DiscussMormonism.com

We are all probably familiar with the following words: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain, inalientable rights that amoung these are life liberty and the persuit of happiness.

There are some curious things about these words which may be made more important by the substantial degree of value which rests upon the words. On an occasion I have seen people observe that if read objectively or literally there may be some question as to just how self evidently true any of it is. I suspect that the truth contained in them is a step more essential than the literal words. It might be questioned whether we have a creator who did any endowing of anybody with anything. I have heard few (if any) people who do not share a literal belief in a creator think it is desireable to discard these words due to their religous context. They mean something to people who believe humans evolved by chance from small mamalian rodents.

I think these words are an interesting example of truth by assertion. There is no objective proof that there is a bit of truth in any of it. One angle of the truth by assertion is that there is meaning created by the words, they create an intention in the minds of people who hear those words and choose to share them. There is also something in the human awareness which responds to those words despite a lack of objective evidence. We suspect that there is objective truth in them that undergirds our desire to share their intention. ( I may be speaking of my own intuition here perhaps somebody thinks they are wrong and an example of the danger or religion, the danger of truth by assertion)

Now I think truth by assertion is a field with dangers. People can assert nonsense and create confusion. Indeed people can by assertions create violent and dangerious intentions and beliefs. Different realities of ego and desire can be accessed by assertion. I think some people have created a hatred of illegal immigrants through assertion that are alien to the ideal of humanity asserted in our Declaration of Independence. Clearly there is room for differnt views on what policy we should follow. It would be better if our country decided which policy we should follow without the heat of hatred.

I am thinking about the different roles for understanding which evidence and truth by assertion may have. I think that truth by assertion address the hears intuition of harmony and awareness of fundamental patterns. Evidence should help this but it has problems. We can manipulate and know about only a tiny portion of possible evidence. Sometimes people hoping to manipulate opinions use the technique of selective consideration of evidence. In those cases evidence becomes a dangeously inferior means of deciding. I would not for myself want to choose only one side of this either or. Evidence and harmony can work together if one realizes neither has a lock on the truth.

This is a great point.

And, if these truth are so self evident, why do politicians try so hard to withhold inalienable rights to certain demographics? According to Washington, gays are less than equal. They shouldn't be treated the same and given the same rights as everyone else.

huckelberry wrote:We are all probably familiar with the following words: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain, inalientable rights that amoung these are life liberty and the persuit of happiness.

There are some curious things about these words which may be made more important by the substantial degree of value which rests upon the words. On an occasion I have seen people observe that if read objectively or literally there may be some question as to just how self evidently true any of it is. I suspect that the truth contained in them is a step more essential than the literal words. It might be questioned whether we have a creator who did any endowing of anybody with anything. I have heard few (if any) people who do not share a literal belief in a creator think it is desireable to discard these words due to their religous context. They mean something to people who believe humans evolved by chance from small mamalian rodents.

I think these words are an interesting example of truth by assertion. There is no objective proof that there is a bit of truth in any of it. One angle of the truth by assertion is that there is meaning created by the words, they create an intention in the minds of people who hear those words and choose to share them. There is also something in the human awareness which responds to those words despite a lack of objective evidence. We suspect that there is objective truth in them that undergirds our desire to share their intention. ( I may be speaking of my own intuition here perhaps somebody thinks they are wrong and an example of the danger or religion, the danger of truth by assertion)

Now I think truth by assertion is a field with dangers. People can assert nonsense and create confusion. Indeed people can by assertions create violent and dangerious intentions and beliefs. Different realities of ego and desire can be accessed by assertion. I think some people have created a hatred of illegal immigrants through assertion that are alien to the ideal of humanity asserted in our Declaration of Independence. Clearly there is room for differnt views on what policy we should follow. It would be better if our country decided which policy we should follow without the heat of hatred.

I am thinking about the different roles for understanding which evidence and truth by assertion may have. I think that truth by assertion address the hears intuition of harmony and awareness of fundamental patterns. Evidence should help this but it has problems. We can manipulate and know about only a tiny portion of possible evidence. Sometimes people hoping to manipulate opinions use the technique of selective consideration of evidence. In those cases evidence becomes a dangeously inferior means of deciding. I would not for myself want to choose only one side of this either or. Evidence and harmony can work together if one realizes neither has a lock on the truth.

Well, you're right. Those words really aren't self evident. Does anyone really believe that all men (and women) are created equal (leaving aside whatever "created" might mean in this context)? The evidence sure doesn't support that idea, from what I've seen. I suppose one can narrow what they mean by "equal" to some restrictive definition, but for all practical purposes of that word, there's a whole lot of inequality going on in the world today (and in the US itself). And are we really all endowed with inalienable rights? If that were self evident, wouldn't it apply to all of humanity, not just the citizens of the US? The only reason we even have the illusion of "inalienable rights" is that we live in a country where we've tried to make it that way (those of us who do live here, anyway). We set it up. It's certainly not always been that way, and it's certainly not ubiquitous. And frankly, I also question that we actually still have all those rights.

That line is really a mission statement, and not so much a statement of truth (although certainly a strong assertion). It was a goal, stated in the present, as if it's already true, because wording it that way gives the goal setters a better chance of achieving it. It was a country building exercise...

I understand your point about partial evidence giving a partial picture, but evidence and good logic are all we've really got. People's imagination, will, desires, goals and feelings, although they serve a purpose, are not tools to access the final word on truth. They are the beginnings, not the ends. Ultimately, if there's little to no supporting evidence for something, you have to just admit you don't know, and you have to chalk it up to someone's imagination until supporting evidence becomes available.

I usually do not have the time to post lots of things so do not start a lot of threads. I do not always keep up on them. Thanks Scottie and Some Schmo for giving my musing a bit of a push.

I get the idea you both thought that not only did we start a country short of all being equal but that some of that equality can slip away as well. Good point. funny sort of truth that can go slip sliding away. Funny sort, but I do hold it to be some sort of truth.

As a truth it could be compared to the idea of the Kingdom of God. In either case the words point to something seeded in our real world in which we live but at the same time something that same world is well short of it. I do not mean that the assertion , all men are created equal, is simply a result of a particular religous belief but that it has something in common. Perhaps it has the same kind of truth. Perhaps some people like Jefferson, even if using God type words, approach that religous truth with more naturalistic understandings than other more people more religously orthodox.

Did Jefferson create our National religion? If I said such a thing I would also note that it is potentially compatible with othr relgions and compatible with people avowing no supernatural relgion.

We are all probably familiar with the following words: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain, inalientable rights that amoung these are life liberty and the persuit of happiness.

There are some curious things about these words which may be made more important by the substantial degree of value which rests upon the words. On an occasion I have seen people observe that if read objectively or literally there may be some question as to just how self evidently true any of it is.

It's an invitation, even a clarion call if you will, to all those who believe the same and a warning to those who don't they they will be forced to live in a society who's law is based on such self evident truths.

In other words, majority rules.

So the question is who can get to a majority first?

bcspace wrote:

We are all probably familiar with the following words: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain, inalientable rights that amoung these are life liberty and the persuit of happiness.

There are some curious things about these words which may be made more important by the substantial degree of value which rests upon the words. On an occasion I have seen people observe that if read objectively or literally there may be some question as to just how self evidently true any of it is.

It's an invitation, even a clarion call if you will, to all those who believe the same and a warning to those who don't they they will be forced to live in a society who's law is based on such self evident truths.

In other words, majority rules.

So the question is who can get to a majority first?

Those words are from the Declaration of Independence -- not the constitution, bcspace.

I suppose they weren't self evident to King George III either. ;)

Of course they weren't self evident to even the men that drafted and signed the Declaration as some were slave owners. It was rhetoric -- not making a value judgment -- yet it was nonetheless.

Hi Huck, you said:

: We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain, inalientable rights that amoung these are life liberty and the persuit of happiness.

These words have had a lot of discussion over centuries, with seemingly a lot of grandiose sentiments of their meaning. Possibly ill-placed in loftiness beyond what is realistically "self evident". How about:

"Created equal" in that all are born, by the same process with, generally speaking, similar limbs, organs etc. that--as endowed by "their creator"--perform the "inalienable rights" to breathe, eat, excreet, etc as they experience the "rights" of all creatures, to live in "persuit" (sic) of basic needs (food, shelter, safety, etc.) that sustains them as individuals in relative "happiness"...

Seems more realistic--less "streets of gold" thinking--to me. Probably, at the time of writing, quite a step-up from the servitude that the "huddled masses" were destined to in the aristocracy of their past.

The question remains, was/is that Declaration the great-escape it has been interpreted to be for "all men"? Warm regards, Roger

You all (except Morrison) aren't very well read. I guess you've never heard of the concept of "Natural Rights", especially as explained by John Locke. This is the foundation for the language you reference and eons of philosophy has gone into analyzing whether there are or are not natural rights.

rcrocket wrote:You all (except Morrison) aren't very well read. I guess you've never heard of the concept of "Natural Rights", especially as explained by John Locke. This is the foundation for the language you reference and eons of philosophy has gone into analyzing whether there are or are not natural rights.

And it would seem that you aren't very well read either (which is to say, you don't read very well), given the fact that it doesn't appear you understand the valid contention with this idea of natural rights (which is basically some of what I talked about above). But then, that's hardly surprising.

"Natural Rights" is an idea, not a fact.

rcrocket wrote:You all (except Morrison) aren't very well read. I guess you've never heard of the concept of "Natural Rights", especially as explained by John Locke. This is the foundation for the language you reference and eons of philosophy has gone into analyzing whether there are or are not natural rights.

Ah! You can assume I've never read Locke, PAINE (who had MORE influence during the time), Hobbes (who preceded Locke), or reviewed the English Bill of Rights, right? Why is that?

It's a philosophy that does not in and of itself make it "self evident"! The point is (try this again since you may be familiar with Locke but apparently didn't read the OP very well:) that just because you assert something this does not in and of itself make it truthful. Truthful by assertion is the point of this thread. Was the "self evident" assertion the "truth"? Just because one says something is obvious (self evident) does not in and of itself make it truthful. Does it?

To follow from that:

Were these words that were written by Thomas Jefferson (a slave owner) actually accepted as the "truth" by him?

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain, inalientable rights that amoung these are life liberty and the persuit of happiness.