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.

“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...

Even though we own this book I ignored it for many years because I thought it was a joke book. After reading Schur's book I realized this one was written by an actual philosopher. It's a short essay and I find it startling and accidentally persuasive that I should try to speak less bullshit in my own life. My brand usually results from a similar cause to this quote: "Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstance require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about." Except, in my case, replace "require someone" with "I desire." Sometimes I even previously had the relevant information in my brain but I have now forgotten. This is why writing can be so much better than talking- plenty of time to look up the facts.

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

On Bullshit

حرف مفت چیه؟ چه فرقی با دروغ داره؟ کسی که چرند می‌گه با کسی که دروغ می‌گه، کسی که لاف می‌زنه و کسی که شیادی می‌کنه چیه؟
فرانکفورت با اسنفاده از فرهنگ انگلیسی استنفورد، داستانی از ویتگنشتاین، کتاب شیوع شیادی و ... سعی می‌کنه دید ما رو به حرف مفت روشن کنه. کسی که حرف مفت می‌زنه، در هر حال مشغول نادرست‌نمایی عقاید خودش‌ در مقابل شنوندگان هست اما تفاوتی که با دروغ‌گویی داره، و این تفاوت ذات حرف مفت رو تعیین می‌کنه: «هسته اصلی تمایز میان او و دروغ‌گو این است. او و دروغ‌گو، هر دو، جد و جهدشان در ارتباط با حقیقت است. اما امری که دروغ‌گو درباره‌ی خودش پنهان می‌کند این است که در تلاش است تا ما را از درک درست واقعیت دور کند؛ قرار نیست ما بدانیم که او می‌خواهد معتقد شویم به چیزی که خود کاذب‌ش می‌داند. از سوی دیگر، امری که حرف‌مفت‌زن درباره‌ی خودش پنهان می‌کند این است که ارزش صدق گزاره‌هایی که بیان می‌کند در مرکز توجه‌ش قرار ندارد؛ آن چه قرار نیست ما بفهمیم این است که قصد او نه گزارش‌کردن حقیقت است و نه کتمان کردن آن.» بنابراین حرف‌مفت زن با توجه به مقصودی که داره (مثلا تظاهر)، گزاره‌ها رو بدونِ توجه به صدق و کذب‌شون انتخاب می‌کنه و یا تغییر می‌ده.
مورد بعدی که حرف‌مفت‌زدن رو میشه مقایسه کرد با اون، لاف‌زدن‌ه. « به خلاف دروغ‌گویی محض، در لاف‌زنی بیشتر نه کاذب بودن، که ساختگی بودن مطرح است.» و ایت شباهت‌ لاف زدن به حرف مفت زدن‌ه: «زیرا ذات حرف مفت این نیست که کاذب باشد، بل این است که چرت باشد.»
در دو سه آخر هم، بحثی رو شروع می‌کنه درمورد این‌که چرا حرف مفت زیاده؟ و «اشکال متنوع شکاکیتی که امکان هرگونه دسترسی قابل اعتماد ما به واقعیت عینی را انکار می‌کند» رو به عنوان یکی از جواب‌های این سوال مقداری توضیح می‌ده، هرچند کافی نیست و به‌نظر اثبات این ادله نیاز به مقاله‌ای جدا داره؛ چون به نتیجه عجیب‌غریبی می‌رسه که می‌گه «سرشت‌های ما، درواقع، قوام دست‌یافتنی‌ای ندارند و ، آشکارا، کمتر از سرشت‌های سایر چیز‌ها ثبات و ذات دارند. و تا آن‌جا که وضع از این قرار باشد، خود صداقت نیز حرف مفت است.»
مقاله جالبی بود، مخصوصا بخاطر توضیح کلمات رایجی که در این موارد استفاده می‌شه و به شخصه موشکافی‌هایی این چنینی رو دوست دارم.

[...] Stronzate è un libro importante, che celebra l’impegno e condanna il permissivismo, la noncuranza e il lassismo di chi «cerca sempre, in un modo o nell’altro, di passarla liscia». Mentre lo leggevo pensavo ai Greci, il cui modo di fare politica, insieme etico e tecnico, si basava sul “dialogo” fra le diverse parti del corpo sociale. Essere politici, insegnano i Greci, non significa soltanto legiferare o intraprendere la carriera di politico, perché “politico” è in primo luogo chi sa far bene il suo lavoro (mica come certi editori). Se il fabbro fabbrica, il medico medica e il giudice giudica, allora anch’essi sono politici. Platone chiamava “temperanza” la virtù che fornisce la misura del proprio sapere e delle proprie competenze. Ovvero: è bene che ognuno faccia quel che sa e lasci fare ad altri quel che non sa. Pensateci su, perché questa non è una stronzata.

Per leggere la recensione completa, segui questo link:
http://www.temperamente.it/saggistica...

”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.”

One of the most tedious, joyless reading experiences I've ever had. The rather bold title hints at the possibility of a sense of humour, at an academic exploration with tongue firmly in cheek, and maybe a little righteous anger thrown in. It's just a tedious formal exercise that adds to the world of bullshit more than it explains it.

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 مثلا، 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 خصوص وجود د��ره. 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 کشه. 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! Am I wrong?

Update: I read this again today after posting my above review earlier. My previous recollection is true but ammended. 1 star if this truly is an attempt at serious (or even 'pop') theory. 5 Stars if it is indeed - as I think it must be - a joke. A joke that nobody else, appropriately, seems to get. So I ask again, "Am I wrong?" All good bullshit, ironic or otherwise, leads to that question.

Brief (67 small pages) analysis by a professor of philosophy regarding what is meant by the title term. It was funny (to me) to consider the range of terms (e.g., hot air, hogwash, balderdash, drivel, and one I hadn't come across before, "imposture") resembling "bullshit", but most of the discussion is given over to differentiating BS (indifference to the truth of what you are saying, phoniness) from lying (intentional misrepresentation, which is necessarily false). Wraps it up with the surprising claim that "sincerity itself is bullshit", based on the premise that we don't really know the truth about ourselves, and that truth is unstable anyhow, so purporting to be sincere [to be telling the truth about oneself) shows callous indifference for the truth.

At the risk of sounding like one of my own students casually dismissing my carefully constructed research or argument, I'm not sure I buy that last part. Seems as if there's at least an important difference in degree between perhaps-misguided but sincere commentary and garden-variety BS.

Overall, an interesting topic to take on, but given the topic I was surprised how little contact he made with ordinary conversation, examples of BS from public figures, etc. Seems as if it would be a subject on which at least your examples/anecdotes could be quite accessible. Instead, there's a lengthy dissection of an incident involving Wittgenstein taking someone to task for saying (when very sick) that she felt like a dog who'd been run over. Apparently, W. called BS on the grounds that she couldn't possibly know what a dog who had been run over feels like.

Ummmmmmm, besides revealing Wittgenstein as a little lacking in social skills, I can't really see the woman's comment as a prototype of bullshit worthy of being highlighted here.

"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.