FEBRUARY 22, 1901.] 
it. It is evident that, the fewer the num- 
ber of traditional elements that enter into 
our reasoning and the clearer we endeavor 
to be in regard to the hypothetical part of 
our reasoning, the more logical will be our 
conclusions. There is an undoubted ten- 
dency in the advance of civilization to 
eliminate traditional elements, and to gain 
a clearer and clearer insight into the hy- 
pothetical basis of our reasoning. It is 
therefore not surprising, that, with the ad- 
vanee of civilization, reasoning becomes 
more and more logical, not because each 
individual carries out his thought in a 
more logical manner, but because the tra- 
ditional material which is handed down to 
each individual has been thought out and 
worked out more thoroughly and more 
carefully. While in primitive civilization 
the traditional material is doubted and ex- 
amined by only a very few individuals, the 
number of thinkers who try to free them- 
selves from the fetters of tradition increases 
as Civilization advances. 
The influence of traditional material 
upon the life of man is not restricted to his 
thoughts, but manifests itself no less in his 
activities. The comparison between civil- 
ized man and primitive man in this re- 
spect is even more instructive than in the 
preceding case. A comparison between the 
modes of life of different nations, and par- 
ticularly of civilized man and of primitive 
man, makes it clear that an enormous 
number of our actions are determined en- 
tirely by traditional associations. When 
we consider, for instance, the whole range 
of our daily life, we notice how strictly 
we are dependent upon tradition that can 
not be accounted for by any logical reason- 
ing. We eat our three meals every day, 
and feel unhappy if we have to forego one 
of them. There is no physiological reason 
which demands three meals a day, and we 
find that many people are satisfied with 
two meals, while others enjoy four or even 
SCIENCE. 
287 
more. The range of animals and plants 
which we utilize for food is limited, and we 
have a decided aversion against eating dogs, 
or horses, or cats. There is certainly no 
objective reason for such aversion, since a 
great many people consider dogs and horses 
as dainties. When we consider fashions, 
the same becomes still more apparent. To 
appear in the fashions of our forefathers of 
two centuries ago would be entirely out of 
the question, and would expose one to ridi- 
cule. The same is true of table manners. 
To smack one’s lips is considered decidedly 
bad style, and may even excite feelings of 
disgust ; while among the Indians, for in- 
stance, it would be considered as in exceed- 
ingly bad taste not to smack one’s lips when 
one is invited to dinner, because it would 
suggest that the guest does not enjoy his 
dinner. The whole range of actions that 
are considered as proper and improper can 
not be explained by any logical reason, but 
are almost all entirely due to custom ; that 
is to say, they are purely traditional. This 
is even true of customs which excite strong 
emotions, as, for instance, those produced 
by infractions of modesty. 
While in the logical processes of the 
mind we find a decided tendency, with the 
development of civilization, to eliminate 
traditional elements, no such marked de- 
crease in the force of traditional elements 
ean be found in our activities. These are 
almost as much.controlled by custom among 
ourselves as they are among primitive man. 
It is easily seen why this should be the 
case. The mental processes which enter 
into the development of judgments are 
based largely upon associations with pre- 
vious judgments. I pointed out before, 
that this process of association is the same 
among primitive man as among civilized 
man, and that the difference consists largely 
in the modification of the traditional ma- 
terial with which our new perceptions 
amalgamate. In the case of activities, the 
