What do You think about On Bullshit (2005)?
Sometimes a great way to learn how to philosophize is just to see it done. In this short monograph, talented philosopher, Harry Frankfurt, analyzes the concept of "bullshit" (B.S.). What do we mean, precisely, when we say of something that it is B.S.? Or that someone is a B.S.er? Frankfurt takes on this task and produces a fine piece of philosophy, with some helpful points along the way.Frankfurt claims that the essence of B.S. is a lack of connection with truth, an indifference to how things really are. It's not so much as presenting falsehoods as it is presenting something phony. The B.S.er is faking things. There's a difference between B.S.ing and lying. A liar at least is concerned with the truth enough to know that he needs or wants to misrepresent it. The B.S.er just says a bunch of "shit." And "shit" is matter which everything nutritious as been removed. The death of health and nutrients. Lies misrepresent a state of affairs or the beliefs of the speaker concerning the state of affairs. The liar cares about the facts. The B.S.er doesn't. He just means to deceive us as to what he is up to. He misrepresents what he is up to - someone concerned with the way things are. The liar hides the fact that he is lying, the B.S.er that he cares about truth. Thus the B.S.er is neither on the side of truth or error. His eyes are not on the facts, at all.By virtue of this, says Frankfurt, the B.S.er is a greater enemy of the truth than the liar. Thus B.S.ing, which is popular and prevalent in our society, involves a retreat from correctness (which the liar cares enough about to hid, and the honest man cares enough about to get right and promulgate) to a different sort of discipline - sincerity. Rather than trying to represent the world correctly, he turns toward himself. But why think we can know ourselves all that well? Facts about ourselves are not often resistant to skeptical dissolution. I could only think of God's words in Jeremiah: "The heart is wicked and deceitful above all else, who can know it?" Thus Frankfurt finds that sincerity, as espoused in an anti-realist, post-modern context, is itself bullshit.Frankfurt's book makes for spring boarding into some interesting debate and discussion - something Frankfurt is known for doing (e.g., Frankfurt-style counterexamples to ought implies can do otherwise). Indeed, his little book spawned "Bullshit and Philosophy," a book with many articles on the concept and nature of B.S. by professional philosophers (which I have yet to read all the way through).Some people (even reviewers here) have called Frankfurt's book a book of B.S. on B.S. But I don't think so. At least not as Frankfurt defines it. Frankfurt is obviously concerned with the truth. And it is doubtful that a B.S.er would give away his trade secrets. Artists don't give away their tricks, so why think that a B.S. artist would?But the book isn’t without its problems. For example, Frankfurt relays a story about when one of Wittgenstein's friends was in the hospital. Wittgenstein called her to see how she was doing and she told Ludwig that she felt "just like a dog that has been run over." Wittgenstein "was disgusted" and replied, "You don't know what a dog that has been run over feels like." After some analysis, Frankfurt says that Wittgenstein is calling bullshit on his friend, Fania Pascal. But later, Frankfurt describes B.S. as "hot air." Of course he explains what he means by this, but if he wasn't B.S.ing us here, it's hard to see how Pascal was without some special pleading or ad hocery. Frankfurt used a metaphor. Hot air is vaporous and empty just like B.S. speech is. But Pascal's statement was metaphorical as well. And Wittgenstein's obsession with not allowing "language to go on holiday" (and his a-holeish demeanor in general), is what prompted his "caring" remark to his hospitalized friend. (Of course she should have told him that he was not playing in her language game and was trying to impose his rules on to incommensurable systems of speech.)No doubt Frankfurt's use of "hot air" would merit Wittgenstein's disrepute.Overall, I thought this was an excellent little book. It's small in size and comes in at 67 pages. So its easily read in less than an hour. I recommend it for those who want to see how philosophers go about doing (part of) their job - analyzing claims and making them clear so that we can properly debate and discuss them, if we need to at all after the vagueness and ambiguities have been removed. Frankfurt takes a good first step towards analyzing the concept of B.S. No doubt more work could be done.
—Paul
This very short book is a philosophical essay on the nature of bullshit. The main question that Frankfurt appears to be answering is, "Is lying always bullshit and is bullshit always lying?". The answer appears to be no and no. Frankfurt's distinction between the two is essentially this: The liar is conscious of the difference between the lie and the truth. In order to deceive you must have a grasp on where the truth lies. The bullshitter is not interested in the truth. He loses all connection between the truth and the lie.This is the basic revelation in Frankfurt's essay although it is much more fun reading his ideas on this than mine. He does an admirable job in setting up his points and giving a working definition to lying and bullshit. Surprisingly easy to read, this is well worth the 20 minutes you will need to read it. I will also call your attention to the last four words of this essay. While not technically a spoiler I will avoid quoting them in order to give you the pleasure of reading them and discovering that Frankfurt has hit upon a major truth.
—Marvin
In this paper, we distinguish three important classes of dishonesty that can occur in multi-agent systems, as well as in human society. In particular, the distinction is being made between lies and bullshit, following the work of Harry Frankfurt. The difference is that someone who tells a lie has access to the truth, whereas the concept of bullshit requires no knowledge of the truth at all. That is, the liar knows that what he says is not true, whereas the bullshitter has no proper knowledge to support the statements he or she is making. (Martin Caminada, University of Luxembourg).Before I read this essay, I had no idea who Harry Frankfurt was and it wasn’t until I had done some research last night before beginning this book that I found out that he’s a renowned moral philosopher and realized He is professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton University and has previously taught at Yale University and Rockefeller University.So the tiny hardback that I had initially purchased had been because of the title and I thought that it would prove to be amusing. I wouldn’t really call this book amusing but it made me think, and thus when reasoning came into the equation, the book thus took me far longer to read.I always thought that “bullshit” was on a par with “lying” and “bull” but obviously that’s not the case and as for “humbug”? I must confess that I haven’t really thought about it. Basically don’t they all deal with some form of nonsense? One can just sail through life with vocabulary and actually be unaware of the true essence of words.I can give you an example of what I perceived to be bullshit at the time. I have a brother, Roy, who is eleven years older than me. He’s indeed a bullshitter and known for it by our family and all of his friends. I recall when I was about ten he took me out in his car through the countryside, as he was en route to his girlfriend Sue. My mother had insisted that I went along. Was I some kind of junior chaperone? When we arrived at Sue’s home, I was given a book to read and stayed in the lounge on my own for about two hours. What did they get up to?Well we passed some cows in the field on the left and Roy laughed. “Guess what Lynne? I was following a mini the other day and it came to this exact spot. It then suddenly flipped over the hedge and landed on top of a cow”! I ask you. It’s nonsense I know but is that bullshit, bull or humbug ? I knew that it was fanciful and did Roy make me laugh. I never could find out though what had happened to the cow or the car.I realize that philosophers are searching for wisdom and enlightenment but it is really all down to interpretation and the thought processes are all so different. I didn’t have too much of a problem with Descartes as I read him at university and also Seneca but when it gets to Roger Scruton; he is way above me in his thinking process. So this book, although thoroughly enjoyable, I wondered, when I arrived at a reference to Wittgenstein, how I would react to him. He evidently detested any form of “nonsense” which actually rather amused me and so I could certainly appreciate how he would relate to a comment made by Fania Pascal, who had known him at Cambridge in the thirties:I had my tonsils out and was in the Evelyn Nursing Home feeling sorry for myself. Wittgenstein called. I croaked “I feel just like a dog that has been run over.”’ He was disgusted: “You don’t what a dog that has been run over feels like.”It makes one wonder though if what Fania said was true or was Wittgenstein joking or trying to joke anyway? Difficult really to determine without knowing the facts.I don’t think that I could have handled a much larger book than this but this was definitely good as a taster and sometimes tasters are the best things in life.Thanks Rakhi for enticing me with your somewhat brief review.
—Lynne King
