Question 1
1. Harry G. Frankfurt makes a series of assertions in the opening paragraph of On Bullshit. Discuss these assertions; are they persuasive, do you agree with them?
a. Bullshit is one of the most salient features of our culture
b. Each of us contributes his share.
c. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize it.
a. I have to agree that bullshit (BS) is very conspicuous in our culture- there are mountains of it to go around. I think Frankfurt's observation that BS often occurs in conjunction with pretentiousness is accurate; that seems to be the setting in which I notice it the most. Listen to any politician, especially here in the season that they're gearing up for the presidential election- the majority of their spiel is BS. The spin-doctors on the right or left (Rush Limbaugh or Chris Matthews e.g., or the cable "news" networks) are spewing it daily. It trickles (oozes?) down to all of us; we re-post it on our own social media. It goes on and on... The cult of celebrity, an epidemic of "reality" TV shows that are obviously scripted, and advertising agencies that bombard us with BS every way we turn. There's plenty more- but I think I've made my case.
b. The vast majority of us do indeed dish out our share. I do it sometimes right here on discussion boards. I might choose a more pedantic word than is really necessary, so you'll think I'm smarter than I really am (see- I did it right then). Pretentiousness...
If you are in sales, or customer service, you contribute your portion of bullshit. Lawyers (as if there were a doubt), doctors (who speak in jargon to sound more intelligent), executives, managers... again, I don't think I need to go further. But wait, one more: preachers/pastors/religious orators of any kind- major BS artists.
c. I would have to amend Frankfurt's comment to "Most intellectuals are rather confident of their ability to recognize it". (But maybe that was implied, seeing that non-intellectuals aren't likely to be reading On Bullshit). I don't think that most citizens of this or any country are aware to what extent it makes up the infrastructure of their lives. Our own Constitution: "All men are created equal"? Bullshit!
Question 2
2. Frankfurt’s narrow objective in On Bullshit is “to articulate, more or less sketchily, the structure of its concept” (2). How does he do this in his essay? What is his methodology? Can you map it?
You could say that Frankfurt cuts his way through the bullshit on the subject of "Bullshit". (How's that for some clever BS?) But seriously, he makes it clear early on that "so far as I'm aware, very little work has been done on this subject" (3). This to me is key to the essay's success: he focuses on a word that we more or less take for granted and use indiscriminately (sometimes just as a mindless expletive)- and dissects it as we watch from the gallery. Frankfurt is using the scalpel of semantics to probe for every subtlety and nuance of meaning. (There's also quite a bit of logic employed in his arguments).
Notice how he takes the synonym "humbug's" definition (6) and breaks it down into smaller phrases to analyze: deceptive misrepresentation, short of lying, especially by pretentious word or deed, etc.- each of those get a couple pages of consideration. Frankfurt's appraisal of his goal as to "sketchily" articulate the word's meaning is a bit of false modesty (and BS) because he is actually going for a high degree of precision.
By comparing and contrasting bullshit with other uses of "bull" (bull sessions, shooting the bull) or related concepts such as bluffing and lying, Frankfurt gradually arrives at exactly the destination he wants. To "map" his methodology, he has driven into the village of Misrepresentation, taken side roads that led him past the neighborhoods of Lies and Bluffs, had to make a few U-turns when he hit a dead-end (but intentionally so for sake of argument), then finally pulled into the driveway of Bullshit Manor.
Question 3
3. Frankfurt regards the essence of bullshit as a lack of concern with the truth (33-34). How does this connect with your understanding of and experience with the term?
For me, the distinction given later in the book between a lie and bullshit is maybe the strongest point Frankfurt makes: "It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction" (55). This ties directly in with the essence of bullshit being a lack of concern with the truth. In other words, often when we engage in BS, we haven't done any fact checking- but we're not intentionally trying to seriously mislead someone. It seems to come down to what's been referred to as "situational ethics".
It's one degree of wrong to steal a pen or a couple of paper clips from work; another thing entirely to sneak into a man's home and take everything he owns, correct? (Some would debate that).
Likewise, let's say my wife and I hear a song on the radio and she asks me who the artist is. Although I don't know either, I say "that's Bruce Springsteen". No real harm done. If however I tell my wife I'll be staying late at work when in fact I'm seeing another woman, there's a lot more at stake. The first example is bullshit, the second is a lie. I'm not overly concerned if she finds out the artist was actually "Eddie & the Cruisers"...
@Kerri Wike:
Kerri- Facebook is a topic that most of us seem to be bringing up. As someone who was around when VCRs were a new sensation, seeing the computer and now the internet become so ingrained in everyone's lives is amazing when I stop to really consider it. My dad is 85, and last year before a heart-valve replacement surgery he was Googling for medical information about it... his doctor was impressed. But that's an example of how the internet is a positive (and this ability to attend university online another).
Facebook is a necessary evil for me because I play music sometimes for pay, and venues want the shows promoted on there. (Promotion is a form of BS, of course). I like Facebook sometimes, and I hate it others. It sounds like a good idea at first when you "friend" somebody you went to school with decades ago. And then you start thinking, damn they look old and they must be thinking the same thing about me... and outside of some old memories we've nothing in common.
It's either that or all kinds of strangers sending me friend requests (some that don't even speak my language). They're musicians, because FB knows that's what I am- it's all part of the algorithms. Social media? I think an argument could be made that it's "anti-social" media. It's a virtual, ephemeral sort of pseudo-society- where people become a little bolder (and less responsible) with their statements because it's not done face to face. Kinda makes the name of the company ironic, too.
@Courtney Putnam:
Courtney- first of all my commendations on an excellent post. I especially admire the first section where you mention the art of bullshit on term papers, and I can relate. I think it really is a "skill that can be honed" as you say. I have gotten away with my share of it, and you've hit on a reason why this happens: To truly deliver a masterful work of bullshit requires what I'll call the "miles wide and inches deep" kind of knowledge. Knowing at least some basics about a very broad collection of topics and disciplines, and being able to creatively interweave them to make a hybrid kind of point. I'll provide an example off the top of my head, that came to me here as I was writing:
"It occurs to me that the BS question can be applied to music. There's a lot of examples I could go to, but here's an easy one. Take the two guitarists BB King and Eddie Van Halen. Both famous, talented, and masters of the instrument. But I submit that with Mr. King there is almost no BS, while with Van Halen there is an abundance. Why? BB King just plays a few notes when he solos, and EVH plays hundreds. For the former, it's all about feeling; for the latter, mostly about impressing with incredible technique. It is more pretentious".
I didn't really have to put much thought into that paragraph. That sort of stuff can be summoned at will for me (and I imagine the majority of us). Is it bullshit? Will it float?
Could it be that the broad range of instruction here in the liberal arts will make master BS artists of us all?
@Sarah Gammons:
Sarah- You've made some interesting observations, and I'm going to focus on one in particular. The example you give about Planned Parenthood is very pertinent since, as you say, it's made the news a lot here lately. When you have two different sides of an issue (abortion in this case) clashing like this, there will always be some type of misrepresentation that tries to paint the opposing side as dark as possible. Some would probably disagree with me, but I see the right doing more of this than the left does. Is the tactic just a case of bullshit? I don't think so. It's a lot more sinister, in my opinion. It's propaganda.
It comes out in the slogan "Pro-Life". That's an inflammatory stance right off the bat- because who the hell is "Anti-Life", right? But that's what they'd have those in the middle believe. Nobody wants to have an abortion. I don't think even the most liberal, promiscuous, and/or agnostic faction out there believes it's a good thing- anyone would agree that birth-control preventing an unwanted pregnancy would be better, wouldn't they? You'd think so. But some of these same people on the right are so arch-conservative that they don't believe in birth control either. Now, (merely as a statement of frustration), that's bullshit.
Again, I think this phenomenon goes beyond mere bullshit, because bullshit, per Frankfurt, "doesn't concern itself with the truth." Someone who would call Planned Parenthood a bunch of murderers is either clinging very hard to what they consider the truth, or going as far as they can out of their way not to face it.
icons at the top right corner of the subsection.