I'm only five chapters into the essay, but I found this line stuck out:
'I saw that an humble man, with the blessing of the Lord, might live on a little, and that where the heart was set on greatness, success in business did not satisfy the craving; but that commonly with an increase of wealth the desire of wealth increased.'
It is interesting to me, so soon after hearing Franklin harp on thrift, yet I would not say Franklin agreed. He may not have sought political greatness, but I got the feeling that Old Ben was not adverse to financial prosperity. So the fact that both encouraged thrift is interesting.
There is, of course, the religious element, but I can't help but wonder about other differences in their perspectives on money. Do you think it is true, that the desire for wealth is never fully sated but only increases? I was struck by the idea that Franklin, when he became financially free and no longer had to work, sought to increase his knowledge. In fact, my daughter said this yesterday, 'How awake would it be to have enough money so you could just continue learning all the time?' Do you think that would violate Woolman's aversion to wealth? Surely he must have had some margin to be able to travel as much as he did and support a family; isn't that a good use or benefit of wealth, from a moral perspective? Can you seek agree wealth as a means to accomplish something good, or does it always corrupt and eventually dominate?
'I saw that an humble man, with the blessing of the Lord, might live on a little, and that where the heart was set on greatness, success in business did not satisfy the craving; but that commonly with an increase of wealth the desire of wealth increased.'
It is interesting to me, so soon after hearing Franklin harp on thrift, yet I would not say Franklin agreed. He may not have sought political greatness, but I got the feeling that Old Ben was not adverse to financial prosperity. So the fact that both encouraged thrift is interesting.
There is, of course, the religious element, but I can't help but wonder about other differences in their perspectives on money. Do you think it is true, that the desire for wealth is never fully sated but only increases? I was struck by the idea that Franklin, when he became financially free and no longer had to work, sought to increase his knowledge. In fact, my daughter said this yesterday, 'How awake would it be to have enough money so you could just continue learning all the time?' Do you think that would violate Woolman's aversion to wealth? Surely he must have had some margin to be able to travel as much as he did and support a family; isn't that a good use or benefit of wealth, from a moral perspective? Can you seek agree wealth as a means to accomplish something good, or does it always corrupt and eventually dominate?