• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

In any case, if this is what we mean by wishful thinking, we all do this in numerous ways, so to this extent truthiness is as much an inevitable feature of the human condition as is bullshit and deceit. But I don’t think this is what Colbert is getting at. Maybe he means when someone consciously asserts truths that she knows are in fact false. Consider the example of Bush saying “we do not torture.” This is probably an outright lie or, at least, bullshit. Either Bush knows that water-boarding is torture and that it is occurring or he simply doesn’t care enough to examine the issue and is just saying what he needs to. On the other hand, perhaps Bush is a true believer. But if he is, then how can we claim that he believes something he wishes to be true but knows isn’t true?

So, the wishful thinking component of truthiness might not require that I know that the facts are indeed facts yet choose to ignore them anyway. Colbert’s out-of-character addition, then, really boils back down to Stephen’s in-character definition. I choose which facts I want to recognize as facts, based on my own experience and perspective, with the slight addition that I am often guided by what I want to be the case. Again, I’d say that this is part of the human condition that truth-oriented people and bullshitters share alike. And this doesn’t mean we are all optimists. I may secretly or subconsciously wish that I get fired because I really feel more comfortable without the responsibility of my job. So when I think “I’m no good at this … they are going to fire my ass,” I am actually thinking wishfully. I may be quite capable, but I don’t really want to be. If I know that I am good and am just pretending to stink in order to get fired, then I am being deceitful in some way, not truthy. If I don’t know that I am good, then Colbert would be wrong to think I believe facts that I know aren’t true and dismiss facts I know are true.

Good truth-seekers and bad truth-seekers share this tendency to accept the things one would rather be true. What separates the two is that the good truth-seeker is trying to overcome the disposition to accept what she’d like to be true, and has some good methods to do just that. And I think this is what leads us to Colbert’s other addition of being dogmatic, of selfishly thinking that what I think is true, because I think it, and no one who disagrees can possibly be right.

I think it is insightful of Colbert to identify dogmatism with a kind of selfishness. Dogmatic people can sometimes think of themselves as selfless since they humbly accept the dogma, rather than trying to come up with their own understanding. I’ve been accused of being selfish because I don’t just accept the Bible as literally true, but choose to ‘think for myself’ (“as if I knew as much as God,” they say). But I don’t see it this way. After all, who decides that it is true that God wrote the Bible, or inspired its writing in such a way that we must accept it as literally true? Even if it is true that God did this, each one of us decides for our own reasons whether we buy this story. The person who accepts must reason through her decision to accept. Maybe it’s fear, or a personal mystical experience, or thoughtful metaphysical reasoning that leads us one way or the other. Maybe it has more to do with social circles and tradition for someone else. There is no escaping the fundamental truthiness of it all: we each decide what sources to accept, which methods to use to search for the truth and how much we conform to this or that external influence.

The problem with dogmatism is not its truthiness. In fact, the suspicion of authorities that Stephen advocates rails against dogmatism being imposed on you by others. The problem with dogmatism is that it has cut off future evidence. It is a final decision, or at least semi-final. Perhaps major life-events may shake some people enough so they arise from their dogmatic slumber, but dogmatism provides so much cushioning that nothing short of a major earthquake is going