In one of those "essential" documents that led to the creation of the country known now as the United States of America, there was reference made to "self-evident truth."
What is the name of this essential document, and give an example of a self-evident truth.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Something about "all men are created equal".
Now we should consider what's meant by "self-evident". If they were, wouldn't all men everywhere understand them? And understanding, act on them?
I do seem to recall that those "self-evident truths" were directly related to rights not granted by the state but rather "endowed by their creator".
Simple question: give an example of a thing, anything, that is true and its truth is self-evident.
ZZ, are you suggesting that all men are created equally is an example of same said self-evident truth?
Sous, are you suggesting that rights aren't created by the state? Is that a self-evident truth?
.
The problem is ... those truths were "self evident" to the Founders, because they had received "classical" educations. Educations which included studying the philosophers. Y'know? Plato, Aristotle, those guys.
But under our modern "education" system - there are NO truths. Let alone "self evident" ones.
(Loud buzzer!)
Nope, Walt, you're wrong. One need not have been schooled in the classics to determine that there are truths that are self-evident.
I've asked for examples of self-evident truth. Truth is not dependent upon education for its existence. Truth exists even if it is not detected or is obscured. But it is the human condition itself that allows us to determine truth, unconditioned by the filters that may be offered by others.
Can you come up with an example of a self-evident truth?
.
No, guy, I'm not wrong. There IS a difference between truth, and "self-evident truth".
Truth, as you say, exists whether or not it is detected or obscurred. But it can only be "self-evident" if it IS detected.
Let's take what one could assume would be a "self-evident truth" ... the Right to protect yourself from hostile actions. IE; self-defense.
Yet, thanks to the media and gov't brainwashing in our mass indoctrination system (aka "public schools") ... it is no longer taken for granted that you have such a Right.
In fact, many believe you no longer have the Right to defend yourself until AFTER you have been harmed. Which, of course, nullifies the entire concept of self-defense.
This SHOULD be a "self-evident truth" ... just by observing nature, or thinking it out. Which a "classic" education would teach kids to do - and which the "modern" education frowns upon.
Great discussion! I saw this post yesterday but wanted to ponder it a while before barfing out my thoughts...
The Founders must have also struggled with this, for they prefaced their claims with "We hold..." The Declaration was a revolutionary document in several ways. Just to assert that all men are created equal was contrary to all the "Royals/ Nobles/ Gentry/ Peons" class systems that predated that assertion. It was self-evident to the founders but utterly unimaginable to many on the Continent. In other words, it's all relative.
Even today we find that less and less is "self-evident." Newton made sense out of physics until Einstein showed up. Then previous truths became iffy. Now we're studying quantum effects that just boggle the mind. There's even wiggle room to debate "cause & effect" because we now know that time doesn't flow as linearly as we once thought. Science is the one area where one would expect to find rock solid truth and falsehood, but we find that truth is only true until we make new discoveries.
I hate to say it, but just about everything is relative. The answer is for each individual to lay hold of those things that are self-evident to him and not hand them over casually. Do not be a reed swayed by a gentle breeze.
Sarah Palin is a drug addled mentally ill bimbo? Is that a self evident truth?
Uncle Walt: "But under our modern "education" system - there are NO truths."
I think the opposite is the case: all truths are relative, and all truths are equally valid.
OG: I glossed over the "give an example of" question.
That all men are created equal, in Jefferson's sense, isn't at all self-evident to the "casual observer". Tiger Woods is a better golfer than I am. More than a few Nobel Prize winners are smarter than I am (I except the Peace Prize). Many are taller, stronger, faster, richer, ...
I think that what Jefferson meant was that all men are created equal under the law. King and commoner will be hauled before the magistrate if he breaks the law. (So we see Bernie Madoff checking in to his new digs for the next 150 years.) [PS: Jefferson wrote "created equal", not "equally"; I suggest that could be read "created to be equal under the law".]
I'm beginning to wonder if the only truths that are self-evident are tautologies: it's evident that the Sun will rise tomorrow morning, generally in the East.
Even that gets you a rap on the knuckles from anyone who's studied astronomy. The Sun merely appears to rise because the Earth is spinning.
Maybe in math there are some self-evident truths: two parallel lines never meet. At least, not until Riemann thought about it.
Up to this point, I'm siding with Walt. The only reservation I'd make is that self-defense is self-evident from the start, and the problem is that its self-evidence[?] gets fogged by the dreamy mists of liberal relativism.
innominatus: The march of science leaves old truths in the dust. It was self-evident for millennia (except to the ancient Greeks, who took the trouble to actually think about it) that the Earth was the immobile center of it all. Nowadays, becuse we've accumulated a little data along the way, it's self-evident that we're going round the Sun.
As for quantum mechanics, I have to agree with Feynman (who did a lot of work in the field) that "nobody understands it". Dawkins, another worker in the field, says that if you think you understand it, you don't.
(That's a lot like the Zen koan that says something like "if you get it, you don't".)
Back to OG: "Truth exists even if it is not detected or is obscured."
Let T be a Truth. If T remains undetected, it can hardly be called self-evident.
But maybe you're thinking of the case where T suddenly occurs to somebody, and they exclaim "Yes!! That's obvious!!".
Now we're talking about Plato's Forms. Aristotle struggled with that one and came to the conclusion that Plato was wrong.
If you've been hiding an example in the background, lay it on us.
Last-minute thought: N. T. Wright, in one of his books, talks about the concept of "fair". He says that "fair" is understood even by children (go among them and you'll hear "that's not fair!" a dozen times), and that's not because they've just come back from a symposium on justice.
So maybe "fairness" is an example of a "SET". The problem being that life stops being fair the minute you leave kindergarten.
He nailed it off the page. He nailed it off the page.
Give me some time to re-read your comment, Z.
At least one person got it. I think.
.
perhaps you complicate the issue
What is self evident perhaps taught are as follows.
Founding fathers refer to self evident truths as those inheirent to all.
We shall all die if we don't receive nurishment.
We shall all die if we don't have oxygen.
For we are all individual and living masses.
I'll add we look different, are taught different, and need differently in life.
These truths I hold to be self evident, but aren't to others.
It is more an up hill battle each day. ( thanks for the space )
Sorry it took me a while to respond, job hunting and domestic issues have prevented me from blogging ir commenting in earnest. But I'll give it a shot:
OG,
You wrote:
Sous, are you suggesting that rights aren't created by the state? Is that a self-evident truth?
Hmmm.... tough call. I'd have to step back a moment and explain what my view or take on "Self-Evident Truths" is. I am sure I'm borrowing a phrase that others wiser than myself have used, and I may even be misappropriating it, but when discussing "Self-Evident Truths", I also refer to them as "First Things" -- you might even call them Prime Premises: Things that are true not because some other set of truths proves them so, but simply because we accept them as true at face value. The existence or non-existence of God, the supernatural, etc. is one set of beliefs, perhaps the only set of beliefs, which *I* hold to be self-evident (perhaps -- I'd have to reflect further before taking a stand on them being the only). I know, these are matters of faith, not of imperical proof, but that in and of itself is well in keeping with my definition of "self-evident", since accepting them on faith means accepting them without supporting proof -- they are the acepted primary premise from which all other truths are synthesized.
As a theist, Obviously, my foundational "self-evident truth" is the existence of God, and furthermore as a Christian, I accept as self-ecident the existence of a monotheistic God who has a personality and a specific nature and attributes that are in keeping with that nature, and who created a Universe that reflects that nature.
With what I've said in mind, I look at the declaration and conclude that the only truly self-evident truths mentioned in the Declaration are the ones I referred to before: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator". With what they are created (inalienable rights) are not truly what I call "Sell-evident truths" or "First things", but they ARE a very important set of second things -- the first layer of truths that derive FROM those "Self-evident truths" -- If it is self-evident that there is a Creator, and that He created Man in his image, then we can deduce from what we accept about Him to what we would expect from His creations.
ZZMike said:
Let T be a Truth. If T remains undetected, it can hardly be called self-evident.
But maybe you're thinking of the case where T suddenly occurs to somebody, and they exclaim "Yes!! That's obvious!!".
The latter is the kind of truth I refer to when I think of "Self-Evident Truths".
Sous--
There is no other person wiser than you. Not I, not Tommy Jefferson. Not Herbert Hoover. (Who grew up in McMinnville!)
"First Things."
Or, a priori.
I, too, believe in the value of "first things."
I will come out as what is referred to as Agnostic, just so's you know. If I were able to muster a religious belief, I'm afraid that I would both benefit and be constrained by the admission. (Not to you or anyone else, but to myself.)
First things aren't reliant upon external forces, or some external reality.
And there is not, at the moment, that would lead me to believe that recognizing a truth as having "face value" is nothing more than a simple recognition of the truth.
What I've found to be the case is, when you discover a simple truth, there are people willing to offer you grounds for ambiguity or equivocation, in an attempt to divert you from holding onto a cleary discernable and simply held defensible truth.
Now...who would do that?
Who would ask you to deny a simple, clearly discernable truth?
Amazing, this world. Innit?
.
Now, as a theist, or non-theist...at arm's length..myself, what is it that delinieates "self-evident" truth from the question of "God's" existence?
I posit that the existence of
God isn't self-evident. And my reading of some guys who think the apodictic truth that God is inarguable is that, even if true, God wouldn't want you to win an argument with "because God sez so."
Because the default position is, that we are made in God's image. Regardless of your view towards apostacy, if we are made in God's image, how can we fail to replicate the views of that God? If if we intend to be errant?
I would agree with your assertion that the declarative that "all men are created equal..." is one of the most important creations, or innovations, in human thought in our era. It subsumes so many dialects, so much equivocation.
Your reduction is on spot. All men are created equally. Politically. The rule that "all men are equal before the law" is the rule that derives from not only the law of God, but the Law of Nature. Why is it that I rely so much upon the simple, single, irreducible statement of truth that "I think"?
That was the essence of my post. There is no judge of the rightness or wrongness of any held thought that exists beyond the holder of that thought. Whether divinely held as a religious belief, or as a simply held existential belief, the words of cogito, ergo sum are inarguable. And the consequences of accepting this starting point are innumerable. Deniable? Go ask O.J.
Whether or not we rely upon those facilities that a Blessed God imbued, or whether we are the coarse product of some Darwinian process, the inarguable consequence of our innate ability to discern one simple, inarguable statement presents inarguable consequences.
We think. And our thoughts are our inconsolable property.
Thanks for your comment.
.
Anon--
Self-evident truths are not taught. It is the quandry that fellas like Howard Zinn and Noah Chomsky find themselves.
Self-evident truth is not teachable. It is apparent.
Whether your are taught well, or not, the truths that become apparent to each of us is not dependent upon our formal education. What occurs to us is that there is a "truth" that is unalterable. What the poets refer to as a "terrible" truth.
Whether you look different, are taught to be different or feel--or must have--different things from life--none of those barriers relieve you from the same differences or needs that I might have under similiar circumstances. But those truths that you will hold as "self-evident" are necessarily the same as mine, if they are, indeed, self-evident truths.
Nourishment? Oxygen?
Duh.
It's why I don't go over the Bar. Folks do, but I don't want to drown.
.
Guy,
My arguement isn't quite that "God Sez So". Perhaps in my attempt to address the issue of "Self-evident truth", I glossed over a lot of the apologetics which I find most convincing. My point is that any argument, any "evidence", and "proof" regarding the existence of God falls short, all it can do is throw the weight of the argument in favor of the likelihood of Gods existence -- it seems to me that one of the basic foundations of the use of empirtical investigation is detatchment, the idea that the observer must be outside of the phenomenon being observed. Given the definition of God to which Theists hold, this is impossible: the thing being observed is by definition beyond the observer's ability to detatch themselves from Him. So corroborating evidence may lead someone to conclude that Gods existence is more likely than not, but that conclusion still requires that final "Leap of Faith" (forgive me, Kierkegaard).
(Why does Blogspot give us such small comment boxes? Well, it is a gift. "Teeth are too small.")
ZZ has made a wonderful comment to my post.
It is one of the best comments I've read. Why? He took the time to gather his thoughts before he wrote his comment.
His dissection of my post was brilliant. He is well read. His satiricism is well-past due.
"I'm beginning to wonder if the only truths that are self-evident are tautologies: it's evident that the Sun will rise tomorrow morning, generally in the East."
(For a discussion of "tautology", see Stanford
.)
The non-parallelity of lines is still consistent with mathematics. If the surface is curved, parallelity remains the same.
And, yes, I am deliberately obscure; "Eureka" is one of my favourite moments.
The point is, is T is truth, T remains truth until the moment of Eureka. Imagine the moment when Fermi, Galileo, Newton, Shockley came to grips with their moment; stunning.
As to hiding an example in the background, hopefully, by now, all is revealed: apodictic truth is essentially simply truth. Fair is fair. The eighth Commandment is, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour."
If you forebear false witness, you are actually committing a sin. Omission is, to me, as great a sin as commission. Both serve to obscure the truth.
As to the Plato v. Aristotelian argument...I will aver to Plato. There are perfect forms, even if undiscovered. Now, don't get uppity with me!
Sous--
I never attempted to criticise your beliefs. If you felt that I had, I apologize.
I come from a family that has had firm religous beliefs that I value and prize. That you were willing to throw your beliefs upon Kierkegaard's back doesn't lighten your load. It prolly makes your load heavier.
When we began looking at the arguments of "Fourth of July", it was my intent that young people read and respond. I am aggregated on a local blogspot that refers to me as a "cranky old guy" or somesuch.
So, I write to my audience. As you do.
"Given the definition of God to which Theists hold, this is impossible: the thing being observed is by definition beyond the observer's ability to detatch themselves from Him."
Would more of us understand the leniency with which you offer grace. Yet, I'm not sure that you have taken up the challenge of this post.
"What is the name of this essential document, and give an example of a self-evident truth."
You are close to answering the questing question. But, unlike Kierkegaard, or any of the organicists of the 19th century, I will help you...
Can you state one unarguable truth?
.
I am used to my beliefs being criticized, and in fact attempt to do so myself when I find myself becoming complacent. No apology is necessary. As for throwing my beliefs on Kierkegaard's back, that was not my intention -- my apology to him was for appropriating his phrase without knowingly adopting his intentions for it.
Do I write to my audinece? I am not sure I do. Rather I write what I think, and my audience forms itself around that. Although that distinction may be splitting hairs.
As for the challenge itself, if taken at face value, all one must do is parrot the rote data: The document is the Declaration of Independence, and one of the self-evident truths listed therein is that all men are crated equal. But somehow I led myself to believe that you were trying to lead us into a discussion of the nature of "Self-evident truth". Again, my apologies for putting the cart before the horse?
"Can you state one unarguable truth?"
Do you mean one I hold inarguable, one the founding fathers did, or one that just IS unarguable, period? I have already listed one that *I* hold unarguable, and I just listed one asserted by the Founding Fathers. Beyond that, I don't know, I'll need more time to mull that over.
Post a Comment