PLURALITY OF SUFFRAGES

The original title of this entry was Dèscartes And Jefferson, but, for better or for worse, I decided to make it more “Cartesian,” considering that we are in the middle of the Dèscartes series. “Plurality of suffrages” is a famous Cartesian phrase, and here is the passage it is taken from:

“…And finally, although such be the ground of our opinions, I remarked that a plurality of suffrages is no guarantee of truth where it is at all of difficult discovery as in such cases it is much more likely that it will be found by one than by many.” (From Dèscartes’ Method, Book II.)

Dèscartes the Jeffersonian democrat? Or, perhaps, more accurately, Jefferson the Cartesian (at least, partly) democrat? Let me explain.

To begin with, Jefferson was a peculiar kind of democrat; a “Jeffersonian democrat,” to be precise. He did not put much trust in “numbers,” being a natural elitist. The following quote from him illustrates this point:

“The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature... Every one, by his property, or by his satisfactory situation, is interested in the support of law and order. Such men may safely and advantageously reserve to themselves a wholesome control over their public affairs, and a degree of freedom, which, in the hands of the canaille of the cities of Europe, would be instantly perverted to the demolition and destruction of everything public and private.” (From a Letter to John Adams, October 28, 1813.)

Returning now to the Cartesian passage in the opening of this entry, what exactly is the meaning there? The obvious conclusion is that, according to Dèscartes, truth is not something you arrive at, riding a democratic bus. It is more likely to be discovered not by consensus, but by the lonely contemplation of a philosopher. (A natural aristocrat, in Jefferson’s take.) This much is clear. And what is also clear here is that Dèscartes and Jefferson are seeing eye to eye on this subject.

But let us now properly generalize this argument. Why is the majority opinion not to be trusted? There are three basic reasons for it, in my view.

1.       One, that the public, in its natural pursuits, is always down-to-earth, whereas truth must be found in higher places. Remember the distinction between earth and heaven? When Jesus says “My Kingdom is not of this world,” He makes it clear that truth (and God is Truth!) does not have its abode among the multitudes.

2.       Two, that the public is not educated enough to comprehend even the most basic concept of truth, which can only be arrived at through philosophical contemplation, something that the public is totally unfamiliar with.

3.       Three, and probably the most important one, that public opinion is not even naturally formed, but usually manipulated by all sort of demagogues and by agenda-driven activists, also by the so-called interest groups, where we-the-people completely lose their individuality, becoming followers of men, and, in this capacity, the worst possible “candidates” for the quest of seeking the truth.