21 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
21 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
||
|
|
title: '<cite class="book">On Bullshit</cite>'
|
||
|
|
author: Ben
|
||
|
|
type: quotes
|
||
|
|
date: 2020-07-11T11:48:54+00:00
|
||
|
|
url: /quotes/on-bullshit/
|
||
|
|
categories:
|
||
|
|
- Uncategorised
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
<q>…why does it strike him that way [as bullshit]? It does so, I believe, because he perceives what Pascal says as being—roughly speaking, for now—unconnected to a concern with the truth. Her statement is not germane to the enterprise of describing reality.</q>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<q>He reacts as though he perceives her to be speaking about her feeling thoughtlessly, without conscientious attention to the relevant facts. Her statement is not <q>wrought with greatest care.</q> She makes it without bothering to take into account at all the question of its accuracy.</q>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<q>The point that troubles Wittgenstein is manifestly not that Pascal has made a mistake in her description of how she feels. Nor is it even that she has made a careless mistake. Her laxity, or her lack of care, is not a matter of having permitted an error to slip into her speech on account of some inadvertent or momentarily negligent lapse in the attention she was devoting to getting things right. The point is rather that, so far as Wittgenstein can see, Pascal offers a description of a certain state of affairs without genuinely submitting to the constraints which the endeavor to provide an accurate representation of reality imposes. Her fault is not that she fails to get things right, but that she is not even trying.</q>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<q>What tends to go on in a bull session is that the participants try out various thoughts and attitudes in order to see how it feels to hear themselves saying such things and in order to discover how others respond, without it being assumed that they are committed to what they say: It is understood by everyone in a bull session that the statements people make to not necessarily reveal what they really believe or how they really feel. The main point is to make possible a high level of candor and an experimental or adventuresome approach to the subjects under discussion.</q>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<q>These <q>anti-realist</q> 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. One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of <em>correctness</em> to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of <em>sincerity</em>. Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of himself.</q>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<q>…there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgement that it is the truth about himself that is the 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. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit.</q>
|