It does hold on to it only, quid pro quo

Darwin's straightforwardness in his rather categorically summing up a human's some doings for others as not based on some sublime faith or any obligingness motivated by a deep-seated spiritual shine but just of this same self-cherishing urge of getting oneself hallowed, and not doing something lousy as just of this fear or prejudice of getting oneself slandered by others has something of its own justification, given the rife mental disposition, edgy and so sensitive, of now one comes across on a daily basis, so much for whitening oneself by any means available, like saying something and doing something else, saying something and thinking something else, doing something by letting it be known, catchy, just a face lift, and for the worst case by telling fib after fib. I wonder how he could hint then at the present edginess? Was it so then as well, even without internet, one's core lost in the flurries of flitting, harrowing little conceptualisations on this and that as good-looking or ugly?