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.

I didn't finish the book, so my review is bullshit anyway.

Stronzate!, intercalare universale ripetuto in mille e più occasioni. Ma cos'è una stronzata? Frankfurt, filosofo con particolare interesse nei campi dell'etica e del razionalismo, spiega la stronzata dal punto di vista filosofico ed il risultato è un opuscolo satirico che si legge in un attimo, regala un sorriso, a tratti forse un po' amaro, e fa capire che la filosofia è ovunque, è la base della vita un po' come la chimica. O forse sono solo tutte stronzate...

Yeah, Harry. Then there's opportunistic bullshit like this "book". I've read issues of the Reader's Digest with more intellectual heft than this dismal effort.

This slim volume was actually quite helpful, as far as it went. Which was not very far.

Normally? Lame. When I’m trying to finish my Goodreads goal? Incredible.

An important little read, Harry G. Frankfurt’s essay, On Bullshit, establishes a theoretical framework for examining bullshit. What is bullshit? Why is there so much of it? What circumstances might proliferate bullshit on a societal scale, but also within our personal relationships? These are the central questions with which this book examines.

Chillingly, Frankfurt outlines the differences between liars and bullshitters. Lying, oddly enough, maintains a concern with the truth; bullshit, however, is wholly unconcerned with fact, by nature. Part of the insidious nature of bullshit is that it really does not hold a conviction to reality, so much as it is connected to the character of the bullshitter themselves.

“Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about.” In that quote, Frankfurt illustrates the amorphous nature of bullshit; how it exists rampant in our political system, and even in the banality of our everyday interactions.

This book makes me want to do better; to be more conscious in how I respond and engage in conversation. It is okay to not know and to not have an opinion on everything; we are finite beings and we need to be okay with simply not knowing. Moreover, being aware of the fact that we cannot be knowledgeable of everything, can and should push us to grow, so that we might continue to expand our ability to communicate effectively and truthfully.

“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.

Re-read this today. Quick read and so relevant to our political world today.

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.

I can imagine a parallel universe where the Gideons pass this around instead of the Bible.

Sometimes a great way to learn how to philosophize is just to see it done. In this short monograph, talented philosopher, Harry Frankfurt, analyzes the concept of "bullshit" (B.S.). What do we mean, precisely, when we say of something that it is B.S.? Or that someone is a B.S.er? Frankfurt takes on this task and produces a fine piece of philosophy, with some helpful points along the way.

Frankfurt claims that the essence of B.S. is a lack of connection with truth, an indifference to how things really are. It's not so much as presenting falsehoods as it is presenting something phony. The B.S.er is faking things. There's a difference between B.S.ing and lying. A liar at least is concerned with the truth enough to know that he needs or wants to misrepresent it. The B.S.er just says a bunch of "shit." And "shit" is matter which everything nutritious as been removed. The death of health and nutrients.

Lies misrepresent a state of affairs or the beliefs of the speaker concerning the state of affairs. The liar cares about the facts. The B.S.er doesn't. He just means to deceive us as to what he is up to. He misrepresents what he is up to - someone concerned with the way things are. The liar hides the fact that he is lying, the B.S.er that he cares about truth. Thus the B.S.er is neither on the side of truth or error. His eyes are not on the facts, at all.

By virtue of this, says Frankfurt, the B.S.er is a greater enemy of the truth than the liar. Thus B.S.ing, which is popular and prevalent in our society, involves a retreat from correctness (which the liar cares enough about to hid, and the honest man cares enough about to get right and promulgate) to a different sort of discipline - sincerity. Rather than trying to represent the world correctly, he turns toward himself. But why think we can know ourselves all that well? Facts about ourselves are not often resistant to skeptical dissolution. I could only think of God's words in Jeremiah: "The heart is wicked and deceitful above all else, who can know it?" Thus Frankfurt finds that sincerity, as espoused in an anti-realist, post-modern context, is itself bullshit.

Frankfurt's book makes for spring boarding into some interesting debate and discussion - something Frankfurt is known for doing (e.g., Frankfurt-style counterexamples to ought implies can do otherwise). Indeed, his little book spawned "Bullshit and Philosophy," a book with many articles on the concept and nature of B.S. by professional philosophers (which I have yet to read all the way through).

Some people (even reviewers here) have called Frankfurt's book a book of B.S. on B.S. But I don't think so. At least not as Frankfurt defines it. Frankfurt is obviously concerned with the truth. And it is doubtful that a B.S.er would give away his trade secrets. Artists don't give away their tricks, so why think that a B.S. artist would?

But the book isn’t without its problems. For example, Frankfurt relays a story about when one of Wittgenstein's friends was in the hospital. Wittgenstein called her to see how she was doing and she told Ludwig that she felt "just like a dog that has been run over." Wittgenstein "was disgusted" and replied, "You don't know what a dog that has been run over feels like." After some analysis, Frankfurt says that Wittgenstein is calling bullshit on his friend, Fania Pascal. But later, Frankfurt describes B.S. as "hot air." Of course he explains what he means by this, but if he wasn't B.S.ing us here, it's hard to see how Pascal was without some special pleading or ad hocery. Frankfurt used a metaphor. Hot air is vaporous and empty just like B.S. speech is. But Pascal's statement was metaphorical as well. And Wittgenstein's obsession with not allowing "language to go on holiday" (and his a-holeish demeanor in general), is what prompted his "caring" remark to his hospitalized friend. (Of course she should have told him that he was not playing in her language game and was trying to impose his rules on to incommensurable systems of speech.)No doubt Frankfurt's use of "hot air" would merit Wittgenstein's disrepute.

Overall, I thought this was an excellent little book. It's small in size and comes in at 67 pages. So its easily read in less than an hour. I recommend it for those who want to see how philosophers go about doing (part of) their job - analyzing claims and making them clear so that we can properly debate and discuss them, if we need to at all after the vagueness and ambiguities have been removed. Frankfurt takes a good first step towards analyzing the concept of B.S. No doubt more work could be done.