Episode 1

To listen to this episode, click on one of the following links.

Texts Discussed in This Episode

• Why War? A Correspondence between Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud with Additional Writings, translated by Stuart Gilbert (ISBN 9781962572170)

• 1984 by George Orwell (ISBN 9780141036144)

• “A Letter from a Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King, Jr., https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Transcript

Hello and welcome to If Socrates Had a Podcast! I am your host, Vinay Kalva. Today, we will explore a subject that has long bewildered humanity: war. No matter when they happen, wars devastate communities and change even the most virtuous humans. Despite this, wars seem to be commonplace and continuous in human history; indeed, several are occurring as we speak. In today’s podcast, we will explore why war happens, as well as the hierarchies that exist in societies which wage those wars. This will be done through an examination of two books I had the pleasure of reading recently: 1984 by George Orwell and Why War?, translated by Stuart Gilbert. If you would like to explore these books and think through them yourself as well, please check the podcast description to find the specific editions I used in making this episode. You can also check your local library, who will likely be more than happy to lend you copies.

In today’s fictional dialogue, Socrates and Dr. Linus Pauling will be the subjects. Socrates is the namesake of this podcast and the chief questioner. Dr. Linus Pauling, in real life, was one of only a few individuals to win two Nobel Prizes – in his case, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and the Nobel Peace Prize. It is the latter prize that has brought him to the hallowed tables of “If Socrates Had a Podcast.” I will play the parts of both characters, inflecting my voice as follows when I am Socrates (inflect “I am Socrates”) and as follows when I am Dr. Linus Pauling: (inflect “I am Dr. Linus Pauling”). With that, let us begin our exploration of war and hierarchy.

SOCRATES: Dr. Pauling! What a surprise. Why have you come to my humble quarters at this hour? What advice could I possibly give to you, the winner of two Nobel Prizes?

DR. LINUS PAULING: Socrates, you are the greatest philosophical mind the world has ever known. I have doubts and queries, and only you shall clarify them. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote highly of you in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, writing that “[you] felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal…”

SOCRATES: Well, if only I could tell him that he has been too kind, in so many words!

PAULING: He has not. I believe the same about you, Socrates. Why else would I travel all the way from North America to Athens?

SOCRATES: I insist that he has. Your suffering, pitiable as it makes me, does not render my judgment different.

PAULING: I must accept your judgment, Socrates. However, King expresses my purpose here quite accurately. My recent reading has induced a tension in me, and I require your help to reach that “realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal” which King writes about. 

SOCRATES: And what is that tension?

PAULING: That tension is about inequality in society, and more importantly why we humans dare to cause war.

SOCRATES: It is a beautiful day today. Come, let us walk up the hill to appreciate the view. While we do, tell me about those books that caused you so much tension.

PAULING: Surely, but they are recent. The first, I recall, was 1984 by a certain George Orwell. The second I remember well; it was Why War?, translated by Stuart Gilbert. I don’t know that latter fellow.

SOCRATES: Perhaps you could enlighten me about those texts. I could be of more help to you had you suggested the Greek classics – the Iliad, the Odyssey, a steady dose of Sophocles, or even the dreaded Aristophanes.

PAULING: I certainly have read those poems and plays, and would readily discuss them with you at another time. However, I have not allowed these texts to affect my understanding of the current ones, and thus ask that you help me rise above this mortal plane of deserts – in terms of thought, of course.

SOCRATES: Let us begin, then, with the texts that you have brought to me. Tell me, Linus, briefly if you will, what these books are about, and please lend me a copy of each for my own reading and reflection.

PAULING: Certainly I shall lend you my copies, which I have brought with me. As for the texts, I will explain them briefly.

• The book 1984, it is said in the author's introduction, is the most famous work of George Orwell. To my knowledge, the blurbs write of its immense relevance. The story occurs in Oceania, a state that consists of a large portion of the world and is ruled by English Socialists (Ingsoc, they call it). This society is perhaps the most insufferable I could ever imagine; it is poor, and its energies go only to war. The members of the Party are subject to the reign of telescreens, which detect their every statement and expression at any and every moment. They must execute the commands of the Party to the letter; the main character of this book, Winston, works for the Ministry of Truth, where he rewrites history to ensure that the Party is always right. The children surveil the parents, there is no authentic love, and the Party could not care less about the average citizen so long as they stay in power. The average citizens, of course, are kept ignorant and distracted with what I may call “bread and circuses”. We learn this because Winston is dissatisfied with the state of affairs, winds up being a dissident by having a relationship with a character named Julia, reads a book that explains what I have told you, and ends up being tortured by the Party to accept what it considers true.

• The book Why War?  is not at all similar in form. It is a collection of essays by Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud, as well as a correspondence between the two figures. It is stated in the synopsis that the League of Nations asked Albert Einstein to write a letter on any subject to any person in the world. A year before Adolf Hitler seized power in Germany, Einstein wrote to Freud to ask him what the causes of war were, and Freud replied willingly. His explanation is of interest to me, as I won my Nobel Peace Prize in this area, and my fellow Nobel Laureate Einstein initiated the conversation. The correspondence is where the key ideas are, and that is what I would like to discuss with you today as well.

SOCRATES: I see that you consider yourself a member of the community of Nobel laureates, Dr. Pauling, and I must extend my congratulations to you in that regard. Now, I would like to discuss the subject of war first. Tell me, Dr. Pauling, what emerged when you read Orwell’s treatise?

PAULING: Socrates, I would respectfully describe it as a novel, for that is what it is. I felt a sense of despair reading the novel.

SOCRATES: Despair? I can hardly say that is surprising. What, then, confuses you?

PAULING: The book within the book is what confuses me, Socrates.

SOCRATES: You are, perhaps, referring to The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, by the dissident of dubious existence Emmanuel Goldstein?

PAULING: I am referring to exactly that, although I remember that Winston asks about the book to O’Brien after a torture session in the Ministry of Love. O’Brien tells him that he was involved in writing the book.

SOCRATES: Indeed, but I feel that it is of dubious importance what the plot is. Let us focus more specifically on war. What does Goldstein say is the purpose of war?

PAULING: From my understanding, Goldstein writes in Chapter 3 that the purpose of the war between Oceania, Eastasia, and Eurasia is superficially to obtain resources of a large uncontrolled area of the world. This part of the world has the required resources, of course, but these are only of one purpose: to continue the war, indefinitely. As long as the war continues, the three governments – all of whom are similar ideologically and structurally – remain in power.

SOCRATES: You are saying, then, that the purpose of war in 1984 is the perpetuation of the power that the government holds.

PAULING: That is exactly what I am saying. However, I cannot think that this example is realistic. In my mind, wars must be waged with a purpose, an end goal of sorts.

SOCRATES: What end goal must that be, Dr. Pauling?

PAULING: The end goal, of course, is either to expand one’s land, or to protect oneself from another’s attempt to do so. I cannot think of a more basic explanation than that.

SOCRATES: I would concur with you, Dr. Pauling, had you not brought up Why War? Surely there is a behavioral explanation which Sigmund Freud discusses.

PAULING: To my knowledge, there is. Sigmund Freud, being a psychoanalyst, ascribes all human behavior to love or hate. War, he argues, can be the expression of a destructive mindset, whether the result of the unconscious or hidden by ideals.

SOCRATES: I can see that this idea applies to 1984. How might you perceive the two to be related?

PAULING: This is what I do not know: how the two are related. That is why I have come to you, so that you may enlighten me.

SOCRATES: I shall attempt to help you find the truth. Remember that I, of course, am but a simple man, and that I know very little. All I know is how to guide you.

PAULING: Socrates, I ask that you help me.

SOCRATES: I shall help you. Let us start with the explanation offered by Goldstein, that war between the superstates is for the purposes of maintaining power and control of the governments. Would you consider this to be true?

PAULING: I find this true within the context of the novel. How else can a populace that is hungry and lacking in knowledge be kept under control?

SOCRATES: Earlier we learn, however, that the Party uses entertainment to prevent rebellion; bread and circuses, as you described it. If bread and circuses are effective at maintaining the Party’s power, why would the Party bother to wage war?

PAULING: Goldstein writes that the purpose is to occupy the public in work. Much as the Party places all manner of bread and circuses at the public’s disposal in the realm of leisure, so too does the Party place war as the goal of work.

SOCRATES: What prevents the proles from being ethical, and recognizing that they are supporting death and destruction?

PAULING: It is clear to me now. Freud writes of the destructive mindset; this is what the Party attempts to induce in the proles. If the proles hate the enemy, they cannot be ethical, and will persuade themselves to work at producing the machines of war and destroying the enemy.

SOCRATES: Does the destructive mindset explain the Outer Party’s support of war?

PAULING: I do not think it does. The Outer Party must practice doublethink in order to support the war; they know that the war exists only to entrench the Party, but must believe otherwise to keep their life and jobs.

SOCRATES: How is it possible given that The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism is a forbidden book?

PAULING: Well, it is possible that everyone has read it. Additionally, Oceania has not completely erased Oldspeak.

SOCRATES: Presumably that would mean that Oldspeak material against the war is somehow circulated in a thoroughly surveilled society.

PAULING: That, to me, seems unlikely.

SOCRATES: Accordingly, I must consider your explanation implausible.

PAULING: Socrates, I must take a moment to think of another answer. My mind is clearing, but not fast enough. It will help if we pause for a moment and appreciate this most excellent viewpoint at which we are speaking.

SOCRATES: Dr. Pauling, I certainly agree with you. I am not quite sure how we chose this point, yet it has managed to be excellent for the purpose of seeing Athens.

This regularly scheduled program is interrupted for a short break.

Dear listeners,

Dr. Pauling and Socrates are currently taking a short break to appreciate the view from their vantage point. They sure do seem like, and certainly are, very good friends. You may, however, be wondering how Socrates and Dr. Pauling came to meet, for they were notable in entirely different time periods, and interacted with their fellow humans differently. Well, I happened to meet both of them shortly before you did, and they both gladly shared this story that I will tell you.

Dr. Pauling was preparing for his very first Nobel Lecture. It was the day before he was to present, and he was quite stressed. Then, Socrates knocked on the door.

“Hello?”, said Dr. Pauling.

“Please see the door,” said Socrates.

Dr. Pauling had never been ordered to do anything. He was in charge – or so he thought.

“Who are you?”

“I am Socrates. I am the man who all know yet cannot be sure they know.”
“Well, I didn’t know you existed.”

“You did not?”

“No, I did not.”

“Surely you learned some philosophy?”

“All I learned was 5 million thinkers, of whom I have forgotten all and remember none.”

“Did you write them down?”

“Yes.”

“Of course you forgot! You can’t write things down; you will forget whatever you wrote.”

“But I wrote down my Nobel lecture.”

“So you will forget it.”

“No, I wrote it down so that I won’t forget it.”

“I don’t understand! Who in the world writes things to avoid forgetting them?”

“Everyone! You just go away! I need to breathe, and I can’t with a stranger like you.”

Dr. Pauling slammed the door and ran away to his closet. He then noticed that he had lost everything. Nothing was inside his bag; whatever was outside had vanished, and was not in his drawers. Who dared to rob the room of a prospective Nobel laureate? He did not know – that is, until the entire Athenian court came into the room. They asked if he knew where Socrates went; Dr. Pauling said that he did not know. The court went into a frenzy: 

“Socrates must die!”

“That traitor to the Athenians had better run out here!”

“This horrid corruptor of the youth escaped – but not for long!”

“Oh dear!” wondered Dr. Pauling. “What sort of people are these?” He frantically ran outside his room again, and saw that Socrates was huddled in a corner, contemplating what to do. Dr. Pauling took Socrates’s hand, ran to the next room, and hid Socrates there. He then ran towards the court and told them to leave the hotel before the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, led by none other than Zeus, was to hear of their affront to knowledge and wisdom. They left frantically, and Socrates was thus left entirely unscathed. 

It was from then onwards that Dr. Pauling and Socrates became great friends, and had the conversation that you have the pleasure of hearing today. As to how it came to end up on a modern platform like this, I have no idea. Nevertheless, here we are.

At this time, let us return to our regularly scheduled program.

PAULING: What an amazing view that was!

SOCRATES: Indeed. It was worth the time I spent searching for it. Let us stay here for a little while, Dr. Pauling, before we return to my quarters again.

PAULING: I agree, Socrates. Now, what were we speaking about before? Yes, that’s right – it is my view that the destructive instinct does not exist among the Outer Party.

SOCRATES: If this were true, why does the Party find it necessary to force the Two Minutes Hate

PAULING: The Two Minutes Hate is applied towards nebulous dissidents, not towards those who oppose war.

SOCRATES: Why, then, does the Two Minutes Hate described initially involve showing the exaggerated figures of Eastasian soldiers?

PAULING: I recognize the point that you are attempting to make. The destructive instinct must exist among the Outer Party, and be directed towards the two enemies.

SOCRATES: How does the destructive instinct explain the need to target dissidents?

PAULING: The destructive instinct is an expression of hate in psychoanalysis, is it not?

SOCRATES: To my knowledge, you are correct.

PAULING: And we both acknowledge that the Party does not want dissidents?

SOCRATES: I must agree.

PAULING: And the dissidents will struggle if they are hated?

SOCRATES: I cannot object.

PAULING: The destructive instinct is thus responsible for targeting dissidents.

SOCRATES: Would you say, then, that the Party uses the destructive instinct broadly, rather than merely for the sake of war?

PAULING: I cannot see why not. I am merely doubtful whether it is appropriate to reach a general conclusion from two occurrences.

SOCRATES: I recognize your concern. However, I must object, as hate is foundational to Ingsoc.

PAULING: I suppose this is true. It is written by Goldstein that the object of love in Oceania is Big Brother, and Big Brother only.

SOCRATES: I see the argument you are attempting to make: if the only object of love is Big Brother, then all other objects must be objects of hate.

PAULING: I would. After all, psychoanalytically speaking, those are the only two types of instincts.

SOCRATES: However, Freud cautions that the instincts are often blended together; an instinct of love is frequently combined with an instinct of hate, leading to a variety of outcomes.

PAULING: It would make sense to say, then, that love for Big Brother is combined with hate for all else.

SOCRATES: How can we be certain that the two are combined, and not merely manifestations of separate phenomena?

PAULING: Well, the sole objective of Ingsoc is to maintain control by means of forcing the subjects of Oceania to love Big Brother. To promote this aim, the Inner Party ensures that no other object can compete. Notably, 1984 emphasizes that the Party goes to great lengths to prevent romantic love from ever succeeding, as that would challenge the monopoly of Big Brother in the realm of love. It does this by inculcating fear of romantic love, which results in hate of romantic love. This hate leaves only Big Brother.

SOCRATES: Your explanation seems, to me, logical and sensible. I do not understand, however, how fear results in hate.

PAULING: Well, fear cannot result in love, can it?

SOCRATES: It cannot.

PAULING: Can fear result in disgust?

SOCRATES: It cannot.

PAULING: If we similarly ask if fear results in any other emotion, we can eliminate almost every other emotion – except happiness. Fear can result in happiness.

SOCRATES: How so?

PAULING: If one fears something, they will avoid it. The avoidance results in happiness; in essence, happiness is the object.

SOCRATES: How, then, does happiness result in hate?

PAULING: Does anyone actively wish to be unhappy?

SOCRATES: To my knowledge, no.

PAULING: Thus, if a happy person can choose between what makes them happy and what makes them unhappy, which will they choose?

SOCRATES: That which makes them happy.

PAULING: What will a person do if forced to do something which makes them unhappy?

SOCRATES: They will fight, fly, or freeze.

PAULING: Why do they act in this manner?

SOCRATES: They dislike the stimulus, or they fear it.

PAULING: And dislike is hate, is it not?

SOCRATES: It must be. However, the second answer leads to circular reasoning – fear leads to a response, which is the result of fear. How do you address it?

PAULING: Does one want to be fearful?

SOCRATES: Generally not.

PAULING: This is a dislike. And dislike is hate, is it not?

SOCRATES: It must be.

PAULING: Then I have reached the answer. Fear must result in hate, because it results in a desire to avoid the unpleasant. This desire is a form of dislike, which is hate.

SOCRATES: Are you, Dr. Pauling, now confident to induce?

PAULING: I cannot be fully confident in induction. That is a matter for a later time, though. Socrates, let us now proceed to the other area of confusion: the hierarchy of the world in 1984 and Why War?, and its relations with war, if any. It continues to trouble me.

SOCRATES: I will readily discuss this matter with you, Dr. Pauling. Would you describe what the two texts have to say on the subject of hierarchy, and the relations between hierarchy and war?

PAULING: For 1984, I must reference Emmanuel Goldstein once again. He writes that all societies have High, Middle, and Low classes, and that the High fight the Middle to maintain their power. The Middle will appeal to the Low, but only for the purpose of usurping the High.

SOCRATES: This shall do. And for Why War?

PAULING: I must admit that the basis for my conjecture is rather limited in the case of Why War? It is only that Sigmund Freud writes that legal inequality can result in internal conflict. The legal inequality, of course, is representative of a hierarchy with two groups – those advantaged by the law, and those disadvantaged by it.

SOCRATES: It appears that, superficially, there is no similarity. However, we cannot be sure of this pending a further exploration. Let us examine the notion of hierarchy through Freud’s frame – the law.

PAULING: This is of no help, Socrates. How can it be that the High and Middle are subject to different laws than the Low?

SOCRATES: Let us examine your formulation. If Freud’s theory were to be applied, your way is one way to do it. However, consider what Goldstein stated about the hierarchy.

PAULING: What did he argue?

SOCRATES: Well, the Middle wants to take the position of the High, correct?

PAULING: This is true.

SOCRATES: And the High would, of course, oppose such a measure?

PAULING: I cannot disagree.

SOCRATES: How would the High oppose the Middle? In essence, how would the High stop the Middle in their tracks before reaching the point of war?

PAULING: The laws, I suppose. They would design laws that disadvantage the Middle.

SOCRATES: If the laws disadvantage the Middle, then which group in Freud’s formulation are they a part of: those advantaged by the laws, or those disadvantaged by them?

PAULING: I suppose they are in the group disadvantaged by the laws.

SOCRATES: Precisely. That is how Freud and 1984 are connected. Now, on the subject of war, we can refer to the texts to develop a unified explanation of how hierarchy results in war.

PAULING: Which text takes precedence, Socrates?

SOCRATES: Patience, Dr. Pauling. Neither does, for both can be used to explain how hierarchy leads to war.

PAULING: I don’t see the connection.

SOCRATES: We said earlier that the Middle aims to topple the High to lead. In Freud’s formulation, they wish to be above the law rather than below it. 

PAULING: Why won’t the Middle – in essence, the most powerful below the law – aims to equalize the law, as Freud says?

SOCRATES: I suppose that either can happen. However, on this point it appears Freud and Goldstein disagree. Freud would argue that the Middle – the most powerful below the law – would adjust the law to be fair for all. Goldstein would argue that the Middle will merely maintain the hierarchy.

PAULING: Are you, then, distinguishing between a reformist and conservative Middle?

SOCRATES: I am, Dr. Pauling.

PAULING: I suppose Goldstein is more correct. After all, the Inner Party is in power because it knows what was written – I mean, it wrote the book.

SOCRATES: Dr. Pauling, you are perfectly entitled to that judgment. For my part, I am more optimistic and side with Freud.

PAULING: Does Winston not say in 1984 that “if there is hope, it lies with the proles”?

SOCRATES: He does. Why should that change my judgment?

PAULING: Perhaps it might change mine. In 1984, the proles are the lowest class – the Low, in the formulation made by Goldstein.

SOCRATES: Perhaps I can change your judgment. If the proles (the Low) are the ones who foment social change, not the Middle, then Freud would be more correct. Those below the law would change it to equality, which is the goal of the Low in Goldstein’s formulation. Accordingly, there would be no hierarchy; everyone would be equal under the law.

PAULING: With that, there would be no justification for war, I suppose.

SOCRATES: That is the only conclusion I can come to, at least for today. I suppose we can come to other ones.

PAULING: Perhaps we could explore more, but I must be going now. The other Nobel laureates have invited me to dinner. I will tell them that I will bring you as my guest – if you acquiesce.\

SOCRATES: It would be my honor and my pleasure – but of course, I know nothing. How could I fit among the brightest minds of this world, the ones who know almost everything?

PAULING: King’s praise still remains true, Socrates. It is clearly more true after we have engaged in this conversation. You are a citizen among the best and brightest.

SOCRATES: Then I must come along, Dr. Pauling.

This concludes the inaugural episode of “If Socrates Had a Podcast”. As noted in the beginning, you can find the specific editions of the texts in the podcast description. If you have any questions or would like to suggest books or notable people that I should feature on this podcast, reach out by sending me an email at ishap.podcast@gmail.com. That’s i-s-h-a-p.podcast@gmail.com.

I hope that you learned something new and exciting today, and enjoyed the brief intermission. If you like what you heard, stay tuned for my next episode, coming up in two weeks. Thank you very much for your time, and have a wonderful day.