17

Anti-Concepts

Posted by conscious1978 10 years, 10 months ago to Philosophy
70 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by RGrimes1987 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Could the body of citizens that you define as a republic actually be those we elected to congress though? I do like how you describe the transformation of our country.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RGrimes1987 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The only thing I can really find is that in all reality the electoral collage is all that matters since a president can lose an election even if he has the popular vote. My question to that asks. Why isn't there more of an emphasis on the electoral collage and getting people in that? I think that they do have some state or federal rules, not amendments, that say if you win a certain percentage of votes than you get all of the electoral votes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by IndianaGary 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Then you are not objecting to tax-funded healthcare on MORAL grounds, which is the proper approach. Objecting on economic grounds leaves the moral high ground to your opponent.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by salta 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    IndianaGary, an example topic would be discussion of tax funded healthcare. If I once use the word "socialism" or even "socialized healthcare", then someone is likely to try to tell me what the REAL definition of socialism is, and the main topic gets lost. Just saying thats why I try to avoid using certain hot-button labels, and stick to economic principles instead.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by IndianaGary 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Agreement on definitions is mandatory for any meaningful discussion to occur. What, otherwise, could you possibly be able to debate?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by shivas 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Okay...I found the 17th Amendment that changed the way senators are elected. I can't find an Amendment that changes the voting eligibility from land owners to citizen or the change in presidential elections from electoral collage to popular vote. Can anyone point me in the right direction here?

    I love the land owner concept, as those who own land really do have a stake the country, although we'd subdividing land into square feet to get a vote.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.

    Thanks. Maybe you heard "crapitalism" from me, since I use it routinely in the Gulch
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Wasn't the term "capitalism" a construct of Karl Marx? Let's stick to free enterprise, or just enterprise, especially given the positive Star Trek connotation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Arrrggh! You're right. A part of my brain must be trying to shield me from the fields of anti-concepts used in the Obamacare discussion. Thank you for the painful reminder.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 10 years, 10 months ago
    I just sent the ACLU a whole bunch of my recently dead father-in-laws winning letters of millions of dollars. He's receive 80 plus since he died a month ago. ACLU sent him a letter telling how the right was trying to suppress voter rights by requiring ID to vote, and they wanted a donation. I gave them one, stuffing a bunch of those "you just won millions of dollars" letters in their "No Postage Necessary" envelope. It came out quite heavy. Maybe they can collect some of his "winnings" and use the money to support their effort to continue to deceive the people. ACLU, does that qualify as an Anti-Concept today?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think I understand your sentiment, but "crapitalism" is something that just further degrades the meaning of capitalism, so becoming another anti-concept. ;)

    I would like to think the word "capitalism" still has a chance to survive while attached to the concept. If not, we'll have to create a new one that is scrubbed of recent generations of dirt.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by salta 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Agreement on definitions is obviously an advantage. Although even if we can eventually agree on a definition of some label, we still have not achieved any progress on the specific moral or philosophical issue at hand.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is very true that any logical discussion begins with definitions. I suggest keeping a dictionary on hand or being prepared to defend your particular definition.

    All this assumes, of course, that the other parties are in it for the truth, or just to argue.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 10 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Absolutely. I recently heard the term given to it, "crapitalism". I use that now.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by net5000 10 years, 10 months ago
    Begulator
    Begulation
    Capitolism
    Levytation
    Green$
    Socialist = Liberal



    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 10 months ago
    could we add:
    tea party (for racist klan people)
    immigration (for invasion)
    reform (for amnesty)
    music (for rap)
    talk radio ( for right-wing lies)
    healthcare (for health insurance)
    settled science (for east anglia dry-lab)
    smidgen (for vast majority)
    climate change (for global warming)
    economics (for targeted bribery)
    social justice (for progressivism)
    dogwhistle (for leper's bell of an approaching looter)
    etc.
    -- j

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by salta 10 years, 10 months ago
    Does anybody find most political labels cause a barrier to communication?
    They should provide a shorthand to the meaning being communicated, but unless I'm talking with my friends who I know have similar politics I try to just talk about specific issues rather than using labels. "Socialism" is the most problematic, as soon as that word is mentioned somebody is always eager to define it for everyone, and the conversation degrades with the actual issue getting ignored.
    "But that's not what socialism means..." (oh no, here we go again!)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 10 months ago
    Admonishment acknowledged.
    Advice accepted.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo