The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-06-25


deduction is that it is quite possible to have on
both sides resistance to q retrograde form OF
| social cooperation.
How far should man OF superior ability
push his advantages2 To what extent should
he refrain from using his greater faculties. 80
that others may obtain applause or not ex-
perience the pain Of defeat? These and the
questions that grow out Of them are unques-
tionably difficult, and they are considered at
some length By Mr.. Spencer in a chapter re-
gardlng self-restraint on displays OF ability.
BY way OF concrete example. the author takes q
| form OF selfshness occasionally exhibited and
| rightly condemned. that, namely. Of men who
| display without bounds their remarkable con-
versational powers or various brilliant talk
| ers we read that on some occasions the pres
ence OF others who We'd with them raised obvi-
Gus jcalousies. and that, on other occasions
in the absence OF able competitors. they talked
down every one and changed what should
have been conversation into monologue It
will be remembered. though Mr.. Spencer is
too good natured to mention names. that
Sydney Smith 81 gRested ae.the probable fate OF
Macauay, should he be condemned to Dantes
In!crno. that he would be fastened In group
Of brilliant conversationalists. while he him
self was gagged. On the other hand wc some
time hear OF those-the late James Russell
Lowell and Mr.. Herbert Spencer himself may
be named as instances-who. although capa-
BILE OF holding continuously the attention Of
all. have shown solcitude that the undistin-
guished or the modest should find occasion
for joining In the exchange OF thoughts. even
going to the extent OF drawing them
out" Men Of those contrasted types
are presented as exomplifying the ab-
0rH nP
cence: and they exemplify also the truth.
often forgotten. that undue efforts to obtain
applause defent them selves One who monopo-
Lies conversation may lose more by the moral
reprobation OF his auditors than he gains by
their intellectual admiration. Over the dinner
table and in groups OF persons congregated
for other purposes. 1t will frequently occur
| that an erroneous statement Is made or an
invalid argument Is urged. One who recog-
nizes the error may either display his superior
knowledge or superior logic. or he may let the
error pass in silence, not wishing to raise tho
estimate OF himself at the cost OF lowering the
estimate Of another. Which shall he do2 Mr.
Spencer suggests that a proper decision i'm
plies several considerations. Is the wrong
statement or invalid argument one which
will do Improbable mischief II 1t passes
uDcorrected2 Is the person who ut
tiers 1t vain, or one whose SELF
esteem is excessive2 Is he improperly
regarded as an authority by those around7
Does he trample down others In the pursuit OF
applause? II to some or all OF these questions
the answer is Yes. the correction may fltly be
made. alike for the benefit OF the individual
himself and for the benefit of the others. But
should the error be trivial or should the credit
OF one who makes it. not being higher than is
proper, be unduly injured by the exposure or
should his general behavior in social inter-
course be Of a praseworthy kind. then sympa-
thy may 1tly dictate silence: that Is TO
say. In Mr.. Spencers phrase. negative
beneficence" may rightly restrain the nat
ural desire to show superiority. Much OF
what Mr.. Spencer has here said respecting the
carrying on Of conversation or discussion is
applied by him to the management OF public
controversies. 1t Is a matter OF familiar OBJ
servation that. In nearly all cases. the intru-
sion OF personal feeling makes controversy of
small value for its ostcnsble purpose, the ss-
tablishment Of truth. Desire for the eclat
which victory brings often causes a merci- |
lessness and dishonesty which hinder or |
prevent arrival at right conclusions. Mega. |
tive benehcence here conduces to public bene- |
IT. while 1t mitigates private injury Mr.. |
Spencer thinks that usually the evidence NAV
be marshalled and valid argument set forth
without discrediting an opponent In too con.
spicuous manner. Small slips OF state
ment and reasoning which do not M.
feet the general issue may be generously
passed over. and generosity may atly 90 To
the extent OF admitting the strength OF the
reasons relied on while showing that thew ara
Inadequate A due negative benencence will
respect an antagonists amour pr0prae. save
perhaps In cases where his dishonesty and bis
consequent endeavor to obscure the truth de-.
mand exposure. Mr.. Spencer is convinced
that lack OF right feeling In this sphere has
public effects 1t needs he think,
but to glance around at the courses OF polit-
zeal and theological controversy to see how
extreme are the perversions OF mems beliefs
caused By absence OF tho sympathetic inter-
probation which negative benedcence enjoins.
Underline same head Of self-restraint on dis
plays of ability Mr. Spencer makes some other
suggestions. For instance. sup
pose game Of skill is being played with one
whose little boy Is spectator. The fathers
play Is such as makes his antagonist toleraby
certain OF victory should no put out his strength.
But II tho antagonist is adequately swayed by
the sentiment OF negative coincidence he will
not obtrusiyely. but In a concealed way. play
below his strength, so as TO lot tho father beat
him. He will feol that such small pleasure MS
triumph might bring would he far mora than
by sympathy wjth tho annoy
ance OF the father in beng defeated 10 tho
presence Of has. son. and By sympathy |