A
PHILOSOPHER'S WAIL
OF SLACKERY
BY
PHILO PSYCHO SLACK.
* \）/ （S * D * N N O CD '№łO O SO O
>{{CIGIONHHOS SH?HOGIOGIH JL
on uunnºu aoſ poºlueren § 93eļsod 'pauºAſſºpun JI
è+ TH. L. L\7 VN C13H_LIN I è+ c）
Ļt leſ º ſºQ)

2a4-4**** A.....tº...,
23:4::1…." isºs
32:… }};, A
PHILOSOPHER'S WAIL
OF SLACKERY
BY
PHILO PSYCHO SLACK
NEVER-MIND-WHO
NOR WHERE
1918
*
“If you desire philosophy, prepare your-
self from the beginning to be ridiculed, to
expect that many will sneer at you.”
And remember that if you abide in the
same principle these men who first ridi-
cule will afterward admire you, but if
you should be overpowered by them, you
will bring on yourself double ridicule.****
Remember that it is not he who reviles
3you or strikes, who insults you, but it is
wour opinion about these things as being
insulting.” Souvestre.
A PHILOSOPHER'S WAIL
OF SLACKERY
In the New Republic for May 4th,
1918, I read a letter by Alvin Johnson,
addressed “To a Slacker”, an uncome
mon philosophic slacker. In glowing
rhetoric he points to the futility of phil-
osophers in this hour of stress and storm,
To emphasize the humiliation he reminds
them that they were destined to find
themselves worth less for war than the
tonnage required to carry them overseas.
With the claws of his mockery frankly
uncovered and with his fervid war en-
thusiasm, he reproaches the philosopher
for “expounding the eternal verities to
the women, the inoffensive enemy aliens,
and men rejected by the service. Tooth-
less you felt” he tells them “but a lion
nevertheless. And that is your excuse, if
there were indeed an excuse for slacking.”
Scornfully he asks: “What are you
(philosophers) doing to illuminate the
way to a better world?” And trium-
phantly he answers “nothing”!
3
Although Alvin Johnson does not know
me from a side of sole-leather, that letter,
directed against the philsopher-slacker,
was nevertheless addressed to me. I am
a philosophic slacker, and I arise to make
a defense. I intend to be true to the
slacker type by remaining anonymous.
This will enable me to make a better de-
fense, by being more frank about myself.
Also: it will give others the joy of saying:
“See, they are all cowards”! Since I am
to remain anonymous I must tell about
myself to furnish a background for my
defense.
BIOGRAPHICAL
Nearly twenty years ago I gave up a
lucrative profession to become something
or other, that can be called a philosopher,
if the word is not used in too narrow and
technical a sense. I was assured an in-
come about equal to a union bricklayer's
wages. I was content to live within this
and philosophize. I have now given fully
Io hours a day for 18 years, to study and
to writing and have earned thereby
about $200.00. Utterly impractical, of
course! My literary output has been
published in over Ioo different periodicals
and in several books. These magazines
4.
I believe cover as great a variety of tech-
nical, professional and class journals as
are likely to stand to the credit of any
individual in America.
A very little of my material has been
republished in three foreign languages,
and some of it reviewed in a fourth for-
eign language. I think I have some un-
usual capacities for the service of de-
mocracy, and yet I am a slacker, an un-
common philosophic slacker.
My literary work has been wholly de-
voted to the liberation of mankind from
the tyrannies of governments, of fears and
of superstitions. In short, according to
my light, I have been spending much of
my life to make the world more sane for
democratization. I have ever sought to
enlarge my understanding and capacity
for this service and feel sure that my best
work remains yet to be done. I believe
this is so because I have recently achieved
a clear insight into the psychologic ap-
proach to human problems and into its
importance. I have just entered upon the
task of projecting the psychogenetic view-
point more thoroughly into philosophy and
the social sciences. A slacker's job, per-
haps.
5
FOR DEMOCRACY
In past years I tried to promote the
process of democratization, when all
around me people were slackers in the
cause of democracy and were discour-
aging me. Some resented my effort be-
cause democracy was already Sane and
safe; yes, too safe, and established in its
final essence. Others said we had too
much of it, and the world was already
too safe for those cranks who were in-
sisting upon ever more democracy. Yet
others said I was wasting my time be-
cause I said nothing about economic de-
terminism. None of these could see it
differently. So, I could not blame them,
though most of them then were tory-ene-
mies to the cause of further democrati-
zation. I still desire to promote all around
a more comfortable adjustment to the de-
mocratizing process. I see great demo-
cratic possibilities in this war. I could
easily make the war-problems a hook to
hang my lantern upon, and so I might shed
such philosophic light as I have. But I
find that now no one wants the calm, cold,
white light of philosophy. Most of the
articulate people and most of the editors
seem happy only when they “see red”. In
6
spite of my many years of unremunerated
toil for democracy, the lifetime slackers
of the past now vaingloriously denounce
me as a slacker, as if this were an un-
conscious compensation for their past
slacking and their past dislike or dis-
trust of more democracy.
SLACKERS OF THE PAST
I am still anxious to see the further
democratization of welfare, which Kai-
serism so ruthlessly prevents. I prefer
to see that greater democracy ushered into
being on the foundation of a larger un-
derstanding of the relations and the be-
havior of the human animal, rather than
upon the basis of blind resentment and
violence. I believe I am qualified to make
some valuable contribution to that larger
understanding. But just now nobody
wants his understanding enlarged, and
least of all by a philosopher or a genetic
psychologist. Therefore I am consigned
to the slacker-class by the past grand
masters of undemocratic slackerdom.
Now more than ever, people “know be-
cause they feel and are firmly convinced
because strongly agitated.” More than
ever before people KNOW that they
know, and so they also know that they
7
have no time for discourses on epistemol-
ogy. Yes! Yes! ! Brother Johnson's call
for mobilization of philosophers was less
prompted by delusion than by the love of
mockery; it was only in derision of our
“futility.” I understand.
FEELING NOT THINIKING
This is generally believed a time for
feeling not for thinking. It is generally
preferred that hysterical symptoms be
justified, glorified and sanctified. To ex-
plain them in terms of philosophy, or of
genetic psychology is conclusive proof
that one is pro-Turk, and treasonable to
the omnipotent autocrat indwelling in the
psyche of every neurotic. I will not waste
my energies in a futile effort to make a
world so largely controlled by hysterics
more sane for a maturer and more abund-
ant democracy. Until my kind can again
get a hearing, I will not butt my head
against a stone wall; I must remain a
silent philosophic slacker.
PRAYERS NOT PEIILOSOPHY
Prayer to the tribal gods of war is
more esteemed than appeals to philosophy.
In proportion to their fervor, those who
pray can also apply zest to stoning the
philsophers, if any of these attempt to
3
show them a better, saner way. See what
has always happened, and is already com-
ing to pass even in our country. Among
those who are unfit for service in the front
line trenches, I see the neurotics and
psychotics rapidly mobilizing. The ad-
vanced guard is already mounting to its
saddles, sticking its spurs into the sides
of the preoccupied philosophers, and per-
haps soon they will be riding for a fall.
Some of those popularly accredited as
being philosophers will allow an unsus-
'pected submerged personality to become
articulate. Then they will step from their
high places to pawn their former philo-
sophic prestige and to give rhetorical first
aid, to the victims of the “borderland”.
The remaining philosophers will be too
few to stem the on-coming hordes. As
sensible men we must step aside and sub-
mit to whatever reproach the multitude
may heap upon us.
CHEERS AND TEARS
We may wave our hats and lend our
cheers at the passing of this unarmed
army with many banners. We really be-
lieve in making the world safe for de-
mocratization. They will be happy in the
thought that we are applauding them. In
9
fact we pity them and mourn for a re-
flective democracy, on their account.
We wish they all had the calm sanity
and understanding of President Wilson,
but unfortunately this is still impossible.
Secretly we are seeking consolation in the
thought that after all many of the crowd
are promoting a kind of democratization
that it may not love, by ways that it does
not understand. We are sad that the
great crowd cannot work more intelligent-
ly, more consciously, more directly, and
therefore more efficiently toward the ulti-
mate and perhaps unattainable goal of the
fullest democratization of welfare. But,
with philosophic fortitude we accept the
fact that this is as impossible for them as
the imitation of their performance is im-
possible for most of us. When the storm
is over, if we are alive, some of us philos-
ophers may explain it all for the next gen-
eration. The scoffer will scornfully say
with truth, that our reputation for om-
niscience will suffer less if we avoid pro-
phesy and leadership and do not explain
till the war is long past. Even our ancient
prestige seems to demand that we remain
slackers.
INSTINCT NOT REFLECTION
I want to see Kaiserism beaten at its
10
own violent game and in all its forms. I
should prefer to have it done by means of
a resistance begun and conducted with a
maximum of democratic initiative, man-
agement and understanding. But even
this way of putting it discredits me in
several influential quarters. Obviously I
am only intellectually democratic and re-
flectively patriotic. It is true that in all
matters, I try to avoid having my feelings
determine my thinking and have trained
myself to hold the feelings in abeyance
for attachment to the scientific method and
its fruits. Just now such democracy and
such patriotism are “on the blink.” What
is demanded to win the war is “instinctive
patriotism,” which in psychologic terms
is largely a blind hysterical patriotism.
For this reason also I must remain a philo-
sophic slacker.
EMOTIONAL CONFLICT NOT POISE
When we were about to get into the
war, a German Jew in a public restaurant
assaulted a Britisher for not standing up
when the “Star Spangled Banner” was
played. The daily papers, that wouldn't
publish a plea for sanity, encouraged the
unhinging of reason by lauding this Ger-
man as a patriot and a hero. The thriller
1]
that stimulates unreason sells more papers
than philosophic bromides that make for a
philosophic calm and sanity. I am a phil-
osopher and too old to be a prizefighter.
So evidently I must still remain a slacker.
An Austrian Jew has been making num-
erous public speeches in some of which
the papers report that he advocated mob
violence against those who are only sus-
pected of German sympathy. Most of
my friends had never heard of him be-
fore although he is a western politician.
However, he was introduced to one of his
audiences by a very well known Jew with
a German name who proclaimed his rela-
tively obscure fellow bi-countryman as the
most eminent person that had ever emi-
grated from Austria. The foregoing in.
citement to lawlessness and encourage-
ment to mental instability received large
headlines in some daily papers, and re-
ceived quite general applause. My interest
in democracy is still so great, that even in a
war for democracy I believe in maintain-
ing the constitutional right of trial by
jury. But a defense of such a democracy
is not wanted and cannot get a hearing.
Evidently I am doomed to remain a phil-
osopher-slacker.
A friend of mine who has some official
12
importance and by a strange coincidence
is also an Austrian jew, is making patriotic
speeches in cities with large German popu-
lation. He has not yet outgrown his very,
very German accent. This doubtless adds
to his patriotic efficiency among his fellow-
naturalized-citizens. So far so good. But,
according to my newspaper reading, he
was the first man of prominence to advo-
cate publicly the perpetual suppression of
all German language periodicals. Since
then the movement has spread like an up-
roar in a mad house. I am a psychologist.
I understand better than these distin-
guished persons the real import of this
emotional patriotism on the part of such
reconstructed Germans. I will not now
be so ungracious as to tell the truth about
that, but I hope to keep my own thinking
straight enough to know the difference be-
tween a war against German autocracy
with its international lawlessness and a
war against the German language. I am
also enough of a democrat to believe in
the foundation of all democracy, to wit:
Constitutional freedom of speech and
press. But of these matters no editor now
cares to read. So I must remain a demo-
cratic slacker.
13
SPECIALIZED SERVICE REJECTED
Once I thought I saw a needed war
work of a kind for which I had some very
special qualifications. I am highly spec-
ialized concerning unusual specialities. I
have also a background of uncommon
diversity of human experiences and human
contacts. For the work to be done, I
believe that accidental circumstances had
forced upon me a combination of special
capacities that are seldom united in one
person. In a letter to the President I
pointed these matters out, all too briefly,
and offered my services.. My services
were refused. It might have been differ-
ent if it were possible for the President
to give personal attention to all letters
addressed to him. At least he would have
a larger understanding and a maturer vis-
ion than a departmental clerk. One of the
latter passed upon my suggestion and
probably had no understanding of the
meaning of my specialties, or of their pos-
sible use. Both from his viewpoint, and
that of the general public, very convincing
reasons were discoverable which required
that I remain an uncommon slacker. A
group of philosophers to whom I could
have made a full presentation of my ca-
pacities and plans, might possibly have
14
reached a different conclusion. I was
probably a fool-philosopher for even mak-
ing the suggestion under existing circum-
stances and perhaps for the same reason,
I must remain a futile slacker.
RICH AND I. W. W. AGREE
For once our most boisterous patriots of
the variety with whom “money talks”, and
the Industrial Workers of the World are in
entire harmony. Both are agreed that
philosophy and its best methods should be
dispensed with as futile; that the philoso-
pher is only a luxurious and pretentious
parasite whose professional work neither
bakes bread nor makes explosives. I am
democratic enough to accept even that
verdict against myself. On a vacation
from philosophising I am devoting myself
to a war-garden. That is “practical” with-
in the range of their understanding. Many
of the I. W. W. and the hysterical patriots
have no use for the calm light that phil-
osophy can furnish. The philosophic rem-
nant is too small and almost without a
voice in this democratic war. So I remain
a slacker, perhaps some will say an un-
democratic slacker.
DRAMATICS NOT DEMOCRACY
Even the sanest of our periodicals are
15
yielding to this spirit of unreason. Some
fall into line a little belated, but they are
falling. Perhaps before very long I too
will regress from a reflective to an instinct-
ive mode of behavior. One ancient and
honorable Professor Emeritus of Philoso-
phy has already set the pace. In one of
his essays published in the New York
Times, he exhibits a subjectivism so
thorough that it should make every neu-
rotic envious. So even the judicially
minded editor must shape the editorial
policy according to the prevailing moods
created by the feverish brains outside his
sanctum. Perhaps most editors are quite
unconscious of all this, but to a philosophic
slacker it appears both evident and inevi-
table. It shows itself in the fact that their
sanest editorials are all aimed at the focus
of the dramatic situation of the day or
week, not at the focal point of the demo-
cratic issue. Also: they are unable to di-
vide their space evenly between the physi-
cal efficiency and democratizing efficiency;
between physical war aims and cultural
war aims. So the perfectly sane editor
must also fall by the wayside either in
imitative fashion or by the route of ex-
tinction. I am older. My philosophic
habits and mental attitudes are perhaps
16
more fixed. Under this greater difficulty,
as a philosopher I must regretfully but in-
evitably remain a slacker.
PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL AIMS
I would like to do something toward ex-
tracting a maximum of democratization
out of this war; something to accentuate
the fine democratic turn which our Presi-
dent has projected into the world’s war
aims, with little enough of support in its
cultural and idealistic aspect. I notice
however that some of our temperamental
“democrats” are so very intensely inter-
ested in the physical combat that they con-
sider it evidence of traitorous purpose for
any one else to try to maintain the bal-
ance by emphasizing the accompanying
political, cultural, and welfare aspects of
democracy. They act as though the
physical conflict is all there is to it. Per-
haps it is all they understand of it. I
think it of the highest importance that we
succeed in the conflict of arms. But I
also believe that if we succeed there, and
do not also win in the cultural conflict
that will centre at the peace conference,
and spread from there in the years to
come, then the physical war is won and
the most important potential war effects
will have been lost. I cannot see that the
17
progress of democratization depends sc
predominantly upon political forms, writ-
ten constitutions and solemn treaties.
These are mere symptoms. They mean
much or little according to how much in-
telligence, as to the relations and behavior
of humans, there is behind our devotion to
forms and formulae. But to promote
democracy in that philosophic sense is re-
sented by many stay-at-home warriors.
These want only their family's and their
country's physical prowess glorified. They
will perhaps consent that it be done in the
verbiage of democracy and of philosophy,
but resent the neglect which comes from
pursuing the more impersonal philosophic
method.
RESENTING CALMNESS
I know the psychology of hysteria quite
thoroughly. I know how the hysteric
hates to be reminded of his failure to be
calm in a crisis. He resents with all his
hysteric vehemence the truthful implica-
tion that he is an inferior by virtue of
his emotional instability and his intensity.
He must make a moral, religious or pat-
riotic virtue of his affliction. This is
his chief compensation for hours, days and
weeks of depression and of secret conflict.
The psychologic imperative of the hysteri-
j 8
cal patriot precludes him from distinguish-
ing between a reflective American patriot
and a hysterical devotee to the Kaiser. He
is only morbidly conscious that both are
different from himself and irritating.
Therefore they are the same for his
blurred vision. Prudence dictates that I
scrupulously remain a philosophic slacker.
But why does Brother Johnson reproach
us for those infirmities of age which make
us unfit for the front line trench or for
more than three hours at a time in the war
garden? Why chide us with “dawdling
behind the front in a bombproof sine-
cure”? I agree that “now if ever the
world needs philosophy.” But the other
half of the truth is that now as never be-
fore the world resents philosophy, when
applied in the very quarters where the need
is the greatest. Never before were re-
flective philosophers so in danger from the
“instinctive patriotism” of our recon-
structed Germans, or of the “instinctive
democracy” of our feudal minded Ameri-
cans. Some of these are obviously, though
perhaps unconsciously, engaged in an in-
tense rivalry with the more efficient sadis.
tic autocrat of Germany. g
LEADERSHIP BY EMOTIONS
The leadership and the authority of
1 9
such persons tends to grow with the excite-
ment. This compels a calculating prudence
on the part of all philosopher-psycholo-
gists who might be tempted to apply their
scientific method and analytic philosophy,
with thoroughness, to the interpretation of
our war-psychology and to reinforcing the
cultural background for our democratizing
war aims. Regulating my life according
to the realities of my situation, I find that
a calculating prudence requires me to re-
main a philosophic slacker, except for a
few trifling anonymous lapses that conceal
more than is revealed of that which pro-
motes emotional stability, with grim but
calm determination, in the pursuit of our
war aims.
Our little section of the world does not
want any calm mixed with its “sublime”
passion. Many there are who have but
very little reflective patriotism or of re-
flective democracy. If then they should
lose even their morbid enthusiasm over the
war, for them all will be lost; all their
present glorious interest in a war to pro-
mote democratization would have been re-
placed by an aching void. So far they may
be correct in denouncing the demobiliza-
tion of passion and of morbidity. I can
extend to them in this hour of distress a
20
sympathetic understanding, even as to
their aversion to the application of phil.
osophy and of the scientific method to war
psychology and war aims. I accept that,
just as I accept the war, or any other real.
ity, as something that my philosophy must
deal with in shaping my own life. Only
those laboring under a delusion, or wish-
ing to hold us up to scorn will now call
upon the “futile” philosophers to treat a
sick world. Slyly, and under a slacker's
disguise, we will occasionally administer
to the patient a tiny sugar coated, homeo-
pathic pellet of philosophic medicine.
That is all we are permitted to do toward
romoting a reflective democracy, at least
until the epidemic has run its course.
Otherwise and in public we remain phil-
osophic, democratic slackers.
IEADERSHIP BY UNDERSTANDING
Yes! Of course, we will return to our
“futile” task as soon as the vegetables are
more plentiful. After the war the pendu-
lum will return to its norm. Then perhaps
the future historian will wonder why more
of democracy was not extracted from so
great and pregnant a calamity as this world
war. Then will come the hour for the
vindication of our philosophy and the utter
21
annihilation of the philistines. While rest-
ing from war-garden labors I will write a
few essays on psychic evolution in democ-
ratization, and upon other more philoso-
phic high brow stuff. Perhaps this will
uncover for future generations some of
the hollow self-deception and psychologic
tricks by which the world's statesmen,
jurists and heroes have unconsciously been
fooling themselves and fooling many of
the rest of humanity. After the war some
one will care to print it, and to read it.
This will be my contribution to the pro-,
motion of our democratic war aims. Yes,
it will be too late to have any influence on
this war or on its peace negotiations. Too
late perhaps to be of much influence upon
the present generation, or any other. But
what matters that so long as it does not at
present substitute anything as “futile” as
serious dispassionate thinking about politi-
cal and cultural war aims in lieu of
rapturous feeling over our physical war
program. Almost everybody demands that
we philosophers shall remain uncommon
philosophic slackers, and we must be con-
tent to seem so futile, that no “wind can
Sweep from our eyes the clinging cobwebs
of futility.” At least, not until after the
war, brother Johnson.
22
SERVICE THE STANDARD
It is not that life is so very dear to us
as to make us slackers. Most of us phil-
osophers are quite reconciled to an early
death. Many of us would be quite willing
to die with our shoes on if thereby we
could promote the process of democrati-
zation, appreciable more than by our few
remaining years as teachers. But our
training compels us to be quite calculat-
ing and calm even in balancing up that
account. So long as there is no efficient
group that can and will make more democ-
ratizing propaganda over our extinction
than we would make after the war by re-
maining on earth, we will probably think
it best to live a life of specially calculating
prudence during the war. This means that
we will not waste our energies by futilly
seeking to force our “futile” philosophy on
a resentful populace interested only in con.
suming passion for things that are al-
most foreign to our philosophy.
And yet it is only as philosophers that
we are slackers. As mere citizens we will
do “our bit”. My shining old frock coat
can be made to wear an extra year or two.
Thus will I save wool to win the war.
Daily I suspend philosophizing to work in
3.
23
a war garden. So I raise vegetables to
help win the war. I deny myself some
books and other intellectual “luxuries”.
So I buy a liberty bond or two, to help win
the war. I work in my garden bare
headed. This saves the price of a hat
with which I can help the Red Cross win
the war. I have personally repaired my
own discarded shoes and spliced my old
shoestrings. This also helps save a better
man-power for the war. Such piffling I
can do and am doing, to help win the war.
This the crowd can understand and appre-
ciate, but Philosophy? Not yet! Not yet!!
Sometime perhaps we will have enough
democrats with enough intelligence to
make a better use of philosophers. If life
and health remains then after the war I
will again resume the effort to increase
democratization within our democracies.
In the meantime, while waiting for democ-
racies to be open-minded for the further
maturing of democrats, I remain a com-
pulsory philosopher-slacker.
FOR PIHILOSOPHY AND DEMOCRACY
The philosophers temperament and his
scientific method, have some uses even in
war, but are indispensible to intelligently
maintain a lasting peace. Never yet have
philosophers settled their disputes through
24
policemen, duels or wars. In these par-
ticulars philosophers differ from reform-
ers, politicians and statesmen. In a world
dominated by a mature philosophy, there
will be so much of democracy in service
as to make war impossible. In this, phil-
osophers differ from business men. A
world of philosophers would have no need
for an international police force, or other
legalized violence. So philosophers dif-
fer from all who employ childish means
for the realization of immature desires.
Perhaps, therefore, more of real democ-
racy in education should be encouraged
as both a means and a consequence of the
democratization of welfare, the only con-
spicuous condition of a permanent peace
with greater freedom. For that service
no draft law will be passed. Have you
the fitness of desire, of vision and of cour-
age to volunteer in the cultural army for
accelerating the democracy of welfare?
Or will you be a slacker in that cause and
gladly return to the commercial war that
impedes democracy and that will promote
the next great slaughter?