Philosophy Now Forum

Neil Greenspan takes an appalled glance at all the BS in academia and beyond.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/84/The_ ... om_of_Bull

very nice, although its available to subscribers only?

I wonder which websites Neil Greenspan has been visiting to lead him to the conclusion that the growth of the internet has lead to a situation in which

the average coherence and rigor of argument has declined, as more individuals with little or no expertise on a given issue offer opinions to the public

Not this forum, surely?

The patenting laws seem to be encouraging bullshit. There's an article in this week's New Scientist magazine about a "nano sized microwave signal absorber cum black hole single chip passive enhancer to boost the radio frequency signal to enhance the bandwidth". According to a patent examiner,

The weirder the idea, the less chance we have finding any previous patents that would show it to be old, and the less chance we have of using established facts to prove it could never be made to work. What we really want to say to the inventor is, go away and build a prototype to prove it works. But patent law won't let us do anything that sensible.

I think the idea of bullshit is overrated and overused, like that of love and iconic. It is bandied around loosely, especially about things that are often misunderstood or not properly examined. There has been bullshit about bullshit. No doubt there is real bullshit out there. But often it has been uttered and felt out of pure frustration and not of reallity.

Anyway, I think bullshit helps the world go around. It kind of lubricates things, like the activity of gossip does.

I find it interesting that that the article "The Ever-Expanding Kingdom of Bull" in the magazine is followed by an article "Let's Abolish Art". Art, especially contemporary art, has been a subject that has often evoked expressions of 'bullshit' in its viewing.

I think the bullshit article might have made a connection with the magazine's main theme, philosophy & children, sighting that rarely does it emanate from the mouth of babes. But if it does, it's most likely something they have picked up from their parents.

Imagine the bullshit that some children have absorbed from their parents, such as the idea that some ethnic groups are inferior from others. That kind of bullshit has promoted and sustained sectarian divisions and violence for years.

Some bullshit our parents feed us as children can be harmless, like the ideas of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.

Yesterday, in commemoration of Memorial Day in America, I was watching the movie The Longest Day, which is about the invasion of Europe by the allies in WW2. I can hear some veterans of that invasion saying bullshit about some of the portrayals in the movie because for them it never happened the way it was depicted.

The movie depicted an approximation of the events on that fateful day in June, 1944 because it was a movie and not all the facts about that day were clearly remembered several years later when it was made. But this explains something about things labeled bullshit, that even though they appear as bullshit and come across as falsehoods they nevertheless are embedded in truth.

Again, I say, the idea of bullshit is exaggerated.

I heard a spot of bullshit his morning on the radio news.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are arriving in Ottawa today. There is a lot of excitement surrounding the visit. It is their first official visit since their marriage. There is so much excitement that the radio announcer was moved to say that the world would be watching.

Now that is bullshit. The world will not be watching, at least not all the world. That is an exaggeration. Only a very small portion of the world will be interested in the visit. But this underscores what a lot of bullshit is about. It is about exaggeration. We exaggerate or bullshit in this way to make things more important than they are. We exaggerate and bullshit an event out or proportion to draw attention to it and highlight it.

Most bullshit is harmless and just entertaining.

There are all kinds of bullshit. However, most of it is harmless, but useful. Most so-called bullshitting is done innocently, just to convey ideas, albeit exaggerated. But it is done unintentionally, without malice. Some declarations may seem like bullshit because they sound over the top, like the embellishments made about William and Kate in the press, like the whole world is interested in them, like we are all hanging on their every move. But for the most part it is just entertaining. For others, though, it is an affront to their intelligence, hence the reason why it's viewed as bullshit.

Speaking of embellishments, I am just reading a novel and the writer has used many embellishments to describe things, like the appearance of a room or a feeling. Some might consider such gilding as bullshit. But without such gilding a text can be dry and boring. Writers embellish and readers soak it up. This kind of bullshit keeps things interesting.

In His book "On Bullshit" Harry Frankfurt discusses several kinds of bullshit. One involves a great philosopher. He talks about Wittgenstein's reaction to a friend, Fania Pascal, who characterized herself as feeling 'like a dog that was run over by a car' after she had an operation. Wittgenstein took exception to that statement, thinking it was nonsense, a kind of bullshit, because she couldn't have known how a dog feels like after being run over by a car. It sounds as though Wittgenstein overreacted to her innocent, exaggerated statement. It was just a metaphorical statement of conveyance, to give an idea of how bad a feeling can be. Perhaps, though, Wittgenstein took exception to the use of a dog in such a disparaging manor.

Pascal had made a metaphoric statement to describe how she felt after her operation — sick as a dog. For her there probably was no other way of conveying the idea. (Instead she could have said she felt like a pipe had been rammed down her but Wittgenstein would have found something wrong with that too.) Perhaps all metaphoric references should be view as bullshit, a la Wittgenstein, because they done exactly and perfectly describe what is being meant. If that is the case, almost everything we say is bullshit because everything is a metaphor; nothing is exactly what it is. So if that is the case, Shakespeare's writings should be consider bullshit, writ large, because they are full of metaphorical ideas.

Essential Wittgenstein was a nit picker, always examining the meaning and truth of things. So it’s not surprising that he pounced on Pascal and her idea of being sick as a dog because to him it was nonsense, bull, because she had never been a dog. But dogs and humans have similarities. They both belong to the animal kingdom and have similar innards. Ironically, humans relating to animals in this way has helped instill in us an empathy towards them, that they also have feelings and should also be treated humanely.

Personally I think Wittgenstein’s ideas are bull, his ideas about language and meaning. Mainly, though, that’s because I am not interested in his ideas. I find them difficult to understand. But that's only my opinion. Others don’t think so. Thus, the idea of what constitutes bullshit is for the most part, arbitrary. One person's bullshit might be other person's treasure, so to speak.

spike wrote:There are all kinds of bullshit. However, most of it is harmless, but useful. Most so-called bullshitting is done innocently, just to convey ideas, albeit exaggerated. But it is done unintentionally, without malice. Some declarations may seem like bullshit because they sound over the top, like the embellishments made about William and Kate in the press, like the whole world is interested in them, like we are all hanging on their every move. But for the most part it is just entertaining. For others, though, it is an affront to their intelligence, hence the reason why it's viewed as bullshit.

Speaking of embellishments, I am just reading a novel and the writer has used many embellishments to describe things, like the appearance of a room or a feeling. Some might consider such gilding as bullshit. But without such gilding a text can be dry and boring. Writers embellish and readers soak it up. This kind of bullshit keeps things interesting.

In His book "On Bullshit" Harry Frankfurt discusses several kinds of bullshit. One involves a great philosopher. He talks about Wittgenstein's reaction to a friend, Fania Pascal, who characterized herself as feeling 'like a dog that was run over by a car' after she had an operation. Wittgenstein took exception to that statement, thinking it was nonsense, a kind of bullshit, because she couldn't have known how a dog feels like after being run over by a car. It sounds as though Wittgenstein overreacted to her innocent, exaggerated statement. It was just a metaphorical statement of conveyance, to give an idea of how bad a feeling can be. Perhaps, though, Wittgenstein took exception to the use of a dog in such a disparaging manor.

Pascal had made a metaphoric statement to describe how she felt after her operation — sick as a dog. For her there probably was no other way of conveying the idea. (Instead she could have said she felt like a pipe had been rammed down her but Wittgenstein would have found something wrong with that too.) Perhaps all metaphoric references should be view as bullshit, a la Wittgenstein, because they done exactly and perfectly describe what is being meant. If that is the case, almost everything we say is bullshit because everything is a metaphor; nothing is exactly what it is. So if that is the case, Shakespeare's writings should be consider bullshit, writ large, because they are full of metaphorical ideas.

Essential Wittgenstein was a nit picker, always examining the meaning and truth of things. So it’s not surprising that he pounced on Pascal and her idea of being sick as a dog because to him it was nonsense, bull, because she had never been a dog. But dogs and humans have similarities. They both belong to the animal kingdom and have similar innards. Ironically, humans relating to animals in this way has helped instill in us an empathy towards them, that they also have feelings and should also be treated humanely.

Personally I think Wittgenstein’s ideas are bull, his ideas about language and meaning. Mainly, though, that’s because I am not interested in his ideas. I find them difficult to understand. But that's only my opinion. Others don’t think so. Thus, the idea of what constitutes bullshit is for the most part, arbitrary. One person's bullshit might be other person's treasure, so to speak.

Hi Spike,

I think the reason people use metaphors and exaggerations i.e. bullshit is because they want to convey and/or receive a sense of intimacy. "This is how I think a dog might feel if it were run over by a car. Can you imagine it with me? Are we here?" It is a desire to share empathy.

Recently, a few family members and I were talking about a barbeque restaurant in town. I wanted to describe how much I hated their food. I said there food tastes like body odor smells. And it does to me. I wanted to describe the exact flavor I had imagined in my mind. And while I have never tasted body order...lol....I have smelled it and can imagine how it would taste. In fact, other must secretly hold this same sentiment because the waiters at this place wear T'shirts which read, "You can smell our pits a mile away." Anyway, I don't know if it is the smokey thing that makes the BBQ place smell or what...all I know is it smells like B.O. and it tastes exactly like it smells.

I shared something entirely intimate happening within my own body when I related my imaginary smell to my family. I am sure they will never be able to think of that restaurant as anything but smelling like Body odor from now on...LOL. Intimacy.

Oh...and another intimate "exaggeration" experiment that maybe I can share with the forum. Let's see if it translates...

Recently my youngest introduces me to this great song (as he usually does) anyway....the song reminded me of the sound a horse makes clip clopping along a road....like walking away cowboy style into the sunset. He insisted it didn't. So I asked him to play it again and I made that Clock noise...you know the one... when your tongue clocks/clicks from the roof of your mouth down to it's normal position quickly? Sort of a percussion sound? It sounds like a horse clip clopping.

Anyway I made this horse hooves sound in double time to the beat of the song while it was playing. (here is the song...try to imagine it)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX5Dan0VE7w


Later my other son was in the car with me and my youngest and I said, "doesn't this song remind you of this"...and I did the horse sound for him with the tune. My youngest said...."Now every time I hear that song I see a horse clip clopping away in my head." My oldest said, "Yeah...thanks for ruining a great song mom!"


So tell me...do you hear the horse clip clopping away or do you need to actually hear me doing the clock thing with my tongue? Just curious.

AS:

So tell me...do you hear the horse clip clopping away or do you need to actually hear me doing the clock thing with my tongue? Just curious.

Yes, I do hear it. But I'd rather stick to the topic at hand, bullshit. I am not so fond of childish things. I'm too stern for that.

To childish things I say humbug, which is a synonym to bullshit, but not so nasty.