Following Judy's theme (hers was a funny, if not pointed post of two links), here are two more MUST reads for Barry. Everyone could benefit too I am sure.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691122946/ref=pd_sbs_b_2/104-1423200-8312725?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155 Editorial Reviews Amazon.com "One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit," Harry G. Frankfurt writes, in what must surely be the most eyebrow-raising opener in modern philosophical prose. "Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted." This compact little book, as pungent as the phenomenon it explores, attempts to articulate a theory of this contemporary scourge--what it is, what it does, and why there's so much of it. The result is entertaining and enlightening in almost equal measure. It can't be denied; part of the book's charm is the puerile pleasure of reading classic academic discourse punctuated at regular intervals by the word "bullshit." More pertinent is Frankfurt's focus on intentions--the practice of bullshit, rather than its end result. Bullshitting, as he notes, is not exactly lying, and bullshit remains bullshit whether it's true or false. The difference lies in the bullshitter's complete disregard for whether what he's saying corresponds to facts in the physical world: he "does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are." This may sound all too familiar to those of use who still live in the "reality-based community" and must deal with a world convulsed by those who do not. But Frankfurt leaves such political implications to his readers. Instead, he points to one source of bullshit's unprecedented expansion in recent years, the postmodern skepticism of objective truth in favor of sincerity, or as he defines it, staying true to subjective experience. But what makes us think that anything in our nature is more stable or inherent than what lies outside it? Thus, Frankfurt concludes, with an observation as tiny and perfect as the rest of this exquisite book, "sincerity itself is bullshit." --Mary Park 9 of 12 people found the following review helpful: The Best Kind of Humor, October 20, 2005 Reviewer: Becky - See all my reviews The kind of humor I like is deadly serious and absurd at the same time. That's the kind of humor you will find in "On B.....t". I read the first half of it while waiting for a friend to finish getting dressed. Looking at me quizzically while I chuckled and laughed out loud, he said he had found the book "boring" and "incomprehensible". Maybe you have to have an advanced degree in philosophy or linguistics or logic to appreciate it. I have had to write this kind of prose myself and so the very classical form of the little essay, as well as its precise and accurate language, applied to such an ignominious topic, is to me, in itself, a source of pure delight. A few months later, the friend gave the book to me and so I was able to read it all, over and over again one night before dropping off to sleep. I realized that despite what one might take as satire in the best of traditions, the author is highly serious in his examination and, what's more, it is a work of great beauty. Many other reviewers have given the substance of the book, so I will only add that it goes purely against the antinomian grain of American culture. A masterpiece. I'm going to buy 10 copies to give to friends over the holidays. 32 of 35 people found the following review helpful: Does no one get the joke?, December 27, 2005 Reviewer: cglambdin "cglambdin" (Kansas) - See all my reviews After reading the reviews in this forum it is clear that virtually no one gets the point of "On Bulls!#t." Harry Frankfurt's "On Bulls!#t," which is a popular essay that has been reprinted as this little book, is one, big, brilliant, joke. And that's why it's so darn good. Unfortunately, it seems that most all reviewers, even those who have sung the book's praises, simply don't get the joke. This book is multilayered. It "works" on two levels. To simply look at this book on its face is to miss its entire point! "On Bulls!#t" is not the pedantic analysis of the concept of "BS" that it superficially presents itself as being: it is much more. Those reviewers who slam the little book, saying it is itself nothing but "BS," are getter warmer, getting closer to "getting" the joke, but alas, none of the reviews I've read here quite hit the nail on the head. Taken on its face, Frankfurt's "On Bulls!#t" is a witty philosophical analysis of the concepts of "BS," and "humbug," how they differ, how "BS" differs from a lie, and why it is a greater enemy of the "truth" than a lie is. "On Bulls!#t" works on two levels because, while Frankfurt is setting up what some may take to be a 70-page shaggy-dog story, he actually does have a few astute and important things to say, as when he argues that one of the reasons why there is so much BS out there is that in democratic societies most people feel it's their DUTY to have an opinion about virtually everything, including a great many things they know little-to-nothing about. This is unfortunate, for when the claims in one's orations exceed their supported and valid knowledge on the subject, BS is the natural result. Also interesting is when Frankfurt comments on those who deny the possibility of valid "objective" knowledge about the external world, and how this also results in relativistic "BS." Aside from being interesting to read, some of Frankfurt's arguments are just plain laugh-out-loud funny, as when he explains how hot air is like excrement, or when he analyzes the famous interaction between Pascal and Wittgenstein. With all this said, let us now return to the main point of this review: that all interesting passages aside, "On Bulls!#t" is actually one big joke played on the reader, as revealed by the little book's brilliant last line (I won't give it away). Only if one gets the joke will one get the important and powerful point of the book. Nothing Frankfurt actually SAYS in "On Bulls!#t" should be taken too seriously. Though the book is on its face a philosophical analysis of the concept of "BS," as many reviewers here have noticed, while analyzing the word, Frankfurt doesn't provide us with much more than a bunch of it. In other words, the book itself IS A BUNCH OF BS. The important point that so many reviewers have missed is that HE'S DOING IT ON PURPOSE; he's feeding us BS to make his point. Some philosophers, such as Wittgenstein, think that it's much more powerful to SHOW someone your point rather than TELL them. That's what Frankfurt is doing. The very point of his brilliant essay "On Bulls!#t," IS THAT THE VERY KIND OF PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS ON DISPLAY IN THE BOOK IS NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF BS. Rather than explicitly arguing that this is the case, Frankfurt deceptively and cleverly makes his point by showing us, by mocking such philosophical analyses in general while meaninglessly expounding upon the concept of BS. In other words, he's feeding us a crock of what he considers BS while at the same time offering writing that many consider to be what philosophers do. That he doesn't totally take himself seriously in the book is telegraphed by several absurd passages, (such as when he mockingly and repeatedly [supposedly] quotes the Oxford English Dictionary--it shocks me that anyone would take him seriously when his only resource is a bloody dictionary!!) and if the reader hasn't picked up on this fact by the end of the essay, he throws on the last line, which should be a dead giveaway. Sadly, however, many people just don't seem to get his joke. 12 of 16 people found the following review helpful: Finally a perfect explanation!, December 28, 2005 Reviewer: Dagmar F. Pelzer (Miami, Florida) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME) Frankfurt is just plain good. His philosophical discourse is short and concise, as a philosophical piece should be. I loved his fine excursion into a possible translation from or into other languages or cultures. He is absolutely right, Bulls**t (how absurd to have to write it like this!) is a truly American word. It cannot be translated. It has a very unique meaning and feeling. It is what we are surrounded with and recognize, it is neither lie nor half-truth. It is whatever someone at the needed moment invents to make him- or herself interesting or important. How many of us have come away from meetings and have thought, oh, what bullsh**t. How many times have we listened to news reports and thought exactly the same thing. Yes, they do that in other languages too, but they don't have such a perfect word! Harry Frankfurt is a respected philosopher. I understand he wrote this short discourse on a fluke, not expecting publication of this kind. He uses the word as a noun, a verb, combined with other words, only in part. My favorite quote is one where he describes the person who does,the bullsh**tter: "He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose." Ah, we all know people like that! http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0071446435/ref=pd_sim_b_5/104-1423200-8312725?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155 Editorial Reviews The Guardian "He ruthlessly exposes logical flaws and sheer nonsense. . . in likably angry and witty style." Review The Times : "[Whyte] whets a long knife of ultra-rationalism on the cold stone of logic, and death by a thousand cuts is inflicted on prejudice, statistics, morality, religion, weasel words, and seductive sirens such as politicians, New Agers, advertising executives, and, of course, journalists who expect you to be persuaded by anything other than facts." The Guardian : "He ruthlessly exposes logical flaws and sheer nonsense. . . in likably angry and witty style." 339 of 347 people found the following review helpful: Read it and give it to everyone you know, October 28, 2004 Reviewer: Gulley Jimson (Bethesda, MD) - See all my reviews This book deserves the widest possible exposure in America, especially so close to the election, because it an excellent primer on how to guard yourself against the faulty reasoning that governs so much modern political discourse - and avoid adopting it yourself. I first heard about the book because one of its points was mentioned in an essay. The point was basically that just because someone has a motive to hold a certain position doesn't necessarily mean that the position is false. This seemed pretty obvious, but as I turned to the media I was amazed at how often politicians use this method, and how easily I had accepted their claims if they lined up with my political preferences. Any damaging report against either side, for example, would frequently be denounced as a "partisan" attack, with occasional documentation of how the person who presented the report was tied to one party or another, as if this were the issue at hand. No attempt was made to address whether the report was true or not, the assumption being that exposing a bias - a motive for the potentially false information - was conclusive evidence. Some of the things Whyte discussed in the book - for example, sample bias in statistics - are going to be familiar to many people, but just as frequently he comes up with something that all of us have probably used in an argument. For example, in the chapter "begging the question," he quotes a common pro-choice argument: "If you believe abortion is wrong, that's fine, don't abort your pregnancies. But show tolerance toward others who don't share your beliefs." He points out that this ignores that actual position of anti-abortionists, that abortion is murder, morally equivalent to killing a live human being. The argument for tolerance takes for granted that the fetus is not really a person, and that therefore it should be possible for everyone to only be concerned with their own behavior. But as Whyte points out, anyone that actually wishes to confront the issue will have to address the question of whether the fetus is a human being. So many pleas for tolerance between certain feuding religions, he points out, have the same problem, because they skirt the genuine issue that is giving rise to the outrage - that, by the tenets of some religions, only one of them can be true. I suspect Whyte's positions on religion will offend the most readers. He has no sympathy for familiar arguments about the un-knowable nature of god, or that the intricacy of life on earth necessarily implies a god (already taken apart by Hume in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion); he also presents a simple and conclusive refutation of Pascal's gambit that I've never come across before. Luckily, he does not exhibit the most annoying characteristic of many rationalists, smugness; instead, he seems to have a deep desire to get at truth, which I think we are more in need of today than any amount of vague piety. The book will only take a couple of days to read, and is very clearly written. I remember an article that dealt with similar material that I read in high school, forgotten now because it ended up as an exercise in memorizing the Latin names of various fallacies. Whyte is conscientious about calling things by their common names. Buy the book, give it to your friends, and try to get at the bottom of why you believe what you do (and whether you still should). 162 of 184 people found the following review helpful: An Excellent Summary Despite Its Tone, March 31, 2005 Reviewer: Timothy Haugh (New York, NY United States) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER) (REAL NAME) There is much about this book that I like very much. Mr. White's ability to see the logical flaws in an argument is impressive and there are few things that would benefit this world more than if more people had the ability to see if they were being misled by their politicians, pundits and religious leaders. A serious reader of this book would certainly gain more tools in this difficult task. On the other hand, in my opinion this book does have one weakness: its dismissive tone. There is a subtle air of superiority that Mr. White projects in his prose that I find disheartening. Though he pays lip service to the fact that it can be very difficult to spot certain logical fallacies, particularly as we are bombarded by opinions disguised as fact 24 hours a day through the media, he does not seem very sympathetic the fact that many people do try their best to work there way through the morass of opinions despite being hampered by media overkill, prominent positions demanding action, their own strongly held opinions and the lack of a prestigious education. Mr. White has much to teach but it is difficult to swallow when the student is made to feel small and foolish. I am particularly disappointed by Mr. White's dismissiveness towards religion. Though I agree completely with his assertion that religious tenets (like the existence of God, etc.) cannot be proved logically and that many religious leaders misuse logic severely, I do not agree that this is sufficient to dismiss religious experience out of hand. Granted, I am a person of religious belief, but I am also a mathematician and I would argue that there are things that are true that cannot be proved. But I'm sure Mr. White, chuckling sadly and looking down his nose at me, would disagree. Still, this does not change my opinion that this is a very powerful book that should be widely read. Much of his analysis--begging the question, coincidence, statistical analysis--I have seen expounded upon more widely in other books but Mr. White's book is concise and ranges much more widely. Anyone trying to get a handle on our world today would benefit from reading it. Customer Reviews Average Customer Review: Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers. Some good training in logic, but an unfortunate tone, April 9, 2006 Reviewer: L. S. Jaszczak "servant of the secret fire" - See all my reviews (REAL NAME) This short book provides a good guide to a lot of the nonsense that is spewed at us every day by people who want to persuade us to believe them, but are either too lazy or unprepared to have a good argument or are just plain WRONG. Whyte provides examples of everything from the argument from authority ("Because I [God, the experts, etc.] said so!") to the jargon of management consultants ("intellectual capital leverage reveals significant upward potential moving forward") and sloppy thinking (correlation equals causality). I would think that the average person (including myself) can learn a lot from him about listening more carefully to what people are telling us and exposing their flaws in logic. However, as other reviewers have noted, Whyte does project an aura of superiority that many will find annoying. I have a pretty good idea what his political biases are (which I should not be able to figure out if he is indeed perfectly logical), and his attitude towards religion (contemptuous dismissiveness) is not going to win him any friends among the 90-some percent of Americans who believe in God. I would think he could adopt a more conciliatory tone in that area, but that may not go with his stance of ruthless honesty. I believe that this book is a "translation" from British English, and I could wish that he had also "translated" at least some of his examples. I particularly found one dealing with cricket to be confusing, although after much head-scratching I did manage to figure it out. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
