American Literature

My paper wishes to give the sharpest distinction between Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson regarding their notion of the irrationalunreasonable and how to deal with them, which is the mainly in their differing views and treatment of what they think is irrational. Consequently, this difference shows their attitude on irrationality which turns out to be rather contrasting.

Franklin and the irrational
We must first take into consideration that The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin is a work that was spawned in the Age of Enlightenment. Historically, The Age of Enlightenment is the era wherein reason (the rational) is given premium and things that are pertaining to the unobservable and have loose connection to reason are put into the sidelines. Scientific exploration is taken as the highest mode of human undertaking and consequently cultural and intellectual activities are often for the goal of achieving advance, most importantly in the technological (and hence, material) sense.

Although it may be very hard to say that Franklins autobiography is directly a part of this rational revolution (and some textual passages may even disprove this point, as in the deistic belief of Franklin), we can at least say that the work was influenced especially by the Enlightenments focus on the desire of man to achieve development and eventually, perfection, which can also be achieved through rational means. In this view is where many often regard Franklin as the first American, the first who strived for the American dream of exemplifying the rights for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Franklins interest in science and technology, for instance, will prove his deep interest in the empirical. His disbelief in the organized religions and his reluctance to enter any religious denomination can also be taken as proofs for his attempts to strive for the rational.

However, it is very important to point out Franklins dominantly utilitarian view, especially regarding the development of society. His autobiography shows us that Franklin is not really a theoretician, but more of a utilitarian and practical intellectual. His activities are more for material applications. His 13 virtues which he laid and elaborated in part two (Temperance, Silence, Order, Resolution, Frugality, Industry, Sincerity, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Tranquility, Chastity, and Humility) are meant to gauge the human being in achieving moral perfection and thus achieving happiness for a society in general.

However, also in Part Two, he revealed his disappointment in striving to achieve all the 13 virtues, especially the Virtue of Order and Humility. Regarding the latter, he himself says that In reality, there is, perhaps, no one of our natural passions so hard to subdue as pride. However, the former seeks more attention as Order, as it seems, is the closest virtue that may be attributed to rationality. He himself, however, confessed to have a hard time in putting Order (or the rational, for that matter) in his daily life. In the end, he concludes that a speckled axe is best....A benevolent man should allow a few faults in himself, to keep his friends in countenance. Hence, he tells the reader that it is impossible for a human to materialize all the virtues and be rational for all hisher life. Consequently, Franklin tells us that perfection may not be possible, but nonetheless, the human being can at least happy in hisher life, by doing some things that may be unreasonable and irrational.

In this point, we can now clearly see that Franklin is really more of a utilitarian than a rationalist. This view emanates in many modern virtues, such as individual freedom and liberalism, both which anchors them in the desire for happiness.

This point, of course, does not negate Franklins fervor for doing what is rational. However, since some irrational things may lead to the happiness of an individual, he does not therefore address the question of dealing with irrationality and its negative effects. That is why he is emphasizing virtue and doing good, other than what is rational. (This view is of course contrary to the Platonian equation of virtue  reason.) The negative effects of irrationality and unreasonableness are natural and simultaneously, this irrationality will be revealed as not negative at all.

Jefferson and the dividing wall
We will touch on a relatively sensitive subject on Thomas Jeffersons Notes on the State of Virginia. We must first consider that what Jefferson is trying to do in this work is that he wanted to give a view of his ideal society, through his beloved state of Virginia. In the process, he does a very comprehensive survey of the said state, spanning geography, law, manners and many other aspects that comprise the state.

One thing that Jefferson tackled in his Notes is the issue regarding religion and the freedom for religious expression. In a rather tactful way, in the part of Religion, he said something about the different errors that were done in the name of Christianity and religious uniformity.

The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

The passage above tells us about his desire for establishing a dividing wall between religion and the state, and how the two can never be put together. This is really to establish a truly free nation.

Reading further down the paragraph where the passage was extracted, we will encounter this

Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. (Religion)

Thus, we are now introduced into Jeffersons very rational view of social and political dynamics, and the very elemental role of reason in his political view. We are told that reason and free inquiry is the cure to exposing errors and rectifying them. This point of view lines itself with the rationalist philosophy of Rene Descartes and the others.

Thus, we are now given an initial view on Jeffersons stand regarding the irrationality, or the lack of reason, to use a better term. (We must of course first accept that religion is a concept that does not a have a strong rational basis, as it grounds itself more on faith and belief. Note that Jefferson even cited scientific errors made by the church, one which is the theory of the Earth being flat rather than spherical, which supported his view that religion is an irrational concept that must be put beyond the influence of the state, with religion acting vice versa). Thus, Jefferson relegates irrationality into a negative position, contrary to Franklins ambiguous one. He considers these things as puzzle piece that must be go in their proper places in order to prevent it from interfering with the affairs of the state.

Religion is well supported of various kinds, indeed, but all good enough all sufficient to preserve peace and order or if a sect arises, whose tenets would subvert morals good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it.(Religion)

To establish religious freedom on the broadest bottom.(Laws)

Nonetheless, we must not interpret this fact as though Jefferson is antagonistic with religion and other things that he personally believes as irrational. Contrary to this, a lot of historical facts tell us that Jefferson is one of the advocates of individual expression, especially regarding religion. His attitude towards irrationality (please understand that I do not mean the word as negative) is therefore more of a tolerant stand, recognizing the individual rights of a person.

However, we must elaborate further that Jefferson does not advocate tolerance for uncivil behavior. Query 14, titled Laws gives a comprehensive birds eye of view of Virginias judiciary system. This part of the Notes tells us that although certain irrational things may be tolerated by the state, things are go beyond the line given and those that commit deeds that may be considered as detrimental to the well-being of the community will be given appropriate action and given punishment by the law. This, of course, is a commonsensical point. Nonetheless, it is of course necessary to clarify some points where confusion may arise.

However, in this part of Notes is also where an inner contradiction haunts to destroy the rational mechanism that Jefferson claims to banner. One point that was put forward by Jefferson is his desire for the freedom of the black slaves. Again, in a very tactful way, he discusses why black slaves must be emancipated and he gave certain plausible arguments to support his view. This rational technique that Jefferson used is again another manifestation of his rationalist philosophy. However, he commits an error by saying that blacks are inferior to the whites and, hence, emancipating the black slaves does not mean that blacks are equal to the whites. He supports his point by certain plausible, in fact even lengthy, arguments which cite biological and cultural differences.

This illogical statement makes his stand rather problematic. His rationalist position was shook by this error that he committed, and we will put this side by side with what Franklin said as the impossibility of a moral perfection. Jeffersons rigid rationality is what made him commit the fallacy and he may have avoided this by getting out of the logical plane a little.

Conclusion
We have seen some many differences between Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jeffersons view of curtailing irrationality through their two works. The most vibrant of these is Franklins tendency to give a leeway for irrationality due to utilitarian purposes. However, this kind of thinking may lead to unreasonable tolerance to the negative effects of irrationality in the society. Jeffersons dogmatic and strict rationalism, on the other hand, does not have this kind of leeway and gives a very clean and definite line between the rational and the irrational (one of which is the state and religion, respectively). However, this kind of approach brought to some errors, one of which is his blatant racism, which may have been avoided if taken in a less rational point of view.