[1] Based on your experience as a participant in ‘bull sessions,’ how accurate is Frankfurt’s assertion that “it is understood by everyone in a bull session that the statements people make do not necessarily reveal what they really believe or how they feel."

     I have been party to my share of bull sessions over the years, in a variety of contexts. Some of the most memorable that come to mind occurred when I was in a traveling rock band in the early 1980s. Riding hundreds of miles for long hours in a van together, no subject was taboo and personal feelings or beliefs were challenged as a matter of routine. True to the stereotype, unfortunately, there may have been some occasions when our attitudes were "chemically enhanced", I must admit...(Disclaimer- that is neither an endorsement of alcohol or drugs nor any pride in having partaken of them- merely the truth).

     Our lead guitarist was quite religious compared to the rest of us, but not at all uptight about it (obvious enough, considering his vocation) and we would debate various points in Christianity, with someone (usually me) comparing and contrasting humanism or Buddhism against it; or picking apart various religious people we saw as hypocrites. But the topics were all over the place beyond that- including sex (we were all in our twenties); politics; and endless debate about the merits of various musicians and bands. And I should mention, we had a female lead vocalist, so it wasn't just some literal male-only "bull" session. These were all civil "arguments" too- we were great friends.

     But to get to my point (sorry for all the introductory BS): I think we were almost always willing to suspend our own beliefs and feelings; to play "devil's advocate"- for the sake of making someone defend what they had said. And some thirty years after the fact, I still have recurring dreams about myself with those comrades out on the road. There was a lot of bullshit in our exchanges, but it was a tactic mutually agreed upon. And I find it a great example of BS working in its best functions- as friendly debate promoting self-discovery and empathy with others.

     The worst bull sessions I have ever witnessed, in comparison, were later in that decade when I lived briefly in Tampa FL. And they had a common thread, being that they were conducted under the influence of the stupidest substance I've ever encountered- cocaine. (This was a different band, whose fans and followers were of that bent). It is the quintessential "bullshit" drug. Hearts race, and mouths move- but there is nothing of substance being said. Just "me, me, me" while everyone else does the same.

     I hadn't intended for mind-altering chemicals to be a subtext here, but that is what came out as I wrote. Maybe we can discuss how they might influence the quantity and quality of BS.

[2] What do you think of the father’s advice in Eric Ambler’s novel Dirty Story, “Never tell a lie when you can bullshit your way through”? What is the distinction Frankfurt draws between a lie and bullshit?  Why does he eventually state that “bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are?”

     “Never tell a lie when you can bullshit your way through” presents a challenge in deciding the difference between the the two actions. As Frankfurt distinguishes them, a liar has concerns for a given truth; some compelling reason for not wanting this truth known. The bullshitter however is not worried about any particular truth- it's more an act of distraction, where by bullshitting he moves the focus of the conversation (perhaps a confrontation) in another direction. Or avoids it altogether.

     Maybe an example can make it more clear, so I'll improvise one (keenly aware that "improvisation" can be a synonym for bullshit): Suppose you have made a major blunder at your place of work... one that your supervisor or boss is certain to discover, only they have no way of proving who was the culprit.  Let's say you put a fast-food sandwich in the company break room's microwave oven, leaving the foil wrapper on, and now the microwave is blown up. You have two ways to work it. You can wait until being asked if you know anything about the situation, and then admit or deny your involvement (the latter being a lie). Or you can go the bullshit route:

     Take the initiative of going to your supervisor first, with "Mr. X, do you know what has happened to the microwave? I just tried it and it's not working". What you are implying is that you've just discovered the problem and don't know the reason- but you haven't stated such. There's no falsehood in what you've said. That should be enough to misdirect the suspicions. (You could kick it up a notch by adding, "I saw Mrs. Z in the break room earlier; but I'm not blaming her, just saying...")  Now, I'm not sure if that's what Eric Ambler had in mind, but it's my interpretation of bullshitting one's way through.

     Bullshit is a "greater enemy of the truth than lies are" because, according to Frankfurt, the habitual bullshitter is more likely than a liar to lose touch with reality over time; their attention to the truth becomes "attenuated or lost" (60). While I can see that, it's a bit unclear to me what distinguishes a chronic bullshit artist from a chronic liar. They're both doing lots of damage to the truth.

[3] Frankfurt ends On Bullshit with the provocative observation that “sincerity itself is bullshit” (67). What does he mean and what do you think?

     "Sincerity itself is bullshit?" Yes it is. (The Buddha tells us so). But more on that in a minute...

     Frankfurt is displaying his considerable credentials as a philosopher in making that statement. His vocabulary gets fancy, the concepts abstract, but that's the nature of reality when you try to pin it down- it won't stay there. Words aren't sharp enough to dissect it. Hence we get "antirealists" who say there's nothing out there if we're not perceiving it (and they would say that the tree falling in the forest makes no sound). We read a phrase such as "the ascription of determinacy". (Translation: defining something exactly). It can't be done.

     Here's a thought experiment. We can all more or less agree on the word "green" and what that quality is... but how do you define it? (Imagine explaining to someone who's been blind from birth what green is). Suppose that someone's parents, teachers, and friends conspired against them from the time they were toddlers, and told them "green" when they were pointing at something "orange". That individual would accept the reality of a pumpkin being green as surely as we know the sky is blue...

     Frankfurt is defining sincerity as an "honest representation of one's self", as opposed to an agreement on a common reality. Since a common reality is impossible, at least in its finer points, how could an individual one be valid? That's where sincerity becomes bullshit.

     Realities are very different for each of us, yes. But like all rules and concepts, there are exceptions to the rule. (Great paradox- There's an exception to every rule- including this one). If our sun went supernova on us tomorrow, everything on the planet- animal, vegetable or mineral, would experience a common reality. The reality of being forevermore nonexistent. (But some philosophers dispute even that).

     Back to Buddha. His contention was that all words are bullshit (including his own name). Once you name something, you have imposed restrictions on it. When we were all infants, we didn't have words, or even concepts, for anything. A day in our first few months was just an ocean of senses- sounds, warmth, light and darkness, smells and tastes, touch... but these descriptive words don't suffice. It was more than that. And we are more than just the individuals we've come to think of as ourselves. The BS inherent in the naming of things gradually narrows our consciousness.