Late Show. The Colbert Report was satire, the theory goes – a satire of conservative “talking head” shows that you could find on FOX News at the time, like Bill O'Reilly's The O'Reilly Factor. But Colbert delivered his lines in such a “dead‐pan style” that it was difficult for those unfamiliar with Colbert to realize he was joking. Studies – real, honest to God, studies – showed that most conservatives seeing Colbert for the first time thought that he was completely serious and defending the conservative positions he was stating.
Of course, those same studies also showed that liberals seeing Colbert for the first time were apt to think that he agreed with them and was mocking conservatives. So they really just reveal the human propensity to see what we want.3 But that raises an interesting question. If there is a human propensity to just see what we want in Colbert, how can anyone know that they are reading Colbert correctly? Was Report‐Colbert really kidding? Or could he have been serious? Maybe it's Late‐Show‐Colbert that is the character.
“But,” you might argue, “Colbert said that he was just playing a character on The Colbert Report, once he started hosting The Late Show.”4 Indeed he did.5 But that's exactly what Jordan Klepper said when he started hosting The Opposition (one of the many shows that tried to replace The Colbert Report on Comedy Central). Klepper said he was only playing a character on The Daily Show. “This is the real me,” he said on the first episode of The Opposition.6 And yet, everyone knew he was playing a character!7 Indeed, The Opposition was an admitted satire of Alex Jones's Info Wars.8 And to make matters worse, not only did Alex Jones's lawyer argue, in court, that Jones is just playing a character on Info Wars,9 but few who listen to Info Wars think that he is playing a character – and those that do, only think so because they think that all news pundits are playing a character.10 As Klepper put it (even before Jones's lawyer said Jones was playing a character):
If you see me in an interview, or a deposition, say that I'm playing a character, that's because in that moment, I'm simply playing a character who, to throw them off the scent, would say that he's playing a character. Because, the truth is, “I'm not playing a character, except when I am.”11
How the hell can anyone tell who's playing a character and who's not?
Well, this is where philosophy, and a little thing called “the principle of charity,” comes in handy. According to this principle, when it is unclear what someone means, we should always choose the most charitable interpretation – for example, the one that makes them look least dimwitted. Such interpretations are usually right because, usually, people aren't that stupid. So what I would like to do this chapter is use this principle to argue that Report‐Colbert had to have been a character. The Colbert Report was satire. Colbert had to be kidding. Why? Because if he really meant most of the things he said on that show, Stephen Colbert would be idiotic beyond all comprehension. “Wrong!” Colbert said after scientists unveiled a 47‐million‐year‐old “missing link” fossil.12 “The Earth is 6000 years old. Always has been, always will be.”13 He cannot be serious because, not only is the idea that the Earth is 6000 years old contrary to all relevant modern scientific findings, but the idea that the Earth does not age – that it has always been 6000 years old – is absurd.
Now to those who, like me, have watched Colbert for years, this might seem like a waste of time. We all know that The Colbert Report was satire (and thus that Late‐Show‐Colbert is the real McCoy). “It's obvious.” But the argument I am about to lay out, which exposes just how ludicrous Report‐Colbert was, will teach some of the most fundamental and important lessons about how to do philosophy.
My Truth (Individual Relativism)
[My book is] not just some collection of reasoned arguments supported by facts. That is the coward's way out. This book is Truth. My Truth.
– Stephen Colbert
From the introduction to I Am America (And So Can You!) 14
His use of the phrase “My Truth” was the first clue that Colbert was kidding. He was suggesting that, somehow, truth belongs to him and can be solely determined by him. In doing so, Colbert was espousing a naive “individual relativism.” In general, relativism says that there are no truths in a universal sense; truth is relative. More specifically, individual relativism says that truth is relative to individuals. But to understand what this means, and why the real Colbert cannot possibly be an individual relativist, some questions need answering.
If truth is relative, what is truth? Truth is a property of beliefs and propositions. (“Proposition” is a term the wordinistas came up with because “sentence” wasn't good enough.) A belief or proposition is true if it corresponds to the way the world is; it is false if it does not. Philosophers call this “the correspondence theory of truth.” The part of the world that a true belief or proposition corresponds to is called that proposition's “truthmaker” – it is the part of the world that makes that proposition or belief true.
What does it mean for a truth to be relative? This is a question best answered by example. “You should drive on the right side of the road.” This truth is relative to culture; it is true in the United States but false in the United Kingdom. There is no universal truth about what side of the road you should drive on – it's a matter of convention. The truth of “Baconnaise tastes great” is relative to individuals. One person thinks it's true, and another thinks it's false, but neither one is right or wrong because there is no universal fact of the matter about it. Or consider whether Colbert's The Late Show is funny. You think he's hilarious; your mother does not get it: but neither of you is wrong or right (but, between you and me, your mom is wrong).15
The individual relativist thinks all truths are like this, but obviously this cannot be the case. For example, whether or not you exist is not a matter of convention or taste. If someone believes that you do not exist, it is not “true for them.” Your existence is a matter of fact. They might believe you do not exist, sure, but their belief is false. In addition, individual relativism in this form is self‐contradictory. It says there are no universal truths. But is not the individual relativist trying to establish that individual relativism is universally true? How can it be universally true that there are no universal truths? And, since something is true if it corresponds to the way the world is, if there were no universal truths there would be no world. The only way everything can be relative is if nothing exists to make any proposition universally true. And that's crazy!
Some individual relativists do not think everything is relative, just some things. For example, some people think only moral truths are relative to individuals. Is abortion immoral? The individual relativist would say that, for people who believe abortion is wrong, it is wrong – “wrong for them.” But for people who do not think abortion is wrong, it is right –
