Știți cine mănâncă rahat? Dacă nu știți, citiți cartea lui Frankfurt. Îmi permit totuși să numesc 3 categorii de indivizi care obișnuiesc să-l înfulece cu polonicul: oamenii politici, filozofii, influencerii. Și mai sunt destui. Rahatul e discursul care pare doar să transmită ceva, dar el e o înșiruire de vorbe goale: ”Trăiască lupta pentru pace!”, ”!Nu vom precupeți niciun efort”, ”Prin sânge, sudoare și lacrimi, vom construi un viitor fericit” etc.

"...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.

“It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.”

Here is a small book that starts out with a social-linguistic comparison between hogwash and bullshit (or something like that. It's been a few months since I've read it.) and moves swiftly into an assessment of the liar's relationship to truth in comparison to the bullshiter's. In the end, Frankfurt posits that a liar knows what is true (or thinks they do, or has at least some respect for the concept of truh) and intentionally, for a specific purpose, corrupts the truth, either occasionally or frequently, whereas the bullshitter cares not an ounce about truth but only about dodging questions altogether and manipulating every situation towards the creation of a certain image and, to put it succinctly, conning us all.

Sound familiar?

Yep, a good book to read around inauguration day. Short, sweet, to the point, chillingly timely. We live inside a three stooges episode stuffed inside a Kafka nightmare stuffed inside...a turkey? With a band of so-called politicians (with no experience as such, but much experience with bullying and other violences, stealing, slithering, and giving zero fucks about anything but the obsessive accrual of wealth and power) who have so little respect for truth or institutional checks and balances they seem to be disintegrating our entire democracy with their vague laser eyes and vaporous rhetorical stances.

There are many things that don't get addressed in here, or are addressed in a wishy washy way. This is not a full exploration of what "truth" is and how i functions communally, or what distinguishes, for example, an outright lie from a 'white lie' or 'lie of omission.' He talks a little about why liars lie and suggests that compulsive liars do it for the pleasure, which I think is way off the mark, certainly as a generalization. But I think he's on the mark in terms of why bullshitters bullshit. I'd be curious to see him address why some people consider bullshit to be "refreshingly direct" "Saying it like it is" even if said speaker is saying it like it isn't or like he wishes it were.

The author is a moral philosophy professor and the entire book reads like a tongue in cheek philosophy lecture. You can tell that Frankfurt is very amused by his own cleverness but I found the whole thing a bit dull. Learning about the etymology and changing definitions over time was interesting but it was written in an overly academic style I find stuffy and unapproachable.

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.)

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.

کتابچه "در باب حرف مفت" ارائه تعریف جامعی از بولشت یا یاوه گویی بود. مهم ترین نکته ش برای من تفاوت دروغ و لاف زنی با یاوه گویی بود. کسی که حرف مفت میزنه حقیقت یا دروغ براش ترجیحی نداره بیشتر دنبال بافتن حرف ها به هم و موجه نشون دادن حرفاش و موضع خودشه. هم این کتاب و هم "دلایل عشق" هری فرانکفورت، نمونه هایی از فلسفه زیبا برام هستند، استدلال محکم که به نتیجه مشخصی میرسه.

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).

There is a distinction between a person who tells a lie and a liar. The former is one who tells a lie unwillingly, while the liar loves to lie and passes his time in the joy of lying. . . . The latter takes delight in lying, rejoicing in the falsehood itself.

Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic.

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.

I could not finish this book. This was some smug ass bullshit right here, and I read just enough of it to appreciate the most likely intentional act of a book on bullshit serving as an example of bullshit riddled with some kernels of wisdom, wisdom I care not to sift through bullshit for.

ছোট্টো বই, সব মিলায়ে প্রলয়ঙ্করী কোনো সিদ্ধান্তে পৌছায় না, তবে গুল বা চাপা, বা আরো সত্যের কাছাকাছি গিয়ে বললে, ধাপ্পা যে বিষয়টা আছে, তার উপর বেশ এক হাত নিয়ে নিছেন লেখক।

একটার পর একটা উদাহরণ টানছেন, মিথ্যা আর ধাপ্পার পার্থক্য টানতে গিয়ে, কী কী কারণে ধাপ্পা দেয়া যায় থেকে শুরু করে, অভিধান আর ব্যক্তি ভিটগেনস্টাইনে চলে গেছেন, উদাহরণ টানতে সাথে নিয়েছেন এজরা-পাউন্ড সেইন্ট-অগাস্টিনদের - সব মিলায়ে, এই বইটা শেষে একটা প্রলয়ঙ্করী না হইলেও অদ্ভূত সিদ্ধান্তে গিয়ে পৌছায়, সততা বাস্তবতা আর ঐ যারে বলে সিনসিয়ারিটি, সেই বিষয়ে - ষোলো পাতার বই, চাই কি আজই পড়তে পারেন।

কিন্তু এই বইটারে শেষে, নয়দিন পরে এসে একটা প্রকাণ্ড ধাপ্পা মনে হচ্ছে, ধাপ্পা, লেখকের বুলশিটের সংজ্ঞায়ন মোতাবেক নয়, এক বিন্দুও অসত্য লিখেন নাই তিনি, কিন্তু একরকম ধাপ্পাই, খুব একটা জাহিরীয়ানা হয়ে গেলো, একজন জ্ঞানী লোক যখন নেমে আসেন শস্তা মাটিতে - কিন্তু বইটা ভালোও, এইসব লোকেরা মাঝে মাঝে ছয়শো পাতার অভিসন্দর্ভ বাদ দিয়ে এসব চটি লিখলে ভালোই লাগে, কী সুন্দর পড়েও ফেলা যায় দ্রুত।

Just no. Philosophical.... well..... bullshit.