Robespierre, however, was not the type of leader finally destined to emerge from the Revolution.

This comparative indifference to clearness and consistency of thought is visible even in that chief object of our national concern, education.

Anyone who thus looks up has some chance of becoming worthy to be looked up to in turn.

Since every man desires happiness, it is evidently no small matter whether he conceives of happiness in terms of work or of enjoyment.

Democracy is now going forth on a crusade against imperialism.

To harmonize the One with the Many, this is indeed a difficult adjustment, perhaps the most difficult of all, and so important, withal, that nations have perished from their failure to achieve it.

For behind all imperialism is ultimately the imperialistic individual, just as behind all peace is ultimately the peaceful individual.

Tell him, on the contrary, that he needs, in the interest of his own happiness, to walk in the path of humility and self-control, and he will be indifferent, or even actively resentful.

The humanitarian lays stress almost solely upon breadth of knowledge and sympathy.

To say that most of us today are purely expansive is only another way of saying that most of us continue to be more concerned with the quantity than with the quality of our democracy.

Furthermore, America suffers not only from a lack of standards, but also not infrequently from a confusion or an inversion of standards.

The democratic idealist is prone to make light of the whole question of standards and leadership because of his unbounded faith in the plain people.

A democracy, the realistic observer is forced to conclude, is likely to be idealistic in its feelings about itself, but imperialistic about its practice.

Very few of the early Italian humanists were really humane.

If a man went simply by what he saw, he might be tempted to affirm that the essence of democracy is melodrama.

The human mind, if it is to keep its sanity, must maintain the nicest balance between unity and plurality.

A gross and palpable error of the era that is just closing has been the confusion of mechanical and material progress with moral progress.

We may affirm, then, that the main drift of the later Renaissance was away from a humanism that favored a free expansion toward a humanism that was in the highest degree disciplinary and selective.

If quantitatively the American achievement is impressive, qualitatively it is somewhat less satisfying.

The humanitarian would, of course, have us meddle in foreign affairs as part of his program of world service.

A man needs to look, not down, but up to standards set so much above his ordinary self as to make him feel that he is himself spiritually the underdog.

We must not, however, be like the leaders of the great romantic revolt who, in their eagerness to get rid of the husk of convention, disregarded also the humane aspiration.

If we are to have such a discipline we must have standards, and to get our standards under existing conditions we must have criticism.

The humanities need to be defended to-day against the encroachments of physical science, as they once needed to be against the encroachment of theology.

A person who has sympathy for mankind in the lump, faith in its future progress, and desire to serve the great cause of this progress, should be called not a humanist, but a humanitarian, and...

Yet Aristotle’s excellence of substance, so far from being associated with the grand style, is associated with something that at times comes perilously near jargon.

Inasmuch as society cannot go on without discipline of some kind, men were constrained, in the absence of any other form of discipline, to turn to discipline of the military type.

The industrial revolution has tended to produce everywhere great urban masses that seem to be increasingly careless of ethical standards.

A remarkable feature of the humanitarian movement, on both its sentimental and utilitarian sides, has been its preoccupation with the lot of the masses.

The humanities need to be defended today against the encroachments of physical science, as they once needed to be against the encroachment of theology.

One of our federal judges said, not long ago, that what the American people need is ten per cent of thought and ninety per cent of action.

The papacy again, representing the traditional unity of European civilization, has also shown itself unable to limit effectively the push of nationalism.

According to the new ethics, virtue is not restrictive but expansive, a sentiment and even an intoxication.

One should, therefore, in the interests of democracy itself seek to substitute the doctrine of the right man for the doctrine of the rights of man.

The true humanist maintains a just balance between sympathy and selection.

Act strenuously, would appear to be our faith, and right thinking will take care of itself.

Perhaps as good a classification as any of the main types is that of the three lusts distinguished by traditional Christianity – the lust of knowledge, the lust of sensation, and the lust of power.

The ultimate binding element in the medieval order was subordination to the divine will and its earthly representatives, notably the pope.

An American of the present day reading his Sunday newspaper in a state of lazy collapse is one of the most perfect symbols of the triumph of quantity over quality that the world has yet...