Ben Franklin was a hacker god. He visited Europe by ship and instead of curling up with a book on deck, he grabbed a thermometer and a notebook and discovered the Gulf Stream.
Seriously, I'm amazed at the width of his accomplishments. Maybe, tt would be difficult for someone today to significantly contribute to so many fields. Even in a relatively new profession like CS, we tend to specialize.
Part of Franklin's success was his ability to focus on big problems instead of using his energies gambling, drinking, or wenching. Franklin's moral principles had nothing to do with being holier-than-thou. He wanted a life of meaning, and his moral code was the means to the end: a life as a world-famous scientist, businessman, author, and diplomat.
Edit: Men like Franklin see their moral code as a tool to get from point A (a humdrum life) to point B (a life of significance.) Today we see a moral code as some kind of legal document and look for violations. Aha! I see that you violated Section B Paragraph 5 "No wenching during business hours."
> Even in a relatively new profession like CS, we tend to specialize.
I suspect that this is exactly the challenge. From what I know of him, Franklin did not specialize. Was that the nature of who he was, or an artifact of the time? And, of course, what about the survivor bias? We probably wouldn't hold Franklin in such high regard if he had only excelled in one of the many areas that he's known for.
There are scientific names throughout history who shared Franklin's love of discovery. da Vinci, Pasteur, Einstein and Feynman all come to mind immediately. Who from our generations will join that list? I bet that whoever does will also have a broad set of accomplishments.
Just a thought: The modern vilification of hypocrisy strikes me as a step backward in one way - it makes people feel bad about having high ideals they can't always meet.
My favorite quote from The Diamond Age is relevant:
> You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices,” Finkle-McGraw said. “It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise others-after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism? … Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others’ shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour-you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.
It also captures one of the (IMO) underappreciated elements of Stephenson: he takes up technology, but is hugely interested in how it interacts with both individuals and society at large.
'Do what I say but not what I do' isn't really missing an ideal you hold or profess, it's ignoring it. That is far closer to expecting it of others but not yourself.
Only one I disagree with is #12, "Chastity. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.", this is breaking his own moderation virtue and is heavily motivated by social pressures on sex.
He always had high ideas about chastity but seldom followed them. In my mind Franklin has always embodied "Do as I say, not as I do"--almost in a mischievous or humorous way. I think he did learn from his actions, but not in the same way we usually think of someone "learning" from their actions. He always knew the right answers but preferred to have a little fun.
I don't think so. I think he is making a conscious decision to limit something in his life that is not necessary, and that he might find as a distraction. Sexuality for all its enjoyable qualities can be a distraction to the best of us, and there is nothing wrong with taking an attitude towards it that says I will limit something that is good and I enjoy for something I perceive to be better.
You could probably state something similar about marijuana. The real point being that too many people are up-tight and need to find a way to relax/unwind that releases a bunch of endorphins. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to do this that don't have to involve sex.
At least one other commenter picked up on for health. It wasn't something people wrote down back in those days, (I don't have a citation) many people then considered complete sexual abstinence unhealthy. So Franklin is saying you should engage often enough to maintain health; and Franklin was no prude, his oldest son was illegitimate, and so was that son's son, William Temple, who Franklin more or less adopted, and who returned the favor by collecting and publishing Franklin's papers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Temple_Franklin
Technology is the chief driver of social mores. In Franklin's time, too much sex would likely expose you to health hazards such as syphilis, or unwanted babies. Today, we have medicine and contraception that should minimize these risks. But I think this point still applies - it just depends on your definition of "rarely"... no more than twice a day perhaps!
I think "for health" covers it. The admonition "never to dullness, weakness, or ... injury ..." is being rediscovered en masse over here: http://reddit.com/r/nofap
Many people express this fetish for delaying gratification, but it's not for everyone. It's cute to see people getting into it and thinking the rest of us should go without.
Puritanism influences everyone. But Franklin was no puritan, and to assume that the beliefs of puritans were the basis for his tips on chastity adds no real insight to this discussion. Anyone can easily identify ideals in our present and past that seem adverse to liberal sexuality and cry "Puritan!"--but this discounts the brilliance of people like Franklin. He had a high level view of the different ideals in his culture and often addressed them with a tongue-in-cheek or satirical tone.
As an aside, neither the Puritans nor mainstream culture in Franklin's era were especially prudish about sexual activity. What people call 'puritanical' today is really an artifact of the Victorian era.
I thought the same. Even if Franklin was not a puritanic protestant, I guess a bit of strict ethics rubbed off.
Also these "Top 10 of best virtues ever!!1" were always constructed by male philosophers and lack stuff like "Sociability, "Care", "Empathy" or "Compassion".
Sure, men in general probably have a greater tendency towards other virtues, but do you really mean to imply that men often lack stuff like "Sociability, "Care", "Empathy" and "Compassion" ?
Didn't a lot of "the big ones" talk about love? I think that encapsulates those values.
Semantically speaking, I don't think you have to disagree with this. Small talk and trifling conversation are not necessarily one in the same. "Trifling" implies that there is little value. Small talk may in fact have great value if it helps to forge connections that pay off later.
Reminds me of the Greek Cardinal Virtues[1] , or The Resolutions of Johnathon Edwards[2]. It seems that is modern society we have failed to explicitly pass the importance of these kind of character qualities to our kids.
Why do you think we've failed in this respect? People always automatically assume that things were better in the past and that the current generation is ruining things.
Maybe we're succeeding at passing on these character qualities to our kids at a higher rate than at any time in the past? There were thieves and liars and murderers and lazy people and scum bags 200 years ago too.
I say we failed because I don't see many adhearents to this. We don't live in a society of prudence, justice, restraint and fortitude. I also don't know of any explicit planing to pass these on to our kids explicitly. We might _hope_ they pick up a few of them along the way, but do we as a society actively try to teach our kids these things ?
And I am not saying what you personally as a parent do. As I know that I plan on explicitly trying to teach moral principles to my kids, but I don't think we as a society teach them.
Here's an example of an explicit plan to pass on a similar list of virtues: "A Boy Scout is Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent." Not as good as Franklin's list in my opinion, but it's exactly the type of thing you're saying we need, there are many boy scouts, and there are other organizations with similar goals and explicitly taught virtues.
Perhaps you should take a look around outside your echo chamber and join or start the type of movement you're complaining doesn't exist.
>Not as good as Franklin's list in my opinion, but it's exactly the type of thing you're saying we need, there are many boy scouts, and there are other organizations with similar goals and explicitly taught virtues. Perhaps you should take a look around outside your echo chamber
The boy scouts are a far smaller echo chamber --and not only they are not that many, but they have almost zero influence to modern society and kids.
Plus the issue is not about some specific private club or organisation catering to the matter, but for societal norms in general.
I actually agree with you about the boy scout echo chamber, and I shouldn't have taken the conversation in that direction in the first place, because it's irrelevant.
What is relevant is that you say that we need to teach lists of virtues like this to future generations, and there are plenty of examples of that very thing. I'm not sure how you think "societal norms" work besides groups of like-minded individuals (a.k.a. "organisations") getting together and propagating their belief systems. Are you suggesting there is some sort of over-arching group representing our society that should be defining these sorts of norms?
>Are you suggesting there is some sort of over-arching group representing our society that should be defining these sorts of norms?
Yes, exactly. I suggest that "society" itself is that very "over arching group".
So what I mean by this is that schools, parents, the media, the overall societal fabric that is, should teach this things, and not just some individual group.
I think people admired lists of virtues in Franklin's time for the same reason we admire them now; we think "Gee, if I could do all those things I would be as good as (whoever)". Then, when we have children, we say "god, if only I had followed (whoever's) way to live, my life would be better. I want my child's life to be better than mine. I am going to make sure my kids follow all these rules."
Truth is not even the people who write such lists are much good at following them--and if you can't follow them yourself, even when you try your hardest, why do we assume that children just need to be taught harder? Maybe there's something wrong with lists altogether.
Our society decided there's no survival value in living a virtuous life: saving money for a rainy day, delaying gratification. This is unfortunate because the word virtue used to mean excellence and valor.
>Our society decided there's no survival value in living a virtuous life: saving money for a rainy day, delaying gratification.
I think the problem is that it's not society that decided that (as a collective) but individuals.
And it's a shame, because while maybe "there's no survival value in living a virtuous life" for an individual, it's an absolute necessary survival condition for a society.
This "every man for himself" is the undoing of society. That's how you get crazy high homicide rates (that make the rates in similarly developed societies like Germany or Japan pale in comparison), substance abuse, rising poverty rates, etc.
>Maybe we're succeeding at passing on these character qualities to our kids at a higher rate than at any time in the past?
Not judging by the behaviour people one sees in any major city, or their kids, compared to historical norms of behaviour one can read about in history books.
One small example: attitude and rudeness like you see today from high-schoolers, would be totally unfathomable in a 1930 or 1950's school.
>There were thieves and liars and murderers and lazy people and scum bags 200 years ago too.
Sure. That doesn't mean societies are stationary. They change with the prevalent motives of the era, the changed ethical norms, the economic and political situation, etc.
Which history books? I bet I can find history books that talk about streets filled with pick pockets, muggings, fights, drunks, homeless people, all being rude to each other, threatening each other etc.
This happens today and it happened in the past. I'm not going to believe any claims that it's worse today than in the past without evidence. It's certainly not self evident.
Do you have any better examples than school children? You can't really compare the force behaviour of oppressed children who are scared of being tortured, to the behaviour of children today in schools today. Maybe we could make them less rude by beating them into submission, but that's not a reasonable compromise.
Couldn't it be that history books give a sanitized view of society, and gloss over relatively minor issues such as disobedient youths? The books might say, "young people were expected to be x, y, and z", and tactfully omit, "but they were frequently a, b, and c despite our best efforts". As an alternative viewpoint, look at works of fiction from the time, which are willing to be more gritty. For example, Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn were disobedient in spite of societal pressure. (disclaimer: I have not read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, But I did see a retelling of it on "The Simpsons" ten years ago)
Also, the following is commonly attributed to Socrates: "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise". If this is to be believed, rude kids with attitude have been a constant for at least the last 2400 years.
>Couldn't it be that history books give a sanitized view of society, and gloss over relatively minor issues such as disobedient youths? The books might say, "young people were expected to be x, y, and z", and tactfully omit, "but they were frequently a, b, and c despite our best efforts".
Frequently yes. Kids will be kids. We're talking about societal norms, and those have changed tremendously. Even in your example, the important thing is "young people were expected to be x, y, and z", not if they actually were x,y and z 100%. Why? Because today they cannot even be expected to be x, y and z in the first place. A lot of the past's x, y and z sound unbelievable today in themselves.
Anyway, regarding all this, if people have doubts, try talking to older people, your grandparents if they are still alive.
>Also, the following is commonly attributed to Socrates: "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise".
That's nothing of the scale you see today. Plus, he was speaking in an Athens that was about to go down the drain, i.e in a society that has lost the "connective social tissue" and people were becoming more selfish and greedy. So, if you see a parallel maybe it's not because it's been like this for 2400, but because we live in a similar era of societal decline. Things do reappear in history, after all.
Can you elaborate on which societal norms you feel have changed for the worse? And can you explain your criteria for eras of societal decline?
Aside: speaking metaphorically for the moment, you could characterize the early history of the United States as: young upstarts (puritans) disagree with the social norms of their forebears (the Church of England), run away from home (colonization of America), and misbehave often in violent ways (the American Revolution). The English may have regarded that time period as a societal decline, even as Franklin was writing his 13 virtues!
Not to get all relativistic[0], but the primary reason we don't actively instill these values is because we no longer look to classical Greco-Roman society for inspiration.
Variously throughout history (Renaissance, Neo-Classical era - Franklin's time, etc.) society has upheld ancient values as the highest. In modern times, they've largely been replaced by scientific values. This was a big debate around Darwin's time (replacing the classical "liberal education" in Latin and Greek with modern scientific study.) It's also increasingly prevalent today, as universities are basically just for career-preparation. The dominant metric when evaluating universities is almost always "earnings following graduation".
[0] I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Classical values, but I do think we should sit down and make our own decisions, rather than blindly do it because Franklin/Plato/etc. says so.
These virtues lead to a dull and unfulfilling life in today's society. Many will ignore these tenants and behave badly out of boredom. But they sure do sound good, especially in a list like that. I'd argue that these values aren't necessary to most people today in that the value doesn't solve a problem the person has.
Don't forget that Jesus went around defying elders and authorities. Do you want your kids to have that type of humility?
Everything in moderation, including moderation. I think these virtues are a good rubric for your general lifestyle, but no one is saying you have stick to them every waking moment.
No, but I know people don't have problems which these virtues would solve, or more people would value those virtues more highly. Granted, some people would have reasons for not following them, but others would implement them if they were useful in each individual person's life.
Openly committing to a policy such as this is only really useful for putting yourself on a moral pedestal above others, to improve your own self esteem or make others look bad.
> I know people don't have problems which these virtues would solve
I can identify plenty of situations in my own life which would be improved via pursuit of Franklin's virtues. I'd be awfully surprised if few or no others did as well.
> Openly committing to a policy such as this is only really useful for putting yourself on a moral pedestal above others
Really? Perhaps if the key word there is 'openly', you may have a point, at least within a certain constrained context; but actually committing oneself to the pursuit of these virtues, or similar ones, can certainly serve a useful and valid purpose, and if it does so for you, then you may feel motivated to discuss the relevant ideas with others 'openly', without having any of the vain intentions you list.
I can identify plenty of situations in my own life which would be improved via pursuit of Franklin's virtues. I'd be awfully surprised if few or no others did as well.
Do you pursue Franklin's virtues? If not, why not -- wouldn't you benefit?
My Quotes and Aphorisms file is over a megabyte, it's been growing for 16 years. I formatted it so that the fortune-cookie program can pull up quotes at random, or I can search it with various keywords whenever I want.
Franklin was a prodigious inventor. Among his many creations were the lightning rod, glass armonica (a glass instrument, not to be confused with the metal harmonica), Franklin stove, bifocal glasses and the flexible urinary catheter. Franklin never patented his inventions; in his autobiography he wrote, "... 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." -- Wikipedia
