Los Angeles herald., 1907-01-13

Some time ago there appeared letter
in these columns in which the question
was asked whether or not a beautiful
soul can exist in beautiful body. l
admitted at the time that the question
cannot be easily answered, If at all, ana
1 am now constrained to admit it once
more, even though I have given the
subject considerable thought. The rea-
son why it is such difficult subject to
handle is because it involves two ques-
tions of as much, if not greater, i'm
portance, namely, What is beautiful?
What do we mean by soul?
We must bear in mind that the word
soul does not mean the same thing to
everybody; nor does the word beauty
(the derivative of beautifully appeal III
the same sense, everywhere, at all
times to all human beings The word
soul means one thing to one religiously
inclined and something else to one not
so inclined. Materialists especially
deny the existence of soul altogether.
The word beauty, on the other hand,
may be used by a particular individual
with reference to particular object,
and another should ridicule him Cor
her) for it. The reason is plain
enough; the formers tastes about
beauty many be different from the
latter's.
If the words beauty and soul were
susceptible of correct definition, that
is if they were of an abstract nature,
there would be no difficulty in handling
the subject; but they are not sus-
ceptible of correct definition because
of their concrete or relative nature,
hence the difficulty. Lest the inquirer
as we'll as the readers may feel disap-
pointed, however, l shall attempt to
cl,n IN, nnininn hnDntiflll
soul does not, as rule, exist in beau
tiful body. And for this purpose 1 shall
have to be satisfied with the unsatis-
factory definitions given in the die
tionaries.
In Webster's dictionary the word soul
is defined as "the spiritual, rational
and immortal part of man; that part
which enables him to think and which
renders him a subject of moral govern
ment." Now how many individuals
exist who answer to the foregoing de-
scription? To put ii in other words,
How many individuals come up to the
standard of the foregoing definition?
To be sure, a good many; but do the
majority of mortals? No; on the con-
trary, a very small portion of them.
Only few individuals think; only a
few are rational; only few (very few
indeed) are subject to moral govern
llelll. can lIllllh Ol Al JtSlSt NpI-
fucius, Emerson, Spinoza, Voltaire
and lesses lights as individuals who
answered the description, or came up
to the standard of the definition; but
cannot think of a prize fighter or other
such luminaries of the human family
as being of a very high standard either
of nationality, thinking powerd or moral
government.
Again, the word beauty, according to
Webster, "is that property (of an OBJ
jecD pleasing to the sight or mind. "
Many living mortals have shaken
hands with the now immortal Emer-
son; how many can say that he had a
beautiful body? l dare say no one;
and yet. did he not possess the soul of
souls? Read his works and decide for
yourselves.
1t may be asked Why is II that
only a small portion of the human
family possess souls that conform TO
the definition given in the dictionaries?
The answer is because only a small