Comments on: Battlestar and the Political http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2006/11/battlestar-and-the-political.html Animal studies--and more! Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:04:04 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Mandos http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2006/11/battlestar-and-the-political.html/comment-page-1#comment-7775 Mandos Mon, 20 Nov 2006 21:56:28 +0000 http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2006/11/battlestar-and-the-political.html#comment-7775 The series has its ups and downs from there, but I do think that you're largely going to enjoy what happens from there. SPOILER (though it seems you don't care all that much) In recent episodes, we are introduced to the a new Cylon form, the "hybrid", which forms the transition between the biological Cylons and the mechanical Cylons. In one scene, the biological Cylons make a policy decision, and the hybrid registers a vociferous objection to it via a piercing, primal scream. "The Hybrid objects," says one humaniform Cylon. Another says, "Oh yeah? Well, she doesn't *get* a vote!" ie, to them, she *definitely* hasn't proven she's alive... The series has its ups and downs from there, but I do think that you’re largely going to enjoy what happens from there.

SPOILER (though it seems you don’t care all that much)

In recent episodes, we are introduced to the a new Cylon form, the “hybrid”, which forms the transition between the biological Cylons and the mechanical Cylons. In one scene, the biological Cylons make a policy decision, and the hybrid registers a vociferous objection to it via a piercing, primal scream. “The Hybrid objects,” says one humaniform Cylon. Another says, “Oh yeah? Well, she doesn’t *get* a vote!”

ie, to them, she *definitely* hasn’t proven she’s alive…

]]> By: Peli http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2006/11/battlestar-and-the-political.html/comment-page-1#comment-7701 Peli Sun, 19 Nov 2006 12:57:47 +0000 http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2006/11/battlestar-and-the-political.html#comment-7701 btw- "humanity defining" in the "being human" sense you allude to aristotle as coining, not the "humanity the impossible political body" sense of schmitt. btw- “humanity defining” in the “being human” sense you allude to aristotle as coining, not the “humanity the impossible political body” sense of schmitt.

]]> By: Peli http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2006/11/battlestar-and-the-political.html/comment-page-1#comment-7665 Peli Sun, 19 Nov 2006 04:07:23 +0000 http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2006/11/battlestar-and-the-political.html#comment-7665 Hope I'm not being rude\tiresome (hopefully just the second one), but the structure of the argument\analysis here seems kind of shaky to me, at least in terms of the punchline, unless I got it wrong: The Nietzche aphorism is supposed to connect with the Aristotle one [which I'm not quite sure was ever suggested as a definition, but my memory is little fuzzy there], right? But humanity being "an animal turning on itself" happens as a result of the *reawakening* of the political by confrontation with outside forces, not as a result of reverting to an animistic state in the absence of the humanity-defining political. No? Hope I’m not being rude\tiresome (hopefully just the second one), but the structure of the argument\analysis here seems kind of shaky to me, at least in terms of the punchline, unless I got it wrong:

The Nietzche aphorism is supposed to connect with the Aristotle one [which I'm not quite sure was ever suggested as a definition, but my memory is little fuzzy there], right?

But humanity being “an animal turning on itself” happens as a result of the *reawakening* of the political by confrontation with outside forces, not as a result of reverting to an animistic state in the absence of the humanity-defining political. No?

]]>