Would be interesting to revisit this with the advent of social media and mobile devices that allow -- encourage! -- people to broadcast their opinion on everything, everywhere all at once. It's a race to timely relevance and truth is sacrificed for speed.
No doubt that we now live in an age where we are drowning in bullshit thanks to Trump and Trumpism which is built exactly on bullshit. Trump is unique as a politician in that his prior career was largely in the business of marketing and building his brand. He is in many objective ways a terrible businessman whose poor allocation of capital led to multiple bankruptcies. But there is no doubt that he is a consummate salesman. Frankfurt’s essay and his warning about the insidious ness of bullshit are more salient than ever.
The trouble seems to be exactly as pointed out by Mr. Frankfurt: When exposure becomes more important than all else, because we all compete to sell something (that often noone really needs, especially in the bigger picture, noone likes to see...), nobody cares about facts, "the truth" let alone The Obligatory Philosopher's Guide Line Inclination To Certainty Hope (TOP GLITCH)...
The solution to the elimination of bullshit is self-honesty, people. Only then can you, and will you be honest with other people as well, removing bullshit from our lives and thus removing 90% of the problems in the world. Expanding your views in combination with self honesty is the magical solution, and there are many people who have already decided not to participate in generating bullshit.
@ayethereztherub - You're right! I forgot about Comte. He was a bit unusual though. I don't worship science. I know what worship is, and it's not what I do vis a vis science. I respect science because it tests theories against evidence. Religion, on the other hand, tells stories and claims that they are unquestionably true. That's my problem with it. Anyone can test the truth of a scientific theory, but religious authorities reserve for themselves the right to say what truth is.
Apparently, bullshit comes in grades; we are familiar with pure bullshit. An unusual characteristic of bullshit is its ineffectiveness when used between bullshitters 'You can't shit a shitter'. Bullshit is very instrumental in fostering connections between people, unless one believes that 'is it true, is it kind and is it necessary?' is a sounder basis for human harmony.
@trunkeight - I agree with much of what you say, but I think bullshit is deeply conservative. Since, as Frankfurt says, its prevalence in our lives is bound up with the prevalence of marketing, bullshit depends on people's existing willingness to be sold things; not just consumer items but also politicians, creeds, etc. As long as people are willing to buy (into) things without first critically assessing their value, bullshit will reinforce existing social structures.
@ayethereztherub I begin to see what you mean by 'truth is conservative', but I would disagree thus: conservatism is not conservative, inasmuch as it does not 'base [its] truth on what has gone before'. If it did that, it would have to accept a long tradition of radical thought. Also, as new ideas (e.g. Darwin's) become time-honoured, conservatism would have to base its truth on them, and it tends not to. Conservatism rejects tradition whenever tradition is inconvenient for its purpose.
upon reflection, I think bullshit does offer an important mechanism in society, namely, it seems to enable people to avoid taking responsibility for their lives, and seems to facilitate corruption, which perhaps, is the logical conclusion to hierarchical political and corporate structures. Maybe, bullshit gives weak or compromised people a tool to generate social feedback to test the effects of what could be, if they were indeed really were what they were projecting...
The problem I see with the BS theory is not that it doesn't exist, but that it requires us to be mind-readers to know whether it's being employed by a speaker. It needs a mind and an attitude towards the truth, which can only be known by the generator of BS. We can't read minds, so we're best served not by concerning ourselves with the intent of the speaker, just whether they're getting it right or getting it wrong, and more importantly, what the costs are to us and others for getting it wrong.
You raise an important point; how do we know the difference between when someone is b'sing and when they are just mistaken? You are right that we can't get inside their heads, but what we can do is analyse the propositions they utter, and see what they infer/reveal; when we see that the conclusions don't hold, we have a decision to make: Looking at the false propositions, we have to ask, should the claimant have known better than to make such a claim, or employ possible truths ("i was brave once in battle..") to draw false and misleading conclusions ("... so it follows that I should be commander-in-chief"). Arguably, yes -- someone seeking high office should know better -- that making such claims and relying on such conclusions demonstrates a lack of concern with the truth. So you're right, we do need to be concerned about the veracity of conclusions, but that doesn't preclude us from detecting BS.
@ayethereztherub I have noticed that religious people tend to think that non-religious people feel the same way about science (or whatever) as religious people feel about God, and therefore believe (rightly, from their own point of view) that non-religious people are kidding themselves with a pale and pathetic and sinful man-made imitation. I have been religious, but am so no longer, and believe me, there's a strong difference between having religious faith and not having it.
@ayethereztherub I wish I could give you more of an answer, but I think your use of words is a bit careless. I agree that there are some things out there that are true, but I happen to believe that science has the monopoly on verifiability. Religion is a truth about human psychology, not a truth about the universe. I would remind you that the least common denominator is an extremely important concept in math.
@ayethereztherub Newton isn't the "God of western metaphysics". God is, inasmuch as people seem to be more focused on 'There's a God' or 'There's no God' than on working out the implications of science being true. Newtonian mechanics work fine for most large-scale engineering purposes, not because Newton is God but because his physics work. Science isn't the 'new bourgeois religion of self' - most people I know who don't believe in God don't have any religious faith at all.
@ayethereztherub _ Bullshit as a philosophical concept is one thing, but you're not talking about it: you're talking about Things You Don't Agree With. I'm sure that there are 'half-assed environmental books' out there, but they are not by definition bullshit - maybe inaccurate or fraudulent. 'Secular religion' is an oxymoron. The statement 'truth is inherently conservative' is meaningless. If everybody is telling lies then truth is radical, but of course everybody isn't always telling lies.
Good to see Stephen Colbert diversifying his career.
Would be interesting to revisit this with the advent of social media and mobile devices that allow -- encourage! -- people to broadcast their opinion on everything, everywhere all at once. It's a race to timely relevance and truth is sacrificed for speed.
No doubt that we now live in an age where we are drowning in bullshit thanks to Trump and Trumpism which is built exactly on bullshit. Trump is unique as a politician in that his prior career was largely in the business of marketing and building his brand. He is in many objective ways a terrible businessman whose poor allocation of capital led to multiple bankruptcies. But there is no doubt that he is a consummate salesman. Frankfurt’s essay and his warning about the insidious ness of bullshit are more salient than ever.
I love the book, “On Bullshit.” I’ve learned a lot from it.
notice how the interviewer just avoided the question at the end. very smooth. typical.
Certainly George Carlin knew all about bullshit as he explained it in one of his comedy sessions
What to do about bullshit is really very simple: call it when you hear it.
The trouble seems to be exactly as pointed out by Mr. Frankfurt:
When exposure becomes more important than all else, because we all compete to sell something (that often noone really needs, especially in the bigger picture, noone likes to see...), nobody cares about facts, "the truth" let alone The Obligatory Philosopher's Guide Line Inclination To Certainty Hope (TOP GLITCH)...
"a walking bullshit meter", ahahaha, great
bullshitometer!
The solution to the elimination of bullshit is self-honesty, people. Only then can you, and will you be honest with other people as well, removing bullshit from our lives and thus removing 90% of the problems in the world. Expanding your views in combination with self honesty is the magical solution, and there are many people who have already decided not to participate in generating bullshit.
Amazing
"We have art in order to not die of the truth." -Nietzsche
@ayethereztherub - You're right! I forgot about Comte. He was a bit unusual though.
I don't worship science. I know what worship is, and it's not what I do vis a vis science. I respect science because it tests theories against evidence. Religion, on the other hand, tells stories and claims that they are unquestionably true. That's my problem with it. Anyone can test the truth of a scientific theory, but religious authorities reserve for themselves the right to say what truth is.
Here here.
Apparently, bullshit comes in grades; we are familiar with pure bullshit. An unusual characteristic of bullshit is its ineffectiveness when used between bullshitters 'You can't shit a shitter'. Bullshit is very instrumental in fostering connections between people, unless one believes that 'is it true, is it kind and is it necessary?' is a sounder basis for human harmony.
I enjoyed the random edit cuts, i wonder what he said during those cuts?
Bullshit
Probably some bullshit.
@trunkeight - I agree with much of what you say, but I think bullshit is deeply conservative. Since, as Frankfurt says, its prevalence in our lives is bound up with the prevalence of marketing, bullshit depends on people's existing willingness to be sold things; not just consumer items but also politicians, creeds, etc. As long as people are willing to buy (into) things without first critically assessing their value, bullshit will reinforce existing social structures.
@tmtyler agreed
The gravity of the bullshit phenomenon conflicts with the jocular nature of the term itself. Go to 1:24 to 1:34. LOL
@ayethereztherub I begin to see what you mean by 'truth is conservative', but I would disagree thus: conservatism is not conservative, inasmuch as it does not 'base [its] truth on what has gone before'. If it did that, it would have to accept a long tradition of radical thought. Also, as new ideas (e.g. Darwin's) become time-honoured, conservatism would have to base its truth on them, and it tends not to. Conservatism rejects tradition whenever tradition is inconvenient for its purpose.
upon reflection, I think bullshit does offer an important mechanism in society, namely, it seems to enable people to avoid taking responsibility for their lives, and seems to facilitate corruption, which perhaps, is the logical conclusion to hierarchical political and corporate structures. Maybe, bullshit gives weak or compromised people a tool to generate social feedback to test the effects of what could be, if they were indeed really were what they were projecting...
@ayethereztherub I'm sorry, your comment made no sense. Please explain.
So is the UN and the EU. IMHO
Like a fiction novel?
Why does this look and sound like it was made in 1972 ?
1:35
The problem I see with the BS theory is not that it doesn't exist, but that it requires us to be mind-readers to know whether it's being employed by a speaker. It needs a mind and an attitude towards the truth, which can only be known by the generator of BS. We can't read minds, so we're best served not by concerning ourselves with the intent of the speaker, just whether they're getting it right or getting it wrong, and more importantly, what the costs are to us and others for getting it wrong.
You raise an important point; how do we know the difference between when someone is b'sing and when they are just mistaken? You are right that we can't get inside their heads, but what we can do is analyse the propositions they utter, and see what they infer/reveal; when we see that the conclusions don't hold, we have a decision to make:
Looking at the false propositions, we have to ask, should the claimant have known better than to make such a claim, or employ possible truths ("i was brave once in battle..") to draw false and misleading conclusions ("... so it follows that I should be commander-in-chief"). Arguably, yes -- someone seeking high office should know better -- that making such claims and relying on such conclusions demonstrates a lack of concern with the truth. So you're right, we do need to be concerned about the veracity of conclusions, but that doesn't preclude us from detecting BS.
People really like to have their bullshit served daily! Hahaha...*sigh*
@ayethereztherub I have noticed that religious people tend to think that non-religious people feel the same way about science (or whatever) as religious people feel about God, and therefore believe (rightly, from their own point of view) that non-religious people are kidding themselves with a pale and pathetic and sinful man-made imitation. I have been religious, but am so no longer, and believe me, there's a strong difference between having religious faith and not having it.
@ayethereztherub I wish I could give you more of an answer, but I think your use of words is a bit careless. I agree that there are some things out there that are true, but I happen to believe that science has the monopoly on verifiability. Religion is a truth about human psychology, not a truth about the universe. I would remind you that the least common denominator is an extremely important concept in math.
@ayethereztherub Newton isn't the "God of western metaphysics". God is, inasmuch as people seem to be more focused on 'There's a God' or 'There's no God' than on working out the implications of science being true. Newtonian mechanics work fine for most large-scale engineering purposes, not because Newton is God but because his physics work. Science isn't the 'new bourgeois religion of self' - most people I know who don't believe in God don't have any religious faith at all.
why not horseshit? is bullshit more potent?
This all seems rather negative. What about the positive aspects of bullshit?
No the number of bulls is decreasing now, so bullshit is waning as well
What is this man in pursuit of he has dedicated his whole life to what
@ayethereztherub _ Bullshit as a philosophical concept is one thing, but you're not talking about it: you're talking about Things You Don't Agree With. I'm sure that there are 'half-assed environmental books' out there, but they are not by definition bullshit - maybe inaccurate or fraudulent. 'Secular religion' is an oxymoron. The statement 'truth is inherently conservative' is meaningless. If everybody is telling lies then truth is radical, but of course everybody isn't always telling lies.
GET REKT JOHN KERRY