Steering Clear of Bullshit? The Problem of Obscurantism

How Obscurantism Differs from Bullshit: A Proposal

“…As I have suggested, Cohenʼs criticism of Frankfurtʼs account of bullshit as being tied to the bullshitterʼs state of mind may not be completely vindicated because Cohen himself also hones in on “aiming at obscurity in the production of philosophical bullshit” (p. 335), indicating that Cohen does not altogether dispense with the “state of mind” characteristic. Ivanković (2016: 535) seems to insinuate that Cohen does dispense with it, but that would indicate a premature leap to a conclusion. It seems appropriate to say, therefore, that Cohen, who did not foresee the technical use of obscurantism in philosophy, nevertheless gestured towards claims that would prove relevant to it.…”

“…One position, which I refer to as the unity view , treats bullshit and obscurantism more or less generally as two sides of the same coin that do not need to be separated. The scholars who hold this view (Cohen, 2002, p. 335; Ivanković, 2016, p. 543; Dieguez, 2018, p. 168) may not have set out to propagate the unity view, but their positions actually commit them to it, especially because they disagree out‐and‐out with the other view, namely, the separation view . The separation view has been posited by Buekens and Boudry (2015), but they did not argue for it.…”

“…Although Cohen presented obscurity as a feature of a finished act of bullshitting, Ivanković treats obscurantism as an activity involving the bullshitter, the bullshittee, and bullshit (Ivanković, 2016, p. 538). There are a number of similarities between Cohenʼs and Ivankovićʼs accounts, but there are hardly any smooth overlaps.…”

“…As a matter of fact, surveys and case studies are helpful in showing that splitting the concepts, insofar as pseudo‐profound bullshit has close links with obscurantism, would contribute to an understanding of their distinctions. His argument that non‐deliberateness is the condition for being a non‐intentional producer (distributer) of obscurities would seem unsustainable when he says that even the distributer of obscurities can be blameworthy simply by presenting a matter carelessly (Ivanković, 2016, p. 538, 539). Careless presentation means presenting something without using the principle of clarity, a principle which, despite being hard to determine, seems to burden one who is but a distributer.…”

“…This paper will afford greater attention to the latter phenomenon which as yet is not as developed as the former in the literature. In this regard, there are two positions in the literature: first, the unity view , which sees bullshit and obscurantism as inextricably connected either because obscurantism usually results in bullshit (Cohen, 2002) or because the obscure specimen is reducible to bullshit (Ivanković, 2016; Dieguez, 2018); second, the separation view , which sees bullshit and obscurantism as obviously related but distinct phenomena (Buekens and Boudry, 2015). Focusing on this relationship between bullshit and obscurantism, I defend the view that both phenomena should be kept distinct for conceptual reasons.…”