How To Uninstall Emerson

"Why war?" Children without limits

In 1932, a few years before the Second World War, two of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century correspondence exchanged brief questioning the necessity of war, the motives that lead people to create it and violence intrinsic to the human species.

In this scenario pre war that genius of physics, it questions the genius of mental sciences, asking: "Why war?"

Letters are part of the Complete Works of Freud and in draws attention because that, even though it was written 79 years ago, both the questions and the hypotheses are current and relevant to our time, marked by violence, religious wars and terrorist attacks

Read below to correspondence between Einstein and Freud in full!
.

.

Caputh near Potsdam, 30 July 1932

Dear Professor Freud,

The proposal of the League of Nations and its International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation in Paris, that I invite a person, my own choice, for a frank exchange of views on a problem that I could select , offers me an excellent opportunity to confer with you about an issue, the way things are, it seems be the most urgent of all problems that civilization has to face. This is the problem: Is there any way of delivering humanity from the threat of war? It is common knowledge that with the progress of science of our day, this issue has come to mean a matter of life and death for civilization as we know, however, despite all the zeal displayed, every attempt to solve it ended in dismal failure.
believe, moreover, that those whose duty is to attack the problem in a professional and practically are growing only too aware of their impotence to deal with it, and now have a keen desire to know the views of men who, absorbed in the pursuit of science, can see the problems the world from the perspective distance lends. As for me, the goal usual my thoughts will not let me an insight into the dark regions of the human will and feeling. Thus, the inquiry now proposed, I can do little more than seek to clarify the question at issue and preparing the ground the more obvious solutions, enable that you provide the elucidation of the problem through the aid of his deep knowledge of instinctual life of man. There are certain psychological obstacles whose existence a layman in the mental sciences may dimly discern, whose inter -Relations and filigree him, however, is incompetent to understand, I am convinced that you will be able to suggest educational methods located more or less out of policy objectives, which will eliminate these obstacles.
As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way to address the aspect (ie, administrative ) of the problem: the institution, through international agreement of a legislative and judicial body to arbitrate any dispute arising between nations. Each nation would submit to obedience to the orders issued by that body legislation, the use of its decisions on all disputes, to accept unreservedly their decisions and to implement all measures that the court deems necessary for the execution of its decrees. From the outset, however, I come up against a difficulty, a tribunal is a human institution which, in the power at its disposal is inadequate to enforce its verdicts , is extremely prone to see their decisions overturned on pressures extrajudicial . This is a fact that we must reckon with, the law and might inevitably go hand in hand, and juridical decisions closer to the ideal justice demanded by the community (on whose behalf and in whose interests these verdicts are pronounced) insofar as the community has effectively the power to impose the respect of its juridical ideal. Currently, however, we are far from possessing any supranational organization competent to render verdicts of incontestable authority and enforce absolute submission to the execution of its verdicts . Thus I am led to my first principle: the pursuit of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every nation to some extent, the their freedom of action , ie to its sovereignty, and it is absolutely clear that no other path can lead to such security.
Failure, despite their obvious sincerity, all the efforts during the last decade to reach this goal leaves us no room to doubt what is at stake psychological factors in weight which paralyze these efforts. Some of these factors are easier to detect. The craving for power which characterizes the governing class in every nation is hostile to any limitation of national sovereignty. This hunger for political power is used to thrive in activities of another group, whose aspirations are character economic purely mercenary. I refer specifically to this group small but determined, in every nation, composed of individuals who, indifferent to the conditions and social controls, see war, the manufacture and sale of arms, simply as an opportunity to expand their personal interests and enlarge their personal authority.
Recognition of this fact, however, is simply the first step towards assessing the current situation . Logo Another question: how is it possible for this small clique bend the will of the majority, who stand to lose and suffer in a war situation, the service of their ambitions? (When speaking of the majority, I do not exclude soldiers of all asgraduações who have chosen war as their profession, in the belief that they are serving to defend the best interests of their race and that attack is often the best means of defense.) It seems like an obvious answer to this question would be the minority, the ruling class current, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables organize and sway the emotions of the masses and make them instruments of the same minority.



Still, even this response provides a complete solution. Hence arises a new question: how these devices succeed so well in rousing men to wild enthusiasm, enough to sacrifice their lives? There can be only one answer. Because man has within him a lust for hatred and destruction. In normal times this passion exists in a latent state, emerges only in abnormal circumstances, is nevertheless relatively easy awaken it and raise it to the power of collective psychosis . Maybe that is the crux of the whole complex of factors we are considering, an enigma that only an expert in the science of human instincts can resolve.
This brings us to our last question. You can control the evolution of man's mind in order to make it proof against the psychoses of hate and destructiveness? Here I am referring only to the so-called uncultured masses. Experience shows that it is rather the so-called ' Intelligentzia ' most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions of time that the intellectual has no direct contact with the rough side of life, but finds it in its synthetic form easier - on the printed page.
To conclude: So far only talked of wars between nations, those that are known as international conflicts . But I am well aware that the aggressive instinct operates under other forms and in other circumstances . (I believe in civil wars, for example, due to religious intolerance, in earlier days, today, however, due to social factors, besides, the persecution of racial minorities.) Was deliberate my insistence on what is most typical, most cruel and extravagant form of conflict between man and man, because here we have the best opportunity to find ways and means to make impossible any armed conflict.
I know that in the writings of Sir can find answers, explicit or implicit, to all aspects of this urgent and absorbing problem. But it would be most helpful to us all that you experienced the issue of world peace under the focus of their latest discoveries, because umatal presentation could well mark the way for new and fruitful methods action.

Very cordially
A. EINSTEIN.
Vienna September 1932. Einstein Letter


In Complete Works of Freud, Volume XXII

To see the answer to Freud, Einstein sent to click here .