Does anyone know any good essays to teach along with Harry Frankfurt's On Bullshit, e.g., essays that make further distinction of kinds of bullshit or uses of bullshit etc.?
Sam and Paul Bloom mentioned the American philosopher Harry Frankfurt and his book on WU #56.
An interview On Bullshit
Interview and accompanying video segment On Bullshit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D9Y-1Jcov4
Harry Frankfurt's 'On Bullshit' essay (2005) [PDF] (https://out.reddit.com/t3_3empi3?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stoa.org.uk%2Ftopics%2Fbullshit%2Fpdf%2Fon-bullshit.pdf&token=AQAAtlasWbL_fEmvvFDySMpceS4dEjqJyZ-8xqD_fAcK7K3BlRAb&app_name=reddit.com) download.
And an Amazon link to the follow up book, 'On Truth' (2006) which is also on Sam's recommended non-fiction list. I'm listening to the audiobook via Audible for those interested.
From the same work:
“Telling a lie is an act with a sharp focus. It is designed to insert a particular falsehood at a particular point in a set or system of beliefs, in order to have that point occupied by the truth. This requires a degree of craftsmanship, in which the teller of the lie submits to objective constraints imposed by what he takes to be the truth. The liar is inescapably concerned with truth-values. In order to invent a lie at all, he must think he knows what is true. And in order to invent an effective lie, he must design his falsehood under the guidance of that truth.
On the other hand, a person who takes to bullshit his way through has much more freedom. His focus is panoramic rather than particular. He does not limit himself to inserting a certain falsehood at a specific point, and thus he is not constrained by the truths surrounding that point or intersecting it. He is prepared, so far as is required, to fake the context as well. This freedom from the constraints to which the liar must submit does not necessarily mean, of course, that his task is easier than the task of the liar. But the mode of creativity upon which it relies is less analytical and less deliberative than that which is mobilized in lying. It is more expansive and independent, with more spacious opportunities for improvisation, color and imaginative play. This is less a matter of craft than of art. Hence the familiar notion of the 'bullshit artist'.”
John who is tempted to cheat on his English test, deliberates on the matter and identified with the second order desire to cheat. However, unbeknownst to John, he has been hypnotized by a clear psychologist to have a desire to cheat, so he cannot help willing as he does.
Would you say that John acts freely? How might Frankfurt defend his theory from this example?
Or do I have a misunderstanding of the aforementioned writers?
Source: "On Bullshit" (2005)
