Stephen Colbert and Philosophy - Aaron Allen Schiller [71]
It is as if the point of the doctrine of objectivity were to avoid offending two constituencies: corporations (since media outlets do not wish to undermine their own interests, or those of their corporate sponsors) and the audience for mass media journalism (which is overwhelmingly concentrated within the spectrum of mainstream opinion described above). So the upshot of the doctrine of journalistic objectivity is that claims that are universally affirmed within the right circles are treated as facts; claims that are universally rejected within those same circles are dismissed as falsehoods; and claims that are controversial within those same circles are treated as subjective, as matters of opinion—to be dealt with in editorials and opinion columns.
The Coming of the Gasbags
This state of affairs allows truthiness to flourish. It also helps to explain the otherwise inexplicable rise of such factually-challenged pundits as Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh, whose repeated bombastic insistence that ludicrous falsehoods be accepted as facts is so deftly satirized by Stephen Colbert.129 As funny and entertaining as Colbert’s character is, it’s almost sad that his comedy has such wide appeal. It means that Limbaugh and O’Reilly, with their total disregard for the truth, have a profound degree of influence over the course of American civic discourse. Their success is evidence that the critical norms associated with a concern for truth are not enjoying robust health in America right now.
But this should worry us. Truth matters. Just as a brain surgeon will be unlikely to perform successful surgery without an accurate understanding of the physiology and functioning of the brain, so will we be unable to solve the major social and political problems facing our society without genuine knowledge concerning both the functioning of our culture and the likely effects of various changes that might be implemented. What we need, in short, is real truth. We need an accurate understanding, based on careful, responsible, logical analysis of the relevant evidence. Ignorant opinions emanating from the gut just won’t cut it.
Intuition
But don’t philosophers also make extensive use of unsupported opinions precisely in the same way that Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Colbert do? After all, many philosophers appeal in their work to “intuition.” They claim that it’s possible to know the truth of some statements merely through a careful, close-up inspection of them, without making use of any supporting evidence, arguments, or reasoning of any kind. This gives rise to the suspicion that perhaps a philosopher’s claim to know self-evident truths intuitively is no different from Colbert’s insistence that he can justify his assertions by referring to the way they feel in his gut. And if it’s appropriate to reject the latter claim (and, indeed, as Colbert’s performance indicates, to ridicule it satirically and to laugh at it), why doesn’t the philosopher’s assertion warrant the same treatment?
The answer lies in noticing the ways in which the philosopher’s appeal to intuition differs from Colbert’s appeal to his gut and Limbaugh’s or O’Reilly’s uncritical reliance on their prejudices. To see this, let’s consider the ways in which some philosophers use intuition.
Perhaps the most important use of intuition flows from the idea that without intuition there can be no knowledge at all. To see why this is so, consider what it would mean to deny that we can know anything intuitively. Such a denial amounts to the claim that there are no self-evident truths and that all knowledge claims must, therefore, be backed with reasons. But notice that this leads to an infinite regress.