Human Nature Not Explained by Evolution

Human Nature Not Explained by Evolution BY ROBERT C. WEBB [This article is a continuation of a series of contributions by the same author, which appeared in Volumes XVII and XVIII of the Era. The earlier writings have dealt more particularly with the develop- ment of organisms, and the bearing of the doctrine of "Evolution" thereon; the present article treats the subject of the varied traits and tendencies of man as summarized under the title "Human Nature," and considers the origin and source thereof. While each article is complete in itself, students are advised to study the entire series. Further contributions on allied topics will follow. — Editors.] In dealing with human nature, the evolution philosophy starts, of course, with the assumption that man, like all other living things, is a product of the alleged process, in which the primeval, "indefinite homogeneous," protoplasmic moneron event- uates into progressively more and more complex manifestations of some original activity of a chemical, electrical or analogous description. Hence, as is confidently assumed, the traits and characteristics of the human animal, as seen in present life or in history, are only so many indications of "developmental stages," rather than the proper attributes of living organisms, manifesting within various limiting environments. Thus, in affairs moral and mental, as well as in those physical, our modern "philosophers" profess to find the evidences of a "continuous progressive change" in human history, attributing the failures of past and present — the outworkings of man's ignorance or wickedness — to his "imperfect development" and his organic or functional incompleteness. The view seems to be that, in the words of Emerson, evil or sin, as we term it, is only "good in the making," and that the inevitable result for the race must be mental and moral perfection (com- pleteness), just as "a snake's egg hatched takes scale and fang," as a bird's egg, "through nature's alchemy," forms feathers, beak and wings, or as a man, on arriving at maturity — properly and normally, although not invariably — will "put away childish things." This fatuous and really hopeless form of "optimism" flatly contra- dicts all that may be certainly demonstrated in the premises. The notion that the characteristic manifestations of man's sin, ignor- ance and general inefficiency as a biological factor are only, and properly speaking, so many evidences of mediate stages in the development of quite contrary qualities — precisely as the uncouth grub or caterpillar is a mediate stage in the production of the

134 IMPROVEMENT ERA graceful or gorgeous moth or butterfly — is nearly the grossest and most unscientific blunder imaginable, unless, indeed, such scourges as marasmus, infant paralysis, scarlet fever and diphtheria, which will, unfortunately, occasionally afflict the young, are to be classed with "growing pains" and the common "maladies of childhood." In the effort to form a really scientific judgment — one which is in accord with all evident facts — we may consider every animal or vegetable organism as a machine calculated for the achieve- ment of some definite, even if undiscovered, functions in the natural order. For example, a paleontologist, having discovered the fossil remnants of some creature possessing bony structures suggesting wings, inevitably concludes that, in life, it must have exercised the power of flight, so far, at least, as its other anatomi- cal proportions could permit. Indeed, the scientist holds as a fundamental principle in judgment — quite apart also from any "philosophical" theory whatsoever — that the presence of any anatomical feature indicates a definite corresponding utility, unless environing influence has compelled such modification as tends to render organs and functions ineffective or rudimentary. Nor have scientific theorists ever favored the idea that rudimentary and defective organs may be "prophetic" of some future exercise of function, rather than "reminiscent" of its exercise in the past. If an organ is not used for the discharge of its proper logical func- tion, the conclusion has always held that the creature's environ- ment is to blame, in beginning and continuing the habit of disuse, or the cultivation of some other function at its expense. Thus the ostrich's great power as a runner, with the consequent im- mense development of his leg bones and muscles, might be held to have contributed directly to the disuse of his wings for any form of self-propulsion, and their ultimate atrophy. Further per- sistence in such lines has been accounted full explanation for such birds as Dinornis and Apteryx, whose wings, utterly absent, have, apparently, disappeared. By consideration of his anatomical features the human animal may be seen to possess very many elements of resemblance to tail- less apes, or "Primates," also to several of the tailed Quadrumana. He differs from all such animals, however, in several notable par- ticulars, conspicuously in the fact that he is constructed to walk erect, has but one pair of prehensile hands, instead of two pair, and is equipped with a brain, which, as it seems, in size, con- formation and functioning alike, differentiates him definitely from all other creatures in nature. In addition to its greater size, power, and complexity, the human brain seems to be capable of certain orders of function, which are, apparently, absent in other animals. 1 lunian mental operations are characterized by a certain "flexibility" or "versatility," by which an impulse, originated in some

HUMAN NATURE NOT EXPLAINED BY EVOLUTION 135 definite sense experience, may follow any of several possible di- verse paths into action or ideation, instead of one or two, merely, as in other animals. Coupled with this fact, there may be held to be, also, a larger range of activity within which conscious thinking seems able to modify the fundamental and "unconscious" activi- ties of the brain. But, because in man, as in other animals, the essential processes of thought or mentation are properly uncon- scious, precisely as are those of digestion, assimilation, etc., and because, in usual and normal operation, apparently, an idea or concept does not emerge into the "conscious mind," except in its mature or completed form — no matter how much it may have been "cogitated" consciously in the meantime — it seems possible to hold that the commonly-followed habit, be it "acquired," or not, of attempting to make the brain function consciously, during the essential process of deriving a concept or forming a conclusion, must be, in very many cases, a real order of interference. Such "interference," if so it is correct to term it, certainly involves a wider range of differences in ideas and concepts than is war- ranted by the facts dealt with, particularly those involved in the consideration of the essential conditions of life, and seems to fur- nish some explanation for the "superficiality" and "illogicality," so conspicuous in human thought, past and present. Indeed, as study of the subject may reveal, we have to deal, in the historv of thought, not so much with what people really think — with what their opinions and convictions really amount to, when carefully related to the findings of other capable minds — but rather with what people seem to "think that they think." This is true, be- cause, as seems reasonable to claim, the brain functions according to certain laws, just as do the other organs of the body, which are involved in its structure, and that the results produced, when sufficiently analyzed, differ less in their import and implications, than in the number of facts available to the organ of thought. Man differs, also, from virtually every other animal in nature, as has been indicated by Mr. Darwin, and other investigators, in the apparent total absence of "special instincts." He comes into the world with no informed tendency to build his home in some definite fashion, characteristic of his species, as do most birds and some mammals, and seems to possess no innate ability to discrim- inate healthful from unhealthful foods, nor yet to so conduct his individual behavior as to subserve his own best interests and safety, as is done, apparently, by all other animals in the state of nature. As a general definition, we may say that instinct is an automatic, coordinate, usually "unconscious," knowledge of the proper functioning of the organism, or parts of it, which can so direct functional activities, general or particular, as to retain them within limits normal to the organism concerned. Being, in

136 IMPROVEMENT ERA some way, constituted by the coordination or structure of the or- ganism, it determines the character and range of its activities in a manner comparable to that by which the essential characters of the various material substances in nature are expressed in their chemical or physical properties. If, therefore, any phase of in- stinctive operation in an organism is so modified that its "au- thority" is neutralized, to any extent, it seems evident that the result must be such distortion of function, as must involve some of the lines of behavior that are abnormal or harmful. A certain prominent scientist — was it not Dawson? — has re- marked that "man is the only animal that is out of harmony with the laws of his own being." This alleged fact may be explained, in part at least, by the elements noted above, or it may indicate another set of considerations. However, without attempting to determine, a priori, precisely what are the laws of being thus, sup- posedly, disregarded, it seems in place to call attention to the historic absence of the mentally or physically perfect man. Nor need we understand by this expression any order of exalted or deific "superman." The perfect man is merely the normal man, as it is reasonable to assume, existed in the contemplation of the great Designer of Creation : in other words, a creature capable of exercising his several functions normally and to the end of main- taining his type, and using all structures involved in his organism for their proper purposes, without disuse or misuse. We may understand all this better by a figure. Thus, an engineer, in ex- amining some new, or unfamiliar, machine, to determine its prob- able use or purpose, logically assumes that each separate com- ponent or device embodied in the total structure has its definite function,- and, that it is not included for mere ornament or mystifi- cation. Such elements, therefore, would play an important part in the formation of his judgment on the machine in question, and he would, undoubtedly, interpret the failure of any of them to work as an indication that the total machine is "out of order." Consid- ering the total man, mental and physical, in the light of this analogy, the conclusion is inevitable that he, also, is, somehow, "out of order." Such assumption might be held as explanation of the failure of the "normal man" to appear in history. Without considering any of the so-called "vestigal" or rudi- mentary structures found in the human body— the vermiform ap- pendix, pituitary bodies, etc., as mentioned by numerous anato- mists—it is in place to call attention to the large number of mus- cles that have little or no use in the average of individuals; the high percentage of organic or functional defects among the people affected by so-called "civilized" conditions, particularly the numer- ous distressing shortcomings of "character" and general tenden- cies in conduct, physical or mental, and, most evident, the familiar

HUMAN NATURE NOT EXPLAINED BY EVOLUTION 137 "stasis" — as we may term it — of the brain functions, which con- stitutes the ignorance and sodden stupidity of so large a number of human beings. All such things are definitely abnormal and defective, as must be apparent when we compare the powers and capacities of one set of individuals with others. Thus, certain savages possess a keen scent, like dogs, and other animals, or are capable of the greatest endurance of hardship and suffering that puts to shame the inabilities of some of the rest of us. There is no good reason why that all of these, and some others, should not be the common possessions of humanity, together with normal intelligence and reasonable "morality." But the facts are far different, no matter what the explanation. This contention may be further illustrated by a slight digression. By general consent, in the speaking of English, we describe certain differing phases of conduct as "brutal," "bestial," and "animal," intending, in these words, to designate actions that are definitely antithetical to all that is properly to be called "human." It is impossible, neverthe- less, to deny that no brute can be "brutal," in the sense implied in human "brutality ;" that no beast in nature manifests the lines of behavior, or misbehavior, popularly idealized in the adjective "bestial ;" while the word "animal," used to describe human ten- dency, involves high injustice to our "dumb contemporaries," with only a very gentle and indulgent rebuke to the condemned failings in mankind. Nor are these differences merely verbal. The conditions outlined above render necessary the extensive training and cultivation of the young, known as education in the broadest sense. If considered as indicating the impartation of in- formation on the numerous special subjects, which have been de- veloped and elaborated by human effort throughout time, education is, of course, necessary and indispensable, as not otherwise, in the present world, at least, could such knowledge be imparted. In another aspect, however, education — considered as a deliberately- exercised influence of some order — must also provide to compen- sate the actual — and apparently inherent — defects of all growing minds. Without it, at least, we find usually, not only lack of in- formation in the branches of knowledge usually imparted to the young, but also inability to use mental powers except within a very narrow range of expression. We all understand the sort of limi- tations usually expected in a person who is, in a real and repre- sentative sense "ignorant." Thus, although every normal human being comes into "the world with a definitely-recognizable human brain, he must be trained to use it, except in the simplest and most commonplace concerns of life, quite as if it were some artificial machine of unfamiliar and complicated construction, in order to avoid errors and practical defects impossible to the mental pro- cesses of anv normal "lower animal" in the state of nature. Every

138 IMPROVEMENT ERA human individual is predetermined by instinct and environment alike to become a member or 'factor in a social order of some de- scription ; yet, unless trained in tribal rules and cults — if no better influence is available — and very often, even when so trained, he is liable to develop and exercise only the simplest of the ethical vir- tues, or to become a "rogue," a parasite, or other description of so- cial absurdity. Considered sociologically, man of the "primitive" type, as might be argued, is the one most readily to be kept within the control of rules and customs, properly to be classed as "moral" and "lawful," but, even with him, as seems to be the case in gener- al, the highest reach of "virtue" is submission to authority more or less absolute, and corresponds to no impulse original in himself, unless his respect for a compelling power be rated a "virtue." Thus, while the average individual submits willingly to such "au- thority" as can make a show of real 'force — and how else can we derive an explanation for man's submission to the numerous sys- tems of oppression and tyranny, with which history abounds — his "obedience" seems to extend no further than the "authority" seems to reach, and fails entirely when the authority claiming his al- legiance shows qualities other than the power to compel and to punish. Thus, even with man's ready submission to evident force, there has always been a very real conflict between the individual and the mass of individuals, known as society. For this reason laws and standards of righteousness have always been promul- gated by society, or by its federal heads or masters, in order to restrain the activities of individuals within the limits considered safe and proper. Sometimes such laws and standards have been just and reasonable; very often they have been unjust, oppressive and unreasonable ; in general, they have proved exceedingly inef- fective in promoting co-operation between the individual and the mass. All this may be due to the fact that laws and ordinances in history have never embodied really "scientific methods" of deal- ing with the human organism and its involved tendencies, but it follows, quite as probably, on the fact that man in the mass has seldom, if ever, been better than any individual belonging to the mass. Just as the traditional "chain is no stronger than its weakest link," so also no human society seems to have proved itself better than its greatest rogue or wiser than its basest imbecile ; since, like the chain, human society is a composite of individual factors, whose defects must be of general, rather than of merely local significance. In other words, the weak points are "danger points," which reduce the "breaking strength" of the total, and limit its endurance. At this point, it may be, we can clearly discern the fact that the phenomena to be observed in the life of human social organ- isms present startling contrasts to the mass-activities of any of the

HUMAN NATURE NOT EXPLAINED BY EVOLUTION 139 "lower animals" in the state of nature. In these latter connections the rule is the realization of good practical harmony and reasonable efficiency in maintaining- the interests of individuals; as well as those of the mass. We may conclude, therefore, that there is to be seen in human societies an element strikingly suggestive of de- parture from nature's standards in some notable particulars. This "unnatural" element has been explained as evidence of some pro- cess in human history, by which the "animal is sloughed off" and the "human is perfected," and of a stage in the grand development, through which, eventually, "spiritual capacities will be perfected." The strongest reason why this may not be accepted as an explana- tion of the conditions is that in none of the manifestations of the evidently "unnatural" condition of human nature is there to be found a rational warrant for evil and inefficient consequences in hu- man associations, or in human individuals. Turning to nature for our analogies, we find that every creature s.eems perfectly adapted to function profitably and efficiently in its proper environment, and that, at no stage in its growth, does any one of them manifest dis- harmonious traits, comparable to those found with man. The larva of the frog, toad, or salamander, for example, is a perfectly- equipped water-dweller, and its perfect adaptation to its temporary environment is reduced in no particular, because of the fact that it is evidently destined to an air-breathing amphibian maturity. Even in the case of such "intermediate types" as the lancelet, or amphioxus, and the ascidian — representatives, as stated, of the general tendencies in invertebrates to develop the physical charac- teristics of vertebrates — do we discover any variation from the ap- parently universal rule of nature that each species is perfect in its proper life-environment, and functions precisely as if its type were the ultimate reach and permanent achievement of the natural energy, whatever its description or methods of working, that has produced it. The fact that neither of these creatures shows any "physical instability," nor any tendency to vary from its properly "intermediate" characteristics and approximate, occasionally and sporadically, in eccentric individuals, more nearly true "verte- brate" or "invertebrate" structures, is typical of all natural "in- termediate forms" found in the classification of organisms^ Because, however, the human animal has always manifested traits and characteristics contrary to this rule of nature, and con- trary to the laws of his own being— if, indeed, these are to be deduced from the facts indicated by his structure and capabilities, as is the case with all other organisms— also, contrary to his own best interests and happiness, the conclusion seems inevitable that his historic condition of mal-functioning indicates, precisely, a lapse of some description, either from his proper and normal en- vironment, or from a condition of ability to function normally and

140 IMPROVEMENT ERA harmoniously in any environment at all. When, indeed, we con- sider what a splendid animal the human might be, and could be, if all the elements of his physical structure, now largely disused and neglected, and all the mental powers and capacities — occasionally developed, but usually merely latent and potential — could have their proper use and expression, the conclusion that the "low- efficiency" results, achieved by him, in historic experience, indicate merely functional (and total) disuse and misuse seems the only consistently scientific and rational verdict in the premises. In other words, the characteristic functioning of the human organ- ism— considered as a mechanism actuated by vital, mental or spiritual energies, and adapted, apparently, to the achievement of results that never appear — is entirely abnormal and defective, and any attempt to explain it otherwise can achieve an appearance of "conclusiveness" only by neglecting a large proportion of the relevant facts. This is the very thing done by "evolutionists." The foremost consideration in dealing with the situation under discussion is the fact known as "evil" or "sin." Whatever may be the real nature and sufficient description of this fact, its prime characteristic is irrationality. Whatever may have been its real origin in time — if such origin it had apart from man — its char- acteristic is a definite tendency toward conditions strongly sug- gestive of analogy to pathological and degenerative developments of physical and mental disease, such as are properly cognized by pathologists. While, as is highly probable, the facts connected with "evil," as we term it, are very imperfectly understood, and while, in its commoner manifestations, it appears rather as a gener- al and inevitable "anti-social tendency" in the individual — render- ing him, in varying degrees, unfitted for association with his fellows — the fact remains that the higher and ultimate developments, as expressed in the great crimes of history, can be described as noth- ing other than abnormal, insane, and at variance with all that could properly be attributed to "natural causes" of any variety. From the standpoint of motives, therefore, the terms, "normal" and "abnormal," are more nearly descriptive, in a scientific sense, rather than the more general and indefinite terms, "good" and "evil." Thus, the evident sanction of "good behavior" lies in the fact that it is normal to the human individual and society, as in- dicating the things demanded for their well-being and permanence ; while, apart from all religious significance, the sufficient condemna- tion of all "evil behavior" lies in the fact that it is contrary to the well-being and continuation of both, leading inevitably to degenera- tion and dissolution. Most writers of the "evolution school," with characteristic contempt for fact and logic, have argued that the "moral law," so- called, — by this expression we are to understand the formal state-

HUMAN NATURE NOT EXPLAINED BY EVOLUTION 141 rnent of the lines of conduct consistent with proper and essential righteousness ("normality")— is not, as Kant held, involved in the structure of the mind, or "reason," and the inevitable expression of its essential principles in words, but a thing of extraneous de- velopment, a mere codification of historic customs and conventions. This contention is only one of the numerous errors, championed by otherwise intelligent people, for the mere purpose of upholding an hypothesis (and "philosophy") that is impotent to explain the facts of human life. The evidence to the contrary is to be found in the fact that the fundamental principles of the moral law are evidently involved and necessary forms in the normal expression of the "practical reason" lines of conduct instinctively suggested to the will of the really normal (rationally-minded) man, and con- sistent, precisely, with his best interests, both individual and social. Because man is a social being, instinctively or automatically — probably, also, inevitably — associating himself with gangs, clans, tribes, nations, of his fellows, he seems to be mentally and morally "shaped and squared" to take his proper place in any such struc- tures, and, on the whole, inclines or intends to do and refrain from doing, in accord with the principles on which society is also constituted. For example, he inclines to refrain from murder, the killing of his own kind, within his clan limits, at least, because — and quite apart from other, or "higher" considerations — the kill- ing of one individual by another is inconsistent with the instinct of association, with all that it involves, and with the very existence of the social order, with its protective and other advantages to him- self and his offspring, and to the perpetuation of its natural guar- antees of safety and comfort. The act is, in so far, abnormal and irrational, therefore, and he inclines so strongly to refrain from its commission that we hear of the traditional horror and qualms of the murderer, originated, doubtless, in his conviction that, in murdering, he has really violenced himself and his own instincts. The individual inclines to refrain, normally, from theft, since the enjoyment of possessions sufficient to his natural needs is a neces- sity, and the act of stealing is inconsistent with the maintenance of a social order that, normally and in all righteousness, should guar- antee him in his "certain inalienable rights of life, * * * and the pursuit of happiness." Whatever he may incline to do to members of other communities, or, indeed, to members of his own, when public morality has so far degenerated — and the trouble is that it usually does degenerate — as to allow society to forget or neglect its protective function in the matter of safe-guarding its members from exploitation and spoliation, is a matter related entirely to what he considers his own self-interesl in the prem- ises. So with the other lines of conduct demanded by the moral law: they are mere practical corollaries of the instinctive discern-

142 IMPROVEMENT ERA ment of the requirements of social order, and of the individual's relation to it; ultimately, also, of the wisest and most sufficient self-interest. Indeed, all laws and principles of the moral code are, in the last analysis, neither more nor less than statements of the fun- damental working principles of human society. Thus, the "Golden Rule," so called, is a very olden rule, the ultimate principle in- volved in all associations of individuals. Confucius summed its requirements in the one word, "reciprocity," and every reflecting mind must recognize its perfection, as "theory," at least, no matter how much habit and stupidity have constrained him to neglect it in practice. And this follows because of the fact, which instinct clearly indicates, that "we are all members one of an- other." For these reasons, the moral law and "true religion and undefiled" demand nothing of anyone but that which he is de- signed, normally and ultimately, to perform. That this is the correct understanding of the matter, whether the term moral law, be considered a consciously-observed code of rules and prin- ciples, or the unconsciously and instinctively followed laws, in- volved in the structure of the being — "written on the inward parts" — and necessary to the achievement of every good end whatsoever, even to the continuance of life itself, is evident in the fact, as indicated by several writers, that the "lower animals" in the state of nature observe the principles of individual and social righteousness and justice, quite as fully as the average of mankind, and much more regularly. Although the subject of "animal morality" is not perfectly understood or developed, the known facts on the behavior of wild animals are sufficient to enable us to mark vivid contrasts with the morals of humanity. To be sure, as must be said, in order to forestall probable misapprehensions, it cannot be pretended that nature displays any promising approximations lo the ancient prophet-poet's anticipations of a condition in which "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid." All that belongs in a world very different from the present one. Nevertheless, among individuals of the same species, "tribe" or community of animals, we find an "instinctive" adherence to the principles of sound morals and mutual rights, which are, simply speaking, "worthy of all acceptation." The particular acts and lines of conduct notable in animals differ according to the species, structure and habits in all cases ; but the rule is that, above and beyond such manifestations, lie the same principles of "righteousness" that mankind have always been urged to ob- serve. This fact justifies the belief that such principles inhere in the constitution of the universe, and that their authority is ultimate.

HUMAN NATURE NOT EXPLAINED BY EVOLUTION 143 Among the higher animals the impulse toward association of individuals seems to be based largely upon considerations of ■self-interest, and, unlike human associations, leads directly to the safe-guarding of such interest. Although the law of struggle and the "survival of the fittest"— which is to say, the strongest, swiftest or craftiest — may hold in nature, the struggle is between alien races, and not between groups or individuals of the same species or community. In no case, among the higher animals at least, do we find that individual craft and power is exercised for the suppression and subordination of other individuals of the same species — unless we except the practices of ants, bees, etc., by which certain individuals are systematically deprived of their power of reproduction, for the benefit of the community. Such acts, however, are effective far more evidently for the good of the species, its continuance, etc., than for the benefit, convenience, etc., of the "queens," as the community mothers are called. Still, although the law of selfishness holds among animals, and each one is interested, primarily, in his own nourishment and preservation, this rule of behavior is tempered by a reasonable limit: no animal will eat more than he needs, and none of them will store up more than he needs, nor do we find that any of them exercises such superior strength, skill, etc., as he may possess, to accumulate hoards of useless possessions, to the disadvantage of his fellows. The detestable phase of parasitism, which, in a very real sense, preys upon its own kind, profiting at the expense of the wants and mis- fortunes of its fellows, and growing' great on their life and labors, is reserved for man, a creature "made in the image of God," as we are told. Furthermore, as authorities seem to suggest, com- bats, between individuals of the same species among animals, are, in general, not fatal — more especially is this true, as alleged, among the more formidable brutes — and none of them will prac- tice cannibalism, unless under the aggravated conditions of star- vation. Wild dogs of various species usually associate in packs. If in any pack there are individuals who are swifter, keener, or craft- ier than the others, their talents are exercised for the benefit of all. and all thrive in consequence. The great cats, being the most formidable of all mammals, and the best fitted to protect and provide for themselves, are the least social, living usually as iso- lated pairs, and only occasionally hunting in numbers. Many of the herbivores, animals less able in defense against beasts of prev, are often found in extensive hordes or droves, evidently lie- cause of the advantages in defense, protection of the young, etc. Among the more intelligent of the gregarious brutes, such as elephants, high standards of ethical virtue seem to lie observed, as may be seenin the assistance given a wounded elephant by sev-

144 IMPROVEMENT ERA eral of his comrades, or in the rescue of one fallen into a pit. Many observers claim that wild animals recognize the "law of property," to the extent, at least,' of respecting the metes and bounds of the "ranges," preempted by fellow-individuals or packs, of the same species, and in refraining from robbing their caches of food, or invading their homes or burrows. The rule does not work, of course, between animals of alien species, but, as it would seem, is ensured by some highly-effective imperative between in- dividuals belonging to the same natural group. Thus, while birds of one species will often try to oust representatives of another from a desirable nesting-place, we find no reliable evidence to the contrary of the contention that such brigandage is always prac- ticed upon aliens. (to be continued) Satisfy Yourself It is not what people say about you — it's what you are that counts. The one person in all this world whom you should aim to satisfy is yourself. You alone know yourself. Other people know your outward appearance, your actions, your deeds. You, and you alone, know your motives, your ambitions, your thoughts. Are you satisfied with yourself? It is your own fault if you are not. Are you satisfied that you are doing the best you can in your work, that you are making the most of your time? Are you confident that your conduct toward your family, your friends, your neighbors, your employer, can not be improved? Look yourself straight in the face this morning, in your mind's looking-glass. Ask yourself whether it is what people say about you or what you are that hurts. Analyze your own conduct in all matters. Put yourself in the other fellow's place and try to see your actions through his eyes. Imagine that you are your employer instead of yourself. Answer honestly whether, if he knew as much about yourself, he would discharge you or would raise your wages. If you do this conscientiously there are many things you will do differently. Remember this, too. Other people's opinion of you is based on your opinion of yourself. Are you self-respecting? Other people will respect you. Are you truthful? The world will believe yon. Are you honest? Everyone will trust you. Hut weigh yourself frequently. Weigh yourself carefully. Be certain that your own opinion of yourself is justified. Be satisfied with vourself. — American Magazine.