safest for myself and very embarrassing to those against whom I used it; therefore I took a
delight in it, practis’d it continually, and grew very artful and expert in drawing people, even of
superior knowledge, into concessions, the consequences of which they did not foresee,
entangling them in difficulties out of which they could not extricate themselves, and so
obtaining victories that neither myself nor my cause always deserved.The passage above illustrates the double-edged nature of the Socratic method. Franklin credits
Socrates, on the one hand, for moderating his“abrupt”contradictory style of argument. Provocative
intellectual combat is substituted out for the“humble inquirer and doubter.”Notably, Franklin
confesses that his turn to Socrates’style of questioning is politically motived. The humble doubter
is a guise; it gives him cover when disputing points of“religious doctrine.”
Note, however, that Franklin is not entirely comfortable with recommending the Socratic style to
others. Indeed, he warns against the adoption of the Socratic style by describing, with apparent
regret, that it was particularly effective at embarrassing believers by“entangling”believers in
contradictions. Interestingly, Franklin does not claim that these contradictions falsify the world-
view of the believers. Taking what some call a non-constructivist approach, Franklin denies that the
Socratic method always or necessarily establishes the truth or falsity of individual answers. In his
words, the Socratic method often leads to victories that neither Franklin“nor [his] cause always
deserved.”
In the next part of the discussion, Franklin elaborates on his partial abandonment of the philo-
sopher’s peculiar teaching style. Key to understanding Franklin’s departure from Socrates is his
description of the virtues of the method he finds most compatible with modern times; i.e., intel-
lectual modesty or“diffidence”:
I continu’d this method some few years, but gradually left it, retaining only the habit of
expressing myself in terms of modest diffidence; never using, when I advanced any thing that
may possibly be disputed, the words certainly, undoubtedly, or any others that give the air of
positiveness to an opinion; but rather say, I conceive or apprehend a thing to be so and so; it
appears to me, or I should think it so or so, for such and such reasons; or I imagine it to be so; or
it is so, if I am not mistaken.It is now clearer how, in Franklin’s hands, the Socratic method becomes sociable. The utility of the
teaching method is adapted and redefined in terms of what the United States, an offshoot of com-
mercial England, lacks most: a degree of civility and politeness.^11 The first step in the American-
ization of Socrates requires a depreciation of the Socraticelenchus, and a corresponding elevation of
the Socratic conversational style.^12 The point, as Franklin sees it, is not to trap opponents in defi-
nitionalcontradiction,whichmayeithercreateresentmentordeepconfusion.ThepurposeofSocratic
diffidence is to avoid the appearance of dogmatism, which helps one to acquire friends.
But modern republics also require attention to and the cultivation of commercial virtues. The
Socratic method can be useful here too. Franklin notes that his imitation of Socrates gave him“great
advantage”in business relations:
This habit, I believe, has been of great advantage to me when I have had occasion to inculcate
my opinions, and persuade men into measures that I have been from time to time engag’din
promoting; and, as the chief ends of conversation are to inform or to be informed, to please or to
persuade, I wish well-meaning, sensible men would not lessen their power of doing good by a
positive, assuming manner, that seldom fails to disgust, tends to create opposition, and to
defeat every one of those purposes for which speech was given to us, to wit, giving or receiving
information or pleasure. For, if you would inform, a positive and dogmatical manner in
advancing your sentiments may provoke contradiction and prevent a candid attention.74 Andrew Bibby