lation, has disappeared at the end of the nineteenth century to give place to sociology, which regards all institutions as essentially relative, and which occupies itself solely with discovering what laws govern their changes. Between these contradictories comes the philosophy of Hegel with its attempt to reconcile the relative and the absolute. Whether it is necessary to accept this alternative, whether it is necessary to sacrifice sociology or natural right, is the problem which confronts the theorists of to-day.
In this article the author confines himself to the question whether the principle of self-realization works well in practice. As a secondary principle of conduct it is good, but it fails as a primary principle because "it prevents a man from throwing himself with all his heart into the duties of his station." 'Work' is a higher maxim than 'realize yourself.' And if the former is made primary, self-realization must be sacrificed to some extent. Under present conditions the two principles cannot be perfectly united.
The opinion of the community tends to realize itself in the individual or class upon whom it bears. The belief which men entertain regarding us, establishing itself as a perpetually renewed suggestion, modifies our personality, and in the end, unless we are strong enough to resist it, fashions our character and conduct into more or less of likeness with itself. If the attitude of the community is favorable, individual efficiency in any walk of life is at its maximum; on the contrary, an unfavorable attitude must be harmful, not only to those against whom it is directed, but also to the community itself. We see this first in the home. If, for instance, children be constantly treated as irredeemably bad, we implant in their minds the belief that badness is their normal condition and that they can never hope to emerge from it. There are certain classes in society whose mental habit, born of their function in civilization, inevitably tends to promote the darker views of life and human nature. The ministers of religion and the representatives of the governing classes are cases in point. The legislator cannot take chances; he must not err on the side of a too-confiding trust in human nature. Like the clergyman, he cannot afford to believe in the moral purity of mankind. This pessimistic attitude is injurious to social progress. The great need of the time is not the sense of sin, already overemphasized, but a knowledge of men in their higher and better selves.
{{right|L. R. Rogers.
