There's a book that's been much on my thoughts lately. Apparently a big hit in England, it's an incisive and penetrating examination of contemporary reality which, in my considered opinion, captures the essence of what's happening and the way things are.
I haven't literally "read" the book, in the sense of cracking the thing open. But the title sings out to me, telling me that the authors are fellow spirits, sending my own spirit soaring: Is It Just Me or Is Everything Shit?
No! No it's not just you!
Some books, I obviously realize, require a more assiduous expenditure of time and energy. With Dostoyevsky, say, you'd be an idiot to stop at The Idiot's title and consider the job done.
But Dostoyevsky and his ilk, I think, are a bit out of fashion. Nobody has the damn time. Weighty books can still be given as gifts, but that implies either tactlessness or malice (unless the source of the largesse is some oldster from a bygone era, in which case it's probably an expression of reproof).
The friendly gesture is to give a book that can be fully appreciated at the moment the gift wrapping is cast aside, at the banquet table, as everyone is laughing and drinking and enjoying the great things life has to offer.
That's what Harry G. Frankfurt, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University, belatedly cottoned onto some time ago. After spending most of his career quietly churning out traditional uninspiring philosophy, he made a splash with the title On Bullshit. He was even conscientious enough to offer a few stylishly crafted opening sentences for Chapter 1 --
One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted.
-- before subsiding into the conventional kind of philosophical turgidity --
I propose to begin the development of a theoretical understanding of bullshit.... [etc. etc. etc.]
-- which he no doubt keeps up with all the way to the end of the book.
A book with a title like On Bullshit is one you can confidently use to express warmth and affection to someone close (assuming they're open to books at all).
Another recent title that's powerfully evocative for me personally is The Pedant's Revolt: Why Most Things You Think Are Right Are Wrong.
Article comments
1 - nugget
ok.....and? Don't get me wrong. I have my curmudgeon moments. I guess I'm not worried about the world as much as you are. I'm too worried about my job, my relationship with my wife, and making sure my dogs don't shit on the carpet or chew the sofa. I've felt and thought most of what you wrote, but...eh, whatever. There's nothing you can do besides save yourself and your family (just don't kill anyone like vito corleone).
And, what do you mean by the Dostoyevsky ilk? Old school pedants or what? I'm 24 and a huge fan.
"You have to fix people. Change lifestyles. Adjust thinking. And stop the bombardment by baleful influences."
Guess so?. How? Any bombastic demagogue preaches that kinda stuff in fewer words. (more high-flown of course)
You're silver-tongued enough, got any suggestions?
2 - Catana
Gad, I am sooo out of it. I just read all 1100 pages of Cryptonomicon and have the next volume of Stephenson's trilogy on order. And I only have one friend. I really need to get serious about Myspace.
3 - Uriel
"ok.....and?" Well, step 1 is to recognize the prob, isn't it?
"got any suggestions?" Didn't you see them?
4 - Baronius
Uriel, you identify lack of reading as one of the symptoms (or at least passed along the quote from Brooks), but you've based this piece on the title of a book you haven't read. Odd.
I think that things are better than they appear. At least I do on my better days. Many people go out of their way to appear shallow, but when you dig a little, you find that they have variety and depth. I don't know why we pose as morons, but we do. It probably dates back to high school.
People coast where they can. Why else would anyone have seen a Ben Affleck movie? It's a legitimate concern that our culture accomodates such behaviour. But there's plenty of charity work, night school, and even jury duty going on.
5 - Uriel
"you've based this piece on the title of a book you haven't read. Odd."
You've gotta be a bit odd to stand out in the info-hurricane. Just trying to be noticed. Thanks.
"I think that things are better than they appear."
Really? I don't.
Bob Herbert in today's N.Y. Times, commenting on a new poll showing Americans indifferent to presidential lawbreaking, says: "I find it peculiar that an awful lot of Americans who would be outraged by the burning of the American flag are positively sanguine about the trampling of the Constitution."
His column raises the spectre of America becoming an authoritarian society while most pay no attention, like commenter #1 upstairs.
"charity work, night school, and even jury duty"
It's not a matter of finding examples. Of course they exist. It's a matter of looking at the social/cultural TRENDS ... and looking ahead to the termination of freedom their continuance guarantees. Then starting to think about radical social reforms, which practically NO ONE currently is seriously discussing. My piece above proposes two.
6 - Baronius
Uriel, I hope I didn't give the wrong impression. I agree that there's plenty to be afraid of in the current trends. There's another topic on these boards, about Bill Cosby, that talks about a similar/underlying problem: our culture doesn't seek to elevate. That author focuses on the problem among blacks, but I don't see much in white culture that's aspirational.
I think it speaks to the perversity of our society that self-improvement and societal improvement has to be hidden. I mentioned those things because they may otherwise go unnoticed.
Now, the disagreement. The ideas you float strike me as equally dangerous, and more authoritarian. Tramps on Myspace.com can only harm themselves and their partners, but government thinktanks could enforce anything. A president listening in on conversations is dangerous, but less so than one who can silence them.
7 - Uriel
"The ideas you float strike me as equally dangerous, and more authoritarian.... A president listening in on conversations is dangerous, but less so than one who can silence them."
I'm sorry, but this illustrates terribly conventional thinking.
I mentioned "there is no serious discussion of radical change going on in our society." One reason is that public debate seems to be locked into this mode of rigid orthodoxy.
You didn't properly register the reform I proposed. You did exactly what the propagandists have programmed you to do: Based on a totally superficial reading, you swept it into your mental "Speech Controls" category; and then you gave the prescribed response, just like you're supposed to.
"listening in on conversations is dangerous, but less so than one who can silence them" -- Haven't we all heard or read this mantra a hundred million times?
What's also wondrous, besides how the puppetmasters have made people make themselves sick without coercion, is how our masters have turned "free speech" into a recitation of ideological slogans that support mind control.
I did NOT propose silencing "people." I proposed some degree of silencing of *business* -- media entertainment and advertising.
There's nothing sacrosanct about corporate speech. And this does not interfere with democratic (political) debate. I'm calling on grownup citizens to begin a dialogue about setting controls, based on ordinary, common, widely recognized (so far) values, on the out-of-control polluters who are poisoning the children.
It's astonishing that controlling pollution emissions would be "radical" at all. But that just shows the propagandists' wild success.
Pollution control is the only means of preventing the culture from going down the toilet (plus maybe *reviving* political debate to some extent by reducing the citizenry's artificially induced mania for the stuff advertisers are pushing). If you any other feasible way to do it, I'd be interested to hear it.