8 ms·

I’m not sure this works. What do we mean when we say “bullshit” — the necessary and sufficient conditions. I’d expect ex ante that it’s not reasonable to expect

I’m not sure this works. What do we mean when we say “bullshit” — the necessary and sufficient conditions. I’d expect ex ante that it’s not reasonable to expect any consistent description to be applicable over speaker or over time. Seems more useful to just say “intentional misrepresentation” when that’s what you mean, but what do we mean when we say “misrepresentation” … and so the line of —- what Id call bullshit — philosophical “enquiry” begins.

kurthr 4y ago
It's "not even wrong". It's gibberish and/or internally inconsistent and/or fundamentally unprovable. It's a waste of time to read or comment on, much less correct.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  It's more subtle than "gibberish and/or internally inconsistent" as opposed to "intentional misrepresentation". Frankfurt sets this important subtlety out quite early IIRC, as being about the reflective capacity of the bullshitter. The liar has clear reflection and intent, and may be highly intelligent and able to construct clever arguments. A troll only wants to hurt and uses disingenuous talk instrumentally. The idiot may offer up enthusiastic but confused jibber-jabber whose truth content is patchy/questionable but lacks deceptive intent. We can all be liars, mean or idiots from time to time as we are sly, insecure or careless through language. Even when acting in good faith most of us are in the epistemological bind of spreading misinformation that seems true and justified, but we're unable to verify. The bullshitter; does . not . give . a . fuck . It's a sociopathic disregard for feelings, consequences, truth or falsehood. The bullshitter is immersed in their own fantasy of confidence and will do or say anything that keeps it's momentum going. When challenged with real contrary evidence the bullshitter doubles down. You can see it in trained bullshitters, politicians, company PR spokespeople, and drunks who are too far gone to keep themselves in check. Most of it is benign. You can still learn a lot from or about a bullshitter by filling in the gaps around what the fantasy means to them. Professional bullshit is a whole different problem and is deeply corrosive so society - and there's mountains of it because the system must, at all costs save face.
  - kurthr 4y ago
    The problem is that in the modern world there are many people who repeat the bullshit they've heard everywhere. Now you'll say that they're not bullshitters, but the people who originally said that (from the boobtube or or the pulpit) likely were bullshitters. So is what they are saying still bullshit? Does the label really change depending on who's saying it and how they feel? If I report what they are bullshitting as bullshit, am I wrong because I'm now the one repeating it? I personally prefer my labels on content to be less philosophical than that. I agree that you could understand something about the original BS creator by analyzing it's intent, but then you'ld have to figure out who originally said it, and in this crowd sourced world that's near impossible. That is especially true in the troll farms of China/Russia etc and the ugly scrum that is Twiddit.
User23 4y ago
That’s literally the point of this little book. Bullshit as Frankfurt defined it is assuredly not “intentional misrepresentation,” because that is a species of lying which is distinctly different from bullshit. In short the liar is concerned with the truth. He at least thinks he knows it and is twisting or hiding it. Contrariwise, the bullshitter is completely unconcerned with the truth. He is solely concerned with the effects of his speech itself. People should read this book, because learning to recognize bullshit is something everyone thinks they’re good at, but most persons are quite bad at it. As an example, we have the catch phrase of 2021, “safe and effective.” The various talking heads didn’t at all care or even have a clue about the phrase’s truth value. How could they? The clinical trials weren’t even finished! Those bullshitters were solely concerned with persuading people to get vaccinated. Whether you agree with that aim or not is irrelevant to the observable reality that it was, in fact, bullshit.

kurthr 4y ago

It's "not even wrong". It's gibberish and/or internally inconsistent and/or fundamentally unprovable. It's a waste of time to read or comment on, much less correct.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
It's more subtle than "gibberish and/or internally inconsistent" as opposed to "intentional misrepresentation". Frankfurt sets this important subtlety out quite early IIRC, as being about the reflective capacity of the bullshitter. The liar has clear reflection and intent, and may be highly intelligent and able to construct clever arguments. A troll only wants to hurt and uses disingenuous talk instrumentally. The idiot may offer up enthusiastic but confused jibber-jabber whose truth content is patchy/questionable but lacks deceptive intent. We can all be liars, mean or idiots from time to time as we are sly, insecure or careless through language. Even when acting in good faith most of us are in the epistemological bind of spreading misinformation that seems true and justified, but we're unable to verify. The bullshitter; does . not . give . a . fuck . It's a sociopathic disregard for feelings, consequences, truth or falsehood. The bullshitter is immersed in their own fantasy of confidence and will do or say anything that keeps it's momentum going. When challenged with real contrary evidence the bullshitter doubles down. You can see it in trained bullshitters, politicians, company PR spokespeople, and drunks who are too far gone to keep themselves in check. Most of it is benign. You can still learn a lot from or about a bullshitter by filling in the gaps around what the fantasy means to them. Professional bullshit is a whole different problem and is deeply corrosive so society - and there's mountains of it because the system must, at all costs save face.
- kurthr 4y ago
  The problem is that in the modern world there are many people who repeat the bullshit they've heard everywhere. Now you'll say that they're not bullshitters, but the people who originally said that (from the boobtube or or the pulpit) likely were bullshitters. So is what they are saying still bullshit? Does the label really change depending on who's saying it and how they feel? If I report what they are bullshitting as bullshit, am I wrong because I'm now the one repeating it? I personally prefer my labels on content to be less philosophical than that. I agree that you could understand something about the original BS creator by analyzing it's intent, but then you'ld have to figure out who originally said it, and in this crowd sourced world that's near impossible. That is especially true in the troll farms of China/Russia etc and the ugly scrum that is Twiddit.

User23 4y ago

That’s literally the point of this little book. Bullshit as Frankfurt defined it is assuredly not “intentional misrepresentation,” because that is a species of lying which is distinctly different from bullshit. In short the liar is concerned with the truth. He at least thinks he knows it and is twisting or hiding it. Contrariwise, the bullshitter is completely unconcerned with the truth. He is solely concerned with the effects of his speech itself. People should read this book, because learning to recognize bullshit is something everyone thinks they’re good at, but most persons are quite bad at it. As an example, we have the catch phrase of 2021, “safe and effective.” The various talking heads didn’t at all care or even have a clue about the phrase’s truth value. How could they? The clinical trials weren’t even finished! Those bullshitters were solely concerned with persuading people to get vaccinated. Whether you agree with that aim or not is irrelevant to the observable reality that it was, in fact, bullshit.