On B.S.: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » On B.S. » On B.S.

Page: 1 2 3

On B.S.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003

Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 02/25/05 - 01:49 PM: Subject: On B.S.	#1
Although I am prissy enough to deplore the title of this essay by the philosopher, Harry Frankfort, (I would have called it, "On Indifference to the Truth") there is no question but that an essay like this one ought to have been written, and that it will have a salutary effect on all members of this forum who read it. There are loads of the stuff on this forum (to use an apt term) especially on the Politics forum. But Metaphysics is, as should be said, full of it too. http://www.jelks.nu/misc/articles/bs.html. http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/a...005/02/16/news/12033.shtml Gassendi1 Edited by Gramm on 02/26/05 - 10:18 PM. Reason: second link re-established

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being

Total Topics: 252
Total Posts: 4915

Posted 02/25/05 - 02:58 PM:	#2
I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed by the professor... Trouble is, extinguishing the various forms of BS is in itself an almost Sysiphus like task... It spreads as quickly as you attempt to stamp it out. Compounding the problem is of course that there is much Pseudo-truth and hypocrisy that allies itself to such Bullshiting tendencies.. Without going into it too deeply, I can simply say two fields come to mind that are filled to the gunnels with pseudo-truth , hypocrisy and Bullshit... Political correctness...in all its forms... Global warming (especially enviromental catastrophists )....with all their pseudo scientific dogma. Both owe much of their ongoing existence to the stokers of Bullshit, hypocrisy and pseudo-truth...
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003

Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 02/25/05 - 03:21 PM:	#3
Gramm wrote: I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed by the professor... Trouble is, extinguishing the various forms of BS is in itself an almost Sysiphus like task... It spreads as quickly as you attempt to stamp it out. Compounding the problem is of course that there is much Pseudo-truth and hypocrisy that allies itself to such Bullshiting tendencies.. Without going into it too deeply, I can simply say two fields come to mind that are filled to the gunnels with pseudo-truth , hypocrisy and Bullshit... Political correctness...in all its forms... Global warming (especially enviromental catastrophists )....with all their pseudo scientific dogma. Both owe much of their ongoing existence to the stokers of Bullshit, hypocrisy and pseudo-truth... Yes, of course. But as Candide says, "We'd better tend our own garden". Here on PF there is plenty to deal with.

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being

Total Topics: 252
Total Posts: 4915

Posted 02/25/05 - 03:39 PM:	#4
So the term 'home goal' comes to mind...
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Machiveli
post-philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2004

Total Topics: 122
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 02/25/05 - 04:15 PM:	#5
Gassendi1 wrote: Although I am prissy enough to deplore the title of this essay by the philosopher, Harry Frankfort, (I would have called it, "On Indifference to the Truth") On the contrary, after wading through that heap of words I believe the title very apt. It would be more appropriate had the word 'on' been removed. That is not to say it doesn't contain some interesting ideas and assertions but rather that they are of the familiar sqwishy form the article claims to oppose. Edited by Machiveli on 02/26/05 - 01:30 AM

select
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 22, 2003
Location: Arizona, United States

Total Topics: 91
Total Posts: 1186

Posted 02/25/05 - 05:12 PM:	#6
In the old days, craftsmen did not cut corners. They worked carefully, and they took care with every aspect of their work. Every part of the product was considered, and each was designed and made to be exactly as it should be. These craftsmen did not relax their thoughtful self-discipline even with respect to features of their work which would ordinarily not be visible. Although no one would notice if those features were not quite right, the craftsmen would be bothered by their consciences. So nothing was swept under the rug. Or, one might perhaps also say, there was no bullshit. If only this were true here, but then there would be a lot less posts here. And it's not even likely that them few posts remaining would really be worth the effort, probably the same six or seven posters talking about the same things. And maybe them few remaining posters would soon fall off because no one wants to talk to themselves, they want feedback. Sometimes any kind of feedback is better then none, at least until you get too much feedback and then the amount of bullshit becomes sickening. But when you spend a great deal of time on a post, you want to know that someone has read it. Then, even bullshit is valuable.
"To create man was a fine and original idea; but to add sheep was a tautology." Mark Twain

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003

Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 02/25/05 - 08:58 PM:	#7
Machiveli wrote: On the contrary, after wading through that heap of words I believe the title very apt. It would be more appropriate had the word 'on' been removed. That is not to say it doesn't contain some interesting ideas and assertions but rather that they are of the familiar swishy form the article claims to oppose. I don't see that Frankfurt exibits any indifference to truth, nor does in any way talk and not know what he is talking about, which is the mark of BS. BS is not about form. It is about the lack of substance. On the other hand, saying that Frankfurt's essay "contains some interesting ideas and assertions" but, that "they are of the familiar swishy for the article claims to oppose" comes perilously close to BS.

cool sounding me
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 10, 2005
Location: Fairport, NY / Farmingdale, NY

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 14

Posted 02/25/05 - 09:32 PM:	#8
Gassendi1 wrote: I don't see that Frankfurt exibits any indifference to truth, nor does in any way talk and not know what he is talking about, which is the mark of BS. BS is not about form. It is about the lack of substance. But B.S. can also be too much substance. If I want to B.S. my way through an essay for a class I'm not interested in, I can pick up a topic and over cover it so I don't need to develop other thoughts once I hit the minimum page mark. It seemed at some parts of Frankfurt's essay that he was doing just that.
-Christopher.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003

Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 02/25/05 - 09:51 PM:	#9
cool sounding me wrote: But B.S. can also be too much substance. If I want to B.S. my way through an essay for a class I'm not interested in, I can pick up a topic and over cover it so I don't need to develop other thoughts once I hit the minimum page mark. It seemed at some parts of Frankfurt's essay that he was doing just that. Why would what you are doing (if I understand the description) be BS? To BS is not to be uninterested in what you are saying. It is to attempt to talk about what you know little or nothing about, perhaps in order to give the impression that you know more about it; and not care whether what you say is true or not. Is that what you were doing?

Machiveli
post-philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2004

Total Topics: 122
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 02/26/05 - 01:50 AM:	#10
Oh come on he near warns us at the start not to take him seriously.... My aim is simply to give a rough account of what bullshit is and how it differs from what it is not, or (putting it somewhat differently) to articulate, more or less sketchily, the structure of its concept. Any suggestion about what conditions are logically both necessary and sufficient for the constitution of bullshit is bound to be somewhat arbitrary. For one thing, the expression bullshit is often employed quite loosely — simply as a generic term of abuse, with no very specific literal meaning. For another, the phenomenon itself is so vast and amorphous that no crisp and perspicuous analysis of its concept can avoid being procrustean. Nonetheless it should be possible to say something helpful, even though it is not likely to be decisive. Even the most basic and preliminary questions about bullshit remain, after all, not only unanswered but unasked. So far as I am aware, very little work has been done on this subject. I have not undertaken a survey of the literature, partly because I do not know how to go about it. Interestingly in submitting this post PF's suggested "Your post consists of more than 90% quotes. We ask that you provide some original content." - that could apply equaly elsewhere.

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.