The Isthmus, Madison’s local “alternative weekly,” advertises heavily on local buses. These ads are simple: they feature a quote from some writer (generally one whose name is suitable for dropping in alternative-weekly-readership circles, not necessarily one who has actually contributed prose to the publication) and the paper’s logo.
I have been meaning to post about one of these quotes for some time:
I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth.
–Molly Ivins
I’m stuck as to how to read this claim. Is it merely expressing garden-variety philosophical skepticism? (Note how this claim, while barely-coherent, dances on the brink of being self-contradictory.) Of course, skepticism has its own problems: how can we treat the claim that no one knows the truth except for the truth contained in “no one knows the truth?”
Is Ivins stating that humans are all inherently evil due to their failure to know the truth? Does original underdetermination predate original sin? (Actually, if we’re going to be technical about it, the root of all human evil comes from a desire for knowledge, not from ignorance.) Are those humans who are ignorant of their own ignorance more evil? Does believing that you know the truth, or that truth is knowable, make one evil?
If ignorance is the root of all evil, then the cure for evil (or proto-evil) is knowledge. (This assumes that we can, as a special case, know the truth that evil is something to be avoided.) Since knowledge is “justified true belief,” we can only “know” things that are true. (You can’t “know” a falsehood.) But no one knows the truth! Ms. Ivins seems to be at least dooming any possibility for human progress; at worst, she is deliberately trying to increase ignorance, torturing her readers with an apparently incoherent claim.
It is possible that the Isthmus ad takes this seemingly nonsensical quote out of context, and Ivins is not as confused as she appears. (She may, of course, have been kidding, or responding to a challenge to produce an overtly goofy claim.) Perhaps combining two sentiments — “ignorance is bad” and “universal (‘the’) truth is unknowable” — that they expect their readers to share is a good way to engender goodwill in the hearts of not-particularly-thoughtful passers-by, and consistency be damned. However, the fact that such a quote passed Ivins’ lips in any context is troubling, given the number of people who appear to take her seriously. (More on this shortly.)
Further evidence indicates that, in fact, the Isthmus staff may have little regard for consistency; another bus ad drops the following lyrical bomb:
Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad.
–Aldous Huxley
I’m going to “know the truth?” Well, I guess I shouldn’t have believed that last Isthmus ad that told me that I couldn’t handle didn’t know the truth. Aldous, meet Molly. You two shall have a bit to discuss.
There are two possibilities here: either the Isthmus ad agency staffers are as intellectually careless as the potential readers that they expect to impress with the Ivins quote, or the agency embraces the Ivins quote both for truth and for meta-truth: Huxley is free to express his truth about truths (parameterized by his historical context, experiences, and subjective impressions), and Ivins is free to express hers. Neither, however, has “the” truth.
(As an ironic aside: While preparing this post, I noticed that the Isthmus motto is “the shortest distance between two points of view.” Indeed, the range of editorial content on offer in alternative weeklies seems to point to a simple way to shrink the distance between various opinions. There is a broader range of meta-truths on the Isthmus‘ ads than there is of claims in the Isthmus‘ actual pages.)
If I were searching for meta-truth and had to choose which of these to believe, it wouldn’t be too hard. Neither is particularly one of my intellectual heroes (although I do remember Brave New World fondly every time I get a spam message advertising “soma”), but Ivins represents what I regard as the worst and most toxic strain in American popular discourse. Like her fellow malignant charlatans from across the US political spectrum — such as Ann Coulter, Maureen Dowd, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, and Bill O’Reilly — Ivins trades in easy generalities, cheap point-scoring, rhetorical chicanery, and preaching to the converted. Such a brand of politics-as-entertainment replaces arguments with one liners, content with silliness, and self-examination with snarling assault on the other.
I’m sure that politics-as-entertainment is lucrative, but at what price? It serves merely to foment groupthink and cement artificial divisions. Even worse, its ubiquity encourages people to believe (1) that politics is entertaining and (2) that their particular set of bumper stickers are actually meaningful. (Independently of these stickers’ content, they aren’t.)
I’m currently listening to Appetite for Disctruction from the album “Appetite for Disctruction” by Funkstörung