|
Tuesday, 23 January 2007 16:19 |
| | David Forbes |
Forget all those dusty old tomes, this is philosophic discourse!
In a tiny, incendiary little volume, "On Bull---t" (Princeton University Press, 80 pp. $9.95), philosophy professor Harry G. Frankfurt tackles an extremely relevant topic with considerable intellect. Read this. I repeat that and I mean it. This single tiny volume is worth more than many a college courseës worth of philosophical instruction out there.
Yeah, thereës no dashes in the actual title, but for decencyës sake or some such, the paper needs them, so there it is. Dear reader, I trust you can fill in the blank. If you canët, well, I pity you.
Frankfurt,
a professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton, has had a long and
distinguished career. Heës written on Descartesë rationalism and free
will and is even known within his field for a thought-experiment
technique ("Frankfurt counterexamples").
Apparently,
however, that was not enough. He decided to dust off and tinker with
his 1985 essay, also conveniently titled "On Bull---t" and publish it
in a slim, serious-looking volume. He has very recently followed up
with a slightly larger volume "On Tr--h" (just kidding, thereës no
dashes in the title of that one either), which after this, Iëm looking
forward to reading.
Frankfurt begins
with one of the hardest-hitting lines Iëve seen in awhile ÇƒÓ "One of the
most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bull---t."
He doesnët stop
there. What follows takes apart the concept of "bull---t," what people
mean when they say it, how itës different from good, old-fashioned
lying and why there is so much of it.
While the sheer
grin-inducing delight of reading well-written academic prose punctuated
by frequent uses of the word "bull---t" is part of the bookës appeal,
itës also very, very good.
This is exactly
what philosophy is supposed to be about. Frankfurt takes something very
common, both in usage and concept, and proceeds to dissect exactly what
makes it tick. In the process he touches on our thought processes,
preconceptions and the nature of truth itself.
He does this
without becoming bogged down in jargon or getting his mind (and more
importantly, the readerës) tangled in knots. On top of all that, he
puts it in an easy, readable format, making it cheap and widely
accessible.
If every
philosophy professor out there with a message worth anything were to do
the same, maybe debates over ideas would have more of a place in our
society. Instead, it seems, most of them would rather complain about it
or talk mostly to their peers. Thatës bull---t.
One interesting
facet of Frankfurtës argument is how bull---t in fact occupies a less
lofty moral plane than lying. After all, he points out ÇƒÓ a liar knows
the truth. They acknowledge it. In fact, the liar must take care to
plan around it. Those spouting bull---t, on the other hand, even though
some of their bull---t may happen to be true, do so without regard for
whether any of it is actually true or not. The resulting breakdown of
discourse is a problem.
Not every step
along the way is perfect, of course, even in a book this tight and this
good. Frankfurt probably spends a little too much time on an example of
bull---t involving notorious philosophic curmudgeon Ludwig
Wittgenstein. Still, compared to most philosophical pieces, itës quite
brief.
As for why
thereës so much of the title subject today, Frankfurt hits the bullës
eye on that too. He lays out reasons both innocuous and not.
In todayës
society, people are expected to have opinions on more matters, all the
time, leading to more of them simply trying to bull---t their way
through a conversation instead of admitting to ignorance on a
particular topic.
Then thereës
postmodernism, a philosophical school that hasnët gotten half the
public beating it deserves, and to which Frankfurt delivers a short but
brutal blow. The postmodernist denial of objective truth is, in his
view, a key culprit behind the exponential explosion of bull---t in our
culture, placing sincerity ("itself bull---t," he quips) of belief in
oneës subjective view over the importance of what actually takes place.
Ironically for
the updated version of an essay mostly written in 1985, Frankfurt could
have stroked every line of this yesterday. Itës that relevant and that
important. I say again ÇƒÓ read it.
ï
David Forbes, who writes book reviews and covers news for the Daily Planet, may be contacted at marauderAVL-at-hotmail.com.
|
|
|
