In this paper, I will offer a reconstruction of Harry Frankfurt's paper "On Bullshit" and his conclusions. Harry Frankfurt in his paper tries to establish the concept of nonsense and how it differs from lies. The conclusion he made for this whole argument is: bullshit is a unique form of communication that doesn't care about the truth. But, what I am going to do is to look at his conclusion from a different perspective. Frankfurt begins his article by acknowledging the prevalence of nonsense in contemporary society and the lack of attention it has received from the philosophical community. Then he uses the Oxford Dictionary and some supporting arguments to reason out his understanding of bullshit. He also elaborated on the difference between …show more content…
And then he then deduced that bullshit, as a form of communication, is fundamentally different from lying in that the bullshit is indifferent to the truth, while the liar will necessarily focus on the truth, even if only to cover it up. And he claims that "this indifference to how things really are — that I regard as of the essence of bullshit." p. 10. However, I don't think this makes sense. From his other argument: "He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose." "(p.17) It can be seen that bullshitter actually knows what they are doing, that is, deceiving us into believing his words to suit his purpose. They also know what the consequences will be, which will indirectly affect the truth. This just contradicts Frankfurt's conclusion. Bullshit, even casual talk, can harm our lives. For example, false information and advertisements on social media. Random posts that have nothing to do with the facts may spread widely and influence public opinion and behavior. And this consequence just shows that bullshit is actually related to the