If bullshit were gold, we'd all be rolling in it.

YOU CAN'T STOP WHAT'S COMING.

I just received a copy of On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt - a short philosophical study of the concept of BS, arguably the first of its kind. It had been circulating privately for 20 years before it got published, and appeared in the Raritan Review before being published in book form. It set off some buzz, and even inspired an anthology, Bullshit and Philosophy.

So, as usual, I'm a bit late in the game. But since there's a lot in philosophy that's still up for grabs, I thought to sound off on some issues raised by Prof. Frankfurt. Before doing so, let me say that this is the kind of thing I love about philosophy - when an prevalent everyday event is observed, and its importance unveiled.

On p. 48, Frankfurt quotes from a novel in which the narrator recalls his own father, who taught him: "Never tell a lie when you can bullshit your way through." Frankfurt notes that this supposes a distinction between lying and BS, and wonders what that might be - probably not that BS is more effective, though we are more lenient on bullshitters than liars. He then points out that we react differently to lies and BS; when we catch a lie, we're affronted, but BS just arouses impatience. Why that is, Frankfurt says, "I shall leave as an exercise for the reader."

That's where I come in. Feel free to comment, because I'm just trying this on for size. I'm not sure I agree with it all.

My unscientific guess is this: our world is made ripe for bullshit. It wasn't always this way.

Frankfurt says it's impossible to say whether there's more BS around now than in the past, but then he virtually answers that question. He points out that people will bullshit when they are forced to talk about things they're ignorant of (p. 62-3). Let's think about this.

You're more bound to find cockroaches in dirty, run-down houses; it's the right conditions for them. It seems to me that we can be reasonably sure that there is more BS today by examining the conditions for it. If those conditions are more present today than in the past, chances are there really is more BS now than in days of yore.

And I say the conditions are right for bullshit. Why? It seems to me that we are forced into bullshitting situations more and more:

1) There is more information available now to the general public than ever. We can't keep up with it all, and there's more and more piling up. If we can stay up to date in our line of work, that's already an achievement.

2) We don't know how the most everyday things in our lives work, and we can't/won't take the time to learn. Computer breaks down? Call the IT guy. Toaster break? Throw it away, buy a new one. (It's a rare guy anymore that fixes a toaster.)

3) We like to be hip, i.e. up on all the latest stuff. We like to know what's going down, or at least look like it. And we approve of that sort of thing.

4) In a democratic world, we have a right to know what's going on in high places - transparency is the word nowadays. People in high places don't always want us to know what's going on there.

4a) In a democratic world, we're expected to make informed choices when voting.

4b) In a democratic world, politicians want to keep their jobs.

5) We've been fed a lot of crap about how the world is a big construct, so there's no at-bottom truth - one version of the anti-realism Frankfurt mentions (pp. 64-5).

Smells like the makings of a prairie-ful of bullshit!

* * * * *

Now for the moral of the story...

It's a truism that knowledge is power. What's needed in education today is a greater emphasis on critical thinking. Not merely to cut through the crap - I think people are generally more savvy about BS, a by-product of there being so much of it - but also to prevent their own production of it. You can't always make people act the way you want (you can't stop what's coming), but you can control your own actions; if BS is part of the way things are, the place to start cleaning up is yourself. Platitudinous, yes, but true all the same.

Not only should critical thinking be trained, philosophy should be given a lively introduction in high schools. Courses should be run by folks who believe truth is real, valuable, and attainable. Discussions should be encouraged, but prevented from descending into bull sessions. When a question arises that needs follow-up research, it should be assigned as homework. (If students are drowning in homework, perhaps it should be given out more intelligently than has been in the past. But that's another post.)

And we should learn to say, with the elegance of E=mc^2, "I don't know; let's look into it." Say it when you mean it, and relish the honesty (which is just truth, really). If you don't need to know what you're talking about, no problem; if you do need to know, and you don't, it's time to shape up or ship out.

Am I talking down to you, O Reader? No. If anything, I'm talking to myself. Anybody really wanting to be heard would get a high-profile position, and that's not my thing.

(Image torridly kyped from http://www.tamparacing.com/forums/drifting/246330-where-does-go.html)