But if she believes in paying no heed to the conventional ideas of other

people, and is lacking in experience and knowledge of her own, she may

be very well pleased with herself for her daring. "Fools rush in where

angels fear to tread"--that is an old saying which suggests that

ignorant people, defying the counsels of experience, were known to exist

before now--only in the past they were called "fools," whereas to-day

they prefer to be considered "exponents of advanced thought," with a

superior point-of-view, inaugurating a new era of "emancipation."

It is not my purpose here to go on multiplying examples. I merely wished

to indicate as simply and clearly as possible an underlying, fundamental

principle. It is at work in countless ways, in everybody's life, nearly

all the time. Personal impulses and inclinations may be very

short-sighted, very unlovely, very unworthy. Greed, murder, arson, lust,

theft, lying, betrayal--are only a few samples of the variety of

impulses which may come and do come frequently to various individuals

upon occasion.

Our own limited experience and a little reason may be a sufficient guide

in many cases. They teach us to overrule certain inclinations, whose

consequences we understand and which we deem contrary to our interests.

In many other cases, the consequences may be just as contrary to our

interests, though they lie beyond our own experience and present

understanding. For that reason people have been taught throughout the

centuries to accept and be guided by the accumulated experience and

wisdom of those who have gone before. This accumulated experience has

been preserved and made available to each new generation, in many

ways--traditions, conventions, customs, familiar quotations, standard

books, the schools and the Bible. Most of all, it has been the special

care and function of parents to instill it into their children. For the

first ten or fifteen years of life, children are constantly being told

what to do and what not to do, in all sorts of contingencies. And what

they are told is the result of accumulated experience in crystallized

practical form.

In the days of obedience, discipline and fear of punishment, children

accepted and respected this guidance, as authoritative. They formed the

habit of doing not what they felt like, but what was considered right

and best for them. Very often the true reasons, the complicated motives

and remote consequences, involved in a question of conduct were not

comprehended by the young people, and only vaguely sensed by their

parents. They were traditional ideas, generally approved by right-minded

people and passed along. Their origin, in nearly all cases, was the

accumulated experience and wisdom of people who did comprehend.

So it happens that a young woman, or a young man, of the new school,

without respect for old-fashioned teachings, and with insufficient

experience, or knowledge of their own, can fall into the error of

imagining that their selfish interests are best served by gratifying

each passing inclination.

Their first shallow mistake, as I have tried to show, is in overlooking

the lessons of others' experience.

This whole point-of-view, of course, is absolutely selfish and for the

time being, I have been content to meet them on their own ground and

answer them in terms of absolute selfishness. Even on the assumption

that a human being is a kind of animal, which feels no need of

consideration for others' welfare, and is devoid of any higher

aspirations than a full measure of selfish enjoyment--even then, purely

as a question of intelligence, a matter of policy, there are excellent

reasons why various impulses and inclinations should be resisted and

denied. The nature of these reasons I have attempted to suggest and make

clear by some haphazard examples and as previously noted, the basis of

them all is Experience.

IV

AFFECTION

There remain two other sets of reasons why our selfish inclinations

should often be denied--affection and faith. They are of a higher and

finer order. We will take them one at a time.

The conscious life of a human being is by no means limited to the

perception of sensations and the exercise of reason. These are important

functions, but they are not all. A human being is also provided with a

heart, which is capable of feeling sympathy for other human beings--for

all living things. This sympathetic feeling may cover a wide

range--pity, commiseration, friendship, admiration, devotion, adoration.

It is not the nature of mankind to live an isolated existence, in

loneliness. Boys and girls, men and women, from the beginning of life to

the end, yearn for the companionship of others with whom they can share

their thoughts and feelings, their pleasures and their pains. Through

association with others come affectionate feelings for certain ones. We

attach ourselves to them with bonds of sympathy, understanding, love.

The feeling of affection is such a normal and essential part of human

life that it seeks to find expression at every opportunity. A

warm-hearted child will lavish it on a kitten, or a rag doll; or will

show it for a mongrel dog. If the kitten, or the dog is hurt, or sick,

or even hungry, the girl or boy will be distressed by its trouble and

want to help it.

This is a primitive form of the feeling; carried to its full development

in the heart of a sensitive, noble nature it becomes one of the most

beautiful and vital of human attributes.

As we share our thoughts and feelings with another and are allowed to

share his in return, our centre of interest expands, as it were, and the

essence of life within us enriches itself by this sympathetic mingling

with the essence of the other. His thoughts, his feelings, his welfare

are no longer a matter of indifference to us. As our sympathy and

attachment grow, we become more and more concerned in this other's

interests; they become a part of our existence, in a strange and lovely

way, just as real and just as dear to us as if they were our own. Any

pleasure, or good fortune, becomes doubly grateful, if we may share it

with him; no pleasure is worth considering, if in order to obtain it, we

would be obliged to cause him a deprivation. We cannot forget his

welfare, or his happiness, we do not wish to forget his welfare or his

happiness, because through our sympathy and affection, the essence of

another life has become inexpressively near and dear to us.

To a greater or less degree, this capacity for affection is inherent in

human kind, from the lowest to the highest. It is a most precious human

quality and it opens the gates of life to a sort of satisfaction that is

infinitely bigger and finer and more lasting than anything that can be

obtained from the mere gratification of selfish and material impulses.

Now, while it is true that practically everybody is aware of this

feeling and has a need for affection and sympathy, not all people by any

means have big enough hearts, or fine enough natures, to respond to the

need very deeply. Cold, superficial, self-centered people may go through

life giving a very small modicum of sympathy or affection to anybody and

receiving very little in return. Many a man is incapable and unworthy of

being a real true friend to anybody. He may have brains and breeding and

plenty of animal desires, but in his heart there is no understanding of

what it means to be devoted to a welfare not his own. The same is true

no doubt of a great many women, those whose characters are too fickle

and unstable to permit of any deep and lasting attachment. Fortunately,

even in the case of such men and women, if they marry and have children,

some of the joy and meaning of this heart-life is still vouchsafed them.

They feel it for their sons and daughters.

If they have no children and are unmarried, there are mothers and

fathers, brothers and sisters to keep alive some measure of sympathy and

endearment. A human being who is totally bereft of such attachments,

without any feeling that comes from the heart for any one, is such a

rare exception that he need not be considered. Such lives, if they do

exist, would appear to normal beings as very pitiful.

As a usual thing, for most of us, the affections are constantly in

operation. Certain people who are near and dear to us are never really

out of our lives at all. Consciously or subconsciously, we carry them

with us wherever we go, tucked away in our hearts, ready to rise up at

the slightest provocation and take a vital part in our innermost

deliberations.

A little boy or girl of the right sort, with the right kind of loving

parents, grows up naturally with this feeling for them. In all sorts of

new experiences and questions of conduct, the thought comes

spontaneously: "What will mother think about this?" "She'll be terribly

surprised when I tell her that." "Father will be pleased and proud when

he knows what I've done." "I don't think she'd approve of that." "He'll

laugh at me, when he hears this." And so forth and so on, countless

times, in countless connections.

Mothers and fathers carry around a similar feeling with regard to their

children. Things that they see, things that they hear, things that they

read, plans and projects of all kinds, are spontaneously colored by the

consideration of their effect on the son or daughter--surprise,

pleasure, disappointment, good or ill.

The same thing takes place to a remarkable extent between a man and a

woman who love each other deeply. Nothing of importance can happen to

one, without an immediate reflection of the effect and bearing it will

have on the other. A frequent result of this is that, in order to give

pleasure to the other, one will act contrary to his own selfish

inclination. And the anticipation of this pleasure to be given to the

other can be strong enough to transform this denial and deprivation of

self into a sweeter and finer form of satisfaction.

This same order of feeling, based on sympathy and affection, springing

from the heart, extends and ramifies and attaches itself in a great

variety of ways, in the life of a human being, as we have already

suggested.

While instances of complete devotion of one nature to another are

comparatively rare, in any walk of life, and while most individuals are

lacking in the bigness of heart and depth of feeling to be capable of

it, under any circumstances, the importance of affection comes home to

nearly everybody, to greater or less extent, and is treasured up as one

of the essentials of life.

As a result of this human sympathy and affection, it would seem only

natural and obvious that there should come to everyone a realization of

the fact that in many of the things we do, for our own good or ill,

other people besides ourselves can't help being concerned. We may, by

thinking only of our own inclinations and seeking to gain our selfish

ends, be doing great harm and injustice to them. If other people are

affected by what we do, and they have feelings of the same sort as ours,

are not they, too, entitled to some consideration?

This idea seems so simple and evident that any thinking person might be

expected to admit it and understand it. Yet, as we have seen repeatedly

in discussing the attitude of the new generation, it is one of the

questions about which there prevails the greatest misconception and

confusion of mind. Up-to-date young people, absorbed in the habit of

doing what they like and deciding for themselves, very easily fall into

the way of overlooking this consideration almost entirely. They fail to

grasp the importance of the part that sympathy and affection have been

assigned to play in their own natures; and at the same time they lose

sight of the feelings and interests of others who must be affected by

the consequences of their acts. Lack of consideration for others has

come to be spoken of currently as one of the marked characteristics of

this new generation.

For this reason, if for no other, it may be just as well to linger on

the subject and make explanations doubly plain, rather than leave any

possible ground for a continuation of the confusion and

misunderstanding.

Suppose you were walking along a country road and you came upon a nice

little boy, named Harry, one of your neighbor's sons, and Harry was

sitting hunched up on a stump, sniffling and sobbing, with tears

streaming down his cheeks. Upon enquiring the cause of his trouble, you

learn that a bigger boy, Jake, had taken away Harry's apple. Strictly

speaking, the apple didn't belong to either of them, but Harry had

spied it on the tree and after a great deal of determined effort had

managed to climb out on the branch and shake it down. Then Jake came

along and took it.

Now, to see a little fellow sobbing with disappointment, deprived of

something his heart was set on and which he had worked hard to get, is

enough to arouse a feeling of sympathy in any normal and kindly person.

You feel sorry for Harry and you'd like to do something for him.

Suppose you happen to look along the road, just then, and you spy Jake

seated on a fence rail with an air of contentment, proceeding to eat the

apple--what would you feel like doing and saying to him? Suppose you

controlled yourself and asked him quietly why he took that apple away

from Harry, and he replied, with a defiant grin "Because I wanted it. I

like apples, and this is a fine big one!" If you continue to talk

quietly to Jake, and show him Harry sobbing on the stump, and make him

realize the situation, as like as not it will end up by Jake's saying:

"All right--if he feels as bad as that, let him have it. I didn't know

he was that kind of a cry baby." And he will pass up his own

inclination, rather than cause that much harm to another.

That is a very primitive example which illustrates the principle in its

simplest form. In the first place you are moved by sympathy and

consideration for another, when you feel sorry for Harry and want to

help him, and so is Jake when he is willing to forego his own desire for

Harry's sake--although he lacked consideration in the first place, in

taking something on which another's heart was set.

Here is another example:

A boy, George, is an only son and very dear to his parents, who have

watched over him always with loving care. During the summer vacation,

George has been invited to make a week's visit at the home of a

school-mate which is in another state. The trip is a longer and more

complicated one than George has ever undertaken by himself, and his

mother cannot help feeling apprehensive and anxious at the thought of

possible accidents and emergencies which may occur. It involves a night

run on a steamboat, a railroad journey and a long automobile ride

through mountainous country. The mother, not wishing to stand in the way

of her boy's pleasure, gives a reluctant consent. She makes no attempt

to disguise the anxiety she will feel while he is on the way, and

impresses on his mind the importance of sending her a telegram, as soon

as he has arrived safely at his destination. George laughs at her fears,

boy-fashion, and promises to do as she wishes.

No sooner has he started on his way, than the mother's heart enters upon

a period of increasing perturbation. Suppose something should happen to

the steamer--that it should break down, or catch fire, or run on a

reef--or that there should be a railroad accident--or that George should

lose his ticket, or be robbed of his money and find himself in some

far-away spot, not knowing what to do with no one to go to? Then that

long motor ride through deserted country--suppose it should be raining

and the roads slippery and they should try to make it too fast? So many

things are among the possibilities, and one can never be sure until it

is over.

Some people might feel inclined to smile at this account of a mother's

apprehension, but it is only a natural attribute of devoted love,

ineffably sweet and beautiful. While the precious child is exposed to

possible dangers, she cannot help feeling thus. She talks to the father

about it, wanting the comfort of his reassurance; and she lies awake

that night imagining things and counting the hours that must separate

her from the telegram announcing George's safety.

At last the time comes when, according to schedule, she may expect the

message. She waits about, in momentary suspense, for the telephone ring

from Western Union.

Now suppose the minutes pass and then the hours, until the mother's

apprehension grows into feverish and unreasoning alarm. She gets word to

her husband and communicates her alarm to him. As more time passes, the

conviction comes that something has happened to their son, and something

must be done. They attempt to get a long distance telephone connection

with the home of George's friend, but after a long delay and various

appeals, the report comes that there is a break-down on the line

somewhere, in the mountain section. They get in communication with the

steamboat offices and the railroad station, and after interminable

efforts finally ascertain that there has been no accident on either

line. There remains the motor trip--or the possibility of a personal

mishap to George at some stage of the journey--and no way of telling. In

the end, they send a telegram to the mother of George's friend, and

resign themselves to wait, in an agony of suspense for the answer.

Individuals who are phlegmatic, matter-of-fact, and not very intense in

their feelings might be inclined to ridicule this anxiety and suffering

on the part of the parents, for so slight a cause; they would fail to

understand it. But any mother with children of her own would understand

perfectly and be moved to genuine and heart-felt sympathy.

The condition of George's mother would naturally evoke the same sort of

compassion as the spectacle of Harry on the tree stump, sobbing for his

apple.

But what of the Jake, in this case--the prime factor of the problem? The

Jake in this case, of course, is no other than our only son, George. No

trouble of any sort was experienced by him in the various stages of his

journey. Upon his arrival, there were a number of new people to meet and

various elements of interest in the new surroundings to occupy his

attention. For the time being, he forgot to think of the mother he had

left behind.

Hours later, as they are starting a game of tennis, it suddenly occurs

to him that he has not yet sent his telegram home, but as it would be a

bother to go back to the house now and he feels like going ahead with

the tennis game, he makes a mental note and puts it off. It is not until

dinner time that he thinks of it again and when he finds that the

telephone is out of order and he would have to motor in to the telegraph

office, its doesn't seem worth the trouble. He has allowed so much time

to go by already that he decides the most satisfactory way out of it is

to wait until he finds time to write a letter and explain, as an excuse

for not keeping his promise, that the telephone wasn't working.

Before he has an opportunity to write his letter, the telegram arrives

from home disclosing his mother's anxiety--whereupon he feels ashamed

and sorry, and hurries to the telegraph office to send a reply.

This is a more or less typical example of a great many cases where lack

of consideration for others is not necessarily due to a lack of

affection or sympathy, but comes from a lack of thoughtfulness and

understanding. George may love his mother very much and he would not

voluntarily hurt her feelings, or be the cause of her suffering. The

sight of his mother in tears would cause him unhappiness and he would

gladly make a real sacrifice in order to comfort her. But the sight of

his mother's suffering, or the thought of his mother's suffering, is not

before him--it does not enter into his calculations or motives of

conduct. In order for this to take place, a certain amount of reflection

and imagination is required on his part.

In the case of Harry and Jake and the apple, we assumed that some one

came along and called Jake's attention to the unhappiness of Harry.

When Jake was made to see and realize, he responded with a feeling of

consideration.

But in the case of George and the vast majority of cases where this

question is involved, no one comes along to explain to you. If the

pleasure or pain of others is involved in what you do, the thought of

that must come from yourself. Very often those others are not present at

the time and the consequences may not be immediately and superficially

apparent. Imagination, reflection, and a habit of mind, may be needed to

realize the effect upon them.

Suppose you have a friend named Brown whom you have known many years and

have a good deal of affection for. An unexpected opportunity offers for

you to get a week's hunting in the South and you think how fine it would

be, if you can get the right sort of companion to share it with you. You

see Brown, tell him about it, invite him and he accepts. You immediately

start in making plans and arrangements--dogs, guns, food,

drinks--leaving nothing undone to make it a bang-up affair and give

Brown and yourself the time of your lives. Now suppose when you have

fixed up everything and are waiting in joyful anticipation for the hour

to arrive, you receive word from Brown, with apologies and a lame

excuse, that he must deprive himself of the pleasure of going with you?

And suppose you discover later, in an accidental way, that the real

reason Brown left you flat was because something else turned up that

appealed to him more and he was thinking only of himself?

Suppose, now, you are a society lady, or a society man, and you have

accepted an invitation from a woman friend to motor out to her country

place and dine and spend the night--and suppose when the day arrives,

you are offered a box at the opera, that night, to hear Caruso? As this

appeals to you much more than the other, you send a wire to the country

at the last minute, pretending an indisposition, and go to the opera.

What of the woman friend--who had made special efforts and invited

certain people on your account, and had counted on you as a main

consideration in her whole affair? Your absence upsets her completely,

spoils her party, and robs her of something on which she had spent a

good deal of time and effort and on which her heart was set.

If she ever discovers or suspects the true reason for your desertion,

you will have inflicted a wound in her feelings that few friendships can

survive and the loss of a friend in this world is hardly to be regarded

as a trifling matter.

These few examples which we have cited and a countless multitude of

others, of a more or less similar nature, which might be drawn from the

everyday experiences of any human being, tend to make plain the palpable

truth--that very often other people besides ourselves are concerned in

our actions and we do violence to our better feelings and theirs, if we

leave them out of consideration. Even up-to-date young people of the

most selfish order can hardly fail to recognize that and admit it, in

certain instances--when the others are before their eyes, or the effect

upon them is so direct and immediate that it cannot escape their

attention. In such instances they respond instinctively to the finer

side of their natures, where sympathy and affection are found. But just

as soon as an effort of reflection and imagination is required to

realize this same effect on others, there is no longer the same

response. The will and the faculty to do this appear, somehow, to be

lacking; so that they lose sight of this consideration very easily, and

leave it out of account as a controlling influence. Some one else has to

direct their attention, do the thinking for them and appeal to their

feelings, in order to restore the equilibrium.

This difficulty of voluntary reflection and understanding on their part

is still greater when it comes to another phase of the question, which

is one degree more complicated, but no less vital in its bearing on the

affections. You cannot do evil things, or act in such a way as will

bring harmful consequences upon yourself, without causing suffering to

those who love you. If your mother is very sweet and gentle and loves

you devotedly and you have a good deal of tender affection for her, you

would not think of striking her a blow on the face with your clenched

fist. No impulse within you, however selfish, could make you do that.

Yet the pain from such a blow would be as nothing compared to the

suffering you might cause her by smoking opium or sniffing cocaine or

doing something dishonorable, like forging your father's signature.

None of these things affect her directly or personally, but

sympathetically, through her love for you.

Heart and Soul by Maveric Post · 第 4 / 17 段