"_May not the elimination of anger and worry take away some of the stimulation to effort that is necessary to human progress?_" [Sidenote: Emancipation not Weakness] "Assuredly not. The absence of anger and worry is an evidence of strength and not of weakness. So-called righteous anger is a weakness in the presence of judicial calm. Without anger and worry one is stronger to ward off a blow, administer a correction, or protect a principle. The emancipated mind is as eager for effort as a child is for play. Freed from anger and worry one can shovel more dirt, plough more furrows, perform every duty better, and with less fatigue, than if under their influence." "_Are there examples in every-day life, among every-day people, that prove the possibility of superiority over anger and worry?_" [Sidenote: The Strongest Evidence] "Yes. Habitually profane men do not swear in the presence of ladies. Vicious men are gentle when among those whom they respect. The passions are subservient to the will under conditions that reverence or fashion prescribe. _If they are subservient under any conditions they can be controlled under all conditions._ Nothing for instance, could make you angry while we are talking on this subject, because you would feel ashamed to show slavery to a condemned and unmanly weakness." "_If it is possible to get rid of the depressing passions, and they are so unprofitable, why has not mankind become emancipated long before this?_" [Sidenote: Why not Always Known] "This question can best be answered by asking others. Why were a personal devil and witches and filmy ghosts considered possibilities as late as the beginning of this century? Why was human slavery believed to be a divine institution by the majority of the world's inhabitants as late as fifty years ago? Why are the divine right of kings, and the assumption that the sovereign can do no wrong, possibilities of the present? Why is it possible that a Supreme Court of the United States can be divided on questions of political significance, and the points of difference of opinion be in harmony with the previous political affiliations of the justices? Politics represent the selfish in human contact as at present managed, while justice is supposed to be spotlessly unselfish; yet the former unblushingly invades the sanctuary of the latter, because selfishness is held to be a necessity." [Sidenote: Emancipation not Selfish] "_Is not the condition of Emancipation selfish? Is it not selfish not to worry for one's friend, even if self-worry is eliminated?_"