Recently in Directed Writings '10 Category

In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail Dr. King, Jr. gives a description and explanation of many of the issues that have risen from the civil rights movement.  Many of these issues have been around for centuries and some still exist today.  As a result, Dr. King, Jr. is not the only one to have expressed his opinions in these areas.  Throughout the semester the Honors class has looked at the writings of several other individuals who also studied those same issues.  Throughout this paper the ideas of Martin Luther King, Jr. will be compared and contrasted with those of Socrates, Kant, and Rouseau in regards to religious faith, civil disobedience, and militant non-violence. 

                One of the key points Dr. King, Jr. makes in this letter is his disappointment with the church.  Religious faith is obviously a large part of his life and his ideology.  His writings, including this letter, are wrought with Biblical imagery.  From his strong faith, however, he notes his dissatisfaction with the church's role in the civil rights movement.  Speaking "as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church," King writes that he expected support from it (5).  He felt he would find an ally in his fight but instead found an opponent.  Based on Rouseau's writing in Social Contract Book IV, it seems as though he (Rouseau) would not expect anything different.  In his discussion of Christian societies Rouseau argues that though it is said that a Christian society would be a perfect one, difficulties would still arise (4).  Since "Christianity as a religion is entirely spiritual, occupied solely with heavenly things," a truly Christian society would not care about the happenings of the world, but would instead have its eyes fixed on heaven and spiritual things (4).  Though one could by no means call the church of King's day, or any day really, a perfect Christian society, the struggle between civil and spiritual obedience has always existed.  What does suffering in this world matter if one's true home is in another?  Because Rouseau holds such a strong opinion about the focus of Christian societies it seems unlikely that he would expect the church to participate more strongly in the civil rights movement. 

                Another area that King spends a significant amount of time addressing is the area of civil disobedience along with militant non-violence.  He makes several points about determining whether or not a law is considered just and what one is to do in response to unjust laws.  He quotes both Augustine and Aquinas as saying, in summary, that a just law is one that aligns with the moral law of God, and that any law which does not follow this guide is unjust (3).  Though King is opposed to using violence to reform those laws which are considered unjust he does note "that [He] is not afraid of the word 'tension. . .'  There is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth" (2).  It would seem that Kant, specifically in his work "an Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?," would agree with this philosophy.  Throughout this article Kant is working to define the idea of enlightenment and issue a charge to those who wish to be considered enlightened.  At the very beginning Kant defines enlightenment as "man's release from his self-incurred immaturity" (1).  It is not too great a leap to suggest that King's disappointment with the moderate white who "is more devoted to 'order' than to justice" is also a disappointment in their lack of maturity in the matter of civil rights (4).  Kant continues on in a discussion of the necessary restrictions on private reason and the necessary freedom of public reason.  He notes that in many ways freedom is restricted.  Clerics urge belief, tax collectors urge payment, and, in King's case, leaders urge oppression rather than argument (1).  In response Kant answers, "The public use of one's reason must always be free" (2).  While it is important to work within the bounds of private reason, one's use of public reason must never be limited.  This is the reason one would use to challenge the unjust laws of the society they live in.  Kant would see King as an enlightened individual who is exercising his public reason to question and reform the unjust rules of society.  In doing this however, he is continuing to work within the private limitations on his freedom by resisting violence and following the laws, such as the requirement of a permit for a parade, that he sees as just.  Therefore the philosophies of King and Kant align quite well, and they both issue the same command of informed thinking to their audiences. 

                A third philosophy which aligns quite well with that of Dr. King is the philosophy of Socrates.  In his work "The Parable of Cave" Socrates weaves an informative tale of a man who has been brought into the light of reason and returns for those who remain in the darkness.  It can be said that Dr. King was one who was "brought into the light" about segregation and discrimination and was chosen to help the rest of society realize they were still in the cave.  Socrates notes "if anyone tried to loose another [from the cave] and bring him up to the light, let [those in the cave] only catch the offender, and... put him to death" (2).   King's journey towards enlightening society was very similar.  Though he was not alone in his efforts, the "cave dwellers" were much more eager to destroy his cause than to follow him into the light.  Regardless, Socrates would have agreed with King's philosophy and would have encouraged him to continue in his efforts.  Life outside the cave is the only true life and one must strive to reach it against all odds. 

                Overall the philosophy that King presents in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail is one that would be mostly agreed upon by those who have been studied this semester.  In some cases the reactions that caught King off guard would have been expected by others, but for the most part his efforts and the ideologies of many before him were well aligned.  In his effort to eliminate discrimination through religious faith, civil disobedience, and militant non-violence, King produced a philosophy that would have been supported by many.  

           The topics of faith and reason are often surrounded by much debate and disagreement.  Whether one chooses to look to the Catholic Church's strong opposition of Galileo's heliocentric universe or to the lack of God in the Big Bang Theory it becomes clear that faith and reason have not always coexisted peacefully.  In his Summa Contra Gentiles Aquinas makes several arguments for the existence of harmony between faith and reason.  In the seventh chapter of this document, titled "That the truth of reason is not in opposition to the truth of the Christian faith," He refers to the first principle, of non-contradiction, and the first condition, the ability of the mind to know truth, to help support his position. 

            In regard to the first principle, Aquinas makes both explicit and implicit use of it in this section.  In one instance he states, "Now contrary opinions cannot be together in the same subject" (334).  Here he explicitly states the first principle and continues to build his argument upon it. The principle becomes vital in concluding a logical progression of thought relating to nature and the beliefs and opinions God made innate in His creation.  After accepting that truths cannot contradict one another it is only logical to assume that the truths God reveals to His people will not contradict the truths that can be obtained through nature.  God is the author of nature and that which He reveals, so, being products of the same creator, it would be illogical for the two to contradict each other.  Aquinas reiterates this point by explaining the impossibility of contradiction between that which human experience has deemed true and that which God has revealed (333).  Certain things have been proven to human nature so thoroughly that they cannot be false.  On the other hand it is entirely incorrect to deem anything from God as untrue.  Therefore it is beyond the bounds of reason for the two to oppose each other.  Aquinas also acknowledges the tendency of contrary arguments to hinder the advancement of truth.  He notes that it is impossible to attribute the hindering of knowledge to God so, therefore, no contradiction must exist (334).  In this short section Aquinas weaves the first principle around, over, and through all of his arguments. 

            Even with all of the evidence and support Aquinas provides none of it would be significant without acceptance of the first condition.  If the mind were not capable of knowing truth it would not only be irrelevant to find contradiction amongst truths, it would be impossible to explore their relation at all.  By setting out to explain the relationship between faith and reason Aquinas is fully leaning on the belief that truth can be known by humans.  It is within this condition, however, that Aquinas goes on to discuss the relation of faith and reason. 

            Earlier in the Summa contra Gentiles Aquinas notes,

Just as a man would show himself to be a most insane fool if he declared the assertions of a philosopher to be false because he was unable to understand them, so, and much more, a man would be exceedingly foolish, were he to suspect of false hood the things revealed by God. (330) 

In this instance Aquinas is almost using the first condition in reverse.  Instead of ending the condition with the ability to understand truth he furthers it by suggesting that something is not untrue simply because one does not yet understand it.  He revisits this point in chapter seven by connecting it to the relation of faith and reason.  Though the truths of the Christian faith often exceed the capabilities of human reason it is incorrect to count them as false (333). 

He continues by saying, "Nor is it lawful to deem false that which is held by faith, since it is so evidently confirmed by God" (333).  Here he is arguing that the process by which one comes to know the truths they are capable of knowing is not entirely relevant.  He is not, however, saying it is irrelevant.  Though he probably would not go as far as postmodernists in distrusting truth it seems as though Aquinas would test the sources and methods he used to obtain information to ensure their validity.  He is instead stating that truths which come from faith are just as valid as those contrived by human reason. 

In this chapter, and in the rest of the Summa contra Gentiles, Aquinas strives to validate the relationship between faith and reason.  By basing his arguments on two of the self evident truths he is able to unravel criticism and arrive at logical conclusions about the affinity of reason and faith.  

            After reading the selections from Collingwood and Jerome, it seems as though a large portion of the challenges historians face originate from human methods of thought.  The authors each discuss different problems, but both can find their roots in human information processing methods.  While Collingwood chooses to focus on the thought processes of the historian conducting the research, Jerome focuses on the thoughts of those creating what may someday become research.  However, in both cases and from both perspectives the difficulties that arise originate in human thought.

            From the onset of his writing it is clear Jerome is skeptical of the human record of the past.  In addition to citing several examples of falsified stories that became history he also quotes Froude as having said, "History [is] like a child's box of letters, with which we can spell any word we please.  We have only to pick out such letters as we want, arrange them as we like, and say nothing about those which do not suit our purpose" (183).  He explains, however, that his reservations do not stem from the belief that all history is deliberately falsified.  Instead he refers to several studies that demonstrate the ways in which the human mind unconsciously falsifies information, even after a short amount of time.  One study which involved recalling details from several black and white photographs produced only seventeen correct responses out of 282 depositions (186).  Those involved not only wanted to tell the truth but believed they were.  Jerome argues that if "good faith, the desire to tell the truth, ... the certainty that the testimony is true, as well as the opportunity to secure correct information, and the absence of prepossessions" could rarely produce an accurate report then true testimony is only a rare exception (187).  In this case, the way humans process and recall information is the source of challenge for historians.

            Collingwood also addresses the issues that arise from human processing, but he instead focuses on the processes of the historian.  After recounting a literary style murder mystery, he begins to contrast two types, and therefore two different mindsets, of historians.  The first mind set is that of a "scissors-and-paste" historian.  Here the historian researches periods of history, learning the statements left by those who went before.  Collingwood identifies this as one of the difficulties of being a scissors-and-paste historian.  By only reasserting the previous statements of others, this historian cannot call himself a scientific thinker (52).  Another dilemma that faces historians of this type is the overwhelming amount of evidence that is available.  If the historians goal was merely to sort through previous information it would be impossible for them to accomplish this considering the amount of research that is available in our day and age. "Scientific" historians, on the other hand, create their own statements by asking questions of the evidence that is before them.  Instead of only gathering previous information, this historian can hold the title of scientific thinker because of the investigative questions they use to "devise tortures under which [nature] can no longer hold her tongue" (47).  This style of thinking can produce challenges also, however, as there is no exact formula of questions one can use to "torture" the answers from nature.  As a result the wrong questions can be asked, as was demonstrated by the constable in Collingwood's John Doe murder mystery, which results in incorrect or unhelpful answers.  Even with this challenge Collingwood clearly places the scientific historian above the scissors-and-paste historian.  The challenge of a misplaced question can be easily corrected and learned from, while the limitations that face the scissors-and-paste historians are much more difficult to overcome.  Regardless of the way they are viewed, both historian types that Collingwood presents face challenges because of their thought processes. 

            With the different types of challenges presented for both the historian and the witness it seems as though the task of recreating history would be a daunting and nearly impossible one.  We do, however, have records that we treat as historical fact.  We even base life or death decisions on those same witness accounts.  How can this be when they seem to be wrought with so much error?

            I think the answer lies with Collingwood's scientific historian.  I can't possibly pretend to know what it takes to be a historian, but based on Collingwood's description of the questioning that takes place I believe it is possible for truth to be discerned.  He notes that it is important for a historian to know themselves very well before they try to learn from others.  This allows them to know the biases and motives behind the questions they ask and the answers they search for.  If historians are able to understand this about themselves it would seem logical to believe they could also discern certain things about their witnesses.  Jerome notes how any witness can be either very reliable or completely inaccurate depending on the situation and the role they play in it.  By applying the skills of the scientific historian one can hope to recognize which witnesses are reliable and they can still find ways to learn from those they deem unreliable if they find the right questions to ask.  Just as the facts don't always matter in politics, maybe the witness doesn't always matter in history, so long as the historian has the skills and experience necessary to determine the kind of witness they are dealing with.