Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Kateb 1992 George, Professor of Politics at Princeton University, The Inner Ocean pg. 141
But neither of these responses will do in the nuclear situation . To affirm existence as such
is to go beyond good and evil; it is to will its perpetual prolongation for no
particular reason. To affirm existence is not to praise it or love it
or find it good. These responses are no more defensible
than their contrariesno more defensible than calling existence absurd, or
meaningless, or worthless. All such responses are appropriate only for particulars.
Existence does not have systemic attributes amenable to univocal
judgments. At least some of us cannot accept the validity of revelation, or play on ourselves the trick of
regarding existence as if it were the designed work of a personal God, or presume to call it good, and bless it
as if it were the existence we would have created if we had the power, and think that it therefore deserves to
exist and is justifiable just as it is. No: these argumentative moves are bad moves; they are hopeless
further I realized that there is the possibility of oscillation away from, although not fully void of, dehumanization. In
nonhuman technology is a major contributor to the dehumanization of the worker. Businesses depend on the use of
computerized equipment to either replace or control the individuals participation in the workplace. In addition,
use of technology with items such as Blackberries, IPhones, IPads, etc., allows
for what society views as greater efficiency and control. Many
personal
people use scripted language such as texting as a quick communication compared to face-to-face conversation or a
telephone conversation. Society values how quickly things can be accomplished with the use of technology, from
another force to be contended with in the fight for movement away from dehumanization. Globalization refers to
how different cultures interact with one another, whether person to person, politically, or economically. As we need
to find a common ground to work together, it will place more pressure for individuals to become more autonomous
in order to survive as a whole (Ritzer, 2008).
Explanation/Analysis
This evidence says that the dehumanization impact the
aff. is trying to make, wont solve and will never solve
because of technology. We will never get rid of
technology, so we wont get rid of dehumanization. The
aff. claims they will solve for dehumanization but because
we have technology that can be used against people for
many reasons making them feel as if they are worthless
and deprived of human qualitites, dehumanization can
never be solved or ended.