Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,rec.arts.books,talk.philosophy.misc
From: cbo@cs.toronto.edu (Calvin Bruce Ostrum)
Subject: Re: Sincerity is Bullshit
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 26 Jul 92 08:55:51 GMT

As tempting as it is to respond to each of the inane and bogus comments
contained in Mikhail's recent posting in this thread, I've slain this 
particular Hydra too many times not to have learned that the effort
is pretty well futile for a mere mortal.

In the *exceedingly* unlikely event that someone would like to see my
intended responses to Mikhail on any particular points, I will be happy
to provide those responses for him or her via e-mail (unfortunately 
for Mikhail, perhaps, this means that I won't be publically admitting 
those places where he actually pointed out my own errors. Except on
one point: I'll leave the newsgroup line alone. It appears from the
responses I've got that some people in these other groups might actually
find the choice relevant).

As far as the issue of sincerity being bullshit goes, I simply reiterate
that in the everyday sense of the words, it is clearly possible to be,
or attempt to be, sincere, without thereby committing bullshit.  The
manifest obviousness of this truth is probably what gives Frankfurt's
closing phrase, "sincerity is bullshit", such a neat bite.

But when you come at it the right way around, the idea that the *ideal* 
of "reactive" sincerity (as I called it) is bullshit makes quite a lot 
of sense, a fact I never denied.  However, no one has established that 
"straight sincerity", in a suitably modified form, need be bullshit, and 
that it need be pursued independently of the ideal of correctness.  
The claim that it cannot be seems to be based on a bad pun more than 
anything else.  If the catch phrase is Polonius's "To thine own self 
be true", this only rules out "correctness" if it is impossible to be 
true to more than one thing at once.  Even if one wants to adopt this 
particular slogan, there is no need to read it like the truth is a 
jealous lover.

I think there is an interesting connection with Rorty's "Philosophy
and the Mirror of Nature"[1].  Rorty distinguishes between "systematic"
and "edifying" philosophy.  Systematic philosophy is based on 
epistemology, and the results of this: man's being a mirror of an
objectively given nature.  As such, it is analogous (exactly how,
I don't know) to Frankfurt's notion of "correctness".  Rorty doesn't 
care much for systematic philosophy, at times claiming it's boring, 
and at other times claiming that it's impossible.  He opts for edifying
philosophy, which, as far as I can tell, amounts to sitting around
and shooting the breeze (although no doubt in a creative and innovative
way) by participating in an "eternal conversation of mankind". 

In other words, bullshitting.  Or at least it sounds like bullshitting 
to me.  Although it rejects the ideal of correctness, it also appears
to reject the ideal of sincerity: Rorty's eliminativist philosophy of 
mind rules out the notion of any kind of self to be true to.  But the
self that is left over to engage in the continuing conversation 
seems to be big enough to warrant a charge of reactive sincerity.

Whether this charge sticks or not doesn't seem that important. In 
either case, the similarity (in my opinion) between Rorty's brand of 
edification and the ideal of reactive sincerity is that their
reactions to the alleged demise of systematic philosophy and the
ideal of correctness are both *over*reactions.  (At least, this 
is what I would *like* to believe. Correctness isn't as straightforward
as it used to be, what with God dead and all [2]).

[1] Obligatory book reference
[2] Obligatory religion reference

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calvin Ostrum                                            cbo@cs.toronto.edu  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  I tell you, Hobbes, it's great to have a friend who appreciates
  an earnest discussion of ideas.    -- Calvin, 1992/07/14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc