|
|
======================================================
>"Freedom is the Right to Choose, the Right to create >for oneself the alternatives of Choice. Without the >possibility of Choice, and the exercise of Choice, a >man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing." I have not seen that passage in the writings of Jefferson that I have studied. While I have not read every word that Jefferson wrote, I have gone through all twenty volumes of the Memorial Edition of his writings, and I am quite sure it is not in that collection. My feeling is, it is not quite his style, and not quite his way of thinking, though I could be wrong, of course. In defining freedom as the right to choose, one actually places a severe limitation on the meaning of freedom, which I don't think Jefferson would have done. Freedom not only involves the right to choose, but the right to explore, to test, to experiment, even to make mistakes, and to do it without being impinged upon by a despotic authority. Of course, one could say that whenever one explores, tests, or experiments, one is "making choices." But if the term is taken in that sense, How can we avoid making choises? We must choose to be a slave or a free man. To choose then is not a matter of right, but an inevitable part of being human. One can, for example, as easily say that a man is making a choice if he chooses to be subject to a tyrant, or the familiar "not to decide is to decide" suggests that one is choosing if he decides not to make a choice. I don't think Jefferson would express his concept of freedom in a way that left open such possibilities. Indeed, that was his genius: when he expressed principles, he went unambiguously to the very core of meaning. As I understand him, Jefferson looked upon freedom as providing man with the opportunity to achieve his greatest potential, to exercise his equal rights. In that sense, it always involves a setting or situation. Defining it as an inner process, while not contradictory to that view, does not seem to be consonant with that manner of expressing it. I have been asked to examine dozens of reputed quotations by Thomas Jefferson, and this one just doesn't sound like Jefferson to me, but I would be very happy to be shown where I am wrong.
> I especially appreciated your thoughts because for the 30 + years > that I have had the quotation-in-question, I have felt a minor > disappointment in Mr. J., believing that the quote was accurate. > The basis of my disappointment was in my quarrel with those who > use the terms 'Freedom' and 'Liberty' interchangeably. I have always > believed [and still do] that liberty is internal in human nature, > definitively. That being the case, man needs freedom [external] to > fulfill his nature. Free + domain, freedom environment, is, therefore, > as > naturally needful to man as his natural endowment of liberty demands. I feel you are quite correct. Freedom as a floating abstraction can lead to a lot of erroneous beliefs. Freedom always has a context, a purpose. It allows rightful liberty to be exercised. But freedom as a general desirable state can mean anything and everything. > You stated, "To choose is then not a matter of right, but an inevitable > part of being human." That is precisely why in nature's sequence, it is > a Right. "...that all men are endowed by their Creator with > ...Liberty..." > The endowment, in my opinion, precedes the Right. That is why, I > believe, the Founders, including Mr. J.,believed human endowments > precede any accurate definition of his institutions, including his > political > forms and processes. This is correct. Human endowments are the basis of "Natural Rights." >The internal abilities to perceive, delineate, and > choose, make possible his environments - as measured against his > selected criteria. Yes, Mr. J. "looked upon Freedom as providing man > with the opportunity to achieve his greatest potential, to exercise his > equal rights. In that sense, it always involves a setting or situation. > Defining it as an inner process, while not contradictory to that view, > does not seem to be consonant with his manner of expressing it." > Well said, Mr. Coates. Exactly my point. No one has ever questioned > my use of the statement until your scholarship cast the first light that > harmonized with my own silent opinion. In no place in my own writings > do I use the terms liberty/freedom interchangeably, but I was willing to > use the quote because I really have accepted it as his own. As explained above, I agree that it is a mistake to use the terms interchangeably. Freedom in the sense that many use it today, has a certain emotional appeal, but it becomes devoid of healthy meaning if it is not used in the context of something specific, either expressed or implied. > The source. My daughter bought me a cast-meal bronze light- > switch plate for my birthday in the late 60's or early 70's. [See > attachment] On it was the quote. I purchased another from the > same Angels Hardware store and have, through the years, placed > them in the homes in which I lived over the years. [One is even > now on my office wall.] Interestingly enough, I now recall that someone asked me about such a light-switch plate several years ago. That person did not have the plate available, but could only recall some of the words -- "a man is not a man, but a ..." He was trying to get me to come up with the entire quote. >While I cannot say I have looked often > or with vigor, when I have looked, I have not found the quotation > anywhere, either. I do believe you are accurate for all the fore- > going reasons. But I will, probably, go on using it... I would love > to change the one word, "Freedom," for the word, "Liberty." > But, I won't. To me, the last sentence does sound more like Mr. J. > Or, am I hearing my own inner voice? > > "Without the possibility of Choice, and the exercise of Choice, a > man is not a man but a member, an instrument, a thing." It is not really contradictory to Jefferson, IMO. It is that it it seems to suggest a condition that cannot exist. What I am trying to say is, a man always has a choice. He cannot avoid choosing. Even a slave must choose to obey or to resist (and suffer the consequences). So that, as I see it, there is NEVER the possibility of not having a choice, of not exercising choice. And assuming that Jefferson would view choice in the same way,, which my study of his writings leads my to think is a correct take on Jefferson, I am inclined to think that he would not express himself thus. To my understanding, Jefferson might be more likely to say: "Without the possibility of Self-government, and the exercise of Self-government, a man is not a man, but a member, an instrument, a thing." But as you see, that changes the thing entirely. It now refers to the capacity, or incapacity, imposed on him to make his voice effective as a member of an association. Which suggests another objection to either statement: a man is always a member, assuming we are talking about a group. So, to say he is "but a member" is not sufficiently definitive or expressive. So that Jefferson would likely have said "a man is not a man, but merely a member...." And then, he would not express himself so imperfectly. No matter how I turn it, I cannot see Jefferson in it. I'm sorry, but I seem to have trouble with the whole statement and its lack of ultimate precision, which is so characteristic of Jefferson, in my view. It just does not ring true to me. But it would be quite amusing if it were a genuine quote! ;-) > Please keep an eye out for it. If I run across it, I will surely send > you word - first! I most certainly will keep an eye open for it. And for a few others, also. Some reputed quotes sound perfectly like Jefferson in style and content, but I have not been able to locate them. This one just doesn't sound like him to me, but as I say, I could be completely wrong.