Autobiography part 2

Part 2 of Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography is largely made up of Franklin's attempt at improving his own morality. He goes through a complicated, deliberate, and well documented plan to try to make himself a better person through self-examination. Included in the system is a list of 13 virtues, a calendar, and a daily journal. Part of the significance of this part of Franklin's efforts is that he's not exactly successful, however.

The brief story about Franklin's neighbor from page 88-89 of his autobiography can be summarized with the quote "Yes, but I think I like a speckled axe best." Franklin brings up the story in the context of his 'Order' virtue. His neighbor, when buying an axe from a local smith, said that he wanted the whole axe to be bright like the edge. When he and the smith set to actually polishing and grinding the whole axe, the neighbor quickly became tired and gave up after the axe was only speckled. The obvious point of the quote is that some goals take too much work to accomplish to be worthwhile (that is, that sometimes you have to make compromises with yourself and that you won't always get what you want). This relates to Franklin's overall view of his self-examination, in that it benefited his life in the long run even though he wasn't able to maintain any kind of focus on the virtues for a long period of time.

The quote itself actually goes beyond this idea, because if it was just about the benefits of compromise, it would read something more like "I think a speckled axe is fine." By saying that the speckled axe is actually "best," Franklin's neighbor is saying (even if he didn't mean it) that, even if the axe was perfectly shined, the half-grinded speckled axe would be better. Franklin goes on the elaborate on this, saying that being perfectly moral would bring about new problems and difficulties in personal relations. His message is that sometimes being the best isn't necessarily that much better than just being good, whether you're talking about being virtuous or any other aspect of one's life.

Jefferson and religion

Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, in particular what he says on the topic of religion, seems likely partly a political argument and partly like a campaign speech. He spends most of the time criticizing the state's leftover discriminatory laws on religion, but by the last page, it seems like Jefferson has other purposes in mind. Past a certain point, his argument is not even specifically directed on religion at all, but only on the purpose of having just laws in writing. Beginning with "But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government?" his argument does not even use any religious terms, but is about government in general.

The main point of what he is trying to say is that old laws that are not enforced should be rewritten even if they pose no danger because no one exists who would or could enforce them in the government at the time. Jefferson is advocating distrust of the government and skepticism about the future in a way that is a little surprising. As a major political figure who later became president, normally any effort to encourage distrust of the government system seems like a bad idea. The negative impact of something like this could be larger the way our modern, image-focused political structure works.

However, the way Jefferson writes this last section makes it sound kind of like a political rally. The thing that sticks out the most is how many short, almost rhetorical questions he throws into his writing in the last 1/3 of the religion essay. Sometimes, he immediately answers his own questions right after he asks them. It is like he is trying to get an audience excited and motivated on this issue, except the issue is not simple or easy to understand. It's hard for me to imagine a crowd applauding and showing support after Jefferson says something like, "It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united." But yet, because of the questions and the slightly animated, motivating way that it is written, that's the image that somehow pops into my mind.

Edwards and rationality

Jonathan Edwards's sermon A Divine and Supernatural Light is a description of "divine light" and also a justification of its existence. A segment where Edwards is making an effort to rationally prove how he can recognize "divine light" is particularly interesting to me. This paragraph can be found on page 9 (on the printed-out copy of the sermon), just before the #2 during the third main section. The paragraph starts with "If Christ should now appear to any one as he did on the mount at his transfiguration."

The bottom line of Edward's argument in this section is that it makes sense for God's words, acts, and writings to be instantly recognizable when they are heard, seen, or otherwise witnessed by ordinary humans. Actually, he doesn't say that it makes sense; he says that it is "rational." His line of reasoning is that, since God is superior to humans, everything he does is also superior, and (most importantly) all humans should universally be able to recognize between divine "excellency and sublimity" and ordinary human products.

The part that bothers me is the quote at the end of this paragraph from Jer. 23:28-29, a part of which reads, "what is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?" I'm very doubtful of this explanation, because the thing that is separating the "chaff to the wheat," isn't something divine, it's the ordinary people. Edwards is saying that whatever a person feels is divine or is an act of God can be assumed to be that, and that nothing is more reliable than an individual's inner gut instinct. This is typically of sermons or any other kind of religious argument, but he is trying to say that this is somehow a "rational" proof of his point. To me, it seems like it's the opposite of rational; it is saying that individual, unexplainable instinct is the best way to prove something. This part of his sermon is particularly frustrating to read because of the misleading way Edwards characterizes this argument.

introduction

My name is Joe. I'm a freshman from Raleigh, NC (Enloe high school), and I'm still working on figuring out a major, though I'm leaning towards journalism right now.