Preview

Bullshit

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
374 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Bullshit
On Bullshit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On Bullshit is an essay by philosopher Harry Frankfurt. Originally published in the journal Raritan in 1986, the essay was republished as a separate volume in 2005 and became a nonfiction bestseller, spending twenty-seven weeks on the New York Times Best Seller list.[1]

In the essay, Frankfurt defines a theory of bullshit, defining the concept and analyzing its applications. Bullshit can either be true or false but bullshitters aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences, and in general are unconcerned with the truth or falsehood of their statements (it is because of this that Frankfurt concedes that "the bullshitter is faking things", but that "this does not necessarily mean he gets them wrong"). While liars need to know the truth to better conceal it, bullshitters, interested solely in advancing their own agendas, have no use for the truth. Thus, Frankfurt claims, "...bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are" (Frankfurt 61).

This work laid the foundation for Frankfurt 's 2006 follow-up book, On Truth.

Contents

1 Publication history
2 See also
3 External links
4 References
Publication history

"On Bullshit." Raritan Quarterly Review 6, no. 2 (Fall 1986).[2]
"On Bullshit." The Importance of What We Care About: Philosophical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. ISBN 0-521-33324-5 (hardback), ISBN 0-521-33611-2 (paperback).
On Bullshit. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005. ISBN 0-691-12294-6.
See also

Truthiness
External links

Pfeifer, Karl. Review of On Bullshit, Dialogue 45 (June 2006), pp. 617–620.

References

^ Wallace, Niamh (2005-10-11), On college, bullshit, and love, UWM Post, retrieved 2008-08-11
^ Back issue contents, Raritan Quarterly Review. Accessed 15 November 2009.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_Bullshit&oldid=546521149"
Categories: Philosophy essays1986 essays2005 booksWorks



References: ^ Wallace, Niamh (2005-10-11), On college, bullshit, and love, UWM Post, retrieved 2008-08-11 ^ Back issue contents, Raritan Quarterly Review. Accessed 15 November 2009. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_Bullshit&oldid=546521149" Categories: Philosophy essays1986 essays2005 booksWorks originally published in American magazinesWorks originally published in literary magazinesPhilosophy book stubs This page was last modified on 23 March 2013 at 11:49. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Pseudo-profound bullshit is defined as something made with the intent to impress absent of any concern for the truth. The statement will have to contain no information, adequate meaning, and truth. This argues that the term “bullshit” defines a type of misrepresentation which is different from lying and for which there is no other real label. The article explores a specific subtype that the authors call “pseudo-profound bullshit” which is where the writers intention is to sound profound without really saying anything.…

    • 82 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the article “On Bullshit,” written by Harry Frankfurt published by Princeton University in 1986, Frankfurt tries to explain and develop an understanding of the term bullshit. The essay was originally written for the Raritan Quarterly Review and then was turned into a New York Times bestselling book in 2005 (“On Bullshit”, 2017). Frankfurt tries to equate the term bullshit across cultural lines and how the term is meant for persuasion and not just an expletive. He also explores the broken-down definition of the term and how it affects the term that we know today.…

    • 416 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Crimes against Logic, written by James Whyte, presents a variety of arguments and information pertaining to different styles of writing. He presents ideas with a witty yet dry sense of humor, while also presenting good cases with his arguments. For example, in chapter five, titled “Shut Up”. At first the argument as a whole seems a bit extreme but it becomes more valid throughout. Whyte provides an example in the beginning of the chapter. That shows how easily his argument of shutting up can be proven. The example explains that if someone makes a ridiculous enough argument that the person with whom you are arguing with will simply stay quiet. Which in Whyte’s eyes means that the person who made the ridiculous argument is automatically right. This is just one of the ways that Whyte breaks down the idea of “shutting up” as a form of refuting an argument.…

    • 833 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    In the short essay On Bullshit, written by Harry Frankfurt a Princeton University professor, we follow the process that is used to create a “rough account of what bullshit is and how it differs from what it is not”(1) to create a working thesis for “bullshit”, which is presented in the latter stages of the essay. Frankfurt takes a broad view on items to be applied to bullshit and then shifts his gaze to more specific details of bullshit. The first broad item is the title essay The Prevalence of Humbug in which the parts of the definition of “humbug” are heavily analyzed. The second broad view he takes is a look into the life of Ludwig Wittgenstein to discuss his view on how a woman portrays her feelings. After this Frankfurt takes a specific look into items, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, a novel Dirty Story, and St. Agustine. These all have the common theme of discussing lying and how it relates to bullshit. By this point Frankfurt has a working concept of what “bullshit” is, that being it is a form of miscommunication, like lying, in which the perpetrator is indifferent to the truth. Now with a thesis Frankfurt ends his essay by relating this thesis to real world and the implications that come with it. However, Frankfurt does successfully define…

    • 1344 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Instead of trying to prove their argument, they decide to try and disprove the other side of the argument. This is one of the defining features of Carr’s argument, as he compares his argument to Socrates’ argument on the written word. He turns against his own argument, stating that he could be wrong, the internet might not have a sever downside. But just as quickly as he turned away from his argument, he turns back, stating that Socrates was short sighted, that the internet is much more complex than written word, that it is completely un-relatable to the written word. Zimmerman extensively used a counter argument in order to persuade the reader to believe in his argument. Most of the essay is devoted to disproving the thought that sports unify a nation. His argument constantly berated unification from sports, providing seemingly endless proof of the failure of sports to unite nations. This constant beratement works to tear down any doubts the reader may have had, and leads them to the same conclusion he had come to. The counter argument is a very effective method of persuading readers, especially those who disagree with them, to see and think about their…

    • 926 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    "Our acceptance of lies becomes a cultural cancer that eventually shrouds and reorders reality until moral garbage becomes as invisible to us as water is to a fish."…

    • 686 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the debate over whether bullshit is worse than lying the opponents argue that bullshit is not worse lying because Frankfurt’s argument was not strong enough and thereby give numerous examples as to why bullshit is not worse than lies are. On the other side of the debate the supporters argue that bullshitting is worse than lying because the person committing the act of bullshitting does not have to have any ties or respect to what the truth is or is not as opposed to lying where the liar knows exactly what the truth is and therefore must pay respect to the truth. In this essay, I will argue that bullshitting is worse than lying and should therefore be a less tolerated than lying.…

    • 1251 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Rhetorical Analysis

    • 577 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Cited: Schutza, Laurie. “The Pack Rat Among Us.” Inventing Arguments 2nd ed. Ed. John Mauk and John Metz. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning., 2009. 304-309. Print…

    • 577 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Philosophy this far, we’ve covered many topics. In highlighting Philosophy, Wisdom, and the quote, “ The Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living”, I will express the knowledge and insight I’ve taken away from Unit 1. This embodies one of the many examples of the concepts I will explain: “Too often, we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of the thought” (JFK).…

    • 1030 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Are Juries Fair?

    • 13512 Words
    • 55 Pages

    Extracts from this document may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes on condition that the source is acknowledged.…

    • 13512 Words
    • 55 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    70 411 r2

    • 31524 Words
    • 195 Pages

    All rights reserved. No part of the contents of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any…

    • 31524 Words
    • 195 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Book on Bullshit

    • 7853 Words
    • 32 Pages

    One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern, or attracted much sustained inquiry. In consequence, we have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or what functions it serves. And we lack a conscientiously developed appreciation of what it means to us. In other words, we have no theory. I propose to begin the development of a theoretical understanding of bullshit, mainly by providing some tentative and exploratory philosophical analysis. I shall not consider the rhetorical uses and misuses of bullshit. My aim is simply to give a rough account of what bullshit is and how it differs from what it is not, or (putting it somewhat differently) to articulate, more or less sketchily, the structure of its concept. Any suggestion about what conditions are logically both necessary and sufficient for the constitution of bullshit is bound to be somewhat arbitrary. For one thing, the expression bullshit is often employed quite loosely — simply as a generic term of abuse, with no very specific literal meaning. For another, the phenomenon itself is so vast and amorphous that no crisp and perspicuous analysis of its concept can avoid being procrustean. Nonetheless it should be possible to say something helpful, even though it is not likely to be decisive. Even the most basic and preliminary questions about bullshit remain, after all, not only unanswered but unasked. So far as I am aware, very little work has been done on this subject. I have not undertaken a survey of the literature, partly because I do not know how to go about it. To be sure, there is one quite obvious place to look — the Oxford…

    • 7853 Words
    • 32 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    A Language of Deception

    • 1310 Words
    • 6 Pages

    "It is a puzzling thing. The truth knocks on the door and you say, ‘Go away, I 'm looking for the truth, ' and so it goes away. Puzzling." The irony of Robert Pirsig touches on the strange encounter of self-deception. I know the truth and you do not; I intentionally hide the truth from you—this is the lie. But with this understanding of deception, how then, is self-deception possible? Does one know the truth about something and then, simultaneously, hide the truth from one 's self? How could this be: what makes it possible for a single person to be both deceived and deceiver? Nietzsche makes self-deception a reality through the error of truth.…

    • 1310 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Choice Is Your Choice

    • 1393 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Cited: Schwartz, Barry. “When It’s All Too Much.” Perspectives on Arguments. Nancy Woods. Boston: Pearson, 2012 172-73. Print.…

    • 1393 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Cited: Goodman, Ellen. Everythings 's an Argument . Fifth ed. Boston: The Boston Globe, 1999. 608-…

    • 1064 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays