On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt

[Philosophy Now]

Petter Naessan examines Harry Frankfurt’s famous little book On Bullshit.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/53/On_B ... _Frankfurt

[reasonvemotion]

Frankfurt makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting.

I thought they were one and the same. Bullshitting, can be, I suppose, viewed with humour, whereas lying usually involves a degree of maliciousness and intent?

[mickthinks]

Frankfurt makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting.

I thought they were one and the same.

So one of you was wrong ...

[RickLewis]

Frankfurt makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting.

I thought they were one and the same. Bullshitting, can be, I suppose, viewed with humour, whereas lying usually involves a degree of maliciousness and intent?

Actually the distinction Harry Frankfurt makes between lying and bullshitting is different from yours. Here is Petter Naessan's explanation in his review:

Frankfurt makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting. Both the liar and the bullshitter try to get away with something. But ‘lying’ is perceived to be a conscious act of deception, whereas ‘bullshitting’ is unconnected to a concern for truth. Frankfurt regards this ‘indifference to how things really are’, as the essence of bullshit. Furthermore, a lie is necessarily false, but bullshit is not – bullshit may happen to be correct or incorrect. The crux of the matter is that bullshitters hide their lack of commitment to truth. Since bullshitters ignore truth instead of acknowledging and subverting it, bullshit is a greater enemy of truth than lies.

[martinm]

Postmodernism is bullshit, - words unconnected with anything real.
same for religion, politics.

Politicians for example, can these days , say anything, as the autistic audience of pseudo-modernist texters will not be able to understand other than a banner by the Sun neudes-paper. Much of what passes for politics is dumbed down to the level of a seven year old so that all young people (under 30 ) can understand, so bullshit passes the test.

Religion , base on all those 'ancient', interpretable texts can mean just about anything, an excellent candidate for the title: bullshit.

[reasonvemotion]

Both are vehicles to deceive.

Either way the intent is the same.


If his concern/argument is exclusively a "critique of sincerity qua bullshit", then bullshit, is always the most dishonorable and offensive, if viewing broadly both examples, I see no difference or degree of difference in their deception. You either deceive or you don't.

[mickthinks]

You either deceive or you don't.

And you either intend to deceive or you don't. Yet there is an important difference between deceiving and intending to deceive.

Either way the intent is the same.

No, the intent is different.

[Bernard]

Actually bullsh*t also refers to truth not necessarily accepted by the social order

[reasonvemotion]

Either way the intent is the same.

No, the intent is different.

Enlighten me.

[artisticsolution]

Either way the intent is the same.

No, the intent is different.

Enlighten me.

Hope you don't mind me fielding this request, Mickthinks.

Here ya go Reasonvemotion,

Unintentional Deception:

Let's suppose a man (bob) is on his way into work and it is raining outside. He steps through the office door focused only with thoughts of how much work he has to get done that day and he does not have a moment to spare . A coworker greats him with a desire to chat and begins to engage into a conversation,

Coworker: How's the weather out there, Bob?

Bob (replies distracted) : Fine.

Coworker: Is it raining outside?

Bob (not listening to his coworker as he is already engrossed in his work so he replies in the negative simply because his mind is occupied elsewhere and does not have time for unimportant chit chat not because he has the intent to decieve): No.

Coworker: Oh really Bob, take a look outside. (coworker takes bobs chin and turns his face toward the window and Bob realizes that he has unintentionally deceived his coworker.)

Bob tries to explain but the coworker does not believe him and walks away thinking Bob has caused him harm by lying to him...not only that...goes around the office telling everyone bob is a liar.

Intentional Deception:

Let's suppose a man (bob) is on his way into work and it is raining outside. He steps through the office door focused on deceiving his coworker into going out for a coffee run . A coworker greats him with a desire to chat and Bob begins to deceive:

Coworker: How's the weather out there, Bob?

Bob (smiling) : Fine.

Coworker: Is it raining outside?

Bob (smiling): No. In fact it's a nice day! How about you go get us some Starbucks?

Coworker (laughing): Oh really Bob? (looking outside the window and seeing pouring down rain) Looks like rain to me...get your own Starbucks you bullshiter!

[reasonvemotion]

Bullshit is a slang profanity term meaning "nonsense", especially in a rebuking response to communication or actions viewed as deceiving, misleading, disingenuous or false...... Wikipedia



Harry Frankfurt also goes on to say......

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

"Both are vehicles to deceive.

Either way the intent is the same."

[artisticsolution]

Bullshit is a slang profanity term meaning "nonsense", especially in a rebuking response to communication or actions viewed as deceiving, misleading, disingenuous or false...... Wikipedia



Harry Frankfurt also goes on to say......

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

"Both are vehicles to deceive.

Either way the intent is the same."

Okay...fair enough. What about bullshit as a form of entertainment such as a striptease or a card game like in the movie "How to lose a guy in 10 days" Is the intent still to deceive if all parties agree it will be fun to deceive and/or be deceived?

Or suppose a man or woman goes into a strip club and is convinced the dancer really has a thing for him/her but from the dancers point of view she is just entertaining the crowd sort of like an actor or actress? Does the Patron's gullibility mean they have been 'deceived' or can we say they had it coming by knowingly going into such a situation where deception is the goal of the evening as a form of entertainment? Is the dancer is free from the intent to deceive?

[mickthinks]

The liar "considers his statements to be false". The bullshitter "does not care". The intent to deceive is not the same.

[reasonvemotion]

AS wrote:

Or suppose a man or woman goes into a strip club and is convinced the dancer really has a thing for him/her but from the dancers point of view she is just entertaining the crowd sort of like an actor or actress? Does the Patron's gullibility mean they have been 'deceived' or can we say they had it coming by knowingly going into such a situation where deception is the goal of the evening as a form of entertainment? Is the dancer is free from the intent to deceive?

This is called Mind Fucking. The man and the dancer are sending mentally arousing brain waves to each other, you know what I am talking about. Of course, nothing actually PHYSICAL happens, and nothing could be safer, sexually. However, be warned he could contract a MTD. Mentally..... Transmitted...... Disease. It would be wise for the man, next time he visits the club, to make a mental mind condom before he goes through that door. There is nothing deceptive about this, the man and the dancer, are in it together. Isnt that what he went there for, the best brainer ever.

[artisticsolution]

AS wrote:

Or suppose a man or woman goes into a strip club and is convinced the dancer really has a thing for him/her but from the dancers point of view she is just entertaining the crowd sort of like an actor or actress? Does the Patron's gullibility mean they have been 'deceived' or can we say they had it coming by knowingly going into such a situation where deception is the goal of the evening as a form of entertainment? Is the dancer is free from the intent to deceive?

This is called Mind Fucking. The man and the dancer are sending mentally arousing brain waves to each other, you know what I am talking about. Of course, nothing actually PHYSICAL happens, and nothing could be safer, sexually. However, be warned he could contract a MTD. Mentally..... Transmitted...... Disease. It would be wise for the man, next time he visits the club, to make a mental mind condom before he goes through that door. There is nothing deceptive about this, the man and the dancer, are in it together. Isnt that what he went there for, the best brainer ever.

LOL...good post!

But seriously, I think deception is mind fucking as well. I also see a similarity in regards to lying and bullshitting as all adult 'should know better' or at least take part of the responsibility in being deceived.

My point being that we can't know for sure if someone is lying/bullshitting us at any given moment. The mere interaction with another human means putting ourselves in a situation where we can be deceived....just like the man who walks into the strip club. The man may have gone into the strip club wanting to be deceived but once there...he found out he really wanted to believe. It benefited him to believe he stood out in the crowd of lesser men.\

Isn't this how it is with women too...I mean when they choose a mate to fall in love with? At first they hold back...knowing full well the man could be lying to them. But then....they have to open up or never find love. So they begin to trust....knowing full well their trust could be broken at any time.

My point is...how is it possible to even know the intent of another? And if we can't know the intent of a person...then we can't know if the intent of all people. Thus we can't know if all intent is the same....we can only know what the intent means to ourselves. We can only project what our intent would be on/to another. So I see this as a game of ego and emotions. We feel harmed by being bullshitted or lied to because we feel foolish for being duped. So we don't take responsibility or blame for our gullibility but instead place all blame on the deceiver, even though we know full well that to interact with anyone is to know full well that a deception could occur at anytime because we cannot know what goes on in the mind of another.

So how is any interaction with another human different from going into a strip club in order to be deceived? Is it that, like the strip club patron, we really want with all our heart to believe?

I still see a difference in intent...let me put it this way...

Do you believe the "intent is the same" when , for example, a man lies to a woman, telling her he loves her to get her into bed vs. a parent lies to a child about the existence of Santa Claus?

I see the intent to deceive in those cases totally and completely different.