The result is that we ordinarily find it most comfortable to associate on a basis of income， combined with and modified by the influence of occupation， culture and special tastes.And yet to do this is perhaps a confession of failure， a confession that we do not know how to cast off the adventitious and meet as men.The most superficial differences， being the most apparent， impose themselves upon our commonly indolent and sensuous states of mind.
In proportion to their energy men will always seek power.It is， perhaps， the deepest of instincts， resting directly on the primary need for self-expression.
But the kind of power sought will take many forms.
Wealth stands， in modern society， for nearly all the grosser and more tangible forms； for power over material goods， primarily， and secondarily over the more purchasable kinds of human activity -- hand labor， professional services， newspaper commendation， political assiduity and so on.The class that has it is， in all such matters， the strong class， and naturally our coarser thought C011cludes that this is the kind of power most worth consideration.
In all the obvious details of life， in that seeking for petty advantages and immunities in which most of our time is passed， at the store or the railway station， we are measured by money and are apt to measure others so.The ascendancy of wealth is too natural to disappear.Children prize possessions before they can talk， and readily learn that money is possession generalized.Indeed， only the taste for finer possessions can or should drive out that for lower.
And yet all clear minds， or rather all minds in their clearer moments， may see that wealth is not the chief good that the commonplace and superficial estimate makes it.It is simply a low form of power， important in measure to the group and to the individual， but easily preoccupying the mind beyond its just claim.If society gets material prosperity too fast， its spiritual life suffers， as is somewhat the case in our day： and the individual is in peril of moral isolation and decay as soon as he seeks to get richer than his fellows.
The finest and， in the long run， the most influential minds， have for the most part not cared for riches， or not cared enough to go out of their way to seek them， preferring to live on bare necessities if they must rather than spend their lives in an uncongenial scramble.And the distinctively spiritual leaders have always regarded them as inconsistent with their aims."Provide neither gold， nor silver， nor brass in your purses， nor scrip for your journey！ neither two coats， neither shoes， nor yet staves." Not that Christianity is opposed to industrial prosperity？the contrary is the case梑ut that Christian leadership required the explicit renunciation of prosperity's besetting sin.In our day the life of Thoreau， among others， illustrates how a man may have the finer products of wealth 梩he culture of all times梬hile preferring to remain individually poor.He held that for an unmarried student， wishing first of all to preserve the independence of his mind， occasional day labor， which one can do and have done with， is the best way of getting a living."A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone." " It makes but little difference whether you are committed to a farm or the county jail." The thoroughgoing way in which this doctrine is developed in his Walden and other books makes them a vade mecum for the impecunious idealist.
Professor William James asserts that the prevalent fear of poverty among the educated classes is the worst moral disease from which civilization suffers， paralyzing their ideal force."Think of the strength which personal indifference to poverty would give us if we were devoted to unpopular causes.