Harry Frankfurt, a distinguished American philosopher, believed that “it was impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction” (On Bullshit, Frankfurt). This famous axiom was the product of Frankfurt’s prevalent and most well-known work, On Bullshit. The book centers around the concept of "Truth", and what is classified as lying and "bullshitting" (utter indifference to the truth). However, Frankfurt sustains a slight sense of aversion to his operational definition of "Truth" in the work, providing only tangential intersections of his interpretation in On Bullshit.
Regardless, Frankfurt’s assertions in On Bullshit have been widely proliferated, and can be applied to real-world, relevant scenarios that we all relate to, especially when it comes to statistics and the sales profession.
Frankfurt himself discusses the implications of “bullshitting” in the linked video, for those of you who would be interested in watching:
In 2006, Frankfurt published a follow-up to On Bullshit that helped clarify what exactly Frankfurt defined as the "Truth", and where exactly we derive the semantics of the word from. One of Frankfurt’s foremost assertions is that there isn’t necessarily a subjective truth. Anyone attempting to present a claim as truth with only personal belief or inflection as foundation for its veracity is simply misleading their audience, whether that was their intention or not.
Frankfurt characterizes truth as a force that relates directly to reality. Truth, itself, isn’t subject to human manipulation, but rather a synthesis of the facts about the world around us. In other words, we cannot decide what is or isn’t true. Interestingly enough, Frankfurt views truth as normative binding, or a limiting factor that constrains human thought.
Truth governs belief. Frankfurt was a stringent proponent of the belief that humans are obligated to care about and abide by the truth. This, to me, extrapolates an incredibly intriguing line of thought. Following the aforementioned logic, certain beliefs are either valid or invalid when pitted against the “Metric of Truth”. As Frankfurt says, humans are rational beings, and as such, we must strive to strictly adhere to the truth, as it transcends the epistemological bounds of our perception.
To me, truth transcends the human mind. It cannot be created or destroyed. For a moment I will speak apart from the work of Harry Frankfurt. The disparate nature of man is something that starkly contrasts with truth. Here, I’ve linked an interesting discussion forum, a great invention of the digital age, where individuals are discussing the concept of truth. The “Original Poster” presents a multi-faceted argument that demarcates illusions (human perception) from objective truth. He claims that truth “cannot be a mental construct”, as an objective truth cannot alter itself in the presence of different individuals. Under that logic, “the truth of the Japanese would differ greatly from the truth of the Americans.” That is, of course, a fallacious belief. However, as unsound as it is, it’s reflected among the differing cultures/nations of the world. These differences are deeply rooted in societies, and people demonstrate a nationalistic tendency to protect them.
Let’s say, theoretically, we take two antagonizing groups of people. Both groups assume a position that challenges the other and both groups believe their position to be the truth. Of course, both sides cannot possibly be telling the truth, but at the same time, neither side is telling a blatant lie. At least, not under the parameters set forth by Frankfurt.
But what is most interesting about this experiment, is that I cannot necessarily designate one of these groups as “bullshitters” either. A “bullshitter” has no regard for what is true or false. They are entirely indifferent to the truth. When superimposing that definition over the scenario I’ve presented, it doesn’t correlate with the nature of either group. Both groups exhibit a vehement confidence and genuine sincerity in their view.
What I can instead observe is what I can only describe as delusion. Delusion, in the proper environment, can pose more of a danger than both lying and “bullshitting.”
This thought ties into a discussion question that I posed to the class during my presentation on Frankfurt’s work.
“Do you agree with Frankfurt in that ‘bullshitters’ who are indifferent to truth could be just as dangerous as liars who actively conceal it?”
While I received a mixed variety of responses to this question, I can say one thing with absolute certainty. The bounds to which delusional people go to promote their faulty claims far exceed those of a liar or a “bullshitter”.
When this phenomenon is applied to the American Political Sphere, that’s one of the greatest examples of when delusion becomes dangerous. Politicians are among the greatest liars of our population. They often employ misleading rhetoric to elicit responses from their target audience, in our case, the American populace.
When a group as malleable as the American population is subjected to this, the concept of truth, as Frankfurt defines it, is rendered irrelevant. Truth is not a social construct, and to treat it as such, as politicians often do, opens doors to unsavory paths.
As I conclude, I’d like to draw attention to the image I’ve pasted on the bottom of this post. It’s a quote from Frankfurt and a reminder of how important it is to prioritize truth. It’s not uncommon for people to attempt to subvert reality, but reality will never shift. To be selfless in your endeavors is a calling for the recognition of truth. I encourage all who read this post to never stop caring about the truth. It’s definitely something that the world could use more of.
"truth transcends the human mind" - not if the pragmatists are right in defining truth as the best story about reality and the facts that we're capable of discerning. But maybe you just mean that the WHOLE truth will probably, practically always elude us. Still, we can always aspire to tell a better story. Looking back, it's hard to tell the history of our species without spotlighting a progressive direction to our storytelling... hence to our apprehension of truth.
ReplyDeleteI think the pragmatic perspective is compatible with Frankfurt's view. Truth is never just what feels appealing to ME, it has to accord with what it is better for US to believe... not just now, but on the whole and in the long run. The story we tell of truth must thus be the product of a collaborative effort, and must be infinitely revisable and correctible.