The Study of Consciousness and Behavior 19 
their consciousness; he can allow that to run itself off 
when he is sure of their temper and habits. A great 
master of affairs is usually unsympathetic. His obser- 
vation is not in the least dramatic or dreamful, he does 
not yield himself to animal contagion or reénact other 
people’s inward experience. He is too busy for that, 
and too intent on his own purposes. His observation, 
on the contrary, is straight calculation and inference, 
and it sometimes reaches truths about people’s character 
and destiny which they themselves are very far from 
divining. Such apprehension is masterful and odious to 
weaklings, who think they know themselves because they 
indulge in copious soliloquy (which is the discourse of 
brutes and madmen), but who really know nothing of 
their own capacity, situation, or fate.’ 4 
Mr. Santayana elsewhere hints that both psychology and 
history will become studies of human behavior considered 
from without, — a part, that is, of what he calls physics, — 
if they are to amount to much. 
Such a prediction may come true. But for the present 
there is no need to decide which is better — to study an 
animal’s self as conscious, its stream of direct experience, 
or to study the intellectual and moral nature that causes its 
behavior in thought and action and is known to many 
observers. Since worthy men have studied both, both are 
probably worthy of study. All that I wish to claim is the 
right of a man of science to study an animal’s intellectual 
and moral behavior, following wherever the facts lead — to 
‘the sum total of human experience considered as dependent 
upon the experiencing person,”’ to the self as conscious, or to 
a connection-system known to many observers and born 
and bred in the animal’s body. 
1 Reason in Common Sense, p. 154 ff. 
