Stephen Colbert and Philosophy - Aaron Allen Schiller [54]
Wikiality is similar to what philosophers call cultural relativism, which is the idea that truth is relative to a culture. In other words, what Americas say is true is true for Americans and whatever is true in Canada (or even in California’s Canada, Oregon) is true for Canadians (or Oregonians). Instead of cultural relativism, wikiality is Internet relativism, since it says that the truth is whatever the majority of Internet users say it is. There’s a big difference between forms of relativism like wikiality and various kinds of skepticism. Skeptics say we should withhold judgment or deny knowledge about whether something is true or not, whereas wikiality relativism affirms that there is a truth we can know and that this truth is simply what the majority says it is. As Stephen says, “Together we can create a reality we can all agree on, and that’s the reality we just agreed on.” It’s quite easy to know the truth according to wikiality; you just check Wikipedia!
But wikiality won’t derail political skepticism, as there are a lot of tough questions about wikiality and other forms of relativism. Why should we believe the majority? Does it really make sense to say that something is true just because people say it is? Sure, we can say that The Colbert Report is on Comedy Central twenty-four hours a day or create a Wikipedia entry that claims this is the case, but that doesn’t seem to make it true. It’s obvious that South Park, The Daily Show, and plenty of mediocre movies are on Comedy Central at various times. And what about issues where there’s no clear-cut majority, such as the debates surrounding abortion, immigration and the other contentious political issues? Then we’re back to the mode deriving from dispute; with such widespread disagreement, we may despair of ever finding the answer. Also, what’s a “majority” anyway—fifty-one percent, sixty percent, eighty percent? And what constitutes a proper group of truth-makers? Who do you have to ask to discover the truth? All Americans? Just the people who edit Wikipedia? Only the viewers of The Colbert Report? Or maybe you just ask Stephen, since he assures us, “On this show your voice will be heard … in the form of my voice.”107 These are just some of the difficult questions philosophers ask about relativism. While there may be answers out there, most philosophers today have an unfavorable view of relativism precisely because it’s hard to see how these questions can be answered effectively. Wikiality and other forms of relativism may seem like easy answers, but political skeptics need not be convinced.
The effect of political skepticism is often cynicism about politics. Just as Indian skeptics deny that concepts of knowledge make sense, many Americans begin to wonder if old-fashioned concepts of democracy and political knowledge are even coherent and if we might be better off without them. Political actions such as voting, writing letters to Congresspeople, and volunteering for campaigns are thought to be based on mere opinion. Also, we wonder how we’ll ever know that such actions will make a difference anyway. Thus, it’s better to stay home, watch The Colbert Report and be a hero like Stephen says: “You’re doing something right now. You’re watching TV!”108
Stephen Colbert: Skeptic, Smart-Ass, or Both?
Stephen, a skeptic? It probably sounds strange. Imagine if Stephen had prominent philosophical skeptics as guests on The Colbert Report. Sextus would call Stephen a dogmatist, because Stephen rashly adheres to his beliefs. Jayarasi might call Stephen’s pronouncements, as he did the pronouncements of some Indian epistemologists, “the gesticulations of a fool.” David Hume might cast I Am America (And So Can You!) into the flames for containing “nothing