October 2008 Archives

 Deism and Enlightenment thought are said to have had a significant effect on the formation of the United States, as they are believed to be the key philosophies of the Founding Fathers. So, this paper will take a look at the Declaration of Independence to identify patterns of these two philosophies within this document written by Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson's ties to Enlightenment thought and Deism come out in the very beginning of the Declaration of Independence. Look at the first sentence:
When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinion of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
 There are a few things one should pick up on in this sentence. First, notice the capitalization. Throughout the entire document, Jefferson seems to be capitalizing any word which he finds to be particularly significant and important. He capitalizes words like "Events" when referring to human history, "People," and "Opinions of Mankind," among others. Harrison (et al) says, "Like Renaissance humanism, deism focused on the glories of nature, especially human nature with its rational capacity" (470). The capitalization of these words demonstrates a belief in their "glory;" it almost characterizes them, and places them in a place of honor. As the one continues to read the document, it is interesting to see which of these words he chooses to capitalize. It gives great insight into his beliefs, and reveals a subtle pattern of Deistic Enlightenment Thought. He seems to be capitalizing those words which he believes have innate value. Some more particularly interesting capitalized words will be pointed out later.
 The second thing one should notice from the first sentence ties in very nicely with the first. This is that he basically says the powers being taken by the Declaration of Independence are allotted by "the Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God." In reference to Enlightenment concepts, Harrison (et al) says, "Nature constitutes a standard for judgment" (469). According to Jefferson, the people are entitled to certain things because of the laws of nature and nature's God. Otherwise stated, he is using nature as a "standard for judgment." Now consider the capitalization of the words. He capitalizes law, nature, and god. Again, these seem to be words which Jefferson believes have innate value. Notice also that he says the "Laws of Nature" first, and calls God "Nature's God." This is definitely placing Nature in a high place of honor, just as Enlightenment thought does. 
 The next section which would be significant to the subject of Enlightenment thought and Deism would be this: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." The key phrase here is "self-evident." This implies that this--rights, liberty, etc.--is the way things should be, the way they were intended to be--more specifically the way things were intended to be by nature. According to Harrison (et al), "A move to the nature is a move toward wholesome vigor and freedom" (469). This seems to be a belief shared by Jefferson when looking at this passage. And again, notice the capitalization. The capitalization of truth, men, creator, and rights is showing what Jefferson believes has value.
 Here is the next key passage from the Declaration of Independence: "...Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed." This statement has strong overtones of Enlightenment thought. In its full context it is almost an expression of happiness at a long-overdue return to the way things should be, or nature. The capitalization works basically the same as it has above, but one clarification must be made. The capitalization does not just apply to that which Jefferson believes has innate value, but also that which he believes has innate significance. As one can see, the word "evils" is capitalized, and evils are significant, but not necessarily valuable. 
 So, these have been some of the more notable references to Deism and Enlightenment thought in the Declaration of Independence. The passages covered are good examples of the strong value for people and nature that relate closely to Enlightenment thought and Deism. The look at the odd capitalization which Jefferson used are also reminiscent of these things. These things which Jefferson identifies through capitalization as significant or valuable often line up with the thing which these two similar philosophies find significant or valuable. Deism and Enlightenment thought are skillfully peppered throughout this document by Jefferson, who, when looking at this document, seems to share the ideals of both.  
 
Works Cited
Harrison, John Baugham, Dennis Sherman, and Richard E. Sullivan. A Short History of Western Civilization: Renaissance to the Present. New York: Mcgraw-hill Companies, 1994.
Reid, Daniel G. "Deism." Dictionary of Christianity in America. Dowers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.

In the Summa Contras Gentiles Thomas Aquinas uses these primary truths to show the link between revelation and reason:
1) The Principle of Non-Contradiction, and
2) The Ability of the Mind to Know the Truth
He discusses these assumed truths and how they prove that human reason is compatible with the Christian faith.
 It is important to note the Thomas also brings another assumed truth to the argument. This truth is that God is good. He repeats at least twice that God would not give us faulty reasoning, and that it is a ridiculous assertion even to consider that he would. When looking at the language with which he addresses the subject it is obvious that he is establishing God's goodness as an assumed truth.
 He begins by saying, "Now though the aforesaid truth of the Christian faith surpasses the ability of human reason, nevertheless those things which are naturally instilled in human reason cannot be opposed to this truth." He is simply establishing that, though many parts of the Christian faith and beliefs are above and beyond human reason, human reason cannot contradict them. Human reason has limits. When revelation breaches these limits, reason is incapable of neither contradicting nor confirming it. In other words, the issue lies with the reason, and not with the revelation.
 With this principle established, Thomas continues, "Seeing then that the false alone is opposed to the true...it is impossible for the...truth of faith to be contrary to those principles which reason knows naturally." This brings to mind the principle of mankind's ability to know the truth. The basic statement is that if something is true it is not incompatible with reason--which ties into the principle of non-contradiction. If truth and non-truth exist, then the truths are confirmed by the God-given nature of reason.
 His other great argument in the article is that reason is a gift from God; therefore it is compatible with revelation, as both come from the same Creator. God reveals Himself to mankind through revelation and through reason. If both are not compatible, then He could not use them for the same purpose. Thomas Aquinas says, "Now the knowledge of naturally known principles is instilled into us by God, since God Himself is the author of our nature." One must not forget Thomas' third assumed truth that God is good. If this is not assumed, then the argument ensues about God trying to "fool" people by authoring for them faulty reasoning. As Thomas also says, "Wherefore if conflicting knowledges were instilled into us by God, our intellect would thereby be hindered from knowing the truth." As already stated, God gave mankind reasoning for the purpose of understanding, not confusion.
 He goes as far as to say that if revelation does not connect with reason, then it is likely not from God. He says, "...those things which are received by faith from divine revelation cannot be contrary to our natural knowledge." Thomas believes that God gave mankind reason as a means of better understanding Himself. Therefore, if reason and revelation contradict each other, then the revelation is not from God, because He will not contradict Himself, in this case, the reasoning which He has created.
Thomas ties his assumed truths together quite nicely in this statement: "Our intellect is stayed by contrary arguments, so that it cannot advance to the knowledge of truth. Wherefore if conflicting knowledges were instilled into us by God, our intellect would thereby be hindered from knowing the truth. And this cannot be ascribed to God." Non-contradiction and the awareness of truth ties very closely together, to the point where this writer did not feel able to discuss them properly separate from each other. As Thomas shows in this statement, non-contradiction ties directly to the awareness of truth. If the truth can be contradicted, then what is truth, and how can people know it? The ability to know the truth cannot exist without the principle of non-contradiction.
In the aforementioned quote, Thomas also covers his assumed truth of God's goodness. He says that God would not instill conflicting knowledge in our nature, because this would obstruct His ability to reveal Himself to people, which is not in the nature of the God of goodness.
Thomas Aquinas' belief is that the Christian faith is compatible with human reason. The proofs he has demonstrated using the assumed truths of non-contradiction, awareness of truth, and the goodness of God have shown a case for this--that Christianity and reason compliment rather than contradict each other. 

It seems to me that the "startling truth" Maya Angelou writes about here is actually two-fold. The first truth is that of death, shown by such phrases as, "When the curtain falls on the minstrel show of hate." The second truth is that mankind is the "true wonder of this world" and that we do not realize our power.
Let us look first at the truth of death. In this poem, Angelou seems to be focused, not on death itself, but specifically on violent death. I believe that when she says "the minstrel show of hate," she means "life." Calling it a show of "hate" is a sign that she is referring to human violence. She mentions war, "battlefields," and "the bruised and bloody grass," and "the landmines of death." She also refers to child abuse, "And childhood dreams are not kicked awake / By nightmares of abuse." And finally she refers, interestingly, to violence caused by religious zealotry, "...the screaming racket in the temples," and "...the religious ritual...perfumed / By incense of burning flesh."
Angelou seems to have a low esteem for the religious. We had a short discussion last year about violence and religion last year, with a visiting journalist. What I took away from that is that there is a distinct difference between our God, and what we make of Him--which is religion. That aside, I believe that if it was not for religion, men would find a different reason to hate each other. (very likely)
Let us now look to the other side of Angelou's two-fold revelation. Mankind is the "true wonder of this world." She seems to believe that men are able to "fashion for this earth / A climate where every man and every woman / Can live freely without sanctimonious piety / Without crippling fear." I believe she is saying that mankind is capable of turning the world from one of violence to one of peace, and that we simply choose not to do so, due to an ignorance of the fact itself.
My thoughts on this are a bit different than Angelou's. I do not believe that mankind is capable of making the world a non-violent place. I believe that man is, by nature, sinful, and though there are the good in this world that are capable of changing things for the better, there will always be evil men. There is also the paradox of the good man who does nothing. Let us say that Hitler was allowed to continue his atrocities because good men did not want to start a war (Forgive the overused example of Hitler). Would there have been less violence? No, not likely. As Angelou recognizes in the first half of this poem, sometimes we are given the choice between the violent or the violent, if this makes sense.
So, looking at Angelou's "startling truth," I agree with the first truth of death and violence, but not with the second, that men are capable of preventing violence.