Such, then, are the two rival answers which, in the long dark, groping course of humanity's childhood, human beings have given to the most important of all questions—the question: What is Man? I have said that the answers, no matter how sincere, no matter how honestly arrived at, are erroneous, false to fact, and monstrous. I have said, and I repeat, that the misconceptions involved in them have done more throughout the by-gone centuries, and are doing more to-day, than all other hindering causes, to hamper and thwart the natural activity of the time-binding energies of man and thus to retard the natural progress of civilization. It is not merely our privilege, it is our high and solemn duty, to examine them. To perform the great duty is not an easy task. The misconceptions in question have come [pg 182] down to us from remote antiquity; they have not come down singly, separately, clean-cut, clear and well-defined; they have come entangled in the complicated mesh of traditional opinions and creeds that constitute the vulgar “philosophy”—the mental fog—of our time. If we are to perform the duty of examining them we have first of all to draw them forth, to disengage them from our inherited tangle of beliefs and frame them in suitable words; we have next to bring ourselves to realize vividly and keenly that the conceptions, thus disentangled and framed, are in fact, whether they be true or false, at the very heart of the social philosophy of the world; we have in the third place to detect the fundamental character of the blunder involved in them—to see clearly and coldly wherein they are wrong and why they are ruinous; we have, finally, to trace, if we can, their deadly effects both in the course of human history and in the present status of our human world.
The task of disengaging the two monstrous misconceptions from the tangled skein of inherited beliefs and framing them in words, I have already repeatedly performed. Let us keep the results in mind. Here they are in their nakedness: (1) Human beings—men, women, and children—are animals (and so they are natural): (2) human beings are neither natural nor supernatural, neither wholly animal nor wholly “divine,” but are both [pg 183] natural and supernatural at once—a sort of mysterious hybrid compound of brute and gods.
The second part of our task—which is the reader's task as much as mine—is not so easy; and the reason is evident. It is this: The false creeds in question—the fatal misconceptions they involve—are so familiar to us—they have been so long and so deeply imbedded in our thought and speech and ways of life—we have been so thoroughly bred in them by home and school and church and state—that we habitually and unconsciously take them for granted and have to be virtually stung into an awareness of the fact that we do actually hold them and that they do actually reign to-day throughout the world and have so reigned from time immemorial. We have, therefore, to shake ourselves awake, to prick ourselves into a realization of the truth.
I assume that the reader is at once hard-headed, rational, I mean, and interested in the welfare of mankind. If he is not, he will not be a “reader” of this book. He, therefore, knows that the third task—the task of detecting and exposing the fundamental error of the misconceptions in question—is a task of the utmost importance. What is that error? It is, I have said, an error in logic. But logical errors are not all alike—they are of many kinds. What is the “kind” of this one? It is the kind that consists in what mathematicians call “confusion of [pg 184] types,” or “mixing of dimensions.” The answer can not be made too clear nor too emphatic, for its importance in the criticism of all our thinking is great beyond measure. There are millions of examples that help to make the matter clear. I will again employ the simplest of them—one so simple that a child can understand it. It is a mathematical example, as it ought to be, for the whole question of logical types, or dimensions, is a mathematical one. I beg the reader not to shy at, or run away from, the mere word mathematical, for, although most of us have but little mathematical knowledge, we all of us have the mathematical spirit, for else we should not be human—we are all of us mathematicians at heart. Let us, then, proceed confidently and at once to our simple example. Here is a surface, say a plane surface. It has length and breadth—and so it has, we say, two dimensions; next consider a solid, say a cube. It has length, breadth and thickness—and so it has, we say, three dimensions. Now we notice that the cube has surfaces and so has certain surface properties. Do we, therefore, say that a solid is a surface? That the cube is a member of the class of surfaces? If we did, we should be fools—type-confusing fools—dimension-mixing fools. That is evident. Or suppose we notice that solids have certain surface properties and certain properties that surfaces do not have; and suppose we say [pg 185] the surface properties of solids are natural but the other properties are so mysterious that they must be “supernatural” or somehow “divine”; and suppose we then say that solids are unions, mixtures, compounds or hybrids of surfaces and something divine or supernatural; is it not evident that, if we did that, we should be again blundering like fools? Type-confusing fools? Dimension-mixing fools? That such would be the case any one can see. Let us now consider animals and human beings, and let us look squarely and candidly at the facts. To get a start, think for a moment of plants. Plants are living things; they take, transform and appropriate the energies of sun, soil, and air, but they have not the autonomous power to move about in space; we may say that plants constitute the lowest order or class or type or dimension of life—the dimension one; plants, we see are binders of the basic energies of the world. What of animals? Like the plants, animals, too, take in, transform and appropriate the energies of sun, soil and air, though in large part they take them in forms already prepared by the plants themselves; but, unlike the plants, animals possess the autonomous power to move about in space—to creep or crawl or run or swim or fly—it is thus evident that, compared with plants, animals belong to a higher order, or higher class, or higher type, or higher dimension of life; we may therefore [pg 186] say that the type of animal life is a type of two dimensions—a two-dimensional type; I have called them space-binders because they are distinguished, or marked, by their autonomous power to move about in space, to abandon one place and occupy another and so to appropriate the natural fruits of many localities; the life of animals is thus a life-in-space in a sense evidently not applicable to plants. And now what shall we say of Man? Like the animals, human beings have indeed the power of mobility—the autonomous power to move—the capacity for binding space, and it is obvious that, if they possessed no capacity of higher order, men, women and children would indeed be animals. But what are the facts? The facts, if we will but note them and reflect upon them, are such as to show us that the chasm separating human nature from animal nature is even wider and deeper than the chasm between animal life and the life of plants. For man improves, animals do not; man progresses, animals do not; man invents more and more complicated tools, animals do not; man is a creator of material and spiritual wealth, animals are not; man is a builder of civilization, animals are not; man makes the past live in the present and the present in the future, animals do not; man is thus a binder of time, animals are not. In the light of such considerations, if only we will attend to their mighty significance, it [pg 187] is as clear as anything can be or can become, that the life of man—the time-binder—is as radically distinct from that of animals—mere space-binders—as animal life is distinct from that of plants or as the nature of a solid is distinct from that of a surface, or that of a surface from that of a line. It is, therefore, perfectly manifest that, when we regard human beings as animals or as mixtures of animal nature with something mysteriously supernatural, we are guilty of the same kind of blunder as if we regarded animals as plants or as plants touched by “divinity”—the same kind of blunder as that of regarding a solid as a surface or as a surface miraculously transfigured by some mysterious influence from outside the universe of space. It is thus evident that our guilt in the matter is the guilt of a blunder that is fundamental—a confusing of types, a mixing of dimensions.
Nothing can be more disastrous. For what are the consequences of that kind of error? Let the reader reflect. He knows that, if our ancestors had committed that kind of error regarding lines and surfaces and solids, there would to-day be no science of geometry; and he knows that, if there were no geometry, there would be no architecture in the world, no surveying, no railroads, no astronomy, no charting of the seas, no steamships, no engineering, nothing whatever of the now familiar world-wide [pg 188] affairs made possible by the scientific conquest of space. I say again, let the reader reflect; for if he does not, he will here miss the gravity of a most momentous truth. He readily sees, in the case supposed, how very appalling the consequences would have been if, throughout the period of humanity's childhood, there had occurred a certain confusion of types, a certain mixing of dimensions, and he is enabled to see it just because, happily, the blunder was not made or, if made, was not persisted in, for, if it had been made and persisted in, then the great and now familiar things of which it would have deprived the world would not be here; we should not now be able even to imagine them, and so we could not now compute even roughly the tremendous magnitude of the blunder's disastrous consequences. Let the reader not deviate nor falter nor stagger here; let him shoulder the burden of the mighty argument and bear it to the goal. He easily perceives the truly appalling consequences that would have inevitably followed from the error of confusing types—the error of mixing dimensions—in the matter of lines and surfaces and solids, if that error had been committed and persisted in throughout the centuries; he can perceive those consequences just because the error was not made and hence the great things of which (had the blunder been made) it would have deprived the world are here, so that [pg 189] he can say: “Behold those splendid things—the science of geometry and its manifold applications everywhere shining in human affairs—imagine all of them gone, imagine the world if they had never been, and you will have a measure of the consequences that would have followed violation of the law of types, the law of dimensions, in the matter of lines, surfaces and solids.” But, now, in regard to the exactly similar error respecting the nature of man, the situation is reversed; for this blunder, unlike the other one, is not merely hypothetical; we have seen that it was actually committed and has been actually persisted in from time immemorial; not merely for years or for decades or for centuries but for centuries of centuries including our own day, it has lain athwart the course of human progress; age after age it has hampered and baulked the natural activity of the time-binding energies—the civilization-producing energies—of humanity. How are we to estimate its consequences? Let the reader keep in mind that the error is fundamental—a type-confusing blunder (like that supposed regarding geometric entities); let him reflect, moreover, that it affects, not merely one of our human concerns, but all of them, since it is an error regarding the center of them all—regarding the very nature of man himself; and he will know, as well as anything can be known, that the consequences of the ages-old blunder have been and are very momentous [pg 190] and very terrible. Their measure is indeed beyond our power; we cannot describe them adequately, we cannot delineate their proportions, for we cannot truly imagine them; and the reason is plain: it is that those advancements of civilization, those augmentations of material and spiritual wealth, all of the glorious achievements of which the tragic blunder has deprived the world, are none of them here; they have not been produced; and so we cannot say, as in the other case: “Look upon these splendid treasures of bound-up time, imagine them taken away, and your sense of the appalling loss will give you the measure required.” It is evident that the glories of which the misconceptions of human nature have deprived manhood must long remain, perhaps forever, in the sad realm of dreams regarding great and noble things that might have been.
I have said that the duty of examining the misconceptions imposes upon us four obligations. Three of these we have performed: we have disengaged the beliefs in question from the complicated tangle of opinions in which they have come down to us from remote antiquity; we have recognized the necessity and the duty of virtually stinging ourselves into an awareness of the fact that we have actually held them for true and that from time immemorial they have poured their virus into the heart of ethics, economics, politics and government throughout the [pg 191] world; we have seen not only that the beliefs are false but that their falseness is due to a blunder of the most fundamental kind—the blunder of mixing dimensions or confusing types. As already said, the fourth one of the mentioned tasks is that of tracing, if we can, the blunder's deadly effects both in human history and in the present status of the world. We have just reached the conclusion that this task cannot be fully performed; for there can be no doubt, as we have seen, that, if the blunder had not been committed and persisted in, the world would now possess a civilization so far advanced, so rich in the spiritual fruits of time and toil, as to be utterly beyond our present power to conceive or imagine it.
But, though we cannot perform the task fully, our plight is far from hopeless. The World War has goaded us into thinking as we never thought before. It has constrained us to think of realities and especially to think of the supreme reality—the reality of Man. That is why the great Catastrophe marks the close of humanity's childhood. The period has been long and the manner of its end is memorable forever—a sudden, flaming, world-wide cataclysmic demonstration of fundamental ignorance—human ignorance of human nature. It is just that tragic demonstration, brutal as an earthquake, pitiless as fate or famine, that gives us ground for future hope. It has forced us to think of realities and it is thought [pg 192] of reality that will heal the world. And so I say that these days, despite their fear and gloom, are the beginning of a new order in human affairs—the order of permanent peace and swift advancement of human weal. For we know at length what human beings are, and the knowledge can be taught to men and women and children by home and school and church and press throughout the world; we know at length, and we can teach the world, that man is neither an animal nor a miraculous mixture of angel and beast; we know at length, and we can teach, that, throughout the centuries, these monstrous misconceptions have made countless millions mourn and that they are doing so to-day, for, though we cannot compute the good of which they have deprived mankind, we can trace the dark ramifications of their positive evil in a thousand ways; we know at length, and we can teach, that man, though he is not an animal, is a natural being, having a definite place, a rank of his own, in the hierarchy of natural life; we know at length, and we can teach the world, that what is characteristic of the human class of life—that which makes us human—is the power to create material and spiritual wealth—to beget the light of reasoned understanding—to produce civilization—it is the unique capacity of man for binding time, uniting past, present and future in a single growing reality charged at once with the surviving creations [pg 193] of the dead, with the productive labor of the living, with the rights and hopes of the yet unborn; we know at length, and we can teach, that the natural rate of human progress is the rate of a swiftly increasing exponential function of time; we know, and we can teach, that what is good in present civilization—all that is precious in it, sacred and holy—is the fruit of the time-binding toil struggling blindly through the ages against the perpetual barrier of human ignorance of human nature; we know at length, we can teach, and the world will understand, that in proportion as we rid our ethics and social philosophy of monstrous misrepresentations of human nature, the time-binding energies of humanity will advance civilization in accordance with their natural law PRT, the forward-leaping function of time.
Such knowledge and such teaching will inaugurate the period of humanity's manhood. It can be made an endless period of rapid developments in True civilization. All the developments must grow out of the true conception of human beings as constituting the time-binding class of life, and so the work must begin with a campaign of education wide enough to embrace the world. The cooperation of all educational agencies—the home, the school, the church, the press—must be enlisted to make known the fundamental truth concerning the nature of man [pg 194] so that it shall become the guiding light and habit of men, women, and children everywhere. Gradual indeed but profound will be the transformations wrought in all the affairs of mankind, but especially and first of all in the so-called arts and sciences of ethics, economics, politics and government.
The ethics of humanity's manhood will be neither “animal” ethics nor “supernatural” ethics. It will be a natural ethics based upon a knowledge of the laws of human nature. It will not be a branch of zoology, the ethics of tooth and claw, the ethics of profiteering, the ethics of space-binding beasts fighting for “a place in the sun.” It will be a branch of humanology, a branch of Human Engineering; it will be a time-binding ethics, the ethics of the entirely natural civilization-producing energies of humanity. Whatever accords with the natural activity of those energies will be right and good; whatever does not, will be wrong and bad. “Survival of the fittest” in the sense of the strongest is a space-binding standard, the ethical standard of beasts; in the ethics of humanity's manhood survival of the fittest will mean survival of the best in competitions for excellence, and excellence will mean time-binding excellence—excellence in the production and right use of material and spiritual wealth—excellence in science, in art, in wisdom, in justice, in promoting the weal and protecting the rights both of the living and of the unborn. [pg 195] The ethics that arose in the dark period of humanity's childhood from the conception of human beings as mysterious unions of animality and divinity gave birth to two repulsive species of traffic—traffic in men regarded as animals, fit to be slaves, and traffic in the “supernatural,” in the sale of indulgences in one form or another and the “divine wisdom” of ignorant priests. It is needless to say that in the natural ethics of humanity's manhood those species of commerce will not be found.
And what shall we say in particular of economics, of “industry,” “business as usual,” and the “finance” of “normalcy”? There lies before me an established handbook of Corporation Finance, by Mr. E. S. Mead, Ph.D. (Appleton, N. Y.), whose purpose is not that of adverse criticism but is that of showing the generally accepted “sound” bases for prosperous business. I can hardly do better than to ask the reader to ponder a few extracts from that work, showing the established, and amazing theories, for then I have only to say that in the period of humanity's manhood the moral blindness of such “principles,” their space-binding spirit of calculating selfishness and greed, will be regarded with utter loathing as slavery is regarded to-day. Behold the picture: