Tag: philosophy

Proud student earns bachelor’s degree in copy and paste, has bright future

After struggling for four seemingly Sisyphean years at an accredited university, Christina Moran, 26, received her long-awaited B.S. in Copy and Paste. “At first, I was so scared. My typing speed was 24 words per minute and I often forgot to save my work, and I thought I’d never make it. But here I am with my snazzy degree, and my parents must be so proud. I love you, Mom and Dad!”

According to Dr. Dave Yew, who works at an accredited university somewhere in Asia, the field of copying and pasting has grown exponentially in the past two decades, and its importance in the ever-changing world that we live in cannot be disputed. “The advent of the laptop has afforded all of us beautiful opportunities to help the world. Back then, we had typewriters. But now, with our cutting-edge technology, we can really help to disseminate important information across the globe by putting into practice the binary computational theory of C.T.R.L.C. and C.T.R.L.V. as well as some abstruse principles of L.O.L. language.”

A beaming Christina adds that “Dr. Yew is the best teacher ever. Seriously, he really cares about teaching. First, whatever he says is right. Second, we can never be smarter than him. And he lets us know that. Isn’t he just brilliant?”

By all accounts, Christina has a long and exciting life ahead of her. Armed with expert knowledge of Microsoft Word and PowerPoint, Christina plans to take the world by storm by any means necessary.

Dr. Yew, who has two PhDs in Copy and Paste, will be teaching a course on the History of Western Art and another on Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy. Ever indefatigable and brimming with scholarship, he does not plan to retire any time soon.

Student too cool to admit she gives a shit

Confessing to reporters that she really, definitely gives a flying shit about her professor’s lecture, Ellen Degenerate, 21, insists on pretending not to care anyway. “Girl, that thing about Frege’s sinn und bedeutung was fucking dope,” she allegedly gushed in a secret phone conversation. “And that motherfucking connection between Kantian aesthetics and Romantic poetics as you can fucking see in Caspar David Friederich’s Two Men Contemplating the Motherfucking Moon made me question the meaning of life.”

two men contemplating the moon
Two Men Contemplating the Motherfucking Moon by Caspar David Friederich

Though Ms. Degenerate later retracted her statement and promptly criticized the professor for being a “lame-ass turd,” other students in class were quite ebullient. When asked a question about ancient philosophy, Taylor Schmidt, 20, ventured, “Play dough? Is that Soccer Tease’s student? Or Buddha or someone?” Likewise, classmate Judson Beaver, 19, participated vigorously in classroom discussions. “Yo, I feel that, I’m not sure about parties, but whatever they have in Korea, that’s bad.”

In stark contrast to her peers, Ms. Degenerate remained visibly bored throughout the entire lecture and contrived to appear as illiterate as a college student can be. “Fuck this,” she explained in class.

Ms. Degenerate reportedly received a C+ for lack of participation. All of her classmates received A’s.

“Robostitutes” are the new black

Last month, a retired philosophy professor asked for a refund because the sex android he bought from us did not “moan and argue like Leibniz.” Yes. There’s a burgeoning market for that kind of thing.

The technicians understood Leibniz’s mathematics, but had difficulty with his philosophy. So, I had to explain to them the fundamentals of windowless monads, preformation, and medieval conceptions of causation. “We shall proverbially touch each other’s’ monads by means of ideal influence,” Silicone Leibniz was subsequently programmed to utter. Then, he would moan, upon penetration: “Oh, Newton, this is the best of all possible worlds!” The reprogrammed Leibniz passed the professor’s Turing Test, so, by law, we were no longer obligated to give him a refund.

Silicone Leibniz is one of 163,000 “robostitutes” produced each day (for comparison, 164,000 cars were produced daily in 2012). Last December alone, I had to singlehandedly satisfy the literary fetishes of three eccentric patrons. The first client wanted a gynoid whose thought processes mimic those of the protagonist Offred in Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale; the second wanted his Hilary Clinton simulacrum to scat with the voice of Ella Fitzgerald, and the third wanted his Bertrand Russell android to apologize for erring in Principia Mathematica.

“Who’s to stop a grown man from climaxing to Rousseau?” said Jon Stewart Mills, founder of sex cyborg company Artifical Disseminations, Inc. “Aside from giving us freedom, the advent of the intellectual sex cyborg is also a godsend for thousands of unemployed liberal arts graduates who now work as literary consultants for dozens of companies specializing in artificial intelligence.

“Tech-savvy scientists sitting in cubicles can make machines talk like humans, but they cannot make them think like humans, who, after millions of years of evolution, are hardwired to be sexually stimulated by art, literature, and philosophy–all the wonderful things for whose appreciation computers are not and cannot be endowed with.

“We’ve toyed with this idea for decades and endured a tremendous amount of skepticism. Now, the verdict is out: erudite robostitutes are the new black.”

University installs bathrooms for students to regurgitate facts and flush knowledge down toilet

Saying he wants to prepare students for the job market, Chancellor Elvis  Dumbefore of Hogwash College proudly announced the installation of lavatories where students can puke out information and flush away millennia’s worth of wisdom down the toilet.

“At Hogwash, we will make higher education relevant again. Students can now gain real world experience and be ready to enter the workforce by the time they graduate. If they find that Plato or Kant take too much of their time and energy, they can now visit our new restrooms, known as Knowledge Vomitiriums, to relieve themselves, so that they have time to kiss their employers’ asses.”

Distinguished professor of law Elvis Dumbefore is the chancellor of Hogwash College

Despite its name, the “Knowledge Vomitorium” is equipped not only  with (1) a sink into which students can regurgitate information that they learned though never deeply pondered, but also (2) high-power commodes with which they can dispose of scholarly materials they are too lazy to digest as well as (3) buckets into which students may drop bullshit, which will then be reused as fertilizer to facilitate the flourishing of young freshmen.

A successful student at Hogwash College poses beside an alum who now works in law enforcement.

“We are a green campus,” Dumbefore explained. “We recycle everything, especially bullshit, because these days there’s just too much bullshit for us to dump into the landfill in good conscience.”

Despite Dumbefore’s optimism, a few professors and students have raised eyebrows.

“Once in a while, we encounter a kernel of undigested truth that messes with the plumbing in the Knowledge Vomitoriums, but those pesky little things are few and far between, so we’re not very concerned about those,” says Professor of Communication Ben Zodiazepine.

A minority of students take it even further, arguing that the Knowledge Vomitoriums only spell trouble for the future. On their view, the proper way of dealing with those vexing kernels of truth is to extract them from the pipes, no matter how hard it may be to do so, so that we can more easily identify, analyze, and digest them.

Two students from Hogwash College struggle to regurgitate on the streets.

“We have to do it,” says math prodigy Paul Liedtke, 16. “Otherwise, we’ll be clogging up the toilets so bad one day that we’ll literally be drowning in a great flood of data and bullshit.”

Student Scott F. Bakin, 23, lamented:

“Shit, dude. Last night, I had to take this huge shit. And when I shat, dude, all this shit just started overflowing. Fucking disgusting, dude. Those fucking kernels of truth are hard as fuck to destroy. And they make life hard, trying to find them stuck infinitely deep in the plumbing where we’ll never know. Drano doesn’t help. Worse, they might be in some dark, godless recess tucked profoundly in some elderly professor’s asshole. We gotta deal with that shit, man. That’s sort of gross. I guess that’s why so many people are ignoring the problem.”

Student Scott F. Bakin accuses the chancellor of being a liar.

The chancellor agreed to address concerns about plumbing. “Everything will be fine,” he tweeted. “There are no kernels of truth. Truth is a relative concept. That’s why it won’t pose a problem for the toilets. Because there are NO KERNALS.”

“He’s a kernel denier,” said Christopher Bitchins, 20. “He’s scientifically illiterate. And maybe just illiterate.”

“That’s a euphemism, ‘kernel denier’ is. There’s a name for people who deny the truth,” said Bakin. “We call them liars.”

Child suspicious of storks calls bullshit, turns into idiot

When seven-year-old Pubert Babbitt Jr. asked his parents where babies come from, his parents told him about the Stork: “The Stork is a big bird that drops babies into the house,” said Pubert Sr. Thinking that his parents must either be idiots or liars, Pubert Jr. pressed on, trapping them in contradictions and profound philosophical problems.

“But where do the Storks get the babies?”

“From other Storks.”

“But where do those other Storks get the babies?”

“I don’t know.”

“So you’re telling me it’s magic?”

“Yes, it’s magic.”

“So the babies popped out ex nihilo.”

“I don’t know what that means.”

“You should. You’re the parent.”

“Watch your tone, young man.”

“My tone is irrelevant to the soundness of your argument.”


“Well, where do Storks come from?”

“From other Storks.”

“How do they get the other Storks?”

“They drop them from the sky.”

“Why would they have to drop them from the sky if they already fly?”

“They have to learn how to fly first.”

“That’s fair. But you haven’t told me how they get other Storks.”

“I just did.”

“No, you didn’t. You told me that the other Storks drop them from the sky. You didn’t tell me where they come from.”

“Little man, you’re beginning to annoy me.”

“They must’ve got the baby storks from somewhere before they could get a hold of them before dropping them.”

“Then they must’ve.”

“So answer the question.”

“I already did.”

“No you didn’t.”

“Do I have to write everything down for you?”

“Kid, please, you don’t even know how to spell.”

“I’ll record it then.”

“Too bad, we don’t have a tape recorder. So, where do they get the other storks?”

“They get them from other storks, okay? Now finish your veggies.”

“You do know that storks are often, but not always, monogamous right?”

“Oh, now, are they?”

“You do know that the Principle of Inferential Justification has given rise to vexing epistemological issues since the days of the Ancient Greeks, right?”

“What? Finish your veggies.”

“So are you a foundationalist, a coherentist, or an infinitist?”

“I’m your father. Now, finish your food before I whoop your ass.”

“Do you and mom have sex?”


“It’s okay. There’s nothing to be embarrassed about. I know all about sex.”

“Whoa, whoa, whoa. Stop right there.”

“Coitus can happen between a man and a woman when the man inserts his penis–”


“The internet. Sex can also happen between a man and another man, a woman and another woman, a dog and a–”


“You WHAT? No! That’s how I learn things!”

“Well, I guess that’s the end of it. No more learning.”

Pubert Jr. never learned another thing and grew up to become just like his parents.

Professor masters art of filling bookshelf with books he will never read

EVANSTON, IL—A preeminent philosopher at an elite university has perfected the art of haphazardly filling his bookshelf with books he will never read.

Jacques Johnson, 63, said, “I have everything here. Like, everything. I’ve got Kant, Locke, Leibniz, Plato, Aristotle, the Presocratics, Russell, Kripke, Anscombe, Searle, Ryle, Ayer, Grice, Frege, and dozens of people who are still alive like Michael Huemer and whoever as well as Derrida. My pretheoretical intuition is that I will never read Derrida, since I know Derrida is full of shit even though I’ve never read his works and don’t ever want to. Well, I don’t think I’ll read any of the other stuff either.”

While his colleagues specialize in topics ranging from noncognitivism to meta-meta-logic, Johnson spends much of his time studying the philosophy of action and normative ethics, with a special focus on procrastination and bullshit. He explained: “To be honest, I haven’t really got around to reading Plato’s Republic, though I know it’s been assigned to me around a dozen times since college. My true passion, however, lies in arranging and rearranging my bookshelf in such a way that gives people, even scholars, the illusion that I know everything under the sun.”

Students reportedly asked Johnson if other philosophers ever accuse him of bullshitting. “I never bullshit. I bluff and lie and mislead and hoodwink and steal and rip off. But I don’t bullshit. Never. That’s an infamia,” he said, wagging an index finger.

Johnson pointed out that filling one’s bookshelf with books one does not intend to read is a habit shared by students and professors alike, with the most preeminent shelf-filler being Socrates. “I don’t think there’ s a greater philosopher than old Mr. Soccer Tease,” said Johnson. “He was the inimitable shelf-filler. It was both an art and a science to him, the way he amassed his books and displayed them like a modern art masterpiece. He was really ahead of his time.”

Johnson continues to fill his shelf with books he will never read. Sources confirmed that his latest writings will be published in top philosophical journals such as Mind and Noûs.



A sophomoric introduction to bullshit

In college, my adviser introduced me to elementary logic and opened my eyes to the beauty of academic philosophy, at once dispelling popular misconceptions of philosophy as mere intellectual masturbation and adumbrating the hows and whys of the bullshitty things that give philosophy a bad name. It’s been many years since I wrote my last paper on bullshit, and my life has taken numerous strange and shocking turns in the past year alone. Nevertheless, metaphysical and moral questions concerning bullshit still occasionally vex me, and if you are at all concerned about the current state of the world, then they should vex you too.

Here is the first paper I wrote on the topic way back when I first began to give a shit. This is also my first non-satirical blog post. I encourage all of you to earnestly discuss the phenomenon of bullshit and to write thoughtful blog posts about it.

A Handful of Bullshit and an Explanation of its Varieties

Perspectives on Bullshit

In common parlance, the term “bullshit” is frequently uttered, but usage of the term varies widely across situations. Sometimes, the term “bullshit” carries a connotation of insincerity (e.g., “There is so much bullshit in D.C.” or “Don’t bullshit me!”). Sometimes, the term is a pejorative dismissal of nonsense or deficiency in empirical evidence (e.g., “That’s pseudoscientific bullshit.”). Mild doses of bullshit can evoke chuckles. Large amounts of well-crafted, goal-directed bullshit, however, can be dangerous.

In this essay, I will first introduce Harry Frankfurt’s concept of bullshit. I will then contrast Frankfurt’s concept of bullshit with that of G.A. Cohen. I will explain “goal-oriented” bullshit and provide one case of how such seemingly innocuous bullshit, when abused, can be so powerfully destructive.

Frankfurt’s Bullshit

Harry Frankfurt provides an incisive analysis on bullshit in his essay, “On Bullshit”. The “essence of bullshit,” he asserts, is “a lack of connection to a concern with truth” (125)Consider Case 1:

(1) A college student must write a ten-page research paper on Latin American history, but he has only written nine pages’ worth of solid information. To meet the required page number, he changes the text font from Times New Roman to Arial, inserts a long quote by Fidel Castro, peppers his prose with space-consuming adjectives, and lengthens his title so that it covers two, instead of one, lines. He thereby satisfies the page requirement and turns in his work.

The college student in Case 1 exemplifies Frankfurt’s bullshit. Although the student has written a ten-page paper on Latin American history, he does not care about the truth or falsity of his essay’s content—he merely wants to impress his professor. To accomplish that goal, he inflates his paper. What is important here is not whether the content of the paper is flawed or unflawed, but that the student does not care about his work. The student’s attempt to hide his apathy does not necessarily render his work false ; his work is simply insincere. Frankfurt elucidates this distinction:

[…] the essence of bullshit is not that it is false but that it is phony […] What is not genuine need not also be defective in some other way. It may be, after all, an exact copy. What is wrong with a counterfeit is not what it is like, but how it was made.  This points to a similar and fundamental aspect of the essential nature of bullshit: although it is produced without concern with the truth, it need not be false. (128)

This distinction between falsity and phoniness allows us to understand another feature of Frankfurt’s bullshit: deceptiveness. One who detects Frankfurt’s phony bullshit may feel deceived, as if one has been lied to, but crucial to this issue is that Frankfurt’s bullshit is not the same as lying. Regarding this relationship between bullshit and lying, Frankfurt reasons that, while the liar attempts to deceive others about the reality (i.e., by reversing the truth value of a proposition), the bullshitter attempts to hide the fact that he does not care about the reality. The liar pays attention to the truth and defies it. The bullshitter does not care about the truth at all. By virtue of such apathy, what he utters is invariably bullshit (132).

Cohen’s Bullshit

In his essay, “Deeper into Bullshit,” G.A. Cohen explains the term “bullshit” as roughly synonymous with the term “nonsense” (332). Cohen proposes three distinguishing features of nonsensical bullshit: unclarifiable unclarity (i.e., hopelessly vague stuff), rubbish (i.e., “arguments that are grossly deficient in logic or sensitivity to empirical evidence”), and irretrievably speculative statements (Cohen quotes David Miller: “Of course, everyone spends much more time thinking about sex now than people did a hundred years ago”) (333).  Unlike Frankfurt, Cohen is less interested in the speaker’s mental state, but more in the product. By Cohen’s account, it is possible for a bullshitter to utter non-bullshit, and for a non-bullshitter to unwittingly utter bullshit (331). The latter is exemplified by Case 2:

(2) A man places his laptop on top of his lap. A child walks by. She stops. Horrified, she exclaims, “If you put that computer on your lap, the radiations will destroy your genitalia!”

 In this case, the young child utters empirically unverified bullshit about genitalia-destroying radiations. She speaks the proposition not because she is a bullshitter unconcerned about the truth, but simply because she does not know any better. By contrast, a deliberate bullshitter utters bullshit in this scenario:

(3) A cantankerous driver is stuck in traffic. Angry, the driver utters the proposition, “This traffic stinks,” followed by the conclusion, “All women are stupid.” The driver’s wife, an astute logician who happens to be in the car, asks her husband to justify his sexist proposition. The driver makes numerous specious and untenable arguments, all of which are defeated by his wife. They argue for two hours. The driver refuses to give in.

Case 3, by contrast, exemplifies a combination of Frankfurt’s and Cohen’s bullshit. The cantankerous driver has thoughtlessly uttered the proposition, “All women are stupid.” He acts like he believes in that proposition, but his wife suspects that he is bullshitting. The driver defends his arguments, which his wife obliterates. Without a tenable argument, the driver is left defending nonsense. Nevertheless, he continues to blabber. Indifferent to the authority of logic and truth, the driver is a Frankfurt-bullshitter. The product—his untenable nonsense—is Cohen’s bullshit.

Goal-oriented Bullshitters

(4) An attorney is defending his client, who is accused of murder. The attorney knows who the murderer is, so he knows that his client is not guilty. The attorney therefore wants to do everything in his power to help his client, but, at the same time, does not want to reveal the identity of the murderer. He thinks about bribing the jury, but that seems too risky. Instead, he gets several witnesses to testify in his client’s favor. He presents a great closing argument, which persuades the jury to acquit the defendant.

This case is slightly more complicated. The attorney seems to care about the truth, namely, that somebody else is the murderer, and his client is innocent. The case is not unclarifiable, illogical, empirically unverified, or irretrievably speculative nonsense—at least not from the judge’s perspective. The attorney therefore does not seem to be Frankfurt-bullshitting, nor does he seem to be producing Cohen’s bullshit. Nevertheless, I call him a bullshitter. Why?

We can decipher this scenario by heeding Cohen’s analysis on Frankfurt’s essay. Cohen notes that Frankfurt does not clearly distinguish between the bullshitter’s tactics from the bullshitter’s goal. Cohen points to Frankfurt’s example of the Fourth of July orator who “goes on bombastically about ‘our great and blessed country, whose Founding Fathers under divine guidance created a new beginning for mankind’” (121). The problem that Cohen sees is that, while the bullshitting orator is indifferent to the truth about the Founding Fathers, the orator is not necessarily unconcerned about what the audience thinks about the Founding Fathers. In fact, his goal might very well be to persuade his audience about the greatness of the Founding Fathers (Cohen 330). Cohen notes:

If the orator had been Joseph McCarthy, he would have wanted the audience to think that the “new beginning” that the Founding Fathers “created” should persuade the audience to oppose the tyranny supposedly threatened by American communism. The fact that it is not “fundamental” that “the speaker regards his statement as false” in no way implies that “he is not trying to deceive anyone concerning American history.” [emphasis added] (330)

This sheds light on our crafty attorney. The attorney is not guilty of Cohen’s bullshit because his argument is well-articulated and supported by evidence. He is, however, guilty of Frankfurtian bullshitting, because, as much as he cares about his client’s acquittal, the truthfulness of his tactic is irrelevant to him. As long as he can avoid getting caught, the attorney is just as inclined to bribe the jurors as he is to bullshit them with witnesses and rhetoric.


The goal of this paper is not to inveigh against bullshit, but to allow the reader to understand some of the types and subtypes of bullshit. Although the college student, the Fourth of July orator, the attorney, and Joseph McCarthy are all truth-indifferent Frankfurt-bullshitters, McCarthy and the lawyer bullshit in a less desultory, more goal-oriented manner. The lawyer bullshits to get his innocent client acquitted, and McCarthy bullshits to accomplish a hidden political agenda. The versatility and insidiousness of Frankfurt’s bullshit is quite clear.

Cohen’s bullshit—nonsense—can be uttered by both naive speakers and deliberate bullshitters. The naive speaker (in our case, the little girl) utters bullshit much like a chess novice forgetting the rules of chess.  The deliberate bullshitter—the rationalizing driver—simply cheats.

I hope this paper can serve as an informative guide to recognizing insincere or nonsensical talk. But to borrow Cohen’s words, what I have presented are only a few “flower[s] in the lush garden of bullshit” (323).

Word Count: 1,500






Works Cited

Cohen, Gerald Allan. “Deeper into Bullshit.” Computational Philosophy of Science (1993): 321-44. MIT CogNet. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Web.

Frankfurt, Harry G. “On Bullshit.” The Importance of What We Care About: Philosophical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1988. 117-33. Print.