Reflection Blog: Franklin's success

Benjamin Franklin was definitely one of the most morally correct men of his time. He had a great deal of character along with intelligence that resulted in respect from his peers and colleagues. He would show his great deal of character in his philosophy, inventions, and political ideas. He implemented his genius in his plan to become morally perfect. This plan was to set thirteen virtues and try to follow one each week while marking down when he fails (Franklin). These thirteen virtues were temperance, silence, order, resolution, frugality, industry, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity, and humility. These were apparently the virtues that Franklin saw to be the traits of moral perfection in a person. He then decided that he would go about a scientific approach to this. He did not exactly know what to expect, but his experiment showed that it was harder than he thought to follow these virtues (Franklin). His conclusion was most likely that people naturally have certain virtues and that it is hard to change this even with repetitive and strenuous work toward the positive.

I think that Franklin was unsuccessful in becoming a better person. There are a few reasons for this. The first stems from the fact that Franklin was already a good person. He did not even spoil himself or live in a wealthy manner even though he had wealth (Franklin). He wanted to help others and he wanted to help himself. He did not want to help himself for selfish reasons though. Franklin wanted to help himself become a better person, which the idea in itself sort of showed that he was already a good person. The other reason that he was not really successful in the end was that he did not make it through every day with perfection. He had some failures with specific virtues such as silence and order. He had five marks for each of these, which signified that he had a problem or some trouble with upholding that virtue (Franklin). Franklin started off hoping to become a better person, but he basically stayed the same. He found out that it is hard to keep silent, especially when you are as renowned as Benjamin Franklin. He also could not handle keeping things in order which sort of entailed keeping his priorities straight. Franklin’s experiment was less of something to work on, but more of something to learn from. He cannot fix his virtues, but he can definitely see what his problems are. The major factors, his already good character and his inability to change something this permanent, coincided to produce somewhat unsatisfactory results, but they were results nonetheless. He learned what his virtues were but he could do nothing to help it, and this sort of showed Franklin that he was just a human. His science could not help him in this situation. The positive aspect of this is that he was still a virtuous man. He did not really need to change very much in my opinion because nobody can truly reach moral perfection. Franklin was as close enough as anybody could be, and that is good enough.

Franklin, Benjamin. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Henry Altemus. 1895. Print.

Reflection Blog: Franklin's Virtues

Benjamin Franklin is a man that embodied the Enlightenment and the Rationalism period by being a Renaissance man of inventing, participating in politics and governance, being the first Postmaster General, and constantly learning. He embodied this period along with Deism by being a man of utter reason and logic. He not only enacted his logical principles in inventing, but he brought logic to all aspects of his life (Franklin). Deism is the philosophical belief that a god, it does not necessarily matter which one, created the universe and is letting everything unfold on its own (Deism).The way that Franklin represents this philosophy not by simply believing that one idea, but by also abiding by the principles of overcoming things with reason, not needing an established church, and replacing faith with logic (Deism).

Franklin was originally a Presbyterian, but he noticed that some of the ideas, morals, and beliefs were unintelligible to him (Franklin 144). This is exactly what a rational person would do. They would not just follow this religion because they were born into it, and blindly follow it. They would do as Franklin and try out several religions just to learn what they believe and find the best one (Franklin). Benjamin Franklin does not even follow typical norms when spends Sundays studying instead of going to church (Franklin). His basic ideas are to be a good person and use logic and common sense (Franklin). He actually uses logic and common sense together to make himself a better person. He fundamentally takes the scientific method and uses it to make himself more virtuous. He forms a plan and hypothesis about becoming a better person; he enacts it in an experiment where he tries to follow one virtue each week; he collects the data and learns from it; and he uses what he learned in the next test (Franklin). His approach to moral perfection was most definitely rational. Franklin said that everything good needed a plan or design, so he used this in making his thirteen virtues (Franklin 147). He got his original idea to do this from a quote that said to think of anything that is a virtue (Franklin 146). Franklin also seldom went to public worship (Franklin 145). He said that he went successively for awhile, but he began to dislike the ideas taught and stopped going (Franklin 146). This is exactly a Deist belief because they do not need an established church (Deism). They can learn and follow their beliefs on their own time instead of having to go to a place of worship (Deism). A very interesting thing about Benjamin Franklin is the way he handled money. He lived like an average person even though he was quite wealthy. He had cheap furniture, ate bread, drank milk, and had simple plates and utensils (Franklin 144). This seems more like common sense than anything. He is living off of what he needs as opposed to living extravagantly with things that are beyond necessities. Franklin followed the ideas taught in Deism by using reason and common sense all throughout his life.

"Deism." Philosophy - AllAboutPhilosophy.org. All About Philosophy. Web. 26 Oct. 2011. .

Franklin, Benjamin. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Henry Altemus. 1895. Print.

Journal #14 Franklin's Apprentice

If I was Benjamin Franklin's apprentice I would probably have an interesting day. Franklin would first have tell which virtue I was to follow for the day. I would have to try and pertain to that specific virtue all day all while learning from Franklin. He would teach me about politics. He would explain his ideas about the government, and he would expect me to learn from him and form my own opinions on this. He would probably give an unbiased view on the government and politics because he is a rational and scientific man. After this we would work on inventing. He would show me some of his inventions like the stove and lightning rod, and he would tell me to try to invent something. I would begin working on something and he would help to create it. Then I would follow Franklin to his work as the first post master general. He would show me how the postal system works, and explain how he does his job. Franklin would teach me everyday and he would also teach himself everyday. He was a man who continued to learn all the time, so he would show me that I should continually learn everyday. He would tell me that I should seek information and inspiration instead of just learning solely from him. I think he would be one of the best people to be the apprentice of. Franklin had many jobs and it would probably be a difficult task to follow him and learn from him. I think anyone that would have been Franklin's apprentice would have learned a lot, but I do not know that he would have enough time for an apprentice. He was busy learning on his own and trying to become a better person all of the time. It would have been difficult for him to juggle all of his jobs and hobbies while teaching another person how to do things that he has just learned himself. He would probably want his apprentice to do a lot on their own.

Journal #13 American Dream

I think the American Dream is pretty simple. For most people it is probably to live with a good job, make good money, and know that they will have their job the next day. I think there are a lot of people that do live this, but most people do not have this luxury. There are people who can't get a job or make more than minimum wage, and in other countries there are people who hardly get to exercise any of the rights they should have. I guess the American Dream for people in other countries could be different, and really everybody probably has some different definition of the American dream. Some people may think it means to be able to have all of your natural rights without them being violated. In the early twentieth century it was more of owning a car, having a family, and making good money. These definitions really vary through time and from person to person. I think the "American" Dream really just stands for the ideal life that someone aspires to achieve. My American Dream would probably be to get the job I want; earn a solid wage; live comfortably without fear of anything; have a family; and be able to relax without any sort of debt or other inconvenience. I think to be successful today you need a good education. Most jobs require a degree, and a high school education usually results in minimum wage. I think the American Dream for most people does not include minimum wage, so education often equals success. I think that success is really observed by someone's monetary status. If someone has a lot of money they are most likely considered successful. Education results in more money, and more money results in success. This basically means that a lot of the American Dream is a good education, but that does not imply other things like living without your rights being violated. There are certain things like human rights that are not solved with simple solutions even if they are part of the American Dream.

Journal #12

If I was going to make up my own rules about right and wrong I would probably keep similar rules to what the law is today or what most people consider the rules to be. Obviously things that would be wrong would be typical crimes like murder, theft, and assault. People should not be able to take others' lives, and they should not be able to steal from somebody who rightly earned their property. I think I would be slightly more lenient on assault because if someone does something to make another person hit them they usually do deserve it. One thing I would change is censorship. I think censorship is a violation of freedom of speech or press. People should be able to use a cuss word or speak their mind because we are all entitled to our own opinions, and we should be able to express them. I also think that one thing that should change is curfew. I think that parents can decide curfew instead of their being a law. It is always said that nothing good happens after twelve o'clock, or whenever the curfew is, but it is not like people are going around and killing each other. The worst thing that happens is usually drinking alcohol or involvement with some sort of drug, but if I am out past twelve I am not doing anything bad. I am just hanging out with my friends, and my parents can easily set a time that I need to be home. They know that I am not out committing insane crimes. I personally do not like having a set curfew because when I am outside past it there is nobody else out. When my friend and I are out walking past twelve, or whenever, the police instantly think we are doing something wrong. My friend and I have been pulled over by the cops at least five times doing nothing, and then they just let us go. I think there are some minor things that need to be changed, but for the most part the rules are alright.

Journal #11: Aphorisms

One popular aphorism would be "Wise men talk because they have something to say, fools because they have to say something." This was an intelligent quote by the Greek philosopher Plato. Basically what he is saying is that "fools" say things just to say things. They do not have anything important on their mind, and they speak unnecessary words that do not have any significant meaning. They are just talking because they have to. On the other hand, wise men speak because they have something of significance to say. They keep to themselves until something of major importance comes up, and then they tell it. Basically a wise person says something when they have something wise to say. I think this is a very intelligent aphorism because it is at least true in part. Most people that I would consider, in Plato's words, a "fool" are always talking about things that do not matter. They will just talk about unimportant events or observations, and that is why they are defined as fools. There are not many people that only "speak when they have something to say." I think Plato, along with his teacher Socrates and student Aristotle, could be considered this definition of a wise person. They have many philosophical quotes that make them seem like a people that only spoke when they had something wise to say. I would like to think that I fall under this category too just because I am somewhat quiet, but I do not always speak in wise aphorisms worthy of being quoted centuries after I pass away. I think that by the way that I interpret this quote everybody would be considered a fool, but in some ways that is true. There is nobody that is always wise. Everybody has some moments when they are fools because nobody is perfect at everything. I think this is a really good quote because it makes the reader think about the way they talk about things and whether they really need to talk about them.

Reflection Blog: Crisis, No. 1

Thomas Paine is probably one of the greatest and most influential writers of the revolutionary times. He wrote Common Sense, which sparked a revolutionary flame in a massive amount of colonists. He represented the Rationalism Period because he was not just basing his ideas off of faulty logic and improvable ideas. He cited religious works only to better express his opinions. Paine used logic as a persuasion to his fellow Americans, and his great influence was a strong catalyst for many people to fight for their independence.
Paine obviously wrote The Crisis No. 1 for all people in America. He says “I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this State or that State, but on every State” (Paine 136). He is saying that this revolution will not work unless everybody strives for it together. He also calls on everybody, and he says that it is better to be too prepared than not prepared enough (Paine 135). By this he means that they need everybody in America to work together because if they do not it is possible that they will be defeated. Paine uses logic to uphold his opinion throughout the story also. He mentions that the Stamp Act has been repealed, but it has been replaced by the Intolerable Act (Paine 134). This act gives Britain the ability to “bind us [Americans] in all cases” (Paine 134). Britain now has an unnecessarily large amount of power over the colonies, and they cannot take it. The most moving part of this work is when Paine brings up the Declaratory Act again at the end. He says that if “a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me or those that are in it and to bind me in all cases whatsoever… Am I to suffer it?” (Paine 136) Paine is saying that the British have given themselves the right to kill colonists and burn their property, along with many other “intolerable” acts, and they should not allow them to continue this. He says that if they keep this Act in place then the colonists will not be able to suffer it anymore. Nobody has the right to invade these people’s homes, kill them, and take their property. It is simply unjust, excruciating, and undesirable. He is basically fighting for his fellow men, and speaking the things that they are thinking but cannot say. Paine is always using logic and examples to support what he says. He starts this off by saying that “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered” (Paine 134). He is initially telling people that the task ahead of them is not easy, but he says “the harder the conflict, the glorious the triumph” (Paine 134). In the end it will all be worth it if they can stop the tyranny of Britain. The only problem with this is whether the king truly was a tyrant. It is true that he had certain powers, but there is more than one definition of a tyrant. Either way the king could probably be considered a tyrant because he had unjust taxes where the colonists were not represented in government, he could appoint friends high positions in both Britain and America, and they were basically taking advantage of America with the Quartering, Declaratory, and other Acts. Thomas Paine is a good representation of the Rationalism period because he was a man of reason and logical persuasion to the point that he could influence people to start a revolution.

Paine, Thomas. "The Crisis, No. 1." Comp. Jeffrey D. Wilhelm, Ph.D. and Douglas Fisher, Ph.D. Glencoe Literature. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2009. 134-136. Print.