Anti-Concepts
Posted by conscious1978 10 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
In Rand's _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_, she exposes the ploy of using "anti-concepts" in the essay, "Extremism," or The Art of Smearing.
"It consists of creating an artificial, unnecessary, and (rationally) unusable term, designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concepts—a term which sounds like a concept, but stands for a "package-deal" of disparate, incongruous, contradictory elements taken out of any logical conceptual order or context, a "package-deal" whose (approximately) defining characteristic is always a non-essential. This last is the essence of the trick."
Also, she states:
"The purpose of 'anti-concepts' is to obliterate certain concepts without public discussion; and, as a means to that end, to make public discussion unintelligible, and to induce the same disintegration in the mind of any man who accepts them, rendering him incapable of clear thinking or rational judgment. No mind is better than the precision of its concepts."
She wrote that in 1965, but the technique has been perfected and widely used since. It is difficult to hear and see so many excellent words that have been the target of this type of dishonesty. Some concepts have been disconnected from their labels via unwarranted negative connotations, or their labels (words) have been co-opted by the smearing use of anti-concepts.
As a few examples, consider how these concepts have been abused and how they are generally interpreted by most people today:
Capitalism
Business
Free markets
Profits
Objectivism
Love
Patriot
Theory
There are many more to add to the list. For starters, could we please try to refrain from corrupting "capitalism" any longer with the anti-concept of "crony capitalism"? :) Let's call it cronyism, political cronyism, or corruption - and try to expose both ends of that unethical equation.
"It consists of creating an artificial, unnecessary, and (rationally) unusable term, designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concepts—a term which sounds like a concept, but stands for a "package-deal" of disparate, incongruous, contradictory elements taken out of any logical conceptual order or context, a "package-deal" whose (approximately) defining characteristic is always a non-essential. This last is the essence of the trick."
Also, she states:
"The purpose of 'anti-concepts' is to obliterate certain concepts without public discussion; and, as a means to that end, to make public discussion unintelligible, and to induce the same disintegration in the mind of any man who accepts them, rendering him incapable of clear thinking or rational judgment. No mind is better than the precision of its concepts."
She wrote that in 1965, but the technique has been perfected and widely used since. It is difficult to hear and see so many excellent words that have been the target of this type of dishonesty. Some concepts have been disconnected from their labels via unwarranted negative connotations, or their labels (words) have been co-opted by the smearing use of anti-concepts.
As a few examples, consider how these concepts have been abused and how they are generally interpreted by most people today:
Capitalism
Business
Free markets
Profits
Objectivism
Love
Patriot
Theory
There are many more to add to the list. For starters, could we please try to refrain from corrupting "capitalism" any longer with the anti-concept of "crony capitalism"? :) Let's call it cronyism, political cronyism, or corruption - and try to expose both ends of that unethical equation.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Republic: a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
To me the key difference is that in the democracy the power rests in all the people while in a republic is a body of the people entitled to vote.
This creates a problem with the idea that we are a republic. Let me first discuss the original way our federal officials were elected and the relationship each office had with the states as a result of the election process.
The president represented the state governors not the people. That was why the governors appointed men/women to the electoral collage who then voted on the president. Ultimately the president answered to the governors. If he wanted his job again it would be largely up to the governors if he got it or not. The governors are specific body of people.
The Senate represented the states, evenly regardless of size. Thus the reason why the senate was appointed by the state legislators. The senators did not answer to the people but rather to the state legislator. Once again it was a specific body of people that were able to get a senator in to office or out of office.
The house represented the land owners. As only a land owner could vote. This was the closest thing to a representative democracy in the federal government.
Now women could not vote. I am ignoring that as opening the vote to women did not really change us from a republic to a democracy. If all else had been left alone all three of those bodies would still be republic bodies.
Each has had its election model changed, and in all case - one could argue the president otherwise, but I would not agree with it - we have through constitutional amendment effectively changed our government from a republic to a democracy.
Its not a fake republic, the US became a democracy and if it had not we would not have most (and possibly any) of the issues we have today.
If the president had to get in front of a relatively small group of well educated people on the current issues that were hand picked by governors based on issues of the time could a man with no understanding of economics get in the white house when the economy was a major issue? Could a man with no diplomatic skills get in when foreign affairs were a major issue?
With the senate answering to the states rather than the people could programs that would remove power form the state, or put additional burden on the state ever get into law? Could a program like welfare ever come to be? I do not think so. The house may pass such a bill but the senate would never let it fly.
The house, if only land owners voted, would it allow for a giveaway program? Even if that condition was dropped but voting was a privilege to be earned in some other way rather than a right would such programs be likely to every even be brought up? I think it unlikely.
Now at a state level I am sure some states would attempt to have free health care, and free retirement... as states are democracies, and always have been largely democracies. However they would have to compete with states that had no such public programs. The commerce would flee the state and the state would have to change due to the free market competition between states.
We have effectively change all three to a representative democracy rather than a republic. I would like to understand in what way our government is a republic today. It was set up as a republic.
We changed our country to a democracy through constitutional amendment and that is at the center of everything that has gone wrong with it. It is not the only factor but it is a major factor.
The question is what words do you use to get people to understand that having everyone vote is not a good idea. Having no representation at the federal level that answers to states is a bad idea and having a president elected by popular opinion is about the worst thing ever. What are the words you use to convey that without a long post like this one?