28 WILLIAM JAMES ON 



few considerations, which may give at least an appearance of liveliness to the alternative 

 notion, that the mental effort with which the affirmatioi^ of reality so often comes con- 

 joined, may be an adventitious phenomenon, not wholly given and pre-determined by the 

 ideas of whose struggle it accompanies the settlement. 



A little natural history becomes here necessary. When outer forces impinge upon a 

 body we say that its resultant motion follows the line of least resistance, or of greatest 

 traction. When we deliberately symbolize the mental drama in mechanical language, 

 we also say that belief and will follow the lines of least resistance, or of most attractive 

 motivation. But it is a curious fact that our fipontaneous language is by no means com- 

 patible with the law that mental action always follows lines of least resistance. Of course, 

 if we proceed a priori and define the line of least resistance, as the line that is followed, 

 the law must hold good. But in all hard cases either of belief or will, it seems to the 

 agent as if one line were easier than another, and offered least resistance, even at the 

 moment when the other line is taken. The sailor at the pumps, he who under the sur- 

 geon's knife represses cries of pain, or he who exposes himself to ostracism for duty's 

 sake, feels as if he were following the line of greatest temporary resistance. He speaks 

 of conquering and overcoming his impulses and temptations. 



But the sluggard, the drunkard, the coward, never talk of their conduct in that way 

 or say they resist their enei-gy, overcome their sobriety, conquer their courage and so forth. 

 If in general we class all motives as sensual on the one hand and moral on the other, the 

 sensualist never says of his behavior that it results from a victory over his conscience, but 

 the moralist always speaks of his as a victory over his appetite. The sensualist uses terms 

 of inactivity, says he forgets his ideal, is deaf to duty and so forth ; which terms seem to 

 imply that the moral motives per se can be annulled without energy or effort, and that the 

 strongest mere traction lies in the line of the sensual impulse. The moral one appears 

 in comparison with this, a still small voice which must be artificially reinfoi'ced to prevail. 

 Effort is what reinforces it, making things seem as if, while the sensual force were 

 essentially a fixed quantity, the moral might be of various amount. But what determines 

 the amount of the effort when by its aid moral force becomes victorious over a great 

 sensual resistance ? The very greatness of the resistance itself. If the sensual impulses 

 are small, the moral effort is small. The latter is made great by the presence of a great 

 antagonist to overcome. And if a brief definition of moral action were required, none 

 could be given which would better fit the appearances than this : It is action in the 

 line of the greatest resistance. 



The facts may be most briefly symbolized thus, S standing for the sensual motive, M for 

 the moral and E for the effort : 



Wper se < S. 

 M + E > S. 



In other words, if E adds itself to M, S immediately offers the least resistance, and 

 motion occurs in spite of it. 



But the E does not seem to form an integral part of the M. It appears adventitious 

 and indeterminate in advance. We can make more or less as we please, and if we make 

 enough we can convert the greatest mental resistance into the least. 



