On Bullshit Part 2

[152jon]

I enjoyed the random edit cuts, i wonder what he said during those cuts?

[tmtyler]

This all seems rather negative. What about the positive aspects of bullshit?

[ClothingOptionalInc]

@tmtyler agreed

[midgetman2142]

@tmtyler entertainment?

[heartattack0vine]

@tmtyler He's actually talking about that around 4:10

[ayethereztherub]

Half as many viewed part 1 as part 2. Is that an accurate reflection of the population of bullshitters in general society?

If we're meant to take the concept of BS seriously, I think Frankfurt is wrong to say the BS'er is unconstrained by either doctrinal piety or truth and falsity. A BS'er would learn more from his work than the person "concerned about the truth," because the BS'er would then be a prolific "BS" accuser: it would be another tool in the enterprise BS.

[CaptainBluebear08]

"a walking bullshit meter", ahahaha, great

bullshitometer!

[seal8le8siomon]

there is more bullshit in this video than there was a hundred years ago

[doddijones]

This is Intellectual bullshit about bullshit.

[schpongleded]

The solution to the elimination of bullshit is self-honesty, people. Only then can you, and will you be honest with other people as well, removing bullshit from our lives and thus removing 90% of the problems in the world. Expanding your views in combination with self honesty is the magical solution, and there are many people who have already decided not to participate in generating bullshit.

[trunkeight]

upon reflection, I think bullshit does offer an important mechanism in society, namely, it seems to enable people to avoid taking responsibility for their lives, and seems to facilitate corruption, which perhaps, is the logical conclusion to hierarchical political and corporate structures. Maybe, bullshit gives weak or compromised people a tool to generate social feedback to test the effects of what could be, if they were indeed really were what they were projecting...

[lexo30]

@trunkeight - I agree with much of what you say, but I think bullshit is deeply conservative. Since, as Frankfurt says, its prevalence in our lives is bound up with the prevalence of marketing, bullshit depends on people's existing willingness to be sold things; not just consumer items but also politicians, creeds, etc. As long as people are willing to buy (into) things without first critically assessing their value, bullshit will reinforce existing social structures.

[ayethereztherub]

@lexo30 You could as easily argue BS is bound up in a commodity liberalism of anti-religious screeds, half-assed environmental books, secular religion, and least-common denominator social policies sold as moral imperatives. Truth is inherently conservative, and at least some immutable part of "the existing social structure." BS doesn't reinforce that structure, it corrodes it---I'm guessing that's why Frankfurt demurred from political statement.

[lexo30]

@ayethereztherub _ Bullshit as a philosophical concept is one thing, but you're not talking about it: you're talking about Things You Don't Agree With. I'm sure that there are 'half-assed environmental books' out there, but they are not by definition bullshit - maybe inaccurate or fraudulent. 'Secular religion' is an oxymoron. The statement 'truth is inherently conservative' is meaningless. If everybody is telling lies then truth is radical, but of course everybody isn't always telling lies.

[ayethereztherub]

@lexo30 I'd press the point that BS is common to both ends of the ideological spectrum---to an amazing, but also depressing extent these days. If you think secular religion is an oxymoron, you've never heard of Auguste Comte.

"The statement 'truth is inherently conservative' is meaningless..." What does that even mean? You worship science, the most conservative institution of truth, but refute that truth is conservative? On what do you base your truth but on what has gone before?

[lexo30]

@ayethereztherub - You're right! I forgot about Comte. He was a bit unusual though.

I don't worship science. I know what worship is, and it's not what I do vis a vis science. I respect science because it tests theories against evidence. Religion, on the other hand, tells stories and claims that they are unquestionably true. That's my problem with it. Anyone can test the truth of a scientific theory, but religious authorities reserve for themselves the right to say what truth is.

[lexo30]

@ayethereztherub I begin to see what you mean by 'truth is conservative', but I would disagree thus: conservatism is not conservative, inasmuch as it does not 'base [its] truth on what has gone before'. If it did that, it would have to accept a long tradition of radical thought. Also, as new ideas (e.g. Darwin's) become time-honoured, conservatism would have to base its truth on them, and it tends not to. Conservatism rejects tradition whenever tradition is inconvenient for its purpose.

[lexo30]

@ayethereztherub I have noticed that religious people tend to think that non-religious people feel the same way about science (or whatever) as religious people feel about God, and therefore believe (rightly, from their own point of view) that non-religious people are kidding themselves with a pale and pathetic and sinful man-made imitation. I have been religious, but am so no longer, and believe me, there's a strong difference between having religious faith and not having it.

[ayethereztherub]

@lexo30 What''s surprising, as always with new atheists, is they are always ex-fundies themselves, and as such, often borrow from the very worst tropes of religion when explaining their concept either science or religion: "a pale and pathetic and sinful man-made imitation." Thus sayeth the lord!

[lexo30]

@ayethereztherub I'm sorry, your comment made no sense. Please explain.

[lexo30]

@ayethereztherub I wish I could give you more of an answer, but I think your use of words is a bit careless. I agree that there are some things out there that are true, but I happen to believe that science has the monopoly on verifiability. Religion is a truth about human psychology, not a truth about the universe. I would remind you that the least common denominator is an extremely important concept in math.

[ayethereztherub]

@lexo30 Neat! But pretty much exactly the reference I was making: verifiability isn't ultimately circular, Newton is still God of western metaphysics, science is the new bourgeois religion of self, yadda yada yada...

[lexo30]

@ayethereztherub Newton isn't the "God of western metaphysics". God is, inasmuch as people seem to be more focused on 'There's a God' or 'There's no God' than on working out the implications of science being true. Newtonian mechanics work fine for most large-scale engineering purposes, not because Newton is God but because his physics work. Science isn't the 'new bourgeois religion of self' - most people I know who don't believe in God don't have any religious faith at all.

[Sodomatriarch]

this guy is a genius. I totally love him.

[monicamir]

There's way too much BS semantics around trying to sell us global policies to fulfil globalists agendas. I made a list of those words, I feel like I'm being raped by the ears and so when sb start to talk and say one of those words I stop listening. They keep changing the words and I keep my list uptodate. People tolerate this or try to rpofit with this, but they will hardly be deceived by this. It's much too obvious.

[bobbygnosis]

Here here.