me materialistic, even though at an earlier stage it was actuated by
the desire for opportunities of spiritual culture.

A genuinely socialistic culture, too, makes the individual of value only
as a member of society. This, Eucken affirms, is only true in the most
primitive societies. As civilisation progresses, man becomes conscious
of himself, and an inner life, which in its interests is independent of,
and often opposed to society, develops. His own thought becomes
important to man, and as his life deepens, religion, science, art, work
&c., become more and more a personal matter.

All such deepening of culture, and of creative spiritual activity, is a
personal matter. From this deepening and enriching of the inner life of
the individual proceeds creative spiritual activity, which attempts
spiritual tasks as an end in themselves, and which gradually builds up a
kingdom of truth and spiritual interest which immeasurably transcends
mere human standards. All these are historical facts of experience; the
socialistic system finds no place and no explanation for them, and
consequently it cannot be regarded as a sufficiently comprehensive
explanation of the problem. To a man who has once realised these
individual experiences, the merely human, socialistic system becomes
intolerable.

Again, if considerations of social utility limit creative activity, the
creations of such activity must be meagre in nature. Spiritual
creativeness is most fruitful when it is concerned with tasks that are
attempted for their intrinsic value, and is not fettered by the thought
of their usefulness to society.

It is, too, a dangerous thing to look for truth in the opinion of the
majority, for this is such a changing phenomenon that only a part, at
most, can be permanent truth. The course of history has taught us, too,
that great ideas have come to individuals and have been rejected by the
masses for long periods of time.

The immediate effect of the failure of socialism is the encouragement of
_individualism_, for indeed some of the arguments against the former are
arguments in favour of the latter. Individualism opens up a new life, a
life which is free, joyous, and unconventional.

But can individualism give a meaning and value to life as a whole? Man
cannot from his own resources produce a high ideal which compels him to
fight for higher development, and it is not possible for him from an
individualistic standpoint to regard himself as a