Recent events have brought into discussion, in newspapers and elsewhere, the questions suggested by the above caption.
There is perhaps no question in human affairs which offers a wider field for speculation or play of the imagination than that which relates to the peculiarities of the human, mortal mind. Where to draw the line as to the conceits and vagaries which so largely go toward making up the sum total of human beliefs, and even human wisdom, has been a problem that has ever puzzled philosophers and thinkers. If we remember correctly it was Josh Billings who defined a crank as being a fellow who thought that every fellow who differed with him was a crank.
There is a deal of homely philosophy in this witticism. A crank is usually supposed to be a kind of lunatic—a wild, erratic, and irresponsible person. The man of fixed and bigoted views resulting from heredity, early surroundings, and biases, which may owe their existence to a thousand different causes, is almost certain, in the ordinary way, to go through this mortal life the slave of these influences to such an extent that he cannot be changed therefrom. He, therefore, measures all things from his prejudiced and preconceived point of view.
