manifestation of a
larger life. His whole life must be spent in the improvement of his own
condition. Even in the case of strongly marked personalities, they can
never get beyond themselves and their own subjective states, for they
must always live upon themselves, and eternally reflect upon their own
doings.

But such a view of life cannot satisfy man; he is a contemplative being,
and he must find some all-inclusive whole, of which he is a part. If he
fails to find it, life for him must become a blank, and he must fall a
prey to boredom and satiety. Man's life is not to be confined to his own
particular sphere, his life must extend far beyond that--he must concern
himself with the infinite in the universe; "He must view life--nay,
more, he must live it--in the light of this larger whole." A life based
upon individualism then, will seem, even in the case of strong
personalities, to be extremely narrow. How much more so will this be
true of the ordinary man, who takes little interest in his own
individuality, or pleasure in its development?

Thus it is that both forms of humanistic culture--socialism and
individualism--fail to give a real meaning to life. "Socialistic culture
directs itself chiefly to the outward conditions of life, but in care
for these it neglects life itself." Individualistic culture, on the
other hand, endeavours to deal with life itself, but fails to see life
as a whole, or as possessing any real inwardness.

Both types of culture are apt to deceive themselves in regard to their
own emptiness, because, unconsciously, they make more out of man than is
consistent with their assumptions. "They presuppose a spiritual
atmosphere as a setting for our human life and effort. In the one case,
this cementing of a union between individuals appears to set free the
springs of love and truth; in the other, each single unit seems to have
behind it the background of a spiritual world whose development is
fostered by means of its individual labour." In this way life acquires
in both cases a meaning, but it does so only by departing from both
positions, and taking up what is, at least partly, an idealistic
position.

The theories, too, can only be made really plausible by idealising man
to an unwarrantable extent. The socialist assumes that a change of
material surroundings will be immediately followed by a change in the
character of man, and that men will work happily together for the sake
of the community. Th