Bull

I misquoted Harry Frankfurt's On Bullshit yesterday, and out of context, too. To be fair, I didn't have the book in front of me; its final line, or my approximation of it, simply got stuck in my head. Here, then, is its background. He writes:

The contemporary proliferation of bullshit also has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality, and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These "antirealist" doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective inquiry.

Basically, he's saying that people have stopped thinking critically, and that this makes people susceptible to the idea that the world is too mysterious even to try to understand. Think of how the creationists push "teaching to the controversy" regarding the origin of species when there is no scientific controversy about evolution, sowing doubt, in effect, in empirical reasoning.

He continues:

One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity. Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of himself. It is as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must therefore try instead to be true to himself.

This may be a straw-man argument. I'm not sure I follow (or agree) that disbelief in determinate truth in the external world would lead someone to solidify their self-construct. On the other hand, George Bush has styled himself "the Decider," and his self-construct seems indestructible, even when the world he acts upon is objectively de-structible. Replace the word "sincerity" with Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" and the passage makes more sense.

But it is preposterous to imagine that we ourselves are determinate, and hence susceptible both to correct and to incorrect descriptions, while supposing that the ascription of determinacy to anything else has been exposed as a mistake. As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them.

If we can't understand the world around us, he says, how can we expect to know ourselves?

Moreover, there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial—notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things.

Selves are slippery fishes, he says. And this is where the promises of the motivational gurus to provide us with the keys to our self-actualization fail. The promises might sound convincing, buoyed as they are by our individual need to have those keys open our doors (okay, now I've mixed the metaphors of buoyant fish and locked entryways—nice). Which is not to say that the words of any guru, heard by a self at the right moment, might not trigger an actual bout of growth. What he's saying is that self knowledge is more difficult than other forms of knowledge, and someone who promises otherwise is probably bullshitting.

This leads to his (much qualified) punch line, which I had earlier misquoted:

And insofar as this the case, sincerity itself is bullshit.

Perhaps this is also bullshit. The whole essay can't help resembling its topic to some degree, and this concluding line packs such a neat wallop that he just ended the argument right there.

Comments

[Michael J.]

> And this is where the promises of the motivational gurus to provide us with the keys to our self-actualization fail. [...] What he's saying is that self knowledge is more difficult than other forms of knowledge, and someone who promises otherwise is probably bullshitting.

Fail? Promises otherwise? What is your evidence of this?

My experience consists of an undergraduate degree in psychology, a decade of Jungian therapy, several learning vacations at Omega Institute, approximately eight feet of my library devoted to books on psychology, sociology, anthropology, and self-development, and about ten years of listening to so-called "motivational" audio programs and DVDs. And, worth noting, marriage and divorce are quite a teaching moment too. Based on all that, I'd say that these authors and "gurus" promise that it will be hard, a life-long effort, but worth it, whether you "succeed" or not.

Judgementalism is one step away from fundamentalism. Your observations of the world may indeed fit your construction of reality, though I've stepped into that pond and it has provided a refreshing splash. Obviously, YMMV.

But hey, two excellent posts in two days. Maybe this "motivational" stuff is good for *something.*

[Doug]

Thanks for the link to Harry Frankfurt. He sounds sensible.

I'm perched on a fence rail, looking in at a college, as I imagine you are. Academia is full of smart people who have come to the conclusion that we cannot have reliable access to an objective reality. Given their unconscious premises about how to perceive reality and the selection and indoctrination processes that reinforce these, it is the only logical conclusion. At least they are true to their principles. And loyal to their tribe. Less laudable is the feeling that they've got an investment to protect.

It does open up a gap for them in determining what's worth pursuing. Within academia there are recognized ways of stuffing the gap during those awkward years before the corpse stiffens completely. Outside of academia it seems to be a free-for-all for people willing to stuff your gap for their own stimulation, as well as co-operative co-stuffers, as it were.

If only for self-protection, it seems worthwhile to hold open the notion that there may be something beyond subjective truth, and that perceiving it is probably going to involve becoming aware of current misperceptions, not just attaching attractive additions to the current base. I think that is a good working stance for sincerity until something better becomes possible.

[Kat]

"there is no scientific controversy about evolution"...are you saying that all scientists accept the theory of evolution as fully proven fact?

[hilllady]

Hey there Mr. J,
You're right; rather than "fail" I should have said "rake in the big bucks." It's not psychology or self-improvement I'm allergic to, it's mass consumption packaging of self-improvement, and the snake-oil salesman tone. Which is not to say that motivational gurus who appeal to a mass market are all snake-oil salesmen (or even that snake oil doesn't do what it purports to do--actually, what does snake oil purport to do?). However, the technique gives me hives, and I think Frankfurt helped articulate why.

(By the way, thanks for bearing with these posts, which might have the appearance of criticizing your personal choices. That's not my intent: as your friend, I'm glad you're engaged in personal growth. I'm glad you walked on fire. Hell, I'm glad I get to write that sentence, because it is a pretty cool thing to say. Also that it triggered this posting spurt. I wish you would post more, too! And thanks for telling good stories at lunch; they were better than the sandwich, by far.)

Doug: Yes, that old fence rail! My general feeling is: my ignorance is vast, and growing in disproportion to my knowledge; I am small relative to the universe; and mysteries are uncountable and don't need to be manufactured, except for entertainment's sake.

Kat: Yes, all reputable scientists accept the theory of evolution.

More on all of this I hope. Glad PS still has some readers!

[Kat]

" all reputable scientists accept the theory of evolution. " Forgive my cheekiness, but that sounds like a circular argument to me ;)

I do know of at least one reputable scientist who hasn't accepted the theory of evolution; his name is Cameron Butt, and he is highly respected environmental geophysicist based here in Canada. We've had many discussions about the evolution controversy.

[Weeble]

Oh boy, I think I will leave the evolution thread alone. Don't want to launch into a treatise in support of it right now.

Your post resonated with me given some recent conversations I've had with people about various subjects. What I find troubling is the lack of rational thought I'm encountering on a regular basis. In cases where I am debating as issue with someone, I've had more than one individual recently pull the faith-based ejection handle when I've basically backed them into a corner with a logically constructed argument. Supposedly I just do not have the requisite amount of faith or have constrained my thinking with the scientific method. Somehow they never seem to help clarify the problem I've stumbled into with my chosen method of reasoning.

I wonder if there is an innate human bias to construct answers to certain questions when there is really no answer we can reasonably defend. I personally am ok with saying I don't understand and continually working toward a better understanding, if that is even possible. But many don't seem to fit into that category.

Really enjoying your posts! Glad to see you back online writing more regularly! Cheers...

[Kat]

I'm probably the minority voice here, so I hope no one minds me adding my ten cents...

For a while now I've been intrigued by this matter of logic versus faith. I'm not sure why these two are seen as in conflict, both in some secular and some Christian circles. Maybe it's partly due to a rehashing of the old Mind versus the Heart, Emotion versus Reason debate. To address your point, Weeble, I personally would not be able to believe in God if it depended on rejecting logic. My position is that since He made us rational beings, He therefore intends us to use that intellect to analyse and make sense out of our world.

That being said, I'm also keenly aware that there are limits to current human knowledge, and there is always the possibility of error. This can be seen in the way certain previously accepted scientific theories are now being revised or dismissed. I think this is an important consideration as well, and I really respect those in the scientific community who acknowledge this.

[Michael J.]

That's my main beef with facts: They keep changing. One day the earth is flat, the next day it is round. One day the earth is at the center of the solar system, the next day we orbit the sun. One day the atom is the smallest unit of matter, the next day we have quarks and neutrinos all sorts of other weird bits.

I'd be a lot more comfortable with objective reality if it didn't keep changing all the time!