October 2008 Archives

The late eighteenth century was a time of great change throughout the world. It was the height of the Age of Enlightenment and a "rationalistic religion" (Deism 1) called Deism. Also in this time, The Declaration of Independence was being written by the Congress of the newly claimed United States of America. During the time of the Enlightenment, nearly everything was subjected to a test of reason and nature with the hope of change and progress. With Deism, not even God was safe from at least a few tests of reason. People felt that they "were ready to shrug off the shackles of tradition and custom and participate in the progress of civilization" (Harrison 469). This is exactly what the people of America wished to do as they wrote their Declaration of Independence from a country that allowed little participation in their civilization.

                One of the main principles of the Age of Enlightenment was reason. At that point, many enlightenment thinkers felt that "traditional institutions or customs should not be accepted because they have been long-lasting but rather should be examined critically and held up to the standard of reason" (Harrison 469). In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson and others were careful to specify that "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes" (Jefferson 1).  They felt that if something that has stood for that long is to be changed, it should be done for very good reason. That is why a good amount of the Declaration was spent critically examining the ways of their former King through reason. In these examinations they not only state what had been done wrong, but why it was wrong.

                Nature also played a strong role during the Age of Enlightenment and influenced the Declaration of Independence. In the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson mentions the "Powers of the Earth" and the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" (Jefferson 1). He explains that people must put them into use with a "decent respect of the opinions of mankind" (Jefferson 1) when previous political bonds have failed.  People in the time of the Enlightenment felt that "a move to nature is a move toward wholesome vigor and freedom" (Harrison 469) which were exactly the principles that American wished to base herself upon.

                Another concept strong in this time period was Deism. Deism is defined by the Dictionary of Christianity in America as a "correspondence between the rational structure of the physical universe and the rational capacity of the human mind" (Deism 1). It "focused on the glories of nature" but "assigned God to the outer reaches of the universe" (Deism 1). This form of religion is seen throughout the Declaration of Independence.  Jefferson uses the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" to justify the break from Great-Britain and claims that the truths of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness" are all "endowed by their Creator" (Jefferson 1). Obviously Jefferson uses religion to justify many of his arguments, but tends to give God less of a role and gives nature a stronger, more evident one.  Like many other people of the age, Jefferson seemed to feel that "God revealed himself in nature and through reason" (Deism 1).

                The main purpose of the Declaration of independence was the Enlightenment principles of change and progress. Jefferson and many other Americans were frustrated with the ways of their former King and his lack of reason. They felt that when a long enough course of abuse was designed for their demise, it was "their right... to throw off such Government and to provide new guards for their future security" (Jefferson 1).  The entire document is a demand for change. A common enlightenment thought that was shared in the Americas was that "Change... liberates individuals and should be pursued" (Harrison) and for them at least, it did liberate and it was very strongly pursued.

                In this time of great change, the eighteenth century, many ideas seemed to fuel and mold each other. Two of the main ideas that greatly influenced the Declaration of Independence were the Age of Enlightenment and Deism.  The religion of Deism and the Enlightenment view of Nature gave many ideas in the justification of the arguments. Jefferson and the other men favored the simplicity in the Laws of nature. Because of this, they also found security in "Nature's God" (Jefferson 1). The writers of the Declaration of Independence also relied strongly on reason. The reason for this Declaration was that they felt the King had no reason. They challenged and examined his ways through reason and created their own, new ways. They were bringing about another basic concept of the Enlightenment, change, so that they could "build for themselves a more perfect society" (Jefferson 1).

St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the most important thinkers of medieval times is credited today for discovering many important landmarks on the pathway of reason and revelation. Though now a very prominent theologian, he was once a very controversial man. He was opposed and shunned by his own people during his short life. They even went so far as to ban his writing from several theological centers where he is now praised as a prominent catholic theologian. The reason for this opposition was his heavy reliance on the early pagan philosopher Aristotle. His reliance in the most basic form is evident in Ch VII of Summa Contra Gentiles. Here he applies not only Aristotle's first basic principle of truth but the first condition of truth as well to his statement that "the truth of reason is not in opposition to the truth of the Christian faith."

To understand their relationship with Aquinas' chapter, one must first understand Aristotle's two basic concepts. The principle of truth merely states that humans have the ability to understand truth. Though it seems remedial, it is crucial to nearly any conversation especially one that covers understanding.  For if one cannot comprehend truth, how can truth even be discussed? Another important concept is the principle of non-contradiction. This states that "opposite assertions are not true at the same time" (Ross 543). According to Aristotle these principles are two concepts that cannot be proved, but must be accepted in order to discuss truth and reason.

Seeing how it is the most crucial according to Aristotle, the first principle will be discussed first. In Chapter VII of Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas writes about the bond and harmony between the supernatural realm and the earthy realm. He begins this argument by stating that "things which are implanted in reason by nature are most true, so much so that it is impossible to think them to be false. Nor is it lawful to deem false that which is held by faith, since it is so evidently confirmed by God." In this, he means that even though reason and faith are very different, their truths are equally logical and valuable. Also, any knowledge of "naturally known principles" is "instilled into us by God" since he is the creator of nature. Therefore, whatever is known by Divine means carries these same principles. Now there are some things that seem to be beyond the realm of the natural world. Aquinas takes time to deal with this situation as well. He states first that "many things are shown to thee above the understanding of men and things that are of God no man knoweth." Now this may seem to state that humans do not have the ability to comprehend something, thereby crossing the line of the first principle of truth, but Aquinas concludes in saying that humans can know truth because "God hath revealed by His Spirit." Once again, he manages to relate this world to the supernatural.

In this same sense, Aquinas begins to speak of the principle of non-contradiction. Here goes on to say that since God gave both reason and revelation, "it is impossible for the aforesaid truth of faith to be contrary to those principles which reason knows naturally." When humans come upon conflicting pieces of information that hinder the advancement of knowledge, it "cannot be ascribed to God." Once again since God has created and given both the ability to reason and the power of revelations, none of the knowledge "received by faith from divine revelation cannot be contrary to our natural knowledge" because God "does not instill into man any opinion or belief contrary to natural knowledge."

As he ends the chapter, Aquinas begins not only to connect reason and revelation, but to prove one with the other. Since truth can be comprehended both in the natural and supernatural sense and the truths from each area do not contradict each other, they begin to prove each other. If there is an argument brought up against faith, it cannot possibly come from the most basic principles of nature for God himself was the one who created nature and the ability to think of said argument. Therefore, it cannot be demonstrated since it does not apply to a basic principle. Since it cannot be demonstrated, it cannot be proven and does not have the power to test faith and can easily be explained and tackled. By the end of this chapter, Thomas Aquinas manages not only to prove the harmony between natural knowledge and revelation, but uses one to prove the other and vice versa. The ability of these two elements to both support and defend each other brings them to an even deeper level of unity and harmony.

                She shows this possibility through the diction that she uses.  When the times of today are described, she uses strong, harsh words and phrases like "screaming racket" and "rapacious." Then, when this possibility of total peace is proposed she uses brilliant imagery to describe it. She compares it to wonders of the world like the Grand Canyon and the Pyramids. She even goes further to say that they are not the only eternally beautiful things, for "we are the miraculous, the true wonders of the world."

Though she never directly says it, she seems to prove this point through many ways of knowing. In one of her last paragraphs, she writes about the paradox of humanity and how on one hand we "strike with such abandon" and on the other "touch with such healing, irresistible healing." This implies that within every human, there is a universal sensitivity to others. Also, when the chaos is described nothing seems to fit, so life itself doesn't correspond or cohere to all of its matters. But when she speaks of the life after all of this, everything flows into everything else. This new life coheres and corresponds to that basic longing for peace and our sensitivity. In the lines "We, this people...have the power to fashion for this earth a climate where every man and every woman can live freely without sanctimonious piety" she proves her idea again through a constructivist theory. Only by our own doing, by society as a whole, can this peace be attained. It is determined and planned by the people.

                I strongly agree with Angelou's statement of this truth for all of the reasons that she gave. The only part where I disagree is that I don't think we can ever reach this by our own means. We, as humans, are too greedy and petty to attain this by our own means. I do agree though that whenever the time comes for this peace, it will be the most beautiful wonder of the world, for there is no greater beauty than that of total serenity and peace.