KcKcc Debate 2012-Infintie

Heidegger 1AC

Cummings
pg. 1

gadji beri bimba glandridi laula lonni cadori gadjama gramma berida bimbala glandri galassassa laulitalomini gadji beri bin blassa glassala laula lonni cadorsu sassala bim gadjama tuffm i zimzalla binban gligla wowolimai bin beri ban o katalominai rhinozerossola hopsamen laulitalomini hoooo gadjama rhinozerossola hopsamen bluku terullala blaulala loooo zimzim urullala zimzim urullala zimzim zanzibar zimzalla zam elifantolim brussala bulomen brussala bulomen tromtata velo da bang band affalo purzamai affalo purzamai lengado tor gadjama bimbalo glandridi glassala zingtata pimpalo grg viola laxato viola zimbrabim viola uli paluji malooo tuffm im zimbrabim negramai bumbalo negramai bumbalo tuffm i zim gadjama bimbala oo beri gadjama gaga di gadjama affalo pinx gaga di bumbalo bumbalo gadjamen gaga di bling blong gaga blung

-Hugo ball

pg. 1

KcKcc Debate 2012-Infintie

Heidegger 1AC

Cummings
pg. 2

Contention One: dont build your house on sand

Energy production and its use is predicated on an ontological enframing of the earth as standing reserve to be extracted and stored for use without end. Our affirmative seeks to free ourselves up to a mode of sustainable being by recognizing that focusing on beings rather being forecloses the whole picture of being.. through poetically dwelling we can let time reveal the true essence of being Backhaus 2009 April
20, Gary, Loyola College in Maryland, Department of Philosophy Automobility: Global Warming as Symptomatology, Sustainability 1, 187-208, online

The twentieth-century philosopher Martin Heidegger provides an approach that allows us to transcend the ideological-bound technorationalization represented in Gores analysis of the problem of global warming so that we engage a more fundamental analysis that uncovers deeper interpretive roots. A more reflective total approach (versus the instrumental rationality of problem-solving) is

necessary to inform the development of sustainability, for we must uncover the presuppositions of the worldview that deliver us over to auto-mobility, which opens us to a new reflection on sustainability. In his magnus opus, Being
and Time, Heidegger puts forth a thesisthat Being itself is not a being/entitythat strikes at the core of Western thinking [15]. For example, Aristotle privileged primary substance, the individual entity, as the fundamental being, linking all other manners of being to it, his ten categories. According to Heidegger, Western thinking has continued to misunderstand the question of Being as a question of beings. In doing so, correctness, or the relation between a statement and a state of affairs, has substituted for a deeper sense of truth. When we focus on beings, trying to properly define them, Being hides, for Being is other than the

entities brought forth from its context. Being is the whole or horizonal context that allows for the appearing of beings in the first place. This sounds like mysticism to those who dont understand the metaphysical tradition of the West. But

Heideggers notion here is no less understandable the scientific principle of Gestalt psychology that the whole is different than the sum of the parts. So, if your way of knowing limits you to examining parts, you will not understand the meaning of the whole. A way of Being (a wholea worldview) is what we are seeking to understand through this attempt to engage in a deeper analysis. Thus, Being must be pursued in a way that we arrive at the happening of truth, how a particular way of Being brings forth or Sustainability 2009, 1 196 unconceals beings, which means that we must

think beyond the whatness of beings in terms of the correctness of definitions. Truth involves unconcealment of the essence of something through a way, an interpretive form of Being. Some things concretely manifest through socio-historical
worldviews that allow entities to be brought into the clearing, that is, to be recognized/understood as something, as a type of being/entity. Before correctness can be established, the being must first be allowed to appear as something and this unconcealment is the deeper domain of truth. So a way of Being is an ontological agency, an ontological interpretive filter that allows certain beings to appear as the something that they appear as, as a function of the interpretive context. It is this essence/Being of automobility indicated by its symptom, global warming, that we must seek to uncover. Taking up Heideggers hermeneutic ontology in its reflection on Being allows us to envision global warming as a symptom, as an appearing, complex phenomenon through a particular way, the interpretive form of Being to which modern human life has been claimed. We are led to the essence of which global warming is an appearing symptom, which is other than its correct definitionone of the goals of Gores book is to responsibly inform the average non-scientifically educated person as to the whatness of global warming, a correct saying of the phenomenon. From a Heideggerian standpoint, Gores shallow analysis is blind to deeper truths that concern more than establishing correct statements describing the whatness of global warming. In the analysis of a later treatise, The Question Concerning Technology, Heidegger maintains that the essence of technology is not something technologicalits Being is not to be interpreted as itself a being (a technology). He provides what is regarded as the (standard/accepted) correct definition of technology as a human activity and as a means to an end. By contrast to the correct definition, Heidegger s analysis shows that the truth in the

revealing/unconcealment or the essence/Being of modern technology that allows for modern technological entities to show themselves as such is a challenging, which puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy which can be extracted and stored as such. But does this not hold true for the old windmill as well? No. Its sails do

pg. 2

KcKcc Debate 2012-Infintie

Heidegger 1AC

Cummings
pg. 3

indeed turn in the wind; they are left entirely to the wind s blowing. But the windmill does not unlock energy from the air currents in order to store it [16]. The challenging is a setting-in-order, a setting upon nature, such that the earth now reveals itself as a coal mining district and what the river is now, a water-power supplier, derives from the essence of the power station [16]. What is the character of this unconcealment? Everywhere everything is ordered to stand by, to be immediately on hand, indeed to stand there just so that it may be on call for a further ordering. Whatever is ordered about in this way has its own standing. We call it standing reserve [16]. And the
challenging that claims man to challenge nature in this way Heidegger labels, enframing. Enframing means the gathering together of that setting-upon that sets upon man, i.e., challenges him forth, to reveal the real, in the mode of ordering, as standing-reserve. Enframing means that the way of revealing that holds sway in the essence of modern technology and that is itself nothing technological [16]. Modern physics, which interprets nature as a system of calculable forces is the herald of enframing. The way of Being through which entities stand in the clearing, as technological instrumentalities, is enframing and the way of Being of those entities is that of standing reserve. This very brief discussion of Heidegger is important for two reasons. First, because my conception of automobility emphasizes the spatial organization of standing reserve, which Heidegger does not Sustainability 2009, 1 197 treat, and because automobility entails an empirical manifestation of mans ordering attitude and behavior in terms of spatial production, we recognize an already established ontological analysis from which automobility is to be interpreted. Secondly, we have an exemplar by which we can see what is to be done to uncover the Being that allows something to appear as that something, which is always other than the appearing beings. Heideggers hermeneutics provides the possibility to claim that the solution to the technologically

induced problem of global warming is not itself something technological, if indeed we are to open ourselves to other possible interpretational modes of Being such that other kinds of entities would then be unconcealed. We want to free ourselves up to sustainability as a way of Being by being open for a new way of interpretation, a new worldview, a new paradigm for living, other than enframing, by which new kinds of entities other than those of standing reserve will show themselves from its clearing.

This ontology of enframing devastates the earth and renders it an unworld devoid of being this is worse than mere annihilation because devastation represents the foreclosure of all possibilities of life while annihilation is merely a leveling out to zero. MITCHELL 2005, ANDREW J., Stanford University, HEIDEGGER AND
TERRORISM, Research in Phenomenology 35, 181-218

Devastation (Verwstung) is the process by which the world becomes a desert (Wste), a sandy expanse that seemingly extends without end, without landmarks or direction, and is devoid of all life.20 If we follow the dialogue in thinking an ancient Greek notion of life as another name for being, then the lifeless desert is the being-less desert. The world that becomes a lifeless desert is consequently an unworld from which being has withdrawn. The older prisoner makes this connection explicit, The being of an age of devastation would then consist in the abandonment of being
(GA 77: 213). As we have seen, this is a process that befalls the world, slowly dissolving it of worldliness and rendering it an unworld (cf. GA 7: 88, 92f./EP, 104, 107f., etc.). Yet this unworld is not simply the opposite of world; it remains a

world, but a world made desert. The desert is not the complete absence of world. Such an absence would not be reached by devastation (Verwstung), but rather by annihilation (Vernichtung); and for Heidegger, annihilation is far less of a concern than devastation: Devastation is more uncanny than mere annihilation [bloe Vernichtung]. Mere annihilation sweeps aside all things including even nothingness, while devastation on the contrary orders [bestellt] and spreads everything that blocks and prevents (WHD, 11/2930; tm). Annihilation as a thought of total absence is a thought from

pg. 3

KcKcc Debate 2012-Infintie

Heidegger 1AC

Cummings
pg. 4

metaphysics. It is one with a thinking of pure presence: pure presence, pure absence, and purely no contact between them. During another lecture course on Hlderlin, this time in 1942 on the hymn The Ister, Heidegger claims that annihilation is precisely the agenda of America in regards to the homeland, which is here equated with Europe: We know today that the Anglo-Saxon world of Americanism has resolved to annihilate [zu vernichten] Europe, that is, the homeland, and that means: the inception of the Western world. The inceptual is indestructible [unzerstrbar] (GA 53: 68/54; tm). America is the agent of technological devastation, and it operates under the assumptions of presence and absence that it itself is so expert at dissembling. America resolves to annihilate and condemns itself to failure in so doing, for the origin is indestructible. We could take this a step further and claim that only because the origin cannot be annihilated is it possible to destroy it. This possibility of

destruction is its indestructible character. It can always be further destroyed, but you will never annihilate it. Americanism names the endeavor or resolution to drive the destruction of the world ever further into the unworld. America is the agent of a malevolent being. This same reasoning explains why the older mans original conception of evil had to be rethought. Evil is the devastation of the earth and the annihilation of the human essence that goes along with it (GA 77: 207), he said, but this annihilation is simply too easy, too much of an Americanism. The human essence is not annihilated in evilwho could care about that? Instead it is destroyed and devastated by evil. Devastation does not annihilate, but brings about something worse, the unworld. Without limit, the desert of the unworld spreads, ever worsening and incessantly urging itself to new expressions of malevolence. Annihilation would bring respite and, in a perverse sense, relief. There would be nothing left to protect and guard, nothing left to concern ourselves withnothing left to terrorize. Devastation is also irreparable; no salvation can arrive for it. The younger man is able to voice the monstrous conclusion of this thinking of devastation: Then malevolence, as which devastation occurs [sich ereignet], would indeed remain a basic characteristic of being itself (GA 77: 213, 215; em). The
older man agrees, being would be in the ground of its essence malevolent (GA 77: 215). Being is not evil; it is something much worse; being is malevolent. Malevolent being is a being that threatens. It threatens itself with annihilation, with both total absence and total presence, for they are the same; it places itself in danger.21 This is so much as to say that all

of the supposed enemies of beingtechnology, metaphysics, the ontic, even being itself in regards to beyngthese are so many ways of beings self-showing, where beings self-showing is not to be understood as though beyng somehow remained behind all of these surrogates and was imaged in them. Being is found only in these situations, a point
Heidegger makes in the Contributions to Philosophy, Here, in the unavoidable ordinariness of beings, beyng is the most nonordinary; and this estranging of beyng is not a manner of its appearing but rather it itself (GA 65: 230/163; tm). Being is

endangered and withdrawn in essence. Just as we saw that there is no sense in talking about evil in itself, so too is there no sense in talking about being by itself: there is only malevolent beyng. If beings exist in the shadow of a threatened annihilation, and if such an existence is an existence in terror, then, as reprehensible as this might sound, being itself is what terrorizes. Terror is the threat of being.

The Ontopoetical is transformative precursor to the political, opening up spaces for new norms and ethics in international relations. Soguk, 2006
[Splinters of hegemony: ontopoetical visions in international relations; Nevzat Soguk http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3225/is_4_31/ai_n29317638/pg_2/?tag=content;col1]

Ultimately, therefore, attention to the ontopoetical faces and facets of international relations involves not some "aesthetic" preference but a capacity to broaden traditional boundaries and geographies, thereby highlighting new normative possibilities and ethical directions. As Michel de Certeau has argued in other contexts, the insertion of unfamiliar narratives into familiar stories produce new ontopoetical conditions pg. 4

KcKcc Debate 2012-Infintie

Heidegger 1AC

Cummings

pg. 5 enabling "novel citations" and, thus, expanded empirical and theoretical spaces. Once legitimized in a field like international relations, they reshape its existing legitimacies. (25) Thus, as Ranciere tells us, their emergence into the dominant space splinters the balance of hierarchies, already "prejudicially linked to certain regime of politics." (26) In the process, a new political geography, a new horizon, with fresh political grounds and ethical agendas becomes possible. As many others have argued, what is specifically at stake is an ethical-political agenda responsive to human echoes from the multiple worlds in ways beyond hegemonic determinations, expressing global or transversal spaces of dissonance, discrepant intentionalities, and multiple human struggles to be. Consequently, an ontopoetics must be attentive to expansive social, cultural, and economic geographies--must be actively cultivating of their transformative potentials. It must take the "calculus" of realpolitik and makes it play in the poetical spaces echoing the diverse sites of struggles, domination, and survival in the world.

Thus my partner and I present the following plan: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives for agricultural solar energy production.

Contention two: Disrupting the enframing

Industrialized agriculture enframes the production process as a critical mobilization of the standing reserve, bringing humanity to the zero point of the holocaust From Martin Heidegger: Agriculture is now a motorized food industry, in essence the same as the manufacturing of corpses in the gas chambers and extermination camps, the same as the blockade and starvation of the countryside, the same as the production of the hydrogen bombs.

Solar energy can efficiently supply almost all farming energy needs, but requires government backing EREC 2 (Department of Energy, Office of Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Agricultural Applications of Solar Energy
http://www.p2pays.org/ref/24/23989.htm)

pg. 5

KcKcc Debate 2012-Infintie

Heidegger 1AC

Cummings

pg. 6 Using the sun to dry crops and grain is one of the oldest and most widely used applications of solar energy. The
simplest, and least expensive technique is to allow crops to dry naturally in the field, or to spread grain and fruit out in the sun after harvesting. The disadvantage of these methods is that the crops and grain are subject to damage by birds, rodents, wind, and rain, and

sophisticated solar dryers protect grain and fruit, reduce losses, dry faster and more uniformly, and produce a better quality product than open-air methods. The basic components of a solar dryer are an enclosure or shed, screened drying trays or racks, and a solar collector. In hot, arid climates the collector may not even be necessary. The southern side of the enclosure itself can be glazed to allow sunlight to dry the material. The collector can be as simple as a glazed box with a dark colored interior to absorb the solar energy that heats air. The air heated in the solar collector moves, either by natural convection or forced by a fan, up through the material being dried. The size of the collector and rate of airflow depends on the amount of material being dried, the moisture content of the material, the humidity in the air, and the average amount of solar radiation available during the drying season. There is a relatively small number of large solar crop dryers in the United States. This is because the cost of the solar collector can be high, and drying rates are not
contamination by windblown dust and dirt. More as controllable as they are with natural gas or propane powered dryers. Using the collector at other times of the year, such as for heating farm buildings, may make a solar dryer more cost-effective. It is possible to make small, very low cost dryers out of simple

Livestock and dairy operations often have substantial air and water heating requirements. Modern pig and poultry farms raise animals in enclosed buildings, where it is necessary to carefully control temperature and air quality to maximize the health and growth of the animals. These facilities need to replace the indoor air regularly to remove moisture, toxic gases, odors, and dust. Heating this air, when necessary, requires large amounts of energy. With proper planning and design, solar air/space heaters can be incorporated into farm buildings to preheat incoming fresh air. These systems can also induce or increase natural ventilation levels during summer months. Solar water heating systems can provide low to medium temperature hot water for pen cleaning. Commercial dairy farms use large amounts of energy to heat water to clean equipment, as well as to warm
materials. These systems can be useful for drying vegetables and fruit for home use. Space and Water Heating and stimulate cows udders. Heating water and cooling milk can account for up to 40% of the energy used on a dairy farm. Solar water heating systems may be used to supply all or part of these hot water requirements. Greenhouse Heating Another agricultural application of solar energy is greenhouse heating. Commercial greenhouses typically rely on the sun to supply their lighting needs, but are not designed to use the sun for heating. They rely on gas or oil heaters to maintain the temperatures necessary to grow plants in the

A solar greenhouse has thermal mass to collect and store solar heat energy, and insulation to retain this heat for use during the night and on cloudy days. A solar greenhouse is oriented to maximize southern glazing exposure. Its northern side has little or no glazing, and is well insulated. To reduce heat loss, the glazing itself is also more efficient than single-pane glass, and various products are available ranging from double pane to "cellular" glazing . A solar greenhouse reduces the need for fossil fuels for heating. A gas or oil heater may serve as a back-up heater, or to increase carbon dioxide levels to induce higher plant growth. Remote Electricity Supply Solar electric, or photovoltaic (PV), systems convert sunlight directly to electricity. They can power an electrical appliance directly, or store solar energy in a battery. A "remote" location can be several miles or as little as 50 feet (15 meters) from a power source. PV systems may be much cheaper than installing power lines and step down transformers in applications such as electrical fencing, lighting, and water pumping. Water Pumping Photovoltaic (PV) water pumping systems may be the most cost-effective water pumping option in locations where there is no existing power line. When properly sized and installed, PV water pumps are very reliable and require little maintenance. The size and cost of a PV water pumping system depends on the local solar resource, the pumping depth, water demand, and system purchase and installation costs. Although todays prices for PV panels make most crop irrigation systems too expensive, PV systems are very cost effective for remote livestock water supply, pond aeration, and small irrigation systems.
colder months. Solar greenhouses, however, are designed to utilize solar energy for both heating and lighting .

Only federal government subsidies can drive the transition to solarized agriculturethis stimulates the small-farm polycropping that is key to re-creating genetic resiliency and diversity by eliminating the need for fertilizers and pesticides Pollan 8 (Michael, contributing writer to the New York Times Magazine and is a Knight Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley, 10/7/2008,
Farmer in Chief Published: October 9, 2008 New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/magazine/12policy-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1)

a 21st-century food system needs to do. First, your administrations food policy must strive to provide a healthful diet for all our people; this means focusing on the quality and diversity (and not merely the quantity) of the calories that American agriculture produces and American eaters consume. Second, your policies should aim to improve the resilience, safety and security of our food supply. Among other things, this means promoting regional food economies both in America and around the world. And lastly, your policies need to reconceive agriculture as part of the solution to environmental problems like climate change. These goals are admittedly ambitious, yet they will not be difficult to align or advance as long as we keep in mind this One Big Idea: most of the problems our food system faces today are
In drafting these proposals, Ive adhered to a few simple principles of what

pg. 6

KcKcc Debate 2012-Infintie

Heidegger 1AC

Cummings

pg. 7 because of its reliance on fossil fuels, and to the extent that our policies wring the oil out of the system and replace it with the energy of the sun, those policies will simultaneously improve the state of our health, our environment and our security. I. Resolarizing the American Farm What happens in the field influences every other link of the food chain on up to our meals if we grow monocultures of corn and soy, we will find the products of processed corn and soy on our plates. Fortunately for your initiative, the federal government has enormous leverage in determining exactly what happens on the 830 million acres of American crop and pasture land. Today most government farm and food programs are designed to prop up the old system of maximizing production from a handful of subsidized commodity crops grown in monocultures. Even food-assistance programs like WIC and school lunch focus on maximizing
quantity rather than quality, typically specifying a minimum number of calories (rather than maximums) and seldom paying more than lip service to nutritional quality. This focus on quantity may have made sense in a time of food scarcity, but today it gives us a school-lunch program that feeds chicken nuggets and Tater Tots to overweight and diabetic children. Your

challenge is to take control of this vast federal machinery and use it to drive a transition to a new solar-food economy, starting on the farm. Right now, the government actively discourages the farmers it subsidizes from growing healthful, fresh food: farmers receiving crop
subsidies are prohibited from growing specialty crops farm-bill speak for fruits and vegetables. (This rule was the price exacted by California and Florida produce growers in exchange for

the greater the diversity of crops on a farm, the less the need for both fertilizers and pesticides. The power of cleverly designed polycultures to produce large amounts of food from little more than soil, water and sunlight has been proved, not only by small-scale alternative farmers in the United States but also by large rice-and-fish farmers in China and giant-scale operations (up to 15,000 acres) in places like Argentina. There, in a geography roughly comparable to that of the American farm belt, farmers have traditionally employed an ingenious eightyear rotation of perennial pasture and annual crops: after five years grazing cattle on pasture (and producing the worlds best beef), farmers can then grow three years of grain without applying any fossil-fuel fertilizer. Or, for that matter, many pesticides: the weeds that afflict pasture cant survive the years of tillage, and the weeds of row crops dont survive the years of grazing, making herbicides all but unnecessary. There is no reason save current policy and custom that American farmers couldnt grow both high-quality grain and grass-fed beef under such a regime through much of the Midwest. (It should be noted that todays sky-high grain prices are causing many Argentine farmers to abandon their rotation to grow grain and soybeans exclusively, an environmental disaster in the making.) Federal policies could do much to encourage this sort of diversified sun farming. Begin with the subsidies: payment levels should reflect the number of different crops farmers grow or the number of days of the year their fields are green that is, taking advantage of photosynthesis, whether to grow food, replenish the soil or control erosion. If Midwestern farmers simply planted a cover crop after the fall harvest, they would significantly reduce their need for fertilizer, while cutting down on soil erosion. Why dont farmers do this routinely? Because in recent years fossil-fuel-based fertility has been so much cheaper and easier to use than sun-based fertility.
going along with subsidies for commodity crops.) Commodity farmers should instead be encouraged to grow as many different crops including animals as possible. Why? Because

Renewable energy and localized agriculture present an authentic relationship with the earth that is critical to overcoming the standing reserve. Rather than exploiting the natural world through willful mastery, we cultivate an explicit relationship with Being Heidegger 53 (Martin Heidegger, philosopher/professor, The Question Concerning Technology, publishing 1971, p. 14-18) the revealing that holds sway throughout modern technology does not unfold into a brining-forth in the sense of poesis. The revealing that rules in modern technology is a challenging, which puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy that can be extracted and stored as such. But does this not hold true for the old windmill as well? No. Its sails do indeed turn in the wind; they are left entirely to the winds blowing. But the windmill does not unlock energy from the air currents in order to store it. In contrast, a tract of land is challenged into the putting out of coal and ore. The earth now reveals itself as a coal mining district, the soil as a mineral deposit. The field that the peasant formerly cultivated and set in order appears differently than it did when to set in order still meant to take care of and to maintain. The work of the peasant does not challenge the soil of the field. In the sowing of the grain it places the seed in the keeping of the forces of growth and watches over its increase. But meanwhile even the cultivation of the field has come under the grip of another
And yet

pg. 7

KcKcc Debate 2012-Infintie

Heidegger 1AC

Cummings

pg. 8 kind of setting-in-order, which sets upon nature. It sets upon it in the sense of challenging it. Agriculture is now the mechanized food industry. Air is now set upon to yield nitrogen, the earth to yield ore, ore to yield uranium, for example; uranium is set upon to yield atomic energy,
which can be released either for destruction or for peaceful use.

pg. 8

KcKcc Debate 2012-Infintie

Heidegger 1AC

Cummings
pg. 9

Contention three: Paradox

Have the past struggles succeeded? What has succeeded? Yourself? Your nation? Nature? Now understand me wellIt is provided in the essence of things, that from any fruition of success, no matter what, shall come forth something to make a greater struggle necessary. Walt Whitman, Poem of the Road s. 53, Leaves of Grass, 1860

All paths are equally dangerous, but only consciously risking ourselves can rescue thought from its apocalyptic preoccupation with calculation. Such openness to insecurity keeps alive the questioning that is necessary to prevent the conditions that led Heidegger to Nazism Dillon 96 (Michael. Politics of Security: Towards a political philosophy of continental thought. pg. 32-33) While we have no greater provocation than the terminal paradox of our (inter)national politics of security to doubt the truth and the value (the truth-value) of security, it is perfectly obvious also that thinking the limit is itself, however, a very dangerous game. For to doubt the truth and value of security seems to deny us the very means of survival in the most lethal of circumstances; particularly when it does not come equipped with a promise that we can secure an
escape form (in)security, danger or a final overcoming of the violence which threatens, and is always threatened by, the agonal mortal life of human being. There are no dangerous thoughts, said one of the very few contemporary political philosophersHannah Arendtwhose work was deeply influenced by Heidegger. Thinking

itself, she concluded is dangerous. Heidegger, too, called the ontological differencewhich is the very thought that re-opens the question of the politicalthe most dangerous matter for thought. But non-thinking, Arendt nonetheless also cautioned, which seems so recommendable a state for political and moral affairs, also has its perils. To think and not to think, especially where the matter for thought is the question of the political, are therefore equally dangerous things to do. All this, then, is very dangerous talk. However, then if it is inevitably dangerous, it is dangerous in different ways and for different reasons. It is dangerous first of all because it is the product of, and requires a

certain kind of thinking; one which challenges the very assumptions of thought itself. And I, therefore, not merely
thought but a wager with the wager of human being itself. To work in Heideggers choppy wake, as Dennis Schmidt put it, is both to take a risk and to set oneself at odds with oneself. One takes the risk of radical error if one is less than vigilant when answering the call for questioning without restraint, even questioning our capacity to question at all today. Worse, vigilance itself is no ultimate guarantee of security against such error. The very possibility of such error is ineradicable precisely because our mortal condition is a free one. It is dangerous, second, because, of course, any consideration of security is concerned with danger. Everything anti thinks in
the spirit of that against which it is anti. How, in other words, would you know what security was without its being differentiated as such from what is not. All security, however defined is consequently a relationship towards insecurity, and vise versa. Security and insecurity belong together.

(In)security is, therefore, humanitys share. This talk is dangerous, thirdly, in that the very thinking from which it draws its inspiration is not only thought to be dangerous but has also been appropriated, in the past, to serve the totalitarianism which has given political form of the nihilistic impulses of modern life. It is also dangerous, finally, in that this dangerous thinking is itself ultimately preoccupied with the global danger of the nihilism of the (inter)national politics of late modern times. Danger does not merely stalk all of this talk and its thought, danger is its very mtier. Nothing, then, is without danger. Certainly not, of course, the

traditional thought of the political upon which our modern (intern)national politics of security rely. Dealing with dangerous discourses of danger should, therefore, encourage caution, but there is simply no pg. 9

KcKcc Debate 2012-Infintie

Heidegger 1AC

Cummings

pg. 10 escaping the risk. For this risk is the risk which mortal freedom necessarily entails. Here, Heidegger, not only the
leading philosopher of the philosophy of the limit but also the most controversial, himself provides one of the best guides. He does not simply because his own thought is a model of deliberate and careful questioning, specifically designed to impose a brake upon the sheer velocity, and effects a break with, the imperatives of the tradition in an effort to disrupt its ballistic trajectory. He is a good guide because he seems to have proved fatefully fallible in his commitment to his own project at the very point in which he directly encountered the question of the political. Ordinarily taken to be the decisive reason for dismissing Heidegger, I think that this fallibility has a crucial value in the recovery of political thought, precisely because in the pursuit of the question of the political one can never rest easy with Heideggers thinking, or adopt him as a political mentor. In addition, then, to his model of questioning, his very conduct keeps political questioning alive within you.

Every revealing conceals turning any truth claims.. McWhorter 92 (Ladelle, Professor of Philosophy and Womens Studies at Richmond, Heidegger and the earth: Essays in
environmental philosophy, Thomas Jefferson University Press, pp. 4-5)

Every academic discipline, whether it be biology or history, anthropology or mathematics, is interested in discovery, in the relevation of new truths. Knowledge, at least as it is institutionalized in the modern world, is concerned, then, with what Heidegger would call revealing, the bringing to light, or the coming to presence of things. However, in order for any of this revealing to occur, Heidegger says, concealing must also occur. Revealing and concealing belong together. Now, what does this mean? We know that in order to pay-attention to one thing, we must stop paying close attention to something else.
In order to read philosophy we must stop reading cereal boxes. In order to attend to the needs of students we must sacrifice some of our research time. Allowing for one thing to reveal itself means allowing for the concealing of something else. All revealing comes at the price of concomitant concealment. But this is more than just a kind of Kantian acknowledgment of human limitation. Heidegger is not simply dressing up the obvious, that is, the fact that no individual can undergo two different experiences simultaneously. His is not a point about human subjectivity at all. Rather, it is a point about revealing itself. When revealing reveals itself as temporally linear and causally ordered, for example, it cannot

simultaneously reveal itself as ordered by song and unfolding in dream. Furthermore, in revealing, revealing itself is concealed in order for what is revealed to come forth. Thus, when revealing occurs concealing occurs as well. The two events are one and cannot be separated.

pg. 10