CALLING MEN FOOLS.

West Coast Times, Issue 2853, 25 May 1878, Page 4

CALLING MEN FOOLS.

(FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES.)

The common way of dealing with a man whose opinions differ radically frow our own is to call him a fool, or* at least to think him one. We nre very sincere in onr estimation, 10-* ; for our egotism is such that we cannot conceive a mind ot' any intelligence as sincerely dissenting from our views. Mukmg ourselves tbe standard of reason and good seriHe, we imujjiue divergence from our mode, ot thought to b« indicuiivp of folly. It stldoni occurs to us that oilier* have as much right and cause to judge harshly of our wisdom, because we differ from them, as we have to judge harshly of theirs b«- cause they differ from us If our judgment of one another, on account of opposite opinions, were correct, this planet would he peopled with fools. Not only is it very rude, under ordinary circumstances, to call any mau a fool, it is altogether superfluous, a mere waste of breath. Hardly anybody so designated believes the designator sincere ; it is ascribed to irritaiion or annoyance. If anybody deems the charge sincere, he regards the charger as being a fool for his lamentable lack of judgment, his total want of penetration. The unadulterated, superlative, irretrieveable fool is he who is capable of supposing for a moment that we are fools. Our dislike of so absolute an ass is usually softened by pity, since nothing less than positive imbecility could make such a notion possible. The sole reason way be is at large is that he is so deeply and hopelessly deranged that to put him in a lunatic asylum would render all the inmates incurable by the irresistible influence of his distemper.

Never call a man a fool if you care to pass in his mind ever after for anything else yourself. Your accusation against him will become his conviction concerning you. He may say, " You may think me a fool, but I know you to be one." You will gain his perpetual ill-will, and with no sort of indemnification. If you could prove the truth of your statement before the whole world, if you could offer the btst evidence, the moe.t irrefragable arguments, you would not influence him a whit. The universal rule of eelfpreservation obstructs your way ; you could as soon make him accept your demonstration as you could reverse the law of gravitation. It is essential to the continued habitation of the globe that human beings should be immovably sceptical of any and every impeachment of this kind. If they could be persuaded that they were fools, universal suicide would be imminent. The first and last vanity to which we cling is that, whatever our fellows may be, we have something more than our share of wisdom.

To what extent persons are sensible ot their deficiences cannot be divined, since they hide such consciousness not only v - from others, but, so far as they can, even from themselves. Many of them must perceive their own moral failings, although they may veneer and justify them. There must be people who recognise as a fact that honesty is not one of their possessions. They imagine, no doubt, that they are as honest as most folks ; as honest as circumstances will allow them to be; as honest aa they ought to be, in short, considering their provocations, opportunities, and temptations. There must be those who cannot remain blind to their extreme selfishness, albeit they do not think it extreme. To their mind it is the selfishness which experience of the world teaches, which is necessary for self protection, which, while it discards sentiment, is inseparable from entire practicality. The injustice of many men must have grown familiar to them by years of its practice, whatever excuse they may find for it in the sophistry of which self love is so prolific. There must bt> any number of bad habits and depraved conditions of which the guilty are fully sensible, stubbornly as they might deny their guilt if accused. But there seems to be no suspicion in men of their mental disqualifications. The more they blunder, the more they insist that they have not blundered ; the greater their silliness, the deeper the conviction of their sagacity. They bitterly resent tbe slightest imputation upon their judgment, their understanding, their perspicacity. While they may be willing to confess their moral shortcomings — perhaps they may be even vain of these — they never can be induced to believe in any degree in their intellectual incompetency. Man is prouder of what he conceives to be his mind and his mental acquirements than he is of any number of exalted virtues. To pronounce him a grievous sinner seldom disturbs him j to arraign him as a fool insures his la3ting resentment, without shaking a particle of his faith in bis wisdom. The nearer a man is to being a fool the more absolutely certain is he that he is nothing of the kind. Wise men know that they are foolish sometimes, but your genuine fool believes that he and folly are divided by eternal barriers.

" Berkeley, September, 1869, — Gentleman, I feel it a duty I owe to you to express my gratitude for the great benefit I have derived by taking 'Norton's Camomile Pills. I applied to your agent, Mr Bell, Berkeley, for the above named Pills, for wind in the stomach, from which I have suffered excruciating pain for a length of time, having tried nearly every remedy prescribed, bat -without deriving any benefit at all. After taking two bottles of your valuable pills I .was quite restored to my usual state of health. Please give this publicity for the benefit of those who may thuß be afficted. — I am, Sir yours truly, Henbt Allpass. — To the Proprietor of Norton's Camomile Pills." [adyt.]

The silver mines of Cerro de Par-o in Peru since their discovery in 1692 have yielded silver to the value of 100 millions sterling.