The Northwest worker. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1915-1917, 1916-03-09
CoMRADE STONES REPLY
Barring, Wn., March 2, 1916


attention to tho fact that you are on
the affirmative side. ! merely denied
your claim, giving my reasons for so
doing
You stated, If not in so many words,
that certain persons rise above their
environment and 1t would therefore
be up to you to prove that they do
SO. However, as | look upon our tilt
as discussion where each may fur
nish reasons for the faith that Is in
him, ! shall try to supplement and
enlarge somewhat upon what / said
in my former letter on this subject.
If inspiration, lofty ideals, or other
psychological attributes sprang out of
the air, as thing apart, then | might
agree with you; but, unfortunately
for your position, they are growths,
and, in this case, are therefore sub
iect to the development of beings,
who in turn are creatures of their en-
vronment. For that matter psychol-
ogy itself Is the creature of It's en-
vronment 1t lis simply the reflex of
the economic setting of any period,
modified, it Is true, by past economic
settings and their corresponding psy-
chologies. Hence, the immediate eco
monte surroundings being now CAPT
talistic, we would expect psychology
to correspondence the Lord knows
we Socialists have found this to be
true!
Now, bearing in mind the origin of
psychology, / think it would be
Notwithstanding to say the least, to
dignity it by the term environment"
Anyway, your position on this point
can only lead to hero-worship, and
| that is not what is most needed at
the present stage of development.
(This statement raises a new ques-
| tion.-Ed)
Environment, in the scientific
sense, must include everything that
has any influence whatever upon its
beings.
/ have already mentioned growths.
Can you show me any that are not
subject to the environment in which
and under which they have their be-
| ing? You needn't produce anything
big, something tiny, like flea, will
suffice to convince me.
You accuse me of taking a narrow
view of the subject. I quote from my
previous letter: eve may be perfectly
sure that this basic law of develop
ment economic determinism) enters
into every ramification of life" In
other words, as broad as life itself.
And why shouldn't it be? Before there
can be any life, there must first be
an environment or condition favor
able to produce and sustain life; and
until convinced otherwise, I will call
this fact proof No. /. To be sure, or
| ganc beings react upon their en-
vironment, but mark you, it is then
no longer the same. What is the re-
suit? Just this. Reimbursement in
| forms and modes of life to cores
| pond with the changed and changing
| environment. This is proof No. g.
OF course, every being, within the
sphere of influence of every other be-
ing, is part and parcel of that beings
environment; and, as for man, who
would have the hardihood, philosophi
cally speaking, to set a limit to such
sphere.
I did not in my last, nor do I in
this letter, narrow matters down just
to the immediate demand for food in
the stomach, as you intimated, but
even if | had done so, | should not
feel called on to make an apology
can't see anything either brutal or
''small-souled" in that convention.
For, after the prerequisite condition
for producing life, the stomach, or
equivalent organs, is the prerequisite
for sustaining life We have no need
to feel ashamed of the part our stom-
ach has played. The plain fact of
evolution is that our other organs
and faculties have been acquired very
largely, if not entirely, as a mere
addenda to aid the stomach in its
search for food
AS | said in my previous letter, lin
dividuals respond to a given stimulus
in as many different ways as there
are differences in constitution" For
instance: A savage is nearly always
caught short of food during the stress
of winter, while a civilized man, so
called, subjected to the same stress,
would be stimulated to store food
when it was abundant and thus pre-
vent a too apt repetition of the lean
days.
To sum up what has already been
said: