The Portland daily press., 1900-01-05
WORK.
IL Year Daily Labor wssrfsens TASK
or q Reere.tioni

That which 10 work for ons man 10 play
or anothsr, says TIE Baltimore san. No
street lsporsr has ever worked as hard
for q days wages ssa college student
will TO win football game or boat rsc'
In which he IL an almost urobssrvfd
actor. And 10 the world OF business
what differences are seen. One man goes
10 his daily labor like a slave 30 his task.
lie may work faithfuiiy, but without
zest or ambition. His only aim IL n earn
the wages due at the end Of the week. or
rather to get this wages whether be earns
them or not His companion 10 q cheer
full workman who thinks nothing about
wages. because his mind Is upon his work.
He wants to do something. II, ass re-
suit Of his labors, he gets paid, well and
good, but the pay Is not the upper most
thing In his mind. he finds such pleas
ure In work that 10 becomes play TO hiis,
and oil his days are days of gisansss.
In n part of Hamlsts eccentric remarks
at the time he was feigning insanity IL n
bit Of philosophy that Is worth consider
ing. He has remarked that Denmark 10
one of the worst Of prisons. Kosscrantz
replies; "ws think not So" whereupon
Hamlet Gays, "why, then. tits none TO
you, for there IL nothing either good or
bad but thinking makes II So" The
phrase II applied literally may easily be
| shown 20 be absurd, and yet there Is In
10 the germ Of a phiiosonhic truth. III We
brood npon the irksomoness OF labor,
work becomes almost intolerabls; tbs
Thinking IL III the other
hand our thoughts are turned to the re-
salts achieved, we work chserfully; labsr
becomes n recreation-the thinking makes
10 so.
Thinking can not fill an empty
stomach. We may safely make that cou-
oesslon to the Gradgrinds, who, being
devoid of Imagination, Insist upon facts
but without making any drafts upon
Imagination we may insis. upon giving
due consideration to ths fact established
by observation that the aspect OF work TO
the individual depends less upon the
| character of the work Itself than upon
the mental attitude OF the laborer toward
it. In this limit cd sense at lesst Hamlst
is right. whether our daily labor shall
be weartsome task or recreation de-
ponds almost altogether upon the way IN
which we regard IL. We oan very easily
work ourselves up into state of mind In
which every fresh task appears to be an
imposition, or into one whersin we be-
come eager to have new and higher
duties presented to us.
Without carrying tine illustration be-
You'd the bounds of sober reason, we may
safely say that each worker bias within
his own coz troll the elements Of happiness
or misery. 1t would be quite safe for any
one co aoosps Hamlet's dictum, and, he
lisving that there Is nothing either good
or bad but thinking makes 1t So" deter
mine that work being inevitable. he
should make the best Of 1t doing bis daily
task cheerfuily and Accepting its results
q the sum OF good. Such worker
would certainly lind favor In the eyes OF
his employer and thus receive such rs-
ward ms would make his thinking true.
1t Is In that sense that Pamlet's wor Is
are philosophical. The .son and reac-
tlon between thought I'D performance
are such that II we tttnk thing to be
good We make IL good; II We think IL bad
we make it bad. Within reasonable
limits this is true philosophy, and 1t Is
one that we can apply In our daily lives
with excellent effect