he says nothing; if he is not, he most illogically kicks up a row. So
that even if the suppression of blame involved the suppression of praise
the change would certainly be a change for the better. But I can
perceive no reason why the suppression of blame should involve the
suppression of praise. On the contrary, I think that the habit of
praising should be
fostered.
(I do not suggest the occasional use of trowels, but the regular use of
salt-spoons.) Anyhow, the triumph of the brain over the natural
instincts (in an ideally organised man the brain and the natural
instincts will never have even a tiff) always means the ultimate triumph
of kindness.

And, further, the culture of the brain, the constant disciplinary
exercise of the reasoning faculty, means the diminution of misdeeds. (Do
not imagine I am hinting that you are on the verge of murdering your
wife or breaking into your neighbour's house. Although you personally
are guiltless, there is a good deal of sin still committed in your
immediate vicinity.) Said Balzac in _La Cousine Bette_, 'A crime is in
the first instance a defect of reasoning powers.' In the appreciation of
this truth, Marcus Aurelius was, as usual, a bit beforehand with Balzac.
M. Aurelius said, 'No soul wilfully misses truth.' And Epictetus had
come to the same conclusion before M. Aurelius, and Plato before
Epictetus. All wrong-doing is done in the sincere belief that it is the
best thing to do. Whatever sin a man does he does either for his own
benefit or for the benefit of society. At the moment of doing it he is
convinced that it is the only thing to do. He is mistaken. And he is
mistaken because his brain has been unequal to the task of reasoning the
matter out. Passion (the heart) is responsible for all crimes. Indeed,
crime is simply a convenient monosyllable which we apply to what happens