Harry Frankfurt: From "On Bullshit" to just bullshit

Harry Frankfurt's "On Bullshit" and the thinking behind it wasn't bad.

His new book? "On Inequality" sounds like ... bullshit, even if insightful philosopher Massimo Pigliucci seems to think it's as good as the original.

For me? First, recognizing that he rejects traditional liberal concerns about income equality is bad enough. Indeed, the LA Review of Books calls "bullshit" on the title, noting that Frankfurt doesn't really care about what he claims to care about. And, that comes from the world of academia, namely, economic sociology.

Another reviewer, this one also academic, and from the world of public policy, accuses Frankfurt (rightly) of strawmanning.

Second, seeing that he's not replaced that with better thinking, above all, apparently not being concerned about the expansion of structural, systemic job loss, and ideas to address that like basic or guaranteed income, make it even more iffy.

And, third, seeing it positively blurbed by George Will, and even more, by Tyler Cowen? Multiple straws breaking that camel's back.

After noting that his missing the boat on this was a problem, and throwing a responsive elbow to Dan Kaufman, I said this:

You made a statement, and in partial response to saying what I thought was wrong in general with the Frankfurt book, I responded. And, am responding again. As far as Frankfurt missing the boat on systemic, structural, job loss, not only is capitalism not the answer to that, but, it’s actually predicated on that happening.

The fact that this is not part of Frankfurt’s book is NOT irrelevant, contra your last comment. Structural job loss is part of increasing economic inequality. It forces more and more Americans into contract labor, with fewer benefits, lesser job security, etc. Those are all directly part of income inequality, ultimately. And, in for a penny, in for a pound — Frankfurt either knows that, and thus is being intellectually dishonest, in my opinion, or else he doesn’t know that, which further goes to alleged value of the book in other ways, in my opinion.

(Oh, and this issue is affecting more and more white-collar careers, not just blue- and gray-collar ones.)

In turn, that gets me back to some of the people blurbing the book, per the Amazon link. I’m sure all American commenters here know who George Will is. Tyler Cowen? Only one of the most ardently libertarian academic economists in America, at the home base of academic libertarian economists, George Mason University. I suspect his only concern with the book is that Frankfurt isn’t libertarian enough. (And, re structural job losses, Cowen has said, more than once, in various ways, “Deal with it,” in essence.)

Massimo then responded to part of that:

Is it really necessary or helpful to accuse someone you don’t know of intellectual dishonesty, just because you would have written then book differently? Or another book altogether?

Well ….

I then came back with this analogy:

Let's say Paul of Tarsus were writing the book of Romans 2,000 years later, and per his comments on homosexuality, I said he either should know better, per the science, and his ignorance undercuts him, or he does know better, and that silence undercuts him — or even shows he's intellectually dishonest.

Is it philosophically necessary to say that? No. Is it, to the degree book critiques are sociologically "necessary"? Probably. Is it sociologically helpful? I think so indeed.

Best analogy to other book critiquing I could think of on short notice. But, the analogy applies to critiques of books in general. No, I can’t PROVE Frankfurt is being intellectually dishonest. But, like the nonexistence of Russell’s Teapot, it’s a reasonable inference to me.

Or, a non-books analogy from the 2008 Democratic primaries.

Either Barack Obama knew, before Hillary Clinton called him out, that Obamacare needed an individual mandate to work and he was intellectually dishonest, or he really didn't, and thus was arguably too ignorant to be proposing Obamacare.

Beyond that, on his Friday links list last week, among his links to read, Massimo had posted an incredibly funny, yet still savaging, critique of a stupid book, getting back to the books angle.

Beyond THAT, the book is, in some way, about ethics, but that’s only partially so, and that’s the only philosophical portion of that.

Beyond that, it’s about economics, and even more, economics sub specie public policy — and per those blurbers, politics as well as public policy.

I have standing there. I have experience there as a newspaper editor.

And, if I think Harry Frankfurt is being intellectually dishonest, I’m going to call him that. And, it’s damned well helpful, Massimo, if it keeps other people from uncritically reading his book. 

I've said the same, or worse, or differently-veined just as bad in reviewing other books. I accused Civil War historian James McPherson of a rush job to capitalize on the Civil War sesquicentennial with a book on Jeff Davis as military strategist that wasn't worthy of much more than an extended blog post, for example. I've called Garry Wills "mendacious." I just recently crushed Robert Wright's new book on Buddhism, in part accusing him of choosing a clickbait title.

So, if I have empirical evidence, and reasoned induction, or even the social sciences level of scientific abduction, that I have conducted, and I determine an author is intellectually dishonest?

Ultimately, it's necessary to people who want some intellectual honesty from me in blog posts and book reviews. And, to myself.

Things were little better on the second installment of Massimo's review of this mini-book. At least Massimo didn't semi-yell at some of us commenters. But, I also guess that some of my snark was too much.

Dan Kaufman said:

-->

Massimo, don’t feel like you are a lone voice in the wilderness here. I largely agree with you — indeed, I may agree with Frankfurt even more than you do — but I’ve stayed out of the conversation largely because my interest in fantasy fiction has waned significantly, since the genre died in the 1970s.

To which I responded:

I'm cut to the quick!

However, under Massimo's moderation, that wasn't posted, as of several hours later, and I'm assuming it's dead.

Over there. 

But not here.