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)

No Country for Lame Critics

I just got home from the movies; there was a pre-opening show of No Country for Old Men. Brilliant film, but hardly happy. What got me pecking at my keyboard here were the reviews I was reading. A lot of buzz has been generated about the film, and I felt I had to put my two cents in.

After seeing a movie, I like to find out more about it, as well as what other folks think about it. Not to gain support for my opinion, but to compare and see where we agree and disagree, and why. Sometimes it'll change my opinion: "Oh, why didn't I think of that while I was watching it?" Other times not: "Oh, come on now!"

I knew this was an extraordinary film from the get-go, and that sense stayed with me after leaving the theater. And it was no surprise that the reviews were almost all laudatory - gushing, waxing poetic about it. Since they agreed on almost all the same points, I went looking for the negative reviews. Lucky for me, rottentomatoes.com makes the hunting easy.

So why would anybody diss this flick? I wasn't convinced by the reasons given. Rather than nitpick (which I sure could do), let me just spout my opinion. Anyone who really cares who I'm ranting against can ask, and I'll gladly go into more detail.

Everyone who's seen this film knows it's a tour de force. Everyone knows it. The production is simply fantastic, top notch. Where negative points came up, as I said, the reasons generally don't seem convincing to me. Frankly, I think they were looking for dirt. After all, they are critics, and an enthusiastic thumbs-up doesn't sound very critical. (Maybe my next post will say something on this point.)

One thing that's bugged some is its allegedly nihilistic or pessimistic tone. It is not a feel-good movie, and certainly not a happy one. But I don't believe it stands up to the charge of nihilism or pessimism. Here's why I think it's more affirmative than it might first appear:

There is a strong moral sense in all the Coen brothers' films. Not a moral agenda, a moral sense: they couldn't do such good work by resorting to condescension. No Country for Old Men is no exception. What makes it a bit more complicated is the fact that they're adapting Cormac McCarthy's novel - which I haven't read), so it's hard for me to say what's McCarthy's and what's not. So I'll just refer to the film.

The irony is that many of the critiques of NCFOM are examples of points the film is making. Case in point: one reviewer complains that Ed Tom's "cracker-barrel philosophizing" undoes everything the movie sets out to do. Let's listen in on Ed Tom...in one scene he's reading the paper, tells his deputy about the managers of an old folks' home killing old people for their Social Security checks. Nobody did anything, he says, until a guy ran out of the place naked. It took something like that to get anybody's attention. Har, we in the audience say. But a film can't attract some people's attention unless there's shit blowing up. And Hollywood knows it. The Coen brothers do, and they use it to all its double-edge potential.

This is just one of several ironies in the reviews. Which brings me to my point - and I'm about to let out the secret to the movie: it all depends on watching the whole thing, not just the most obvious parts. Where it's loudest, enjoy the ride. Where it speaks softest, listen up.

And not just to Ed Tom.

I will say no more - no spoilers here. Let me just say I don't see NCFOM falling to the negative floor with a thud so much as I find it hitting the floor, bouncing up, and hovering in the air. Where it goes from there...

(Image desperately abducted from http://www.cinemastrikesback.com/?cat=315)