( (art'l+? in sco%eK and in 3'ic' t'e 8ision o= t'e naked (art' is also t'e 8ie3 o= a globe in disguise? t'e greatest o= organis0s.e t#picall# incl/de the B arthriseE photograph in a congrat/lator# stor# a.o/t its scope. In t'e testi0on+ o= A%ollo astronauts? t'ese 0o0ents tend to co0e 3'en t'e (art' 'as s'ri8eled to t'e size at 3'ic' t'e brain can cognize it as a distinct obIect Nnot . &'e alternati8e is a %recondition to t'e a==ir0ati8e because tec'nolog+ t'oroug'l+ conditions our e)%erience o= s%ace and eart'.'ole (art' icon is %art o= a 'istor+ o= co0%eting globalis0s? and still 0ore o= tec'nologicall+ co0%licit ones J co00ercial and en8iron0ental globalis0s abo8e all./t 9arther o/t> . t'e 'istor+ o= t'e . &'ere is reason =or a0bi8alence about t'is de8elo%0ent.e shared in these do/. ones (the histor# o9 organis)s and arti9acts in the )odern era*> it also calls attention to categories o9ten e!cl/ded 9ro) historical consideration in the 9irst place> .hen the arth is 9irst 2is/all# s/r2e#ed> .ings .hen the e#es a. o9 the .hen its no2elt# 9ades.ide> and it is deep.sor.orld pict/re. #azier 2011 IHenJa)in> Associate .Jected to ps#cho-scienti9ic )achinations* sa#s so)ething a.led-/p )o)ents o9 plenit/de and estrange)ent alsoR Al0ost certainl+? albeit in a di==erent ke+. A =ull account o= t'is tri% 0ust 3ait =or no3.ali3ation o9 the &orld .4K &'is a%%roac' is openl# eclectic.et.ho) it a99ects (philosophers> artists> astrona/ts> politicians> and children s/. :t is .# .orld pict/reE can help.'ole (art' co0es to 0ind and 3e register t'at? +es? so0e3'ere do3n t'ere on t'at great blue ball is us.e )ight speak o9 re2ersals> r/pt/res> and heterogeneo/s erasNan arthrise era> 9or e!a)ple> or a post. &'inking globall+ is %robabl+ no3 less our c'oice t'an our lot.1$ H/t there is a )ore so. .ict/re>E in The American Historical Review 116.Jecting to historical anal#sis .hat philosophers s/ch as Arendt call the h/)an condition or> in a di99erent ke#> . o9 the )odern age to the s. There is so)ething to this. A 'istor+ o= t'e (art'rise era can 'el% us understand 3'at t'is 0eans and 'o3 it ca0e to be.ide-ranging e99ects precisel# . a 0an40ade %lanet. The e!a)ples o9 Heidegger> Arendt> and Hl/)en. :t also a==ords returns? abo8e all in ne3 kinds o= stories about t'e (art'rise era .e talk> the lang/age o9 en2iron)entalis) is an in2ention o9 the arthrise era.art HrandGs &hole arth Catalog and La)es Lo2elockGs 7aia* t'at destabilize t'e conce%t o= a Cglobal en8iron0entE itsel=.er2e o9 historicit#> so that .hich the 2ie.# s/.ide-ranging stor# to .4K All these e!a)ples point to t'e co0bination? and also t'e clas'? o= t'e eart'l+ 3it' t'e (art'l+ that no3 conditions 'u0an e)%erience. :t s.hole. :9 this approach s/pple)ents traditional conte!ts (the Cold &ar> en2iron)entalis)* . &'eir e)a0%le t'ere=ore %ro0%ts us to ask 3'et'er t'e 8isions and 8ocabularies o= t'e (art'rise era 'a8e inad8ertentl+ accelerated our %lanetar+ e0ergenc+ as 0uc' as t'e+ 'a8e ins%ired us to slo3 it do3n. :or e8er+ encounter 3it' 3'oleness? t'ere are b+ de=inition 0o0ents o= terri=ic alienation.een the registers o9 intellect/al histor#> c/lt/ral histor#> en2iron)ental histor#> and the histor# o9 science.er and .ali3ation o9 the &orld .

> Qthe con9lation o9 the ter)s BplanetE> BearthE> B.hich &estern philosoph# has de9ined its progra))atic ai)s.eca/se> in a planetar# .ittgenstein A =or t'eir %reoccu%ation 3it' eart' as a ground =or t'inking and Iudging.al Heing in the . Ho3e8er? it 0a+ be t'at t'ese %'iloso%'ers si0%l+ assu0ed too narro3 A and too culturall+ and 'istoricall+ %aroc'ial A an account o= t'e eart'Gs ontological signi=icance.orld @ thro/gh . H/t ho.ato)]ki> 20026 90O see also Hall> 2001O 0a99ie> 2001*. onl+ in t'is case t'e idea and t'e e)%erience o= t'e eart' see0s 0uc' larger? 0ore L8italG? 0ore co0%le) and 0ore redolent 3it' %olitical signi=icance t'an t'e earl+ 0odern o%ernican eart'. an aest'eticized and cos0ological %lanetar+ Lblue globeG t'at e)tends t'e %erce%tual 'orizon and t'us o%ens u% a 8er+ di==erent idea o= t'e 3orld? a 3orld 3'ere t'e %lanetar+ di0ension beco0es a ne3 a)io0atic and ne3 aut'orit+ =or kno3ing and Iudging. <ne 3a+ to a%%roac' t'is issue is to =ollo3 Irigara+ and c'ide Heidegger A and .e 0ust lea8e be'ind old conce%tual categories o= tec'nological e==icac+ and aut'enticit+ in order to co%e 3it' t'e ne3 %lanetar+ s%ace age. Culture. 0o/nting a critiA/e o9 the con9/sions s/rro/nding the ter) B.lanetar# &orld>E in Theory. Society 24K &'e %olitical a %riori o= t'e %lanetar+ di0ension 'as been concei8ed b+ one in=luential co00entator as a =ledgling Le)tra4terrestrial %lanetar+ 'u0anis0G? and an e)%ression o= L'eterological? %ostant'ro%ological? cos0o%olitanG 3orld L+et4to4co0eG (7ilro#> 20006 44"*.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant !9 :ile &itle ritiBue Ke+ . :or? as t'e abo8e discussion 'as s'o3n? in a %lanetar+ age t'e %'iloso%'ical %roble0 o= t'e 0eaning o= t'e eart' re0ains a %i8otal issue.ideE and B/ni2erseE is still rather ridic/lo/s. This )a#> perhaps> e2ent/all# ann/l the 7reek )o)ent o9 philosoph# itsel9 .orld.ithin the panopl# o9 spatial tropes @ 9ro) classical ideas o9 9or) to )odern ideas o9 . As L%lanetar+ tec'nolog+G @ to /se HeideggerGs phrase @ %ro8ides %ractical conditions o= %ossibilit+ =or a ne3 con8ergence o= Leart'G and L3orldG u%on 3ider sets o= %lanetar+ concerns? so t'e %'iloso%'er is =orced to concede t'at t'e eart' is no longer a certain e)istential ground linked to %ri0al kinaest'etic e)%erience A t'e ontological =irst %rinci%le o= sa+ing and doing A but 'as beco0e an a==ordant sign o= cos0o%olitan cultural realit+. Henri #e=_b8re 3as one o= t'e =irst t'inkers to ackno3ledge t'is %roble0 b+ recognizing t'at? in an age o= %lanetar+ tec'nolog+? t'e 0odern %'iloso%'er is =orced to t'ink be+ond traditional ideas o= bot' 3orld and eart'. planetar# 9or)s o9 a/thorit#R . :n his 2ie. &urnbull 200! INeil> Senior Lect/rer in .$ &'us 3'at is needed is a t'oroug'going re4 e)a0ination o= t'e traditional conce%tual 'ierarc'ies and le)ica t'at 'a8e traditionall+ been t'e source o= 0odern %'iloso%'+Gs Lconce%tual coreG > t#picall# those inherent . is the philosopher to )ake ontological sense o9 these ne.e a ke# iss/e 9or re9lecti2e tho/ghtG (Le9_.2re> 199$6 2$"*.hilosoph# and Social Theor# at Nottingha) Trent Cni2ersit#> BThe 8ntological ConseA/ences o9 Copernic/s6 7lo.orld> one Qcannot take 9or granted an# partic/lar &estern philosophical s#ste)G (.orldE )a# increasingl# .

o/ld .o/nd creat/res> that .ith glo.illing to 2ent/re into the distant past (Bprehistor#E* or to philosophers like Heidegger and Arendt .I## <6( to %ass re0ains to be seen.arthrise conditionE instead. on ./lar# o9 earthliness recalls a categor# to .# en2iron)entalists> oil e!ec/ti2es> h/)anitarians> cold . 0an+ 'a8e es%ied in . are .'ole (art' 'as al3a+s been a globe in disguise? and Cglobal en8iron0entE Iust one o= se8eral co0%eting but also co0%licit globalis0s in t'e (art'rise era. <= blindness.rite a histor# o9 so)ething that BdisappearsE in its /.ali3ation o9 the &orld .H(&H(R &HIS H<5( .'ole (art' an organic icon? but i= 3e =ollo3 t'e lead o= Heidegger and Arendt? 3e 0ust ask 3'et'er .here it acts /pon /s in .e o9ten do not notice.it )an-)ade .hile thinking glo.ict/re>E in The American Historical Review 116.edded in e2er#thing that .# H/sserl> prod/ced .# photographs o9 the ./lar# o9 . The ter) B arthrise eraE does not A/ite capt/re this de2elop)ent> since it 9oregro/nds .hat in this instance is )ore i)portant as . &o =ocus on 'o3 t'e 8ie3 o= (art' =ro0 s%ace 3as o8ertl+ 0obilized is to 0iss so0e o= t'e 0ore subtle e==ects o= t'is sig't a=ter 3e ceased to register its no8elt+J a=ter 3e ceased? in a =as'ion? to see it.'ole (art' as 3orld %icture.ed .# li2ing locall# .roach ideas a.e ca)e to see in pict/res . The ter) entails 9ealt#> ./t also sedition> .illing to .al 2oca. Hlu0enbergGs 0istake s'o3s t'at to look at t'e (art' in t'e sk+ abo8e t'e 0oon is in =act to gaze u%on t'e (art'4organis0 as %ictorial arti=act? . To do so .an cit#scapes> changing sk#lines> and the ne.hich historians /se to speak o9 /r.o/t the Bh/)an condition.# resit/ating the histor# o9 these photos in a .e to trace the e99ects o9 that dissonance descri. .areness. <= error.o/ld pro2ide a .ro9essor o9 Histor# and H/)anities at =eed College> B arthrise6 or> 7lo.et.roader stor# a. The stor# o9 the arthrise era is not J/st a.hat H/sserl co/ld onl# i)agineR 'oing so .hat it )eans to li2e in a .est 0eans t'at =or t'e =oreseeable =uture? en8iron0ent 3ill be in=lected b+ %lanet? cit+sca%e b+ globe? and sk+line b+ s%aceJnot t'e Cs%ace o= e)%erienceE but t'e 8oid.orldliness echoes in a second categor#6 Bspace o9 e!perience>E .le appropriations> .E &ith so)e e!ceptions> )ost historians are not acc/sto)ed to )aking /se o9 categories s/ch as the h/)an condition.o/t .etter le9t to paleoanthropologists . #ast? (art'rise is a stor+ o= =orgetting.o/t the deep presentNin this case> that .hat has happened to organis)s and arti9acts in the )odern age.eca/se as a historical de2elop)ent the pheno)enon poses a challenge to ArendtGs ideas a.rite a histor# o9 an i)agination that .all#> and to address the A/estion6 Ho. Their 2oca.hich s/rro/nds and conditions /s. sorts o9 sensor# and )ental li2es the# a99ord or in9lict.o/t Cold &ar origins and the space race> let alone a 9eel-good tale a. #azier 2011 IHenJa)in> Associate . Resituated in a ne3 conte)t /t'e 'istor+ o= organis0s and arti=acts in t'e 0odern era1? (art'rise and its a=terli8es beco0e Iust as 0uc' a stor+ o= error? blindness? and =orgetting.e are earth. And their 2oca.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant !* :ile &itle ritiBue Sol8es 5olic+0aking An uncritical relations'i% to tec'nolog+ is c'aracterized b+ error? blindness? and =orgettingK t'e critiBue ser8es as a %ro%adeuetic to %olic+0aking because it situates 'o3 and 3'at 3e 8alue as a result o= t'e %'eno0enological resources be=ore us. are . Regarding t'e second? i= 3e take seriousl+ t'e %ro%osition t'at %'otogra%'s like C(art'riseE 'a8e abetted t'e globalization o= t'e 3orld %icture b+ su%%le0enting one set o= 'orizons 3it' anot'er? 3e need =irst to t'ink 0ore creati8el+ about 3'ere to look =or t'e rele8ant e8idence. &'e li8ed e)%eriences o= eart'liness and 3orldliness > at least as Heidegger and Arendt i)agined the)> are a8ailable? i= t'e+ are a8ailable? onl+ against t'e background o= t'is ne3 dis%ensation. the planetar# hori3ons a99orded . .eco)es all the )ore i)portant as it disse)inates and 9ades> as it seeps into the )ental architect/re that conditions o/r )ost .hole arth ha2e s/r)o/nted> in9lected> co)ple)ented> or corr/pted the earth. :t is one thing to acco/nt 9or the /neas# con2ergence o9 arthl# 2ision .'ole (art' iconogra%'+ into t'e 0ental arc'itecture o= t'e .orldliness are e).'at is to be gained b+ suc' a 'istor+Q And 'o3 are 3e to 3rite itQ &o t'e =irst Buestion? t'e ans3er is a ric'? te)tured account o= 3'at it 'as 0eant to li8e? =eel? and kno3 in an age 3'en 'u0an beings =inall+ ca0e to see 3'at t'e+ =or 0illennia could onl+ i0agineJt'e 3'ole (art'.6" H/t the concept is not totall# 9oreign.e are and do. Ho.hich historians are acc/sto)ed6 Ben2iron)ent>E /nderstood . As ho)age to Arendt> letGs call it a Bpost. . And 9or good reason6 :t s)acks o9 a place anterior to c/lt/re or societ# or )eaning.iA/it#R Ho.orld in . Hlu0enbergGs o8ersig't> a9ter all> alerts us in 0iniature to an i0%ortant %oint.arriors> or Jihadis.e to .ackgro/nd.hether .hich B arthriseE has risen> and in .indo.4K . did the e!perience o9 this split .'at t'e+ %ursued as a %'iloso%'ical inBuir+ is t'ere=ore best continued as a 'istorical one.e to .o/t ecological a.hich it has )ore recentl# setNor settled> in the seat o9 h/)an perception> . H/t it is so)ething else to track ho. :t see)s .n change once . This last is the )ost di99ic/lt to address.orlds> and that resid/es o9 this earthliness and .e inha.o/nd hori3ons o9 e2er#da# e!perience.een li9e as li2ed and li9e as kno.asic> e2er#da# e!perienceR :t is one thing to trace the spread and /se o9 the i)ages the)sel2esNtheir 2isi. Still? 3e 3ould be re0iss to disregard 'o3 t'e %ost4(art'rise condition stretc'es t'ese categories to t'eir li0its. &'e sedi0entation o= .roadl# as that .a#s ./lar# .

5or> .al Heing in the .e retho/ght> and that 'ele/3ian atte)pts to rethink the earth as an Qopen and e!pansi2e plane . no3 is t'e ke+ ti0e to critiBue tec'nolog+Gs as%iration to total control and uni8ersalit+ and us'er in a ne3 %lanetar+ cos0o%olitanis0.eco)es representational @ and 2irt/al @ the earth is not de. Culture.o/nded planetar# space that itsel9 .itingG the earth needs to . technologicall# . .a#s reA/ires &estern philosoph# re-engage .orldhood*.orlded and neo-stoic cos)opolitical percept o9 the Qearth-as-planetG (see :hde> 1990*. planetar# di)ension @ as a ne. Society 24K Th/s in this article )# ai) is to interrogate the Nie3tschean@ Heideggerian st#le o9 philosophical critiA/e o9 ./t as ne. theoria o9 Qearth-in-thecos)osG (Harries> 20016 42+@40*.ith the astrona/tGs technological representation o9 the earth s/.olic reso/rce> the 2er# idea o9 Qinha.itho/t territor#G o99er so)e i)portant insights into the a priori o9 o/r post-astrona/tic planetar# condition and the philosophical Q)eaning o9 the planetG.ile earthG> and to sho.ith non-&estern philosophical traditions*.s is that .hat )ight .ith a disc/ssion o9 the kind o9 re2isions reA/ired and : go on to s/ggest that as the earth .eco)es a 2irt/ali3ed s#). planetar# sense o9 .egin the task o9 9inding a ne./t so)ething )ore d#na)ic> e!pansi2e and 2irt/al> conte)porar# &estern philosoph# is 9orced into a ne. A/asispirit/al and highl# aesthetic percept> the earth has )o2ed .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant !.ack to centre o9 political conscio/sness> not in the traditional sense o9 the Qearth as 7ardenG> .eco)es a pri2ileged place 9or a ne.lanetar# &orld>E in Theory. &estern philosoph#> : s/ggest> needs to . 0# )ain clai) in .ell as stri2e 9or ne. dialogic openings . concept/al le!icon thro/gh . speciae techne> and its e)ergence as a ne. concept/al a priori that Qspeaks 9orG a ne. the e!tent to .orldedG along a ne.ith its classical philosophical heritage> as . :ile &itle CUDE &'e o%ernican Re8olution is u%on us. &urnbull 200! INeil> Senior Lect/rer in .hich Qcos)opolitan planetarinessG can .orldedG conception o9 the earth (and a conception o9 the earth that in )an# . /n.orlded as s/ch .hilosoph# and Social Theor# at Nottingha) Trent Cni2ersit#> BThe 8ntological ConseA/ences o9 Copernic/s6 7lo.hat 9ollo./t is Qre./t Q)ore .e ter)ed Qcos)ological h#per)odernit#G and its heliocentric conception o9 a Q)o.hen earth is no longer si)pl# a 9i!ed gro/nd . The article concl/des .e artic/lated (a ne. As the e!perience o9 the earth .hich 2is/al representations o9 the earth as planet s/pport a di99erent> Qless gro/ndedG . re2isionar# phase.

10*. He#ng does not proceed> and ne2er proceeds> 9ro) a ca/sal connectionG (Heidegger> 199"> p.s % also that . Heing presents itsel9 as a present-at-hand 9aaade> .o-sided interpla# o9 danger and sa2ing po. 4"(1*> Technolog#> o.ithdra./t also . L&'e essence o= tec'nolog+ is en4=ra0ing. . $$*.]chst % 'as =ettende a/chG IQH/t . :n the h#)n Q.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant !! :ile &itle 'o Nothing &'e alternati8e is to do not'ing =or tec'nolog+ A onl+ b+ %assi8e 3aiting can 3e a8oid causes4and4e==ects and =ocus oursel8es on t'e issue o= our o3n being.# nothing else> and is not the ca/se o9 itsel9.eing itsel9. 5or being (or so)eti)es Q. $$*.rites6 Q&o a.e#ngG ISe#nK> to /se HeideggerVs .ith a special role denied to all other entities6 Qt'e great 'u0an essence resides in t'e =act t'at it belongs to t'e essence o= being? is used b+ it to %reser8e t'e essence o= being in its trut'G (Heidegger> 199"> p.elo2ed archaic spelling* lies =ar be+ond t'e nor0al cause4and4e==ect relations'i%s o= t'e 3orld 6 Q. 11*.ridge Lo/rnal o9 cono)icsE> 2009> Fol. Des%ite t'e 'orror o= tec'nolog+? Heidegger contends t'at 3e can see t'e lig'tning4=las' o= being in t'e essence o= tec'nolog+. 11@2*.hich sa2esGK.ake o9 e2er# danger> there loo)s a distress. Har0an in 0$ (7raha)> .le 9or) o9 %resence4at4'and? it con=ronts us 3it' t'e call o= distress =ro0 being itsel= (Heidegger> 199"> p. H/t this still lea2es /s .e#ng is not acco)panied . 11*. This t.le to it. Hence> 'u0ans cannot =orce a c'ange in t'e essence o= tec'nolog+ to occur and 0ust %assi8el+ 3ait. :t is ca/sed .hilosoph# T A)erican Cni2ersit# in Cairo> BCa).11-2$* L0 Anot'er 3ord in HeideggerTs constellation o9 tec'nolog+ ter0s is danger> 3'ic' turns out to be #et anot'er s+non+0 =or a %resence4at4'and t'at stri%s t'e 3orld o= all concealed 0+ster+ .# an#thing co)para. H/t 'u0ans? t'e s'e%'erds o= being? 0ust continue to 3ait.er re9lects the t.at)osG> H`lderlin . $"*. &'e essence o= en4=ra0ing is dangerG (Heidegger> 199"> p. H+ stri%%ing e8er+t'ing do3n to s/ch a )isera. INot n`tigtKG (Heidegger> 199"> p.er 7e9ahr ist> .o 9aces o9 . And to add #et another ter) to the )i!6 Qin the . L<nl+ 3'en 'u0ans? as t'e s'e%'erds o= being? 3ait u%on t'e trut' o= being can t'e+ in an+ 3a+ antici%ate t'e arri8al o= t'e ot'er destin+ o= being? 3it'out degenerating into a 0ere 3is' to kno3G (Heidegger> 199"> pp.ro9essor o9 . 1$*.Jects and things in Heidegger p.le s/.ith one o9 HeideggerVs 9a2o/rite passages 9ro) the poet 5riedrich H`lderin.here danger is> there gro.s into inscr/ta. In t'e danger o= being lies t'e %ossibilit+ o= a turn (Kehre* a3a+ =ro0 t'e =orgetting o= being into t'e trut' o= being itsel= (Heidegger> 199"> p. &ec'nolog+ is not a la0entable 'u0an deed o9 Neolithic ti)es or the :nd/strial =e2ol/tion> but an una8oidable =acet o= being itsel=. 'istress co)pels. This talk o9 danger also links /p .terranean depth. &'oug' t'e danger is alread+ 3it' us? 3e do not +et e)%erience it as danger (Heidegger> 199"> p.

'arle+ in 0$ (0eJa)e Jede> Associate .here danger is> gro.l/s> the s. &'e danger? contrar+ to 3'at 3e nai8el+ belie8e? is not in t'e use t'at is 0ade o= tec'nolog+? but in t'e s%irit deter0ining it since its origin? in t'e logic leading to it.orld.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant !7 :ile &itle Natural Reintegration &'e Alternati8e is to ree8aluate t'e 3a+ in 3'ic' 'u0ans associate 3it' tec'nolog+ and nature? to seek reintegration instead o= do0ination.'ile Heidegger is %essi0istic regarding t'e =uture o9 a h/)anit# do)inated .e are concerned> Heidegger sa+s in substance t'at t'e i0%erialistic c'aracter o= tec'nolog+ co0es =ro0 reason itsel=? inso=ar as it clai0s to stretc' its e0%ire e8er+3'ere and do0inate all obIects.hose essence is contained in reason taking the 9or) o9 the scientic c representation o9 the .e 0ust reco8er t'e 0eaning o= 0anGs integration in Nature instead o= seeking to do0inate it.s the sa2ing po.h# Heidegger cites H`lderlin6 bH/t . &hen he so.742? Se%te0ber 1 200$1 N6 . .here danger is> gro.s grain> he conc des it to the 9orces he . 9.hilosoph# T 0ar# &ashington Cni2ersit#> 5R<H#(6A&I <: &( HN<#<GU AND &H( R(A#6S <: SA#FA&I<N IN H(ID(GG(RGS 5HI#<S<5HU? Technology and the Disclosure of Being %.ork o9 the peasant does not en9ra)e the c/lti2ated earth.s the sa2ing po. A critical lucidit+ 3it' res%ect to t'e tec'nological %rocess is t'e onl+ 3a+ o%en =or us to get out o= t'is alienation. .e e!ploited technicall#. &'is entirel+ %resu%%oses t'e 0odi` cation o= t'e re%resentation o= 0anGs relation 3it' nature./t . . &raditional %eo%le did not c'allenge t'e eart'? t'e+ kne3 'o3 to res%ect it? and to 3atc'? as a s'e%'erd 3'o 3atc'es 'is s'ee%. The earth is onl# )atter to . This co/ld .ro9essor o9 .# technolog#.er alsoGG.eco)es e!plicit .hich sa2es 9ro) this dangerR As 9ar as . The 9or) . No3 a reason at t'e ser8ice o= t'e 3ill to %o3er is a lost reason . A radical a3areness o= t'e nature o= t'e tec'nological %roIect is necessar+ . That is .hose action co/ld e2ent/all# .akes s/ch that it prospersGG. :n the lang/age o9 Heidegger> it is o/r relation to Heing that is at iss/e.# 7estell> 'e %ro%oses a 3a+ out? a sal8ation? t'e decision b+ 3'ic' 0an could co0e out o= 'is erranc+ . .er alsoGG.e the )eaning o9 the citation 9ro) the poet H`lderlin 9o/nd at the end o9 the bD/estion concerning Technolog#GG6 b.ith the o. &'is sal8ation being %arado)icall+ contained in tec'nolog+ itsel= or in its essence. &'e danger o= dangers? is t'e lack o= a3areness o= t'is danger.Jectic ed s#ste) o9 science.e deadl#. Th/s o9 the peasant in those da#s> Heidegger sa#s6 bThe .ord o9 'a)ocles that hangs o2er )an does not in the c rst place co)e 9ro) )achines and appliances o9 technolog#> . Techno-science is the i)ple)entation o9 a proJect> . :t is reA/isitioned .e at the sa)e ti)e a )ortal danger and that .'at 'as 'a%%ened in 0anGs relation to t'e eart'Q Agriculture 'as beco0e industrial? it 'as beco0e tec'nical. HeideggerGs concl/sion has le9t )an# critics /nsatisced and has raised the 9/nda)ental A/estion6 ho. &'is is t'e onl+ 3a+ t'at 3ould enable us to redisco8er a bit o= t'e 'u0ilit+ 3'ic' c'aracterised t'e relation o= traditional 0an to nature? and t'e relation o= 0an to 0an. indeed can technolog# . &'e %easant con` des t'e seed to t'e eart' and 3atc'es it.

hat co/nts as relia.ith> 9or e!a)ple> .a#s in .ith the e!ception> it see)s> o9 science> .erate thro/gh the entire )ode o9 tho/ght> de)anding a reappraisal as 9/nda)ental as the reappraisal ontolog# has de)anded o9 philosoph#. An+ 0ode o= t'oug't? in s'ort? al3a+s alread+ carries an ontolog+ seBuestered 3it'in it.e intentionall# or /nintentionall# prescri. It is instead a 3a+ o= being t'at bears an understanding o= Heing? and o= t'e =unda0ents o= t'e 'u0an 3a+ o= being 3it'in it.ell as its allied . &'is a%%lies? indeed a%%lies 0ost? to t'ose 0ock4innocent %olitical sla8es 3'o clai0 onl+ to be tec'nocrats o= decision 0aking.hich Niet3sche> Heidegger> and other continental philosophers challenged &estern ontolog#> si)/ltaneo/sl#> there9ore reposed the 9/nda)ental and inescapa.le to ontological pert/r.eg/n to pro)pt an ontopolitcall# dri2en reappraisal o9 )odern political tho/ght.ith another .hat kind o9 /ni2erse h/)an .ere pro)pted to interrogate or challenge the )odernGs clai) to .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant !2 :ile &itle <ntolog+ :irst A General 8ntolog# )/st co)e 9irst> o/r actions and e2en o/r 2er# sel2es are shaped .l# 5o/ca/lt> 'ele/3e> L#otard> Ha/drillard> and Hataille t/rned the thinking o9 Niet3sche and Heidegger into a no2el kind o9 social and political critiA/e o9 .ation.ithin .# Kierkegaard> as . the# inha. :n other .hich .'et'er or not +ou kno3 or ackno3ledge it? t'e ontolog+ +ou subscribe to 3ill construe t'e %roble0 o= action =or +ou in one 3a+ rat'er t'an anot'er. Decision? a =ortiori %olitical decision? in s'ort? is no 0ere tec'niBue.le)ati3ation o9 )odernit# has .hich it characteri3es the critical iss/es o9 9reedo) and J/dg)ent (o9 .ill to tr/th and kno. &hat this ontological t/rn does to other-regional-)odes o9 tho/ght is to challenge the ontolog# . 8ther> nota.hen it called itsel9 nat/ral philosoph#> appears no.erg and Lo.hich the# operate.a#s in .eings inha. speciall# in the conte!t o9 the iss/es o9 )odernit# the 9o/ndations o9 all tho/ght6 political> philosophical? and tec'nological are s'a%ed b+ ontolog+.e in2/lnera. &ith its 9o/ndations at iss/e> the 2er# a/thorit# o9 a )ode o9 tho/ght and the . Uou 0a+ t'ink ontolog+ is so0e arcane Buestion o= %'iloso%'+? but Nietzsc'e and Heidegger s'o3ed t'at it inti0atel+ s'a%es not onl+ a 3a+ o= t'inking? but a 3a+ o= being? a =or0 o= li=e.eing distincti2el# B)odern>E and others s/ch as Adorno A/estioned its enlightened credentials> philosophers like 'errida and Le2inas p/rs/ed the )etaph#sical i)plications (or rather the i)plications 9or )etaph#sics* o9 the thinking initiated .ork. .Ject as . The 2er# .er that ha2e co)e to disting/ish late )odern ti)esO the# concentrated> in detail> /pon ho.oth the political character o9 the )odern and the )odern character o9 the political> this pro. The i)plications o9 that re2ie. 'a2id Ca)p. 91-99K As Heidegger-hi)sel9 an especiall# re2ealing 9ig/re o9 the deep and )/t/al i)plication o9 the philosophical and the political-ne2er tired o9 pointing o/t> t'e rele8ance o= ontolog+ to all ot'er kinds o= t'inking is =unda0ental and inesca%able.le di99ic/lt#> or a!oria> 9or h/)an .ledge 9or the) in it* is also p/t in A/estion.ell and 0ichael Shapiro (0inneapolis6 Cni2ersit# o9 0innesota . &hile Certain continental thinkers like Hl/)en. The 2iolence o9 )etaph#sics> together . re2er.it it> and .o/t the A/estion o9 the ethical> e)erged as the de9ining the)e o9 their . .ell as .ress> 1999* pg. Dillon 1$$$ I0ichael> BThe Scandal o9 the =e9/gee6 So)e =e9lections on the Q:nterG o9 :nternational =elations and Continental Tho/ght>E in $oral S!aces: Rethin%ing thics and &orld Politics> eds.le kno./t also in those areas that clai)ed to .# Niet3sche and Heidegger. .> in its ind/striali3ed and corporati3ed 9or)> to .oth its episte)ic str/ct/res and its political i)agination> and in the co/rse o9 reinterrogating .a# o9 thinking a. the 2iolence identi9ied .# these other thinkers )ani9ested itsel9 not onl# in the )/ndane practices o9 )odern li9e> .ledge.e )ost 9ree o9 it> especiall# the 9reedo) and sec/rit# o9 the s/.it> ho.# the ontolog# .eing o9 decision and J/dg)ent.ords> 3'ate8er ontolog+ +ou subscribe to? kno3ingl+ or unkno3ingl+? as a 'u0an being +ou still 'a8e to act.it' ontolog+ at issue? t'e entire =oundations or under%innings o= an+ 0ode o= t'oug't are rendered %roble0atic. D/estioning the appeal to the sec/re sel9-gro/nding co))on to .e to. &'is a%%lies as 0uc' to an+ 0odern disci%line o= t'oug't as it does to t'e Buestion o= 0odernit+ as suc'> .oth the regi)es and the e99ects o9 po. :or one cannot sa+ an+t'ing about t'at is? 3it'out al3a+s alread+ 'a8ing 0ade assu0%tions about t'e is as suc'.hich> ha2ing long ago gi2en /p the ontological A/estioning o9 .

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011
USS Reliant

!$ :ile &itle

<ntolog+ :irst A 5rereBuisite
&'e K out3eig's A considering t'e relations'i% 3it' CHeingE is a %rereBuisite to sol8ing an+ relations'i%s bet3een 'u0an beings. Rae 10 /Ga8in? 5'D in 5'iloso%'+ ] &'e Uni8ersit+ o= .ar3ick CRe4&'inking t'e Hu0an; Heidegger?
:unda0ental <ntolog+? and Hu0anis0E Hu0 Stud /20101 99;29A9$1 N6
At the start o9 his se)inal ,ork on 0artin HeideggerGs Heing and Ti)e> H/;ert 're#9/s notes that QQ Heidegger clai0s t'at the tradition 'as 0isdescribed and 0isinter%reted 'u0an being. There9ore> as a crst step in his proJect> he atte)pts to ,ork o/t a 9resh anal#sis o9 ,hat it is to ;e h/)anGG (1991> p. 1*. :)portantl#> ho,e2er> ,hile the h/)an ;eing pla#s a cr/ciall# i)portant role in HeideggerGs proJect> it does not ha2e 9/nda)ental i)portanceO as ,e ,ill see> a stud+ o= t'e 'u0an being is a necessar+ %recursor to t'e stud+ o= that ,hich Heidegger holds to ;e 9/nda)entall# i)portant6 being. HeideggerGs atte)pt to re4t'ink t'e 'u0an being in4line 3it' t'e Buestion o= being leads hi) to criticise traditional conce%tions o= t'e 'u0an on t,o related acco/nts6 crst> that t'e+ =orget t'e Buestion o= beingK and secondl#> that t'e+ are under%inned b+ a binar+ logic t'at =orestalls an+ t'inking o= being. To correct ,hat he sees as the 9/nda)ental 9ailing o9 traditional acco/nts o9 the h/)an ;eing> Heidegger? in Heing and Ti)e> e0%'asises t'e %ri0ar+ i0%ortance o= being. Ho,e2er> the )eans thro/gh ,hich ;eing can ;e /nderstood is ;# crst anal#sing a specicc t#pe o9 ;eing> na)el#> the h/)an ;eingO ,hat Heidegger calls QQ'aseinGG (1962> p. 21*. This ;rings Heidegger to propose an ontological anal#sis o9 the h/)an ;eing as the )eans to /nderstand ;eing. As To) =ock)ore (199$> pp. 9$@96* notes> ho,e2er> 9reA/entl# the second )o2e)ent to ;eing ,as 9orgotten or ignored and HeideggerGs tho/ght ,as interpreted as a philosophical anthropolog# o9 the h/)an ;eing. 5or Heidegger> ho,e2er> 3'ile %'iloso%'ical ant'ro%olog+ can tell us so0et'ing about t'e 'u0an

being? it can not tell us t'e 3'ole trut'. Disclosing t'e trut' about t'e 'u0an being reBuires t'at t'e being o= t'e 'u0an being be disclosed. H/t Heidegger does not si)pl# s/ggest that traditional philosophical acco/nts o9 the h/)an ;eing ha2e 9orgotten and%or ignored the A/estion o9 ;eing. He goes 9/rther ;# s/ggesting that traditional %'iloso%'ical accounts o= t'e 'u0an being cannot t'ink o= being because t'eir t'inking is constrained 3it'in a logic o= binar+ o%%ositions. 6ost notable o= t'ese binar+ o%%ositions is t'at bet3een essence and e)istence. 5or Heidegger> t'e 'u0an being 'as traditionall+ been t'oug't to %ossess a `)ed de`ning essence t'at eit'er deter0ines 'u0an being or t'at e)ists as a %otential to be 0ade actual. &'e %roble0 3it' t'is conce%tion o= t'e 'u0an being is> according to Heidegger> t'at it =ails to understand t'at t'e 'u0an being is de`ned b+ e)istential LL%ossibilit+GG (1962> p. 44*. :ts e!istential possi;ilit# )eans that the tr/th o9
the h/)an ;eing cannot ;e capt/red ,ithin c!ed concept/al ;o/ndariesO the open-ended QQnat/reGG o9 the h/)an ;eing is decned ;# its QQe!istenceGG (Heidegger 1962> pp. 42> 6+*. Ho,e2er> the pro;le) ,ith decning the h/)an ;eing in ter)s o9 its e!istence ,as that it appeared to )an# co))entators that Heidegger ,as si)pl# in2erting the pri2ileging o9 essence constit/ti2e o9 traditional conceptions o9 the h/)an ;eing. S/ch thinking )isinterprets HeideggerGs tho/ght. :t ass/)es that HeideggerGs notion o9 e!istence is the e!istence that has ;een tho/ght to e!ist in opposition to essence. 5or Heidegger> decning the h/)an ;eing ;# its e!istence does not )ean that the h/)an ;eing is si)pl# decned ;# its actionsO ;# e!istence> Heidegger )eans so)ething 2er# specicc. This speciccit# can onl# ;e /nderstood ;# re)e);ering his pri2ileging o9 ;eing. De`ning t'e 'u0an being b+ its e)istence 0eans? 9or Heidegger>

not t'at t'e 'u0an being is 3'at it does? but t'at t'e 'u0an being e)ists in suc' a relation to being t'at it? and it alone a0ongst beings? is able to disclose being.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011
USS Reliant

70 :ile &itle

<ntolog+ :irst A Falue
<ntolog+ 0ust co0e =irst; onl+ b+ beco0ing e)%lorers o= 3'at 3e acce%t as realit+ can 3e trul+ e)%lore realit+. Duestioning 3'at 3e acce%t as trut' is t'e onl+ 3a+ to be =ull+ 'u0an. Nero0e $2 I0iller> .ro9essor o9 .hilosoph# at Salis;/r# State Cni2ersit# in 0ar#land> :n the Throe o9 &onder6 :nti)ations o9 the Sacred in a .ost-0odern &orld pg. 191-19+> 1992> S0> Accessed6 1%1%11K
&'is is a Buestion eac' 0ust ans3er =or 'ersel= since it in8ol8es not'ing less t'an deciding 3'et'er to be onesel=. :n )# J/dg)ent> no one can take seriousl+ t'e 3'ole %rocess o= intelligent inBuir+ and rational re=lection 3'ic' cul0inates in 0aking Iudg0ents and not take seriousl+ t'ose %ri0al e)%eriences in 3'ic' all inBuir+ originates. &o be =ull+ intelligent? =ull+ rational? 3e 0ust side 3it' 3onder and against t'e sel=4 e8idence o= t'e %resent4 at4 'and> ,ith horror and against the recoil that ,ants to 9lee 9ro) nothingness> ,ith a,e and against t'e sel=4 i0%ortance t'at re=uses to ackno3ledge t'e %ossibilit+ o= t'ere being a realit+ greater t'an oursel8es. &'e decision to trust t'ese e)%eriences as t'e %ri0al sources o= kno3ing is 0ore crucial t'an our a==ir0ation o= an+ %ro%osition. :or t'eories and %ro%ositions t'e0sel8es o3e t'eir e)istence to t'e creati8e eros o= intelligence 3'ic' is itsel= set in 0otion b+ t'e unkno3n 3'ic' t'ese e)%eriences alone 0ake accessible to us. None o= t'e s%eci=ic realizations to 3'ic' inBuir+ leads us? no 0atter 'o3 i0%ortant t'e+ 0a+ be? can ri8al t'e trans=or0ati8e e==ect o= our %ri0al decision to turn =ro0 t'e gi8en to t'e eros o= Buestioning. That t/rn is o/r 9/nda)ental con2ersion. H/t t'e distinguis'ing c'aracteristic o= t'is con8ersion is t'at instead o= %ro8iding us 3it' an uns'akable =oundation o= an unBuestionable trut' on 3'ic' to base all 3e t'ink and do? it %ulls all =oundation out =ro0 under us and t'ro3s 3'at 3e t'oug't 3ere our certainties into Buestion. It reBuires our gi8ing u% all t'e 'o%e 3e e8er 'ad o= grounding our t'oug't on an arc'e t'at can be kno3n directl+ > ,itho/t ha2ing to tr/st o/rsel2es to the /ncontrolla;le> /npredicta;le throe o9 inA/ir#. &o 0ake t'is con8ersion is not to acBuire a dog0a but to beco0e a Buestioner. H/t ,e cannot enter 9/ll# into the ordeal o9 A/estioning /nless ,e allo, o/rsel2es to ;e ;o/nd ;# its o,n i))anent i)perati2es. I= 3e lea8e our sa=e 'arbor and 8enture into t'e unkno3n 3'ic' bot' =ascinates and 'orri=ies? 3e cannot %ossibl+ kno3 3'ere 3e are going. Hut e)%loring is di==erent =ro0 %ointless dri=ting4 not because t'e e)%lorer 'as a destination but because 'er 0o8e0ent is go8erned b+ t'e t'roe o= t'e unkno3n itsel=. &'e =act t'at t'e gi8en does not %ro8ide us 3it' an i00o8able trut' on 3'ic' to erect t'e edi=ice o= our t'oug't does not 0ean? as t'e %rag0atists o= %ost4 0odern culture clai0? t'at t'e idea o= trut' itsel= 'as to be Iettisoned. :ndeed> it is onl# o/r ha;it o9 eA/ating tr/th ,ith the gi2en ,hich ,o/ld lead /s to J/)p to that concl/sion. H/t i= being is not t'e gi8en? is not t'e =ro04 3'ic' o= 3onder? 'orror? or a3e? i=? rat'er? being is t'e unkno3n to3ard4 3'ic' o= all our Buestions? t'en t'e kno3ledge o= being beco0es %ossible onl+ 3'en 3e relinBuis' our 'old on t'e gi8en and o%en oursel8es to t'ose trut's 3'ic' cannot be reac'ed e)ce%t b+ trusting t'e eros o= inBuir+. The post- )odern dis)issal o9 tr/th as a philosophical
o;Jecti2e> 9ar 9ro) de)onstrating a radicall# deconstr/cti2e approach to traditional 9o/ndationalis)> onl# con9ir)s that the post)odern prag)atist re)ains ,edded to its pres/ppositions. He has si)pl# despaired o9 achie2ing ,hat the 9o/ndationalist still hopes to acco)plish. &'e underl+ing cause o= suc' des%air is our re=usal to gi8e u% t'e drea0 o= 'a8ing t'e trut' gi8en to us. To relinA/ish that drea) is a kind o9 death> and reA/ires a ,illingness to s/99er nothingness. S/ch s/99ering is intrinsic to the 2er# nat/re o9 the t/rn- ,e cannot )ake the t/rn /nless ,e e!perience it. :n the e!perience o9 ,onder> nothingness re)ains i)plicitO in horror it ;eco)es conscio/s and is e!plicitl# addressedO in a,e it is 9/ll# ackno,ledged and 9inall# e);raced. I00anent 3it'in

eac' o= t'ese e)%eriences is an i0%erati8e to let go o= t'at =ro0 3'ic' t'e+ 3renc' us. &'us 3e can beco0e e)%lorers onl+ to t'e degree t'at 3e are 3illing to surrender our 'old on li=e. &'at 3e can li8e =ull+ onl+ b+ letting go o= e8er+t'ing and beco0ing destitute> that o/r enth/sias) 9or li9e can ;e heart9elt onl# i9 o/r
hearts are ;roken open- this is the parado! ,hich lies at the cr/! o9 that t/rn ,hich is constit/ti2e o9 o/r 2er# ;eing> the t/rn ,hich> ,hen ,e )ake it> engages /s in the throe o9 A/estioning and so con2erts /s into lo2ers o9 ,isdo). &o surrender to t'at t'roe

unconditionall+? to be 3illing to =ollo3 it 3'ere8er it leads is not an i0%erati8e Iust =or t'e %'iloso%'er. It is t'e onl+ 3a+ to be =ull+ 'u0an.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011
USS Reliant

71 :ile &itle

A-&; 5olic+0aking Good
ritiBue co0es be=ore %olic+0aking; %roble04solution 0odels =ollo3 =ro0 e%iste0ological and ontological assu0%tions about t'e 3orld in 3'ic' t'e+ =unction. Dillon and Reed 2000 I0ichael> .ro9essor o9 .olitics at Lancaster> and L/lian> Lect/rer in :nternational
=elations at Kings College> B7lo;al 7o2ernance> Li;eral .eace> Co)ple! )ergenc#>E in Alternatives 2$61K
As a prec/rsor to glo;al go2ernance> go2ern)entalit#> according to 5o/ca/ltVs initial acco/nt> poses the A/estion o9 order not in ter)s o9 the origin o9 the la, and the location o9 so2ereignt#> as do traditional acco/nts o9 po,er> ;/t in ter)s instead o9 the )anage)ent o9 pop/lation. The )anage)ent o9 pop/lation is 9/rther re9ined in ter)s o9 speci9ic pro;le)atics to ,hich pop/lation )anage)ent )a# ;e red/ced. These t#picall# incl/de ;/t are not necessaril# e!ha/sted ;# the 9ollo,ing topoi o9 go2ern)ental po,er6 econo)#> health> ,el9are> po2ert#> sec/rit#> se!/alit#> de)ographics> reso/rces> skills> c/lt/re> and so on. No,> 3'ere t'ere is an o%eration o= %o3er t'ere is kno3ledge? and 3'ere t'ere is kno3ledge t'ere is an o%eration o= %o3er . Here disc/rsi2e 9or)ations e)erge and> as 5o/ca/lt noted> in e8er+ societ+ t'e %roduction o= discourse is at once controlled > selected> organised and redistri;/ted b+ a certain nu0ber o= %rocedures 3'ose role is to ,ard o99 its po,ers and dangers> to gain 0aster+ o8er its c'ance e8ents> to e2ade its pondero/s> 9or)ida;le )aterialit#.I 4"K 0ore speci9icall#> ,here there is a polic# pro;le)atic there is e!pertise> and ,here there is e!pertise there> too> a polic# pro;le)atic ,ill e)erge. Suc'

%roble0atics are detailed and elaborated in ter0s o= discrete =or0s o= kno3ledge as 3ell as interlocking %olic+ do0ains. 5olic+ do0ains rei=+ t'e %roble0atization o= li=e in certain 3a+s b+ turning t'ese e%iste0icall+ and %oliticall+ contestable orderings o= li=e into S%roble0sS t'at reBuire t'e continuous attention o= %olic+ science and t'e continuous resolutions o= %olic+0akers . .olic# XactorsX
de2elop and co)pete on the ;asis o9 the e!pertise that gro,s /p aro/nd s/ch pro;le)s or cl/sters o9 pro;le)s and their client pop/lations. Here> too> ,e )a# also disco2er ,hat )ight ;e called Xepiste)ic entreprene/rs.X Al;eit the )arket 9or disco/rse is prescri;ed and policed in ,a#s that 5o/ca/lt indicated> ;idding to 9or)/late no2el pro;le)ati3ations the# seek to XsellX these> or other,ise ha2e the) o99iciall# adopted. In %rinci%le? t'ere is no li0it to t'e 3a+s in 3'ic' t'e 0anage0ent o= %o%ulation 0a+ be %roble0atized. All aspects o9 h/)an cond/ct> an# enco/nter ,ith li9e> is pro;le)ati3a;le. An# pro;le)ati3ation is capa;le o9 ;eco)ing a polic# pro;le). Go8ern0entalit+ t'ereb+ creates a 0arket =or %olic+> 9or science and 9or polic# science> in ,hich pro;le)ati3ations go looking 9or polic# sponsors ,hile polic# sponsors 9iercel# co)pete on ;ehal9 o9 their 9a2ored pro;le)ati3ations. Re%roble0atization o= %roble0s is constrained b+ t'e institutional

and ideological in8est0ents surrounding acce%ted S%roble0s?S and b+ t'e s'eer di==icult+ o= c'allenging t'e inesca%able ontological and e%iste0ological assu0%tions t'at go into t'eir 8er+ =or0ation. There is nothing so 9iercel# contested as an episte)ological or ontological ass/)ption. And t'ere is not'ing so =iercel+ ridiculed as t'e suggestion t'at t'e real %roble0 3it' %roble0atizations e)ists %recisel+ at t'e le8el o= suc' assu0%tions. S/ch Xparal#sis o9 anal#sisX is precisel# ,hat polic#)akers seek to a2oid since the# are co)pelled
constantl# to respond to circ/)stances o2er ,hich the# ordinaril# ha2e in 9act ;oth )ore and less control than the# proclai). &hat the# do not ha2e is precisel# the control that the# ,ant. Pet serial %olic+ =ailureJt'e =ate and t'e =uel o= all %olic+44

co0%els t'e0 into a continuous searc' =or t'e ne3 anal+sis t'at 3ill e)tract t'e0 =ro0 t'e a%orias in 3'ic' t'e+ constantl+ =ind t'e0sel8es en0es'ed .I 4$K Serial %olic+ =ailure is no si0%le s'ortco0ing t'at science and %olic+44and %olic+ science443ill ulti0atel+ o8erco0e. Serial %olic+ =ailure is rooted in t'e ontological and e%iste0ological assu0%tions t'at =as'ion t'e 3a+s in 3'ic' global go8ernance encounters and %roble0atizes li=e as a %rocess o= e0ergence t'roug' =itness landsca%es t'at constantl+ ada%ti8e and c'anging ense0bles 'a8e continuousl+ to negotiate. As a partic/lar kind o9 inter2ention into li9e>
glo;al go2ernance pro)otes the 2er# changes and /nintended o/tco)es that it then seriall# repro;le)ati3es in ter)s o9 polic# 9ail/re. Th/s> glo;al li;eral go2ernance is not a linear pro;le)-sol2ing process co))itted to the resol/tion o9 o;Jecti2e polic# pro;le)s si)pl# ;# ;ringing ;etter in9or)ation and kno,ledge to ;ear /pon the). A nonlinear econo)# o9 po,er%kno,ledge> it deli;eratel# installs sociall# speci9ic and radicall# ineA/ita;le distri;/tions o9 ,ealth> opport/nit#> and )ortal danger ;oth locall# and glo;all# thro/gh the 2er# detailed ,a#s in ,hich li9e is 2ario/sl# (polic#* pro;le)ati3ed ;# it. :n conseA/ence> thinking and acting politicall# is displaced ;# the instit/tional and episte)ic ri2alries that in9/se its po,er% kno,ledge net,orks> and ;# the local conditions o9 application that go2ern the introd/ction o9 their policies. These no, threaten to e!ha/st ,hat Xpolitics>X locall# as ,ell as glo;all#> is a;o/t.I 46K :t is here that the Xe)ergenceX characteristic o9 go2ernance ;egins to )ake its appearance. 5or it is increasingl# recogni3ed that there are no de9initi2e polic# sol/tions to o;Jecti2e> neat> discrete polic# pro;le)s. The Xs/;JectsX o9 polic# increasingl# also ;eco)e a )atter o9 de9inition as ,ell> since the concept pop/lation does not ha2e a sta;le re9erent either and has itsel9 also e2ol2ed in ;iophilosophical and ;io)olec/lar as ,ell as 5o/ca/ldian X;iopo,erX ,a#s.

ell.o/t . however. more or less continuous# patterns of domination.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 72 :ile &itle A-&.11 Q5o/ca/ltGs geni/s is e2idenced not in the pasting together o9 /nrelated anecdotesG> a recent 5o/ca/lt co))entator noted> but in illustrating that historical coherences are formed from the confluence of multiple strategies and tactics of power and knowledge !istory.ant to call the entire sche)e o9 sec/rit# into A/estion.a#s e!ist> o9 co/rse> especiall# . :or t'at 3a+ lies a 0odest contribution to 0aking Lour 3a+ back =ro0 t'e 3orld to t'e li=e alread+ betra+ed b+ kno3ledgeK kno3ledge t'at delig'ts in its t'e0e and is absorbed in t'e obIect to t'e %oint o= losing its soul and its na0e t'ere? o= beco0ing 0ute and anon+0ousG . fi)ed and determined in its foundations* in short secured(is a decisive element in all power struggles +nd yet .hat e!cites )# s/spicion )ost> and generates )# s#)path# 9or the genealogist.eca/se the# co0%rise a 0onu0ental enter%rise o= %o3er4kno3ledge 3'ose insatiable 0a3 t'reatens to consu0e not onl+ all t'oug't? and not onl+ t'at relating to t'e Buestion o= t'e %olitical? but o= 3'at it is to be 'u0an.er9/l responses 9ro) other e)inent philosophers.ert Hernasconi notes> =or t'e si0%le reason t'at Heidegger o8erco0es t'e L3'atG o= essentia b+ trans=or0ing t'e 3a+ o= sa+ing .ert HernasconiGs . 5olic+0aking > (ducation &'eir conce%tion o= kno3ledge is securitizedK t'e+ t'ink kno3ledge is t'at 3'ic' grounds t'e %ossibilit+ o= a 'u0an relations'i% to trut'.ith Heidegger or .9 QLook>G insisted the 9irst genealogist> QisnGt our need =or kno3ledge %recisel+ t'is need =or t'e =a0iliar? t'e 3ill to unco8er under e8er+t'ing strange? unusual? and Buestionable? so0et'ing t'at no longer disturbs usQ G QIs it not t'e instinct o= =earG? 'e askedN0aking e)%licit t'e crucial connection bet3een t'e 3ill to trut' and t'e 3ill to secureJLt'at bids us to kno3QG6 And is t'e Iubilation o= t'ose 3'o attain kno3ledge not t'e Iubilation o8er t'e restoration o= a sense o= securit+.hose tho/ght also e2ol2ed in i)portant . think that the very surfeit of information about politics which academic and media technologies create has made us so ignorant of the political. is the recurring struggle for the political itself 'or whatever politics is allowed or taken to be(how it is captured.ledge> so characteristic o9 )odern (inter*national politics> is . and the way that it is secured. the question of the political itself &'eir conce%tion o= kno3ledge atte0%ts to co8er u% t'e a!oria o= 'u0an being as a 0ode o= kno3ingK t'is e%iste0olog+ 3ill al3a+s atte0%t to si0%li=+ t'e 3orld in t'e na0e o= reducing t'e co0%le)it+ and =reedo0 o= being to a calculable obIect? re%roducing t'e %roble0atic o= 0odern %olitical %'iloso%'+. and government $% &ne of those constellations of struggles. subjectification.hen dealing .riting a. that we are hardly even capable of formulating.hat Heidegger has tried to sa#> and o9 si)ilarl# 9ailing to do J/stice to these other co)ple! and i)portant thinkers.a#s> e!citing po. The disclai)er> in atte)pting to . 1$-16K : recognise the danger that this )o2e)ent o9 )ine co/ld .e2er> to take an# li.ell 9ail on all these co/nts : do not intend> ho.ser2ation.10 Hence.e 9aith9/l to .ith a disclai)er. indeed the one which informs all others. Q<ne cannot readil+ sa+ 3'at Heidegger sa+sG> =o.sc/re> as Heidegger> .ho is not onl# as di99ic/lt and s/.ill al. Altho/gh : )a# 2er# .egin and end . =ather> and . :ss/ed speci9icall# in respect o9 Heidegger> it has a certain rele2ance to these other thinkers as .ise o.e taken to e!c/se pa#ing ins/99icientl# close attention to HeideggerGs te!ts> or o9 9ailing to /nderstand eno/gh a. Dillon 1$$! I0ichael> pro9essor .tle> not to sa# o. =ather> : a) )ind9/l> here> o9 =o.olitics and :nternational =elations at the Cni2ersit# o9 Lancaster> The Politics of Security> pp.ith the others.arnings and li9t .o/t Heidegger sho/ld . Hence all . he shows.# 9irst noting and A/estioning the alread# h#pertrophic register o9 sec/rit#> : ./t .erties either .hat clai)ed I)# e)phasisK Heidegger> )/st at the sa)e ti)e disregard his . S/ch a danger . 11-1+K The 2er# alliance o9 sec/rit# and kno. securit+ as kno3ledge /certaint+1K securit+Gs reliance u%on kno3ledge /sur8eillance1K securit+Gs astonis'ing %roduction o= kno3ledge in res%onse to its 3ill to kno3 /calculabilit+1K and t'e clai0 o= kno3ledge 3'ic' gi8es securit+ its licence to render all as%ects o= li=e trans%arent /totalit+1. much less posing and pursuing. is not the product of grand narratives with teleological movements but of diverse struggles that nonetheless become organised into coherent "that is to say. All t'ese constituti8e ele0ents o= our conte0%orar+ 0ani=old %olitics o= securit+ e!cited )# s/spicion .olitics and :nternational =elations at the Cni2ersit# o9 Lancaster> The Politics of Security> pp.ith a thinker . Dillon 1$$! I0ichael> pro9essor .

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011
USS Reliant

79 :ile &itle

the silence a;o/t silence.11+ 6+ obIect? t'en? is not to pro2ide )#sel9 ,ith e!c/ses in ad2ance ;/t to e)%lain instead bot' 'o3 I 'a8e tried to go about t'is 3ork> and thatNas I %ursued 3'at clai0ed 0+ attentionK s%eci=icall+ t'e a%oria o= obligator+ =reedo0 as it is si0ultaneousl+ bot' disclosed and endangered t'roug' t'e %reoccu%ation 3it' securit+Nthe 2er# path o9 )# o,n thinking> as ,ell as the content o9 it> ;egan to change. Q&hat happensG> 7erald Hr/ns asks> Q,hen #o/ tr# to 9ollo, Heidegger /p or do,n one o9 his paths o9 thinking> st/d#ing hi)> tr#ing o/t his )o2es> 9inding #o/rsel9 ca/ght /p in hi)RG His response see)s to )e to ;e an e!e)plar# one. 8ne o9 the things that happens> he sa#s> Qis that #o/ ;egin to appreciate ,h# %eo%le are care=ul to con=ine t'e0sel8es to =or0s o= 0ental acti8it+ t'at 'a8e no 'istor+G. H# that he )eant6 %urel+ anal+tical %rogra0s like =or0al logic> philosoph# o9 lang/age> ling/istics> se)iotics> )ost 9or)s o9 literar# criticis)> %er'a%s 0ost o= 3'at gets taug't in sc'ool; %rogra0s +ou can get in and out o= Buickl+ and cleanl+ 3it'out t'e burden o= 'a8ing done an+t'ing 0ore bla0e3ort'+ t'an test? or a%%l+? a certain 0et'od? skill? tec'niBue? or training.119 5recisel+ because it is so dangerousJand dangerous %recisel+ because it is so inti0atel+ connected 3it' 'istor+ Jt'ere is o=ten an al0ost des%erate? and e8en 8iolent? insistence t'at %olitics? too? bot' as a %ractice and as an obIect o= stud+? be reduced in t'is 3a+. In s'ort? tec'nologised. So4called %olitical LrealistsG and LidealistsG alike? =or e)a0%le? and =or si0ilar reasons? 3ould reduce t'e %olitical to t'e =or0ulaic so as to settle its 'as' once and =or all. I take t'eir res%onses? 'o3e8er? to be s+0%to0atic o= a %ersistent and ancient desire to esca%e t'e s'eer di==icult+ as 3ell as t'e 'istoricall+ and singularit+ o= t'e %olitical.

&'eir =ra0e3ork concei8es o= kno3ledge as a relation to t'e 3orld 3'ereb+ 3e a!!ro!riate t'e 3orldJt'is ine8itabl+ re%roduces t'e calculati8e and tec'nological relations'i% to t'e 3orld 3'ic' re%roduces t'e dangers o= t'e securit+ %arado). Instead? 3e need to t'ink o= kno3ledge as an et'ical encounter. Dillon 1$$! I0ichael> pro9essor .olitics and :nternational =elations at the Cni2ersit# o9 Lancaster> The Politics
of Security> pp. "+-"9K A%%ro%riation usuall+ 0eans to take into oneGs %ossession. In Heidegger it 'as t'e additional senses o= being taken o8er? or caug't4u% b+? as 3ell as o= entering into and 0aking oneGs o3n? and it occurs as 'e tries to t'ink 0ore about t'e %resencing o= t'ings and t'e inti0ate 3a+ 'u0an being belongs to t'at %resencing. Hu0an beings? t'ere=ore? e)ist in t'e sense t'at t'e+ are Lgi8en4toG? si0ultaneousl+ in recei%t o= and ca%tured b+? e)istence (in the ,a# that so)e are gi2en-to drink*. Hence> reignis is the e2ent o9 that pla# o9 e!isting in ,hich there is an ineradica;le ;elonging together o9 Heing and the QthereG o9 Heing> na)el# h/)an ;eing (hence the ter) 'asein*> in ,hich h/)an ;eings 9ind the)sel2es Qgi2en-toG e!istence> and ,herein their o,n e!istence is at pla# as the# 9ind the)sel2es challenged to )ake it their o,n in accordance ,ith it as a possi;ilit# ,hich has contin/o/sl# to ;e ass/)ed. The pla#> o9 co/rse> is deadl# serio/sO altho/gh it has its 9/nn# sideN 9/nn# pec/liar> as ,ell as 9/nn# QhaU haUG. &rut'? t'en? is no longer a %ro%ert+ o= t'oug't or discourse. Neit'er is it an+ longer a %roduct o= re%resentati8e4calculati8e tec'niBue. Rat'er? it is a 'eterogeneous e8ent o= disclosure 3it' 3'ic' untrut' is integrall+ in8ol8ed as 3ellK 'ence t'e originar+ and radical uncanniness o= t'e o%ening 3'ose lig'ting (re2ealing presencing* is al3a+s also tra8ersed b+ darkness (the conceal)ent o9 the s/pera;/ndance o9 ,hat is not*."4 In ot'er 3ords? =or beings to be t'ere 'as to be a s%ace or clearing =or t'e0 to be in. 5or there to ;e the presence o9 things there has not onl# to ;e presencing as s/ch ;/t also> integral to that presencing> conceal)entO ;eca/se to ;e )ani9est )eans not to ;e concealed> or to ha2e ;een ;ro/ght o/t o9 conceal)ent> ,here conceal)ent is the plenit/de o9 ,hat is not. Heca/se Heidegger does not gi2e-/p on this cr/cial point> ho,e2er> #o/ cannot gi2e-/p on it either i9 #o/ are to respond serio/sl# to his thinking. H/t that does not )ean that #o/ )/st rest ,ith HeideggerGs acco/nt o9> or rather ,ith ,hat see)s )ost to preocc/p# hi) a;o/t> the clearingO na)el#> ,hat )an# charge hi) ,ith> his pri2ileging o9 Heing> his essentialising o9 Heing and his partic/lar ;rand o9 )#thologising. Cap/to> 9or e!a)ple> taking his c/e 9ro) ))an/el Le2inas> radicalises this declension o9 tr/th as disclos/re into the e2ent o9 )ani9estation ;# li9ting it o/t o9 HeideggerGs histor# o9 Heing> ,herein he s/spects it o9 a )#thologising pri2ileging o9 a certain historical epoch (that o9 the 7reeks*> and gi2es it a ne, critical 9/nction on ;ehal9 o9 L/stice ;# insisting that e2er# ti)e is a )ani9estation o9 )ani9esting. Th/s Qpossessed o9 its o,n grace and its o,n )aliceG> each ti)e> incl/ding o9 co/rse o/r o,n> is a ti)e o9 presencing> arg/es Cap/to> in ,hich the e2ent o9 the o;ligator# 9reedo) o9 h/)an ;eing has to ;e responsi;l# ass/)ed and L/stice is called 9or."" (8en 3it' Heidegger? 'o3e8er? it is nonet'eless %o3er=ull+ e8ident t'at t'is =adical her)ene/tical pheno)enolog# "9 clearing is a site o= et'ical encounter. :or? in calling t'e entire e%iste0ological background and a0bitions o=

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011
USS Reliant

7* :ile &itle

conte0%orar+ %'iloso%'+ into Buestion? Heidegger 3as atte0%ting to %ro8ide a radicalJLt'at 0eant a 0ore et'icalG*,Nunderstanding o= 'u0an being4in4t'e43orld. It 0ust be e0%'asised t'at Let'icalG? 'ere? does not 0ean a s+ste0 o= et'ics in t'e =or0 o= a regional ontolog+ o= 0eta%'+sical t'oug't. Nor is it a co00and et'ic s%eci=ied and 'anded do3n b+ so0e so8ereign una%%ealable aut'orit+ e)egeticall+ elaborated t'roug' t'eolog+. Nust as Heidegger 3as attacking t'e e%iste0ological 'ubris o= conte0%orar+ %'iloso%'+ b+ insisting t'at 'is 'er0eneutical %'eno0enolog+ 3as a 3a+ o= indicating t'e general structures o= being4in4t'e43orld =or a being t'at 'ad nonet'eless to take4u% its being in its o3n 3a+sJand t'at 'e 3as t'ere=ore not atte0%ting to o==er a secure? or securing? e%iste0ological account o= suc' a beingJso also t'e 8er+ et'icalit+ o= t'at being eBuall+ deri8es =ro0 being t'ro3n into t'e 3orld in a 3a+ t'at obliges it to takeu% its being t'ere . In eac' instance? Heidegger is s'o3ing so0et'ing not clai0ing? or as%iring to? adeBuation bet3een 'is conce%ts and t'e t'ing itsel=? si0%l+ because t'e t'ing itsel= 'ere? na0el+ 'u0an being? necessaril+ e)ceeds t'e conce%t.

&'eir conce%tion o= kno3ledge is inti0atel+ related to certaint+ 3'ic' betra+s its co00it0ent to %olitical securitization. Dillon 1$$! I0ichael> pro9essor .olitics and :nternational =elations at the Cni2ersit# o9 Lancaster> The Politics
of Security> pp. 90-91K I= 3e t'ink t'e %olitical in t'e 3a+ t'at 3e do because o= t'e 3a+ t'at 3e t'ink? t'e 3a+ t'at 3e t'ink trut' is 0ost decisi8e =or t'e 3a+ in 3'ic' 3e t'ink t'e %olitical because t'e 3a+ t'at 3e t'ink trut' > 9or Heidegger> deter0ines our being. 0ore than that. Heca/se ,e are not dealing ,ith a /ni9ocal concept o9 tr/th> here> ;/t ,ith a co)ple! ;i-9ocal ;elonging together o9 ;oth tr/th and /ntr/th> in ,hich the iss/es o9 9reedo) and L/stice also arise> it is the ,a# in ,hich ,e think that co)ple! ,hich )atters )ost. :or t'e 3a+ in 3'ic' 3e t'ink trut' and untrut' stages t'e entire %roble0atic not onl+ o= %olitics but also o= la3 and =reedo0. HeideggerGs entire li=eGs 3ork 3as de8oted to e)%loring 3'at 'e t'oug't o= as a trans=or0ation in t'e essence o= trut' in t'e tradition o= t'e L.estG. :ndeed> the e!tent to ,hich one can talk a;o/t Qthe traditionG or Qthe &estG depends /pon this stor# a;o/t tr/th> its e)ergence in the 7reek ,orld and its trans9or)ation thro/gh the =o)an and 0edie2al ,orlds into the 0odern. &'e %oint about t'e trans=or0ation o= t'e essence o= trut' is t'at it is a stor+ about t'e trans=or0ation o= t'e essence o= %olitics? la3 and =reedo0 as 3ell? because o= t'e 3a+s in 3'ic' t'ese all de%end u%on 'o3 trut' is disclosed? 3'at trut' is understood to be and 'o3 suc' a disclosi8e understanding %er8ades and grounds a 3a+ o= li=e or a 3orld. A trans=or0ation in t'e essence o= trut' necessaril+? t'ere=ore? also entails a trans=or0ation in t'e essence o= %olitics > and it is this stor# ,hich Heidegger The topos o9 enco/nter 91 reco/nts in an e!traordinaril# dense 9ashion in the .ar)enides lect/res. That is the onl# place in ,hich he connects-/p the trans9or)ation in the essence o9 tr/th to the trans9or)ation in the essence o9 politics in an# e!tended ,a#. 2en then> the arg/)ent is cr#ptic and /nde2eloped. H/t the concl/sion to ,hich it points is> nonetheless> 2er# clear. .'ereas t'e Greek %olis is =ounded on? or grounded in t'e understanding o= trut' as aletheia? t'e trans=or0ation in t'e essence o= trut' 0eans t'at %olitics is no longer deter0ined u%on t'e basis o= aletheia but on t'e understanding o= trut' as certaint+ and correctness. It is t'ere also? t'ere=ore? t'at 'e de0onstrates 'o3 t'e trans=or0ation in t'e essence o= trut' is inti0atel+ connected 3it' securit+. 5or> in addition to arg/ing that the essence o9 tr/th as disclos/re 9irst ;eco)es lost> and then trans9or)ed thro/gh its Latinisation> so also he arg/es 9/rther that6 &'e ince%tion o= t'e 0eta%'+sics o= t'e 0odern age rests on t'e trans=or0ation o= t'e essence o= "eritas into certitudo. &'e Buestion o= trut' beco0es t'e Buestion o= t'e secure? assured and sel=4 assuring use o= ratio.4$

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011
USS Reliant

7, :ile &itle

:ra0e3ork C5ro%ositionsE
:ra0e3ork %ro%ositions are t'ose little necessar+ a %riori trut's 3'ic' 0ake 'u0an Iudg0ents 0eaning=ulK 'istoricall+? t'e+ are grounded in a relations'i% 'u0an being 'as to t'e eart'? and t'is relations'i% can be eit'er tec'nological or disclosi8e. &urnbull 200! INeil> Senior Lect/rer in .hilosoph# and Social Theor# at Nottingha) Trent Cni2ersit#> BThe
8ntological ConseA/ences o9 Copernic/s6 7lo;al Heing in the .lanetar# &orld>E in Theory, Culture, Society 24K
:nterestingl#> in 8n Certaint# @ &ittgensteinGs last ,ork> ,ritten shortl# ;e9ore his death in 19$4 @ &ittgenstein )akes so)e,hat si)ilar clai)s6 again s/ggesting the i)portance o9 the earth 9or the )id 20th-cent/r# /ropean philosopher. :n )an# places in this ,ork> .ittgenstein o==ers a %'iloso%'ical de=ence o= 3'at 0ig't be ter0ed t'e Lnecessit+ o= eart'l+ groundsG . Here> &ittgenstein arg/es that t'e eart'liness o= t'oug't and action is not so0et'ing t'at could be reasonabl+ doubted and re%resents Lt'e bedrockG o= t'e =or0 o= li=e u%on 3'ic' L3eG @ in this case )id 20thcent/r# ,estern /ropeans @ t'ink? Iudge and act. 0ore speci9icall#> .ittgenstein 8ie3s t'e eart' as a %ri0al Lontological groundG A so0et'ing t'at e)ists outside o= t'e categories o= LtrueG and L=alseG @ that silences the do/;ts o9 the sceptic ,ho clai)s that Q,e cannot kno,G. &'us? in 'is 8ie3? t'e eart' =unctions %'iloso%'icall+ in t'e sa0e 3a+

as t'e cogito in artesian rationalis0; as an uns'akeable con8iction about a ke+ =eature o= t'e 3orld ca%able o= %ro8iding Lontological su%%ortG to 'u0an Iudge0ent. :n &ittgensteinGs 2ie,> state0ents about t'e eart'liness o= 'u0an li=e occu%+ t'e nodal %oint o= 3'at .ittgenstein ter0s L=ra0e3ork %ro%ositionsG @ the ,eakl# a priori c/lt/ral ass/)ptions that )ake /p ,hat Qo/r ,orld pict/reG (&elt;ild*.4 :ra0e3ork %ro%ositions are re%resentations o= t'e cultural gra00ars t'at e)%ress t'e 'istorical %articularit+ o= Lour =or0 o= li=eGO gi8ing s'a%e and signi=icance to ordinar+ acts o= Iudge0ent (again s/ggesting a ne, /nit# o9 earth and ,orld in &ittgensteinGs later ,ork*. :n &ittgensteinGs 2ie,> t'ese =ra0e3ork %ro%ositions are i00une =ro0 doubt. As he states6 QIeK2er#thing that : ha2e seen or heard gi2es )e the con2iction that no )an has e2er ;een 9ar 9ro) the earth.
Nothing in )# ,orld speaks in 9a2o/r o9 the oppositeG (19696 94*. Th/s> 9or &ittgenstein> Q)# not ha2ing ;een to the )oon is as s/re a thing 9or )e as an# gro/nds that : co/ld gi2e 9or itG (19696 111*. :n response to the sceptic ,ho )ight respond ,ith QHo, do #o/ kno,RG &ittgenstein ans,ers si)pl#6 that Qthis ,o/ld not 9it into the rest o9 )# con2ictionsG (19696 102*. So> 9or &ittgenstein @ in 19$4 @

deterritorialized L%lanetar+G e)%eriences are ruled out as a %riori i0%ossible? and t'e terrestrialit+ and territorialit+ o= e)%erience takes on t'e status o= a necessar+ trut' (&ittgenstein also clai)ed that he is a priori certain that he has ne2er ;een to China I19696 444K*. &'e sce%ticGs Buestion 'ere is si0%l+ not a Lreal BuestionG =or .ittgenstein because grounds =or doubt are lacking in t'is case (as there can ;e no gro/nds 9or do/;ting o/r )ost
;asic idea o9 gro/nds*. :n 19$4> the technical and c/lt/ral conditions o9 possi;ilit# 9or space tra2el ,ere a;sent and> th/s> ,hen concei2ed in a &ittgensteinian ,a#> one cannot realisticall# i)agine this state o9 a99airs as possi;le and so it pro2ides no gro/nds 9or do/;t. #ike HeideggerGs? .ittgensteinGs later %'iloso%'+ 8ie3s t'e eart' as ontologicall+ a)io0atic . 5or> according to &ittgenstein> Qonl# in s/ch-ands/ch a circ/)stanceG does a Qreasona;le personG do/;t that the# ha2e e2er ;een 9ar a,a# 9ro) the earth (19696 444*. Ho,e2er> in a technological h#per)o;ile and glo;ali3ed ,orld> these Qs/ch-and-s/ch a circ/)stancesG ha2e ;eco)e )ore generali3ed and co))onplace. :n s/ch conte!ts the sceptical A/estion Qre9/tedG ;# &ittgenstein no longer strikes one as 9/nda)entall# odd and its sceptical point no longer Qp/rel# philosophicalG. Alt'oug' t'e eart' 0ig't 'a8e been a source

o= a %riori certaint+ in 1$,9? t'is is no guarantee t'at it 3ill retain t'is e%iste0ological status gi8en radicall+ di==erent 'istorical circu0stances? as Lt'e eart'G also e)%eriences 'istorical 8ariation in its sense and signi=icance (see 5/rle#> 19+9*. Altho/gh the idea o9 Qthe earthG as Qthe gro/nd ;eneathG possessed an int/iti2e sel9e2idence in 19$4> and ,as the nodal point o9 0ittele/ropean conscio/sness and the centripetal 9orce o9 its cogniti2e 9ra)e,orks> the earth appears di99erentl# and has a di99erent sense to those ,ho> at ;eginning o9 the 21st cent/r#> ha2e @ al;eit o9ten onl# 2icario/sl# @ i);i;ed the )an# 2arieties o9 astrona/tic representations o9 the earth as a ne, c/lt/ral a priori and repositor# o9 a ne, glo;al c/lt/ral gra))ar. :or 3'en Lrendered %lanetar+G? t'e eart' no longer LgroundsG as suc' but 'as beco0e 0ore

like a Heideggerian 3orld; an o%en e)%anse t'at lies in =ront o= us? as 8ast 8isible s%ace re8ealing 'it'erto unkno3n 'u0an-ecological t'reads and %atterns t'at increasingl+ gi8e t'ings a ne3 L%lanetar+G 0easure o= social? ecological and cultural connecti8it+ .

: .le sta)p> an# detecta. Alt'oug' t'e .latonic )etaph#sics con2erts the .estern one.ith gi2en realit#> to a )/ch greater degree than the rest o9 h/)anit#> and in a re)arka.estern 3ill=ulness? a 3ill to %o3er? to 0aster+? an o8er=lo3 o= energ+ t'at 3ants to s'ake t'e 3orld to %ieces and 0ake it o8er.ar . :n s/ch essa#s as XThe Age o9 the &orld . The . .le nat/ral p/rpose or intention.est> ./t> to .# &e.hich are 9irst stated or s/ggested .egin .earers o9 the passions and dri2es and )oti2es that are the 9o/ndation o9 )odern technolog#> rather than assigning the inspiration to co))on &estern h/)anit# as a .estern 'u0anit+ against nature or realit+ as gi8en . 11> pp.oth the 9eats o9 pro. that &estern )etaph#sics--and )etaph#sics incl/des theolog#--is a contin/o/sl# i9 so)eti)es co2ertl# reiterated ./t 9or Heidegger it is not the principal part.ict/reX (194+*> XThe D/estion Concerning Technolog#X (19"9-$0*> and XScience and =e9lectionX (19$"* (all three in Heidegger> 1911*> Heidegger =inds t'e origin o= 0odern tec'nolog+ in .ards nat/re.irth and spread o9 hard> a.n .olitics> . Their greatest s/ccess is )odern technolog#.orld> as gi2en> is dislikedO it is disliked in large part J/st . The )ar2el lies not onl# in the res/lts o9 the proJect .riting a. &ec'nolog+ Ine8itable &ec'nolog+ isnGt ine8itable Kateb $7 @ .le to practice .e on their o.n ter)s or coa! gentl# 9ro) the) their o.ell> the &estern distincti2eness is rendered a).gi2ers> and sees in the) the tr/e . Certainl# that is part o9 the stor#> .est potentialit#O it is so 9ar /na. &ec'nolog+ not ine8itable Kateb $7 . 8ther people go along or are carried along> .rinceton (7eorge> Technolog# and philosoph#> http6%%9indarticles. 0odern technolog# is not onl# applied scienceO e2en )ore pro9o/ndl#> it is philosoph# or theolog# enacted.hilosophers and theologians are the originators.hat Heidegger calls 7elassenheit.as e2er /ndertaken and then s/stained.le re9le!i2e responses to )aterial circ/)stances.eca/se o9 their o. 0etaph#sics in2eteratel# red/ces the .l# distinct )anner.ro9essor o9 . He e)phasi3es the o/tlook o9 thinkers as la.here> or 9o/nd in a )/ch dil/ted 9or). To repeat.# &e.orld> .e9ore hi)> .ro/ght those 9eats into e!istence.orld into a pict/re 9or the )indVs e#e> and .a#s . =ather> 0odern tec'nolog+ is t'e 0aterialization o= .rotestant thic and the Spins o9 Capitalis) (19$+I190"-$K*.e absorbed into t'e sel=4conce%tion t'at 0an+ indi8iduals in a cross4national cultural setting 'old o= t'e0sel8e s.ith> in the 9act that the proJect o9 )odern technolog# .# Thorea/ and 0el2ille and others in the Cnited States.er> and also told> .eca/se it is gi2enO the dislike engenders anger> and 9ro) anger co)es re.le and hence )anagea. &estern )etaph#sics is the sponsor o9 anger and hence o9 repeated 2iolence to.le in the 0ar!ist )anner as ine2ita.ration and pro9o/nd disA/iet are )i!ed together in the anal#sis o9 . The p/rpose o9 the red/ction is to )ake the .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 7! :ile &itle A-&. &hen philosophers are not content to a. 6odern tec'nolog+ is> to repeat o/r phrase> a certain relation to nature or realit+ or t'e 3orldK it is there9ore not 0erel+ t'e ine8itable a%%lication o= that i))ense scienti=ic kno3ledge t'at gro3s once 'u0anit+ is rid o= co))/nal or religio/s su%erstition and repression. &'e 0odern .orld intelligi.orld. 5irst> it is a 9act .estern 0eta%'+sics./t contingentl# so> )odern technolog# e)erged> and did so .est 'as 'ad a certain kind o= relation to nature and 'u0an beings not to .le> 9it to .o/t technolog#.i2alence is one o9 the )ost pro)inent 9eat/res in a lot o9 the ./t instead stri2e to re)ake the . The long and short o9 it is that onl# in the &est> .e .ess and the /nderl#ing passions that . &estern h/)anit# is and has al.ell .ro9essor o9 . As Niet3sche sa#s6 'u0anit+? in its asceticis)> X3ants to beco0e 0aster not o8er so0et'ing in li=e but o8er li=e itsel=? o8er its 0ost %ro=ound? %o3er=ul? and basic conditionsX (Niet3sche> 1969> sec.estern 0eta%'+sics? 3'ic' is t'e %arent o= bot' 0odern tec'nolog+ and 0odern science.i2alentl#6 cele.ing the)es> all o9 . All three %'iloso%'ers 'a8e a keen =eeling =or accident and contingenc+? =or roads not taken? =or o%%ortunities eit'er not acce%ted or =orced into being.est 3as and is indebted to t'e scienti=ic and tec'nical ac'ie8e0ents o= ot'er regions and cultures? it is res%onsible =or 0odern tec'nolog+ . Heidegger )eans to sho. :ndeed> the technological ai) dri2es the de2elop)ent o9 )odern science.est seen as the creator o9 )odern technolog#> is not onl# distincti2e> it is ano0alous in co0%arison to t'e rest o= t'e 3orldO and the ano)al# is st/pendo/s and perhaps )onstro/s. H# his )ethod o9 e!egesis> Heidegger tries to pers/ade /s that .rinceton (7eorge> Technolog# and philosoph#> http6%%9indarticles. The cra2ing is either to p/t the h/)an sta)p on realit# or at least to resc/e nat/re 9ro) the a.latonis). A third the)e is that t'e passions> dri2es> and 0oti8es t'at 'el%ed to %ro0ote tec'nolog+ are> to a signi9icant e!tent> instigated or inspired . &ec'nolog+ is t'e 0ost s%ectacular ca0%aign in t'e great 3ar 3aged b+ .eca/se o9 the original reasons> or .co)%p%articles%)iZ)2261%isZn4Z26"%aiZ199$2041%pgZ4> * : 9ind in &e.orth# o9 )editation that> in its origin> 0odern tec'nolog+ is not a 'u0an4s%ecies43ide %'eno0enon? but a distincti2el# .aken .hole.sence o9 an# honestl# detecta. A second the)e is that> J/st as 0odern tec'nolog+ 3as not a uni8ersal %'eno0enon? so t'ere 3as not'ing ine8itable about it in the &est.hat is gi2en. Hu0anit+ in t'e .o/ld add that s/ch a).hat is )ore> a proJect o9 e!cess and e!tre)is).olitics> . All the the)es go against .# doing that> prepares &estern h/)anit# to lose sight o9 the )ere 9act o9 e!istence> the /ns/))oned thereness o9 realit#> o9 the gi2en.e 9o/nd else.er in The .een at .oth philosophical 0ar!is) and against co))on sense.orked on> and )ade read# to ha2e practical order i)posed on it.stract ideas that are not e!plaina. &estern )etaph#sics is J/st one interpretation o9 realit#> J/st as its o99spring--)odern science and )odern technolog#--are partic/lar relations to realit#> to .# ideas> religio/s or philosophical> that )anage to . t'e dee%est cause o= t'at 3ar is not scarcit+? not t'e =ailure o= nature to 0ake better %ro8ision =or a necessitous 'u0anit+? but? instead? a .ellion. . And it has e)erged and contin/es to 9lo/rish as a special and partic/lar proJectO .er> Heidegger> and Arendt the 9ollo. :n the three thinkers> and others as . 111-1+*.orld> the# so)eti)es s/cceed.eca/se o9 the .onder at the .co)%p%articles%)iZ)2261%isZn4Z26"%aiZ199$2041%pgZ6* Heidegger and Arendt a)pli9# the stor# told .n 2aried reasons> hal9-reasons> and nonreasons. &estern h/)anit# cannot let things .

=ather> it is the QNoG o9NQNo there is no )ani9estation o9 )ani9estationGN in .eing.e the 9inal trip.irth into no escape 9ro) death> contin/o/sl# challenged to accord L/stice to that condition in the li2ing o9 it> disting/ished .sol/tel# cr/cial arises no.e2er )/ch the paths o9 HeideggerGs tho/ght )a# .hat he )eans . And +et 3e are 0ani=est because 3e d3ell in 0ani=estation.eings share an integral and> as 9ar as .eca/se the QNoG here is no si)ple no> no )ere s#))etrical dialectical negation o9 theNQNo> there is no )ani9estationGNcapa. Recall 'o3 Heidegger insists u%on it as su%er=luit+? as t'e %ossible t'at al3a+s alread+ stands 'ig'er t'an t'e actual? as t'at t'e essence o= 3'ic' is Lto co0eGK 3'ic'? like deat' is =or us? dis4locates? dis%ossesses? indi8idualises and singularises.olitics and :nternational =elations at the Cni2ersit# o9 Lancaster> The Politics of Security> pp.1$ :t is a )atter 9or it> then> o9 re)aining 9aith9/l to pheno)ena as the# constantl# and contin/o/sl# displa# this occ/lting pheno)enalising )ani9ested thro/gh a te)poral . &'e one and t'e ot'er are binding.hich h/)an .a# 9or . Nust as 8isibilit+ ne8er beco0es 8isible? 0ani=estation ne8er beco0es 0ani=est. :or born =ree t'ere is no 3a+ out? eit'er? o= our 0ortalit+ and no one can su==er an+one elseGs deat'. .orld> the other> the 9o/r-9old and the 2er# /ncanniness .sence o9 )ani9estation> its retraction or .# . Suc' is t'e s%ecial %lace o= t'e %olitical t'at %olitical t'oug't 'as to t'ink.a#s alread# in receipt o9 the 9/ll dose> let alone o2erdosed> .e9orehand the not-)ere in the there o9 its 2er# o.o/ld . 5or i9 .ere al. .eing 9reed . C anGt 'a8e 8alue to li=e i= 3eGre all deadE Deat' is t'e ground o= =reedo0 in li=eJour decisions 'a8e no 0eaning i= t'e+ are not =ra0ed b+ 'u0an =initude. &reating deat' as a 0ere e8ent to be a8oided reduces our abilit+ to =reedo0 to 0ere calculation.# al.e> then> i9 the o2erdose o9 )ani9esting is to . distincti2el# responsi.hich the s/per9l/it# o9 the 2er# a.eing there at all . <nl+ I can die 0+ deat'.e li)inal rather than ter)inal. :or? re0e0ber? t'e NoJor to be %recise? t'e NotJis no si0%le negation.eings to ha2e their 2er# possi.e Heing 9or . Pes> there is )ani9estation and> No> there isY.ithdra.e at all. &'ere 'as? t'ere=ore? to be 8isibilit+ =or t'ings to a%%ear? 0ani=esting =or t'ings to stand4out? 3'ic' is not itsel= a t'ing. Rat'er dead t'an ontologicall+ da0ned? t'en. &'is is 3'at Heidegger 0eans 3'en 'e sa+s t'at Heing is Not'ing.le> share N.e> to do and to seeR I= our standing 3as alread+ co00anded or guaranteedJrat'er t'an gi8en to be assu0edJ3'+ s'ould 3e 'a8e to stand at allQ Under3a+ t'roug' ti0eGs 0aking 3a+Jt'e taking %lace o= HeingJ'u0an being 'as to =ind its o3n 3a+ o= 3a+40aking consonant 3it' t'e uncann+ c'allenge to be o= its s%eci=ic and concrete? 'istorical %assage in trut'.1" &o go t'roug' li=e 3it' oneGs e+es o%en reBuires a co00it0ent? The topos o9 enco/nter +4 also> 'o3e8er? to e)%lore t'e tragic to%os o= t'e encounter t'at 'u0an being 'as in its o3n being o= obligator+ =reedo0 3it' t'e uncanniness o= Heing as suc'> and the de)itted call o9 L/stice .hich reso/nds thro/gho/t it.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 77 :ile &itle A-&. This is . Dillon 1$$! I0ichael> pro9essor . There has si)ilarl# to . :or t'is singular being singularised b+ its birt'ing4to3ards4deat' /its 0ortal natalit+ and natal 0ortalit+1 is nonet'eless also? it 'as to be recalled? a being4in4t'e43orld and a being43it'4 ot'ers in unassi0ilable <t'erness.hich is at iss/e.al or the retraction o9 Heing. &ithdra.ilit# to .hat )akes .ind thro/gh sing/larisation> .ing . And 3'ereas t'is 'as o=ten been taken to be eit'er a 0+stical and 0+sti=+ing ant'ro%olog+ or? 3orse still? anot'er account o= ato0istic indi8idualit+? it is o= course neit'er.16 Ues and No? in s'ort? are eBui4 %ri0ordial? co4originar+./t Heing is ne2er )ani9ested as s/ch> 9or that . Kno3ing t'at singularises 0e? re0o8es 0e =ro0 t'e 3orld and de%ri8es 0e o= an+ certain 0eaning ot'er t'an t'at o= t'e o%aBue 0+ster+ o= not being.rings to light> there is no re)it 9or 9orgetting that it is this co)posite /ncann# pheno)enolisingNin . Lit is 0ore salutar+ =or t'inking to 3ander in estrange0ent t'an to establis' itsel= in t'e co0%re'ensibleG. (Bui%ri0ordial but 3it'out eBui%oise? t'ere is a radical as+00etr+ in 3'ic' t'e No out3eig's t'e Ues. Ho. +2-+"K .o/ld there .a#s alread# kno.hat . :or 3e die.le o9 realising so)e 9inal s#nthesis. It is %recisel+ 'ere also t'at t'e uncann+ Buestion o= <t'erness arises? because.e kno.eings to . o4originar+? t'e No and t'e Ues o= t'e Heing o= being 3'ic' 3e e)%erience in and as our e)istenceJour o3n standing4out in Heing? in 3'ic' t'e 'iddenness o= Heing takes %lace? stands4out? in its 'iddenness t'roug' its Buestioning b+ usJ are not? 'o3e8er? co4eBual.hich .ithdra.hatR So)ething a.'ereas tragic denial is 3ill=ul blindness to t'is con=lict? Lto go t'roug' li=e 3it' oneGs e+es o%enG 0eans Lto see tragic denial s'a%e t'e entire 0or%'ological sco%e o= t'e la3G . :ro0 t'e singularit+ o= being =ollo3s t'e singularit+ o= Not belonging to it > and conseA/entl# the sing/larit# o9 the other. Horn to die 3e al3a+s alread+ %re4'end t'is No in e8er+ UesJ t'is Not4being in an+t'ing and e8er+t'ingJb+ 8irtue o= our 8er+ o3n 0ortal e)isting.e> .hen he talks o9 the .al as Heidegger calls it> is .e .e le9t 9or /s to ha2e and to .n there-.al it has to .

e deter)ined in ad2ance o9 the partic/lar circ/)stances in .t ha2e called the 2er# essence o9 the political. a.le 9act that he )ade itO neither has the 9act that in thinking a. There are no instr/ctions> ho.ith the Na3is> as to ho.e escape his politics. a.o/ld no do/.roaching the A/estion o9 the essence o9 the political once )ore> .eing.olitics and :nternational =elations at the Cni2ersit# o9 Lancaster> The Politics of Security> pp. Altho/gh he speaks o9 it rarel# and .hich h/)an .o/t the esta.er9/l reso/rce 9or critical political thinking in the age o9 technolog#.a# that conseA/entl# re)ains a po.e2er s/))aril#> 2ia the ro/te o9 that radical pheno)enolog# o9 her)ene/tical A/estioning .as an e!pression in a .e 3ould ne8er den+ t'at %'iloso%'+ and %olitics go toget'erK 3e den+ t'at an+ ans3ers to t'eir relations'i% co0e read+40ade and deter0ined b+ our %reconce%tions o= %'iloso%'+ and %olitics./t .e2er> .eca/se he A/estions the tho/ght in .hich thoro/ghl# in9or)s the 2er# str/ct/re o9 it. :t is not politics> as it has co)e to .hen he chose his o. :nstead> his call to think ane.hat he also re9erred to as the highest 9or) o9 QSa#ingG the tragic. this )a# resol2e itsel9 in ter)s o9 speci9ic political co))it)ents.# s/ch speci9ic historical circ/)stances.a#s in .eing.e cannot .o/t the 2er# li)its o9 politics> and a.# h/)an .eings o9 their pec/liar )ode o9 9ree . Heidegger > Nazi . :n necessaril# . 5or Heidegger> .e cannot escape his philosoph# neither can .as 9irst tho/ght>1+ : 9ind that there is a sensi.ork to thinking thro/gh that nihilis) o9 .hat disting/ishes the predica)ent o9 conte)porar# h/)an .ilit# and str/ct/re is that o9 .ilit# .n radical politics he chose disastro/sl#.hich it .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 72 :ile &itle A-&.eca/se .een Heing and h/)an .o/t the political as the li)inal operation o9 li)it in the ass/)ption . "2-"4K 0istr/st> . 5r/stration> on the other hand> arises )ost a)ongst those .a# to it> ho.ith Heidegger.e2er> especiall# a9ter his association =adical her)ene/tical pheno)enolog# "4 . S/ch is not on o99er .le set o9 instr/ctions. .20 H/t . :9 .hat he . 7i2en the character o9 his tho/ght> s/ch co))it)ents cannot> ho.hat a disastro/s choice he had )ade> has not detracted 9ro) the terri.itho/t )aking o/r .ilit# in HeideggerGs tho/ght .o/t technolog# or technicit#> he de2oted )/ch o9 the rest o9 his .al li9e> . That sensi. D/ite the contrar#.lished . Dillon 1$$! I0ichael> pro9essor .hich are threatened .eing is the deter)inate technological e)placing o9 late )odern ti)es.e ha2e co)e to think at all> )akes /s think ane.ith restraintNQe2en in his reading o9 Niet3scheG>19 and o9 H`lderlinN this sensi.hich .hich )eans Heidegger opened-/p philosoph#Gs A/estion o9 HeingO and disclosed the )/t/all# disclosi2e relationship .ho e!pect their politics to arri2e read#-)ade> in sel9-asse).a# that has so pro9o/ndl# in9l/enced the tho/ght o9 the 9reedo) o9 h/)an .eing> at deter)inate ti)es and in deter)inate places> is challenged to 9ree itsel9 9ro) the clos/res .l# packs or> at least> as an intelligi.egin to appreciate the character and the signi9icance o9 this sensi.ilit# has a 2er# special p/rchase on> and pro2ides a 2er# partic/lar )eans o9 disclosing the entire A/estion o9> the political.eing as the there o9 Heing ('asein* in a .hich Na3is) . That he see)s to ha2e recognised .e /nderstood in an increasingl# technologised glo.# .et.hich arises as a positi2e concern thro/gh HeideggerGs thinking> there9ore> .

licl#> to QatoneG 9or his )e).ho appears to elide it.o/ld reA/ire.ith his histor# o9 Heing and its preocc/pation .r#Nis partic/larl# rele2ant here.e )ere o)ission.ith Heidegger.olitics and :nternational =elations at the Cni2ersit# o9 Lancaster> The Politics of Security> pp.o/t it> and . There is a pressing need to reco2er the A/estion o9 the political as )/ch 9ro) Heidegger-the-Na3i> .ished interrogation and /nderstanding o9 the political is conseA/entl# one o9 the pri3es to .a# o9 the tragic.eca/se silence al./t in 9act : do not kno.a#s reso/nds 9or Heidegger> and so perhaps it is also so)ething e2en )ore than a Qradical 9ail/re o9 tho/ghtG.# .ith the Na3is . : do kno.le.ith the hidden and the inconspic/o/s> Heidegger )ade o9 tho/ght so)ething .hat a)o/nt o9 space it .10 5or> in his thinking> Heidegger s#ste)aticall# and consistentl# ele2ated reticence and co)port)ent e2en a./t a conseA/ence o9 his o.ered and so it .ith secrec#> conceal)ent> or Q)ental reser2ationsG.hich Lohn Cap/to concl/des is HeideggerGs scandal.een atte)pting here> )/st> : ha2e .ar)enides> 9or e!a)ple> he sa#s> Qto keep silentG is not )erel# to sa# nothing. 141-142K Here> . That is precisel# the technological ne)esis to .elling in a pio/s attenti2eness to the )#ster# o9 Heing.ill ne2er .as A/ite clearl# and criticall# de2oted.o2e tho/ght. A re9/r.art#> and his silence concerning the 9ate o9 /ropean Le.hich the reco2er# o9 the political . 7i2en the i)portance attached to silence in all o9 HeideggerGs tho/ght> this QsilenceG cannot .as no )ere Qde9icienc#G o9 tho/ght> .12 .ith his 2er# political 9alli. precisel# .ership o9 the Na3i . : si)pl# think it is not kno.een arg/ing> proceed thro/gh sec/rit# .n tho/ght alerts /s and 9ro) .ilit#> arises a partic/lar reason .ho see)s to corr/pt it> as 9ro) Heidegger the philosopher .a#s . Hence> one )ight s/spect that his association .9 0ani9estl#> it is not a si)ple o2ersight either> .as 9/nda)entall# related to d.n QdispositionG or co)port)ent. The A/estion .+ :n his lect/res on .hat allo.hich .e reA/ired. 5or this con2entional gen/9lection to serio/sness i)plies that so)eho.# )eans o9 it alone> can there pre2ail essential silence> ha2ing nothing in co))on . Heidegger > Nazi Dillon 1$$! I0ichael> pro9essor . 8r> rather> consonant .11 And it is precisel# this> tho/gh .e settled. &itho/t so)ething essential to sa#> one cannot keep silent. This is in 9act . : co/ld sa# that : do not ha2e the space to gi2e it all the tho/ght and close attention it deser2es> . &e cannot> there9ore> go the ro/te .ithin essential speech> and .hich his o.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 7$ :ile &itle A-&.ith his radical her)ene/tical pheno)enolog#> and .1 The pre9ace 9or s/ch an engage)ent> .ill al.ill ne2er .seA/ent thinking .hich Heidegger hi)sel9 9irst took and against .hich is all : ha2e .h# it does so.e prised-o/t o9 an engage)ent .s )e to go on a. H/t : do not. And #et it is not a )atter o9 )e not kno. The )atter o9 HeideggerGs QsilenceGNthat is to sa#> his re9/sal to rep/diate the Na3i period p/.a#s> ..e ans. 8nl# .> or co/ld kno.a.ing.hich his s/.ith it.orked thro/gh his tho/ght in detailed .

le .here> in its openness> re)ains capa. .hat is i)portant 9or )e in this a99air is that> in the process o9 end/ring the kno. 142-144K So)eho.e> and to preser2e the la. :s the A/estionNthat is to sa# philosoph#Gs A/estion> the A/estion o9 HeingNitsel9 a .eG )ore 9orce9/ll# directed to.eing open to> or 9reed asNa .16 :t e!poses> too> the .tle stratege) 9ro) the intracta.hen con9ronting Heidegger-the-Na3i.hose aporetic di99ic/lt# his o.le .een directed at hi) to this e99ect> .e and inha./t in ..eca/se there are no innocent alternati2es (.a#s .e are J/dging> .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 20 :ile &itle A-&.ith J/dge)ent> .ith ha2ing to sa# . &hile Heing poses the aporia o9 J/dge)ent 9or h/)an .hich .l# intert.andering. 9or all the tho/ghts . o9 the possi./rden o9 J/dge)ent o/rsel2es.le 9or /s to recognise Qo/rsel2esG ill/)inated also in the aporia o9 J/dge)ent.eing-in-co))on that al.a#s and e2er#.a#s alread# d.hich J/dge)ent necessaril# creates .1$ Heidegger see)ed to )ake> take and accept no J/dge)ent /pon hi)sel9.ho .e are . His silence th/s e!poses ho.e2er /se9/l it )a# .elonging together o9 d.hile this e!ile in 9reedo) is a contin/o/s str/ggle to .e are thro. H/t .a#s alread# .elling en ro/teO that ro/tes and roots are ineradica.1" Ho)eco)ing> not sta#ing . Heidegger> here on this site and .a#O precisel# .n distincti2e .ith the assign)ent o9 the .n tho/ght o9 Heing had nonetheless ill/)inatedR 8r> considering his re9lections on silence as .elling and displace)ent6 that .ilit# .ith respect to the site-ing o9 the political> see)ed /n.# J/dge)ent (de-cision*O ho.ards the aporia o9 J/dge)entR &as Heidegger str/ggling all along> there9ore> to escape the 2iolent> dirt#> de.it a QplaceG si)/ltaneo/sl# also poses the A/estion o9 the one .itho/t nostalgia./rden o9 J/dge)entR 8r> instead> does it e99ect a radicall# di99erent disposition in and to. 0oreo2er> and despite )isg/ided criticis)s that ha2e .eca/se ho)eco)ing (al.hich 9reedo) entails> it is an e!ile .ord* is an e!cl/sionar# practiceO that indigeneit#> ho. All o9 this> o9 co/rse> is> nonetheless> ho. Heidegger > Nazi Dillon 1$$! I0ichael> pro9essor .as too s)art not to kno.e h/)an14Ninsists that displace)ent is a pre-condition o9 d./t lingering a .e#ond J/dge)ent J/dge)ent> nonetheless> lea2es-o/t 9or 9/rther acco/ntO and the 2iolence against that re)ainder ./siness o9 J/dge)ent .hat his entire acco/nt o9 )ortal e!istence also proclai)s.le inescapa. ConseA/entl#> and tho/gh it nonetheless appears as i9 it also entails so)e 9ail/re o9 tho/ght> this lac/na in Heidegger )akes tho/ght reso/nd> and reso/nds to tho/ght as .ith .ards the .e are /n9a)ilar> does it not necessaril# al.a#s lea2es the The political and the tragic 144 A/estion o9 J/dge)ent open.elong together .t-inc/rring> .e are all strangers nati2e .hat it is to .hich is the sa)e as .ho J/dge> .eG is co)prised .a# o9 e2ading J/dge)entR 8r> on the contrar#> .# estranged 9ro) that place> or co)es to that place as a stranger. that he kne.hile> is onl# e2er an episode in . 'id he e2ade J/dge)entR 0ore than that.ith it> it is possi.a#s alread# re9erring to an originar# dispossession or .hether it is s/99icient )erel# to J/dge> .innedO hence> that to 9o/nd and .n a9ter HeidggerNthe hea2# political )ortgage o9 the t.orn> and so al.eca/se it al. 5or Heidegger> par e)inence> is the philosopher o9 path.hich Heidegger-the-Na3i presents.hich is not the sa)e as sa#ing that all alternati2es )/st there9ore .a#s.hich it poses as a certain sort o9 aporia that s/))ons the resol/teness entailed in de-cisionR :n noting the possi.le e2asion Q. ConseA/entl#> . His 2er# tho/ghtNespeciall# .ho) . large an e!cess .e a people (e2en> in his ter)s> . And the# )atter> /lti)atel#> )ore than HeideggerGs li9e and tho/ght> ho.a#s con9ronted . a Q.a# rhetorics o9 )oral indignation and rit/al p/ri9ication pro2ide an eas# .a# o/t o9 the )atter 9or tho/ghtNand so there9ore o9 J/dge)ent and decisionN.ledge o9 Na3is) as .a# o9 e2ading J/dge)entO o9 sec/ring onesel9 thro/gh a s/.le o9 Holoca/st.hose na)e it is e!ercised> and . He .ilit# o9 s/ch a do/.hich his silence pro)pts to )atterR 5or the# do )atter.hat a/thorit# and in ..ell as his silence> are Q.hat J/dge)ent is> on .e> in an# e2ent> need to kno.hat it is .eG are> there9ore> al. S/ch a recognition is itsel9 an ass/)ption o9 response-a.ho is there.elling.e as a de2ice to protect so)e 9ro) the 2iolence o9 0odernit# and its )odernisers> is a certain sort o9 2iolent clai)O and that to circ/)scri.hat Qg/iltG is*. 'o ./rden o9 response-a.e carr# in the 9reedo) into .eing in its 2er# )ortal 9reedo)> does con9ining onesel9 to the A/estion o9 Heing .here it concerns QHo)eco)ingG> .entieth cent/r#R 'id he intend or anticipate an# or all> and )ore> o9 thisR 89 co/rse : do not e2en pretend to kno.ell> in its o.eing-o/t-o9-place> rather than an# si)ple-)inded geographical repatriation* is a contin/o/s cherishing re-calling o9 .hich .eco)e a .e2er )/ch that li9e and tho/ght 9orces /s to end/re this .ell as o9 HeideggerGs association .illing to think thro/gh the 9/nda)ental .hate2er reasons he )a#> or )a# not ha2e had> 9or keeping silent> he )/st ha2e done. Fer# )/ch.e eA/all# Qg/ilt#G> or to e!plore .olitics and :nternational =elations at the Cni2ersit# o9 Lancaster> The Politics of Security> pp.e2er> precisel# .e are to J/dge> .ilit# 9or N.

eings> in the na)e o9 Heing. o9 technolog# as indicating his distance 9ro) National Socialis).een h/)an . This idea is the corollar# o9 the 2ie. .a#> Heidegger is signaling? as clearl+ as 'e canNcandidl+? and accuratel+Jt'at 'is t'eor+ o= tec'nolog+ is 0eant to carr+ out t'e ideas 3'ic' t'e National Socialists 3ere too li0ited to de8elo% thro/gh a t'eor+ o= tec'nolog+ . 0etaph#sical thinking> .e9ore Heing.n tho/ght o9 Heing as con9ronting )odernit#> and the r/le o2er . Heidegger > Nazi &o Heidegger? e8en i= Nazis0 o%%osed tec'nolog+? t'eir %olicies 3ere crude =ailures A 'e belie8es t'e+ 3ere too li0ited in t'eir 0et'ods. :9 this is correct> .Jecti2it# in order to consider Heing . His /nderstanding o9 technolog# changed 9ro) the earl# idea o9 the con9rontation .I16K Heidegger presents his o.al technolog# as a 9actor in deter)ining histor# can scarcel# . ".hich e)erges in his later tho/ght.ell-kno. 2. Heidegger describes 'is t'eor+ o= tec'nolog+ as an e==ort to go =urt'er do3n t'e road tra8eled b+ National Socialis0> /nderstood as an initial . n9ra)ing is ro/ghl# a conception o9 hori3on> as the li)its .eing> or 'asein> as the 2antage point 9ro) . 20$-201> 1991* L0 The link . Altho/gh Heidegger has /ndertaken to deconstr/st s/.hich ends in Niet3sche> is /na. )#tholog#.hat is happening toda# and has . &hat does it )ean> in the era o9 technolog#> to achie2e an adeA/ate relationship to the essence o9 technolog#> an e!plicit relationship to . $. appropriation o9 the /ropean tradition in .> Heidegger 0akes a series o= %oints about tec'nolog+? .> Heidegger states.as itsel9 a si)ple )ani9estation o9 technolog#> or onl# that> since he insists t'at Nazis0 intended to react against t'e 'ege0on+ o= 0odern tec'nolog+ .e reA/ire a ne.n S%iegel inter8ie3./t in 2irt/e o9 its s/pposed incapacit# to think> Na3is) is /na.a# in .et.hich it 9/rthered Na3i genocide.er to a A/estion raised d/ring the inter2ie. HeideggerVs inter2ie.itho/t 'asein> in another sense 'asein is still central to his tho/ght in his concern .hilosoph# T '/A/esne Cni2ersit#> 8n HeideggerVs Na3is) and .sol/tel#.hich he later de2elops in the direction o9 an a/thentic 9or) o9 li9e.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 21 :ile &itle A-&.hich he intends as a carr+ing out o= t'e con=rontation o= tec'nolog+ 3'ic' t'e Nazis 3ere too crude to %er=or0 > . 4. Heidegger 'i0sel= calls attention to t'e relation o= 'is t'eor+ o= tec'nolog+ to Nazis0 in t'e . Hut t'ose %eo%le 3ere =ar too li0ited in t'eir t'inking to acBuire an e)%licit relations'i% to 3'at is reall+ 'a%%ening toda# and has . National Socialis0 3as 0o8ing in t'e direction o= reacting against tec'nolog+ alt'oug' it =ell s'ort o= t'e goal.I1$K Heidegger takes a co)pletel# di99erent> in 9act opposite line.hich )an is /prooted 9ro) his tradition and his ho)e./t not inacc/rate access to his di99ic/lt theor# o9 technolog#. No. &'e inter8ie3 records HeideggerTs largel+ success=ul e==ort to in=luence t'e 3a+ in 3'ic' 'is person and t'oug't 3ould be regarded a=ter 'is deat'. A/thentic h/)an . thro/gh the idea o9 the historical reali3ation o9 the 7er)ans as 7er)an. Heidegger holds o/t in this .hich Heidegger critici3es in a 2ariet# o9 te!ts> s/ch as the Niet3sche lect/res and the Heitr]ge Nto t'ink Heing aut'enticall+.hich e)erges in HeideggerVs later tho/ght> that h/)an . :n the co/rse o9 the inter2ie.ith the pro.eing and planetar# technolog#> in his lect/re co/rse on )etaph#sics> to the later idea o9 en9ra)ing (7estell *.n .a# 9or three cent/ries.et.hilosoph#> 'a(ism and Technology> p. :t is> then> /se9/l to e!a)ine the te!t o9 his inter2ie.hich Niet3sche has anno/nced> a9ter the end o9 the old )#tholog#> . This is a 9/rther 9or)/lation o9 HeideggerVs con2iction that a9ter the death o9 7od> . &'e situation o= 'u0an being 3it' res%ect to tec'nolog+ is not one o= =ate and it is %ossible to %re%are =or a re8ersal (Crnkehr *. 5or Heidegger> the li)it o9 )odernit# is technolog#. : do not see the sit/ation o9 )an in the . &e can prepare to co/nteract technolog#> altho/gh onl# a god can sa2e /s> thro/gh a ne. :t see)s to )e that #o/ are taking technolog# too a. 10. The 9orce o9 glo. This is an indication o9 ho.een /nder.hich so)ething occ/rs.le to )aster or to respond adeA/atel# to the essence o9 technolog#. Nazis0> too> 'e tells us in this passage> )ade a si)ilar atte)pt> altho/gh it =ell s'ort in its inabilit+N.le adeA/atel# to think technolog#. I1"K N/)ero/s co))entators ha2e insisted on the role o9 technolog# in Na3is)> in partic/lar on the integral . :n ans.ith a Jo/rnalist> . HeideggerTs S%iegel inter8ie3 is )ore signi9icant than its designation as an inter2ie.e o2eresti)ated.hat Heidegger since the rectoral address has in 2ie. as an initial indication o9 the relation .e escaped or /nra2elled.ell.et. 6. No. the single )ost i)portant the)e o9 this inter2ie. consists in HeideggerVs co))ents on the the)e o9 technolog# . Heidegger here ret/rns to a 9or) o9 his idea o9 a/thenticit#> .n tho/ght as an i)pro2e)ent on the XinadeA/ateX e99ort o9 Na3i thinkers to 9ace technolog#.ithin the li)its allotted to tho/ght> to achie2e an adeA/ate relationship to the essence o9 technolog#.ro9essor o9 . Heidegger /nderstands technolog#. At present ? 'e is uncon8inced t'at de0ocrac+ is adeBuate as a %olitical s+ste0 in a tec'nological age. &ith a single e!ception> )ost o. o9 technolog# and Na3is) is contro2ersial.as not the res/lt o9 a si)ple )eeting .een his 2ie.ith political conseA/ences. o9 technolog# and his Na3is). National Socialis0> to . This signals a resid/al role 9or tho/ght .orld o9 glo.een /nder . :t . that /lti)ate agenc# is lodged in Heing.ith resistance to the loss o9 tradition and o9 the place to d.hich thinking trans9or)s thinking.1.a# the prospect o9 e)erging 9ro) the hege)on# o9 technolog#.een HeideggerVs 2ie.ard a series o9 technological relationships in .e s/re> 0o8ed in t'is direction./t intrinsicall# ins/99icient e99ort to co)e to grips . The age o9 technolog# has .eing is ./t t'e %roduct o= care=ul %lanning? 3'ose te)t 3as later 3orked o8er be=ore %ublication.ser2ers consider HeideggerVs 2ie.eing is po. Heidegger here dra.a# 9or three cent/riesR 8ne thing it )eans is to con9ront )odernit#.ithin .reak a. Rock0ore $7 /To)> . No.e can anticipate that HeideggerTs t'eor+ o= tec'nolog+> . H/)an .ith 'er Spiegel o99ers a si)pli9ied .s the political conseA/ence o9 his later conception o9 Heing as the real historical agent. s/ggests.e#ond philosoph#. part o9 the a/thentic tho/ght o9 Heing is a/thentic h/)an . &'ere is a clear connection bet3een HeideggerTs Nazis0 and 'is a%%roac' to tec'nolog+.> .ro/ght 9or. Here> in his o.le to . :or Heidegger? National Socialis0 o%%oses t'e rule o= tec'nolog+O .hich cannot .hich to co)prehend Heing. This is a 9/rther 9or) o9 the 2ie. Heidegger no. in the period a9ter Heing and Ti)e > )ost e!plicitl# in the Niet3sche lect/res> Heidegger ca)e to /nderstand his o. that Na3is) .le) o9 technolog#. +.eing is /na. 8n the contrar#> I see t'e task o= t'oug't to consist in 'el%ing 0an in general > .al technolog# as a 9ate .hich are clearl# related to his later tho/ght6 1.a# 9ro) it. disp/tes the 2ie.erless . 9. The essence o9 technolog# lies in the concept o9 en9ra)ing.

To )iss this point> to /nderstand his theor# o9 technolog# )erel# as an anal#sis o9 technolog#> e2en )ore precisel# as a scr/tin# o9 the essence o9 technolog#> is si)pl# to )iss the central thr/st o9 HeideggerVs 2ie.ledge o9 Heing.ard the a/thenticit# o9 the 7er)ans and> ..Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 22 :ile &itle contin/es to share the insistence on the a/thentic gathering o9 the Folk .e#ond the 7er)ans> to.here politics is directed to. Like his theor# o9 Heing> the theor# o9 technolog# . .hich deri2es 9ro) the theor# o9 Heing is intrinsicall# political> .ard kno.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 29 :ile &itle """A==ir0ati8e Ans3ers""" .

ro9essor o9 .lanet gi2es 9irst appro!i)ations o9 e)erging i)ages o9 the arth and the place o9 h/)an li9e /pon it that )a# do)inate the thinking o9 o/r childrenVs children. .a. t'e 8ie3 o= t'e (art' adIacent to our s%aces'i%? a neig'bor.ell doc/)ented in earlier A/otes and> indeed> is pres/pposed .ith these pict/res there .. &'e 0ost i0%ortant s%iritual s%in4o== o= s%ace e)%loration is t'e e)%erience o= t'e %lanet as a se%arate and distinct %'+sical realit+? a%art =ro0 t'e obser8er? t'at con=ronts 'i0 /and 'er1 and de0ands res%onse. He9ore the astrona/ts ret/rned . :t isnVt i)portant .oe9/ll# inadeA/ate )odel atop a desk or a )osaic o9 photographs 9ro) lo. 0ost o9 the do3ens o9 s/ccinct reports that acco)pan# the photographs are easil# gathered into co))on the)es> one o9 .ingl# paraphrases a 9a)o/s re)ark .e can sa# that it is considera.hich is the s/rprising e!istential A/alit# o9 the e!perience 9or )en and . .n into space.ho ha2e 9lo. standpoint> .o)en .hat the# represent 9or o/r search> philosophical and religio/s> 9or h/)an signi9icance in the sche)e o9 things. . S&'e (art' 3as s0all .n strong and po.ere ha)pered in atte)pts to /nderstand the arth . :ndeed> the editor o9 Ho)e .er> 0aslo. .4K &'e astronauts? 3'o ca0e =ro0 0an+ cultural backgrounds? testi=+ to an e)%erience t'at see0s to be uni8ersal? or collecti8e? or 0ore =unda0ental t'an e8en a co00on s'a%ing could account =or. There is no .lanet is a.X A t'ird t'e0e o= t'e book is t'e sense o= t'e (art' as T Tot'er.le.X The )ost /rgent task o9 the race Xis to cherish and preser2e it 9or 9/t/re generations.are o9 this> and he A/otes astrono)er 5red Ho#le on the inside 9ront co2er6 S<nce a %'otogra%' o= t'e (art'? taken =ro0 t'e outside is a8ailable .a# to capt/re the arth in the act o9 sel9-presentation.X The likes o9 Heschel> H/.> Heidegger> and 8tto .. XShe has genero/sl# gi2en /s e2er#thing she has a)assed o2er the .hilosoph# and =eligio/s St/dies at 5lorida :nternational Cni2ersit#> B arthstr/ck>E in "ygon 2$.hose training is al)ost e!cl/si2el# technical. V VPo/ look do. T T This perception is .S S&'e beauti=ul? 3ar0? li8ing obIect looks so =ragile? so delicate? t'at i= +ou touc'ed it 3it' a =inger? it 3ould cru0ble and =all a%art. :n all pre2io/s ti)es> people ./t .S .S &'is %erce%tion o= 8ulnerabilit+? co0bined 3it' t'e t'e0e o= 3onder and adoration? gi8es rise to a resol8e to %rotect t'e %lanet against onslaug'ts b+ t'e 'u0an s%ecies.o/ld 9ind their e!istential philosophies re9lected in s/ch re)arks. :nstead> .a# at this ti)e to assess the potential o9 this ne.# the). &e ha2e gro.l# )ini)al> /nkno.illions o9 #ears o9 inani)ate de2elop)ent.hose e!pos/re to &ittgenstein is pro. ha2e .e sho/ld delineate its )eaning9/l the)es and .n /pon the arth . Huc'ingson 1$$0 ILa)es> Associate . a3e? curiosit+? a0aze0ent?S re%orts one astronaut.as no . &'eir co00ents %ro8ide i0%ortant e8idence =or a 3ide trans=or0ation o= attitudes? no3 occurring? t'at is bot' induced and e)%ressed b+ t'e e)%loration o= s%ace.ook> there is no need to contin/e an assess)ent o9 its A/alit#.# another6 &e Xare standing g/ard o2er the .ackdrop 9or li9e and histor#Na . Altho/gh the photographs and passages are o9 co/rse selected> the# see) to re9lect the responses o9 those . &'eir co00on 3itness is religious in a broad sense o= t'at ter0Jo= being gras%ed? s'aken? and trans=or0ed b+ an une)%ected and astonis'ing encounter.# their 2er# pro!i)it# to its s/r9ace.ho she is> J/st that she is. In s%ace S3e e)%erience t'ose uniBuel+ 'u0an Bualities.ith a )i!ed 9eeling o9 delight and adoration>X sa#s another.as the o.ered this goodnessRX The rhetorical state)ent o9 one cos)ona/t is 2eri9ied . and so touc'4ingl+ alone. No3 so0et'ing trul+ no8el 'as been i0%ressed u%on our 'istor+. A So2iet cos)ona/t> .-le2el gli)pses o9 an endless scroll o9 localities> regions> continents> and seas.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 2* :ile &itle #ink &urn /5'eno0enolog+1 S%ace e)%loration and de8elo%0ent %ro8ide ne3 %'eno0enological resources =ro0 3'ic' to 8alue t'e eart' and ot'erness.er9/l> #et ho. :t .# the A/strian philosopher6 X: lo2e . Since this is an e!traordinar# . a ne3 idea as %o3er=ul as an+ in 'istor+ 3ill be let loose. 6an+ Buotations stress a second co00on t'e0e. Ho)e . looking at the arth.e ans. (art' as a 8ulnerable and =inite %lace.hole o9 o/r arth.sc/re .

And i= 3e 3'o 0ust re0ain on (art' can s'are in t'e e)%erience and be s'a%ed b+ it? t'is legac+ o= our earl+ atte0%ts to =l+ into s%ace 0a+ be one o= t'e 0ost i0%ortant contributions o= our 3aning centur+. . (art' 'as al3a+s been understood in t'e cos0ic 'ierarc'+ as t'e in=erior? %ro=ane %lane o= e)istence to 3'ic' t'e sacred descends or be+ond 3'ic' t'e 'ero 0ust go to reac' 'ol+ 'eig'tsJ6oses ascending Sinai or 6u'a00ad rising =ro0 Nerusale0 to %re8ie3 %aradise.o/ld ha2e /s . H+ t'eir o3n accounts? t'e+ 'a8e Sbeco0e 0ore =ull o= li=e? so=ter . Hu0ilit+ /=ro0 'u0us? 0eaning Seart'+S1 instead do0inates t'e s%ace 8o+agerTs res%onse.ro9essor o9 .e#ond the at)osphere has res/lted in neither di)inished stat/re 9or earthlings in their o. H/)an penetration o9 space . Hut in t'is 0odern case so0et'ing totall+ une)%ected 'as 'a%%ened.S &'e 'aug't+? t'e 'ig'? and t'e 0ig't+ =ailed to 0aterialize 3it' t'e ascent into s%ace. An Arab astronaut recalls 'is e)%anding and inclusi8e %erce%tion. In an astonis'ing and un%recedented turning o= t'e tables? (art' is disco8ered to be sus%ended in t'e 'ea8ensZ 8/r )/ndane plane o9 e!istence has /n2eiled hersel9 9or . Se%aration =ro0 t'e 'o0e %lanet b+ 'undreds o= t'ousands o= 0iles onl+ accentuated t'eir sense o= belonging. &'e old clic'W about distance and =ondness 'olds true e8en 3it' res%ect to inter%lanetar+ s%ace=aring.e> are a)ple eno/gh. (art'bound %oliticians? generals? and tec'nocrats 0a+ 'a8e 'arbored %redator+ 'o%es 3'en t'e+ created t'e tec'nolog+ o= s%ace=lig't? but t'ose t'e+ sent out3ard 3ere trans=or0ed b+ t'e e)%erience. SAnd t'en it struck 0e t'at 3e are all c'ildren o= our (art'. SA cos0onaut? s'ould 'e eat bread so0e3'ere near 6ars baked =ro0 3'eat raised in a s%ace laborator+? 3ill? belie8e 0e? t'ink o= t'e grain and =lo3ers gat'ered on (art'.hat she is6 )ateria )atri!Nthe )aternal so/rce and s/stainer o9 li9e> 9loating o/t there in the deep> .# the geologic and )eteorological nat/re o9 the glo.e2er> Tsiolko2sk#Vs XcradleX is )ore di99ic/lt to 9orget than either he or Star Trek tri/)phalis) .n e#es nor e!ploitation.* The planet /n2eils hersel9 to the space9arers as the# literall# 9l# ne!t to her in 9or)ation. &'e t'ird or =ourt' da+ 3e 3ere %ointing to our continents.eneath the spacecra9t> pro2ided .S &'ese %erce%tions are con=ir0ed b+ a cos0onaut. In realit+? t'e sur=ace o= t'e %lanet is sea0less. . 0ore kind and %atient. :ile &itle #ink &urn /5'eno0enolog+1 &'e %'eno0enological =act o= (art'rise sol8es borders and 8iolenceK s%ace e)%loration 0akes us kinder? and 0ore sober.e are all (art'Ts c'ildren> and . So it see)s that ArendtVs apprehensions are /n9o/nded.lack 2oid.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 2. It does not 0atter 3'at countr+ +ou look at.hilosoph# and =eligio/s St/dies at 5lorida :nternational Cni2ersit#> B arthstr/ck>E in "ygon 2$.elie2eU &'e o8erall res%onse o= t'ese astronauts-cos0onauts is re0iniscent o= %ro%'ets and 0+stics 3'o testi=+ to t'eir 'ea8en4sent re8elations or insig't. The e2er-changing patterns ./t )an cannot li2e in a cradle 9ore2er. Huc'ingson 1$$0 ILa)es> Associate .S &'e e)'ilaration one 0ig't e)%ect at being liberated =ro0 (art'Ts gra8it+ to =loat =reel+ in s%ace? to e)%lore t'e celestial bodies and endless reac'es o= t'e gala)+? is 0issing .X :inall+? t'e astronauts and cos0onauts bear 3itness to an inalienable sense o= attac'0ent to t'e (art'. Fie3ing t'e 3'ole (art'? t'e astronauts Buickl+ =orgot t'e state borders i)posed /pon her . (The iron# is that the 9or)er had to enter the hea2ens to recei2e theirs.4K Anot'er? associated t'e0e is t'e eli0ination o= boundaries. &'e 8ie3 =ro0 a=ar Sis so 0o8ing t'at +ou can 'ardl+ belie8e 'o3 e0otionall+ attac'ed +ou are to t'e roug' %atterns s'i=ting steadil+ belo3.X &ith all d/e respect> ho.S Konstantin Tsiolko2sk# > the 9ather o9 =/ssian rocketr#> is A/oted as sa#ing> XThe arth is a cradle> . .# territorial conscio/sness. . S&'e =irst da+ or so 3e all %ointed to our countries. H+ t'e =i=t' da+ 3e 3ere a3are o= onl+ one (art'.e sho/ld treat her as o/r 0other.

ill9/l i)ages o9 resistance and str/ggle against partic/lar practices o9 do)ination> re.ith the te!tEN. Niet3scheans in pro)oting> as an alternati2e to Heideggerian 7elassenheit> the )ore Niet3schean 2ision o9 Bpla#ing .ers> E and .E . '. As :oucault sees it? t'e lessons Heidegger 3ould 'a8e us dra3 =ro0 Nietzsc'e t'ro3 us back to t'e %assi8e Cni'ilis0 o= e0%tinessE t'at Nietzsc'e =eared.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 2! :ile &itle #ink &urn A ritical &ec'nolog+ .> 21*.erg> p.'ile not %redicting t'e e0ergence o= better ti0es? :oucault tries to o==er a better (less passi2e> less ascetic* )odel =or re=or0ing our Cbackground %racticesE and =or culti8ating an a==ir0ati8e attitude to3ard li=e t'at 'e and ot'er neo4 Nietzsc'eans t'ink 0a+ be Cour onl+ c'ance to kee% =ro0 e)tinguis'ing li=e on eart' altoget'er.een Heidegger and 5o/ca/lt6 9or 5o/ca/lt> Heidegger takes ins/99icient acco/nt o9 the pla#9/l and e2en irre2erent ele)ents in Niet3sche and o9 Niet3scheVs critiA/e o9 the dangers o9 the ascetic ideal. 61 &'is conte)t4s%eci=ic? una0biguousl+ con=rontational nature o= :oucaultTs critiBue o= t'e =or0s o= do0ination and tec'nologies o= %o3er lodged in 0odern institutions o==ers a 0ore Nietzsc'e4like res%onse t'an t'e one Heidegger o==ers to t'e ni'ilistic %roble0s o= . 109> D/estia* d&h# a Bphilosophical shockER The ans. 5o/ca/lt Joins .et. 66 Here .ith other ne. HeideggerTs e0%'asis on CsilenceE as %ro%er to DaseinTs being> 'is =reBuent use o= Buasireligious (e2en Schopenha/erean* ter0s o= CgraceE and Ccall o= conscience? E 'is 0an+ re=erences to t'e destin+ o= t'e Ger0an Folk? 'is a8oidance o= %olitics and t'e serious CBuietisticE tone o= Heideggerian Gelassen'eit are all re0iniscent o= t'e li=e4den+ing ascetic ideal Nietzsc'e soug't to a8oid.e can take a critical relations'i% to 'u0an use o= tec'nolog+ and still act in t'e interests o= t'e a==.latant disregard 9or tradition (c9.e that 9ro) 5o/ca/ltVs perspecti2e> HeideggerTs insig't=ul reading o= Nietzsc'e and t'e %roble0 o= ni'ilis0 is itsel= too ascetic.e ha2e arri2ed at a ke# di99erence .ro9essor and chair o9 philosoph# at D/eens College o9 the CCNP> BNiet3sche> Heidegger> and 5o/ca/lt6 Nihilis) and He#ond>E 5o/ca/lt and Heidegger6 Critical nco/nters> d. Hicks 9 (Ste2en F. 6$ 6oreo8er? :oucault see0s to Ioin 3it' Derrida and ot'er Cneo4Nietzsc'eansE in regarding HeideggerTs idea o= Cletting Heing beEJ'is 8ision o= t'ose 3'o 'a8e le=t traditional 0eta%'+sics be'ind and 3it' it t'e obsession 3it' 0aster+ and tec'nolog+ t'at dri8es conte0%orar+ ci8ilizationJas too %assi8e or a%at'etic a res%onse to t'e legiti0ate %roble0s o= %ost4 Nietzsc'ean ni'ilis0 t'at HeideggerTs o3n anal+sis unco8ers .estern ci8ilization.ellion against B)icro-po.hich in 5o/ca/ltVs case )eans pro)/lgating acti2e and . .er> in part> )a# . Alan 0ilch)an and Alan =osen.> .

&'ere are ob8ious di==erences bet3een t'e 'orse4dra3n %lo3 and t'e tractor? t'e s%ear and t'e ato0 bo0b? t'e abacus and t'e co0%uter> the )o2a. o9 Heing as agent .# its link to Heing.s 9ro) the e2ol/tion o9 his position is not s/pported .e grant the correctness o9 HeideggerVs later 2ie. The part o9 the )odern philosophical tradition ste))ing 9ro) 'escartes can .a# to per9or) the sa)e or si)ilar tasks. H/t suc' distinctions are not )erel# a /seless 9inesseO the# are rat'er necessar+ in order to 0ake a c'oice o= t'e 0eans as a =unction o= t'e end in 8ie3.are posit> s/ch as the Cartesian cogito or the Kantian transcendental /nit# o9 apperception> and later as a social .I106K No.s o9 5ichte> Hegel> and 0ar!. o9 Heing as a theor# o9 technolog#> it does not 9ollo.et. ach pair ill/strates the di99erence .hilosoph#.hilosoph# T '/A/esne Cni2ersit#> 8n HeideggerVs Na3is) and .hat is concealedO /n9ort/natel#> Heidegger does not disclose his transh/)an concept o9 Heing as agent . HeideggerVs e!tension o9 his theor# o9 Heing to the pheno)enon o9 technolog# is pro.eing in the 2ie.n )erits. .ro9essor o9 .ackgro/nd o9 his position> and the correctness o9 his e!tension o9 his 2ie.Since 6ar)Ts %osition co0bines bot' 'u0an and trans'u0an conce%ts o= agenc+? Heidegger is incorrect to regard 'is o3n a%%eal to a trans'u0an =or0 o= agenc+ as an e)clusi8e alternati8e to ot'er 8ie3s o= tec'nolog+.een an earlier and a later ./t rather i)poses it /pon> technolog#.Jecti2it#> is an i)portant philosophical the)e. The chronologicall# later kinds o9 technolog# in these e!a)ples are also technologicall# )ore sophisticated and> in that sense> technologicall# )ore ad2anced. o9 Heing against the .hich acts in that it is desired. HeideggerTs nonant'ro%ological anal+sis o= tec'nolog+ di==ers in a =unda0ental 3a+ =ro0 t'e a8erage inter%retation o= tec'nolog+? 3'et'er as instru0ental or a%%lied science? 3'ic' %resu%%oses t'at tec'nolog+ +ields to an ant'ro%ological a%%roac'.eing.e /nderstood as an anal#sis o9 technological societ# in ter)s o9 a theor# o9 capital 9or)ation./ilds on and i)pro2es the per9or)ance o9 earlier t#pes o9 technolog#. Since Heidegger apparentl# conde0ns 0odern tec'nolog+ as s/ch> 'e does not> and in 9act is unable to? introduce suc' routine distinctions.# his anal#sis o9 technolog#.hich 9ollo. Pet Heideggerian and non4Heideggerian 8ie3s o= tec'nolog+ are not 0utuall+ e)clusi8e? but o8erla%. that .ithin the conte!t o9 his tho/ght o9 Heing is not necessaril# accepta. 24$> 1991* L0 Third? Heidegger e)aggerates t'e di==erences bet3een t'eories o= tec'nolog+ 3'ic' di==er not in kind? but in degree onl+.hile critici3ing its p/rported 9ail/re to s/.hilosoph# T '/A/esne Cni2ersit#> 8n HeideggerVs Na3is) and . Rock0ore $7 /To)> .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 27 :ile &itle No #ink A &ec'nolog+ Heidegger is unable to distinguis' bet3een =or0s o= tec'nolog+ due to a =la3ed t'eor+ o= agenc+. Toward Criticism of Heidegger’s )iew of Technology p. A re9erence to HeideggerVs and non-Heideggerian readings o9 technolog# as respecti2el# a/thentic and ina/thentic re9lects his con2iction that the e!cl/si2e a/thenticit# o9 his o. :n his later tho/ght> Heidegger rethinks Heing as an e2ent ( reignis * acting /pon /s> 9or instance as sending or granting 2ario/s capacities to art> technolog#> and so on. 5irst> t'ere is an e8ident inabilit+ to di==erentiate =or0s o= tec'nolog+. The pro. Heidegger Sderi8esS 'is understanding o= tec'nolog+ =ro0 'is understanding o= Heing? but 'e %ro8ides no reason to acce%t 'is 8ie3 o= tec'nolog+ as s/ch.ordinate the essence o9 )aterialis) to the histor# o9 .ith histor# .ith disclosing .le-t#pe printing press and the linot#pe )achine> and so on.hich Heidegger praises 9or its concern .e need accept his 2ie. :n each case> later technolog# .hen considered on its o. Heideggerian 8ie3s o= tec'nolog+ are not t'e onl+ alternati8e Rock0ore $7 /To)> . An e)a0%le is the stat/s o9 6ar)Ts t'eor+> . :n his earl# tho/ght> Heidegger /tili3es the concept o9 Heing as a pole o9 attraction> )/ch as the Aristotelian 7od> . The 2ie. 2en i9> 9or p/rposes o9 arg/)ent> .ro9essor o9 .ithin> . o9 technolog#. A line o9 arg/)ent accepta. Toward Criticism of Heidegger’s )iew of Technology p. HeideggerTs arbitrar+ conce%tion o= agenc+ leads to a nu0ber o= di==iculties in 'is understanding o= tec'nolog+.le . 0ar!Vs position is a 9or) o9 philosophical anthropolog# that can .n approach is g/aranteed . To p/t the sa)e point di99erentl#6 Heidegger holds that pheno)enolog# is concerned .le) o9 agenc#> or s/.le .e /nderstood as an ongoing e99ort to co)prehend the s/. A t'eor+ o= tec'nolog+ 0ust be able to distinguis' a0ong di==erent =or0s o= tec'nolog+. 6ar)Ts t'eor+ o= 0odern societ+ in %art relies on t'e ant'ro%ological %ers%ecti8e o= 'u0an acti8it+? and in %art relies on a trans%ersonal conce%t o= ca%ital as t'e agent o= ca%italis0. 244-"> 1991* L0 &'e 0ain de=ect o= HeideggerTs t'eor+ o= tec'nolog+ lies in 'is arbitrar+? unIusti=ied assu0%tion o= a %articular t'eor+ o= agenc+ as its basis.Ject> initiall# as a kind o9 episte)ological placeholder> an /lti)atel# .hilosoph#.le)atic.

Toward Criticism of Heidegger’s )iew of Technology p. Rock0ore $7 /To)> .ro9essor o9 . Technolog# pres/pposes a )/ltipl# deter)ined en2iron)ent> .le> it can onl# . &ec'nological ac'ie8e0ents need to be gras%ed in t'e 3ider conte)t in 3'ic' t'e+ arise.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 22 :ile &itle HeideggerGs 8ie3 o= tec'nolog+ is too narro3 A it is unable to understand t'e s%eci=ic =or0s o= tec'nological ac'ie8e0ent.hilosoph#. Heidegger is concerned .e . Heidegger o99ers /s a theor# o9 technolog# as s/ch./t he is a%%arentl+ unconcerned 3it' t'e 'istorical 0ani=estation o= tec'nological being.hilosoph# T '/A/esne Cni2ersit#> 8n HeideggerVs Na3is) and .e a technological no)inalist to hold that i9 an#thing like a general theor# o9 technolog# is possi. 246> 1991* L0 5i9th> HeideggerTs understanding o= tec'nolog+ is o8erl+ abstract. . 8ne does not need to .ased on the concrete anal#sis o9 speci9ic technological 9or)s. H/t t'ere is no tec'nolog+ in generalK t'ere are onl+ instantiations o= =or0s o= tec'nolog+> s/ch as those reA/ired to prod/ce stea) engines> lasers> s/personic airplanes> and so on.ith the histor# o9 ontolog#> .ith social> political> historical> and other co)ponents.

ring to 9ore> or . 5'ili%%iniana Sacra Fol. 211-212.:N:ANA SAC=A> Fol. 21.er'ece). .id. He hi)sel9 stated that technolog# is not the danger and that there is no de)onr# in technolog#.> p. CA=:f8. Heidegger does not o%%ose tec'nolog+? Iust Buestions t'e 3a+ it is e8aluated? as long as 3e can consider t'e 0eaning o= tec'nolog+ o= our o3n 0aking? 3e can a8oid t'e danger it %resents.0*? 1*%? CHeidegger and t'e Danger o= 6odern &ec'nolog+E? 200$? S6? accessed. &orld.er> 2009* not o%%ose tec'nolog+ and certainl+ 'e does not %ro%ose t'at 3e sli% back to t'e %ri0iti8e 3a+s o= t'e Neandert'al age. Hra2e Ne. Carieo 09 ONo8ito? 6entor ollege o= Arc'itecture Uni8ersit+ o= Santo &o0as.> p. 142 (Septe).H:L:. "4 As a thinker> HeideggerGs 0ain concern is to . ** Issue 192? %*$14.ithholds his attention 9ro) . 2+.es as the Binconspic/o/s state o9 a99airsOE "" 9or as long as 3e consider tec'nolog+ as so0et'ing neutral? t'en t'e essence o= tec'nolog+ and its danger s'all re0ain unkno3n to us.hat Heidegger descri. London6 Fintage> 200"> pp. SL:F> No.etter #et> to challenge> to s/. $02 L8F:T8 F. "1 TCT> :. !-2$-11P &'e bene=its o= 0odern tec'nolog+ can ne8er be o8erstated and Heidegger 'i0sel= is not discounting t'e0. Heidegger does "0 H/!le#> Aldo/s. 5or as long as )an .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant 2$ :ile &itle 5er0utation / ritical &ec'nolog+1 &'e 3orld o= tec'nolog+ can o%erate 3it'in HeideggerGs idea o= t'e alternati8e. "2 :. &'e surest 3a+ to 0iss t'e %oint o= Heidegger is to consider 'i0 as anti4tec'nolog+ .id.Ject to Buestion 0odern 0anGs see0ing =orget=ulness in t'e =ace o= t'e CdangerE %osed b+ 0odern tec'nolog+..

A %rag0atic relations'i% to tec'nolog+ c'ecks t'e link and sol8es t'e a==.le co))it)ents.oth tendencies are )ore e!tre)e or e!tra2agant than their policies reA/ire. 5or %rag0atis0 'as begun> possi. :t co/ld ne2er ha2e clai)ed s/ch an ad2antage earlier> had not the )ain e99orts o9 anal#tic and continental philosoph# perse2erated too long in their o.a#.org%inde!.hich it has shared a gathering sense o9 concept/al rigor. :n )# opinion> none o9 the three )o2e)ents )entioned (hardl# /ni9ied .2io/sl# 2/lnera.. . It =or0s> 9or that reason> a natural bridge bet3een anal+tic and continental %'iloso%'+? =or rigor is not in'erentl+ scientistic.e a to/ch o9 reportorial distortion in going .rag)atis)Gs Ad2antageE 2006> Te)ple Cni2ersit# http6%%. =ightl# percei2ed> prag)atis)Gs .le to sa# that prag)atis)Gs pro)ise at the present ti)e is a 9/nction o9 the 9atig/e o9 its principal co)petitors and o9 the econo)# and 9l/enc# .o/t a third career.ider /rocentric interest in its short second li9e> despite a distinctl# poor sho..ht)l* :t . Do Hot'.# .ith its opposition to the e!tre)e 9or)s o9 anal#tic scientis) .n con2iction.roadO and it . Still> .ell> o9 co/rse> ..e#ond these clichgsO .ell .e /nreasona.org%p/.o/ld not .ilit# o9 a rapproche)ent .lish%articles%000126%inde!.arsdisp/tandi.n li)itations or incorporate the .elie2e that the anal#sts are likel# to 9a2or scientis) and the continentals> to e!ceed the .e /nreasona.. 6argolis ! (Loseph> B.o/nds o9 nat/ralis)> and that . 9or a larger 2ent/re.etra#ing its o.hich it can coopt the principal strengths that re)ain attracti2e a)ong the )an# )o2e)ents o9 /rocentric philosoph#> . &e )a# e2en spec/late a.rag)atis) has perse2ered as .egan to attract a .ith .est 9eat/re lies .ithin the)sel2es* is separatel# likel# to o2ertake its o. At an# rate> it no3 counts as a distinctl+ strong constellation o= doctrines and strategies %otentiall+ ca%able o= contesting t'e 'ege0onies o= t'e da+J3it'in bot' t'e (nglis'4 language anal+tic 0o8e0ent o= t'e last 'al= o= t'e t3entiet' centur+ and t'e trailing =orces o= t'e Cartesian> Kantian> H/sserlian> and Heideggerean 0o8e0ents o= late continental (uro%e.itho/t .arsdisp/tandi.le to sa# that prag)atists .ing at ho)e.o/ld not . :n this 9airl# direct sense> prag)atis)Gs strength lies in the possi. There )a# ./t> risking that> it ./t it see)s poised no.est .ht)lR http6%%..ith .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant $0 :ile &itle 5er0utation /5rag0atis01 5er0utation. .ork o9 the others in a co)pelling .. :t .l# 9or the 9irst ti)e in its histor#> to be seriousl+ treated as a distinct alternati8e to A %ossibl+ 0ore t'an an alternati8e? %er'a%s a connecti8e tissue s%anning t'e great di8ide bet3een A anal+tic and continental %'iloso%'+.n concept/al space ? %rag0atis0 =a8ors a constructi8e realis0 dra3n in as s%are a 3a+ as %ossible =ro0 %ost4Kantian resources? =reed =ro0 e8er+ =or0 o= cogniti8e? rational? and %ractical %ri8ilege? o%%osed to i0agined necessities de re and de cogitatione? co00itted to t'e continuities o= ani0al nature and 'u0an culture? con=ined to t'e e)istential and 'istorical contingencies o= t'e 'u0an condition? and o%en in %rinci%le to %lural? %artial? %ers%ecti8ed? %ro8isional? e8en non4con8erging 3a+s o= understanding 3'at 0a+ be Iudged 8alid in an+ and e8er+ sort o= =actual and nor0ati8e regard.as> o9 co/rse> originall# a parochial s/ccess> tho/gh it did gain adherents a.a# o9 the QcorrectionsG )entioned.ithin its o.ith its post-Kantian ancestr# co/pled .

=ather> /nderstood .# )e).Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant $1 :ile &itle 5er0utation /5ositi8is01 5er0 sol8es A t'e ontolog+ o= %ositi8is0 is co0%le0entar+ to t'e kritik u%c'ik 1 (7erald . This enhanced inters/.e o.een descripti2e richness and e!peri)ental precision can . A s#)pathetic approach in2ol2es an e!pression o9 interest in the co))/nit# and a sincere desire to . (2001*6 D/alitati2e and D/antitati2e =esearch6 ConJ/nctions and 'i2ergences http6%%.ring acco/nts o9 social pheno)ena to progressi2el# greater le2els o9 clarit#. I42K Duantitati8e 0et'od can +ield insig'ts to t'e e)tent t'at e8ocati8e sti0uli design are %resented to rele8ant grou%s and t'e resulting statistical interactions 'el% tease out t'e underl+ing %rocesses. Sc'olars can a%%roac' t'is real 3orld eac' in t'eir o3n 3a+.er.asis 9or reconciling the pro. :9 . I40K Hot' t+%es o= sc'olars are selecti8e o= t'eir =acts and ulti0atel+ engage in acts o= construction.e applied to ..e /sed to e!ha/sti2el# tap all perspecti2es. Dualitati8e 0et'od s'ould not be seen as %ro8iding access to t'e S0eaningS o= indi8idual e8ents? te)ts> and so on.net%inde!.ro/ght )ore clearl# into 2ie.asis 9or XthickX description..ell represented.et.Jecti2it# pro2ides a . An e0%at'ic a%%roac' 3ould be one in 3'ic' an atte0%t is 0ade to understand t'ese %'eno0ena 'olisticall+ and =ro0 t'e %ers%ecti8e o= t'e %artici%ants . 5recision is gained but at t'e loss o= subtlet+. H/t i9 the in-depth e!a)ination o9 a pheno)enon helps clari9# patterns that lie .ithin the tradition o9 o.ser2ed and na)ed . This interpla# .ser2ation in nat/ral histor#> A/alitati2e )ethod pro2ides a .oro/gh 5DS Fol 2> No 1 9e.ith the other hand> as lenses 9oc/sed on the pheno)enon> is it . To the e!tent that the inter2ie.hen it 9oc/ses on e2ents or episodes in . H/t> to t'e e)tent t'at t'e sc'olar co0es =ro0 outside t'e co00unit+? t'ere 3ill be s%eculati8e lea%s in t'e searc' =or a co'erent account o= t'e %'eno0enon. I41K : ha2e arg/ed in this paper that the 9/nda)ental goal o9 social research sho/ld .ith its real pheno)ena. These real pheno)ena .er and the respondent share an ongoing re9erence point> it )akes it easier to locate the respondentVs concrete disco/rse in a )eaning9/l a.ork prod/cti2el# .# e!perienced or .ill ha2e co)ple)ented each other.iser people o9 good J/dg)ent.R I= our abstract conce%ts do not account =or %atterns in t'e li8ed43orld t'en our t'eories lack in 8alue? 'o3e8er t'e+ are deri8ed. onstructi8ist realis0 is an ontological %osition t'at acco00odates t'e best o= %ositi8is0 and inter%reti8is0.ithin it and these patterns are 9or)all# descri.. The A/estions asked are )ore li)ited and e!ternal to the social s#ste) and the Buantitati8e 0odels that are broug't to .ear are .php%9As%article%2ie. o9 the original pheno)enon.e to re2eal the processes that /nderlie o.le)atic o9 realis)-relati2is) in a Xgro/ndedX 9ashion (= NN: 199$O 199+O 2000*.ith an e!tended ar) and interpose o/r theoretical acco/nts .e hold the real social pheno)enon in one hand .ill ha2e done their d/t#O richness and precision .stract theoretical conte!t o9 interest to the inter2ie. This rich so/rce o9 data is )ost prod/cti2e .oth kinds o9 constr/ctions.hich the pheno)enon in A/estion is . The sa)e criterion o9 2al/e can .ro9 at C o9 Toronto Scar. Hot' begin 3it' a concrete 3orld and ste% into anot'er 3orld o= abstraction ./t a pale shado.1* I44K .ser2ed social pheno)ena. Statisticall+ signi=icant e==ects can dra3 our attention to sociall+ 0eaning=ul e8ents 3'ic' are t'en re4e)a0ined in descri%ti8e de%t'. Social %'eno0ena are 0ultila+ered e8ents as is t'e inBuiring 0ind o= t'e social scientist.ers o9 the nat/ral co))/nit#> and /nderstood .%96+%2112* THC 1%+%10 onstructi8ist Realis0 is there9ore a position .A/alitati2eresearch.hich ackno3ledges t'at social %'eno0ena e)ist in co00unities Buite inde%endentl+ o= %ro=essional researc'ers .ill . :t is here that a A/alitati2e )ethod can .ed> then the A/alitati2e and A/antitati2e approaches . &oget'er? Bualitati8e and Buantitati8e 0et'ods %ro8ide co0%le0entar+ 8ie3s o9 the pheno)ena and e99orts at achie2ing their reconciliation can el/cidate processes /nderl#ing the).

een arg/ed that in9or)ation recentl# )ade a2aila. Pet 'e see0s una3are t'at e8en t'e decision to listen to nature in a su%%osedl+ non8iolent 0anner consists in i0%osing an inter%retati8e =ra0e3ork u%on it.arthe> 'errida> Ho/rdie/> Sch. t'at Heidegger =a8ors 3ould reBuire t'e abandon0ent o= 0ore =a0iliar =or0s o= tec'nolog+? 3'ic' are dee%l+ e0bedded in 0odern industrial societ+. Second> t'e issues %osed b+ HeideggerTs un%recedented turn to Nazis0 on %'iloso%'ical grounds > and the .lications . Altho/gh it )ight .een recei2ed in the disc/ssion o9 his tho/ght> %oint be+ond 'is %osition to raise Bueries about t'e nature o= %'iloso%'+ and e8en t'e res%onsibilit+ o= intellectuals . 2er#thing a. His ad0irers are blinded and a radical break is needed A t'atGs t'e %er0utation.een )aintained that HeideggerVs onl# pro. HeideggerVs o. :t has .ord> serious stud+ o= HeideggerTs t'oug't can no longer e8ade t'e t'e0e o= HeideggerVs Nazis0.ed as da)age control on the part o9 his )ost 9er2ent ad)irersNthose 9or .een Heidegger the thinker and Heidegger the )an> 9or the 9or)er cannot .hat can charita. Altho/gh art on occasion relies on 9or)s o9 technolog#> 9or instance in the casting necessar# to create a .ottle> to de9lect attention a.Ject to disp/te.`ggeler> 0arten> .ell as a lack o9 insight into its philosophical signi9icance.een reali3ed that HeideggerTs Nazis0 raises i0%ortant 0oral and %olitical issues t'at cannot si0%l+ be e8aded and t'at 0ust be =aced as %art o= t'e continuing %rocess o= deter0ining 3'at is li8e and 3'at is dead in HeideggerTs t'oug't. o9 the present st/d# is that all o9 t'e abo8e clai0s about t'e relation o= HeideggerTs t'oug't and 'is Nazis0 are =alse. :t is not inacc/rate to sa# that as a res/lt o9 recent disc/ssion> at least t.le i9 to do so reA/ires one to a. :t has .as not a Na3i> or at least not in an# ordinar# sense. #ntroduction p.e ignored.as alread# kno.hilosoph# T '/A/esne Cni2ersit#> 8n HeideggerVs Na3is) and . :t has .le) cannot si)pl# .# 5arias and 8tt raise this iss/e in a .ro9essor o9 .an> Lanica/d> ?i))er)an> &olin> Tho)]> etc.ing in the sand on a .ith technolog# o9 an# kind> s/ch as dra.rong> or at least none o9 lasting conseA/ence 9or his tho/ghtNas .e )/st di99erentiate .g. Toward Criticism of Heidegger’s )iew of Technology p.een held that e2er#thing that Heidegger e2er did or .2io/s o. Attention 9oc/sed on HeideggerVs Na3i inclinations . &'e %er0 is t'e onl+ 3a+ to sol8e A HeideggerGs alternati8e doesnGt necessitate e)clusion usage o= 0odern tec'nolog+? 3'ic' is needed to sol8e societal %roble0s. &o return to so0et'ing like the 7reek 2ie.l# .each.hilosoph# T '/A/esne Cni2ersit#> 8n HeideggerVs Na3is) and . Rock0ore $7 /To)> .h# it has not .a# the the)e has .rote . too late to p/t the genie .a# that in good 9aith cannot si)pl# .holl# i))ersed in it> at the e!tre)e onl+ a true belie8er co00itted to 'is 8ision? could %ossibl+ understand it.et. and .eakness o9 conte)porar# tho/ght.hilosoph#.een asserted that it is philosophicall# insigni9icant> since the str/ggle concerning Heidegger is )erel# s#)pto)atic o9 a .ron3e stat/e> t#pes o9 art entirel# dispense .e descri. Since t'e ca%acities to =eed and clot'e t'e %o%ulation de%end on 0odern tec'nolog+? 3ere one to take seriousl+ HeideggerTs tec'nological 8ision? 3ere one to atte0%t to %ut it into %ractice? 0odern li=e as 3e kno3 it 3ould 'a8e to be abandoned. The 2ie.ro9essor o9 .e J/dged in relation to the latter. HeideggerVs s/ggestion o9 a 9or) o9 the 7reek concept o9 art as an alternati2e to )odern technolog# is /nsatis9actor#.ack in the . Uet i= it can onl+ be co0%re'ended b+ a StrueS belie8er? t'en HeideggerTs Nazis0 is be+ond criticis0 or e2al/ation o9 an# kind> since no StrueS belie8er 3ill criticize it.Jection is that technolog# is not art.een s/ggested that .e desira.ith all the serio/sness o9 the pro9essional scholar> in a .* has created a )o)ent/) o9 its o.eco)e clear6 5irst> the pro. :t has .a# recalling )an# a theological disp/te> t'at HeideggerTs t'oug't is so di==icult t'at onl# one .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant $2 :ile &itle 5er0utation Net4Hene=it /Nazis01 5er0 do bot'? 3it' recognition o= HeideggerGs Nazis0 A bringing it to lig't is a %rereBuisite =or t'e kritik to sol8e.le is not ne. :t has .o things ha2e . :t has . The reasons incl/de the relati2e s/ccess at . 2-4> 1991* L0 Since a relation bet3een HeideggerTs t'oug't and 'is Nazis0 'as been kno3n =or 0ore t'an 'al= a centur+> one )/st ask . 5/rther> Heidegger gi8es no indication t'at 'e 'as e8er considered t'e ob8ious social cost necessar+ to realize 'is idea o= tec'nolog+. It is not t'e case t'at t'e alternati8e consists in a c'oice bet3een a tec'nological e)%lanator+ 0atri) or none at all since to decide 9or the latter is to e99ect a choice.n to an# serio/s st/dent.as sorr#> that he ne2er e!c/sed hi)sel9 or asked 9or 9orgi2eness.een clai)ed that Heidegger .# 5arias> 8tt> and others (e.n. H/t the recent disc/ssion has pro2ided s/stained attention to the series o9 iss/es s/rro/nding HeideggerVs tho/ght and politics.ho) he can apparentl# do no . The o. :t has .eginning in 1944> i= one =ails to take into account 'is Nazis0.le to co)prehend nat/re . :n a .itho/t 2iolence> this is clearl# not possi.hilosoph#. .o/t this relation is s/.le) it 'as been 0aintained .een st/died earlier in greater depth.> . Rock0ore $7 /To)> .as that he ne2er said he .a# 9ro) this relation> since the p/. :t is no. &'ere is so0et'ing 8er+ uto%ian about suc' an idea.e denied since one can no longer e8en %retend to understand HeideggerTs %'iloso%'+> certainl# .as Na3i to the core. 244> 1991* L0 Heidegger is correct in sa#ing that a co))it)ent to technolog# tends to di2ert attention 9ro) .andon an# str/ct/re o9 interpretation.hat is not technologicall# /se9/l. 5inall#> Sheehan> Fietta> Laco/e-La.n interpretati2e str/ct/re is clearl# e2ident in his constant reco/rse to the categories o9 Heing.

e said to ha2e had a proJect to shape h/)an li9e.hich the Qha/ling o/t o9 coal and oreV is s/.Jects 9or h/)an /se and e!ploitation. Hut t'e+ %oint to a 3a+ o= t'inking t'at ga8e an autono0+ to tec'niBue t'at 'as =ear=ul 0oral conseBuences 3'ic' 3e are li8ing 3it' t'ese da+s in t'e na0e o= t'e sacred? a %'raseolog+ t'at Heidegger 3ould =ind 8er+ congenial 3ere 'e ali8e toda+.ho .elie9 in indi2id/al 9reedo) and ignoring his hatred o9 the 5rench =e2ol/tion and its egalitarian> VherdV-like de)ocrac# o9 the VThe#V> it is .ed to its logical and cr/del# pri)iti2istic concl/sions> =inall+ de8ol8es into a dark reactionis0 A and a %aral+zing Buietis0.orld into . Th/s> 3'en Heidegger %raises a 3ind0ill> in contrast to the VchallengeV to a tract o9 land 9ro) .ho still tried to no/rish their past a)idst the .hich Heidegger treated h/)anit#Vs V5allV into technological Qina/thenticit#G @ a Q5allG that he> like ll/l> regarded as ine2ita.. :or i= our con=rontation 3it' ci8ilization turns on %assi8it+ be=ore a .alr/s i2or# he is car2ing.ia.e . Heidegger ad8ances a 0essage o= %assi8it+ or %assi8it+ concei8ed as a 'u0an acti8it+? an endea8or to let t'ings be and TdiscloseT t'e0sel8es./rg /pon HitlerVs ascent to po..e seen )ore as a )atter o9 )etaph#sics than o9 a spirit/all# charged techniA/e.e )/st 9orgo 9or the present in the conte!t o9 a criticis) o9 technopho.ringing o/tV a hidden 9or) that lies in the .ro9essor at =a)apo College> 199$ I=e-enchanting H/)anit#> p. Heidegger is concerned 3it' a 3ind0ill? not as an ecological tec'nolog+? but 0ore 0eta%'+sicall+ 3it' t'e notion t'at Tits sails do indeed turn in t'e 3indK t'e+ are le=t entirel+ to t'e 3indTs blo3ingT.as .G22 His )ost /nsa2or# re)arks .# technolog# and .hich he .elie2ed e!isted in the r/stic .ith Qthe 7odsG> and .ris> anthropocentricit#> and the )echanical coercion o9 things into )ere o.s on technolog# are part o9 a larger . Not /nlike )an# 7er)an reactionaries> Heidegger 8ie3ed L0odernit+T 3it' its de0ocratic s%irit? rationalis0? res%ect =or t'e indi8idual? and tec'nological ad8ances as a T=allingT #$efallen% =ro0 a %ri0al and nai8e innocence in 3'ic' 'u0anit+ once Td3elled?G re)nants o9 .eltanscha//ng .el2e #ears later> 'is anti'u0anis0 reac'ed strident> o9ten .ith later peoples .hole real) 9or the essence o9 technolog# .# A)erica and =/ssia that threaten to sA/ee3e Vthe 9arther)ost corner o9 the glo.ill open itsel9 /p to /s.eit a )etaph#sical> night)are .eings Vina/thenticV in their relationship to a pres/)a.al 7er)ans .hich is too )/lticolored to disc/ss here> and de)ands a degree o9 interpreti2e e99ort .a# in . . TAgriculture is no3 a 0otorized #motorsierte% =ood industr+? in essence t'e sa0e as t'e 0anu=acturing o= cor%ses in t'e gas c'a0bers and e)ter0ination ca0%s?T 'e coldl+ obser8ed? Tt'e sa0e as t'e blockade and star8ation o= t'e countr+side? t'e sa0e as t'e %roduction o= t'e '+drogen bo0bs. The indi2id/al .orld o9 the tri.a#s> it .ho retained their ties .er> 'e readil+ ado%ted t'e &uehrer4 %rinci%le o= Ger0an =ascis0 and pre9erred the title Re%tor-.V> against Vthe pincersV created .orld.l# appointed as the rector o9 the Cni2ersit# o9 5rei.# 9oc/sing on his ass/)ed . :ndeed> tec'no%'obia> 9ollo.latantl# reactionar# proportions.eneath conte)pt.e.hich gi2e rise to a )ood o9 an!iet# and 9inall# h/. H/t this iss/e )/st . VA/thenticit#V> it can .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant $9 :ile &itle &ec'nolog+ Good /5olitics1 HeideggerGs %'iloso%'+ 'as 0oral conseBuences and leads to %aral+sis A It Iusti=ies sitting back and allo3ing =or t'e Holocaust 3'ile criticizing t'e tec'nolog+ used to kill t'e Ne3s Hookc'in $.ere directed in the lect/res> 9ro) .a# o9 re2ealing. :9 . VThe 9ate o9 o/r Folk ) its state co/nts 9or e2er#thing. 16+-110K =ein* X:nso9ar as Heidegger can .hich Heidegger rolls o/t technolog#Vs trans9or)ations> indeed )/tations> .hich these lines are taken> V9ro) a )etaph#sical point o9 2ie.uhrer? 'ailing t'e s%irit o= National Socialis0 as an antidote to Tt'e darkening o= t'e 3orld? t'e =lig't o= t'e gods? t'e destruction o= t'e eart' Ob+ tec'nolog+P? t'e trans=or0ation o= 0en into a 0ass? t'e 'atred and sus%icion o= e8er+t'ing =ree and creati8e.not /nlike the ski)o sc/lptor .hat he concei2ed to he an all-encroaching technocratic )entalit# and ci2ili3ation that rendered h/)an .lighted traits o9 the )odern .(0/rra#> 5o/nder o9 the :nstit/te 9or Social colog# and 5or)er .G 40 A9ter . HeideggerVs 2ie.e gi2e heed to this> then another . Su==ice it to sa+ t'at t'ere is a good deal o= %ri0iti8istic ani0is0 in HeideggerTs treat0ent o= t'e Tre8ealingT t'at occurs 3'en techne is a TclearingT =or t'e Te)%ressionT o= a cra=ted 0aterial .G92 In %lacing t'e industrial means b+ 3'ic' 0an+ Ne3s 3ere killed be=ore t'e ideological ends t'at guided t'eir Nazi e)ter0inators? Heidegger essentiall+ dis%laces t'e barbaris0 o= a s!ecific state a%%aratus? o= 3'ic' 'e 3as a %art? b+ t'e tec'nical %ro=icienc+ 'e can attribute to the 'orld at large( These i))ensel# re2ealing o99handed re)arks> dra. Ne.itho/t an# philosophical 9rills> la# in the pristine Te/tonic . Since so)e a/thors tr# to )/dd# HeideggerVs prelapsarian )essage .Jected? 'e is not being TecologicalT..le> al. T#etting t'ings beT 3ould be little 0ore t'an a trite 6aoist and Hudd'ist %rece%t 3ere it not t'at Heidegger as a National Socialist beca0e all too ideologicall+ engaged? rat'er t'an Tletting t'ings beT? 3'en 'e 3as busil+ undoing Tintellectualis0?T de0ocrac+? and tec'nological inter8ention into t'e T3orldT.hich he .# hi)sel9 co/nts 9or nothingV> he declared a9ter .eco)ing a )e).orth e)phasi3ing that s/ch a 2ie.rongl#> : )a# add* that he is V. Considering the ti)e> the place> and the a.stract .ell as )etaph#sicall# @ into Buietis0.V22 As a 0e0ber o= t'e Nazi %art+> .V29 Technolog#> as Heidegger constr/es it> is Vno )ere )eans. :t is the real) o9 re2ealing> i.ithers ) the light o9 his denial o9 indi2id/alit#.orn a cent/r# ago. Hasicall#> t'is inter%retation o= a tec'nological interrelations'i% re=lects a regression . Technolog# is a .hich he re)ained /p to the de9eat o9 7er)an# t.l# sel9-generati2e realit#> VisnessV> or )ore esotericall#> VHeingV *Sein+. &'e 3ind0ill Tdoes not unlock energ+ =ro0 t'e air currents? in order to store itT.91 #ike 0an in relation to Heing? it is a 0ediu0 =or t'e TrealizationT o= 3ind? not an arti=act =or acBuiring %o3er.sociall# and ps#chologicall# as .it is not 'ard to see 3'+ 'e could tri8ialize t'e Holocaust? 3'en 'e deigned to notice it at all? as %art o= a tec'no4industrial LconditionG.n 9ro) a speech he ga2e in Hre)en ) 19"9> are .elie2es (A/ite . econo)ic e!ploitation.e said .er o9 the National Socialist part# in 1944.as as an endea2or to resist> or sho/ld : sa#> de)/r 9ro)> .> o9 tr/th. ..

o/ld ha2e to sho. .ing that o/r 2ie.e certainl# do* it is that Heidegger helps /s to see ho.hich tho/ght arises o/t o9 prod/ction is t/rned to.e sense a Xpro.ill ne2er satis9# the de)ands o9 e2er#da# politics and )oralit#O 9or that direction consists in the li)ited e!tent to . : a) th/s s/ggesting that no eraGs t'inking and %ractice is so =inite and sel=4contained t'at it can be 3'oll+ sta0%ed b8 tec'nolog+ and t'at 3e do not 'a8e to recur to Heideggerian being to see t'e li0its o= t'e sta0%.# . &'ere is not'ing 0ore tec'nological t'an t'e idea t'at a 0eta%'+sical tradition 4 so0e rational s+ste0 could 3'oll+ sta0% an age and its %ractical li=e.lindnesses o9 political li9e.oth rare and el/si2e.le) o9 Technolog#6 An ssa# on Heidegger and the Tradition o9 .le)s .e an#thing to Heidegger (and .le) o technolog# is )ost 9/ll# /nderstood . .olitical Science T 0ichigan State Cni2ersit#> B.o/ld ha2e to see that ho.ell @ t'e c'oice bet3een su%%orting barbaris0 and enlig'tened 'u0anis0 'as no et'ical =oundations to sustain it.a# o9 )aking and kno.le)X . l a) s/ggesting that the pro.# sho.e .arO and the latter te)pts /s to the sg/rio/s disconnectedness o9 these sa)e pheno)ena.idest opening o9 o/r e#es can c/re the ./t the political pro. And .est the 2er# so/rce o9 this contention.oth anticipator# resol/teness and 7elassenheit do J/st this6 the 9or)er te)pts /s to a sp/rio/s /nit# o9 s/ch things as .ard a )#sterio/s .o/ld arg/e that . &ec'nolog+ could> o9 co/rse> si)pl# destro# the nat/ral so/l .ea/ti9/l things that are in essence .e den# this at o/r peril> perhaps 3e need onl+ relearn 'o3 to look rig't under our noses.olitical .le pree)inence. H/t i= 3e need =urt'er %roo= t'at t'e 'o0el+ %roble0s o= %olitical li=e Iust 3ill not go a3a+ > that there reall# are not that )an# o9 the)> and that . that s/ch contention is possi. Nat/re> as : propose to think a.o/ld ha2e to sho.orld> to order the others.o/t .ork> tho/ght> and .le 9ro) tt-Vct)e and peicsis. &'is is? 'o3e8er? Iust 3'at HeideggerGs account o= tec'nolog+ 3ould 'a8e us belie8e./lar# as .cario/s. &ec'nolog+ cannot o8ertake t'e entiret+ o= t'e s%ecies as Heidegger 3ould 'a8e us belie8e A 'e cedes t'e %olitical? 3'ic' is a necessar+ and una8oidable =acet o= 'u0an beings t'at leads us to =inding t'e greater good.le and .olitical Science =e2ie. that Heideggerian being? 3'ic' grants a causeless and StacticalS %la+ o= its do0ains? cannot account =or t'e genuine gra8it+ o= %olitical li=e4=or 'o3 t'e ele0ents o= e)%erience contend against eac' ot'er? as 3e see in t'e c'allenge o= t'oug't to =ait'? t'e tension bet3een %ri8ate and %ublic li=e? t'e con=licts bet3een 0oralit+ and %olitics? t'e di==erence bet3een t'e good and t'e Iust? and so on.e#ond the con.ill reA/ire /s to ad)it that 3e cannot esca%e t'e Buestion o= t'e 'ig'est good and t'at 3'ile neit'er %olitics nor Iustice is t'at 'ig'est good? 3e cannot t'ink it a%art =ro0 t'e 0oral de0ands =or Iustice t'at =ra0e %olitical li=e and an+ Buestioning about being and the so/l.Jects o9 the so/lVs desire> the no. H/t i9> in grasping technolog#> .er> t'e Heideggerian atte0%t to gras% t'e c'aracter o= t'oug't and art results in an eBuall+ e)traordinar+ obtuseness to3ard t'e nature o= %olitical li=e R : .e .a#s pre.est to see /n.ph#sics .> 1992*> pp.hich has slipped into deep ecolog#Gs 2oca./t it co/ld ne8er 3'oll+ sta0% t'e 'u0an s%ecies because it cannot su%%l+ all o= t'e needs t'at t'e soul 'as s%ontaneousl+ (or . Fol.ing a.ords> . &ec'nolog+ is indeed a danger t'at sa8es. ? Is it th/s %ossible t'at Heideggerian being is itsel= a danger o= tec'nolog+? 3'ic' al3a+s (like )oralit#* te0%ts us 8ainl+ to tr+ to Iu0% out o= our %olitical skinsQ 0# arg/)ent is that i= 3e o3n u% to 3'at it 0eans to be 'u0an? t'e ans3er is a pro2isional +es.hilosoph#E> The A)erican .# its 2er# nat/re clai)s an a/thorit#> .einberger $2 /Lerr#> .e can choose against Heidegger onl# .hen .e disco2er that not the sta)p o9 )eta.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 USS Reliant $* :ile &itle Ldisclosing o= HeingG? a 0ere Ld3ellingG on t'e eart'? and a Lletting t'ings beG > to /se HeideggerGs 2er. ln thinking a.le onl# inso9ar as their ele)ents are related ca/sall# and hierarchicall#> so that each . technolog# t/rns /s a. :reed o= 8alues grounded in obIecti8it+? 3e are lost in a Buasi4religious anti'u0anis0? a s%iritualit+ t'at can 3it' t'e sa0e eBuani0it+ 'ear t'e cr+ o= a bird and ignore t'e anguis' o= si) 0illion once4li8ing %eo%le 3'o 3ere %ut to deat' b+ t'e National Socialist state.ithin political li9e and to resist the dog)atic partisanship that is insepara.E : s/spect that s/ch a t/rn .# nat/re*> s/ch as the desire 9or no.iage @ )/ch o9 .hole and is al.o/t )odern technolog#-its tendenc# to den# the o.e#ond an# proJect 9or conA/est. 1 (0ar.ithin . &e .h/)an or godlikeO . inclines /s .e approach it thro/gh the old-9ashioned A/estion o9 nat/ral J/stice that transcends an# gi2en political con2entions.ro9essor o9 .tingencies o9 an# gi2en . And #et HeideggerVs acco/nts o9 7estcll and Hest)td do help /s to think a.a# 9ro) Heidegger.o/t technolog#> .ing> . :s it possi.# )aking it either s/.linkingl# the 9iss/res .oth )aking and kno. 112-121* L0 :n other . : ConseA/entl#> the harder technolog# presses> the )ore intensel# .o/t it> is .hat is so dist/r.ro. it co0%els us to t'ink ane3 about t'e 0eaning o= nature. H/t : a) also s/ggesting that s/ch direction as nat/re gi2es to o/r groping 9or J/stice .olitics and the .le that 9or all its e!traordinar# po. All this is to sa# that .e o.hich the . +6> No.ing are e2en at their .e2er )/ch the 9act o9 s/ch contention calls 9orth o/r e99orts to o2erco)e it ./t necessar# .ith it.

S/. =ather> : .ook The l/si2e D/est> signaling the pro9o/nd disill/sion)ent o9 )ainstrea) := .hen the# 9ail to artic/late their episte)ological ass/)ptions clearl# or at all.ach e99ecti2el# laid the in9l/ence o9 the dog)atic . :ndeed> the 9irst error is greatl# enco/raged .l# going to .# the second> since .tless> there are so)e .een a thing o9 the past./t conte)porar# neo-positi2ists are> : .ases or pre)ises.o/ld s/ggest that the e!isting de.stanti2e theoretical and e)pirical clai)s> 20 rather than /lti)atel# /nresol2a. =ather than 9oc/sing on episte)olog#> it is ine2ita.ate is sterile and /nprod/cti2e in the sense that the 2ario/s schools o9 tho/ght ha2e )/ch )ore in co))on than the# s/pposeO stated )ore speci9icall#> postpositi2ists ha2e )/ch )ore in co))on than the# .ases or i)plications o9 o/r acti2it#.o/ld s/rel# .o/ld s/ggest> co))itted to the 9ollo.l# reA/ire a ne. Too o9ten> 19 consideration o9 these core iss/es is reser2ed 9or (and largel# 9orgotten a9ter* the introd/ctor# .hich are especiall# radical or hard to de9end6 (1* that e)%laining and-or understanding t'e social and %olitical 3orld oug't to be our central obIecti8eO (2* that .e possi.# . .e pro.ositi2is) Q2sG . . o9 := at CC5> .e dee)ed incorrect .a. The recent e)phasis on episte)olog# has helped to p/sh := as a discipline 9/rther and 9/rther a.atrick Ass.o/ld e2er .ere it to .olitics (200+* "$* THC 1%+%10 As long ago as 19+1> Pale 5erg/son and =ichard 0ans.o/ld not . ter) to co2er the).hat di2ide the co))/nit# o9 international relations scholars toda#. The pop/larit# o9 the QnaW2eG 9or) o9 positi2is)> .l#> ho.ledge> o/ght to .o/ld like to think . o9 ine!ora.ar*. &riting in 19+9> Tho)as Hiersteker noted that Bthe 2ast )aJorit# o9 scholarship in international relations (and the social sciences 9or that )atter* proceeds .o/t the 9o/ndations o9 kno. 5ost0odernists 'ence do t'e disci%line so0et'ing o= an inIustice 3'en t'e+ continue to attack t'e o8erl+ o%ti0istic and dog0atic =or0 o= %ositi8is0 as i= it still re%resented a do0inant ort'odo)+ 3'ic' 0ust so0e'o3 be o8ert'ro3n.e )ore 9r/it9/l to s/.'at re0ains is a con8iction t'at t'ere are at least so0e e0%irical %ro%ositions 3'ic' can be de0onstrabl+ s'o3n to be LtrueG or Q9alseG> so0e underl+ing regularities 3'ic' clearl+ gi8e s'a%e to international relations (s/ch as the proposition that de)ocracies do not 9ight one another*O (4* that care=ul use o= a%%ro%riate 0et'odological tec'niBues can establis' 3'at %atterns e)ist in the political . Astronoetics 5ositi8is0 Good /5olitics1 5ositi8is0 is best A sel= correcting and it uses obser8able regularities to in=or0 action A =ocus on e%iste0olog+ causes a retreat =ro0 %olic+ rele8ance Houg'ton 2 ('a2id .e#ond the scope o9 this article> .ser2ation @ .# positi2ists (o9 all )etatheoretical stripes* and postpositi2ists to the cold light o9 da#.ish to /se the ter) Vpositi2is)V as an /).ho act/all# practice international relations.ost)odernis)6 'oes piste)olog# 0ake a 'i99erenceR :nternational . There is also a general con2iction ($* that care=ul use o= researc' design 0a+ 'el% researc'ers a8oid logical %it=alls in t'eir 3ork. .ho .le disp/tes a. 'o/.e )ade toda#.ing 9i2e ass/)ptions> none o9 .a# 9ro) the concerns o9 those .hich case . &hat : a) s/ggesting is not that international relations sc'olars s'ould ignore %'iloso%'ical Buestions> or that s/ch Qna8el gazingG is al3a+s un%roducti8e? =or Buestions o= e%iste0olog+ surel+ undergird e8er+ 8ision o= international relations t'at e8er e)isted .ed to a 2ie.rella ter) 9or these 9i2e ass/)ptions> in .e do not o9ten engage in serio/s re9lection on the philosophical .Ject the s/. H/t to the e!tent that there e!ists an Vorthodo!#V in the 9ield o9 :nternational =elations toda#> this is s/rel# it.eeks o9 reA/ired concepts and )ethods co/rses> as .e sociali3e st/dents into the pro9essionE (Hiersteker> 19+9*.itho/t conscio/s re9lection on its philosophical . Artic/lating a 9/ll list o9 these ass/)ptions lies . (8en so0e sc'olars 3'o %ro=ess regret at t'e %'iloso%'icall+ sel=4regarding nature o= conte0%orar+ o= IR t'eor+ ne8ert'eless =eel co0%elled to de8ote 'uge c'unks o= t'eir 3ork to e%iste0ological issues be=ore getting to 0ore substanti8e 0atters (see 9or instance &endt> 1999*.hat the# stand 9or> neo-positi2ists ha2e allo.e .ed %ost0odernists to =as'ion a series o= 1+ stra3 0en 3'ic' burn ra%idl+ at t'e slig'test touc'. This o.le (5erg/son and 0ans.ide-e#ed scholars d/ring the 1960s> has long . A/all#> s/pporters o9 the conte)porar# or Vneo-V 2ersion o9 positi2is) per9or) a si)ilar disser2ice .ith the positi2ists the# seek to conde)n.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010 USS4Reliant $.eha2io/ralis) o9 the 1960s to rest in their .oth constit/te 2alid and interesting 9or)s o9 enA/ir#. &'e conseBuent decline in t'e %olic+ rele8ance o= 3'at 3e do? and our retreat into %'iloso%'ical sel=4doubt? is ironic gi8en t'e roots o= t'e =ield in 8er+ %ractical %olitical concerns ()ost nota.orld> e2en i9 these patterns are /lti)atel# transitor# and historicall# contingentO ("* that %ositi8e and nor0ati8e Buestions? t'oug' related? are ulti0atel+ se%arable> tho/gh .le scienti9ic progress and s/pposedl# practiced .hile acc/rate at the ti)e @ . :n pro9essional )eetings> lect/res> se)inars and the design o9 c/rric/la> .ach> 19++*.stanti2e or ontological clai)s )ade .ro9.subIecti8e t'oug' our %erce%tions o= t'e 3orld 0a+ be 4 0an+ =eatures o= t'e %olitical 3orld are at least %otentiall+ e)%lainable. to a2oid . ConseA/entl#> to t'e e)tent t'at t'ere is a 0eaning=ul dialogue going on 3it' regard to e%iste0ological Buestions? it 'as no real i0%act on 3'at 3e do as sc'olars 3'en 3e look at t'e 3orld Lout t'ereG.ith the idea that a c/)/lati2e science o9 international relations .# 9ailing to state .

eing* to the ontic (the do)ain o9 the Seienden or .le.eingX I : $1K.ing ethics as a X)eontolog#X IKearne# 61K> #e8inas argues t'at its o%enness to t'e ot'er is %rior to ontolog+Ts closure u%on itsel=. :t is not that HeideggerTs ru%ture 3it' .eing-. the original 'e lVe!istence appeared in a co2er on . <nl+ in t'e 0ost %ractical and 0undane o= obligations to t'e ot'er is ontolog+ rendered et'ical and 'u0ane. This horror in2oked . 8nl# in the ethical relation o9 t./t that it did not go 9ar eno/gh.ith Heideggerian ang/ish .ilit# 9or the other> .ithin a her)ene/tic circle .eing and .lace in the S/nX =e9lections 8n The Tho/ght 89 ))an/el Le2inas 'iacritics 26. &o 0aster oneTs o3n relation to being 0eans to 0aster oneTs o3n relation to anot'er6 X'aseinVs /nderstanding o9 .s/)e their indi2id/al na)es .e con9/sed .eing-.eing is .t>V is said to contain . Ho.e-ing and #et nearer than an# . =ather> 'is e0%'asis on t'e %assage =ro0 t'e bare 0eaning o= itre or e)istence to lVgtant or e!istent gropes to3ard 3'at =inall+ co0es to signi=+ t'e et'ical > .o> and .onders Le2inas> can 9/nda)ental ontolog# e). #e8inas critiBues t'is notion o= 6iteinandersein =or de%icting t'e sel= and t'e ot'er as related side b+ side> 0ediated t'roug' a t'ird co00on ter044t'e trut' o= being ITA 1+-19K.ords X.e9ore death> or care 9or .# the priorit# o9 the participial .er den H/)anis)/s*> p/.eing and .ithin the deno)ination o9 XCo))itteeX in de9erence to the indi2isi. :n2oking the .ith no third ter)> no e!ternal a/thorit#.eca/se its .et.ithX IS? 1.1 (1996* 4-10 .hich had .eing> is redee)ed onl# .oth 9arther a.as displa#ed .".estern 0eta%'+sics thro/gh 9/nda)ental ontolog# .o/t the one .ith-one-other> is a .riters s/.ar# o9 that de.o can the sel9 enco/nter the other i))ediatel# .# the e!istent> or .itho/t reco/rse to an anon#)o/s and 9aceless collecti2it#.ork presented Le2inasian Scholars X0# .j2K.lace in the S/nX =e9lections 8n The Tho/ght 89 ))an/el Le2inas 'iacritics 26. It is not t'at #e8inas retreats =ro0 t'e ontological (the do)ain o9 Sein or .e#ond . As Heidegger o.eg the A/estion IS? inleit/ng 1.et.# the title o9 Le2inasVs .ilit# o9 the .eing and that e2il is a pri2ation o9 the good> insisting that e2il itsel9 is a positi2e )ode o9 .here it is not a A/estion o9 an!iet#X I : "1K.lished in 19"1> in ./t as the 9/nda)ental possi. :t us'ered in a %'iloso%'+ o= identit+ based on bonds and on consanguinit+ 3it'out =ull+ con=ronting t'e ad8ent o= ot'erness in t'e e%i%'an+ o= t'e 'u0an =ace .le to inA/ire a.hich he clai)s that X.s/)e their indi2id/al na)es .ho) one is al.eing-9or-another-e!istent and the s/.a#s inescapa.hich he sho. The# are related> not .eing-9or-the-other> see)ed to )e> e2en at that ti)e I19"1K> to p/t an end to the anon#)o/s and senseless r/).# happenstance .latonic concept o9 the good .eingX IHrie9 2"K is o99set .hich the i)personalit# o9 the 2er.ent too 9ar> .ithin the deno)ination o9 XCo))itteeX in de9erence to the indi2isi.e-ings*> or t'at 'e reIects being in =a8or o= so0e %re4Heideggerian idealist notion o= t'e subIect. Heideggerian =ocus on <ntolog+ leads to genocide o00ittee on 5ublic Sa=et+ $! (The .ser2es in his Letter IHrie9 22K> is parado!icall# . Le2inas descri.eing . :n contrast> Le2inas posits the relation o9 the 9ace to 9ace> that is> .race the consang/ineo/s . the anon#)it# o9 e!istence> or . The anon#)it# o9 the il # a is Xsa2edX /lti)atel# onl# thro/gh the 9ace o9 the other 9or .ilit# o9 each other.here it is i)possi.ork> p/.hich> as Heidegger hi)sel9 o.hich the 7er)an co/nterpart o9 the Vthere is>V the Ves gi. H/t J/st as he seeks to think the relation .ling o9 .ased .een t.ser2ed in the introd/ction to Heing and Ti)e> s/ch concrete inA/ir#> i9 taken as a 9or)al concept 9ro) the perspecti2e o9 anal#tic logic> can onl# .rie9> t'e distance bet3een Heideggerian ontolog+ and #e8inasian et'ics can be 0easured b+ t'e di==erence bet3een an inBuir+ into being A/a .ilit# o9 the .eing alread# entails the /nderstanding o9 others> .riters s/.eco)e historicall# incarnated 9or hi)6 XNone o9 the generosit# . X: a) .s ho.eing (epekeina ts o/sias*> Le2inas contests the notion that nothingness is a pri2ation o9 . St'e 'atred o= a 0an 3'o is ot'er t'an 0+sel= >X t'e 8er+ essence> that is> o= anti4Se0itis0 I'L 461K.ioteon*--a distance .hich .ork presented Le2inasian Scholars X0# .eing.1 (1996* 4-10 .et.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010 USS4Reliant $! Astronoetics <ntolog+ :ocus Had HeideggerGs %ri8ileging o= ontolog+ is co0%licit in atrocities o00ittee on 5ublic Sa=et+ $! (The .rites later I'L 41$K.ord Vlo2e>VX he re)arks again to Ne)o> X.lished in the sa)e #ear> in . Heing can be 0ore %ri0all+ terrible t'an si0%l+ not4being.j26K.Ject deposed rather than posed I : $0K.ed the .een . The# are related as .es ho.hat is essential is not h/)anit#> .> . :n .e-ings the)sel2es are related> .e-ingO hence> 'e lVe!istence \ lVe!istant> 9ro) e!istence to the e!istent--denoting a sense o9 direction> lost needlessl# in LingisVs translation o9 the title as !istence and !istents./t the responsi. &'ere is no 0istaking 'is i0%utation o= ideological i0%lications o= co0%licit+ bet3een Heideggerian Sein and 0odern genocide.itho/t /nderstanding it in ter)s o9 the other./t .een 1944 and 19"$>X he .eing.ere inscri. Le2inas depicts the anon#)it# o9 .roJect 0/se* THC 1%1%10 At t'e 'eart o= #e8inasTs critiBue o= Heidegger is t'e re%roo= t'at t'e Buestion o= 0an 'as beco0e sub0erged in t'e Buestion o= being? and t'us t'at t'e reco8er+ o= t'e 0eaning o= being entails t'e =orgetting o= t'e 0eaning o= t'e 'u0an. <nce t'ree are in8ol8ed? 3e enter t'e uni8erse o= t'e one and t'e 0an+ and? 'ence? o= St'e totalizing discourse o= ontolog+S IKearne# $1-$+K.Jectless horror o9 e!istence.# the anon#)it# o9 the in9initi2e is o2erco)e .here.# the anon#)o/s il # a is not to . )irrors the s/.e.a# than an# indi2id/al . HeideggerVs Letter on H/)anis) (Hrie9 h.od# #et re9/se the 9aceR H+ re%udiating idealis0Ts abstract 'u0an nature? =unda0ental ontolog+ ga8e 8ent to 3'at rationalis0? as t'e sel=4%roclai0ed uni8ersal 0ark o= S'u0anit+?S 'ad been re%ressing all along.l# responsi.roJect 0/se* THC 1%1%10 HeideggerTs de%iction o= 'u0an being as =unda0entall+ in relation 0akes o= ot'erness a condition o= DaseinTs %ossibilit+.eing thro/gh the il # a> in .e-ing co/ld e2er .ith onesel9 also. 8ne co/ld scarcel# ask 9or a )ore e!plicit derange)ent o9 9/nda)ental ontolog#> in the light o9 a horror o9 the il # a . 5or Le2inas> the /ntho/ght o9 HeideggerVs ontolog# co)es to light in the death ca)ps.eing (ti to on* and an inBuir+ into 'u0anit+ itsel= (ti . :n this sense> then> 0iteinandersein> . 'escri.e-ings in a )anner )ore rigoro/s than the concept/al> so Le2inas relates 9/nda)ental .

&hen Heidegger attri.latoVs e)./t e8en 0ore i0%ortant t'an t'e %olitical ones.eing represented as the great re9/sers o9 the present> as ata2ists o9 the 8ld La. . 24+> 1991* L0 &'e et'ical i0%lications o= HeideggerTs 8ie3 o= tec'nolog+ are perhaps less 2isi.s> nlighten)ent rationalis) also perished in the Holoca/st.eing can attain do)inion o2er the .l# in .hat> 9ro) HeideggerVs perspecti2e> can . 5ro) as earl# as the essa# translated here> . &ith the Holoca/st> the Le. 5irst> it in %art e)%lains 'is =ailure e8er to take a %ublic %osition on t'e 3ell4kno3n atrocities %er%etrated b+ t'e Nazi 0o8e0ent to 3'ic' 'e turned. H/t i= c'oice de%ends on Heing> then in the 9inal anal#sis> as Heidegger clearl+ sa3? t'e onl+ c'oice is t'e c'oice =or or against Heing.hole> hence to h/)an .e attri./t at this late date it is still the .hilosoph#. 8ther thinkers ha2e reJected de)ocrac#> )ost nota.asis o9 a co))it)ent to the state as a . HeideggerTs reIection o= t'e idea o= res%onsibilit+ ot'er t'an t'roug' t'e co00it0ent to Heing is inco0%atible 3it' t'e assu0%tion o= %ersonal 0oral accountabilit+.ehind .eing.o2e> t'at 'e is not con8inced t'at de0ocrac+ is t'e best %olitical s+ste0K and in 'is turning in the earl# 1940s to National Socialis0? a 0ain e)a0%le o= %olitical totalitarianis0.lit# in his later tho/ght denies a 9/nda)ental tenet o9 his o.# pre9ig/re)ent o9 .le)atic> . (re*entered histor#O a9ter t.e#ond all )etaphor I'L 110-11K. :n Heing and Ti)e > Heidegger )aintained that a/thenticit# reA/ired a resol/te choice o9 onesel9. Toward Criticism of Heidegger’s )iew of Technology p.eca)e conte)poraneo/s. that thro/gh the e!ercise o9 reason h/)an . HeideggerTs anti0eta%'+sical t'eor+ o= tec'nolog+ is b+ de=inition antide0ocraticK it %resu%%oses as a leading c'aracteristic t'e reIection o= t'e ant'ro%ological 8ie3%oint t'at is t'e =oundation o= de0ocrac+.eca)e the 9/l9ill)ent o9 the present> in a literalness .hilosoph# T '/A/esne Cni2ersit#> 8n HeideggerVs Na3is) and . . Heidegger re0inds us o= t'is conseBuence in . Not since dialectical )aterialis) ha2e .s rigoro/sl# 9ro) his position> calls 9or t.ilit# as the condition o9 )oralit#> .est political )eans to attain and to de9end the goal o9 h/)an 9reedo). Pet Heidegger reIects de0ocrac+ because o= 'is co00it0ent to Heing? but not to 'u0an being? also 0ani=est in 'is nonant'ro%ological t'eor+ o= tec'nolog+. I= oneTs ontological anal+sis does not su%%ort t'e conce%t o= %ersonal res%onsibilit+? t'en one does not need to react on t'e %ersonal le8el to .ro9essor o9 .e enco/ntered s/ch an a/dacio/s literalness> s/ch theoretici3ation o9 historical concreteness.a# into the shado.# the Ne.orld and itsel9. 'e)ocrac# is pro. Alongside the Le.lato reJects the de)ocratic t#pe o9 go2ern)ent on the . I= res%onsibilit+ %resu%%oses autono0+? and autono0+ %resu%%oses =reedo0? t'en to e0brace Heing as t'e ulti0ate e)%lanator+ %rinci%le is tanta0ount to casting o== t'e idea o= et'ical res%onsibilit+? t'e %ossibilit+ o= an+ 0oral accountabilit+ 3'atsoe8er. no.o co))ents./tes /lti)ate ca/sal a/thorit# to Heing> he clearl# re2erses the nlighten)ent 2ie. This conseA/ence> .race o9 the concept o9 aristocratic go2ern)ent.o )illennia o9 . Rock0ore $7 /To)> . Heideggerian %'iloso%'ies abandon et'ics and 0oral res%onsibilit+ in =a8or o= ontological CHeingE Rock0ore $7 /To)> ./t repeated o9ten> #e8inas %ro%'esied t'at t'e ad8ent o= =unda0ental ontolog+ 3as o= 'istoric 0o0ent? and t'at %'iloso%'+ a=ter Heidegger could ne8er be innocent again. HeideggerTs insistence on Heing as t'e =inal causal agent signals an abandon0ent o= t'e idea o= et'ical res%onsibilit+.age 6K anti-Se)itis) as each otherVs condition o9 possi. .hilosoph# T '/A/esne Cni2ersit#> 8n HeideggerVs Na3is) and .ord and deed6 in his state)ent> A/oted a. :n the 9inal anal#sis> i9 Heidegger is correct> h/)an actions depend on the gi9t o9 Heing> hence on a s/prah/)an 9or) o9 agenc#.> le9t ./ted to Heing.hich 9ollo. Toward Criticism of Heidegger’s )iew of Technology p.ro9essor o9 . o00it0ent to CHeingE %re=ers totalitarianis0 to de0ocratic 8alues.le .hat is to co)e and has alread# co)e> the Le.hilosoph#. Second> HeideggerVs reJection o9 personal responsi.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010 USS4Reliant $7 Astronoetics ontolog# and I nd .hat is called t'e de0ocratic 3a+ o= li=e.H/t there is a signi9icant di99erence. 241> 1991* L0 Se2enth> HeideggerTs understanding o= tec'nolog+ is inco0%atible 3it' a co))it)ent to de)ocrac#> de)ocratic 2al/es> and . There is a contin/o/s line o9 arg/)ent leading 9ro) the nlighten)ent co))it)ent to reason to the insistence on responsi. .hich peaks in KantVs ethical theor#. Their testa)ent t#pologi3ed a.> the Le.oth . Th/s it is that> t'roug' genocide? #e8inas sa3 'istor+ and %'iloso%'+ 0ediated.n earlier position.ilit#.

ho hold that .# Nazis0 is a 'u0an %roble0 in t'e 0ost basic 0eaning o= t'e ter0 S'u0an.as Na3is)> and )an# still den# that Na3is) had a )ore than tangential appeal to one o9 the )ost signi9icant theories o9 this cent/r#> )erel# to assert the philosophical signi9icance o9 an a.n entire li9e> and to .hat has co)e . HeideggerGs Nazis0 turns t'e K.ro9essor o9 . 292> 1991* L0 The pro. reIects 'u0an 8alues o= eBualit+? =reedo0? and de0ocrac+ A 'e subordinates real 'u0an beings to 'is abstract conce%t o= CHeingE Rock0ore $7 /To)> .S :t is . 290> 1991* L0 HeideggerTs Nazis0 and t'e =ailure to con=ront it are philosophicall# signi=icant =or HeideggerTs philosoph#> 9or its rece%tion? and 9or %'iloso%'+ itsel9. .ordinate the)sel2es and others in the increasingl# /na2ailing e99ort to e!c/se Heidegger the philosopher and so)eti)es e2en Heidegger the )an.idel# accepted standards as to ho.hich is li)ited to conte)plation o9 the idea o9 Heing.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010 USS4Reliant $2 Astronoetics Nazis0 Ke+ HeideggerGs =ailure to con=ront Nazis0 leads to t'e =ailure o= 'is %'iloso%'+ Rock0ore $7 /To)> .ligation to co)e to grips .hen so)e are still concerned to den# the e!istence o9 the Holoca/st> in e99ect to den# that Na3is) .illing to s/.in the da#.l# /nder o.n that Nazis0 %osed a decisi8e t'reat to 8alues? to 'u0an beings? to t'e de0ocratic =or0 o= li=e? to t'e idea o= 'u0an and racial eBualit+? to conce%ts o= 0utual toleranceJin s'ort? 3as a 0enace to the s)all ad2ances o9 'u0an beings concerned to realize> as Hegel p/t it> the idea o9 =reedo0.eginning> rel# on a reading o9 the histor# o9 the philosophical tradition> philosoph# is insepara.Ject philosophical 9ail/re to sei3e the historical )o)ent 9or the 7er)an Folk and Heing is not likel# to .e a2oid the concl/sion that the# ha2e also 9ailed this test> =ailed as %'iloso%'ersR Since e2en those thinkers .asicall# 9ailed to grasp their epoch> can .e can 0easure t'e =ailure o= Heidegger and so)e o9 his st/dents to co0e to gri%s 3it' Nazis0 in 'is t'oug't or e2en . to J/dge prior philosophical 2ie. :9 philosoph# is a historical discipline> then it is /na2oida.orld2ie. se)inal thinkers in the histor# o9 the tradition> 3it' t'e realization t'at 'e? like )an# o9 his 9ollo.hich he s/.le) posed .ordinated his o.l# linked to the philosophies o9 the .ent#-9i2e h/ndred #ears o9 practice> there are no .hich are philosoph# in na)e onl#> since the# =all belo3 t'e genuine t'oug't necessar+ to t'ink Heing.le 9ro) its past.egin again> to .hilosoph#> Heidegger’s 'a(ism and the /imits of His Philoso!hy> p. At a ti)e . Pet it is signi9icant that a9ter so)e t.ith Na3is) as it e!isted> parentheticall# like so )an# other philosophers and acade)ics in general> against t'e idea o= t'e %'iloso%'ical %ursuit o==ered b+ t'e %'iloso%'ers t'e0sel8es.ith . According to Heidegger? an+ conce%t o= 8alue is ine!trica.hich his st/dents on occasion see) .ro9essor o9 .hilosoph#> Heidegger’s 'a(ism and the /imits of His Philoso!hy> p. Heidegger eit'er could not understand or 3as unconcerned 3it' t'e %roble0 %osed b+ Nazis0 to 'u0an beings since he consistentl# o99ered the )ain role to Heing.e9ore in order to progress.s. :9 philosoph# is its ti)e capt/red in tho/ght> and i9 Heidegger and 'is e%igones 'a8e .e need to .hilosoph# T '/A/esne Cni2ersit#> 8n HeideggerVs Na3is) and . :n the a.hilosoph# T '/A/esne Cni2ersit#> 8n HeideggerVs Na3is) and . HeideggerTs %'iloso%'+ is rooted in 'is anti'u0anistic subordination o= 'u0an being to Heing? to .ers> entirel# 9ailed> in 9act =ailed in t'e 0ost dis0al 0anner? to grasp or e2en to con=ront Nazis0.idel# kno. HeideggerTs understanding o= t'e %roble0 o= Heing reBuired 'i0 to reIect 8alues and an+t'ing linked to 8alue as inco0%atible 3it' t'oug't in t'e dee%est sense > . .egin 9ro) the .sence o9 clear g/idelines> . Pet t'ere is so0et'ing absurd? e8en grotesBue about t'e conIunction o= t'e state0ent t'at Heidegger is an i)portant> e2en a great %'iloso%'er> perhaps one o9 the 9e.

hich his disciples> The concern o9 this .n /p aro/nd the link .hole> .er o9 o.e de2oted to clearing a. 8thers> con2inced o9 the i)portance o9 HeideggerVs tho/ght> ha2e on occasion con9/sed> e2en clearl# identi9ied> allegiance to HeideggerVs tho/ght and person .hat he .hen necessar#> to critici3e this aspect o9 his tho/ght.XI1K 8n the contrar#> the ai) o9 this essa# is to descri.e> to interpret> and> . &e can . An i)portant part o9 our task 3ill be to re8eal HeideggerTs Nazis0 in a 3a+ t'at also %reser8es t'e ca%acit+ =or critical Iudg0ent.o/t 'is Nazis0> to %ro8ide 3'at can c'aritabl+ be described as an indulgent? e8en a distorted 8ie3 o= the historical record and o9 'is t'oug't.et.egin .e /se9/l to identi9# the )ain o. 2-4> 1991* L0 t'e t'e0e o= 'is Nazis0 is onl+ in %art 8isible? because it is )ainl# hidden> or concealed? in HeideggerTs %'iloso%'+.o2e all Karl L`. :n conseA/ence> a certain n/).een his Na3is) and that position.r/sh that has in the )eanti)e gro.hich i)pede an o.hose intent is prolego)enal> .`ggeler> and )ore recentl# Tho)as Sheehan> Theodore Kisiel> and 'o)iniA/e Lanica/d> ha2e scr/p/lo/sl# atte0%ted to disclose t'e nature and signi=icance o= 'is Nazis0 .ro9essor o9 .stacles> concept/al and other.a# so)e o9 the concept/al /nder.ise> ha2e arisen . Heidegger 3as concerned to conceal .stacles. 0/ch o9 the Heidegger literat/re is li)ited to e!egesis in .hilosoph# T '/A/esne Cni2ersit#> 8n HeideggerVs Na3is) and . .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010 USS4Reliant $$ Astronoetics Heidegger atte0%ted to conceal 'is Nazis0 3it'in 'is 3riting to create a =alse 8ie3 o= 'is %'iloso%'+ A e8en 'is disci%les agree. . So)e o9 HeideggerTs closest students> a. Rock0ore $7 /To)> .as not o.hilosoph#> Revealing Concealed 'a(ism p./t .ith> 8tto .ho ro/tinel# 9orgo criticis)> e!po/nd the Xre2ealed tr/th.ill .Jecti2e disc/ssion o9 HeideggerVs Na3is).een HeideggerVs Na3is) and his philosoph# in order to e!pose this the)e 9or )ore detailed st/d#.liged to re2eal a.ith the description o9 so)e o9 the )ain o. :n order to disc/ss this topic> it .ill .ith the link .ook is not . No.ith HeideggerVs position as a .et.stacles i)peding access to HeideggerVs philosophical tho/ghtNin partic/lar> access to his Na3is).ith the disco2er# o9 the tr/th. Accordingl#> this chapter> .

n 9ro) ArendtVs case> .el9are 9ro) the political do)ain are .hich e99aces the /niA/e and sing/lar appearance and disclos/re o9 .eing in thrall to the 2iolence o9 )etaph#sics.ill> instr/)entalit#> teleocrac#> poeisis> etc. :ndeed> it )ight .ill .n. "$-$6*O I 2K ArendtVs prono/nceraent at a con9erence in 1912 (p/t /nder A/estion .ack into . Duestions o= social and econo0ic Iustice are )ade ho)eless> e)iled =ro0 t'e %olitical s%'ere o9 disp/tation and de)and in .recht &ell)er regarding her distinction o9 the VpoliticalV and the VsocialV*> that ho/sing and ho)elessness .hich de9ines itO it is 9reedo) to appear> to disclose> .# this rethinking.hich needed challenging .orld to its p/rposes> the concept/al rendering o9 .le) o9 Vdirt# handsV> the s/spension o9 enge)ent .asis o9 its reconcei2ed /nderstanding o9 the political> apparentl# e)cludes 0uc' o= 3'at recognizabl+ belongs to %olitics toda+.eings in ter)s o9 a.ith respect to its essence (5raser> 19+"> p.(Arendt> 19$9> pp.Ject )anip/lation ./tion o9 goods> . =ather> it is that s/ch disp/tes and ends are identi9ied as .# a .holl# other politicsV. &o reconcei8e t'e %olitical in ter0s o= a de%arture =ro0 its =or0er incarnation as 0eta%'+sical %olitics? 0eans t'at t'e re8ised ter0s o= a %ro%erl+ %olitical discourse cannot acco00odate t'e %rosaic +et urgent Buestions 3e 0ig't t+%icall+ identi=+ under t'e rubric o= T%olic+T.ere e!ternal to the political as the sphere o9 the act/alisation o9 9reedo) as disclos/reO t'e %olitical is about 'u0an sel=4disclosure in s%eec' and deed> not a.arring o9 iss/es o9 social and econo)ic J/stice and .e the# )arket or social li.ere 9or)erl# 2oiced.eings> and there.as onl# racial legislation and the 9or)al e!cl/sion o9 A9rican-A)ericans 9ro) the political sphere> not discri)ination> social depri2ation and disad2ante> etc.le )en/ o9 %olitical engage0ents and proJects (.hat is practicall# e!cl/ded .elonging to the socio-technical sphere o9 ad)inistration> calc/lation> instr/)entalit#> the logic o9 )eans and ends> s/. This is .asis> seeks Vto .o/t the distri. Unable to engage in %olitics as it is> one eit'er IaK s/.ell kno./t not the 9reedo) to do so)ething in partic/lar> in that /tilising 9reedo) 9or achie2ing so)e end or other i)plies a collapse . 1""*> or I. ci2il rights )o2e)ent in the 19$0s> she arg/ed that the politicall# salient 9actor .hich t/rns the .# part and parcel o9 the )etaph#sical-technological /nderstanding o9 Heing> .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010 USS4Reliant 100 Astronoetics ede t'e 5olitical &'e alt cedes t'e %olitical and does not'ing to con=ront social and econo0ic Iustice in'erent in societ+.I 20K The point here is not that Arendt and others are in an# sense /nconcerned or indi99erent a.ed> ontological-e!istential 9or)/lation o9 the political.elongs to the social real) as an e!tension o9 the oikos.reach the inscription o9 a . politics> 3'ic'> on the . The 9or)er sus%ends %olitics inde=initel+? . This latter di99ic/lt# is .K on this .e o.hich .o e!a)ples6 I 1K in her co))entar# on the C.eca/se o9 their identi9ication as . H# de9ining 9reedo) A/a disclosedness as the essence o9 9reedo) and the sole end o9 the political> this %osition skirts dangerousl+ close to ad2ocating politiA/e po/r la politiA/e> di2esting politics o= an+ ot'er %ractical and nor0ati8e ends in t'e %rocess. Uar 2k @ Senior Lect/rer in Cri)inolog#> Lancaster (0aJid> ArendtVs Heideggerianis)> C/lt/ral Fal/es ".hich the# .1* Si)ilarl#> 3e 0ust consider t'e conseBuences t'at this Tontological substitutionT 9or the essence o9 the political 'as =or %olitics> in ter)s o9 .ere not political iss/es> that the# .ell kno.S.eralis)> social de)ocrac#> co))/nitarianis)> 0ar!is)> etc. I= the presentl# a2aila.Ject-o.hile the latter i)plies a ne.# illegiti)ate candidates 9or consideration /nder the rene. To o99er t.# Al.# retreating to an interrogation o= t'e %olitical .stract and le2elling categories and classes> and so onO the# are there.li)ates the desire 9or politics .o/t s/ch s/99erings> depri2ations and ineA/alities.hat Nanc# 5raser has called the pro.* are onl+ so )an# 0o0ents o9 the techno-social co)pletion o9 an /nderl#ing 0eta%'+sics? t'en t'e =ear o= T0eta%'+sical conta0inationT in'ibits an+ return to recognizable %olitical %ractices and sincere engage0ent 3it' t'e %olitical e!igencies o9 the da#.ith the e!isting content o9 political endas .hose .ser2ed that the post)etaph#sical 9or)/lation o9 the political is de2oid o9 an# content other than the 9reedo) . .

heno)enological:ll/sion.hich preser2es a Bthoro/ghgoing parallelis)E .a# o9 taking the)> I)# italicsK as i9 .# an episte)e characteri3ed .H N80 N8L87P* THC 1%+%10 5o/ca/ltGs line o9 arg/)ent here is )ost pla/si. 5ro) its starting point in the nat/ral attit/de> the transcendental %'eno0enological reduction 0erel+ e==ects a CreadIust0ent o= 8ie3%ointE? one . 'e t'inks t'at because t'e read+4to4'and is %'eno0enologicall+ %rior it is ontologicall+ %rior.e pro!i)all# enco/nter> or as i9 so)e . &'e 'a00ers and t'e dollar bills are %rior to t'e s'eets o= %a%er and t'e collection o= 0etal 0olecules.orld-st/99 .ill t#picall# are prior.oth transcendental pheno)enological and eidetic red/ctions> that is> in the in t'e disco8er+ o= t'e essential =eatures o= %ure conscious e)%erience. &hat is e2en . here is the interest o9 all this 9or the present disc/ssion6 Heidegger 'as t'e ontolog+ e)actl+ back3ards.er is clearO pheno)enologicall# the ha))er and the dollar .e .as ine2ita.# H/sserlGs o. HeideggerGs 8ie3s are e)%ressions o= 'is reIection o= t'e basic nature o= t'e basic =acts .1+ 5'eno0enolog+ =ails A 3e canGt transcend %urel+ e0%irical ideas Hartok 2* (. :n short> Heidegger is subIect to t'e %'eno0enological illusion in a clear 3a+.hil C o9 Notre 'a)e 58CCACLTGS ANALPT:C 85 5:N:TC' AN' TH B' ATHE 85 . &'e transcendental reduction =ails inso=ar as it 0erel+ e==ects so0et'ing like a s'i=t o= 8ision? atte0%ting to assign transcendental signi=icance to 3'at are> . (Lohn> . &h# does he sa# thisR : think the ans.1$ H/t =or Husserl? t'e =ull sense o= t'e CtranscendentalE is ac'ie8ed onl+ thro/gh the application o9 . 7i2en the pro.n ad)ission> 0erel+ e0%irical contents.hat he sa#s6 The kind o9 Heing . :9 #o/ take a.hich is pro!i)all# present-at-hand in itsel9 .Jection to H/sserlGs approach6 &ranscendental %'eno0enolog+ =ails to ac'ie8e t'e /transcendental1 ai0s set out =or it .&:TT7 NST :N 7 S LLSCHA5T> F8L 4"> pages 11-4+ http6%%socrates. (Heidegger 1962> 101* &'is see0s 3rong.ledge.le gi2en the 9act that H/sserlGs proJect . that he sa#s is 9alse> is the correct 2ie.et.erkele#.ere talking s/ch BaspectsE into the BentitiesE .ser2er independent 9eat/res.hilip L.# the anal#tic o9 9init/de.Jecti2e colo/ringE in this ..e noted that H/sserl readil# ad)its that in its atte0%t to 0o8e be+ond t'e e0%irical to t'e transcendental? transcendental %'eno0enolog+ does not lea8e be'ind t'e 'orizon o= e0%irical contents? but 0erel+ 3ins =or t'e data in t'is 'orizon a transcendental rat'er t'an an e0%irical signi=icance. H/t this characteristic is not to .ser2er dependent is deri2ati2e.e treat it as a ha))er.11 Taken together> the transcendental pheno)enological and eidetic 1 red/ctions lead the pheno)enologist 9ro) the e)pirical starting point o9 the nat/ral attit/de to a description o9 the essences o9 p/re conscio/s e!perience. .heno)enological :ll/sion SCH=:5T N= :H . &hen /sing the ha))er or the dollar .ill> .# H/sserl hi)sel9. Suc' =eatures as being 0one+ or being a 'a00er are obser8er relati8e and in t'at sense t'e obIect is Cgi8en subIecti8e coloringE .ser2er relati2e.a#.16 The eidetic red/ction too departs 9ro) the e)pirical> taking a 9act> .hilip L.ere Bgi2en s/. are at t'e sa0e ti0e t'e concrete =or0s o= e)istence> precisel# as the# are gi2en in that sa)e e)pirical kno..ed/%kJsearle%. 'ept o9 .e create a )eaning9/l social and ling/istic realit# o/t o9 )eaningless entities. :9 5o/ca/ltGs archaeological anal#sis o9 the character o9 the )odern episte)e is adeA/ate> this 9ail/re . .ser2er independent is ontologicall# pri)ar#> the o. He thinks that so)ething is a ha))er in itsel9> and he denies that .e /nderstood as )erel# a . He sa+s t'e read+4to4'and is %rior? t'e %resent4at4'and is deri8ati8e.o/t their .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010 USS4Reliant 101 Astronoetics 5'eno0enolog+ :ails 5'eno0enolog+ =ails A it turns into li0ited ant'ro%olog+ Hartok 2* (. =ather 'e sa+s 3e are Cal3a+s alread+E in a 0eaning=ul 3orld. 'ept o9 .Jecti2it#> 3it'out gi8ing rise? at least silentl+ to an ant'ro%olog+ 4 t'at is? to a 0ode o= t'oug't in 3'ic' t'e rig't=ul li0itations o= acBuired kno3ledge .een a pheno)enological ps#cholog# and a transcendental pheno)enolog#6 BITKo each eidetic or e)pirical deter)ination on the one side there )/st correspond a parallel 9eat/re on the otherE.hich . &'e c'aracteristic o= being 0one+ or a 'a00er is %recisel+ a C3a+ o= taking t'e0E.hen .l# /nderstood as an internal o.H N80 N8L87P* THC 1%+%10 :n s/pport o9 5o/ca/ltGs arg/)ent it sho/ld .ro9 Herkele# The . 5'eno0enolog+ =ails A ontolog+ =actuall+ doesnGt co0e =irst Searle .e donGt think )/ch a.hich .orse is that he denies that the read#-to-hand is o. No. Against t'is atte0%t to 0o8e =ro0 t'e e0%irical to t'e transcendental :oucault suggests t'at? OiPt is %robabl+ i0%ossible to gi8e e0%irical contents transcendental 8alue> or to displace the) in the direction o9 a constit/ent s/.hether in the nat/ral attit/de or in transcendentall# p/ri9ied conscio/sness> as the starting point 9or s#ste)atic 2ariation in p/re 9antas#. Here is . .a# the rhetorical 9l o/rishes in his prose> the 2ie.le)atic d/al stat/s o9 B)anE /nder this episte)e> H/sserlian %'eno0enolog+ cannot 'el% but de8ol8e into an ant'ro%olog+.elongs to these entities is readiness-to-hand.as con9ig/red .asic ato)ic str/ct/re or other o.hil C o9 Notre 'a)e 58CCACLTGS ANALPT:C 85 5:N:TC' AN' TH B' ATHE 85 .pd9* THC 1%9%10 The o.

&:TT7 NST :N 7 S LLSCHA5T> F8L 4"> pages 11-4+ http6%%socrates. &'e %'eno0enological illusion can e8en gi8e us t'e i0%ression t'at t'e tennis racket is so0e'o3 %art o= our bod+O and indeed .od# than the# see) like instr/)ents. Skill9/l coping. H/t su%%ose I do it and concentrate 0+ attention on doing it. &'e+ 'ear t'e re=erences to t'e basic =acts> a...heno)enological :ll/sion SCH=:5T N= :H .oth there are ca/sall# sel9 re9erential conditions o9 satis9action.ed> tho/gh the# 9eel di99erent> are logicall# si)ilar.ro9 Herkele# The .# )aking Bocc/rent so/ndsE> )arks> etc. In =act t'ere are no ner8e endings in t'e tennis racket> nor in the skisO .hen .heno)enological:ll/sion.ed/%kJsearle%.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010 USS4Reliant 102 Astronoetics ()t A 5'eno0enolog+ :ails Alt doesnGt sol8e A intention does not a==ect action t'e 3a+ t'e+ assu0e Searle .ro9 Herkele# The .a#s alread# inside the scope o9 the Bread#-to-handE (or so)e other pheno)enological* operator. I= +ou describe t'e %'eno0enolog+ and sto% t'ere? +ou 0iss t'e underl+ing logical structures 5'eno0enolog+ =ails 4 5'eno0enologists rel+ on a tautological understanding o= basic =acts Searle .e kno.heno)enological :ll/sion SCH=:5T N= :H . BHeidegger 'olds t'at t'ere is no 3a+ to account =or re=erring and trut' starting 3it' language as occurent sounds YE H/t that is precisel# ho.heno)enological:ll/sion.e e2er start on the philosophical pro.heno)enological:ll/sion. :n general these 9eat/res are not present to the pheno)enolog#. Dre+=us is in e==ect sa+ing t'at t'e Heideggerian cannot state t'e solution because 'e cannot 'ear t'e Buestion. &'e inadeBuac+ o= e)istential %'eno0enolog+ could not be stated 0ore clearl+.erate action. as al.oth cases : a) acting intentionall# and in .ill see) al)ost as i9 there are.pd9* THC 1%9%10 As 9ar as : can tell (and : )a# . 'eli.ed/%kJsearle%. .ith the .ont# 1962* &'e idea is t'at because t'ere are all kinds o= routine actions? suc' as 3alking or dri8ing a car? t'at do not 'a8e t'e concentrated =ocused consciousness o= intentionalit+? o= t'e kind +ou get =or e)a0%le 3'en +ou are gi8ing a lecture? t'at t'ere=ore t'e+ 'a8e a di==erent kind o= intentionalit+ altoget'er. . I succeeded in 3'at I 3as tr+ing to do onl+ i= 0+ intentions in action caused t'e bodil+ 0o8e0ents. H/t all the sa)e> the entire logical apparat/s o9 intentionalit# applies.erkele#. The cases as descri.heno)enological :ll/sion SCH=:5T N= :H . (Lohn> .e )istaken a.o/t this* because o= t'eir =ailure to recognize t'e %ri0ac+ o= t'e basic =acts> the %'eno0enologists see0 to be unable to gi8e a de re reading o= re=erences to obIects . H/t this> o9 co/rse> is a pheno)enological ill/sion. It does not see0 like +ou are an e0bodied brain engaged 3it' a 3orldK rat'er it see0s like +ou and t'e 3orld =or0 a single unit+> and o9 co/rse there is no propositional content r/nning conscio/sl# thro/gh #o/r head.erate action.er is the pheno)enological ill/sion. (Lohn> .o/t )olec/les> 9or e!a)ple> as al3a+s alread+ inside t'e sco%e o= the Bpresentat-handE (or so0e other %'eno0enological* o%erator> and the# hear the re9erences to ha))ers and )one#> etc.erkele#. 5'eno0enolog+ relies on a %erce%tual illusion Searle .le)s that the speech act is per9or)ed .o2e.e9ore . Look at the A/ote 9ro) 're#9/s a. . one has to acco/nt 9or )eaning> re9erence> tr/th> etc. To see this> contrast doing a t#pe o9 action as skill9/l coping and doing it as concentrated deli.pd9* THC 1%9%10 Another e!a)ple o9 the pheno)enological ill/sion co)es o/t in 0erlea/.2io/sR : think the ans.&:TT7 NST :N 7 S LLSCHA5T> F8L 4"> pages 11-4+ http6%%socrates.ro9 Herkele# The .erkele#. .&:TT7 NST :N 7 S LLSCHA5T> F8L 4"> pages 11-4+ http6%%socrates. :n .ed/%kJsearle%. 5or e!a)ple> nor0all+ 3'en I get u% and 3alk to t'e door I do it 3it'out s%ecial concentration or deliberation..eca/se .e are pla#ing tennis or skiing> the tennis racket or the skis see) )ore like an e!tension o9 the . It is a clear case o= t'e %'eno0enological illusion to su%%ose t'at di==erent %'eno0enolog+ i0%lies a di==erent kind o= intentionalit+ 3it' a di==erent logical structure.e do not? .hich he calls B)otor intentionalit#E.orld./t i9 #o/ get good at skiing or pla#ing tennis it ..hen pla#ing tennis 'a8e a conscious e)%erience o= 'a8ing %ro%ositional re%resentations o= conditions o= satis=action and 3e do not consciousl+ t'ink o= oursel8es as e0bodied consciousnesses in interaction . (0erlea/-. :9 it 9eels di99erent then it )/st .pd9* THC 1%9%10 &h# are these points not o. (Lohn> .ont#Gs disc/ssion o9 skill9/l coping> . H/t i= +ou look at t'e actual conditions o= satis=action t'ere is no di==erence in t'e logical structure.e di99erent.

&'ere is no tension at all in su%%osing t'at t'e %iece o= %a%er in 0+ 'and is bot' a %iece o= %a%er and a ten dollar bill. The pro.heno)enological :ll/sion SCH=:5T N= :H .> ho.oth correct .e a BtensionE . So there are no ti)eless a.ide scope occ/rrence.le)> as to ho.> t'is is a 2er# deep )istake> and it is a =oundational 0istake.o/t an a. &'is does not s'o3 t'at t'ere are no basic =acts? nor t'at t'e basic =acts onl+ 'a8e a relati8e e)istence? but t'at t'eir absolute e)istence does not b+ itsel= guarantee t'at at an+ %oint in our 'istor+ 3e 'a8e accuratel+ stated t'e0.erkele#.e. . (Lohn> . No.r/te> o.asic 9acts are J/st . (Lohn> .a#s alread# in a )eaning9/l .hat happens to . The 9acts donGt change> .a#s .ill . &e are tr#ing to get a.et. H/t that is .ill .s6 &hat : call the .e . Nothing has .Jection one 9reA/entl# hears that goes as 9ollo. That is the perspecti2alis) that : ha2e tried to identi9#..orld> the . :t is A/ite likel# that o/r conception o9 .ed/%kJsearle%.sol/te non-relati2e realit#.een calling the . &hat is the relation .ro9 Herkele# The .elie2ed in the past and it is A/ite likel# that the# .o/t reconciling the detached logical point o9 2ie.heno)enological:ll/sion.ed/%kJsearle%.r/te 9acts in nat/re )/st so)eho. a pro. &here .asic 9acts ./t in tension.r/te pheno)ena is de re> it has .eca/se there is no.pd9* THC 1%9%10 The pict/re that 're#9/s see)s to ha2e is that instit/tional 9acts e!ist 9ro) one point o9 2ie.&:TT7 NST :N 7 S LLSCHA5T> F8L 4"> pages 11-4+ http6%%socrates.hat : ha2e .r/te 9acts to the instit/tional 9actsR Ho.er to it is this.le) is that the pheno)enologist tends not to hear the de re occ/rrence.orld> . acA/ire )eaning> and the internal pheno)enological description o9 h/)an ./t the e!tent o9 o/r kno. there does see) to . do .here 're#9/s cites a BtensionE there is no tension. There is a philosophical pro. H/t .heno)enological :ll/sion SCH=:5T N= :H .eings create an instit/tional realit# .sol/te .heno)enological:ll/sion.heno)enological:ll/sion.r/te 9acts e!ist 9ro) another point o9 2ie.le) a.e get 9ro) the .&:TT7 NST :N 7 S LLSCHA5T> F8L 4"> pages 11-4+ http6%%socrates. do s/ch pheno)ena acA/ire stat/s 9/nctionsR The re9erence to . It is onl+ on t'e assu0%tion o= a non4relati8e? absolute realit+ t'at it is 3ort'3'ile to c'ange our o%inions in t'e =irst %lace..&:TT7 NST :N 7 S LLSCHA5T> F8L 4"> pages 11-4+ http6%%socrates.idel# .e a social . Th/s 're#9/s hears the A/estion as asking6 :ro0 t'e detac'ed logical %oint o= 8ie3 t'ere e)ist brute =acts? =ro0 t'e acti8e %artici%ants %oint o= 8ie3 t'ere e)ist institutional =acts . This )istake is pro)inent in Tho)as K/hn> 9or e!a)ple.ed/%kJsearle%. (K/hn 1962* H/t the ans.elie9s that people think are tr/e relati2e to their ti)e and place.solete.ing sentence occ/rs6 B:t see)ed to )e that .een the)R No.erkele#. &'e =act o= o%inion c'ange is an argu0ent against relati8is0? not an argu0ent =or it.ith the acti2e participantGs point o9 2ie. Hrute =acts si0%l+ e)ist.ide scope or de re occ/rrence. and . : ask the A/estion> Ho.erkele#.Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010 USS4Reliant 109 Astronoetics 5'eno0enolog+ A =acts can be detatc'ed =ro0 t'eir %ers%ecti8es Searle . No %oint o= 8ie3 is necessar+.ledge does .ill .pd9* THC 1%9%10 8n the sa)e page> the 9ollo.eco)e o. &'e basic =acts e)ist a%art =ro0 an+ stance or %oint o= 8ie3.eings as al.pd9* THC 1%9%10 There is an o..ro9 Herkele# The .sol/te non-relati2e tr/ths a. Institutional =acts e)ist =ro0 a %oint o= 8ie3 o= t'e %artici%ants in t'e institution and t'eir %artici%ation in t'e institution creates t'e =acts.oth the e!ternal> logical> god-like clai) that> 9or there to .ere .E ('re#9/s 1999> 12* The re=erence to Cgod4likeE re8eals t'at once again 'e t'inks t'at t'e stance is %art o= t'e %'eno0enon? t'at t'e brute =acts onl+ e)ist =ro0 a certain stance or =ro0 a %oint o= 8ie3> either godlike or Bdetached> logicalE> as the case )ight .elie2ed at a certain point in histor#> a Bconte)porar# gi2enE as 're#9/s calls the). (Lohn> . 5'eno0enolog+ is 3rong A t'ere are obIecti8e =acts Searle . does the )ind i)pose stat/s 9/nctions on the pheno)enaR The logical 9or) o9 that A/estion is6 7i2en that t'ere is a brute realit+ o= obser8er inde%endent %'eno0ena? %'eno0ena t'at 'a8e an absolute e)istence? inde%endent o= an+ 'u0an attitudes? stances > etc.ser2er independent 9acts are concerned> t'ere is no %oint o= 8ie3 built into t'eir ontolog+. &'e =act t'at 3e kee% c'anging our o%inions as 3e learn 0ore onl+ 0akes sense gi8en t'e assu0%tion t'at our ai0 is t'e descri%tion o= an absolute non4relati8e 3orld .r/te 9acts.rong. H/t the# .ere not al.heno)enological :ll/sion SCH=:5T N= :H .asic 9actsO there are J/st .e i)pro2ed on> and that at least so)e o9 o/r present conceptions .. h/)an . &'e =act t'at basic trut's c'ange does not 0ean t'at trut' is relati8e Searle ..# i)posing stat/s 9/nctions on .ro9 Herkele# The .e s/perseded in the 9/t/re.

s> 3'ic' 'e si0%l+ reIects in 8irtue o= 'is %rior co00it0ent to Heing as t'e ulti0ate e)%lanator+ =actor.h# Heidegger anal#3es technolog# as he does> . HeideggerTs clai0 does not =ollo3 =ro0 a critiBue o= t'e ri8al 8ie3 or 2ie.hilosoph#..> Heidegger needs to su%%le0ent 'is anal+sis> 9or instance thro/gh a de)onstration that the anthropological and nonanthropological approaches e!ha/st the possi.n ri2al 2ie.le . A prior co))it)ent helps to e!plain .hilosoph# T '/A/esne Cni2ersit#> 8n HeideggerVs Na3is) and .asic 9la. Rock0ore $7 /To)> . :n order to )ake o/t his nonanthropological technological 2ie.ro9essor o9 .Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010 USS4Reliant 10* Astronoetics Non4:alsi=iable Heidegger %ro8ides no 3arrants or anal+sis to 'is argu0ents against tec'nolog+ A onl+ clai0s based o== o= t'e %resu%%osition o= Heing. Toward Criticism of Heidegger’s )iew of Technology p. 244-"> 1991* L0 Second> 'is nonanthropological inter%retation o= tec'nolog+ is %roble0atic. It is not su==icient to %oint out t'at HeideggerTs t'eor+ success=ull+ accounts =or t'e trans'u0an agenc+ e)'ibited b+ tec'nolog+ unless it can be s'o3n t'at tec'nolog+ 'as a trans'u0an di0ension? so0et'ing Heidegger 0erel+ asserts but does not de0onstrate.s leading to a reJection o9 the so-called anthropological approach> or an arg/)ent in 9a2or o9 his o./t it does not Iusti=+ 'is anal+sis. .a#s to /nderstand technolog#> an indication o9 the .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful