David Benatar, author of 'Very Practical Ethics,' joins philosopher Rebecca Tuvel to dissect the nature of bullshit. They explore whether bullshitters are aware of their deceit and categorize forms of bullshit found in academia and daily life. The duo discusses the ethics of calling out dishonesty, the tragedy of collective nonsense, and the tension between personal and social responsibility. They also delve into the role of satire and language in highlighting bullshit and strategies for navigating today's misinformation landscape.
David Benatar highlights the distinction between bullshit and lying, emphasizing that bullshit neglects factuality while lying involves intentional deceit.
The podcast critiques the prevalence of convoluted language in academia, which obscures meaning and diminishes the quality of discourse and understanding.
Navigating the ethics of calling out bullshit requires caution, as challenging misleading narratives can carry personal risks and necessitate thoughtful engagement.
Deep dives
Defining Bullshit
Bullshit is characterized by a disregard for truth and authenticity. David Benatar emphasizes that distinguishing between bullshit and lying is essential, as the former lacks concern for factuality. Philosophers like Harry Frankfurt note that bullshitting involves communication that does not prioritize truthfulness, while G.A. Cohen suggests that academic jargon may fall into a category of ‘unclarifiable unclarity’. The discussion indicates that understanding the nature of bullshit is crucial before addressing its ethical implications.
Consequences of Bullshitting in Academia
The podcast addresses the prevalence of bullshit in academic circles, particularly through convoluted language that obscures meaning. This 'flowery' communication can lead to a situation where the speaker is indifferent to clarity and truth, impacting the quality of discourse. Judith Butler's dense academic writing exemplifies this phenomenon, highlighting the challenge of asserting genuine knowledge in postmodern thought. The implications of this trend can create environments where truth becomes secondary to the impression one creates.
Real-World Examples of Bullshit
The episode reinforces that bullshit isn't limited to philosophical discussions; it permeates everyday media and political discourse. An example given involves a New York Times article that presents misleading claims regarding Dr. Kamala Harris's mother’s treatment of experimental mice, which insults journalistic integrity. Such misleading reporting illustrates the broader theme of media echo chambers, where narratives supersede facts, profoundly influencing public perception. This aligns with the notion that many individuals prioritize personal or political agendas over factual accuracy.
Navigating and Calling Out Bullshit
The conversation explores the complexities of calling out bullshit, emphasizing the need for judiciousness in such situations. One approach is to ask probing questions rather than outright accusations, allowing for clarification and deeper understanding. The relationship between social accountability and the fear of repercussions is also discussed, noting that speaking out against bullshit can carry significant personal costs. Thus, it becomes prudent for individuals to assess the weight of their obligations against the potential risks of challenging pervasive bullshit.
The Tragedy of the Bullshit Commons
Benatar introduces the 'tragedy of the bullshit commons,' which describes the collective consequences when individuals indulge in bullshitting. Just as overuse of common resources results in depletion, pervasive bullshit leads to a deterioration of shared truth and discourse. The discussion extends to the roles of tenured academics, who are seen to possess a greater responsibility to combat bullshit due to their secure positions. This dynamic illustrates the ethical dilemma faced when weighing personal rewards against the societal obligation to seek truth and transparency.