This is a 12 Page Essay by Ayn Rand in her book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".
Regardless of what you otherwise think about Objectivism, this essay will appeal to any and every defender of Rand Paul, who is currently subject to defamatory accusations of "Extremism".
This essay approaches the 'Anti-Concept' of "extremism" from an abstract, ethical standpoint - showing how it's users intend to subvert discussions of abstract principle, while simultaneously volubly preaching the negation of values.
Here is a what Ayn Rand means by the term "Anti-Concept":
“Anti-Concepts”
An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate . . . .
One of today’s fashionable anti-concepts is “polarization.” Its meaning is not very clear, except that it is something bad—undesirable, socially destructive, evil—something that would split the country into irreconcilable camps and conflicts. It is used mainly in political issues and serves as a kind of “argument from intimidation”: it replaces a discussion of the merits (the truth or falsehood) of a given idea by the menacing accusation that such an idea would “polarize” the country—which is supposed to make one’s opponents retreat, protesting that they didn’t mean it. Mean—what? . . .
It is doubtful—even in the midst of today’s intellectual decadence—that one could get away with declaring explicitly: “Let us abolish all debate on fundamental principles!” (though some men have tried it). If, however, one declares; “Don’t let us polarize,” and suggests a vague image of warring camps ready to fight (with no mention of the fight’s object), one has a chance to silence the mentally weary. The use of “polarization” as a pejorative term means: the suppression of fundamental principles. Such is the pattern of the function of anti-concepts.
And here is a link to the book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...?ie=UTF8&qid=1274569699&sr=8-1&condition=used
$3.50 Best Price.
Now any time someone (whether a friend, anchorman, blogger, protester) uses the word "Extremism" to describe Rand Paul's policies, you will have a plethora of meaningful counterarguments.
Regardless of what you otherwise think about Objectivism, this essay will appeal to any and every defender of Rand Paul, who is currently subject to defamatory accusations of "Extremism".
This essay approaches the 'Anti-Concept' of "extremism" from an abstract, ethical standpoint - showing how it's users intend to subvert discussions of abstract principle, while simultaneously volubly preaching the negation of values.
Here is a what Ayn Rand means by the term "Anti-Concept":
“Anti-Concepts”
An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate . . . .
One of today’s fashionable anti-concepts is “polarization.” Its meaning is not very clear, except that it is something bad—undesirable, socially destructive, evil—something that would split the country into irreconcilable camps and conflicts. It is used mainly in political issues and serves as a kind of “argument from intimidation”: it replaces a discussion of the merits (the truth or falsehood) of a given idea by the menacing accusation that such an idea would “polarize” the country—which is supposed to make one’s opponents retreat, protesting that they didn’t mean it. Mean—what? . . .
It is doubtful—even in the midst of today’s intellectual decadence—that one could get away with declaring explicitly: “Let us abolish all debate on fundamental principles!” (though some men have tried it). If, however, one declares; “Don’t let us polarize,” and suggests a vague image of warring camps ready to fight (with no mention of the fight’s object), one has a chance to silence the mentally weary. The use of “polarization” as a pejorative term means: the suppression of fundamental principles. Such is the pattern of the function of anti-concepts.
And here is a link to the book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...?ie=UTF8&qid=1274569699&sr=8-1&condition=used
$3.50 Best Price.
Now any time someone (whether a friend, anchorman, blogger, protester) uses the word "Extremism" to describe Rand Paul's policies, you will have a plethora of meaningful counterarguments.
