Stephen Colbert and Philosophy - Aaron Allen Schiller [26]
COLBERT (RED): Wait, wait. …This is so complicated.
COLBERT (BLUE): Hey, buddy, it comes down to one simple question. Which is more important to you—a potential cure, or a potential life?
COLBERT (RED): Oh, well if you put it that way, it seems … much more complicated! God bless it, help me out here!
COLBERT (BLUE): Okay, let me complicate it some more. Human cloning could be part of stem cell research. You don’t want clones do you?46
Blue-tied Colbert assumes that if there’s one possible abuse of science, then science should be scrapped. This is tempting precisely because at times it can feel so overwhelming to tackle complex arguments. Arguments beget counterarguments, which beget responses to those counterarguments, and so on. But it’s exactly this patience with complexity that you need to develop in order to understand important issues. Shooting from the hip works sometimes. But with life’s big decisions, if often helps to hold two or more contrary views in mind at the same time. Mindfulness means noticing the discomfort such internal or external conversations can cause. But instead of retreating, you wait it out and see what you can learn from the experience.
When blue-tied Colbert says “Let’s say you’re dying,” red-tied Colbert replies “Oh no! What’s wrong with me?” With his credulous alarm, Colbert shows that fearing complexity makes one gullible. Having no faith in reason risks that one avoids questioning authorities, and instead assumes the problem must lie with oneself. Such vulnerability leaves one easily duped. The opposing blue-tied Colbert then responds, “I don’t know. But I’m glad I don’t have it!” This disdainful disregard betrays the hypocrisy behind appearing to care for life (the potential in a cell), but not actually caring about real people (an actual human who is dying). Such inconsistency arises from a belief that reason should be used to serve one’s own purposes.
Blue-tied Colbert even fakes an attempt to reason both sides of the argument. At first arguing against stem cell research, he shifts to the tradeoffs of not doing such research:
COLBERT (BLUE): But, you’ve gotta stay alive. Who’ll provide for your family—Brenda and the fifteen kids?
COLBERT (RED): Oh, little Mary and Stephens one through fourteen.
COLBERT (BLUE): And buddy you didn’t save one red cent, nor do you have life insurance.
COLBERT (RED): That gypsy told me I was immortal!
COLBERT (BLUE): No, you’re thinking of Dracula.
COLBERT (RED): Well, I guess I’d better do it. Shoot me up.
COLBERT (BLUE): Done [dusting off his hands], you’re cured.
COLBERT (RED): Yay!47
In a visual and acoustic move typical of the brilliance of Formidable Opponent, red-tied Colbert raises his hand in joy, then blue-tied Colbert, mouth still open, aims his raised hand down to point at the other in accusation—his mouth moving from “Yay” to “Iiiironically, one of the embryos used to fix you would have grown up to be a doctor who discovered a cure that didn’t need to destroy embryos.” Cleverly, the visual and acoustic medium captures and embodies physically the very mindset Colbert’s character appears to contradict intellectually. The episode displays indirectly how to reason through contrary “takes”—in the sense of both a framing that takes an argument in one direction and a visual take, shot from a particular camera angle.
With a circular return, the exchange closes with red-tied Colbert lamenting, “God, I hate having ethics,” and blue-tied Colbert replying, “Well, maybe someday science will discover a cure for it.” So impatient is Colbert with the complexity of reasoning that he concludes debating ethics is itself akin to a sickness, for which he seeks relief.
Throughout the show, Colbert demonstrates how, ironically, we create greater pain for ourselves in the long run if we avoid the milder pain of critical thinking in the short run. To live comfortably with