must wear out. That is true so far. But it so happens that the analogy is
not just, and therefore the conclusions it points to are not tenable.

Man is altogether different from every other animal, every other living
creature known. He is different in body. In his purely natural state--in his
true natural state--he is immeasurably stronger. No animal approaches to the
physical perfection of which a man is capable. He can weary the strongest
horse, he can outrun the swiftest stag, he can bear extremes of heat and
cold hunger and thirst, which would exterminate every known living thing.
Merely in bodily strength he is superior to all. The stories of antiquity,
which were deemed fables, may be fables historically, but search has shown
that they are not intrinsically fables. Man of flesh and blood is capable
of all that Ajax, all that Hercules did. Feats in modern days have surpassed
these, as when Webb swam the Channel; mythology contains nothing equal to
that. The difference does not end here. Animals think to a certain extent,
but if their conceptions be ever so clever, not having hands they cannot
execute them.

I myself maintain that the mind of man is practically infinite.
It can understand anything brought before it. It has not the
power of its own motion to bring everything before it, but when
anything is brought it is understood. It is like sitting in a
room with one window; you cannot compel everything to pass the
window, but whatever does pass is seen. It is like a magnifying glass, which
magnifies and explains everything brought into its focus. The mind of man is
infinite. Beyond this, man has a soul. I do not use this word in the common
sense which circumstances have given to it. I use it as the only term to
express that inner consciousness which aspires. These brief reasons show
that the analogy is imperfect, and that therefore, although an ideal
animal--a horse, a dog, a lion--must die, it does not follow that an ideal