--- Jerry Monaco <monacojerry at gmail.com> wrote:
> But see my little review _Retail & Wholesale
> Bullshit: Criticism &
> Quotes on Frankfurt's 'On Bullshit"_
> http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/31891.html
>
[WS:] An interesting essay. I certainly agree with your proposition that social-historical context (missing from Frankfurt's essay) is crucial for analyzing the concept of bullshit.
With that it mind, the concept of bullshit presupposes a certain definition of "truth" - namely truth as empirical verification. In societies or traditions that do not accept such a defintion (cf. Heidegger's eassy "The Age of the World Picture" arguing that such defintion is a modern phenomenon) the concept of bullshit would take an entirely new meaning (if it were meaningful at all.) For example, in a culture that defines truth as "consistency withe the dogma" - the statements that you define as "wholesale bullshit" would likely to be ones that are true. If the dogma is that "America is the greatest country on Earth" - the 4th of July oration would certainly have the "true" value (=consistent with the dogma). It is easy to extend this line of thought to other forms of political discourse and to public relations, advertising, and pomo discourse as well.
With that in mind, the concept of "bullshit" seems very similar to Kantian (Prolegomena) concept of metaphysics (=propositions whose truth cannot be confirmed or rejected) - so the question arisises why is it desirable to use the vernacular "bullshit" instead of the time honored "metaphysics." My hunch is that it has something to do with the "populization" of the discourse in the US - mere technical accuracy is not enough, concpet must also have populist (or popular) appeal. "Bullshit" has such an appeal, "metaphysics" does not. This populization of philosophical discourse woud itself be an example of bullshitting.
Another comment - the reason I made a reference to Frankfurt in my previous posting was to make it clear that I used the term "bullshit" as a descriptor rather than an ad hominem slur. The idea I tried to convey was that the statements that I was criticizing were beyond truth value - or in the light of the above remarks - not empircially verifiable. Instead they are consistent with dogmas (left-wing, right-wing, religous, patriotic, etc.), and as such "true" regardless of any evidence or lack of it.
Wojtek
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com