Comments on: What is ‘bullshitting’ in the Harry Frankfurt sense? http://andrewnorton.info/2007/07/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/ Observations from Carlton's Lone Classical Liberal Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:01:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Club Troppo » Missing Link Wednesday 1 August http://andrewnorton.info/2007/07/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8715 Club Troppo » Missing Link Wednesday 1 August Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:46:09 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/07/30/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8715 [...] Andrew Norton asks, What is ‘bullsh*tting’ in the Harry Frankfurt sense? [...] [...] Andrew Norton asks, What is ‘bullsh*tting’ in the Harry Frankfurt sense? [...]

]]> By: Nicholas Gruen http://andrewnorton.info/2007/07/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8720 Nicholas Gruen Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:31:24 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/07/30/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8720 Andrew I had a <a href="http://clubtroppo.com.au/2005/03/18/why-is-john-clarke-so-funny-and-why-now/" rel="nofollow">bit of a go</a> at this subject a long while back. I think dodgy use of argument is not bullshit in Frankfurt's sense. Bullshit is not really argument at all - just assertion, slaps on the back of various kinds. Argument entirely by body language if you get what I mean. Very poor argument still pays the complement of the form of argument. As I said in the post John Clarke is a comedian of bullshit. His comedy shows the radical disjunction between what people are saying, what their gestures are, and the words they use. In the middle of an interview John Howard (or Kevin Rudd) will answer his mobile or say 'goodness me is that the time' or whatever nonsense comes into his head. The joke is that the protagonist could be saying absolutely anything - he's just got to keep talking, keep the body language going. That's bullshit. And there's also a version of it in pubs. But it's not (IMHO) shoddy argument. Andrew I had a bit of a go at this subject a long while back.

I think dodgy use of argument is not bullshit in Frankfurt’s sense. Bullshit is not really argument at all - just assertion, slaps on the back of various kinds. Argument entirely by body language if you get what I mean. Very poor argument still pays the complement of the form of argument. As I said in the post John Clarke is a comedian of bullshit. His comedy shows the radical disjunction between what people are saying, what their gestures are, and the words they use. In the middle of an interview John Howard (or Kevin Rudd) will answer his mobile or say ‘goodness me is that the time’ or whatever nonsense comes into his head. The joke is that the protagonist could be saying absolutely anything - he’s just got to keep talking, keep the body language going.

That’s bullshit. And there’s also a version of it in pubs. But it’s not (IMHO) shoddy argument.

]]> By: Rafe http://andrewnorton.info/2007/07/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8721 Rafe Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:17:15 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/07/30/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8721 It is a pity that the sociology of knowledge is overwhelmingly a leftwing venture There is a need to study how so many critics of economic rationalism and neoliberalism manage to get by on a diet of other criticisms instead of ingesting some of the primary material. I mean really coming to grips with it and not just cherrypicking pieces out of context. There are a couple of other terms in addition to bs to describe the misleading rumours that circulate from that process. Try hokum, favoured by Barzun http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hokum or canards. http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=canard I don't want to prmaturely accuse people of dishonesty, but how many more years can essentially decent and intelligent people go on believing so much hokum? It is a pity that the sociology of knowledge is overwhelmingly a leftwing venture There is a need to study how so many critics of economic rationalism and neoliberalism manage to get by on a diet of other criticisms instead of ingesting some of the primary material. I mean really coming to grips with it and not just cherrypicking pieces out of context.

There are a couple of other terms in addition to bs to describe the misleading rumours that circulate from that process. Try hokum, favoured by Barzun
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hokum or canards. http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=canard

I don’t want to prmaturely accuse people of dishonesty, but how many more years can essentially decent and intelligent people go on believing so much hokum?

]]> By: Andrew Norton http://andrewnorton.info/2007/07/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8717 Andrew Norton Tue, 31 Jul 2007 03:32:20 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/07/30/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8717 Many people have jobs which require them to say things that they may not believe, and politicians have to deal with this more than most ('the party line'). The very act of joining a broad church political party is making a pact with other people to support things you don't agree with in order to secure their support for things you agree with and they don't. Many people have jobs which require them to say things that they may not believe, and politicians have to deal with this more than most (’the party line’). The very act of joining a broad church political party is making a pact with other people to support things you don’t agree with in order to secure their support for things you agree with and they don’t.

]]> By: Jeremy http://andrewnorton.info/2007/07/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8718 Jeremy Tue, 31 Jul 2007 03:08:32 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/07/30/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8718 "Pearse is observing certain outcomes from thinktanks (not only position papers but attendances at functions, contributions where this information is available) and drawing conclusions from there. I think he cares about the truth but can’t get access to it, and is working with what (little) he’s got" Andrew E., I think you are being overly generous to Pearse. Jumping to conclusions which aren't warranted by the available evidence speaks against a care for the truth. “Pearse is observing certain outcomes from thinktanks (not only position papers but attendances at functions, contributions where this information is available) and drawing conclusions from there. I think he cares about the truth but can’t get access to it, and is working with what (little) he’s got”

Andrew E., I think you are being overly generous to Pearse. Jumping to conclusions which aren’t warranted by the available evidence speaks against a care for the truth.

]]> By: David Rubie http://andrewnorton.info/2007/07/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8719 David Rubie Tue, 31 Jul 2007 01:06:22 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/07/30/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8719 From Kevin Andrews lecture to the CIS: <blockquote>By liberalism, I mean classical liberalism not libertarianism which poses as liberalism. By conservatism, I do not mean a reactionary politics that seeks to impose social order at the expense of basic rights.</blockquote> He can't even follow his own philosophy when the rubber meets the road. Classical bullshit. I suppose the CIS disavows any kind of connection with this mendacious twerp? From Kevin Andrews lecture to the CIS:

By liberalism, I mean classical liberalism not libertarianism which poses as liberalism. By conservatism, I do not mean a reactionary politics that
seeks to impose social order at the expense of basic rights.

He can’t even follow his own philosophy when the rubber meets the road. Classical bullshit. I suppose the CIS disavows any kind of connection with this mendacious twerp?

]]> By: Andrew Norton http://andrewnorton.info/2007/07/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8716 Andrew Norton Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:59:29 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/07/30/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8716 Andrew - I think that is a good refinement, between situations in which the facts could be known but the author doesn't see the need to check them, and situations such as those in which important facts are unknown to the author and therefore 'bullshitting' is a near inevitable result of saying anything. I think Frankfurt makes the point that bulshitting often occurs when people feel the need to talk on subjects they know little about. Political journalists have more space to fill in the media than there is genuine news, so they fill it with 'bullshit' about Costello challenges etc. Andrew - I think that is a good refinement, between situations in which the facts could be known but the author doesn’t see the need to check them, and situations such as those in which important facts are unknown to the author and therefore ‘bullshitting’ is a near inevitable result of saying anything. I think Frankfurt makes the point that bulshitting often occurs when people feel the need to talk on subjects they know little about. Political journalists have more space to fill in the media than there is genuine news, so they fill it with ‘bullshit’ about Costello challenges etc.

]]> By: Andrew Elder http://andrewnorton.info/2007/07/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8714 Andrew Elder Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:18:15 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/07/30/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8714 I think the term also rose from dealing with Chinese people in 19th-century goldfields in Australia and the US. Chinese provoked to deny an accusation would use the Mandarin phrase "bu shi" (not true) insistently, which can sound like "bullshit" - Examples of bullshit in public discourse today: * When and if John Howard will stand down, in favour of Peter Costello or whomever else * When the election will be called * Whether the AFP have a reasonable case that Dr Haneef was guilty of any crime * What will happen in Iraq * Who will win the Presidential election in the US next year * What Kevin Rudd would do as Prime Minister, regardless of what he might say (or not say) today - It's not that people don't care whether or not about the truth in these concepts. It's trying to combine an acceptance that things like these will have real effects on people's everyday lives (and that allowances and adjustments must be made for these eventualities) with the notion that these decisions are taken in secret and will not be made by the sort of person who talks to/writes for the likes of you and me. The process of treating hypothetical scenarios as real, of not only being castles in the air but charging rent for them, is "bullshit". - Pearse is observing certain outcomes from thinktanks (not only position papers but attendances at functions, contributions where this information is available) and drawing conclusions from there. I think he cares about the truth but can't get access to it, and is working with what (little) he's got; I haven't read the book but I doubt he's on some wild Pilgeresque jag. From the inside it must be a bit like that parable about the blind men describing the elephant I suppose. I think the term also rose from dealing with Chinese people in 19th-century goldfields in Australia and the US. Chinese provoked to deny an accusation would use the Mandarin phrase “bu shi” (not true) insistently, which can sound like “bullshit”
-
Examples of bullshit in public discourse today:
* When and if John Howard will stand down, in favour of Peter Costello or whomever else
* When the election will be called
* Whether the AFP have a reasonable case that Dr Haneef was guilty of any crime
* What will happen in Iraq
* Who will win the Presidential election in the US next year
* What Kevin Rudd would do as Prime Minister, regardless of what he might say (or not say) today
-
It’s not that people don’t care whether or not about the truth in these concepts. It’s trying to combine an acceptance that things like these will have real effects on people’s everyday lives (and that allowances and adjustments must be made for these eventualities) with the notion that these decisions are taken in secret and will not be made by the sort of person who talks to/writes for the likes of you and me. The process of treating hypothetical scenarios as real, of not only being castles in the air but charging rent for them, is “bullshit”.
-
Pearse is observing certain outcomes from thinktanks (not only position papers but attendances at functions, contributions where this information is available) and drawing conclusions from there. I think he cares about the truth but can’t get access to it, and is working with what (little) he’s got; I haven’t read the book but I doubt he’s on some wild Pilgeresque jag. From the inside it must be a bit like that parable about the blind men describing the elephant I suppose.

]]> By: David Rubie http://andrewnorton.info/2007/07/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8713 David Rubie Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:24:35 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/07/30/what-is-bullshitting-in-the-harry-frankfurt-sense/#comment-8713 Remind me to write a book called "Clusterfuck" so my kids can say it at school and not get in trouble. Remind me to write a book called “Clusterfuck” so my kids can say it at school and not get in trouble.

]]>