004 | Why Skepticism Is Crucial Today

Journey of Ideas

0:00

-30:17

004 | Why Skepticism Is Crucial Today

The Wisdom of Xenophanes

Einzelgänger

Nov 18, 2025

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Mark Twain.

Is there anything more annoying than people who doubt everything? You know, the types that constantly question what people say, who refuse to just go along with the story? These people are precisely the ones to whom the internet meme “You must be fun at parties” applies.

In all likelihood, these individuals are skeptics. Their philosophical stance in life is to doubt what others take for granted and to question whether their own beliefs are truly valid. Such people are generally irritating, tiresome, and smug… No, I’m just generalizing here. But I know the annoyance or even anger that arises when your perfectly crafted story or beautiful theory gets ruined by someone pointing out that, well, there are some problems with accepting what you claim to be the truth as truth.

Now and then, this ‘skeptical intervention’, so to speak, barges into what was meant to be just a lighthearted conversation or harmless gossip.

Imagine, for example, a group of friends sitting in a bar, discussing a recent betrayal, throwing all kinds of truisms and prejudices on the table, just to explain why the ex-husband in question left a seemingly perfect marriage for a twenty-year-old bar girl in Thailand, and what a complete jerk he is. And they are obviously enjoying the conversation.

But then, the skeptic of the bunch basically schools them by saying that although their theories could be true, there’s always another side to the story, and lots of details they just don’t know about, so, basically, they don’t know what the heck they’re talking about!

But skepticism can cut much deeper than this. A skeptic can attack and dismantle an entire worldview.

Just imagine a civilization living in harmony under one faith: Pastafarianism, the worship of His Noodly Appendage, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Everything is running smoothly. The Pastafarian religion is present in virtually all areas of life, including schools, workplaces, politics, public spaces, and, of course, churches, which are ubiquitous and well-attended. It functions as social cement and has given people purpose for many generations.

Now, a religious skeptic grabs the open mic at a local church and begins to question what everyone has taken for granted for many generations. “This Flying Spaghetti Monster,” he says. “Has anyone actually ever seen the guy? How can you be sure he’s not a Macaroni Monster? Or a Lasagna Monster? And those beer volcanoes and stripper factories this prophet Bobby promised us in the afterlife… have you ever seen pictures of it? How do you know for sure they exist?”

Touched by His Noodly Appendage - Niklas Jansson

Of course, he’s met with opposition. Who dares to challenge the Great Noodle in the Sky, the Saucy Master, Creator of Heaven and Earth? Who dares to oppose a well-functioning system of belief, the very fabric of a civilization, risking chaos and collapse?

Well, that’s the skeptic for you. Skeptics can be annoying, but they are essential to our progress as a species and to our pursuit of the truth.

This episode won’t be about philosophical Skepticism as a whole, which I hope to explore in the future, but about the man who is often considered the first Skeptic in Western history. We’re talking about a Presocratic philosopher named Xenophanes.

In this episode, we’ll explore his life and ideas and how they can help us cultivate inner peace amid the noise of modern media and information overload.

****

This is the Journey of Ideas. My name is Stefan, also known as Einzelgänger. This is not an AI voice. I’m a real person. And I’m taking you on a long trip.

We’re exploring the ideas of the many great thinkers of history, as well as the times and places in which they lived. Right now, we’re at the very beginning of Western philosophy.

This episode is available as an audio podcast on Spotify, Substack, Apple, and several other platforms. To stay updated on all my content, subscribe to my newsletter on Substack or journeyofideas.com.

I hope you’ll enjoy the episode.

***

We’ll begin with the birth of skepticism, focusing on Xenophanes, a Presocratic philosopher, his ideas, and the influence he had. After that, we’ll examine today’s situation, followed by a practical part on how to apply skepticism in our lives. Feel free to skip parts that don’t interest you.

Now, let’s set sail for the ancient Greek colony of Ionia, where we’ll visit the city of Colophon, the birthplace of the philosopher Xenophanes.

The birth of skepticism

To understand why skepticism arose, we have to consider the typical worldviews of the ancient Greeks during the time of Xenophanes. How did they see the world? What did they believe in?

The ancient Greeks were a religious bunch. They had gods, many of them we know: Zeus, Poseidon, Aphrodite, Hades, who governed the world. The Greeks worshiped these gods in temples, brought them offerings, and believed their fate depended on them. And these gods played parts in many stories.

Now, one day, a troublemaker from Colophon dared to ridicule his fellow Greeks and their religion. His name was Xenophanes, and even though he’s regarded as one of the first philosophers, he wasn’t quite the typical bookish, scholarly type. Xenophanes was a poet who originated from Colophon, but, as the stories go, was mainly on the road.

Xenophanes clearly did not buy the idea of human-like gods as described by Homer and Hesiod. He found the whole notion that these gods looked and behaved like humans—Greeks to be precise—pretty ridiculous. Like, why would the creators of the universe look like Greeks? And why are they ‘born’ if they’re gods? Moreover, why would they have all these horrible human characteristics, such as stealing, betraying, and killing each other?

The Induction of Ganymede in Olympus - Charles-Amédée-Philippe van Loo

These so-called Gods behave just like the average Greek, but then thousands of times as powerful, and with their egos turned up ten thousand percent. This Zeus fellow is more like a rioded up grandpa with a superiority complex, isn’t it?

Xenophanes suspected that the Greek gods of his time were simply products of culture, shaped according to the people who worshipped them. Quite bluntly, he stated: “Ethiopians say that their gods are snub-nosed and black; Thracians that theirs are blue-eyed and red-haired.”

We can observe this trend today as well, as Jesus is often depicted differently by various cultures. In China, he looks Chinese. In Africa, he looks African. And in the American Midwest, you can bet he’s white and blue-eyed. So, Xenophanes’ observation was spot on, in my opinion, even though it’s not always the case. We also see gods depicted as animals or animal-like beings in, for example, Egyptian or Indian mythology.

So, imagine Xenophanes traveling from city to city, roasting his religious fellow Greeks; he probably collected a fair share of haters throughout his life. I just picture him barging into a Greek tavern, taking the stage, reciting one of his poems, like this one:

Homer and Hesiod have attributed to the gods all sorts of things that are matters of reproach and censure among men…as they sang of numerous illicit divine deeds: theft, adultery, and mutual deceit.
Fragments B11 and B12, retrieved from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Unfortunately for the atheists among us, Xenophanes wasn’t one. Despite his criticism of the anthropomorphic gods, he had his own idea of the divine, which tends to point to an early form of monotheism. I quote: “One god greatest among gods and men, not at all like mortals in body or in thought.” What exactly he meant by this is much debated, as are many other aspects of his worldview.

His theories about the sea, the moon, the stars, and other natural phenomena are interesting. For example, he claimed that the sea is the source of water and wind, and that stars originate from burning clouds. His attempts to explain natural phenomena through reason rather than mythology earned him a place among thinkers such as Thales, Anaximander, and others.

If you’re interested in Xenophanes’ views on natural phenomena, there are plenty of resources to draw from, which I’ve listed on Substack (below).

I’d like to focus on his ideas on knowledge. Many consider Xenophanes to be the first skeptic, not just because he criticized the gods, but also because he reflected on knowledge: on what we can and cannot know in general, which, according to some scholars, makes him a global skeptic. Let’s imagine him in that tavern again, reciting the following poem:

…and of course the clear and certain truth no man has seen
nor will there be anyone who knows about the gods and what I say about all things.
For even if, in the best case, one happened to speak just of what has been brought to pass,
still he himself would not know. But opinion is allotted to all.
Fragment 34, retrieved from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Simply put? All is belief, all is opinions. No one can really know the truth. “All things,” the reality in general, is unknowable by us. And even if someone spoke the truth, they could never verify that it was true. And so it seems Xenophanes asks us to be humble in terms of the truth.

“But wait a minute,” I hear you think. “Aren’t there absolute facts? For example, can’t we say with absolute certainty that, on a sunny day, the sky is blue?”

Xenophanes would say, probably, that it seems true from our own perspective. The sky appears blue on a sunny day. But that doesn’t mean it’s an absolute truth. It may be the truth, and even if it were, there’s no way of knowing for sure. We’re limited to our human perception.

For some people, such skepticism is quite displeasing because it means that whatever you’re convinced of may not be true. So, whatever information you’ve adopted as truth, such as ‘I broke up with my ex because he’s an asshole’ or ‘my ex-wife was just a narcissist and that’s that,’ the skeptic would not immediately accept it as the truth.

However, to you gaslighters out there, that doesn’t mean an opinion or belief can always be dismissed as nonsense, or that some views and beliefs aren’t more plausible than others or likely to be true, based on sound evidence. Here’s what Xenophanes said about this:

In the beginning the gods did not at all reveal all things clearly to mortals, but by searching men in the course of time find them out better.
Fragment 16, retrieved from the University of Vermont

Xenophanes was inviting us to inquire, to seek, to question, to understand things better.

Even though we may never know the truth, we can approach it by conducting a thoughtful investigation and critical reflection. The goal is not to reach an absolute, unfalsifiable truth, but to at least get a bit closer to it; to form the best opinions and beliefs as possible, based on the best evidence available.

Many people today have it completely backwards. They claim to own the truth, often based on poor or nonexistent evidence. We see many self-proclaimed experts running around today, confidently making assertions of truth that can easily be debunked by more substantial evidence. Bold claims of truth dominate today’s discourse, without humility or taking into account our limits of knowledge, which is the opposite of what Xenophanes preached.

Now that we know more about Xenophanes, I would like to elaborate further on his attitude toward knowledge, as it remains relevant today. I believe it could even change one’s attitude toward today’s tsunami of information and fake news that often causes anxiety, anger, and, sometimes, despair.

So, I’d like to leave Ancient Greece for now, make a trip to today’s day and age, and take Xenophanes’ early skepticism to see how we can apply it.

Trust me bro

We’re in the twenty-twenties now. Worldwide, idyllic little harbor cities on the coasts have been replaced by vast skylines. We see giant seaports welcoming container ships full of stuff, mainly bought and sold online, at the click of a mouse. Technological advancements caused the emergence of the information age, which has made our lives much easier in many ways but also more cluttered.

We live in an era of information wars, numerous online media outlets, influencers, and echo chambers. Of course, Xenophanes wasn’t familiar with these things. However, I’d like to demonstrate that his reasoning can still be applied to what we’re dealing with: unprecedented amounts of information, much of it misinformation and so-called fake news, which often evokes emotions in people, such as anxiety and anger.

As mentioned, Xenophanes was critical of what people in his time accepted as truth, whether it was Pythagoras’s concept of reincarnation, which he ridiculed, or the human-like gods described by Homer and Hesiod. Interestingly, he noticed specific trends regarding what people tend to accept as truth.

For example, Xenophanes observed that people tend to believe in what feels familiar and comprehensible to them, what fits within their frame of reference.

I mean… What a coincidence that the Greek gods, these superior beings, resemble the Greeks. And how come that Ethiopian gods look like, well, Ethiopians? Hence, Xenophanes argued that cows would probably believe that the gods look like cows, and horses would assert that they look like horses, if these animals were intelligent enough to grasp the concept of the divine.

Xenophanes also noticed that people’s beliefs about the gods were suspiciously convenient.

After all, there’s nothing wrong with my lying, cheating, stealing, and killing other people, if the gods are behaving in the same way, isn’t it?

So, it’s almost as if people accept a truth not because it’s well-researched, but because it feels familiar and comforting, because it confirms what they already believe, or simply because it’s the version of reality they want to be true.

It’s funny, sometimes, when you look at two opposing media outlets, say Fox News and MSNBC, reporting on the same issue, they come up with two entirely different stories; Fox will say that the conservatives “owned the libs”, while MSNBC will announce the “complete meltdown” of the conservatives.

How can such completely opposite versions of the truth exist? And more importantly, in this case, why do some people embrace the story by Fox News as truth, and others the story by MSNBC as truth? Could it be out of convenience? Personal preference?

After all, isn’t it generally more pleasant to believe that the good guys are more or less like yourself, that your values are the correct values, and that your behavior is the proper behavior? And if so, wouldn’t you rather accept a truth that aligns with your current beliefs?

Now, the problem is that people often seem so overtaken by their preferences that they are willing to accept a truth, even when someone with half a brain can see it’s nonsense, because it’s what they want to hear.

In today’s diverse media landscape, a great way to generate views is to select an audience, clearly convey what they want to hear, and reinforce it. Influencers, a relatively recent form of media, are all too familiar with this. Many are masters at crafting messages, often sensational and rage bait, customized to serve the audience’s preferences.

In many cases, the audience eats it up without the slightest critical thinking or any doubts. Fake news? Who cares! As long as it aligns with my preferred view of the world! Or, as long as it feeds my anger! And thus, people allow themselves to be brainwashed by some shady influencer claiming to speak “facts” while his only source is “trust me, bro.”

I don’t have to explain how dangerous this can be. Especially when highly dubious beliefs begin to radicalize people. Here’s where the concept of echo chambers comes in.

Remember what Xenophanes wrote about seeking to understand things better? Or, in other words, coming closer to the truth, even though we can never know it?

The people inside these echo chambers may think they have the truth, but their approach to seeking it is stifled. Groupthink and the isolated nature of these spaces expose them only to information that confirms what they already believe, reinforcing conviction rather than bringing them any closer to the truth.

Being part of an echo chamber is almost like being in a cult: authority figures claim to possess the truth, dogmas, and ‘us against them’; members parrot each other, correct and exclude those who don’t follow the narrative, and generally believe that outside information cannot be trusted.

This is obviously not the skeptic’s way; on the contrary.

Luckily, we have an army of well-intentioned people who go to battle with the monster called misinformation: fact-checkers. In a way, fact checkers are skeptics. They doubt information posing as truth, do research, look for proof and inconsistencies, and then confront that information, debunking what they deem inaccurate based on their ‘fact-checking’.

But Xenophanes, if he lived today, would probably argue that even fact-checkers can never be entirely sure that what they’ve found is the ‘real’ truth. They may be closer to it (thanks to careful research and reason), but they shouldn’t fall into the same trap as those who spread misinformation as fact. Because, as Xenophanes said, “opinion is allotted to all.” And if you follow Xenophanes, you’d even doubt that claim.

Fact-checking, or rather, ‘truth-seeking’, can even make matters worse. Some self-styled truthseekers aren’t very bright. You know, people who are skeptical of the mainstream media, but then go do their “own research”. And possibly due to a lack of critical thinking or an inability to deal with complexities, they begin embracing these wild conspiracy theories so ridiculous that they would be better off watching NewsMax. A typical case of skepticism gone wrong.

Now, being a ‘skeptic’ may seem a bit frustrating, doesn’t it? I mean… how satisfying is it to just accept something (preferably something you tend to agree with) as ‘truth’ and be done with it?

“The libs are morons, period!”

“Android is better than Apple. That’s a fact!”

“People are only as faithful as their options, and that’s that!”

Truth then becomes a bit like fast food: lacking in nutrients, readily available, and it satisfies the appetite. Life becomes so simple when everything makes sense, contrary to that of the skeptic, for whom nothing makes sense.

However, I’d like to explore the argument that skepticism, when done right, is actually a relatively calm approach to today’s flood of information. And that Xenophanes’ idea that people only have opinions, not actual knowledge, is no reason for despair. But don’t take my word for it, of course.

Ready? Let’s get into it.

Skepticism for inner peace

Xenophanes didn’t write a book on ‘how to be a skeptic,’ at least, not that we know of, nor are there signs that he saw his way of thinking as a path to inner peace. But those who followed in his footsteps, nurturing the seeds of skepticism planted by Xenophanes, developed it into essentially a way of life. I’m specifically referring to Pyrrho of Elis and his later interpreter, Sextus Empiricus, philosophers we’ll hopefully explore someday.

Yet, I still think that the core of what Xenophanes left us about his way of thinking—the idea that we can understand things better by seeking, yet we can never know the truth—is in itself enough to see how the skeptical approach can lead to a sense of peace of mind.

What I’m about to share is more of an experimental application of Xenophanes’ skepticism in daily life, exploring why it matters and how it could be beneficial. I’ll let you be the judge of whether it makes sense.

We started this episode by saying that skeptics can be annoying. They don’t just take something at face value. They don’t just accept something as truth. They will always doubt what’s being said, and, when debating them, they’ll poke holes in your arguments or ask you critical questions that shake your belief system.

Being that skeptical, irritating, probably uninvited guest to your nephew’s birthday party seems an exhausting way to live. But the skeptical attitude could actually be a pathway to inner peace.

Especially in the information age, where we’re bombarded every day with news, opinion articles, influencers telling you ‘the facts,’ podcast discussions with ‘specialists,’ there’s an unprecedented amount of triggers for the mind. For many, being confronted with, let’s say, fifty different versions of the truth, becomes pretty much an emotional rollercoaster. At one moment, migrants are the problem, then it’s Russia, then it’s trans people, then it’s Islam, and then it’s fascism.

The problems lie in what we do with that information.

Do we assent, meaning, do we engage with it, adopt it as a fact? Do we then ruminate and worry about the information we just assented to? Do we share the information with others? And when we adopt the information as facts, do we then attack those who contradict those facts? Are we becoming increasingly angry, fearful, and pessimistic about the world due to the vast amount of information we consume? After spending a night doomscrolling, do we feel that the world is about to collapse and everything beyond our front doors is a war zone? Do we go out and physically harm a bunch of people?

In many cases, letting ourselves be emotionally controlled by the floodwaves of information is a horrible way to live. And the saddest thing of all is that it’s primarily based on incomplete understandings of reality. There’s always another side to the story, things we don’t see or understand, and complexities that go beyond human perception.

As Xenophanes claimed: “But as for certain truth, no man has known it, nor shall he know it, neither of the gods, nor yet of all the things of which I speak.”

We’re angry at interpretations, anxious about portrayals, and depressed about depictions, but not about what things really are, which, according to Xenophanes, we cannot know. Xenophanes’s wisdom suggests that as we learn to know things better, we must also remember that, despite our efforts to understand the world, we can never truly know anything for sure, which, of course, also includes his own views of the world.

For some people, the uncertainty that comes with this can be terrifying. But we could also see it as a reason not to worry or get angry, since any facts that disturb us emotionally are most likely not entirely accurate.

By staying skeptical, we prevent ourselves from being burdened by the weight of truth. We can use information to gain a better understanding of things, but with a critical eye and reservations. We don’t attach to any of it, let alone it being a reason for angrily defending it, resenting those who disagree, or hiding in fear.

As later skeptic Pyrrho argued, reality is so unstable and indeterminate that we can’t even grasp it with our senses and opinions. So, why defend something that isn’t set in stone so fiercely?

This doesn’t mean that looking for the truth is bad. Or that reporting on something or engaging in a debate is useless. It’s beneficial to gain a better understanding and to continue asking questions, digging deeper, gathering more evidence, and sharing vital information. However, a skeptic should approach it with reservations, recognizing that even well-informed opinions and beliefs are not necessarily the truth, and even if they were, we would never know for sure.

It also doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stand for something. If, after a thorough investigation, we conclude that certain information is at least close to the truth, we can take a stance, but again, with reservations and a willingness to update our views at any time.

So, a skeptic raising her eyebrow to virtually any information she’s confronted with isn’t necessarily a way to be annoying or look smart, but rather to withhold from adopting and engaging with information posing as factual. The tool she has at her disposal? A razor-sharp awareness that we can’t know anything for sure, and we should not be too quick to assume, to judge, to attack, to argue, and so forth. And a willingness to look deeper, before taking a stance.

I’d say it’s almost a form of mindfulness. The art of being mindful that, no matter how convincing something sounds or looks, it could very well be true, but we’ll never know.

Skepticism can also be beneficial when interacting with people with whom we disagree. Instead of getting angry at their differing views, we could soften up by reminding ourselves that our own views are likely not entirely accurate. We could even regard such conversations as opportunities for inquiry, to investigate opposing opinions and their sources, and see if there’s common ground or anything to learn.

And often, when someone is busy pontificating their ‘truth,’ you don’t owe them agreement, disagreement, or even engagement. Sometimes, the wisest answer is a simple grunt.

The skepticism of Xenophanes is a practice of intellectual modesty. It’s the art of saying “I believe, but maybe I’m wrong.” And in a world that worships certainty, where so many people have absolute opinions, this might be the most radical act of all.

Thank you for listening.

Sources

Early Greek Philosophy (John Burnet)
Philosophy Before Socrates: An Introduction with Texts and Commentary (Richard D. McKirahan)
Presocratic Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction (Catherine Osborne)
A Presocratics Reader: Selected Fragments and Testimonia (Patricia Curd, Richard D. McKirahan)
The First Philosophers (Robin Waterfield)