What do you think?
Rate this book
On Bullshit
One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern. We have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or what functions it serves. And we lack a conscientiously developed appreciation of what it means to us. In other words, as Harry Frankfurt writes, "we have no theory."
Frankfurt, one of the world's most influential moral philosophers, attempts to build such a theory here. With his characteristic combination of philosophical acuity, psychological insight, and wry humor, Frankfurt proceeds by exploring how bullshit and the related concept of humbug are distinct from lying. He argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.
Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner's capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.
Frankfurt, one of the world's most influential moral philosophers, attempts to build such a theory here. With his characteristic combination of philosophical acuity, psychological insight, and wry humor, Frankfurt proceeds by exploring how bullshit and the related concept of humbug are distinct from lying. He argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.
Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner's capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.
67 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2005
About the author
Harry G. Frankfurt
30 books296 followersHarry Gordon Frankfurt was an American philosopher. He was a professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton University, where he taught from 1990 until 2002. Frankfurt also taught at Yale University, Rockefeller University, and Ohio State University.
Frankfurt made significant contributions to fields like ethics and philosophy of mind. The attitude of caring played a central role in his philosophy. To care about something means to see it as important and reflects the person's character. According to Frankfurt, a person is someone who has second-order volitions or who cares about what desires he or she has. He contrasts persons with wantons. Wantons are beings that have desires but do not care about which of their desires is translated into action. In the field of ethics, Frankfurt gave various influential counterexamples, so-called Frankfurt cases, against the principle that moral responsibility depends on the ability to do otherwise. His most popular book is On Bullshit, which discusses the distinction between bullshitting and lying.
Frankfurt made significant contributions to fields like ethics and philosophy of mind. The attitude of caring played a central role in his philosophy. To care about something means to see it as important and reflects the person's character. According to Frankfurt, a person is someone who has second-order volitions or who cares about what desires he or she has. He contrasts persons with wantons. Wantons are beings that have desires but do not care about which of their desires is translated into action. In the field of ethics, Frankfurt gave various influential counterexamples, so-called Frankfurt cases, against the principle that moral responsibility depends on the ability to do otherwise. His most popular book is On Bullshit, which discusses the distinction between bullshitting and lying.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,593 reviews
April 5, 2019
I found this tiny book both illuminating and useful when I first read it in 2005. Now, amidst the bullshit-crammed tweet storms of Dear Leader Trump, I find it central to understanding the devolution of our political discourse.
Frankfurt demonstrates, through argument and example, the difference between lying and bullshit: the liar knows what is true (or else he would not be lying), whereas the bullshitter cares nothing about truth or lies. The bullshitter really does not give a damn.
I find this distinction useful when dealing with any instance of political bloviating or religious propaganda. I used to look at each jeremiad as a fabric of lies, and I would isolate each untruthful or illogical thread, refuting and dismantling it bit by bit. This of course took up much of my time, which would be better spent writing Goodreads reviews or working on my novel.
But now, since reading Harry G. Frankfurt, I just recognize the thing for the pile of bullshit it is, sweep it up, and dump it in the trash. (Why the trash? Unlike other forms of shit, this shit does not make good fertilizer.)
September 25, 2017
At the request of someone here on GR (forgive me but I cannot remember who, I am sure you'll let me know in the comments though), I read this short masterpiece On Bullshit and thoroughly enjoyed it. As others on GR have remarked, we have entered into a political era in the US of pure, unadulterated bullshit with the election of Drumpf and so it is quite the timely read. Mr. Frankfurt starts by looking at dictionary definitions of "humbug" and "bull session" and compares them to the concept of bullshit: the line to be drawn semantically between lying and bullshitting is quite a convoluted one as it turns out. He has one animated story about a certain Pascal who is castigated by a certain Wittgenstein for using the phrase "I feel like a dog that got run over" as an example where W calls her out on bullshit. I thought that line was a bit thin and that expressions such as this are purely allegorical and do not really fall into the bullshit category and that Wittgenstein was annoying splitting hairs over it. The author also quotes the amazing Ezra Pound, where the poet does not want to be bullshitted. (I laughed out loud at that one.) But most importantly, just before the conclusion of this short 65-page essay, he makes a valid point that bullshitting is a greater enemy to the truth than lies - precisely because it is manipulative and never benevolent. Putting that in the perspective of the nightly flood of excrement on CNN and Fox seems very apt to me. The essay ends with a facetious but humorous point about all sincerity being bullshit. OK, that may be true, it does not undermine he previous points.
So, take a shot at this little marvel and see where you stand On Bullshit!
Thanks for all the comments and Likes! Who'd've thought that Bullshit could be so popular? Oh, I forgot about my CNN/Fox comment, of COURSE it is! :)
In case you missed it, Frankfurt published an article on Drumpf and bullshit in May 2016 in Time Magazine: here
So, take a shot at this little marvel and see where you stand On Bullshit!
Thanks for all the comments and Likes! Who'd've thought that Bullshit could be so popular? Oh, I forgot about my CNN/Fox comment, of COURSE it is! :)
In case you missed it, Frankfurt published an article on Drumpf and bullshit in May 2016 in Time Magazine: here
December 27, 2016
The title is no irony, it's what it says it is. BS. It's one long mental wank lecture by a college professor of the word and its meanings in every possible boring, mildly-interesting, wow, I didn't know that, kind of way. It's intellectual humour done not to amuse an audience as its first aim but because the professor is amusing himself that he can do this sort of thing, and well.
All this sounds like I didn't enjoy it, but you know when it comes to stars I'm wavering between 1.5 and a 4.5, I can't decide. You can read the paragraph above in a slightly negative tone of voice and then it also reads in an ironic kind of way that I kind of admire the professor and had also quite enjoyed both his work and why he did it. I just can't decide so three stars it is.
All this sounds like I didn't enjoy it, but you know when it comes to stars I'm wavering between 1.5 and a 4.5, I can't decide. You can read the paragraph above in a slightly negative tone of voice and then it also reads in an ironic kind of way that I kind of admire the professor and had also quite enjoyed both his work and why he did it. I just can't decide so three stars it is.
May 12, 2016
During my youth, the consulting company I worked for sent me as an "expert" to a chemical plant - a process about which I had only the vaguest idea.
The job was generic and relatively straightforward, and did not require any special expertise: I concluded my two week visit successfully. Imagine my horror when, during the concluding meeting, the Head of Engineering said: "Mr. Varma, from your vast expertise, can you give some advice about a problem in operations?"
My knees turned weak and heart started doing double-time: however, hiding my nervousness, I nodded.
He continued. "Our reactor is facing solid deposition. The agitator inside the reactor was placed two metres above the bottom - to combat this problem, we reduced the clearance to a metre. The deposition has decreased, and we are able to live with it. However, we'd like to know whether we can lower it further. Can you advise?"
I looked at the ceiling for a moment, and scratched my chin. The whole production team was staring expectantly at me.
To gain time, I asked:"How much was the gap initially?"
"Two metres."
"Hmm... and how much now?"
"A metre."
"And you say the deposition has decreased, and you can live with it."
"Yes."
"Well..." I said, scratching my chin and trying to look knowledgeable: "You've left it very narrow, but it seems to be OK. Don't reduce it any further, however."
"Oh no!" The Head of Engineering and the production team heaved a collective sigh of relief.
The expert had spoken.
----------------------------
Now, thanks to Harry Frankfurt, I know that what I did could be called "bullshitting" - not exactly lying, nor telling the truth, but speaking with scant regard to whether whatever I am saying is true or false - to create a certain impression of oneself on an audience.
Of course, I have the defence that I was trying to save my life (well, reputation, anyway). What justification do our politicians have, when they do it daily on the TV (other than entertainment value), I wonder.
----------------------------
12/05/2016
Well, what do you know! Our estimable Prime Minister is also showing his capabilities in this art...
Prime Minister Modi compares Kerala to Somalia
Story behind the picture that provoked PM Modi’s Somalia jibe in Kerala
The job was generic and relatively straightforward, and did not require any special expertise: I concluded my two week visit successfully. Imagine my horror when, during the concluding meeting, the Head of Engineering said: "Mr. Varma, from your vast expertise, can you give some advice about a problem in operations?"
My knees turned weak and heart started doing double-time: however, hiding my nervousness, I nodded.
He continued. "Our reactor is facing solid deposition. The agitator inside the reactor was placed two metres above the bottom - to combat this problem, we reduced the clearance to a metre. The deposition has decreased, and we are able to live with it. However, we'd like to know whether we can lower it further. Can you advise?"
I looked at the ceiling for a moment, and scratched my chin. The whole production team was staring expectantly at me.
To gain time, I asked:"How much was the gap initially?"
"Two metres."
"Hmm... and how much now?"
"A metre."
"And you say the deposition has decreased, and you can live with it."
"Yes."
"Well..." I said, scratching my chin and trying to look knowledgeable: "You've left it very narrow, but it seems to be OK. Don't reduce it any further, however."
"Oh no!" The Head of Engineering and the production team heaved a collective sigh of relief.
The expert had spoken.
----------------------------
Now, thanks to Harry Frankfurt, I know that what I did could be called "bullshitting" - not exactly lying, nor telling the truth, but speaking with scant regard to whether whatever I am saying is true or false - to create a certain impression of oneself on an audience.
Of course, I have the defence that I was trying to save my life (well, reputation, anyway). What justification do our politicians have, when they do it daily on the TV (other than entertainment value), I wonder.
----------------------------
12/05/2016
Well, what do you know! Our estimable Prime Minister is also showing his capabilities in this art...
Prime Minister Modi compares Kerala to Somalia
Story behind the picture that provoked PM Modi’s Somalia jibe in Kerala
September 24, 2014
This slim, elegant little book looks at first like an elaborate joke, but I think it is actually quite serious. What is "bullshit"? asks the author, a distinguished moral philosopher. He examines and discards various plausible hypotheses, for example that bullshit is merely lying or careless use of language. As he points out, the bullshit artist often lies, but need not do so: some bullshit is, more or less by accident, perfectly true. And similarly, although much bullshit is hasty or careless, some of the worst bullshit around is crafted with exquisite care and attention to detail; one need only think of commercial advertising and political campaigns.
The rest of this review is available elsewhere (the location cannot be given for Goodreads policy reasons)
The rest of this review is available elsewhere (the location cannot be given for Goodreads policy reasons)
May 14, 2023
3, 5.
Toți știm ce înseamnă expresia „a mînca rahat”. Și toți am mîncat măcar o dată în viață rahat. Dar, dintre muritori, cei mai mari mîncători de rahat sînt, firește, politicienii și filosofii. Aburitorii...
Volumul cuprinde două articole ceva mai lungi semnate de filosoful analitic Harry G. Frankfurt în 2005 și 2006: On Bullshit și On Truth. Ne-am deprins să scoatem vorbe. Vremea noastră se remarcă printr-o creștere masivă a acestui fel de ocupație. E timpul flecărelii. Vrînd-nevrînd (dar mai mult vrînd), o practicăm toți. Vorbim ca să vorbim, vorbim ca să flatăm, vorbim ca să impresionăm, ca să luăm ochii vulgului profan (asta e, desigur, o formă de impostură), vorbim pentru că trebuie să spunem ceva, orice (la un examen, la o adunare politică, la o sindrofie, la un parastas etc.). Nu contează relația discursului nostru cu adevărul. De fiecare dată vrem să-i convingem pe ceilalți (fraierii), să-i luminăm, să-i aducem pe calea ortodoxiei, să-i determinăm să vadă în noi niște Făclii, niște Vizionari.
Traducătorul n-a echivalat termenul „bullshit”, dintr-o pricină simplă: nu poate fi tradus printr-un singur cuvînt. Îl explică într-o notă: „Rahat, porcărie, fandoseală, insolență, prostii, absurdități, minciuni”. Cîteva fraze din primul articol, On Bullshit:
„O persoană poate să mintă chiar și dacă afirmația pe care o face este adevărată, cîtă vreme este incorectă și are intenția să inducă în eroare” (De tot rahatul, p.10).
„Domeniul reclamei și domeniul relațiilor cu publicul, la fel ca și tărîmul politicii, strîns înrudit cu ele în zilele noastre, sînt saturate de bullshit” (De tot rahatul, p.20).
„Bullshit-ul nu trebuie neapărat să fie ceva fals, diferă de minciuni prin intenția lui de denaturare” (De tot rahatul, p.42).
„Bullshit-ul este de neocolit în situația cînd o persoană e nevoită să vorbească despre un subiect de care nu are habar” (De tot rahatul, p.48).
Toți știm ce înseamnă expresia „a mînca rahat”. Și toți am mîncat măcar o dată în viață rahat. Dar, dintre muritori, cei mai mari mîncători de rahat sînt, firește, politicienii și filosofii. Aburitorii...
Volumul cuprinde două articole ceva mai lungi semnate de filosoful analitic Harry G. Frankfurt în 2005 și 2006: On Bullshit și On Truth. Ne-am deprins să scoatem vorbe. Vremea noastră se remarcă printr-o creștere masivă a acestui fel de ocupație. E timpul flecărelii. Vrînd-nevrînd (dar mai mult vrînd), o practicăm toți. Vorbim ca să vorbim, vorbim ca să flatăm, vorbim ca să impresionăm, ca să luăm ochii vulgului profan (asta e, desigur, o formă de impostură), vorbim pentru că trebuie să spunem ceva, orice (la un examen, la o adunare politică, la o sindrofie, la un parastas etc.). Nu contează relația discursului nostru cu adevărul. De fiecare dată vrem să-i convingem pe ceilalți (fraierii), să-i luminăm, să-i aducem pe calea ortodoxiei, să-i determinăm să vadă în noi niște Făclii, niște Vizionari.
Traducătorul n-a echivalat termenul „bullshit”, dintr-o pricină simplă: nu poate fi tradus printr-un singur cuvînt. Îl explică într-o notă: „Rahat, porcărie, fandoseală, insolență, prostii, absurdități, minciuni”. Cîteva fraze din primul articol, On Bullshit:
„O persoană poate să mintă chiar și dacă afirmația pe care o face este adevărată, cîtă vreme este incorectă și are intenția să inducă în eroare” (De tot rahatul, p.10).
„Domeniul reclamei și domeniul relațiilor cu publicul, la fel ca și tărîmul politicii, strîns înrudit cu ele în zilele noastre, sînt saturate de bullshit” (De tot rahatul, p.20).
„Bullshit-ul nu trebuie neapărat să fie ceva fals, diferă de minciuni prin intenția lui de denaturare” (De tot rahatul, p.42).
„Bullshit-ul este de neocolit în situația cînd o persoană e nevoită să vorbească despre un subiect de care nu are habar” (De tot rahatul, p.48).
August 7, 2021
Even without knowing the author, I can identify the author is a highly educated person. The descriptions are so pristine and sharp reflects author's mind, for example you will learn to distinct between bullshit and lie. But then the average rating of this book when I read it is pretty low (3.50) and some reviewers cannot determine to like it or not, so I wonder why.
I want to propose a hypothesis: the readers (unconsciously) feel the book has a lot of nonsense. Yes, the book that discussing about bullshit is dragging the readers with a lot of hot-air tenses/paragraphs. This book has both qualities: an enlightening work with a lot of bullshits. Some people rate based on the nonsense content , some people rate based on the knowledge gems in the book.
I enjoyed reading this book, and I imagine the author enjoyed and had fun writing this book.
ADDITION: I choose this book as the most fun read for year 2016.
I want to propose a hypothesis: the readers (unconsciously) feel the book has a lot of nonsense. Yes, the book that discussing about bullshit is dragging the readers with a lot of hot-air tenses/paragraphs. This book has both qualities: an enlightening work with a lot of bullshits. Some people rate based on the nonsense content , some people rate based on the knowledge gems in the book.
I enjoyed reading this book, and I imagine the author enjoyed and had fun writing this book.
ADDITION: I choose this book as the most fun read for year 2016.
October 5, 2017
یه سوال جالب که برام پیش اومد با خوندن این کتاب، معادل فارسی برای عنوان این کتاب بود.
Bullshit
این کلمه توی زبان انگلیسی معادل های زیر رو داره به طور مثال:
humbug, claptrap, hokum, drivel, buncombe, imposture, quackery ...
توی فارسی چی داریم معادل این ها؟ چرند مث��ا، چرت و پرت، مزخرف و چیزای دیگه ...
این کتاب یک مقاله کوتا در خصوص تعریف این کلمه هست و کسایی که کارشون بولشت گفتن هست. مثلا اومده به طور مفصل بولشت گفتن رو با دروغ گفتن مقایسه کرده و ازین نظر خیلی جالب توجه. شاهکار کتاب برای من این بخشش بود:
از نظر اخلاقی، کسی که بولشت می گه نسبت به یک دروغ گور دشمن جدی تری برای حقیقت محسوب می شه. کسی که دروغ می گه، توجه داره که سری حقایقی وجود دارن و از یک سری راه و روشهایی می شه به اون حقایق رسید. کسی که دروغ می گه در باطن خودش می دونه یک تفاوتی بین ادعایی که می کنه و حقیقت در اون خص��ص وجود داره. اما کسی که به درست یا غلط بودن یک گزاره ای کاری نداره می تونه دو حالت داشته باشه:
یک اینکه شخصی که بولشت میگه از هرگونه تلاشی چه برای گفتن حقیقت و یا فریب دادن دست می کش��. یعنی کلا هیچ ادعای در مورد حقایق نداره.
مورد دیگه اینه که طرف تلاش می کنه یک سری ادعاهایی در مورد اینکه مسائل چه جوری هستن مطرح کنه که در نهایت چیزی جز بولشت نمی تونن باشن :))
Bullshit
این کلمه توی زبان انگلیسی معادل های زیر رو داره به طور مثال:
humbug, claptrap, hokum, drivel, buncombe, imposture, quackery ...
توی فارسی چی داریم معادل این ها؟ چرند مث��ا، چرت و پرت، مزخرف و چیزای دیگه ...
این کتاب یک مقاله کوتا در خصوص تعریف این کلمه هست و کسایی که کارشون بولشت گفتن هست. مثلا اومده به طور مفصل بولشت گفتن رو با دروغ گفتن مقایسه کرده و ازین نظر خیلی جالب توجه. شاهکار کتاب برای من این بخشش بود:
از نظر اخلاقی، کسی که بولشت می گه نسبت به یک دروغ گور دشمن جدی تری برای حقیقت محسوب می شه. کسی که دروغ می گه، توجه داره که سری حقایقی وجود دارن و از یک سری راه و روشهایی می شه به اون حقایق رسید. کسی که دروغ می گه در باطن خودش می دونه یک تفاوتی بین ادعایی که می کنه و حقیقت در اون خص��ص وجود داره. اما کسی که به درست یا غلط بودن یک گزاره ای کاری نداره می تونه دو حالت داشته باشه:
یک اینکه شخصی که بولشت میگه از هرگونه تلاشی چه برای گفتن حقیقت و یا فریب دادن دست می کش��. یعنی کلا هیچ ادعای در مورد حقایق نداره.
مورد دیگه اینه که طرف تلاش می کنه یک سری ادعاهایی در مورد اینکه مسائل چه جوری هستن مطرح کنه که در نهایت چیزی جز بولشت نمی تونن باشن :))
July 29, 2015
"Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial-notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit."
This is how the work ends :)
This is how the work ends :)
August 11, 2016
“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.”
― Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit
Sometimes what is natural still deserves a little study. What is exactly is bullshit? How is bullshit different from a lie? How is bullshit different than humbug? If these questions plague you or you are just seeking a philosopher's take on the nature, design, function, and theory of bullshit -- well do I have a book (a short book) for you.
In the current election year especially, this title deserves a bit more attention. Upon reflection, this book might suggest that Trump is, at heart, more of a bullshitter than a prevaricator. He isn't saying things he knowingly KNOWS false (although he probably does that too), but rather he just talks without knowing about the things he talks about.
I've got a good friend who is a ghostwriter for Trump. At dinner a few weeks ago, he suggested that most people underestimate just how little Trump actually knows. So perhaps, (and this is certainly no excuse and NO REASON to elect the man) Trump isn't a liar but a well-formed, well-practiced, toxic bullshit artist. He is just the guy on the corner selling bullshit. I guess, now that he looks to be almost unelectable, I'm more concerned really about the people standing in line STILL to buy some of that bullshit.
― Harry G. Frankfurt, On Bullshit
Sometimes what is natural still deserves a little study. What is exactly is bullshit? How is bullshit different from a lie? How is bullshit different than humbug? If these questions plague you or you are just seeking a philosopher's take on the nature, design, function, and theory of bullshit -- well do I have a book (a short book) for you.
In the current election year especially, this title deserves a bit more attention. Upon reflection, this book might suggest that Trump is, at heart, more of a bullshitter than a prevaricator. He isn't saying things he knowingly KNOWS false (although he probably does that too), but rather he just talks without knowing about the things he talks about.
I've got a good friend who is a ghostwriter for Trump. At dinner a few weeks ago, he suggested that most people underestimate just how little Trump actually knows. So perhaps, (and this is certainly no excuse and NO REASON to elect the man) Trump isn't a liar but a well-formed, well-practiced, toxic bullshit artist. He is just the guy on the corner selling bullshit. I guess, now that he looks to be almost unelectable, I'm more concerned really about the people standing in line STILL to buy some of that bullshit.
September 29, 2022
“On Bullshit” is a short academic essay packaged into a small hardcover, published in 2005, before the current iteration of political discourse.
I worried this about Bush as I now do Trump: Is he a pathological liar? Is he crazy? Is he stupid? Is he just a bullshitter?
Frankfurt is a bit helpful here in making a distinction between lying and bullshit:
“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.”
Humbug. Balderdash. Claptrap. Hokum. Quackery. Drivel.
“Never tell a lie when you can bullshit your way through”—E. Ambler
In the end he also says all claims to sincerity are bullshit, which would include his essay, a claim about which I agree. I didn’t know what to expect exactly when I began reading it, but I didn’t expect it to be so flat and scholarly and dull. I was hoping for more laughs, which we all need in this Time of Remarkable Bullshit.
Thanks to Michael for posting Frankfurt’s 2016 Time Magazine article on Trump and bullshit:
https://time.com/4321036/donald-trump...
“Everybody Knows,” Leonard Cohen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lin-a...
I worried this about Bush as I now do Trump: Is he a pathological liar? Is he crazy? Is he stupid? Is he just a bullshitter?
Frankfurt is a bit helpful here in making a distinction between lying and bullshit:
“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.”
Humbug. Balderdash. Claptrap. Hokum. Quackery. Drivel.
“Never tell a lie when you can bullshit your way through”—E. Ambler
In the end he also says all claims to sincerity are bullshit, which would include his essay, a claim about which I agree. I didn’t know what to expect exactly when I began reading it, but I didn’t expect it to be so flat and scholarly and dull. I was hoping for more laughs, which we all need in this Time of Remarkable Bullshit.
Thanks to Michael for posting Frankfurt’s 2016 Time Magazine article on Trump and bullshit:
https://time.com/4321036/donald-trump...
“Everybody Knows,” Leonard Cohen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lin-a...
August 18, 2007
Yes, the subject is a funny word. But the text is dry, and the substance is suspect. Frankfurt spends most of his (admirably few) pages examining causes for bullshitting, in very dry and highly speculative fashion. While it is interesting to read exactly how "bullshit" is different from "nonsense," "lies," and "deception," the term can be used to mean just those things. Like other popular swears, it's a broad word. Frankfurt is more interested in a phenomenon that he believes can only be described under this word, though, which hurts a treatise that ought to encapsulate the word entirely. This book could easily be used to condemn all art and human emotion as "bullshit," and while that might make you or Mr. Frankfurt feel clever, it's not useful. His speculation on precisely what makes people bullshit is useful, though it misses the gravity of the biggest cause: that people don't care.
October 16, 2016
A look at the BS we face everyday. We have all met a person who has to 'one up' everyone with their BS. The interesting thing that I have noticed is that people who like to BS a lot can't stand it if they think someone is trying to BS them; they become hyper sensitive to the BS of other people. Great book on a little examined subject.
November 13, 2014
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.
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.
May 9, 2008
I was wondering how this book ever got published but then I read the "About the Author" section. Turns out Harry Frankfurt is a "renowned moral philosopher." I didn't know I was reading a renowned moral philosopher. I'm guessing he went to the publishers and was all like, "I'm a renowned moral philosopher, bitches, and I got this here essay on bullshit. Now are you gonna publish it or am I gonna have to get all categorically imperative on your asses. Respeck." I can't explain this book's existence in any other way.
September 10, 2017
"...Sincerity itself is bullshit."
Though I should point out that I'm not a "Frankfurtist" as I disagree with his main theories on the matter of free will, But I like his style. His style of logical argumentation is to some extent precise which is much appreciated in the age of continental philosopher (or as I call them, lazy-ass-dramatic-claimer). Also, his style of writing is fun, elegant and rather enjoyable to read.
I would recommend reading this essay to almost anyone who has time for 64 pages of reading.
Though I should point out that I'm not a "Frankfurtist" as I disagree with his main theories on the matter of free will, But I like his style. His style of logical argumentation is to some extent precise which is much appreciated in the age of continental philosopher (or as I call them, lazy-ass-dramatic-claimer). Also, his style of writing is fun, elegant and rather enjoyable to read.
I would recommend reading this essay to almost anyone who has time for 64 pages of reading.
February 6, 2017
Due to a politically apathetic populace, a Democratic party so intent on electing the first woman president that it completely overlooked and ignored a largely white working-class rural demographic that was---at one point---its own base, and a Republican party so overrun with politicians in the pockets of big-money special interests, an orange tiny-handed reality show host with a face permanently set in a scowl and/or in the throes of chronic constipation was, amazingly, elected to the highest office in the U.S. government.
How this happened would probably take several “War and Peace”-length volumes to adequately dissect and explain, but suffice it to say that a significant portion of the explanation can be linked back to the fact that a large voting bloc of the American public simply grew sick and tired of all the bullshit.
This is why voters in 2016 were attracted to candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump: nontraditional, irreverent, disinterested in playing by the rules.
Whereas Sanders had experience in Washington, D.C. and a lengthy tenure in both the House and Senate, his progressive Independent ideals that he maintained consistently for 30 years were refreshing to voters sick and tired of the flip-flopping of politicians in both parties based less on crises of conscience than on poll numbers and the amount of money they were receiving from special interest groups.
Whereas Trump had a history of being a showy billionaire whose only real talent apart from his self-fashioned “business deal negotiator extraordinaire” persona was perhaps his utterly shameless but brilliantly skillful self-promotion, voters seemed to like his no-nonsense “tell it like it is” anti-political correctness.
One candidate came across as genuine and authentic. The other was a spoiled rich kid with the vocabulary of a 12-year-old. One was honest, the other was a blatant bullshitter.
Ironically, the people who were tired of the bullshit of Washington, D.C. elected the bullshitter.
Go figure.
Now, thanks to President Trump, we are living in a post-truth world in which the very nature of truth and lies has seemingly been altered at the molecular level and rearranged. As someone in Trump’s entourage recently said, there is no such thing, anymore, as facts.
Facts have become bullshit and bullshit has become truth.
This may seem like some incomprehensibly insane alternate dimension plot of the TV show “Fringe”, but it makes complete sense after reading Harry G. Frankfurt’s book “On Bullshit”.
In his extremely short (a surprisingly deep 67 pages that even the notoriously bibliophobic Trump might actually be able to read if it weren’t so erudite and had pictures in it) dissertation on the definition and nature of bullshit, Frankfurt posits that most people incorrectly mistake lying with bullshit and vice versa. Bullshit’s relationship with truth and lies is not so easily apparent.
According to Frank, while similar and with often similar outcomes, lying and bullshitting are not the same.
Both actions stem from the truth and one’s relationship to it.
Liars respect the truth in that they, at least, acknowledge that something is true. A lie can’t be considered a lie if the liar doesn’t believe in the truth, which is the opposite of what he is trying to convey. “A person who lies,” writes Frankfurt, “is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. (p.56)”
Bullshitters, on the other hand, don’t give a shit if something is true or false. They simply want to convince everyone of their own perceived reality: “[The bullshitter] 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. (p.56)”
When Trump tweeted that his inauguration had the largest attendance of any inauguration in history, despite all evidence to the contrary, he wasn’t lying. He was bullshitting. He didn’t care if his statement conformed to the truth. He was simply trying to convince everyone of the reality that he was seeing in his own mind, as opposed to the reality of Reality.
When Trump claimed that he won the popular vote, once one eliminated the five million or so “illegal” voters, he wasn’t lying. He was bullshitting. He couldn’t care less that his statements flew in the face of all evidence that voter fraud and malfeasance simply did not exist to the extent that he claimed. He was simply trying to convince everyone of his own reality.
Bullshitters like Trump are more dangerous than liars because liars can eventually be called out on their lies. At some point, a liar must admit defeat and acknowledge the very truth that they, in their hearts, know is true.
Bullshitters like Trump don’t need to admit defeat because they don’t care if what they are saying is true or not. They just need to say it loud enough and often enough that people become so inured to it that they eventually accept it as their own reality.
If Trump keeps bullshitting, and if enough people do nothing to countermand his bullshit---if his own party members cowtow to his every whim, if the media refuses to challenge him, if enough bored citizens sit around with their laissez faire “I don’t really follow politics” apathy and disinterest---the minority of those who refuse to buy his bullshit will be too powerless to stop him.
That’s no bullshit...
How this happened would probably take several “War and Peace”-length volumes to adequately dissect and explain, but suffice it to say that a significant portion of the explanation can be linked back to the fact that a large voting bloc of the American public simply grew sick and tired of all the bullshit.
This is why voters in 2016 were attracted to candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump: nontraditional, irreverent, disinterested in playing by the rules.
Whereas Sanders had experience in Washington, D.C. and a lengthy tenure in both the House and Senate, his progressive Independent ideals that he maintained consistently for 30 years were refreshing to voters sick and tired of the flip-flopping of politicians in both parties based less on crises of conscience than on poll numbers and the amount of money they were receiving from special interest groups.
Whereas Trump had a history of being a showy billionaire whose only real talent apart from his self-fashioned “business deal negotiator extraordinaire” persona was perhaps his utterly shameless but brilliantly skillful self-promotion, voters seemed to like his no-nonsense “tell it like it is” anti-political correctness.
One candidate came across as genuine and authentic. The other was a spoiled rich kid with the vocabulary of a 12-year-old. One was honest, the other was a blatant bullshitter.
Ironically, the people who were tired of the bullshit of Washington, D.C. elected the bullshitter.
Go figure.
Now, thanks to President Trump, we are living in a post-truth world in which the very nature of truth and lies has seemingly been altered at the molecular level and rearranged. As someone in Trump’s entourage recently said, there is no such thing, anymore, as facts.
Facts have become bullshit and bullshit has become truth.
This may seem like some incomprehensibly insane alternate dimension plot of the TV show “Fringe”, but it makes complete sense after reading Harry G. Frankfurt’s book “On Bullshit”.
In his extremely short (a surprisingly deep 67 pages that even the notoriously bibliophobic Trump might actually be able to read if it weren’t so erudite and had pictures in it) dissertation on the definition and nature of bullshit, Frankfurt posits that most people incorrectly mistake lying with bullshit and vice versa. Bullshit’s relationship with truth and lies is not so easily apparent.
According to Frank, while similar and with often similar outcomes, lying and bullshitting are not the same.
Both actions stem from the truth and one’s relationship to it.
Liars respect the truth in that they, at least, acknowledge that something is true. A lie can’t be considered a lie if the liar doesn’t believe in the truth, which is the opposite of what he is trying to convey. “A person who lies,” writes Frankfurt, “is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. (p.56)”
Bullshitters, on the other hand, don’t give a shit if something is true or false. They simply want to convince everyone of their own perceived reality: “[The bullshitter] 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. (p.56)”
When Trump tweeted that his inauguration had the largest attendance of any inauguration in history, despite all evidence to the contrary, he wasn’t lying. He was bullshitting. He didn’t care if his statement conformed to the truth. He was simply trying to convince everyone of the reality that he was seeing in his own mind, as opposed to the reality of Reality.
When Trump claimed that he won the popular vote, once one eliminated the five million or so “illegal” voters, he wasn’t lying. He was bullshitting. He couldn’t care less that his statements flew in the face of all evidence that voter fraud and malfeasance simply did not exist to the extent that he claimed. He was simply trying to convince everyone of his own reality.
Bullshitters like Trump are more dangerous than liars because liars can eventually be called out on their lies. At some point, a liar must admit defeat and acknowledge the very truth that they, in their hearts, know is true.
Bullshitters like Trump don’t need to admit defeat because they don’t care if what they are saying is true or not. They just need to say it loud enough and often enough that people become so inured to it that they eventually accept it as their own reality.
If Trump keeps bullshitting, and if enough people do nothing to countermand his bullshit---if his own party members cowtow to his every whim, if the media refuses to challenge him, if enough bored citizens sit around with their laissez faire “I don’t really follow politics” apathy and disinterest---the minority of those who refuse to buy his bullshit will be too powerless to stop him.
That’s no bullshit...
June 30, 2023
This is a book that presents a theory of bullshit that defines the concept and analyzes the applications of bullshit in the context of communication. The author argues that bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth, and that bullshitters are more dangerous than liars because they don't care about the truth at all.
Best of all, the book itself is a masterful example of bullshit. It is not a book that will teach you anything about bullshit, but rather show you how much bullshit there is in the world of philosophy. It deliberately violates the author's own standards of clarity, rigor, and honesty. He does not offer any practical advice or solutions on how to deal with bullshit, or how to avoid becoming a bullshitter oneself. In the process, he contradicts himself, he repeats himself, he bores himself, but it is still enjoyable.
Best of all, the book itself is a masterful example of bullshit. It is not a book that will teach you anything about bullshit, but rather show you how much bullshit there is in the world of philosophy. It deliberately violates the author's own standards of clarity, rigor, and honesty. He does not offer any practical advice or solutions on how to deal with bullshit, or how to avoid becoming a bullshitter oneself. In the process, he contradicts himself, he repeats himself, he bores himself, but it is still enjoyable.
April 8, 2016
Everyone lies, for many psychological reasons , it’s just a question of how, when and why , in this book Harry G. Frankfurt demonstrates, through argument and example, the difference between lying and bullshit, A liar is the one who knows the truth but tell something else, A bullshitter "does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up to suit his purpose." This is a perfect description of politicians
While liars say things they know are untrue, bullshitters say whatever they think will work best and have no interest in whether their statements are true or not.
"Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about".
you know what they say “dance like nobody's watching” I feel like bullshitters/Liars and especially politicians hear this “lie like no one is fact-checking you” and the perfect example of pathological liar is Donald trump !
While liars say things they know are untrue, bullshitters say whatever they think will work best and have no interest in whether their statements are true or not.
"Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about".
you know what they say “dance like nobody's watching” I feel like bullshitters/Liars and especially politicians hear this “lie like no one is fact-checking you” and the perfect example of pathological liar is Donald trump !
February 15, 2017
Pretentious, tedious word play with a topic and title to guarantee more book sales than a bound essay would ever accrue on its own merits. Having been sprung from doing time in academia my tolerance for this type of entitled, 'more-intellectual-than-thou' pomposity has grown thin enough that I skimmed the last half of the essay and even that felt like too much attention.
Frankfurt's cleverness is drowned by his intellectual masturbation, he created a work more of bullshit that on bullshit: one wonders if that was the point? To take a scalpel to another writer's musing on 'humbug' but ignore exaggeration and deflection entirely seems to point to either his own self-delusion or that this essay is, in fact, a deliberate act of bullshit itself.
Regardless of intent, Frankfurt says nothing new and nothing not better and far more concisely (and amusingly) conveyed in stand-up comedy, decades ago, by the likes of George Carlin and Robin Williams.
Frankfurt's cleverness is drowned by his intellectual masturbation, he created a work more of bullshit that on bullshit: one wonders if that was the point? To take a scalpel to another writer's musing on 'humbug' but ignore exaggeration and deflection entirely seems to point to either his own self-delusion or that this essay is, in fact, a deliberate act of bullshit itself.
Regardless of intent, Frankfurt says nothing new and nothing not better and far more concisely (and amusingly) conveyed in stand-up comedy, decades ago, by the likes of George Carlin and Robin Williams.
March 4, 2022
On first reading, this book/essay is enormously compelling and entertaining. But subsequent readings raise serious worries about Frankfurt's account. For example:
On Frankfurt's account, there are two necessary conditions for something to count as bullshit:
(1) The speaker must be indifferent to the truth of what he says.
(2) He must intend to deceive his audience about his indifference to the truth of what he says.
Who would count as such a producer of bullshit? Maybe the Fourth of July Orator who makes a bunch of patriotic claims which he doesn't care are true or false, and who aims to convince his audience of patriots that he actually believes. But that seems like a special case. Many other kinds of things we would intuitively call "bullshit" don't have those features.
Even Frankfurt's example involving Wittgenstein and Fania Pascal lacks one of these two features: Pascal does not, in any obvious sense, intend to deceive Wittgenstein about her indifference to the truth of what she says ("I feel just like a dog that has been run over").
Moreover, it is unclear why Frankfurt thinks that the bullshitter is a greater enemy of truth than the liar, as he famously claims. He may be indifferent to the truth of what he says, but he clearly cares about giving his audience false beliefs about his own attitudes. So he isn't completely indifferent to the truth.
*******
Re-reading February 2022
I teach this pretty frequently, and I think I can say better now what I think Frankfurt gets wrong about the description of the Fania Pascal/Wittgenstein exchange as an example of bullshit. Not only does Pascal not intend to deceive Wittgenstein about her alleged indifference to the truth, but she also isn't indifferent to the truth of what she says. She does know how a dog feels when it is run over, namely *really bad*. The reason Wittgenstein is annoyed by her expression is that it isn't the most apt description of how she feels—I think Wittgenstein thinks there are more precise ways of saying how she feels. The "dead dog" anecdote occurs in the context of Pascal remembering other expressions of precision from Wittgenstein:
"Francis told me that Wittgenstein would devote hours to shaving off tiny slivers from the small photos he took before he would be satisfied with some kind of balance achieved. Certainly when he gave me my copies they were much reduced from the original size; one was now smaller than an inch square. During the Spanish Civil War Wittgenstein, seeing in our room an enlarged photograph of John Cornford, who had just been killed in Spain, sniffed: 'They think you can just enlarge a photo. Now look. It's all trousers.' I looked, and of course, he was right." (Recollections of Wittgenstein, p.28)
Wittgenstein appears upset not by indifference to the truth of what she says, but by her choosing a sloppy analogy.
On Frankfurt's account, there are two necessary conditions for something to count as bullshit:
(1) The speaker must be indifferent to the truth of what he says.
(2) He must intend to deceive his audience about his indifference to the truth of what he says.
Who would count as such a producer of bullshit? Maybe the Fourth of July Orator who makes a bunch of patriotic claims which he doesn't care are true or false, and who aims to convince his audience of patriots that he actually believes. But that seems like a special case. Many other kinds of things we would intuitively call "bullshit" don't have those features.
Even Frankfurt's example involving Wittgenstein and Fania Pascal lacks one of these two features: Pascal does not, in any obvious sense, intend to deceive Wittgenstein about her indifference to the truth of what she says ("I feel just like a dog that has been run over").
Moreover, it is unclear why Frankfurt thinks that the bullshitter is a greater enemy of truth than the liar, as he famously claims. He may be indifferent to the truth of what he says, but he clearly cares about giving his audience false beliefs about his own attitudes. So he isn't completely indifferent to the truth.
*******
Re-reading February 2022
I teach this pretty frequently, and I think I can say better now what I think Frankfurt gets wrong about the description of the Fania Pascal/Wittgenstein exchange as an example of bullshit. Not only does Pascal not intend to deceive Wittgenstein about her alleged indifference to the truth, but she also isn't indifferent to the truth of what she says. She does know how a dog feels when it is run over, namely *really bad*. The reason Wittgenstein is annoyed by her expression is that it isn't the most apt description of how she feels—I think Wittgenstein thinks there are more precise ways of saying how she feels. The "dead dog" anecdote occurs in the context of Pascal remembering other expressions of precision from Wittgenstein:
"Francis told me that Wittgenstein would devote hours to shaving off tiny slivers from the small photos he took before he would be satisfied with some kind of balance achieved. Certainly when he gave me my copies they were much reduced from the original size; one was now smaller than an inch square. During the Spanish Civil War Wittgenstein, seeing in our room an enlarged photograph of John Cornford, who had just been killed in Spain, sniffed: 'They think you can just enlarge a photo. Now look. It's all trousers.' I looked, and of course, he was right." (Recollections of Wittgenstein, p.28)
Wittgenstein appears upset not by indifference to the truth of what she says, but by her choosing a sloppy analogy.
November 7, 2019
I feel like for a book on bullshit, it was way too short.
I picked this up because I had to teach my 14 year old how to bullshit her English essays. She was writing one or two word answers and getting B’s even though she’s basically the only kid who reads the entire book. I taught her how to fill a paragraph where a one word answer is technically correct but there’s a lot of room and you have to fill it because English teachers can be lazy.
I picked this up because I had to teach my 14 year old how to bullshit her English essays. She was writing one or two word answers and getting B’s even though she’s basically the only kid who reads the entire book. I taught her how to fill a paragraph where a one word answer is technically correct but there’s a lot of room and you have to fill it because English teachers can be lazy.
June 25, 2020
Nuostabus filosofinis veikalas. Patariu perskaityti visiems savigalbos popieriukų skaitytojams - gal suvoksite, kokią šūdmalą, ar tiksliau tariant, oro pardavinėjimą skaitote ir kad tik švaistote savo brangų laiką bei paleidžiate jį vėjais.
May 22, 2011
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.
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.
October 4, 2014
As pleasant a rainy Saturday morning read it all in one sitting book as I can ever remember experiencing. You might suspect from the title that the overall purpose of the book is to in some way appeal to the readers' sense of humor, but it is quite serious. Not that things serious are not without their appeals to a healthy sense of humor.
Enthusiastically recommended.
Enthusiastically recommended.
February 8, 2017
On Bullshit, by Harry G. Frankfurt is an in depth (maybe?) philosophical examination of bullshit. Its definition, use, and relation to the world and humanity are examined in detail. Frankfurt looks at the definitions and concepts of lying, humbug, bull session, and so on, to compare various forms of "hot air" to bullshit. He examines our need as humans to seem knowledgeable on various subjects, and therefore "bluff our way through" to try and seem knowledgeable to others. Why do we do this? Frankfurt tries to differentiate bullshit from lies, where lies are deliberate attempts to hide a fact, and bullshit is less concerned with truth or fiction. Bullshit can be seen as an attempt to explore subjects intellectually, by teasing out definitions, and "muddling through" the idea in question by exploring the known and unknown of the particular topic or concept. It can also be a way to try and deceive others into thinking one knows more about a subject than they actually do.
Frankfurt's short little book is illuminating and humorous. In an age where we need to sell ourselves at job interviews or on a date, or where we enjoy sitting down and "shooting the shit" with our friends both on and offline, where politicians flaunt facts and figures with no value, and where marketers and PR firms white wash their products for our consumption, Frankfurt's little treatise is interesting and highly relevant. It is also very humorous, and not necessarily meant to be taken seriously. It is, as much is, a load of hot air, and I personally enjoyed it immensely.
Frankfurt's short little book is illuminating and humorous. In an age where we need to sell ourselves at job interviews or on a date, or where we enjoy sitting down and "shooting the shit" with our friends both on and offline, where politicians flaunt facts and figures with no value, and where marketers and PR firms white wash their products for our consumption, Frankfurt's little treatise is interesting and highly relevant. It is also very humorous, and not necessarily meant to be taken seriously. It is, as much is, a load of hot air, and I personally enjoyed it immensely.
October 3, 2018
Frankfurt discusses the difference between bullshit and lies. Lying is a conscious act of deception, while BSing is distinguished by its indifference to how things really are. The liar, in order to lie, must know what he thinks is true, whereas the BSer doesn’t care what is true. So in a sense bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.
Frankfurt says that the reason BS is so common is because people are convinced that they are obligated to have opinions on everything, and so they pretend to understand issues they know very little about.
He goes on to suggest that one source of the influence of bullshit in public discourse comes from an attitude that rejects a concern with objective reality in favor of being true to ourselves. "Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth about things, [the individual] devotes himself to being true to his own nature." But what makes us think that our "true selves" are any more stable or determinate than facts about the world around us? It’s a good question, really.
Frankfurt says that the reason BS is so common is because people are convinced that they are obligated to have opinions on everything, and so they pretend to understand issues they know very little about.
He goes on to suggest that one source of the influence of bullshit in public discourse comes from an attitude that rejects a concern with objective reality in favor of being true to ourselves. "Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth about things, [the individual] devotes himself to being true to his own nature." But what makes us think that our "true selves" are any more stable or determinate than facts about the world around us? It’s a good question, really.
June 5, 2015
"When we characterize talk as hot air, we mean that what comes out of the speaker’s mouth is only that. It is mere vapor. His speech is empty, without substance or content. His use of language, accordingly, does not contribute to the purpose it purports to serve. No more information is communicated than if the speaker had merely exhaled. There are similarities between hot air and excrement, incidentally, which make hot air seem an especially suitable equivalent for bullshit."
In this very short work, perhaps essay, Frankfurt makes concise and believable distinctions between concepts that many people think to be interchangeable (ie. Lying, humbug, bluffing, joshing in regards to bullshit). An enjoyable and thoughtful read for people who tend to break down certain expressions (such as me) and wonder where the hell said expressions originated. Recommended.
In this very short work, perhaps essay, Frankfurt makes concise and believable distinctions between concepts that many people think to be interchangeable (ie. Lying, humbug, bluffing, joshing in regards to bullshit). An enjoyable and thoughtful read for people who tend to break down certain expressions (such as me) and wonder where the hell said expressions originated. Recommended.
March 28, 2018
Short & sweet. Opens with the premise that “one of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes our share” (1). This is reminiscent of Sloterdijk’s notion of enlightened false consciousness:
An anecdote of surly Wittgenstein taking issue with an improperly deployed simile leads to the inference that bullshit may be a form of discourse “unconnected to a concern with the truth” (30), as opposed to knowing misrepresentation. That is, Wittgenstein was troubled by “a description of a certain state of affairs without genuinely submitting to the constraints which the endeavor to provide an accurate representation of reality imposes” (32). It is a matter of “enjoying a certain irresponsibility” (37), which implies a sort of ethical analysis.
BS is likened to “bluff” (46), and then the argument contends that “although it is produced without concern for the truth, it need not be false. The bullshitter is faking things. But this does not mean that he necessarily gets them wrong” (48). The liar by contrast “is unmistakenly concerned with truth-values. In order to invent a lie at all, he must think he knows what is true” (51), which is Kant’s antecedent position of choice, as I recall it. For the bullshitter, “the truth-values of his statements are of no central importance” (55)—it is the rhetorical performance that matters. Anyway, Fareed Zakaria thought this text applied very much to Trump back before the awful election. No doubt there.
Cynicism is enlightened false consciousness. It is that modernized, unhappy consciousness, on which enlightenment has labored both successfully and in vain. It has learned its lessons in enlightenment, but it has not, and probably was not able to, put them into practice. Well-off and miserable at the same time, this consciousness no longer feels affected by any critique of ideology; its falseness is already reflexively buffered.Critique of Cynical Reason at 5. Works through definitional material, much of it comparative with related terms (‘humbug,’ ‘hot air,’ &c.) as well as dishonesty proper. It is RSB’s viramsata insofar as “the realms of advertising and or public relations, and the nowadays closely related realm of politics, are replete with instances of bullshit so unmitigated that they can serve among the most indisputable and classic paradigms of the concept” (22).
An anecdote of surly Wittgenstein taking issue with an improperly deployed simile leads to the inference that bullshit may be a form of discourse “unconnected to a concern with the truth” (30), as opposed to knowing misrepresentation. That is, Wittgenstein was troubled by “a description of a certain state of affairs without genuinely submitting to the constraints which the endeavor to provide an accurate representation of reality imposes” (32). It is a matter of “enjoying a certain irresponsibility” (37), which implies a sort of ethical analysis.
BS is likened to “bluff” (46), and then the argument contends that “although it is produced without concern for the truth, it need not be false. The bullshitter is faking things. But this does not mean that he necessarily gets them wrong” (48). The liar by contrast “is unmistakenly concerned with truth-values. In order to invent a lie at all, he must think he knows what is true” (51), which is Kant’s antecedent position of choice, as I recall it. For the bullshitter, “the truth-values of his statements are of no central importance” (55)—it is the rhetorical performance that matters. Anyway, Fareed Zakaria thought this text applied very much to Trump back before the awful election. No doubt there.
March 5, 2022
اول اینکه ترجمهی کتاب اصلا خوب نیست، مترجم با تمام وجود سعی کرده که سواد ادبی خودش را به رخ خواننده بکشه و همین باعث میشه که قسمت ترجمه کتاب خیلی سختخوان و در برخی قسمتها نافهم بشه. اما به همان اندازه جستار آقای ملکیان بسیار روان و خواندنی بود.
برای من خیلی جالب بود که یک نفر انقدر دقیق و به صورت جامع و کامل مزخرفات روزمره (که در حال حاضر به لطف شبکههای اجتماعی هر روز هم شایعتر میشه) که هر روز مردم و مقامات در حال گفتنش هستند را بررسی کنه. ولی به نظرم کتاب میتونست خیلی کمتر و در حد یک مقالهی ۲۰ صفحهای ارائه بشه. چون بعضی از قسمتها به سمت گزافهگویی و توضیح بدیهیات رفته بود.
تعریف حرف مفت در کنار راست و دروغ و این نکته که حرف مفت میتواند به مراتب از دروغ گفتن خطرناکتر باشه برای من قابل تامل و جذاب بود. حین خواندن کتاب به حرفهای روزمره خودم و حرفهایی که دیگران میزدند از حیث حرف مفت بیشتر توجه کردم و حیرت زده شدم از حجم حرف مفتی که میزنم و میزنند.
خلاصه که کتاب ارزش خواندن را حتما داره، حداقل از این نظر که ما را با تعریف حرف مفت و پروپاگاندای فردی و جمعی آشنا میکنه.
و اینکه تا بیشتر از این حرف مفت نزدم ، سخن را کوتاه کنم.
برای من خیلی جالب بود که یک نفر انقدر دقیق و به صورت جامع و کامل مزخرفات روزمره (که در حال حاضر به لطف شبکههای اجتماعی هر روز هم شایعتر میشه) که هر روز مردم و مقامات در حال گفتنش هستند را بررسی کنه. ولی به نظرم کتاب میتونست خیلی کمتر و در حد یک مقالهی ۲۰ صفحهای ارائه بشه. چون بعضی از قسمتها به سمت گزافهگویی و توضیح بدیهیات رفته بود.
تعریف حرف مفت در کنار راست و دروغ و این نکته که حرف مفت میتواند به مراتب از دروغ گفتن خطرناکتر باشه برای من قابل تامل و جذاب بود. حین خواندن کتاب به حرفهای روزمره خودم و حرفهایی که دیگران میزدند از حیث حرف مفت بیشتر توجه کردم و حیرت زده شدم از حجم حرف مفتی که میزنم و میزنند.
خلاصه که کتاب ارزش خواندن را حتما داره، حداقل از این نظر که ما را با تعریف حرف مفت و پروپاگاندای فردی و جمعی آشنا میکنه.
و اینکه تا بیشتر از این حرف مفت نزدم ، سخن را کوتاه کنم.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,593 reviews