03-24-2011, 01:14 AM | #16 |
Guru
Posts: 826
Karma: 6566849
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Bay Area
Device: kindle keyboard, kindle fire hd, S4, Nook hd+
|
I found the noncompetitive attitude of Franklin to be refreshing. Reading Franklin reminds me of how far our own philosophies about information, knowledge, technology, and commerce have changed. Although, it could be said that Franklin was peculiar even for his time, so maybe his ideas are singular and not representative of his own times. But reading the U.S. constitution or other works of his time, I think there was a certain enlightenment ethic that Franklin shared with others of his time.
What I mean by a noncompetitive ethic is that Franklin did not see the world through a prism of winners and losers, of victors and vanquished. We can clearly see that in his debating style, or what would more appropriately be called his discussing style. This is how he debates: “when I advanced anything that may possibly be disputed, the words certainly, undoubtedly, or any others that give the air of positiveness to an opinion; but rather say, I conceive or apprehend a thing to be so and so; it appears to me, or I should think it so or so, for such and such reasons; or I imagine it to be so; or it is so, if I am not mistaken. This habit, I believe, has been of great advantage to me when I have had occasion to inculcate my opinions, and persuade men into measures that I have been from time to time engaged in promoting; and, as the chief ends of conversation are to inform or to be informed, to please or to persuade, I wish well-meaning, sensible men would not lessen their power of doing good by a positive, assuming manner, that seldom fails to disgust, tends to create opposition, and to defeat everyone of those purposes for which speech was given to us, to wit, giving or receiving information or pleasure. For, if you would inform, a positive and dogmatical manner in advancing your sentiments may provoke contradiction and prevent a candid attention. If you wish information and improvement from the knowledge of others, and yet at the same time express yourself as firmly fix'd in your present opinions, modest, sensible men, who do not love disputation, will probably leave you undisturbed in the possession of your error. And by such a manner, you can seldom hope to recommend yourself in pleasing your hearers, or to persuade those whose concurrence you desire.” From this passage you can see that for Franklin the goal of any discussion is not to win the debate, as is taught in debating today, but in the exchange of information and knowledge. It is not just a tactic for subtly influencing or manipulating others; Franklin approaches a discussion with another not just to impart or proselytize, but to make a mutual exchange. This mindset is a far cry from the politics and cultural wars of today (although there were irreconcilable political divisions in Franklin's time as well) where political debate consists either of yelling or snide asides and where political philosophies are expressed in immutable and self-evident slogans. But this isn't a politics forum, so I will not go further into that. I must reiterate, however, that Franklin's mindset was not unique to him, but a part of the times that he lived in. Even though he professed to not be a deist, it can be seen by the quote provided by WT Sharpe that Franklin had the beliefs of a deist. He denies being a deist, but that was for what he thought was more practical reasons, and I think in all things Franklin tried to be practical. He mistakenly interprets deism as moral relativism, when in fact deists believed morality, common decency, and kindness were eternal truths built into the structure of the universe. Thomas Paine, a self-avowed deist in the eighteenth century, says in the Age of Reason that the morality taught by any religion are “the natural dictates of conscience, and the bonds by which society is held together, and without which it cannot exist; and are nearly the same in all religions, and in all societies.” Deist philosophy says that all knowledge already exists and was been created by the maker. Humans do not create knowledge; they are vessels through which knowledge is passed through, in the same way that a prophet is the vessel through which a god communicates truths to a people. Just as it is the prophets duty and responsibility to communicate the word of god to as many people as possible, a deist believes that it is the duty of men to share knowledge with all that they can. We see this principle enshrined in the U.S. Constitution: the copyright clause gives authors and inventors control over their works for limited times only to promote the useful arts for the public gain. Most of the founding fathers did not see knowledge or information as property of the individual. Some time between Franklin's time and our own time our notions of knowledge and information changed, so that today we generally see a creation of an author as their personal property that they can do with as they please. I cannot say for certain when or why this change occurred, but I can speculate. As I have already stated, deists believed that knowledge was universal. In 1886 the Berne convention established copyright as life of the author plus fifty years. The idea of this kind of copyright was that an authors work was his property, and therefore he should not only own it for his entire lifetime, but he should also be able to bequeath that property to his descendants (for up to two subsequent generations, estimated at an average of 50 years at the time). This new notion of copyright represents an important philosophical development, and I think it has to do with changing notions of property and knowledge in the nineteenth, and more specifically, with the emergence of Darwinism and atheism. Before the nineteenth century it was inconceivable that the world, and that people, could exist without some form of divine creation. The term atheist was a pejorative for those who had different worship practices than the norm, not for people who believed that there was no god. Darwinism, however, introduced the notion that man and society could have formed outside of a divine creation. This allowed for the emergence of atheism, because it provided the means for which man could have emerged without some form of divine creator. If man evolved and was not created, then it could also be argued that knowledge and information is not eternal, but something that is created by individuals, or that it could be something that forms through the process of natural selection. Since individuals created knowledge and information, it is not only a form of personal property, but also that individual has no obligation or moral imperative to share what he has created with others. There were social darwinist undertones in the Berne convention. If natural selection was how species advanced (a misinterpretation of Darwin), then competition, and not cooperation, was the best way to improve and progress society. Whereas in the eighteenth century enlightenment it was believed that the free flow and sharing of universal knowledge was the best way to better mankind, in the nineteenth century industrial world knowledge was seen as a means for an individual to compete more effectively in society; essentially, knowledge became something to compete over, rather than something to share. Whereas the eighteenth century enlightenment approach to knowledge was, “how can I best share what I know with others,” the nineteenth century industrial mindset was, “how can I make the biggest profit off my works,” and for the consumer it was “how can I get creative works for as cheap as possible.” Thus, the interests of the producer and the consumer came to be mutually exclusive, one seeking to get the most, whereas the other seeking to give up the least. Whereas the eighteenth century perceived knowledge as a means of bettering all of mankind, the nineteenth century mindset was that the creation of knowledge is a competition in which an individual try to use it as a means to surpass others or move up in society. Of course, it could also be argued that the belief that knowledge is personal property predates the Darwinist era. Indeed, publishing companies argued for perpetual publishing rights in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but I think that had to do more with the philosophy of privilege than it did with the philosophy of property, i.e., the prevailing philosophy that said that different sections of society had different rights and privileges bestowed by god. Publishers argued that it was their god given right to exclusive publishing rights, not that authors were owners of their works. I think Franklin expresses the spirit of the enlightenment best in this quote about why he did not patent his stove: “That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously.” Last edited by spellbanisher; 03-24-2011 at 11:23 AM. |
03-24-2011, 02:29 AM | #17 | |
Bah, humbug!
Posts: 39,073
Karma: 157049943
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chesapeake, VA, USA
Device: Kindle Oasis, iPad Pro, & a Samsung Galaxy S9.
|
Quote:
Spoiler:
|
|
Advert | |
|
03-24-2011, 12:08 PM | #18 |
Guru
Posts: 826
Karma: 6566849
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Bay Area
Device: kindle keyboard, kindle fire hd, S4, Nook hd+
|
Perhaps noncompetitive is not descriptive enough. The word implies passivity, a mere abstinence from competition, whereas Franklin was a believer in actively doing good. Maybe the term cooperative would be more appropriate, but I think that does not quite encompass Franklin's philosophy. Perhaps he can be described as a proto-utilitarian, whose first principle was the greatest happiness produced for the community that he lived in. Franklin does not have any inviolable principles; the only principle that he adheres to is that whatever does the greatest good is best. That is why he is tolerant of all religions, and why he does not piously follow the one he professes to believe in.
Most people have absolute beliefs or principles that the adhere to no matter the greater results, either for personal gain or for some notion of universal right. A conservative or libertarian, in their most candid moments, will argue that it is wrong to impose income taxes, not because they do no good, but because it is wrong to take property under any conditions. In the same way a liberal might believe that redistributing wealth is the just and fair thing to do, no matter whether this does good for society or not. Franklin's utilitarianism is evidence that he still lives in a social, or communal age. He does not seem to think in terms of individualism, or in any notion of a solitary person. Instead, he lives in a time where people's identified more with their local community than anything else. Thus, Franklin's mindset never seems to be self-gain, but how he can best improve or contribute to the greater good of his community. This does not mean that he does not act in his self-interest, only that he did not separate his self-interest from the interests of the community. I don't think he ever evokes the notion of the self-made man, although I could be mistaken about that. Franklin's utilitarianism has implications for everything he does, both good and bad. Just look at his philosophy of reading, for instance. Today reading is viewed as a personal or solitary activity, as an activity that you do for your own pleasure or for expanding your own knowledge. But Franklin seemed to view reading as a social activity. He notes the advantages that he got from reading in this passage: “My mind having been much more improv'd by reading than Keimer's, I suppose it was for that reason my conversation seem'd to be more valu'd. They had me to their houses, introduced me to their friends, and show'd me much civility. He indirectly talks about the social purposes of reading when discussing the benefits of the library he created: “These libraries have improved the general conversation of the Americans, made the common tradesmen and farmers as intelligent as most gentlemen from other countries, and perhaps have contributed in some degree to the stand so generally made throughout the colonies in defense of their privileges.” There are probably better passages that can be used, but these will suffice. In the first passage, we see that the improvement of his mind by reading makes him more valuable to others. Reading makes him more knowledgeable and interesting, and that makes him more useful or pleasurable to others. His ability to please or pleasure others, along with his reputation for integrity, enables him to do a tremendous amount of good in society, such as starting libraries and hospitals. In fact, whenever there is some need in Philadelphia it seems that Franklin is the first person that they turn to. Far from being an activity of personal entertainment or escapism, reading is a highly useful activity for Franklin. He uses reading of poetry and of essays from the Spectator to improve his own writing style, which enables him to be more persuasive and more effective in actuating communal projects when he writes in his newspaper. His variety of reading in religious and didactic texts, such as the Pilgrims Progress, helps him develop a broad and nonalienating form of morality. In the second passage he talks about the effect that libraries, and therefore reading, has on society in general. First, he says that it improves the general conversation, again implying the social component of reading; reading makes you a more interesting person, which enables you to give more pleasure to others. But I like his final implication; reading “contributed in some degree to the stand so generally made throughout the colonies in defense of their privileges.” The more knowledgeable or intelligent the general populace is, the more able they are to see the advantage of their rights, liberties, and privileges, and the more able they are to defend these things. By making books available to everyone in Philadelphia, Franklin benefits himself, first by making everyone else he might meet or talk to more interesting, but by also bolstering the general belief in universal liberties. Essentially, when everyone else is more well read, his own liberties are better protected. There are limitations to Franklins utilitarianim, however. Franklin tends to think too much of maximizing productivity, even if it does not do the greatest good. What comes to mind is how he treated that poor woman who he found sweeping his pavement. When he asked her who had employed her to sweep pavement, she replied: “Nobody, but I am very poor an in distress, and I sweeps before gentle-folkses doors, and hopes they will give me something.” Franklin then pays her to sweep the whole street. So far so good. But then, he writes, “I then judg'd that, if that feeble woman could sweep such a street in three hours, a strong, active man might have done it in half the time.” Note that Franklin does not seem to care that the woman is impoverished; his only concern is that he can make the street sweeping even more efficient by hiring a strong and able man. The street sweeping job does a lot more good for the woman than it does for an able young man. It provides work for a woman who might has no other means of making a living. An able young man can always find work, and there are probably better uses for his vigor than sweeping streets. Additionally, society probably benefits greater from the old woman doing the street sweeping, since otherwise she might become a nuisance or burden to society. In both instances the work will be done in a reasonable amount of time; does society really gain that much added benefit from the streets being swept in 1.5 hours instead of three? But Franklin seems to see only in terms of maximum productivity, which one could say is the blindspot in his utilitarianism. Last edited by spellbanisher; 03-24-2011 at 12:10 PM. |
03-24-2011, 02:30 PM | #19 |
Nameless Being
|
Thanks much Spellbanisher for the insightful analyzes of Franklin and his times.
Yes, I believe that almost all of the well known founding fathers were deists, with Franklin and Jefferson in particular rejecting much of the magic aspects of Christianity. I really like your analysis of social/economic times of the 18th and 19th centuries. It is my opinion the individualistic (Darwinian if you will ) economic model of economic competition as opposed to cooperation did not really take hold until the mid-19th century reaching its peak during the “Gilded Age.”. This “Gilded Age” lasted basically right up until the Great Depression. That in unison, with WWII, ushered in a revised period of a sense of economic community as a nation that flourished for a while before declining until almost exactly a century later Reagan's election ushered in the “Gilded Age” redux we find ourselves in now. |
03-27-2011, 02:24 AM | #20 | |
Enthusiast
Posts: 36
Karma: 234
Join Date: Mar 2011
Device: none
|
might be onto something...
Quote:
|
|
Advert | |
|
03-29-2011, 05:41 PM | #21 | |
¿Huh?
Posts: 349
Karma: 1004526
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: rural Jalisco
Device: HiSense A7 CC, Fire HD6, Kobo Libra2
|
Quote:
Also, does anyone know what "...a purse made of asbestos, that purifies by fire." is? BenF. just got moved to the TB Finished Later list! Guess I'm in the mood for some laughter and right now Hal Spacejocks fits in fine with my present sour mood. d |
|
03-29-2011, 05:53 PM | #22 |
Bah, humbug!
Posts: 39,073
Karma: 157049943
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chesapeake, VA, USA
Device: Kindle Oasis, iPad Pro, & a Samsung Galaxy S9.
|
I believe it was the Greeks who used asbestos table cloths. The advantage was that after the meal, the cloth could be thrown into the fire for cleaning.
EDIT: Here it says, "Roman restaurants used tablecloths and napkins made of asbestos," and further, "The Roman Emperor Charlemagne, reportedly used an asbestos tablecloth to convince some barbarian guests that he had supernatural powers. In a well-known story, Charlemagne demonstrated his "powers" by throwing the asbestos tablecloth into a fire, and then pulling it out without any singe marks." http://www.ringsurf.com/online/2061-..._asbestos.html Last edited by WT Sharpe; 03-29-2011 at 05:56 PM. |
03-30-2011, 09:48 AM | #23 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 19,832
Karma: 11844413
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tampa, FL USA
Device: Kindle Touch
|
Was there a lot of Mesothelioma in Rome?
BOb |
03-30-2011, 10:19 AM | #24 |
Bah, humbug!
Posts: 39,073
Karma: 157049943
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chesapeake, VA, USA
Device: Kindle Oasis, iPad Pro, & a Samsung Galaxy S9.
|
I imagine there was, but it probably went by another name.
|
04-11-2011, 03:59 PM | #25 |
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Karma: 10
Join Date: Apr 2011
Device: Kindle
|
Autobiography Of Ben Franklin
Less than 50 % completed however finding it thus far to be interesting & somewhat inspiring. The formula for success in the 17th Century seems to me to be just as valid in our time.....a diligent & focused driven work ethic.
|
04-13-2011, 12:46 PM | #26 |
Home Guard
Posts: 4,729
Karma: 86721650
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Alpha Ralpha Boulevard
Device: Kindle Oasis 3G, iPhone 6
|
I was reading Flashman and the Angel of the Lord a few months ago and, as a aside, Flashman makes a snide remark about Franklin being a British spy. I had never heard anything, but it sounds like MacDonald used something that may have been published about it. Have there been any rumors?
|
01-15-2012, 09:43 PM | #27 |
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Karma: 10
Join Date: Oct 2011
Device: Kindle 3
|
Downloadable eBook?
Can anyone share their copy of this book in any ebook format?
|
01-15-2012, 10:05 PM | #28 |
Series Addict
Posts: 6,180
Karma: 167189477
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Florida, USA
Device: Kindle Paperwhite (2nd Gen)
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin | jasonfedelem | Reading Recommendations | 9 | 07-30-2010 09:51 AM |
Biography Franklin, Benjamin: Autobiography. V 1.0. 27 Feb 2010 | weatherwax | ePub Books | 0 | 02-27-2010 01:13 PM |
Biography Franklin, Ben: Autobiography. 20 Dec 07 | RWood | Kindle Books | 0 | 12-20-2007 09:15 PM |
Biography Franklin, Ben: Autobiography. 20 Dec 07 | RWood | IMP Books | 0 | 12-20-2007 09:13 PM |
Biography Franklin, Ben: Autobiography v1.1 - 20 May 07 | RWood | BBeB/LRF Books | 4 | 05-20-2007 10:30 PM |