Is There Anything Other Than Bullshit?

[Frederick M. Dolan]

2005 saw the publication by Princeton University Press of Harry G. Frankfurt’s "On Bullshit," a tongue-in-cheek but sincere effort to articulate the concept of bullshit. Spinoffs soon appeared, such as Laura Penny’s "Your Call Is Important to Us" (Crown, 2005) and "Why Business People Speak Like Idiots" by Brian Fugere, Chelsea Hardaway, and Jon Warshawsky (Free Press, 2005). As these titles suggest, the focus is on bullshit that originates in the officeplace rather than the world of politics, which is unexpected to those of us for whom George Orwell’s "Politics and the English Language" (1946) is the canonical study of the subject, but is also perhaps telling.

I’m troubled by this zeal to identify bullshit because it seems to me that there probably is nothing other than bullshit. Frankfurt defines bullshit as pretending that you know what you’re talking about when in fact you don’t. But that strikes me as a good description of human communication as such. Compassion dictates that one appear confident in what one is saying. Every parent learns this early on; nothing is more terrifying to young children than the idea that they are being cared for by people who don’t really know what life is about. So one learns to mime the self-confidence that is demanded. But the rule holds for all ages. Uncertainty is disturbing, and we love to hear from those who convincingly ape a command of relevant facts and concepts. It’s all a mere mummer’s play, but we couldn’t do without it.

That the answer to “Is There Anything Besides Bullshit?” is “No” captures something important in the position expressed by the early Wittgenstein in his "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" (1927), which held that what matters can’t be put into words, and that what can be put into words doesn’t matter. On this view, any verbal performance that is more ambitious than the sheer stating of fact (“such-and-such is the case”) is bullshit.

But – is it possible not to go beyond the facts? Doesn’t the assertion of even a purely factual statement imply a judgment that these facts and not others that might be mentioned are significant from one or another point of view? Indeed, isn't everything that we think of as “culture” and “science” and “scholarship” and “expert opinion” a matter of going beyond the facts – generalizing, inferring, postulating? Modern physics would be bullshit, on this view, to say nothing of religion, law, literature, and social science (which most of us are already prepared to acknowledge are bullshit).

To find our way in this imbroglio, we would have to define “bullshit” more carefully. It is true that everything we (really want to) say is bullshit. But not all bullshit is equal. Some bullshit goes beyond the facts in ways that are benign, and even beneficial. In these worlds, there is an ongoing contest among bullshits as to which we will accept and which we will abandon at any given moment. Here, we can even admire extraordinary bullshit artists without in any way being convinced that their bullshit is true. There is a place for such bullshitters in this world.

Other bullshit goes beyond the facts in an insidious way: by making it appear that its inferences and postulates and generalizations possess the force of facts. So, to answer the question: No, there is nothing besides bullshit, but some kinds of bullshit are worse than others, and a great deal is at stake in exposing the worst as such. On the other hand, a great deal is also at stake in recognizing the way in which, despite the difference among bullshits, everything we say is, in the end, bullshit. At a time when more and more people seem all too ready to believe that some talk is not bullshit – that some talk, for example, is the unalloyed word of (their) god – this is this lesson that seems especially urgent to learn. At the same time, however, the significant minority of relativists need to be reminded that some bullshit is deadlier than the rest, and that their very commitment to relativism enjoins them to identify this bullshit and heap scorn upon it.

On the other hand, one might say that the very idea that there is good bullshit and bad bullshit is itself bullshit.

[Valley Oak]

Where is the bullshit in the following two examples?

Example 1:

A person accurately and successfully communicates an email address to a another person over the phone. The person who received the information repeats the address and the first person confirms its accuracy.

Where is the bullshit here? Was the specific data of the email address itself bullshit? How?


Example 2:

The Lord Jesus Christ is your savior. If you believe in him then you will go to heaven when you die. If you don't believe in him/her/it (or whatever the hell it is) then you will go to hell and burn there in agony for all eternity. You have to accept only this god, not the Muslim god, the Jewish god, a Pagan god or any other god at all. It must be ONLY Jesus Christ/Jehovah, or you will burn in eternal damnation. When (if) you get to heaven, there will be streets of gold waiting for you, eternal bliss, and all of the old episodes of Gilligan's Island, which you can watch nonstop, over and over again, forever.

Where is the bullshit here?
And it'd better be a goddamn good explanation here, buddy, because it's regarding my god and I might have to slay you for your own good if you're not careful (my slaying you would save your soul).


Thank you ahead of time for your clarifications,

Edward

2005 saw the publication by Princeton University Press of Harry G. Frankfurt’s "On Bullshit," a tongue-in-cheek but sincere effort to articulate the concept of bullshit. Spinoffs soon appeared, such as Laura Penny’s "Your Call Is Important to Us" (Crown, 2005) and "Why Business People Speak Like Idiots" by Brian Fugere, Chelsea Hardaway, and Jon Warshawsky (Free Press, 2005). As these titles suggest, the focus is on bullshit that originates in the officeplace rather than the world of politics, which is unexpected to those of us for whom George Orwell’s "Politics and the English Language" (1946) is the canonical study of the subject, but is also perhaps telling...

[Frederick M. Dolan]

My guess is that the bullshit in example 1 is to be found in the idea that the seeming clarity, simplicity, and certainty of the putative communication authorizes the hope that clarity and understanding can also be achieved n more significant areas.

As for example 2, i'd put my money on Giligan's Island.

Where is the bullshit in the following two examples?

Example 1:

A person accurately and successfully communicates an email address to a another person over the phone. The person who received the information repeats the address and the first person confirms its accuracy.

Where is the bullshit here? Was the specific data of the email address itself bullshit? How?


Example 2:

The Lord Jesus Christ is your savior. If you believe in him then you will go to heaven when you die. If you don't believe in him/her/it (or whatever the hell it is) then you will go to hell and burn there in agony for all eternity. You have to accept only this god, not the Muslim god, the Jewish god, a Pagan god or any other god at all. It must be ONLY Jesus Christ/Jehovah, or you will burn in eternal damnation. When (if) you get to heaven, there will be streets of gold waiting for you, eternal bliss, and all of the old episodes of Gilligan's Island, which you can watch nonstop, over and over again, forever.

Where is the bullshit here?
And it'd better be a goddamn good explanation here, buddy, because it's regarding my god and I might have to slay you for your own good if you're not careful (my slaying you would save your soul).


Thank you ahead of time for your clarifications,

Edward

[scorpiomoon]

The judgement that anyone who does not accept Jesus will burn in hell, is bullshit.
A denial of one of the most basic of Jesus' teachings. Judge not, today, and live with compassion. I like to feel that Buddha & Rumi--the many great healers and visionaries of our past, present and future, are all together-- swirling inside the universal consciousness with Jesus of Nazareth, & right this moment are sharing their love for us, despite ourselves.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

I couldn't agree with you more, Scorpiomoon. And to Buddha, Jesus, and Rumi I'd add Wallace Stevens, T.S. Eliot, Meister Eckhart, William Carlos Williams, James Merrill, and so many others -- we are not without resources!

The judgement that anyone who does not accept Jesus will burn in hell, is bullshit.
A denial of one of the most basic of Jesus' teachings. Judge not, today, and live with compassion. I like to feel that Buddha & Rumi--the many great healers and visionaries of our past, present and future, are all together-- swirling inside the universal consciousness with Jesus of Nazareth, & right this moment are sharing their love for us, despite ourselves.

[Zeno Swijtink]

2005 saw the publication by Princeton University Press of Harry G. Frankfurt’s "On Bullshit," a tongue-in-cheek but sincere effort to articulate the concept of bullshit. (...)

I’m troubled by this zeal to identify bullshit because it seems to me that there probably is nothing other than bullshit. Frankfurt defines bullshit as pretending that you know what you’re talking about when in fact you don’t. But that strikes me as a good description of human communication as such. (...)

If I remember correctly Frankfurt contrasts the bullshitter with the lier. A lier tries to hide the truth and thus has still some, be it serpentine, concern for what is true. The bullshitter just weaves a story without concern for getting it correct or not.

I wonder whether this piece by Frederick is itself bullshit in Frankfurt's sense since it appeared online over a year ago while masquerading as an original contribution, an articulate speech act to the Wacco community at the occasion of the 2007/8 Holiday Season?

Or does the fact that Frederick may (or may not, can we ever know??) have written this himself at the time pull it away from being bullshit, making it a text that is a candidate for truth or falsity?

Is the computer technology of cutting and pasting encouraging us to bullshit, endlessly recycling and regurgitating snippets of text while still holding on to the power of the pretense of speaking in the circle, an original and authentic act of communication?

Which can explain that there is increasing truth in Frederick's statement that probably there is nothing other than bullshit, making it both true and bullshit.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

To the extent that posting something here implies that it has not been posted previously, this post is indeed unequivocally bullshit. But is the computer technology of cutting-and-pasting really anything new? Are not speech acts typically a matter of cutting-and-pasting, performing according to a script? When we introduce ourselves to a gathering that is new to us, do we not typically rehearse a speech act or two that have proven their worth in the past? And does the fact that any iteration is also re-iteration lessen its value?

What we do get is a new context. The things I posted to Tribe drew absolutely no comment. Later I was asked to contribute something to the Social Report, and my re-iterations drew, well, virtually no comment. This community, on the other hand, is manifestly more lively and engaged. That alone transforms what had been dead posts into lively ones. Not truer ones, and no less bullshit, but, one can hope, relatively good bullshit.

If I remember correctly Frankfurt contrasts the bullshitter with the lier. A lier tries to hide the truth and thus has still some, be it serpentine, concern for what is true. The bullshitter just weaves a story without concern for getting it correct or not.

I wonder whether this piece by Frederick is itself bullshit in Frankfurt's sense since it appeared online over a year ago while masquerading as an original contribution, an articulate speech act to the Wacco community at the occasion of the 2007/8 Holiday Season?

Or does the fact that Frederick may (or may not, can we ever know??) have written this himself at the time pull it away from being bullshit, making it a text that is a candidate for truth or falsity?

Is the computer technology of cutting and pasting encouraging us to bullshit, endlessly recycling and regurgitating snippets of text while still holding on to the power of the pretense of speaking in the circle, an original and authentic act of communication?

Which can explain that there is increasing truth in Frederick's statement there probably there is nothing other than bullshit, making it both true and bullshit.

[Zeno Swijtink]

To the extent that posting something here implies that it has not been posted previously, this post is indeed unequivocally bullshit. But is the computer technology of cutting-and-pasting really anything new? Are not speech acts typically a matter of cutting-and-pasting, performing according to a script? When we introduce ourselves to a gathering that is new to us, do we not typically rehearse a speech act or two that have proven their worth in the past? And does the fact that any iteration is also re-iteration lessen its value?

What we do get is a new context. The things I posted to Tribe drew absolutely no comment. Later I was asked to contribute something to the Social Report, and my re-iterations drew, well, virtually no comment. This community, on the other hand, is manifestly more lively and engaged. That alone transforms what had been dead posts into lively ones. Not truer ones, and no less bullshit, but, one can hope, relatively good bullshit.

I think if you start quoting yourself from what "worked" in earlier hot dates you'll be in for disappointment, isn't it, mykill?

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Earlier hot dates? I'm lost....

I think if you start quoting yourself from what "worked" in earlier hot dates you'll be in for disappointment, isn't it, mykill?

[Zeno Swijtink]

Earlier hot dates? I'm lost....

Does "previous" work for you?

[Willie Lumplump]

I wonder whether this piece by Frederick is itself bullshit in Frankfurt's sense since it appeared online over a year ago while masquerading as an original contribution

Not much gets by you, does it, Zeno?

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Both "earlier" and "previous" work; it's the hot date I don't understand.

Does "previous" work for you?

[Valley Oak]

Are "hot dates" bullshit too? I thought they were fun. Is it bullshit to go on a hot date with certain kinds of expectations? Or is the topic of "everything is bullshit" apply strictly to spoken language? Enlighten me; don't bullshit me.

Perhaps there needs to be a dissertation written on "Bullshit & Hot Dates." Or maybe "Quality Bullshit for Hot Dates." Or "The Right Bullshit for Turning A Low Expectation Date Into A Hot One!" Only $500 and it will probably be a bestseller.

But I digress. I'm intrigued by your gentlemens' thread on "hot dates" and am eager to see you elaborate extensively on the subject with meticulous and extraneous detail.

Thank you,

Edward

Both "earlier" and "previous" work; it's the hot date I don't understand.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Both "earlier" and "previous" work; it's the hot date I don't understand.

It's a truth hidden in a joke. Since "Truthfulness is a social practice, a relationship between individuals" you may need to hang around for awhile and revisit this text two weeks hence if and when mykill has obliged us.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Are "hot dates" bullshit too? I thought they were fun. Is it bullshit to go on a hot date with certain kinds of expectations? Or is the topic of "everything is bullshit" apply strictly to spoken language? Enlighten me; don't bullshit me.

Perhaps there needs to be a dissertation written on "Bullshit & Hot Dates." Or maybe "Quality Bullshit for Hot Dates." Or "The Right Bullshit for Turning A Low Expectation Date Into A Hot One!" Only $500 and it will probably be a bestseller.

But I digress. I'm intrigued by your gentlemens' thread on "hot dates" and am eager to see you elaborate extensively on the subject with meticulous and extraneous detail.

Thank you,

Edward

This suggests the strategy of increasing the temperature of a date by a well-placed olfactory stimulus, which could be just a sweaty walk uphill that ends in a bay laurel grove.

Or inspecting together the innards of a beached seal on a walk along Salmon Creek beach

Help me out, guys. Is there poetry in this?

[Frederick M. Dolan]

I don't know enough about hot dates to answer your questions; I certainly don't know enough about them to ascertain whether it is bullshit to go on one with certain expectations nor to elaborate extensively on the subject with meticulous and extraneous detail. Which suggests that although the bullshitter is indifferent to the truth, he nevertheless needs to know some truths about his topic if he is to begin to bullshit at all.

Bullshit can be fun, so if hot dates are fun maybe they can also be bullshit.

The idea of a dissertation "needing" to be written has a certain pathos. And the idea of a gentlemen's thread, a certain poetry.

Thank You.

Are "hot dates" bullshit too? I thought they were fun. Is it bullshit to go on a hot date with certain kinds of expectations? Or is the topic of "everything is bullshit" apply strictly to spoken language? Enlighten me; don't bullshit me.

Perhaps there needs to be a dissertation written on "Bullshit & Hot Dates." Or maybe "Quality Bullshit for Hot Dates." Or "The Right Bullshit for Turning A Low Expectation Date Into A Hot One!" Only $500 and it will probably be a bestseller.

But I digress. I'm intrigued by your gentlemens' thread on "hot dates" and am eager to see you elaborate extensively on the subject with meticulous and extraneous detail.

Thank you,

Edward

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Dude,

You might try cognitive stimulation. If the date is made aware that we all have fewer male ancestors than female owing to a failure on the part of the former to reproduce relative to the latter, Gaia knows what sort of emotions might be quickened on the date's part.

This suggests the strategy of increasing the temperature of a date by a well-placed olfactory stimulus, which could be just a sweaty walk uphill that ends in a bay laurel grove.

Or inspecting together the innards of a beached seal on a walk along Salmon Creek beach

Help me out, guys. Is there poetry in this?

[Frederick M. Dolan]

If truth hides in jokes, what is the truth hidden in "The Aristocrats"?

It's a truth hidden in a joke. Since "Truthfulness is a social practice, a relationship between individuals" you may need to hang around for awhile and revisit this text two weeks hence if and when mykill has obliged us.

[Valley Oak]

Benazir Bhutto assassinated.

Is this bullshit? Explain.

Edward