Against Bullshit

Prefatory note: After Alex’s last post, I feel forced to make a certain kind of post. Not that Alex’s post on 9/11 wasn’t good – it was great, well written, and worth saying. But it left the impression that our blog is caught in some kind of a tailspin of negativity. I want to get us out of this downward spiral but I can’t sensibly shift the blog to something completely different without seeming insensitive (or whatever). After all, his post set a specific tone. So I’m not going to blog about what I was originally going to blog about. Instead I’ll blog about something more… neutral-ish. Something which, I hope, will level us off and maybe even… dare I say… upwards towards redemption. (I’ll write that other blog some other time in the near future.)

“Why do we feel it’s necessary to yak about bullshit in order to be comfortable?” (Mia, ‘Pulp Fiction’)

Bullshit permeates our culture; our dialog; our day-to-day lives. It’s a kind of speech-act that’s used all too often. Our friends do it; people on TV do it; sometimes we even do it. And it’s crap. I don’t mean bullshit is crap because they’re both synonyms for poo-poo, I mean bullshit’s not a good thing. Before I get to why that’s the case let me explain the characteristics of the speech-act a little more.

Intuitively we might know what we mean when we say things like “that’s such bullshit”. But I want something a little more concrete than that; something more than how Justice Potter Stewart lamely described pornography: “I know it when I see it”. Bullshit intuitively has at least some relationship with what’s true. But it’s got a closer and more interesting relationship with lies. That relationship, though, isn’t such that one is reducible to the other. Bullshit is different than lying: As a bullshitter you might stumble upon the truth but as a liar you seek to make the listener believe something you know to be untrue. Liars traffic in truth-values. When lying you can utter false statements (your typical lie) or true ones (how we get lies of omission, for instance) in the enterprise of convincing the listener of a falsehood. This is in contrast to when you bullshit. Here you’re simply unaware or unconcerned with truth-values; here what you say isn’t what you necessarily believe, you’re just saying whatever works. People who bullshit are focused on how they represent themselves; liars are focused on establishing something as being true. But lying is nevertheless connected to bullshitting; they’re both deceitful. Lying just requires a different intention and bullshitting. Lying needs an intention to mislead the listener whereas bullshitting just requires that you have a neglectful attitude - producing bullshit is easier than producing the truth. In this way bullshitting is lazy; the conversational equivalent to dunking something in a can of paint instead of using a brush. Through this laziness we get empty talk: statements without any genuine or worthwhile content. Bullshit can be impulsive and can come when you talk without thinking; saying something for the primary sake of flapping your lips; it’s quick and careless. Or it can be elaborate and expansive; designed to confuse the listener - the politician who drones on in response to a question without really answering the question.

Bullshit is undesirable. Whether it’s the friend telling an overly embellished story; the anchorman rambling on to make the breaking news seem like something important when it’s not. From their view their contributing. But come on; they’re not. Their filling a void. Their grasping to keep your attention; to keep the focus on them. The expression of words and sentences is not good enough; the expectations should be higher. The standard of acceptability – the basis by which we should determine whether or not to listen to them – should be focused on the content of those words and sentences (rather than that there are just words and sentences being spoken). The content should be good for its own sake. Bullshit falls short of that threshold. Bullshit is vacuous.

All I’m saying is that instead of bullshitting people should only speak if they can contribute something meaningful or worthwhile. There should be a justification for why we listen to them. Being honest is valuable for it’s own sake. People who speak honestly are worth listening to. As are those who provide us with genuine information (worthwhile information, that is). Those we watch on TV should be important and have something meaningful to say. Otherwise we shouldn’t be listening to them. They should not be lazy and unconcerned with what comes out of them. They should say what needs to be said and say it concisely. Likewise for those we spend our time with. Those I spend time with should speak the truth or say something thought through (or both); not something said to fill an awkward silence. An awkward silence is better than listening to any verbal diarrhoea. Talking for the sake of talking is one thing. Talking for the sake of being listened to is another. I’m only interested in the former. I could say more, but I think that’s enough for now. This is just my spur-of-the-moment thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong. After all, what do I know.


*NB: For more on this topic see “Bullshit and Philosophy” (Hardcastle, Gary L. and George A. Reisch (Eds.), Open Court Publishing, 2006)