This is the first in a series of articles whose somewhat idealistic aim
is to give impetus to constructive thinking by students towards self—improve—
bin,e this series shall be called "Character,n we should first define
Gl'as xa - „1-er illusive term. Character may be defined as the aggregate of dis—
Invo qualities or attributes belonging to an individual—impressed by na—
t'.l,.a, ecs.l4ntion or habit('
, 'Fiat u t who is to be the best judge of your character? No one but yo can
~ or i do this, for only you know your true self. The practice of intro , -
peotion may, in some cases, be carried to extremes, but that is not reason
enough to denounce it completely as one of the paths to a neurosis or psychosis.
iamost every great man was quite strict in his self—analysis, and achieved by
means the strength of character that is desired by us all, whether con—
sciously or sub—consCiously.
Therefore, we may conclude that the first process to be perfected on the
rocky road of character-building is sincere objective introspection. In fact,
without this there can be no honest evaluation of our faults or strength; hence,
no true character improvement. Once this is achieved, howev - z, the road be
,Jomes much smoother, and a steady, uplifting progress is made.
Having given the "why," let us briefly examine the "how" of introspection.,
If this is done sincerely, there will be lititle diffiulty encountered, and the
first step'is safely behind us, Pick a desirable trait, and decide to what
extent you think it should be carried. I his can be done by observing it in
someone you think has perfected it. Then, thinking of what you have done con—
cerning this trait, etaluate yourself honestly, and formulate a plan whereby
your faults may be corrected, and good points bettered, Remember, this task
is not an easy one, for you must, in most cases, overcome some deeply ingrained
habits. However difficult the task, the rewards are handsome, not only to you,
but to all the people with whom you associate.
(Hazleton vs, Wilkes—Barre)
The Hazleton Campus basketball team
edged out a scrappy Wilkes-Barre out
fit 52-50 in a well-played tilt at the
Nanticoke gym.
Bob Sarnoski and Jim Meiss were the
standotts for Hazleton, with 16 and 15
points respectively.
Other scored for the Hawks were
Rodzewich, Marciniak, Hnat, E. Samos-.
ki, Lucas ) and Tihansky,b
The best bets for Wilkes—Barre were
Vurbin and Ostrowski.
(NEXT ISSUE.O*...SINCERITY)
The local cage represantattves in the
Penn State Campus League continued their
winning ways and slaughtered the Scran—
ton Center 95-59 in a game played at the
I.47tterts court.
Jim Meiss turned in another terrific
night for the Hawks as he carried 23
points and turned in a good all—around
performance*
Also contributing greatly to the vic—
tory were Hnat, Rodzewich and Marciniak.
(Hazleton vs. Scranton)