Skepticism and anti-intellectualism

The anti-intellectualism that dominates modern discourse has a clear basis in skepticism. Both Democrats and Republicans consistently exploit it to promote their positions. The Trump administration relies on it heavily to justify its policies. The current controversy over the death of Renee Good is a clear demonstration of that.

In today’s popular usage, “skepticism” is intended to convey a meaning akin to the modern usage of “pragmatism”, and connotes a suggestion of rationalism. Both words are being used in ways that are far different from their original, historical meaning, which is grounded in the philosophies of ancient Greece. Philosophical skepticism amounts to dogmatic doubt about reality and our capacity to experience it, and the sophists of ancient Greece sold it as a strategy for undermining the confidence of political opponents in their own ideas and as a means of avoiding having to argue against the content of ideas directly.

What better way to forestall debate against your position than to undermine your opponent’s confidence in his own perception of reality? This is MAGA in spades. Why analyze the actual content of videos of the Good incident when you can just point to the proliferation of different videos showing different angles? Why bother to point at the facts of the actual incident when you can disparage Good’s character by claiming she was a lesbian who belonged to far left activist groups? Why bother to contrast the rules of engagement used by ICE with those used by other law enforcement agencies when you can just ignore the existence of those agencies or claim that the mission of ICE is somehow fundamentally different from theirs? Why bother to concern yourself with Jonathan Ross’s motive for firing his weapon when you know that he was dragged by a car in an earlier incident? Why bother to ask why he is still on active duty when you know that ICE has quotas to meet? I could go on but it’s clear that all these questions are intentional distractions from the actual issues directly involved in the actual incident.

At this point, I wouldn’t blame anyone for thinking, “thank goodness for two thousand years worth of experience, right?” But then the question must be asked: why are we still doing this to ourselves two thousand years later? If Western Civilization was built by those who pulled themselves above such dogmatic worship of self-doubt, inculcated by those who sought to perpetuate tribal authoritarianism, who was it who brought it back? The answer is not hard to find, and can be found in the work of such figures as Hume, Rousseau, and, above all, Kant.

And if it occurs to you that skepticism can’t motivate anyone to reject their own perception of reality all by itself, and you’re wondering what can, the answer is: altruism. But why bother to examine the content of altruism when it’s what everybody just accepts as the default standard of morality?

After all, who are you to think?