紀念陳耀昌醫師
"The Earth Belongs to the Living": Jefferson2022年欒樹下生活誌 冬季號 BOOKS AND LIFE,陳醫師在百忙中受邀演講,高朋滿座。
----
2:09:45
創造力的密碼:人工智慧時代的藝術與創新》新書講座時間|2026年1月17日(六)19:00-21:00 地點|欒樹下書房(台北市溫州街24號1樓) 主講|林志明
人工智慧概述
在1789年的一次著名辯論中,托馬斯·杰斐遜與詹姆斯·麥迪遜爭論“地球屬於活著的人”,任何一代都不應約束另一代人,並提議憲法和法律應每19年失效一次。傑佛遜計算出一代人的壽命為19年。麥迪遜對此持不同意見,他認為如此頻繁的修訂會導致不穩定,而且「義務之網」將世代聯繫在一起。
傑佛遜-麥迪遜世代論辯論的關鍵面向(1789-1790):
19年規則:根據布豐關於死亡率的數據,傑佛遜得出結論,大多數成年人的壽命約為19年,因此19年是一代人的壽命。
「地球屬於活著的人」:傑佛遜認為,根據自然法則,一代人不能背負債務或製定約束後代的法律,因為每一代人都享有自治權。
麥迪遜的反駁:麥迪遜認為,每隔19年就廢除債務和法律是不切實際的,會破壞信用,並造成混亂。他相信社會的延續性,以及過去與現在世代之間「無縫銜接」的義務網絡所帶來的益處。
替代更新方案:麥迪遜傾向於採用漸進式的法律修正制度,而不是對憲法進行徹底的、週期性的重新批准。
最終,傑佛遜關於法律按世代失效的設想並未被採納,但它凸顯了關於過去對後代「死手」的根本性哲學張力。
In a famous 1789 exchange, Thomas Jefferson argued to James Madison that the "earth belongs to the living" and that no generation should bind another, proposing that constitutions and laws should expire every 19 years
. Jefferson calculated a generation's life to be 19 years. Madison disagreed, arguing that such frequent revisions would cause instability and that a "web of obligations" connects generations. Key Aspects of the Jefferson-Madison Generation Debate (1789-1790):
- The 19-Year Rule: Based on data from Buffon regarding mortality rates, Jefferson concluded that a majority of adults die within roughly 19 years, making that the duration of a generation.
- "The Earth Belongs to the Living": Jefferson argued that, by the law of nature, one generation cannot incur debts or create laws that bind a future generation, as each has a right to self-government.
- Madison’s Rebuttal: Madison argued that eliminating debts and laws every 19 years would be impractical, destructive to credit, and chaotic. He believed in the continuity of society and the benefits of a "seamless web" of obligations between past and present generations.
- Alternative to Renewal: Madison preferred a system of gradual, legal amendments rather than complete, periodic re-ratification of the Constitution.
Ultimately, Jefferson’s idea of a generational expiration for laws was not adopted, but it highlighted a foundational philosophical tension regarding the "dead hand" of the past on future generations.
沒有留言:
張貼留言