It is, too, a dangerous thing to look for truth in the opinion of the majority, for this is such a changing phenomenon that only a part, at most, can be permanent truth.  The course of history has taught us, too, that great ideas have come to individuals and have been rejected by the masses for long periods of time.

The immediate effect of the failure of socialism is the encouragement of individualism, for indeed some of the arguments against the former are arguments in favour of the latter.  Individualism opens up a new life, a life which is free, joyous, and unconventional.

But can individualism give a meaning and value to life as a whole?  Man cannot from his own resources produce a high ideal which compels him to fight for higher development, and it is not possible for him from an individualistic standpoint to regard himself as a 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.