I thought of a stronger third instantiation. I think my previous one was too similar to my first about Hume and the chemical reactions not meaning somebody is in love. Here is my new one about Wittegenstein as discussed in Frankfurt’s essay on B.S.
Argument: figurative language makes things more vague and doesn’t regard the truth (Wittegenstein and Frankfurt)
Evidence: “veil of intrigue has faded a bit”, “ready to face anything with them”
Commentary: The figurative language used is dangerous and deceiving because the reader will interpret these colorful generalizations as being truthful to them when in reality there’s no actual objective veil of intrigue, and “a bit” is far too unspecific to be truthful. “Ready to face anything” also disregards the truth because this hyperbole assumes that no matter what, a person in love will be able to handle any situation with their partner, which is highly unlikely. Since this type of language doesn’t regard the truth, the reader doesn’t have to regard the truth when making sense of them and their feelings, meaning that the entire thing is bullshit according to both Wittengenstein and Frankfurt. Metaphorical language and figurative language, in general, doesn’t regard the truth or concrete reality and in turn, is pure bullshit.