THE WORLD AS I SEE IT...
QPB published a book containing two works penned by the late, great physicist Albert Einstein entitled "The World as I See It," and "Out of my Later Years." These were written, respectively, over a period of years first from directly after WWI and into the Depression era (1930s); then during WWII and into the Cold War era.
Einstein's central focus in this collection of letters, essays, and speeches was a philosophical attempt to grapple with the specter of global destruction enabled by nuclear power and the conditions of poverty, racism, hate, terrorism, and inequity within the human continuum. It is a terrific read, and one wades through this material with a great sense of awe and respect for Einstein's singularly great achievements, most especially his formulation of the General and Special Theories of Relativity (explained cogently herein, as well), which took us beyond Classical Mechanics in a way that has now been thoroughly tested and verified over decades.
As a young boy, Albert admittedly was not especially a "good student." (Latent genius notwithstanding...) However, from his teen years, he developed a serious aptitude for philosophy, and this explains his thoughtful writings on many of the political and economic subjects of his day, especially vis a vis the revolution of 20th century physics in which he was such a key figure.
I am often struck when I consider the contexts of various writers and how this affects their worldview, whether they are conscious of it or not. I can understand some of Einstein's pronouncements re: politics, religion, and economics in this regard, but I cannot agree with some of his conclusions. Most notable among his conclusions (a constant theme throughout this work) is the advocacy of world government to avoid nuclear catastrophe (and to take the human race to a higher level of consciousness in this most dangerous era) - a "supra-national" government and court of appeals, which would have sole power to use military force and arbitrate among national disputes. To quote Einstein, a world government "would solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision." It would be "the only path to peace and security."
Before I critique this horrible idea, let me point out that Einstein has very positive things to say about the liberty and potential of the individual and democracy. He states early on that the "State exists for man, not man for the State." Yes! This is something that Ayn Rand would be proud to hear him say. One of her major themes was that nobody - and especially no state - has any moral right whatsoever to hold a "mortgage" on the life of any individual. Moreover, she upheld the contribution of great individuals in creating progress, prosperity, and virtually all advancements in the human condition from time immemorial.
However, I find Dr. Einstein's opinions and conclusions (in regards to the "solutions" to our problems) to be very contradictory in some key aspects. Consider the above quote re: the primacy of the individual. In no State with a command economy, for instance (communists, e.g.) would the rights and dignity of the individual be held in high regard. (cf. Ayn Rand's great work "We the Living"). They are subordinated to the collective; their talents and abilities are stunted in worthless social experiments and "redistributions" of employment opportunities, etc. Wealth is confiscated, initiative and incentive quashed. If countries were to surrender their sovereignty to some type of global governance, would not the same scenario follow? All for the collective... ("From those according to their ability; to those according to their need," as the immoral Marxist credo goes.) Who among us is qualified to judge and arbitrate disputes among nations (some going back centuries and caused by insoluble religious, intellectual, and cultural differences)? How could we possibly choose non-biased parties to do this arbitration (i.e., someone with no "axe to grind")?
Take a look at our modern United Nations and what a farce it is; an insult to all critically thinking people. Ayn Rand (in her work "The Voice of Reason") rightly gave a stinging critique of the U.N. as a body of "criminals." How can a group of criminal states and their representatives decide what is in the best interest of law, reason, and ethics? Why would we want people who are already intellectual criminals having any kind of say in such issues as world poverty, economic development, etc.? Are we out of our minds?
Unfortunately, Einstein became enamored of Emmanuel Kant in his early years, and Kant colors much of his moral reasoning. The fact that humans do not often act in a reasonable capacity to be "moral" (observing Kant's categorical imperative) by treating others such that they would not be injured in any way by our own actions is lost on Kant (and Einstein). It puts too much faith in reason, and reasonable people are in the minority on this planet; ditto cultures based upon or informed by reason and science.
I also appeal to Darwin here, and I think that even Dr. Einstein had not come to grips fully with Darwin's work (the same is sadly the case today, especially with the Neo-Conservative world view of global crusades for democracy, etc.). It is an irrefutable fact of the evolution of species (including humans, of course) that they act in their own, best self interest, as they perceive it. Hence, conflict is inevitable. War is inevitable, as the Greeks knew. Push will always come to shove in one way or another. We have the highly-evolved rule of law as our highest ethical form of public arbitration, and despite all the billions poured into education and social programs, we still have full prisons, a need for more and more police (and tax revenues to fund them) to enforce the rule of law. Why? This is the fundamental question - why? This question is lost on the dreamers of "one world socialist bliss." They are not asking it seriously and couldn't give a coherent answer if they tried. The same is true, I'm afraid, of Dr. Einstein's political and philosophical views.
Disarmament by the US and Britain would be among the stupidest things that could ever be done. It's akin to taking away the guns and police cars from our police. Either the forces of good prevail, or the forces of evil prevail - it's as simple as that. One need only look to the frightening nuclear proliferation of today to see that disarmament is a pipe dream. (By the way, do you lock your doors at night? Your car doors? Why?)
Dr. Einstein says that the "Jewish-Christian religious tradition" offers humanity the "highest principles for our aspirations and judgments." With this statement I wholeheartedly agree. In his works, he always has high praise for the accomplishments of the "Prophets," Moses, and Jesus. Furthermore, in one passage, he admits the limits of reason, the device which he in many other places extols as being the tool that humanity can use to solve its war and poverty problems: "By painful experience we have learned that rational thinking doesn't always suffice to solve the problems of our social life." (Cf. Plato's "Republic," and all States - like the USSR - which were artificial constructs based upon faulty human reason.) If this is true (and of course it is), why in the world would we want to entrust our freedom and sovereingty to a "supra-national" authority comprised of very flawed human beings? It is right principles and premises which must prevail in the search for human progress, truth, and peace - either these prevail or life is not worth living.
For Einstein, then, the threat of war (and nuclear annihilation) trumped the risk of what he even admitted could be the "tyranny of world government" (contradicting himself again). Rather than a Pax-Americana (tenuous, of course, but better than the alternatives), Einstein would have us surrender our sovereignty, which represents centuries - even millennia - of human progress, freedom, and potential, purchased with blood and suffering on an unimaginable scale. The problem is, all too many of today's intellectuals think the same as Einstein did all those decades ago - that socialism, "wealth redistribution," and more global government is the solution, when, in fact, they are precisely the problem.
Today, we face the same problem that Einstein faced in his day, only the players have changed. (In his day, the Nazis threatened world civilization; in our day, fascist Islamic fundamentalists.) In his essay "The Goal of Human Existence," Einstein correctly posits the "goal of Judeo-Christianity" as "a community of free and happy human beings... liberated from destructive instincts." Would that we could all come to this realization. However, it's the fatal flaw of those who put too much faith in human reason that we'll all be able to somehow internalize this - to train our minds to overcome our base passions.
It will take more for men and women to realize Einstein's wonderful dream of peace and security. It will take a supernatural (not "supra-national") transformation from without - as Moses experienced at the burning bush, or the Apostle Paul experienced on the Damascus road. With all due respect to Albert Einstein, one of humanity's greatest scientific minds, there is no other way...
TTC
Einstein's central focus in this collection of letters, essays, and speeches was a philosophical attempt to grapple with the specter of global destruction enabled by nuclear power and the conditions of poverty, racism, hate, terrorism, and inequity within the human continuum. It is a terrific read, and one wades through this material with a great sense of awe and respect for Einstein's singularly great achievements, most especially his formulation of the General and Special Theories of Relativity (explained cogently herein, as well), which took us beyond Classical Mechanics in a way that has now been thoroughly tested and verified over decades.
As a young boy, Albert admittedly was not especially a "good student." (Latent genius notwithstanding...) However, from his teen years, he developed a serious aptitude for philosophy, and this explains his thoughtful writings on many of the political and economic subjects of his day, especially vis a vis the revolution of 20th century physics in which he was such a key figure.
I am often struck when I consider the contexts of various writers and how this affects their worldview, whether they are conscious of it or not. I can understand some of Einstein's pronouncements re: politics, religion, and economics in this regard, but I cannot agree with some of his conclusions. Most notable among his conclusions (a constant theme throughout this work) is the advocacy of world government to avoid nuclear catastrophe (and to take the human race to a higher level of consciousness in this most dangerous era) - a "supra-national" government and court of appeals, which would have sole power to use military force and arbitrate among national disputes. To quote Einstein, a world government "would solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision." It would be "the only path to peace and security."
Before I critique this horrible idea, let me point out that Einstein has very positive things to say about the liberty and potential of the individual and democracy. He states early on that the "State exists for man, not man for the State." Yes! This is something that Ayn Rand would be proud to hear him say. One of her major themes was that nobody - and especially no state - has any moral right whatsoever to hold a "mortgage" on the life of any individual. Moreover, she upheld the contribution of great individuals in creating progress, prosperity, and virtually all advancements in the human condition from time immemorial.
However, I find Dr. Einstein's opinions and conclusions (in regards to the "solutions" to our problems) to be very contradictory in some key aspects. Consider the above quote re: the primacy of the individual. In no State with a command economy, for instance (communists, e.g.) would the rights and dignity of the individual be held in high regard. (cf. Ayn Rand's great work "We the Living"). They are subordinated to the collective; their talents and abilities are stunted in worthless social experiments and "redistributions" of employment opportunities, etc. Wealth is confiscated, initiative and incentive quashed. If countries were to surrender their sovereignty to some type of global governance, would not the same scenario follow? All for the collective... ("From those according to their ability; to those according to their need," as the immoral Marxist credo goes.) Who among us is qualified to judge and arbitrate disputes among nations (some going back centuries and caused by insoluble religious, intellectual, and cultural differences)? How could we possibly choose non-biased parties to do this arbitration (i.e., someone with no "axe to grind")?
Take a look at our modern United Nations and what a farce it is; an insult to all critically thinking people. Ayn Rand (in her work "The Voice of Reason") rightly gave a stinging critique of the U.N. as a body of "criminals." How can a group of criminal states and their representatives decide what is in the best interest of law, reason, and ethics? Why would we want people who are already intellectual criminals having any kind of say in such issues as world poverty, economic development, etc.? Are we out of our minds?
Unfortunately, Einstein became enamored of Emmanuel Kant in his early years, and Kant colors much of his moral reasoning. The fact that humans do not often act in a reasonable capacity to be "moral" (observing Kant's categorical imperative) by treating others such that they would not be injured in any way by our own actions is lost on Kant (and Einstein). It puts too much faith in reason, and reasonable people are in the minority on this planet; ditto cultures based upon or informed by reason and science.
I also appeal to Darwin here, and I think that even Dr. Einstein had not come to grips fully with Darwin's work (the same is sadly the case today, especially with the Neo-Conservative world view of global crusades for democracy, etc.). It is an irrefutable fact of the evolution of species (including humans, of course) that they act in their own, best self interest, as they perceive it. Hence, conflict is inevitable. War is inevitable, as the Greeks knew. Push will always come to shove in one way or another. We have the highly-evolved rule of law as our highest ethical form of public arbitration, and despite all the billions poured into education and social programs, we still have full prisons, a need for more and more police (and tax revenues to fund them) to enforce the rule of law. Why? This is the fundamental question - why? This question is lost on the dreamers of "one world socialist bliss." They are not asking it seriously and couldn't give a coherent answer if they tried. The same is true, I'm afraid, of Dr. Einstein's political and philosophical views.
Disarmament by the US and Britain would be among the stupidest things that could ever be done. It's akin to taking away the guns and police cars from our police. Either the forces of good prevail, or the forces of evil prevail - it's as simple as that. One need only look to the frightening nuclear proliferation of today to see that disarmament is a pipe dream. (By the way, do you lock your doors at night? Your car doors? Why?)
Dr. Einstein says that the "Jewish-Christian religious tradition" offers humanity the "highest principles for our aspirations and judgments." With this statement I wholeheartedly agree. In his works, he always has high praise for the accomplishments of the "Prophets," Moses, and Jesus. Furthermore, in one passage, he admits the limits of reason, the device which he in many other places extols as being the tool that humanity can use to solve its war and poverty problems: "By painful experience we have learned that rational thinking doesn't always suffice to solve the problems of our social life." (Cf. Plato's "Republic," and all States - like the USSR - which were artificial constructs based upon faulty human reason.) If this is true (and of course it is), why in the world would we want to entrust our freedom and sovereingty to a "supra-national" authority comprised of very flawed human beings? It is right principles and premises which must prevail in the search for human progress, truth, and peace - either these prevail or life is not worth living.
For Einstein, then, the threat of war (and nuclear annihilation) trumped the risk of what he even admitted could be the "tyranny of world government" (contradicting himself again). Rather than a Pax-Americana (tenuous, of course, but better than the alternatives), Einstein would have us surrender our sovereignty, which represents centuries - even millennia - of human progress, freedom, and potential, purchased with blood and suffering on an unimaginable scale. The problem is, all too many of today's intellectuals think the same as Einstein did all those decades ago - that socialism, "wealth redistribution," and more global government is the solution, when, in fact, they are precisely the problem.
Today, we face the same problem that Einstein faced in his day, only the players have changed. (In his day, the Nazis threatened world civilization; in our day, fascist Islamic fundamentalists.) In his essay "The Goal of Human Existence," Einstein correctly posits the "goal of Judeo-Christianity" as "a community of free and happy human beings... liberated from destructive instincts." Would that we could all come to this realization. However, it's the fatal flaw of those who put too much faith in human reason that we'll all be able to somehow internalize this - to train our minds to overcome our base passions.
It will take more for men and women to realize Einstein's wonderful dream of peace and security. It will take a supernatural (not "supra-national") transformation from without - as Moses experienced at the burning bush, or the Apostle Paul experienced on the Damascus road. With all due respect to Albert Einstein, one of humanity's greatest scientific minds, there is no other way...
TTC
posted by thoughtful conservative at 11:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home