Skip to content
May 30, 2012 / compassioninpolitics

Thinking about answers to Nietzsche

1. The affirmative is an act of overcoming. We tear down the walls on the status quo and its assumptions. The affirmative isn’t an endpoint…its a jumping off point.

2. Hyper-relativism collapses on itself

3. Hyper-individualism bad

4. Hyper-skepticism bad–destroys trust.

5. Habit helps create identity. We need order. Also creativity requires order.

6. Equals warped view of reality. Lacks representativeness. Nietzsche was crazy. He lacked a fundamental grasp on reality.
[he was love-sick, he had dad issues, he had woman issues, and he dealt with massive depression]

7. Non-falsifisable.

8. We are the pre-requisite for your alternative.

9. You are the herd morality.

10. You’ve turned Nietzsche into an idol. That eats itself.

11. Specific theories wrong.

12. Meaning & purpose turns. Answer to value to life claims.

Other arguments:
• This argument destroys your theory and perm answer arguments & every other argument you make in the debate.

• We are the hero. Your version of Nietzsche = solipsism.

• Progress in ethics doesn’t require radical skepticism, which has a disad.

• Self-fulfilling prophesy (this is made with the trust argument & the he’s crazy argument)

• Is there a way to take his interp of Darwin on–in a way that accesses his.

• Arguments without value and purpose collapse on themself.

• The DAs to our aff = suffering

• We (and liberalism) put the chooser in the drivers seat. People are allowed to choose their own goals & better control their goals in liberalism. And liberalism is constantly improving & adapting with democracy and feedback loops.

• Liberal thinking can be disruptive, innovative, & progressive. (idealism is the basis of vision and improvement–you can have old goals and still do heroic things–this is a perm answer of sorts)

• Nietzche as applied in this debate is actually conservative (?)

• Read some Wolin.

• Add other criticisms of Nietzsche (from here & elsewhere)



Leave a Comment
  1. Nathan Ketsdever / Nov 22 2012 2:45 am

    Strength through ethics. Weakness.
    Self-control versus weakness of the flesh. Ethics is a discipline.
    Heroes in comic books.
    Relativism, apathy, inaction are weak sause and weak noodles–and a cop out. Have backbone to act.
    This misses the point–justice, ethics, and fairness are key.–Aka the premise of to kill a mocking bird.
    And if doing what you want to is legitimate–the ballot becomes irrelevant. (???)

  2. Nathan Ketsdever / Nov 25 2012 12:27 am

    • I won’t force a why on you… can vote for your own reasons or on faith.
    • Nietzsche takes the middle ground–which creates a Nazism, genocide, and ethnocentrism double-bind.
    • We also wouldn’t want our friends, family, or communities to be hard-core Nietzschians.

  3. compassioninpolitics / Jan 17 2013 5:06 am

    This is a post I made on a cross-ex thread:

    In addition to Chris Mills question above…..I’m curious how given that he calls philosophy which is influenced by others before them–given that he can’t and doesn’t escape the arch of historical influence. We stand on the shoulder of giants. Nietzshce can’t escape that chain and be outside of that system or pool of influence. Nor can those who are influenced by him, including his “followers” and those who sup on soma at the teet of his pen.

    This is especially the case given that the ethics/morality of the aff have a more distributed influence over time & place and its rarely spelled out in text (ie an ethical commitment to flourishing could come from anywhere and compiled–and be rich and varied–it can be a decopage of influence versus a direct river or conduit)…..versus the K authors being in a small cadre of academics who are either Nietzsche or influenced by him.

    * Reference to soma in Brave New World.

    This replies to my concerns above:

  4. compassioninpolitics / Jan 17 2013 5:07 am

    Embrace the aff as a means to maintain madness & creativity. (I’m curious if you could get away with using this as a perm card of paradox or just a flat-out link turn).

    I have a card that i found pretty good to substantiate your theory arguments as to why neg condo is the creative will nietzsche talks about while aff severence is the negative will that collapses into repitition of the same.
    Ill post the card but i really incourage reading the entire article because it is quite bad ass. I will say one thing, severence perms are easy (or theoretically should be) without this evidence but hey, if you get in a bind, read it and itll get you your ‘O’ back.

    The affirmative makes themselves a moving target making any link ground moot and debate as an activity becomes one sided and a repitition of the same. Severence is the eruption of arbitariness and madness that block the creative processes of the alternative.

    Bell ’95 (Jeffrey A. “Philosophizing the double-bind”. Philosophy Today; Winter 1995; 39, 4; Research Library
    pg. 371. Professor of Philosophy
    Southeastern Louisiana University.)

    Nietzsche’s response, a la Bateson, is to create. Thus, rather than submit or succumb to the pain and suffering of our existence, or our double bind, we can actively resist this pain through creativity. We can turn our pain and suffering into an active, creative suffering, or what Nietzsche calls “great suffering,” which he believes “has created all enhancements of man so far” as a result of “its inventiveness and courage in enduring, persevering, interpreting, and exploiting suffering.”49 As an active, creative suffering, this “great suffering” is to be contrasted with the suffering of a passive “creature” who simply accepts and succumbs to its suffering: In man creature and creator are united: in man there is material, fragment, excess, clay, dirt, nonesense, chaos; but in man there is also creator, form-giver, hammer hardness, spectator divinity, and seventh day: do you understand this contrast?50 It is with respect to the latter, “great suffering,” that he has pity, where this pity is contrasted to the pity for the passive suffering of the creature within us. Nietzsche calls his pity a “converse pity,” and “thus,” he concludes, “it is pity versus pity,” for the “great suffering” does call for pity. This is not a pity for the creature who has succumbed to suffering, but rather a pity for that which creates in response to its suffering; it is a pity that is counter to this pity-i.e., it “counteractualizes” this pity. Yet not all responses to the double bind, following Bateson again, are creative. Nietzsche was well aware of this. He recognizes, for example, the possibility of what he calls “the greatest danger that always hovered over humanity,” this danger being “the eruption of madness- which means the eruption of arbitrariness in feeling, seeing and hearing.”51 In short, the danger is that the will will succumb and submit to chaos, to “arbitrariness.” However, this danger should not be eliminated, should not be denied, for madness and chaos are necessary to create: “almost everywhere it was madness which prepared the way for the new idea, which broke the spell of a venerated usage and superstition.”52 Thus madness is necessary to avoid what Nietzsche takes to be our other danger: the collapse of the will into the venerated” repetition of the same “enduring habits,”53 customs, and traditions. One must be a little crazy, or one must have a little chaos in oneself, in order to create, to “throw off the yoke” of tradition. There is thus a two-fold danger associated with the delicate balance of creativity, or a danger inherent in the non-identifiable both/and structure of will to power. In short, the both/and of will to power runs the risk of collapsing into a destructive either/or: either the eruption of madness, or the repition of the same. In both cases what is destroyed is the ability to create and impose order, or what Nietzsche will also speak of as the ability “to promise.” 54 Those who are subservient to custom and tradition would be unable to promise for they would lack the ability to create, to be inventive and experimental, an ability which is often necessary to fulfill our promises (especially when contingencies arise); but those who are mad would also be unable to promise for they would lack the necessary order and regularity. Promising is thus a delicate, difficult, and dangerous undertaking-it forever risks collapsing into one side of a destructive either/or.55

  5. Nathan Ketsdever / Jan 26 2013 11:44 pm

    1) His depressing life biased his writings, including his relationship to women

    2) Nietzche’s concept of the Ubermench is tantamount to Nazism and the worst brutalities in history.

    3) The exclusion of ethics and virtue results in the worst brutalities in history. For instance, he critiques liberalism and democracy–and both of those have generally been on the right side of history versus the alternatives of dictatorship (see the research on Democide and Death by Government)

    4) Liberalism and democracy are good, Nietzsche destroys them. Nietzsche would turn the clock back on the reforms of the 1960’s.

    5) Truth and reason are good, Nietzsche destroys them. Reason helps provide a way to evaluate competing claims and to make decisions in a way that helps the long term health of an individual or community.

    6) No one really wants a Nietzschean as a friend or family member (Dreyfus). This is kind of like the Pepsi Challenge or a pretty decent gut check on if its a good philosophy or a bad one.

    7) Survival of the fittest is bad and/or evil (ie for kids and the disadvantaged)

    8) Compassion and relief of suffering is good. As a general rule we shouldn’t act to increase the suffering of others. We also probably shouldn’t stand idly by while others suffer.

    9) Virtue is key to society and the community. Virtue like respect, dignity, and honesty help create healthier individuals and societies.

    10) “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

    11) Those who follow Nietzsche versus some alternative philosophy–are really just copycats (ie herd mentality).

    2, 3, 4, and 10 are probably the same essential argument (arguments for accountable & democratic government though are arguably different from rights). Its still 6 to 7 core arguments. Arguably 7 & 8 are similar–although they make distinct arguments.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: