Freud and Einstein

In Jeffrey Gordon's article 'Is War Inevitable?' in Philosophy Now 66, I read Freud's assertion to Einstein that man is driven by two powerful instincts, one of creation and one of destruction. In other word, man has an inherent urge to create and then destroy. Freud was knowledgeable in the perversion of man.

Even though Freud was not optimistic that man would or could ever stop making war, Einstein seemed encouraged by Freud's instinctive explanation, perhaps because Einstein focused more on man's creative aspect than on the destructive. Perhaps Einstein thought that as man got more creative in his ability to destroy himself he would eventually lose a desire for war and use reason instead. And in a sense that is what happened, with the help of none other than Einstein himself. Ironically, his discoveries allowed the creation of the atomic bomb, which would stymie future wars. Because of its destructive power it became a deterrent instead of a weapon. Nations have not gone to war with each other as they once did.

I also thought of the economist Joseph Schumpeter, who labeled capitalism 'creative destruction'. After WW2 and with the advent of atomic weapons, capitalism ascended around the world. Man still had his instinct for destruction, but now capitalism manifested and channeled this instinct in less harmful, more productive ways: with capitalism, man's destructive instinct combined with his creative instinct shifted to a more benign but peaceful form. Einstein's optimism for mankind still triumphs over Freud's pessimism.

The world is replete with opposites, like the two poles of electricity, the genders of male and female, up and down, day and night and the two strands of DNA. Freud made us aware of another combination, humanity's penchants for creation and destruction, opposites that are as immutable as the others.

Einstein was one that showed that the splitting of the atom in two would unleash an astonishing amount of energy.

More on pluralism

In his article in Issue 74 Stephen Anderson writes, "Pluralism is the most serious problem facing liberal democracies today". On the contrary. I think pluralism is one of the big things liberal democracy has going for it.

What makes liberal democracy attractive and the only expanding form of governance in the world is that it encourages and celebrates pluralism. Pluralism does make liberal democracy more complex but that complexity has made it more durable and resilient, as shown by 9/11, from which it recovered. Moreover, the competing interests of pluralism have served to make liberal democracy more sophisticate and agile. In comparison, liberal democracy's rival, communism, collapsed because it lacked the energizing push and pull of pluralism that could have helped rejuvenate and keep it relevant and legitimate. Even liberal democracy's name resonates pluralism in the fact that it is fashioned out of two contradictory theories of human governance (forming a kind of governance DNA), liberal, referring to free market competition, and democracy, based on cooperation and equality.

So ironically, pluralism has helped bolster the Golden Rule, not hinder it as Anderson seems to suggest. As history can attest, the Golden Rule has not always been that solid a rule. It is an essential good start; but on its own it is generally toothless, as was another good start, "all men are created equal". What gave that declaration meaning was that it was backed up by a constitution.

Generally, the Golden Rule has had tacit acceptance for like-minded people and of common ethnicity. But for the Golden Rule to be meaningfully binding it's had to speak to a universal mutual respect and empathy - that is, it condones pluralism. What gives the Golden Rule even more credence is the political commitment to expand human rights and eradicate tribalism. Furthermore, that political commitment has helped put people throughout the world on an equal footing, despite their opposing interests. Without such a political commitment and the added pressures of pluralism, on the whole the Golden Rule would have remained an ideal.

Contrary to what Anderson seems to imply, the Golden Rule did stand the test on 9/11, as that attack did not spark a clash of civilizations as many believed it might. That it didn't, I think is due to the depth of pluralism that had accumulated in the world between nations and peoples, which grew out of the increasing interdependence of the world and agencies like the UN and WTO which cultivated pluralism and internationalism to maintain world peace.

The Pill

This is the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill, the Pill. It introduced a new kind of science, regulatory science, where products are pre-tested or recalled if they were found faulty. From this grew the science of environmental impact studies, which studies the impact of human developments on the environment before they are implimented.