Franklin's Progressive Religious Vision

Benjamin Franklin’s influences upon America’s foundation as a country as well as philosophical thinking and scientific study overshadow his progressive stance on religion. However, his religious view is a critical facet of what made Franklin so unique and directed his convictions as a member of the society he helped build. I was pleasantly surprised to find that his faith at the end of his life, in such a pious era, was very much aligned with my own who has never attended any sort of organized religious congregation. What Franklin was remarkably able to do with his attitude was rationalize his spirituality within his relationship to various religious leaders of the era. Knowing he was nearing the end of his life, Franklin authored a letter to Ezra Stiles entitled As To Jesus of Nazareth provides what might be the most revealing account of his religiosity. One of the final letters, this private document exists as a rare testimonial of Franklins that seems to have very little bias and conveys his ultimate attitude towards faith and religion. As to Jesus of Nazareth is the conclusion of a discourse maintained by Franklin and Stiles throughout latter half of the eighteenth century that began with the incongruous topic of scientific experimentation. As Franklins saw his life coming to and end, it is probably that he shifted his focus from empirical studies toward more conscientiously evaluating his perspective on religion.

Benjamin Franklin’s relationship with Ezra Stiles began during Stiles’ first stretch at Yale when he was supplied with equipment from Franklin to conduct some of the earliest experiments with electricity in New England. Stiles had been born raised by a domineering Reverend father, against whom he rebelled much as Franklin had, leading him to his interest in scientific investigation (Macphail 227). The two shared a passion for academics and the study of nature and society that engendered both their membership within the American Academy of Arts and Sciences as well as their longstanding relationship. Stiles himself has been described as an insatiable empiricist, much akin to Franklin, and his collection of diaries, itineraries and studies provide the most extensive collection of private papers form New England in the late-colonial and early-national era (Macphail 226). Among these are five volumes dedicated solely to Stiles Thermometrical Register of temperature data from around the world that motivated his February 20^th, 1765 letter to Franklin who currently resided in London (Sparks 260). Although he was presently an ordained minister, Stiles’ fixation on classification and comprehension of nature reveals itself in his request for thermometers from the Royal Society to collect “annual accounts of the mercurial altitudes in several parts of each of the sixteen continental provinces”(Sparks 261)). He goes on to confer his experimentation in analyzing temperature relationships between snow and air, and his desire for access to publications from more advanced Acadamies of Sciences in Europe that Franklin had access to. In addition, his letter contained another letter, asking for Professor Winthrop of Harvard to be considered for membership to the Royal Society (Sparks 262). The letter’s content and language exhibit a sense of meekness on the part of Stiles that demonstrate his reverence to and reliance upon Franklin for assistance. Clearly Stiles’ requests demonstrate his reliance upon Franklin, but even further his reverence and inferiority present themselves when he writes “If I make too free a use of your name and friendship, you have it in your power to prevent the abuse” (Sparks 260). The reverence that Stiles shows for Franklin as an educator and enlightener sets the stage for their later correspondences and relationship as a whole. In a letter from January 13, 1772, Franklin once again sets out to provide Stiles with access to information as a teacher would to a student, this time in Stiles’ field of religion. Beyond simply extending the offer of procurement as a gift, Franklin asserts his views on the work as well as other religious texts in his classically Socratic, logical method (Franklin, Zoroaster). The content is educational in nature, as if he is at once trying to provide Stiles with the raw material as well as persuade him of his convictions with truth of reason.

The relationship between the two men is most explicit in their correspondence in early 1790. Stiles asserts his feelings towards Franklin as “one, who for so many years has continued to love, estimate, and reverence his abilities and literary character, with an ardor and affection bordering on adoration” (Sparks 122). The effusiveness of his sentiment is overwhelming, perhaps because of the magnitude of the favor he asks of Franklin. In addition to a portrait to hang at Yale (where he was now President) in Franklin’s honor, he asks for Franklin’s religious belief, with the submissive acknowledgement that a response is not requisite. Ezra Stiles, the former Congregational Minisiter, knew of Franklin's deist leanings but desired to confirm his attitude with some concrete beliefs. His assertion of himself as a Christian who “would to Heaven all others were as I am” in denomination reveals Stiles duality (Sparks 122). The request both reflects his own passion for Congregational worship as well as the scientific desire to classify and categorize Franklin.

Religion and education were still markedly intertwined at the time, and Franklin understood that both could significantly influence the current and future society of America. Far from rejecting the fact that in many ways rational thought and religious sentiment opposed each-other, he dedicated himself to finding a proper, rational balance between the two. As a prototypical enlightenment thinker, he refused to accept illogical supernatural explanations on phenomena of the world as religious zealots had but used empirical observational data to rationalize the world. He used the same system to formulate his spiritual creed. From an early age Franklin was already questioning the dogmatic religious beliefs set down upon him, stating in his autobiography “scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself" (Franklin Autobiography 113). He formulated a belief that was most applicable to society, measuring religion as he did all other things, in respect to utility. On these grounds, Franklin strongly affirmed the existence of a singular God who created the universe (Sparks 423). Perhaps the most central tenet of Franklin’s belief was the fact that he had endowed man with the most essential characteristics, “bestowing Life and Reason”(Franklin Articles). Such a fundamental understanding of God allowed Franklin to rationalize all denominations, with reason and freedom leading each man to select that religious path that best helped them act properly in the world, “that the most acceptable service we render him is doing good to his other children” (Sparks 423). Franklin saw conduct and virtuous behavior on earth and within one’s community as the way to honor God, and this is not surprising. Faith was the proper path to virtue, not a diversion from being a good parent, a good spouse, a good neighbor or friend, a good subject or citizen, that is, in short, a good person. Faith was the instrument, not the end. Thus to Stiles specific question as to Franklin’s opinion of Jesus, Franklin acknowledges that Jesus Christ existed, but he doubts he is the son of God out of his observed sense of man as a relative “inconsiderable Nothing” to the vastness of the universe (Sparks 424). Therefore, the likelihood of Jesus being the creator’s son is extraordinarily unlikely. Stiles may himself have held similar intuitions as he is described as having struggled internally with skepticism to the point his apprehension led him to consider abandoning his ministerial intentions for a career in law (Macphail 227). However, as a Congregational Church Minister, Stiles must have affirmed a belief in the concept of the Trinity at least to some degree, as Protestant churches uphold the concept of a Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit in their teachings. Protestantism is known for a less exact definition of the three, whereby the Spirit is sent from the Father by the Son, such that Jesus need only be recognized as a vessel, not necessarily the literal son of God (Wikipedia). If this looser affiliation of God and Jesus was sufficient for Stile’s approval is unclear, as the various Protestant churches vary in their perspective and Stiles himself had early misgivings about his theological beliefs.

Franklin appreciates potential value of institutional religion as a teacher and enforcer of a high moral code. His letter to George Whitefield explicitly asserts his wish for faith to be “more productive of good works” rather than conventional displays of “performing church ceremonies, or making long prayers” that do not serve any practical utility (Sparks 75). This holds true for all religions and explains his lifelong advocacy of religious tolerance. Religion serves as an educational force in instructing the populous on the virtue of being a good citizen. Therefore, to Franklin it represents an equally valuable influence as scientific, secular studies. Franklin’s overarching message to Stiles is that he values the benefit that religion holds in relation to the service it provides a community in responsible behavior. The specific congregation does not matter, only the acknowledgement of a superior Being that stimulates the virtuous conduct by which all society is improved. Franklin’s warning to Paine sums up his attitude, “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?” (Sparks 282) In all his correspondences, Franklin attempts to advise his peers and instill in them his aspiration to pursue and popularize those ideals that better society as a whole; faith, reason, and toleration.

Works Cited

Franklin, Benjamin. On the Writings of Zoroaster. London, 13 January, 1772

--Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion in Two Parts. Philadelphia, 20 November, 1728

--The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin 2^nd ed. Edited by Leonard W Labree, Yale University Press. New Haven Connecticut, 2964

Macphail, Alasdair. "Ezra Stiles (29 November 1727-12 May 1795)". American Colonial Writers, 1735-1781. Ed. Emory Elliott. Dictionary of Literary Biography Vol. 31. Detroit: Gale Research, 1984. 226-237. Dictionary of Literary Biography Complete Online. Gale. Vanderbilt University Jean and Alexander Heard Library. 10 December 2011

http://galenet.galegroup.com.proxy.library.vanderbilt.edu/servlet/DLBC_Online/nash87800/BK1497925053

Sparks, Jared. The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Volume X. Chicago: BF Stevens, 1882.

A Basic Understanding of Credit Goes a Long Way

Ben Franklin’s Advice to a Young Tradesman may seem trivial to anyone who has the most basic understanding of financial or economic theory. Amazingly, if more of the current generation were to read and heed its message, our society would not be in the precarious condition we are. The counsel is simple: be fiscally responsible. Unfortunately American (not to mention European) households, businesses, and even our Federal Government have neglected to do so. For too long people have abused access to credit to live beyond their means, building up incredible amounts of debt that they cannot pay off.

Franklin wrote “Money is of a prolific generating Nature. Money can beget money, and its Offspring can beget more, and so on”. Possessing money has benefits beyond its current value as investing in anything from a capital that can increase business revenue, pay off immediate debts to free up cash to continue operations or loan out at a higher rate can yield a net profit. However, if loans are not used properly, the reverse is true. Debt naturally accrues over time if not reinvested, and the amount owed will increase.

Over time, especially in recent generations, credit markets have developed with modern markets. It has allowed small businesses to be established and families to buy homes without immediate cash because their future income streams will provide the necessary funds to cover the cost. In many senses it has vastly increased the current standard of living, but if the recent recession has demonstrated anything it is the danger of our inability to properly plan for the future. Families bought homes they would never be able to pay for because of adjustable rate mortgages they did not understand, governments have promised benefits to satisfy the current generation without regard to the cost it would have on the future to engender present political support, and creditors stood to gain on mounting interest payments. They never perceived of an inability to collect because newer loans could be obtained to pay current obligations. When credit froze, the whole system nearly shut down. The basic concept had been forgotten and institutions became over-extended. We became lazy, assuming that because we could obtain money, we were obtaining wealth when all we were really obtaining was insurmountable debt. The attitude that “The Way to Wealth…depends chiefly on two Words, INDUSTRY and FRUGALITY” was ignored. Spending grew, savings became negative, and rather than wasting “neither Time nor Money”, huge populations did both. Franklin’s message needs to be circulated once again for its simplicity and value to rekindle the fundamental necessities of hard-work and industrious nature as the proper qualities of wealth accumulation.

Back to Basics

Every morning, I wake up to a newspaper article detailing the dire economic environment we all live in. This morning, I learned that Standard & Poor’s had downgraded Italy’s credit rating. This morning, I read an article that outlined the reasons Greece should simply default on its debt rather than continue to receive aid packages from members of the Eurozone and the United States. This morning, I learned that an online poker site was actually a Ponzi Scheme that robbed its loyal customers of more than $440 million. This morning, the International Monetary Fund cut its forecast for global growth to a measly four percent in its flagship report, the “World Economic Outlook.” In that same report, the IMF warned that the United States and many European economies are on track to have a “lost decade” like the one Japan’s economy experienced in the 1990s. This means that there is a chance that one decade of my life as an American citizen will be considered a wash; an era devoid of progress. Today, money is more complicated than ever before. Perhaps this is why I found Franklin’s two pieces, “Advice to a Young Tradesman, Written by an Old One” and “Rules Proper to be Observed in Trade” so refreshing, yet simultaneously so disheartening. Money was so simple back then! Franklin writes, “Remember that CREDIT is Money,” (p. 320). If banks had printed this line in bold letters at the top of every mortgage contract that was issued before 2007, perhaps people would have thought twice about taking loans to purchase homes they could never afford to own. On the next page, he asserts, “Waste neither Time nor Money, but make the best Use of both. He that gets all he can honestly, and saves all he gets (necessary Expences excepted) will certainly become RICH,” (p. 321-2). As far as I can tell, never before in human history has this sentiment been so widely disregarded as it is today. Of course, the majority of Americans earn honest livings and practice frugality when they can, but that’s certainly not what the newspapers remind us of each morning. Instead, we are bombarded by stories about the seemingly rampant dishonesty in business today. I don’t think Franklin could have ever dreamed that one day, long after he was gone, the nature and culture of money would become so convoluted. Economists, whose job it is to study the history of financial markets and to forecast the economic future of America, don’t truly know how to fix the mess we’re in. Yet, when broken down in Franklin’s pieces, the same basic rules still apply. I don’t know if we will be able to avoid a “lost decade,” but getting back to basics certainly couldn’t hurt.

Proper Law and Order

While "The Speech of Miss Polly Baker" contains a number of images, what stands out the most is the point at which it is said, "Laws are sometimes unreasonable in themselves, and therefore repealed; and others bear too hard on the Subjects in particular circumstances; and therefore there is left a Power somewhere to dispense with the Execution of them". Franklin in this instance is referring to the fact that women are penalized for having illegitimate children while the fathers of these children are not, but what is truly interesting is Franklin bringing up the idea of unfair or unjust laws in a pre-Revolutionary context. In a story that really is not connected to the Revolution, it is easy to see how Franklin eventually got to a stance of pro-Independence. Franklin, though Miss Polly Bakers, argues the fact that some laws are inherently unjust, and so should be eliminated. He argues that "natural actions" shouldn't be made into crimes. Franklin, at a time when separation from Great Britain has yet to even cross his mind, is already making arguments similar to those that will eventually surface in later years.
Another particularly interesting aspect is how Franklin uses his story. This is something not just in this instance, but in Franklin's work as a whole. The use of fictitious stories to illustrate his point is an example of the change in mediation of the time. Rather than just give his argument in philosophical terms, he uses a story that the people can relate to, and tries to guide them in the story to the point where they should end. In this case, to the point where they would realize the injustice of this law.

An Exercise in Virtue, and Persuasion!

Franklin's short essay, "Self-Denial Not the Essence of Virtue" is a wonderfully interesting piece on the roots of virtue in men and itself an exercise in persuasion. His argument presents an initial claim; dissects it, finding it to be false; then presents a modified version of the original claim, which he comes to accept. But how convinced are we by his reasoning?

His first model is as follows: "without Self-Denial there is no Virtue, and that the greater the Self-Denial the greater the Virtue" (242). Through example he reasons that by this logic, that we check our temptation to vice through the practice of the contrary virtue. But, in the long term, this diminishes the force of the temptation, and one would have to return to his vices in order to be virtuous. I'm not sure this argument is entirely convincing. Franklin doesn't explicitly define the practice of virtue, if one cannot practice it anymore, is he not just living the virtue?

His second model replaces virtue with merit, thus any act of Self-Denial deserves merit & praise. This seems to more aptly fit his claims, though he still draws heavily on examples, like this instance of Honesty: "If you were to employ Servants in Affairs of Trust, would you not bid more for one you know was naturally honest, than for one naturally roguish, but who had lately acted honestly" (243). Honesty is a virtue Franklin holds high, yet what about all the people he lied to creating the Silence Dogood pseudonym? Does his intention come into play here?

He concludes that Virtue is Virtue, with or without context; and because virtue is merit-based, it is absolute. It doesn't matter if your nature predisposes you to virtuous undertakings, or if the merits of virtue are "practis'd with or against our inclinations" (244). Franklin also decides that self denial has no inherent goodness or wickedness, only as it is used. But what struck me were his final remarks: "And he who does a foolish, indecent or wicked Thing, meerly because 'tis contrary to his Inclination, […] is not practising the reasonable Science of Virtue, but is a lunatick" (244). I believe Franklin to be of good virtue, but would he then consider the act of writing the Silence Dogood letter one of a lunatic? Or would Franklin consider that the virtue of the results of his deceit justify the means?

Appropriate Action

Everyday we are told to put limits on ourselves. At a young age our parents tell us to limit our intake of sweets. We are advised against staying on Facebook for so long, or letting Twitter dominate our life. It sometimes seems like we are being told to deny ourselves what we want, and that in that denial, we are learning to control ourselves and therefore becoming better people. However, that is not always the case, a point touched on by Benjamin Franklin.
In his "Self-Denial Not the Essence of Virtue" Franklin breaks down the argument that self-denial is indeed the essence of virtue. He offers situations in which self-denial, as he puts it, would actually bring us closer to vice until we have "no Virtue at all". He corrects the statement to say that self-denial is instead the virtue of merit (or praise), but then immediately breaks that argument down, stating that if one does good simply out of a natural benevolence, then self-denial is not worthy of merit, but rather, as he puts at the end, "he who does a foolish, wicked or indecent Thing, meerly because 'tis contrary to his Inclination...is lunatick". What Franklin argues is that any good action is worthy of equal merit regardless of whether it was done in spite of one's natural inclination or because of it.
I would agree with Franklin that any good act is worthy of praise, but what struck me about Franklin's argument is that it draws comparison to Hutcheson's work as well. That is, it implies that we have the moral sense Hutcheson speaks of. In order know whether or not to act in accordance to or against our "natural inclination" would mean knowing right from wrong. If we know our natural inclination is wrong, we should act against it; if we know it is right, we should act in accordance to it. Regardless of this, I think Franklin makes a convincing argument in saying self-denial is not the essence of virtue, and is not even always the essence of merit.

The Effect of Bias on the Printing Press

Apology for Printers provides a glimpse into what a hub of information Ben Franklin became during the enlightenment. He uses a humorous tone to dispel the many misconceptions his readers have about how he operates his newspaper, something he jokes warrants an annual reminder as authors and readers alike are quick to displace feelings onto the middleman, the printer. Besides explaining the inherent nature of opposing opinions in the printing business, Franklin touches on Kant’s idea of public vs. private. Any other trade at the time involves a separation between the two that allows for transactions between “people of all persuasions.” The printer does not have that luxury however because his business is the business of opinions, providing the nexus of the enlightenment: public discourse.

We know Franklin retains his ability to express private opinions through the use of pseudonyms, but what about the freedom to print anything in his paper? As Franklin writes in another article, “it is a bad thing to have a bad name” because it taints a reader’s perception for all subsequent publications. For example, many Americans today shy away from Fox News because they believe it publishes with a wildly conservative slant that makes stories seem entirely different than if they were broadcast on their preferred network, such as CNN. Franklin maintains that he employs a “vast unconcernedness as to the right or wrong opinions” that he publishes because if printers took a stance, it would put an end to free writing. On the other hand however, he continues: “printers do continually discourage the printing of great numbers of bad things, and stifle them in the birth.” As usual, (and fittingly for a printer), Franklin does not take a firm stance on the issue, but presents both sides and still leads his reader to conclusions. A certain conclusion here is that the extent to which the printer filters his paper and the reader narrows his sources of information limits or expands the enlightenment process for the individual, because a narrow window of information blocks out a lot of debate.

Only God Can Judge Me (I Don't Need a Jury)

I found Franklin’s work, “A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure, and Pain” quite compelling. Written almost 300 years ago, the ideas that Franklin illustrates in the piece certainly hold weight in our current discussion of understanding “the general State of Things in the Universe” (57). The battle between good and evil amongst mankind, the ideas of free-will and desire, and the connection between pleasure and pain, are all discussed.

The idea that if God is all-powerful, and that if he is good and wise, is juxtaposed with the idea that nothing evil in the world would be able to exist if these were the true characteristics of the almighty. Essentially, “there is nothing done in the universe…but what God either does, or permits to be done” (58). This assertion by Franklin brings up many powerful and definitely personal questions regarding one’s religious beliefs. Religion is of course a very touchy topic in conversation, so to assert an idea that bad things can’t exist if we presume that a God also exists thus means that God does not exist (since bad things do obviously happen). I find that challenging ideas of religion (such as the existence of God, etc.) at this time is the epitome of what the Enlightenment stood for. The time period consisted of many intelligent individuals challenging the status quo of beliefs and presuming that maybe there were others ways to view the world and what occurred within it.

Another interesting idea Franklin brings up is that of the relationship between pleasure and pain. He states that, “the Sensation of Pleasure is equal, or in exact proportion to the Sensation of Pain” (65). I find this idea very intriguing as one often does not think about the relationship between these two sensations. For example, often we must feel some sort of pain to feel some sort of pleasure within our lives. As Franklin believed, the highest form of pleasure was that of the freedom of all pain. This seems right on point for if we had absolutely no pain in our lives (i.e. no physical hurt, no emotional hurt, no mental anxiety) then our existence would essentially be that of a constant state of euphoria and happiness. I'm not quite sure how Franklin's discussion of pleasure and pain ties into his views on religion besides maybe God being the almighty controller of the universe? However, both ideas certainly challenged views held during the Enlightenment period and spark debate.

Franklin- dishing out what he can't take in return

“Being frequently censur’d and condemn’d by different Persons for printing Things which they say out not to be printed, I have sometimes though it might be necessary to make a standing Apology for my self, and publish it once a Year, to be read upon all Occasions of that Nature.” These are Benjamin Franklin’s words in Apology for Printers, which is essentially a list of “particulars” that Franklin requests “all who are angry with him to calmly consider.” I find it interesting that Franklin is quick to defend what he writes from the standpoint that what he prints are mere opinions. He takes the attitude that people should relax because one can never please everybody. Perhaps Franklin should take a look in the mirror at the man who wrote Printer’s Errors and Rules for The New-England Courant. Both publications quickly and aggressively point out his issues with each publication, but even if one does not support religion, who is he to suggest that the newspaper is need of rules simply because, “Religion is our safety and security, and if we lose the Honour of that, no small part of our strength and Glory will be lost with it.” Ironically, Franklin preached the acceptance of all churches despite his affiliation as a Puritan. For a man who believes in religious acceptance and believes in one’s right to defend his publications, he is abrasive with others who he judges to be doing harm to the community. It is evident that Franklin has tolerance for any pious man, but for the individual who has no religious association he has no patience. Not only does he not have patience for the non- religious man, he will publically defame the publication of the individual who does not emphasize or perhaps deemphasizes the church in a way that does not suit Franklin. The publisher of the Pennsylvania Gazette misspells a few words and Franklin classifies it as not gentleman-like and obvious in exposing “the continual Blunders of your Contemporary.” I sure hope Franklin never misspells a few words, I have a feeling his peers would be quick to jump on the man who apparently thinks, “That it is unreasonable to imagine Printers approve of every thing they print, and to censure them on any particular thing accordingly.”

Franklin's Self Promotion

Ben Franklin’s sardonic jape at the arrogance of men in Rules for Making Oneself a Disagreeable Companion certainly speaks to every college age student. Everyone knows one of their peers who simply MUST bring themselves to the forefront of any conversation, or assert their own story as absolutely paramount to anyone else’s. As Jon noted in his post, this flows from a sense of competition that people feel every day, and individuals with such egotistical tendencies see such self-promotion as the surest way to affirm their ‘superiority’. While it seems trivial and immature to act in such a way, such competitiveness is what drives us in all our endeavors. Franklin elaborates on this idea in his discussion on Pleasure and Pain, saying “as fast as we have excluded one Uneasiness another appears, otherwise the Motion would cease”. Preserving one’s own pleasure by avoiding pain is at the essence of every action, and pleasure is derived in one’s own relation to those around them. As the two have a natural balance within each person, would it not follow that they have a natural balance within society? One man’s pleasure must then come at another’s expense, before the tides are returned in another interaction such that each man’s net pain is equal to his pleasure.

This insight of Franklin’s came back to me when reading his Apology for Printers and Printer’s Errors, which both seemed to be a defense of Franklin’s individual value. Errors may be easier to connect with the arrogance described in Rules for Making Oneself a Disagreeable Companion, in that he chose to publish a letter that flaunts the fact that his paper “is most commonly very correct, and yet you were never known to triumph upon it, by publickly ridiculing and exposing the continual blunders of your Contemporary”. In fact, that is exactly what he is doing, just through another voice. By letting another verbalize the criticism of those around him, he is elevating himself both by publicizing his competitor’s mistakes while marinating a false air of dignity. Thus his own pleasure gained from this letter being read not only personally, but by all those who read his paper comes at the cost of pain to those other publishers whom the author compared to Franklin.

Likewise, Franklin’s defense in his Apology for Printers that “Printers naturally acquire a vast Unconcernedness as to the right or wrong opinions contain’d in what they print” ignores the fact that he above all stands to gain from what is, and what is not printed. He makes himself out to be a simple servant, but when every action (undoubtedly his profession being a continual string of such actions) is inherently one of pursuing pleasure, how can he feign such selflessness? As he himself asked, “how can any Action be meritorious of Praise or Dispraise, Reward or Punishment, when the natural principle of Self-Love is the only and the irresistible Motive to it?” How are his actions any better than that annoying self promoter he mocked in Rules for Making Oneself a Disagreeable Companion?

Une langue étrangère ne fait pas mon message meilleure

In his text on Franklin and the Enlightenment, Frank Kelleter dispels the common myth that the enlightenment marked a period of new, shared beliefs and theories. The Age of Reason, the other main term used to refer to the enlightenment, seems to be a more accurate name for the time, as Kelleter argues that the faculty of reason was what united enlightenment thinkers. He explains the critical, democratic, and constructive aspects of reason that still hold true today. Based on John Locke’s principle, that we have no certain knowledge, reason becomes critical to free the mind from doctrines that others impose as ‘the truth’, since we are not born with a truth. Though Kelleter does not mention tabula rasa, Locke’s idea that we are born without any inherent knowledge, it forms the basis of his argument against accepting the beliefs of others as valid due to commonality.

Enlightenment thinkers also believed it their responsibility to eliminate falsely established beliefs and even speak out against institutions that perpetuate them. Interestingly, having more skillsets, such as a foreign language or strong rhetoric, does not make the person more reasonable, but rather more powerful, lending credence to the old adage that knowledge is power. Ben Franklin warns however that knowledge could simply disguise nonsense to thwart reason. Thus, every man, regardless of economic/educational standing was capable of enlightened thought by using reason’ reason is democratic because it is accessible by anyone. This principle explains how Descartes’ theory of planetary motion, despite being false, makes him a good enlightenment thinker because he exercised sound reason within a limited set of knowledge that he could not have exceeded at the time.

Finally, this system of enlightened reason is constructive because if everyone proves beliefs for themselves and disproves unsound or unreasonable beliefs, what has become known as the scientific method would apply to all facets of life to create a better society as a whole. Unfortunately, we will never quite reach that utopia because unreasonable people shall always exist.