On Bullshit《Theme and variation》

Mr. Frankfurt starts his book On Bullshit with the following statement: “One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit.” He then proceeds to develop a theoretical understanding of what is bullshit and what is not. Although bullshit is everywhere there is no theory to ***yze it. The main purpose of this book is not only to provide a theoretical model to ***yze what bullshit is but also to further explain the reason why bullshit is everywhere in today's society.

On Bullshit notes that " [b]ullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to talk without knowing what he is talking about." Frankfurt makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting. Both the liar and the bullshitter try to get away with something but ‘lying’ is perceived to be a conscious act of deception whereas ‘bullshitting’ is unconnected to a concern for truth. In another word liars know the truth but would rather tell lies. In contrast bullshitters do not care about what the truth is. They are only concerned about their own interests. Frankfurt regards this ‘indifference to how things really are’ as the essence of bullshit.

In addition to establishing the danger of bullshit Frankfurt then asks why there is so much bullshit around. The main answer to this is that bullshit is a certain byproduct of public life "where people are frequently impelled whether by their own propensities or by the demands of others—to speak extensively about matters of which they are to some degree ignorant." (P 63) . But politics is not a creation of the modern era . It has been around for centuries. Why should bullshit be so common now? The obvious answer is the communications revolution. According to the essay “The Hard Sell: Advertising in America” by Bill Bryson cable television and the internet have created an unending demand for information and there simply isn't enough truth to go around. In the essay Bryson introduced the history of the English language in America. It is more appropriately described as a brief history of America and its culture with some occasional attention to the language. It is clear enough to see that bullshit exists in our language. So we get bullshit instead of the substance. Indeed there are some troubling signs that the consumer has come to prefer bullshit over substance. For example people spend huge amount of effort in choosing products based upon their brand names rather than choosing products based upon the quality of the products.

Moreover I want to use another author’s article to further express that the use of language can be misrepresenting. In William Lutz’s essay “The World of Doublespeak” double-speak is language designed to evade responsibility make the unpleasant appear pleasant the unattractive appear attractive. Basically it's language that pretends to communicate but really doesn't. It is language designed to mislead while pretending not to. Double-speak is not a slip of the tongue or a mistaken use of language it's exactly the opposite. It is language used by people who are very intelligent and very sophisticated in the use of language and know that you can do an awful lot with language.

It is inherent in the function of language to use language as a weapon or as a tool to manipulate other people. However I think there are two things we can do. First of all we can all become much more aware of this language. We should be aware of it so that we can at least be defensive and defend ourselves so that we're not misled through it. But secondly there are times when we simply cannot tolerate this language. When leaders of our nation talk about important public issues of national policy they should not use double-speak. We should not use it ourselves. We should not allow the politicians who are speaking to us to use it. Language that way can be terribly corrupting in a society and can mislead all of us and in a democracy that depends upon the active participation of its citizens it can lead to cynicism and resentment and a withdrawal from the political process.

Furthermore George Orwell points out in his essay "Politics and the English Language" that people should use plain language instead of old tired phaseology that is in essence simply bullshit. In his article Orwell quotes language which is simply trying to say "I believe in killing offyour opponents when you can get good results by doing so". However instead the person would say:

"‘While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore we must I think agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.’" In Orwell's opinon vague language makes it easier for us to accept a proposition even though what we hear does not makes very good sense. Orwell listed in his essay quoted five particular paragraphs that point out two common flaws in each of the five paragraphs namely staleness of imagination and the lack of accuracy.

In conclusion Bullshit is one of those rare multipurpose words: noun verb adjective gerund participle and in a stretch even adverb. After reading this book I will never use the word bullshit in the same way again. Frankfurt has constructed his essay primarily around some literary quotes from the Oxford English Dictionary from a Wittgenstein anecdote from a hair of St. Augustine and from the definition of a close synonym but he has done precious little work toward understanding much of the nature of the compact between the liar and the one lied to. It isn’t only that the bullshitter doesn’t care about truth it’s that in pure bullshit truth is irrelevant to the bullshitter.