While listening the other day to Barack Obama shuck and jive about fiscal responsiblity, shamelessly posturing as if he and not his Republican opponents is the fiscally responsible one, when he is in truth the apotheosis or, if you prefer, the Platonic Form of fiscal irresponsibility, I realized just how uncommonly good our POMO Prez is at bullshitting. He is indeed a consummate bullshitter. But what is it to bullshit, exactly? When is a statement bullshit?
According to Harry Frankfurt, a statement is bullshit if it is
. . . grounded neither in a belief that it is true nor, as a lie must be, in a belief that it is not true. It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth — this indifference to how things really are — that I regard as of the essence of bullshit." (emphasis added)Professor Frankfurt has a fine nose for the essence of bullshit. The bullshitter is one who 'doesn't give a shit' about the truth value of what he is saying. He doesn't care how things stand with reality. The liar, by contrast, must care: he must know (or at least attempt to know) how things are if he is to have any chance of deceiving his audience. Think of it this way: the bullshitter doesn't care whether he gets things right or gets them wrong; the liar cares to get them right so he can deceive you about them.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Obama as Bullshitter
William Vallicella: Obama as Bullshitter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Hello, Ilion.
Yes, I know. You don't care what I have to say, so I'll keep this brief.
Remember how you and Zach on DI used to be rather 'buddy buddy'? You know - teaming up to attack and insult those nasty, "lying" theists (like myself, Ben and others) who you regarded negatively for one reason or another (aka 'for disagreeing with you on any topic')?
He was a sockpuppet of a materialist atheist. Specifically, BDK.
All I want to say right now is this: An atheist used a fake Christian identity, primarily to attack Christians and anti-materialists. Insofar as he encouraged you to attack as well, and defended your behavior, there's a very reasonable conclusion to draw: he regarded you as a kind of useful idiot. The Christian who he didn't need to fight or oppose, and in fact could stand to gain by encouraging.
Think about this, Ilion. Perhaps you will learn a lesson.
Feel free to make a post about yours truly, reacting with fury to this realization. Chances are, I will not notice it. On the off chance you realize you have, to some degree, been played by an atheist, you can contact me on my blog to discuss matters. I will not expect your arrival.
You're such a fool. Not only do you lie about me, but you see only what you want to see.
I don't think there is a difference between bullshitting and lying. I have noticed that a lot of liars ultimately devolve into bullshitters, per the definition listed above. That is, they become pathological and ultimately start lying even in situations where it does not benefit them whatsoever.
Sure, liars, especially if you mean pathological liars, such as Bill Clinton, frequently devolve into bullshitters. But, there is a difference between a liar and a bullshitter.
A mere liar lies about something or other in reference to reality. Mere lying is episodic.
But bullshittery is a species of intellectual dishonesty ... as with the first comment made in this thread. Bullshittery, as with intellectual dishonesty in generaly, is systemic.
Ilion,
I actually kinda like your definition of "bullshitting", but you lose me totally when you give examples from only one side of the political spectrum. Surely, we all being fallen humans, one should be able to find good examples of bullshitters wherever you look. I know I can.
But bullshittery is unconcerned with reality. No matter how often certain leftists like to call themselves "the reality-based community", the fact remains that one cannot actually be both a "right-winger" and "unconcerned with reality".
Still, if you want to nominate someone as a bullshitter whom you think is both a real "right-winger" and "unconcerned with reality", feel free.
"I actually kinda like your definition of "bullshitting", .."
You mean Harry Frankfurt as quoted by Wm.Vallicella?
Still, I have more than once drawn a distinction between the episodic nature of "mere lying" and the systemic nature of intellectual dishonesty.
A mere liar is very much concerned that his target audience should believe some specific falsehood ... which is why the "best" liars try to speak only the literal truth.
But, in contrast, a bullshitter cares not a whit whether his marks actually believe whatever it is that he's saying right now, nor notice that it is utterly opposite whatever he said before. In fact, the bullshitter seems to get an extra thrill out of the knowledge that his marks don't believe what he's saying and that they know that he knows, just so long as they pretend to believe.
If I recall correctly, it was Solzhenitsyn who observed that the purpose of the official lies under the Soviet system wasn't to convince the subjects that they were true, but rather to get them to be complicit in their own moral degradation by dutifully repeating the lies as though they believed they were truth.
When Rep. Joe Wilson said “You lie!” during an Obama monologue, *everyone* knew that Wilson was right and that Obama was lying. But, all “respectable” persons pretended otherwise and pretended moral outrage at Wilson. It’s much the same dynamic as with the official lies in the Soviet Union’ it’s just not … yet … backed up with violence, blood, and death.
"If I recall correctly, it was Solzhenitsyn who observed that the purpose of the official lies under the Soviet system wasn't to convince the subjects that they were true, but rather to get them to be complicit in their own moral degradation by dutifully repeating the lies as though they believed they were truth."
Solzhenitsyn did indeed say that, and he was correct as far as the end result. But I seriously doubt (read: do not in the least believe) that it was the conscious motivation of the Soviet government to morally compromise its populous. That's just how it worked out in that abominable regime.
What do you think 1984 describes? What do you think it's based on?
The Soviets weren't as consistent as Big Brother, but they certainly did intend to rule by means of the moral co-option of their subjects.
"What do you think 1984 describes? What do you think it's based on?"
Funny that you should bring up that scene in 1984, because I have always regarded O'Brien's explanation of why Big Brother sought power as being the weakest part of the entire novel and its biggest flaw. I still believe the book would be far better had O'Brien simply admitted to Smith that the Party was as much a victim of its rule as everyone else, but just as helpless to do anything about it.
Post a Comment