Tags
American History, Ben Franklin, David Hume, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Government, Hume's Fork, John Locke, politics, The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, Walter Isaacson
“Franklin made only a few changes, some of which can be viewed written in his own hand on what Jefferson referred to as the ‘rough draft’ of the Declaration. (This remarkable document is at the Library of Congress and on its Web site.) The most important of his edits was small but resounding. He crossed out, using the heavy backslashes that he often employed, the last three words of Jefferson’s phrase ‘We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable’ and changed them to the words now enshrined in history: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident.’
The idea of ‘self-evident’ truths was one that drew less on John Locke, who was Jefferson’s favored philosopher, than on the scientific determinism espoused by Isaac Newton and on the analytic empiricism of Franklin’s close friend David Hume. In what became known as ‘Hume’s fork,’ the great Scottish philosopher, along with Leibniz and others, had developed a theory that distinguished between synthetic truths that describe matters of fact (such as ‘London is bigger than Philadelphia’) and analytic truths that are self-evident by virtue of reason and definition (‘The angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees’; ‘All bachelors are unmarried’). By using the word ‘sacred,’ Jefferson had asserted, intentionally or not, that the principle in question—the equality of men and their endowment by their creator with inalienable rights—was an assertion of religion. Franklin’s edit turned it instead into an assertion of rationality.”
__________
From Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Isaacson.
In a later point in the book, Isaacson recounts a moment when, during the Constitutional Convention, the elder statesman Franklin established a metaphor for political compromise which our current Congress would do well to keep in mind:
Then he gently emphasized, in a homespun analogy that drew on his affection for craftsmen and construction, the importance of compromise: ‘When a broad table is to be made, and the edges of planks do not fit, the artist takes a little from both, and makes a good joint. In like manner here, both sides must part with some of their demands.’
Below: the rough draft of the Declaration
Joseph Moore said:
It is also true that to claim something is ‘self-evident’ is to, ironically and contrary to the claims of Hume and others, move it out of the realm of rational discussion – it is to assert that its truth is not something arrived at by argument, but is rather of the nature of a mathematical proposition – perspicacious, as it were. Thus, shortly after the time of Franklin and Hume, came Fichte and most especially Hegel, who, collectively, deny reason has much of anything to do with truth: a true philosopher just Gets It. Logic is for the little people. Truth is self-evident (and beyond the critical functions of reason) for those enlightened enough to see it.
Thus, by a short route, we reach a state where people merely assert their positions and call all who disagree some mix of evil or stupid. It is all but unknown in political or social talk-fests (one can’t really call them arguments) for anyone to lay out propositions and construct arguments – my side sees clearly, and our motives are pure. Therefore, your side must not see clearly, and your motives are evil.
While a great admirer of Franklin, Jefferson and especially Adams, I can’t help but see the seeds of doom being planted along with all the brilliant flowers of Democracy. That doom falls when the mob decides what is and is not self-evident, and that they need an ubermensch to act for them when the wheels of law and government turn too slowly for their liking.
sfkeepay said:
The concerns raised by Mr. Moore, while important and well-articulated, are not, in fact, salient in the context of the declaration. Franklin was well aware of the dangers of certainty and did not indulge it, having mastered argumentative techniques employed to move opponents out of intellectual rigidity. Jefferson’s draft already contained the mechanisms necessary to fuel debate without, despite the concerns raised, engendering positivistic inflexibility. The declaration does read, as it might, “These truths are self-evident, that all men…” Instead, it reads of course “We hold these truths…” Franklin specifically eliminated the inflexible and petrifying “undeniable” and the reflexively emotional “sacred”. Franklin chose “self-evident” specifically to signal that the assertions made were the product of reason, conclusions reached by rational means, and thus implicitly subject to revision. This was, for Franklin, familiar territory on many levels, not least his extensive participation in emerging scientific processes designed to produce conclusions in a competitve, adversarial context where “facts” underwent the crucible of oppositional argumentation. His revision works synergistically with “we hold” specifically because it defines what follows not as sacred script, but rather as the considered opinions of men, and therefore subject to debate and revision. That was why Franklin, among other reasons, suggested the revision in the first place, and why the concerns raised above do not here apply.
Pingback: The Benjamin Franklin Effect: The Science of Love | The Psych Scrivener
Ncrdbl1 said:
Ever stop to think that these changes were made to smooth out the wording and without any concern of meaning.
Gmail said:
The concerns raised by Mr. Moore, while important and well-articulated, are not, in fact, salient in the context of the declaration. Franklin was well aware of the dangers of certainty and did not indulge it, having mastered argumentative techniques employed to move opponents out of intellectual rigidity. Jefferson’s draft already contained the mechanisms necessary to fuel debate without, despite the concerns raised, engendering positivistic inflexibility. The declaration does read, as it might, “These truths are self-evident, that all men…” Instead, it reads of course “We hold these truths…” Franklin specifically eliminated the inflexible and petrifying “undeniable” and the reflexively emotional “sacred”. Franklin chose “self-evident” specifically to signal that the assertions made were the product of reason, conclusions reached by rational means, and thus implicitly subject to revision. This was, for Franklin, familiar territory on many levels, not least his extensive participation in emerging scientific processes designed to produce conclusions in a competitve, adversarial context where “facts” underwent the crucible of oppositional argumentation. His revision works synergistically with “we hold” specifically because it defines what follows not as sacred script, but rather as the considered opinions of men, and therefore subject to debate and revision. That was why Franklin, among other reasons, suggested the revision in the first place, and why the concerns raised above do not here apply.
Botsford said:
I believe the form of the words in the Declaration is relevant. The statement “We hold these truths to be self-evident” is a tautology and circular by definition. This structure is used when a term or phrase is intended to be true by definition rather than being derived from some other source, such as religion. Legal statutes use tautologies all the time – words in a specific statute or section of a statute are given specified meaning that may not apply elsewhere, including standard linguistic meaning. Given the relationship between Franklin and Hume as well as Adam Smith, I believe it is reasonable to infer that Franklin very intentionally used a tautology to avoid the truths having a divine source in order to avoid religious and other conflict.
To Moore’s point, a truth constructed in this fashion is man-made and, therefore, ultimately subject to change, but so too does nature by forces not yet fully apprehended by most of humanity. One of the few things that is clearly evident in nature is change towards ever higher degrees of order or specialization. The highest order of intellect being pure reason (simply 0 and 1), which is inherently democratic and favours cooperation for mutual utility maximization. This is not intended to suggest there is only one path between 0 and 1, or exclusively binary choices. Instead, the process of hypothesis testing suggests many potential paths, which is the nature of pluralism.
Reason demands order, which requires cooperation (or economy) for the mutually assured success of any system or society. Therefore, society or any system must have economy, but cannot have an economy if it wishes to survive long term. If the system orbits around any concept or idea other than it’s true purpose, it will not survive long term. The purpose of a human society is to provide opportunity for it’s participants so they can maximize their utility in a cooperative manner. The purpose of society is people and is not just a collection of them. This gives rise to the moral authority of government to mitigate against the baser instincts of people to preserve peace and order in society so they can focus on pursuing more productive ends.
I am confident this is what Franklin was contemplating based on the company he kept and a very sharp mind inclined towards reason.