Skip to content
March 7, 2012 / compassioninpolitics

My quick take on Heidegger’s Question Concerning Technology & Standing Reserve

Standing reserve = resources.

Technological thinking turns us into resources.

In other words, we become objects & means to ends–in short dehumanized.

We become objects to be tallied on a spreadsheet by public policy bureaucrats & judges (who look more like insurance adjusters and accountants than caring and nurturing friends).

How do you answer this argument?

1) Ask questions in cross ex which force a choice between

2) Ask a series of questions about why? Almost inevitably the answers will be in the forms of results (aka utilitarian logic).

3) Point out that all human thought a technology–and thus–their argument is inevitable. Plus, when you reduce this will

4) Utilitarianism/calculative thought is inevitable. Dillion, who is a Heideggarian himself.

5) Make an argument that their disads are utilitarian & that compromises their advocacy and alternative. You could also make the same arguments about their use of technology in the debate (computers, stop watched, pens, lights, research which was done online, and clothes–its all technology of one sort or another etc…)

6) In novice & JV debates you can get away with reading evidence which speaks to space creating a better awareness

7) Space = thinking beyond scarcity. Technology allows the possibility of abundance. This gets us beyond the prisoners dilemmas which lead to the worst forms of utilitarian thought.

8) The US used technological thought to crush the Nazies. In other words, abscent technological thought, you would still have the same impacts.

9) Impact turn–technology good (thats your impacts). You could even impact these with the evidence from Dissent. Its on fire. It speaks to responsibility & gets to the issue of ethics they are talking about. This is in almost every framework file and almost every utilitarian/deontology file that comes out of camps. (Perhaps someone else can call it out by author). This evidence is on fire in K debates in morality debates……you only have to read 3 or 4 lines of it.

Oh…and read your answers to Morality/Deontology along with your Heidegger and Spanos answers (Spanos is often run with Heidegger)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: