Usually the victim is caught up in a powerful emotion—wonder, fear, greed, grief.
I wonder how we might apply to this idea to the way in which baloney media is being treated these days. I feel like there might be more to it than a series of emotional lapses. Is there a chance it might actually be harder to tell the difference (or know which sources to trust)? And additionally, the relatively young digital landscape certainly poses a challenge to users, both young and old.
ad hominem—Latin for “to the man,” attacking the arguer and not the argument
A distinction that could use recirculating today, I think.
Tell us. Instead, all we are offered are banal homilies.
For argument's sake, I'm not sure all of this information would have been known by one single member of a 35,000yr old society.
sincerity itself is bullshit
I don't disagree... But I'm feeling fairly more certain that on some level this was satire. Or maybe I just don't like the style!
but that the motive guiding andcontrolling it is unconcerned with how the things about which hespeaks truly are.
I like that the motive being left undefined here.
reader
Lying is the intent to deceive, meanwhile, I've heard a lot of bullshit that believed it was truth, which doesn't always make it a personal affront. Or perhaps they're still trying to play with some of the rules of the game, instead of just refuting them the way lying does?
isphony
"phony" has been the best word he's brought in. Fake, cheap, imitative. It might still work, but there's no getting away from the varied intention.
but how it was made
And WHY it was made. We can't forget about the intention.
serve
Again, seems like this definition is throwing a wide net and not leaving a ton of room for language that does anything other than directly communicate a point. Which we can all agree, just isn't true.
believes unequivocally to be true
I would disagree with this. It seems as though it's more likely you can speak and "adventure" without being taken more seriously than you want to be taken on the subject, especially if you believe something to be unequivocally true.
It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth —this indifference to how things really are — that I regard as of theessence of bullshit.
So in other words: The intention of the speech act is completely dissociated with reality, truth, and the very notion of language as a tool for communicating the truth, first and foremost. I don't necessarily disagree, but I'm hoping he'll narrow the parameters here, because there's a whole lot of things that can fall into this category. Poetry, fiction, my beloved science fiction and fantasy novels, to name a few.
excessively particul
And particularly excessive! Which is the problem Wittgenstein had with her comment.
The pertinentmode of laxity
Not laxity ("lack of strictness or care") alone, but maybe a different value system? A different agenda? A laxity around the commonly understood intentions of making a cupboard, for example?
think of him.
Similar to mawaters comment above, I feel like there's a bit of a leap being taken here, while other rhetorical motives are being ignored. I'm not really buying the 'self-impression' motive. He may believe what he is saying, or he may not, but what does not change is the position from which he is speaking, and the audience he is speaking to. I feel as though there is definitely room in between those two objective points to recognize the humbuggery-- that being a statement and a motive which we cannot fully discern, yet one we are certain holds an ulterior agenda-- and to come up with a number of reasons as to the intentions of the orator.
He would be lying only ifit were his intention to bring about in his audience beliefs whichhe himself regards as false, concerning such matters as whetherour country is great, whether it is blessed, whether the Foundershad divine guidance, and whether what they did was in fact tocreate a new beginning for mankind.
Summary: In order to lie, there needs to be an awareness of some kind of truth. I say "some kind of truth" because I don't want to eliminate personal truths/beliefs.
I think we're getting close to the realm of alternative facts!
I have not consulteddictionaries in languages other than English, because I do notknow the words for bullshit or bull in any other language.
I am starting to wonder if this article is satire?