answer to-day, an answer which must be different, as man is different,
from the answers that were given in the past. A satisfactory answer is
impossible without understanding clearly the relation between the Old
and the New, and without taking account of the great, if partial, truths
that the realistic schemes of life have taught mankind.

To accept unreservedly Naturalism, Socialism, and Individualism is
impossible, for these rob life of its deeper meaning. To return to the
older doctrines without reserve is equally impossible.

Shall we ignore the question? This would be a fatal mistake. Some throw
themselves into the rush of work, and endeavour to forget the deeper
problems of life--but "the result is a life all froth and shimmer,
lacking inward sincerity, a life that can never in itself satisfy them,
but only keep up the appearance of doing so." There must be some
decision; for is not society being more and more broken up into small
sections, possessing the most variable standards of life, and
evaluating things in a diversity of ways? Such an inward schism must
weaken any effort on the part of humanity to combine for ideal ends.
Perhaps he of narrow vision, who sees nothing in life but sensuous
pleasure, is happy--but it is the happiness of the lower world. Perhaps,
too, he of the superficial mind is happy, who sees no deep
contradictions in the solutions offered, and is prepared to accept one
to-day and another tomorrow--but his happiness is that of the feeble
mind.

What then can be done? Shall we despair? Never! The question is far too
urgent. To despair is to accept a policy that spells disaster to the
human race. The immediate environment is powerless to give life any real
meaning. We must probe deeper into the eternal--and it is from such