跳到主要內容

The difference between bullshit and lie

 

So what is a bullshitter, and what is bullshit? 

1. Bullshit is something someone makes up.

2. When the person makes up something, s/he does not know or care if it is true.

3. A person who says things mindlessly (without thinking) is a bullshitter.

4. A person who repeats what s/he hears or reads mindlessly, and does not care or know if it is true.

Frankfurt clearly connects "bullshit" with excrement, and we find "excrement" or "shit" repulsive.  Yet we have seen some people are proud of being an expert "bullshitter" because their bullshits got them what they want.  But they fail to connect bullshit with excrement, and cannot imagine themselves to be a "shit container."  If they do, they won't go around and proudly declare "I am a shit container." 

 Frankfurt also discusses the difference between bullshit and lie, and between a bullshitter and a liar.  

1. Unlike a lie that is false, bullshit is not necessarily false.  “[Bullshit] is produced without concern with the truth, it need not be false. The bullshitter is faking things. But this does not mean that he necessarily gets them wrong.” (par. 10).  It can be true, it is just the bullshitter does not know or care if it is true.

2. A liar has to be concerned with truth in order to lie, “The liar is inescapably concerned with truth-values. In order to invent a lie at all, he must think he knows what is true. And in order to invent an effective lie, he must design his falsehood under the guidance of that truth. ” (par. 12).  Yet a bullshitter does not, “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.” (par. 15).

3. Bullshitter has no intent to deceive, whereas liar does.  “Since bullshit need not be false, it differs from lies in its misrepresentational intent. The bullshitter may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes the facts to be. What he does necessarily attempt to deceive us about is his enterprise” (par. 13) that is, his real purpose.

4. A liar misrepresents the truth or reality, whereas a bullshitter misrepresents him/herself or what s/he is up to. "His eye is not on the facts at all, . . .  except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose. . . ." (par. 15).  How does a bullshitter misrepresent him/herself?  When s/he is asked to answer a question, s/he makes things up as if s/he is knowledgeable about the subject.  By bullshitting, a bullshitter misrepresents him/herself as a knowledgeable person, but in fact s/he does not know the answer to the question.  

For Frankfurt, "bullshit is a greater enemy to the truth than lies are" (par. 16) because someone who lies still cares to know the truth in order to present its opposite--the falsehood, where a bullshitter completely ignores the truth, and s/he simply does not care.

留言

這個網誌中的熱門文章

蘇格拉底對話和《哲學之語》

蘇格拉底 年輕時對天文學和形而上學很感興趣。 後來他發現它們對人類生活沒有用處。 他把注意力轉向人類最關心的事情 — 正義、美德、和智慧。 可以說,他將哲學帶到了日常生活之中。 對他來說,哲學不是對理論思辨或沉思的追求,而是一種實踐。在蘇格拉底的對話中,蘇格拉底經常提出這樣的問題:“什麼是正義?” “什麼是美德?” “什麼是善?” 在對話結束時,沒有人能給出一個滿足蘇格拉底的定義。大多數讀過對話的人都急於得出結論 : 這些詞語沒有定義或普遍定義。 正義、美德或善是取決於個人。   他們沒有認識到的是,我們在日常對話中非常鬆散地使用這些詞語,並且我們假設我們對它們的含義有共同的理解。當我們對它們的理解受到審查時,我們的理解就會變得不足。這種不足只暴露了我們自己的思維不足,和我們真的不明白我們認為自己知道的觀念。 在蘇格拉底的 《 申辯篇 》 中 , 他提到了向許多人提問,包括那些以智慧著稱的人,發現他們都聲稱知道他們實際上不知道的事情。他們的驕傲和自負使他們無法承認自己不知道,相反,他們對蘇格拉底生氣並誹謗他。憤怒和誹謗最終導致了蘇格拉底的死亡。從這 《申辯篇》 中我們看到,自負是自省的敵人。此外,它阻止我們成為更有知識和更好的人。 在蘇格拉底的對話中,我們看到蘇格拉底很少提出自己的觀點,他的注意力在他的對話者身上。他密切關注其他人所說的話。 他重複他們所說的話並尋求確認。 只有這樣,他才能進一步問問題。他不是為了提問而提問 , 而是他力求理解他人所說的話並幫助他們澄清他們自己的陳述和理解 . 我們可以從蘇格拉底那裡學到很多東西:我們需要傾聽他人,真正理解他們所說的話。 如果我們不明白,我們提出問題 .  這也是我們 《哲學之語》 對話的方式 。 蘇格拉底之死 。由 雅克·路易·大衛 所繪(1787年)。圖片出自 維基百科 回到 哲學之語   ( 討論日期及主題 )    回到 哲學之語討論 (心得及記錄) 返回頁首  

Examples of bullshit statements, and bullshitters are selfish, lack self-confidence, and cowardly

  The terms "everything," and "everyone," are used carelessly by most people.  Statements that contain them are more than likely bullshit since we cannot know "everyone" or "everything."  The example of bullshit statements are "Everything is saying this," "He knows everything," "Everyone is doing this." we should avoid using these terms.   I asked students to reflect on why they bullshitted in the past, these are the answers: 1. I want to appear smarter (more intelligent, more knowledgeable). 2. I want to fit in with a group. 3. I want to get away with something (such as not reading an assigned text, not preparing for class, etc). Thus, when they bullshitted, their focus is on themselves, on the "I," and have no regard for anyone else or what is true. Thus when they bullshitted, they become very self-centered or selfish.  Moreover, they lack self-confidence, they fear if they didn't bullshit...

我對Arthur的回覆

我非常感謝 Arthur 與我們分享他的想法,我很喜歡閱讀它們。我的回應不是批評他,而是指出一些問題供大家思考,也希望喚醒一些自我 審視 和 反思 Arthur 對所謂的科學知識持懷疑態度。他列舉了幾個例子來證明被認為是“科學”的東西對人類有可怕的後果。但是他沒有考慮到科學對人類生活的總體進步做出了貢獻。不可否認,本世紀的人類生活總體上比幾百年前要好得多。我們不能舉幾個例子來反駁科學給人類帶來的全部進步。請原諒我直言不諱 , 我認為 Arthur 的論點是以偏蓋全 .  科學本身就是客觀中立的,它沒有道德的好壞之分。真正的問題是人類如何利用科學知識。在某種程度上,科學是一種工具,我們可以使用它來造福人類 .  也可以使用它來傷害人類 , 就像希特勒利用生物學、醫學 , 和遺傳學來合理化 他的種族大屠殺 .  根據證明 , 我們可以接受或拒絕科學給我們知識。但是科學不是“信仰”的問題。知道和相信是非常不同的。正是在我們不知道或無法知道的情況下,我們選擇相信。例如,我們說我們相信上帝,但我們不說我們知道上帝。如果按照 Arthur 的說法,我們選擇“相信”科學,那麼科學和宗教就沒有區別。科學家們不必付出很大的努力來證明他們的想法。他們所要做的只是簡單地宣布“我相信這是真的”,就像基督徒宣布“我相信上帝存在”一樣。   蘇格拉底曾經說過,實踐哲學就是審視自己和他人。對於蘇格拉底來說,審視自己是第一位的。審視自己就是發現自己的偏見、假設和缺點,以便我們能夠擺脫它們,成為更好的人,過上更好的生活。審視別人就是審視別人對我們說的話——我們讀到的信息、傳統,和習俗,這樣我們才能真正自由、獨立地生活。審視那些想法不是否定它們,而是通過我們自己的思考努力找出什麼是好的,什麼是合適的。只有這樣,我們在生活中做出的選擇才真正是我們自己的,而不是受他人支配的。   哲學不是辯論,也不是為我們自己已經接受的觀點尋找理由,而是對它們進行反思。尤其是當我們堅持自己的觀點時 , 反思比以往任何時候都更重要。 回到 哲學之語   ( 討論日期及主題 )    回到 哲學之語討論 (心得及記錄) 返回頁首