A Nod to Skepticism
Even if this particular Audi did not run on diesel, and even if all of these people who, here, think it doesn’t knew that it didn’t, it still wouldn’t make their reactions appropriate. Their reactions are far too intense – more appropriate for trying to stop someone from unintentionally backing over a child, or causing a massive explosion – for trying to stop something relatively innocuous as someone putting the wrong kind of fuel in their car. What, then, is the comedic value of having them react as such? What is the object of the humor?
By equating an ignorance of the fact that there actually are some cars (as opposed to just trucks) that run on diesel with an emotional imbalance that produces disproportionate reactions to stimuli, the commercial is poking fun at a particular type of psycho-epistemology. Specifically, the conceptual type. A person who characteristically conceptualizes (ie: integrates) his experiences into usable knowledge has a conceptual psycho-epistemology. Why would anyone want to belittle that?
The reason is because in today’s cultural atmosphere, there are many, many people who regard integration of any kind – integration as such – as presumptuous and counter-productive. They are who this commercial is targeted at (because, not coincidentally, many of them are wealthy liberals. The type that can afford an Audi). Such people observe the fact that knowledge can be limited (ie: contextual – ie: always qualified with the implicit caveat “to the extent of my knowledge”), and conclude that knowledge as such is useless. But is it?
Consider, for example, someone raised in a small, all-white town in rural America. Someone who has never seen a non-white person before, and – if he has ever even heard of the existence of non-white people – been told negative things about them by the people he interacts with. Is this person’s negative reaction to the first non-white person he encounters inappropriate? It may certainly be unjust – the non-white person may very well be a worthwhile individual deserving of good will – but would that be the fault of the person who had the reaction? To his knowledge, such people didn’t exist – so when he encounters one it would actually be reasonable to react with suspicion and guardedness (just as one would react to the sight of a strange insect on one’s front porch). Or, if his knowledge extends to what others have told him about non-white people, and his reaction is outwardly hostile, would that not be reasonable also? The other people in his life have shown themselves to be trustworthy and objective about most other, simpler things (eg: the trash really was taken out, the tractor really does only need an oil change, etc), so would he have any reason to suspect them of dishonesty or poor judgment in this issue? They certainly are guilty of such things, but he doesn’t know that (and to suspect, without evidence, that they are is unreasonable).
Limited knowledge does not imply presumption – and it doesn’t even imply uncertainty. To the extent that someone can be reasonably excused for not knowing a given particular fact about reality (eg: that there are passenger cars that run on the same type of fuel that trucks do), even if he is wrong, he is certain. Not certain in the literal sense, but in the epistemological sense. Certainty doesn’t require omniscience, it simply requires a rational process of thought. Provided that his conclusion is capable of being amended in the presence of new evidence (as opposed to being arbitrary, and therefore incapable of being affected by evidence – even if the pronouncement happens to be literally true), there’s nothing wrong with living as if what he has concluded is true (because, as far as he knows, it is). Even with it’s vulnerabilities, that is a far, far far more effective way to go through life than operating under the premise that each and every particular thing is a unique and unprecedented event (which, ironically, is a conceptual integration itself – so the people who do believe this principle are committing the fallacy of self-exclusion).
Many people in contemporary society have only been exposed to the arbitrary passed off as certainty. They have then concluded that certainty is impossible, and sneer at any pronouncements or demonstrations of it. This commercial provides them with yet another outlet for their contempt (which may have been righteous at one point, but has now morphed into an all-encompassing, cynical skepticism – which is just as destructive as the method of “thinking” that they despise), and in the process (hopefully, from the advertiser’s perspective) endears Audi the car brand to them in a way that (apparently) the objective merits of the car never could.*
*Of course, it could be argued that the central message of the commercial is that this particular Audi runs on diesel fuel (ie: that it’s a presentation of one of it’s objective merits, and therefore a legitimate advertisement) – but that presupposes that the people who would find that feature appealing don’t already know about it. Of course they already know about it, because by the nature of the psycho-epistemology of such people, such things are always a possibility. Such people would never think to themselves “I wish cars ran on diesel”, and then only consider the possibility of buying one that did after they’ve had the “presumption” that none do corrected. Instead, they would think to themselves “I wish I had a car that ran on diesel – and even though I’ve never seen one or heard of one, there must be one out there”, and then proceed to go – blindly – to find one to purchase; never having seen this commercial. No, all this commercial boils down to is attempt to flatter people for being “honest” about the “limits of human reason”, and thereby seduce them into purchasing the particular diesel produced by Audi (or even just the particular car being advertised, regardless of if it’s a diesel or not).