“…As I have suggested, Cohenʼs criticism of Frankfurtʼs account of bullshit as being tied to the bullshitterʼs state of mind may not be completely vindicated because Cohen himself also hones in on “aiming at obscurity in the production of philosophical bullshit” (p. 335), indicating that Cohen does not altogether dispense with the “state of mind” characteristic. Ivanković (2016: 535) seems to insinuate that Cohen does dispense with it, but that would indicate a premature leap to a conclusion. It seems appropriate to say, therefore, that Cohen, who did not foresee the technical use of obscurantism in philosophy, nevertheless gestured towards claims that would prove relevant to it.…”
Section: The Unity and The Separation Viewsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One position, which I refer to as the unity view , treats bullshit and obscurantism more or less generally as two sides of the same coin that do not need to be separated. The scholars who hold this view (Cohen, 2002, p. 335; Ivanković, 2016, p. 543; Dieguez, 2018, p. 168) may not have set out to propagate the unity view, but their positions actually commit them to it, especially because they disagree out‐and‐out with the other view, namely, the separation view . The separation view has been posited by Buekens and Boudry (2015), but they did not argue for it.…”
Section: The Unity and The Separation Viewsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although Cohen presented obscurity as a feature of a finished act of bullshitting, Ivanković treats obscurantism as an activity involving the bullshitter, the bullshittee, and bullshit (Ivanković, 2016, p. 538). There are a number of similarities between Cohenʼs and Ivankovićʼs accounts, but there are hardly any smooth overlaps.…”
Section: The Unity and The Separation Viewsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a matter of fact, surveys and case studies are helpful in showing that splitting the concepts, insofar as pseudo‐profound bullshit has close links with obscurantism, would contribute to an understanding of their distinctions. His argument that non‐deliberateness is the condition for being a non‐intentional producer (distributer) of obscurities would seem unsustainable when he says that even the distributer of obscurities can be blameworthy simply by presenting a matter carelessly (Ivanković, 2016, p. 538, 539). Careless presentation means presenting something without using the principle of clarity, a principle which, despite being hard to determine, seems to burden one who is but a distributer.…”
Section: The Unity and The Separation Viewsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This paper will afford greater attention to the latter phenomenon which as yet is not as developed as the former in the literature. In this regard, there are two positions in the literature: first, the unity view , which sees bullshit and obscurantism as inextricably connected either because obscurantism usually results in bullshit (Cohen, 2002) or because the obscure specimen is reducible to bullshit (Ivanković, 2016; Dieguez, 2018); second, the separation view , which sees bullshit and obscurantism as obviously related but distinct phenomena (Buekens and Boudry, 2015). Focusing on this relationship between bullshit and obscurantism, I defend the view that both phenomena should be kept distinct for conceptual reasons.…”
This paper holds the view that although bullshit and obscurantism are obviously related phenomena, they should be kept distinct for conceptual reasons. It shows that whereas phenomena of bullshit tend to concentrate on speech acts and a violation of the expectations of relevance therein, obscurantism betrays an indirect move to confound while promising deep content. After an overview of studies on bullshit and a look at the different characteristics and types of obscurantism, this paper investigates why readers retain interest in reading obscure texts. Interpretive charity, which is one of the reasons for this sustained interest, is found to be unsuccessful in making sense of obscurantism. Obscurantism is thus seen to be a vice more cryptic and systematic than bullshit.
“…As I have suggested, Cohenʼs criticism of Frankfurtʼs account of bullshit as being tied to the bullshitterʼs state of mind may not be completely vindicated because Cohen himself also hones in on “aiming at obscurity in the production of philosophical bullshit” (p. 335), indicating that Cohen does not altogether dispense with the “state of mind” characteristic. Ivanković (2016: 535) seems to insinuate that Cohen does dispense with it, but that would indicate a premature leap to a conclusion. It seems appropriate to say, therefore, that Cohen, who did not foresee the technical use of obscurantism in philosophy, nevertheless gestured towards claims that would prove relevant to it.…”
Section: The Unity and The Separation Viewsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One position, which I refer to as the unity view , treats bullshit and obscurantism more or less generally as two sides of the same coin that do not need to be separated. The scholars who hold this view (Cohen, 2002, p. 335; Ivanković, 2016, p. 543; Dieguez, 2018, p. 168) may not have set out to propagate the unity view, but their positions actually commit them to it, especially because they disagree out‐and‐out with the other view, namely, the separation view . The separation view has been posited by Buekens and Boudry (2015), but they did not argue for it.…”
Section: The Unity and The Separation Viewsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although Cohen presented obscurity as a feature of a finished act of bullshitting, Ivanković treats obscurantism as an activity involving the bullshitter, the bullshittee, and bullshit (Ivanković, 2016, p. 538). There are a number of similarities between Cohenʼs and Ivankovićʼs accounts, but there are hardly any smooth overlaps.…”
Section: The Unity and The Separation Viewsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a matter of fact, surveys and case studies are helpful in showing that splitting the concepts, insofar as pseudo‐profound bullshit has close links with obscurantism, would contribute to an understanding of their distinctions. His argument that non‐deliberateness is the condition for being a non‐intentional producer (distributer) of obscurities would seem unsustainable when he says that even the distributer of obscurities can be blameworthy simply by presenting a matter carelessly (Ivanković, 2016, p. 538, 539). Careless presentation means presenting something without using the principle of clarity, a principle which, despite being hard to determine, seems to burden one who is but a distributer.…”
Section: The Unity and The Separation Viewsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This paper will afford greater attention to the latter phenomenon which as yet is not as developed as the former in the literature. In this regard, there are two positions in the literature: first, the unity view , which sees bullshit and obscurantism as inextricably connected either because obscurantism usually results in bullshit (Cohen, 2002) or because the obscure specimen is reducible to bullshit (Ivanković, 2016; Dieguez, 2018); second, the separation view , which sees bullshit and obscurantism as obviously related but distinct phenomena (Buekens and Boudry, 2015). Focusing on this relationship between bullshit and obscurantism, I defend the view that both phenomena should be kept distinct for conceptual reasons.…”
This paper holds the view that although bullshit and obscurantism are obviously related phenomena, they should be kept distinct for conceptual reasons. It shows that whereas phenomena of bullshit tend to concentrate on speech acts and a violation of the expectations of relevance therein, obscurantism betrays an indirect move to confound while promising deep content. After an overview of studies on bullshit and a look at the different characteristics and types of obscurantism, this paper investigates why readers retain interest in reading obscure texts. Interpretive charity, which is one of the reasons for this sustained interest, is found to be unsuccessful in making sense of obscurantism. Obscurantism is thus seen to be a vice more cryptic and systematic than bullshit.
Politics is full of people who don't care about the facts. Still, while not caring about the facts, they are often concerned to present themselves as caring about them. Politics, in other words, is full of bullshitters. But why? In this paper I develop an incentives-based analysis of bullshit in politics, arguing that it is often a rational response to the incentives facing different groups of agents. In a slogan: bullshit in politics pays, sometimes literally. After first outlining an account of bullshit, I discuss the incentives driving three different groups of agents to bullshit: politicians, the media, and voters. I then examine several existing proposals to combat bullshit in politics, arguing that each will fail because they ignore the relevant underlying incentives. I conclude somewhat pessimistically that a certain amount of bullshit in politics is inevitable.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.