This book began with the thesis that Benjamin Franklin espoused natural right, both as a philosophy in the Western tradition and as a modern political teaching. I have attempted to explain how these two ideas went together. Biographers have often sought to understand Franklin as a whole—in the words of Aldridge, to “synthesize all that is known about Franklin's life and character.” The question of how Franklin's philosophy and politics went together is in part a question of psychology, and within the field of political philosophy, it evokes anachronistic references to bygone philosophers that sometimes perplex scholars in other fields. But more generally, scholars in history and literature have questioned the degree of equanimity that Franklin achieved, and Franklin expressed his own frustration at the lack of leisure he experienced because of his political duties. What political philosophy brings to the table is a thesis that helps to explain the tension between the political mind, animated by the longing for justice that underlies indignation, and the tranquility provided by the love of wisdom, which concludes that it is illogical to be angry at ignorance. If Franklin were more like Socrates, so the argument goes, he could not have cared about Philadelphia, or anything removed from his own selfish interests. Political life, with its sacrifices, perturbations, and most of all, its appeal to glory, is antithetical to philosophy.

Within the field of political philosophy there is disagreement as to how the above thesis applies to Franklin. On the one hand, Pangle has argued that Franklin failed to achieve the level of truly philosophical reflection; hence his life of public service led to slight anger and even bitterness. On the other hand, Weinberger, rejecting the reference to Socrates, argues that Franklin did achieve this level of reflection; hence all of his public activities were self-centered. Historically, the figure of Socrates and his dialectical method is relevant to Franklin, but its above characterization seems anachronistic. Socrates was presented, in Franklin's copy of Xenophon, as public spirited: as “unit[ing] in his Person the two Qualities of good Philosopher and good Citizen.”