During the
1920s the Soviet government quashed certain areas of scientific inquiry, destroyed entire
research facilities and libraries, and caused the sudden disappearance of many scientists who
were viewed as threats to the state’s authority. Not surprisingly, during this time period no
significant scientific advances occurred under the auspices of the Soviet government.
Those who would oppose the speaker’s assertion might argue that intellectual inquiry in
certain areas, particularly the arts and humanities, amounts to little more than a personal quest
for happiness or pleasure, and therefore is of little benefit to anyone but the inquirer. This
specious argument overlooks the palpable benefits of cultivating the arts. It also ignores the
fact that earnest study in the humanities affords us wisdom to know what is best for society,
and helps us understand and approach societal problems more critically, creatively, and
92
effectively. Thus, despite the lack of a tangible nexus between certain areas of intellectual
inquiry and societal benefit, the nexus is there nonetheless.
In sum, I agree that society is best served when people are allowed unfettered freedom of
intellectual inquiry and research, and use that freedom to pursue their own personal interests.
Engaging one’s individual talents in one’s particular area of fascination is most likely to yield
advances, discoveries, and a heightened aesthetic appreciation that serve to make the world a
better and more interesting place in which to live.
Issue 84
"Laws should not be stationary and fixed. Instead, they should be flexible enough to take
account of various circumstances, times, and places."
Does "originality" mean putting together old ideas in new ways, as the speaker contends,
rather than conjuring up truly new ideas? Although I agree that in various realms of human
endeavor, such as linguistics, law, and even the arts, so-called "new" or "original" ideas rarely
are. However, when it comes to the physical sciences originality more often entails chartering
completely new intellectual territory.
The notion that so-called "originality" is actually variation or synthesis of existing ideas finds
its greatest support in linguistics and in law. Regarding the former, in spite of the many words
in the modern English language that are unique to Western culture, modern English is derived
from, and builds upon, a variety of linguistic traditions--and ultimately from the ancient Greek
and Latin languages. Were we to insist on rejecting tradition in favor of purely modern
language we would have essentially nothing to say. The same holds true for all other modern
languages. As for law, consider the legal system in the United States, which is deeply rooted in
traditional English common-law principles of equity and justice. The system in the U.S.requires that new, so-called "modern" laws be consistent with and indeed build upon--those
traditional principles.
Even in the arts--where one might think that true originality must surely reside--so-called
"new" ideas almost always embrace, apply, or synthesize what came earlier. For example,
most "modern" visual designs, forms, and elements are based on certain well-established
aesthetic ideals--such as symmetry, balance, and harmony. Admittedly, modern art works often
eschew these principles in favor of true originality. Yet, in my view the appeal of such works
lies primarily in their novelty and brashness. Once the ephemeral novelty or shock dissipates,
these works quickly lose their appeal because they violate fn:rnly established artistic ideals. An
even better example from the arts is modern rock-and-roll music, which upon first listening
might seem to bear no resemblance to dassical music traditions. Yet, both genres rely on the
same 12-note scale, the same notions of what harmonies are pleasing to the ear, the same
forms, the same rhythmic meters, and even many of the same melodies.
When it comes to the natural sciences, however, some new ideas are truly original while
others put established ideas together in new ways. One striking example of truly original
scientific advances involves what we know about the age and evolution of the Earth. In e~rlier
centuries the official Church of England called for a literal interpretation of the Bible, according
to which the Earth’s age is determined to be about 6,000 years. If Western thinkers had simply
put these established ideas together in new ways the fields of structural and historical geology
93
might never have advanced further. A more recent example involves Einstein’s theory of
relativity. Einstein theorized, and scientists have since proven empirically, that the pace of time,
and possibly the direction of time as well, is relative to the observer’s motion through space.
This truth ran so contrary to our subjective, linear experience, and to previous notions about
time and space, that I think Einstein’s theory can properly be characterized as truly original.
However, in other instances great advances in science are made by putting together current
theories or other ideas in new ways. For example, only by building on certain well-established
laws of physics were engineers able to develop silicon-based semiconductor technology. And,
only by struggling to reconcile the quantum and relativity theories have physicists now posited
a new so-called "string" theory, which puts together the two preexisting theories in a
completely new way.To sum up, for the most part originality does not reject existing ideas but rather embraces,
applies, or synthesizes what came before. In fact, in our modern languages, our new laws, and
even our new art, existing ideas are reflected, not shunned. But, when it comes to science,
whether the speaker’s claim is true must be determined on a case-by-case basis, with each
new theory or innovation.
Issue 85
"It is always an individual who is the impetus for innovation; the details may be worked out by a
team, but true innovation results from the enterprise and unique perception of an individual."
Some measure of consistency and stability in the law is critical for any society to function.
Otherwise, I strongly agree with the speaker’s assertion that laws should be flexible enough to
adapt to different circumstances, times and places. The law of marital property apdy illustrates
this point.
On the one hand, a certain measure of consistency, stability, and predictability in our laws is
required in order for us to understand our legal obligations and rights as we go about our
day-to-day business as a society. For example, in order for private industry to thrive,
businesses must be afforded the security of knowing their legal rights and obligations visi-vis
employees, federal regulatory agencies, and tax authorities--as well as their contractual rights
and duties vis-~t-vis customers and suppliers. Undue uncertainty in any one of these areas
would surely have a chilling effect on business. Moreover, some measure of consistency in the
legal environment from place to place promotes business expansion as well as interstate and
international commerce, all of which are worthwhile endeavors in an increasingly mobile
society.
On the other hand, rigid laws can result in unfairness if applied inflexibly in all places at all
times. The framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized the need both for a flexible legal
system and for flexible laws--by affording each state legal jurisdiction over all but interstate
matters. The framers understood that social and economic problems, as well as standards of
equity and fairness, can legitimately change over time and vary from region to region----even
from town to town. And our nation’s founders would be pleased to see their flexible system that
promotes equity and fairness as it operates today.
Consider, for example, marital property rights, which vary considerably from state to state,
and which have evolved considerably over time as inflexible, and unfair, systems have given
94
way to more flexible, fairer ones. In earlier times husbands owned all property acquired during
marriage as well as property brought into the marriage by either spouse. Understandably, this
rigid and unfair system ultimately gave way to separate-property systems, which
acknowledged property rights of both spouses. More recently certain progressive states have
adopted even more flexible, and fairer, "community property" systems, under which each
spouse owns half of all property acquired during the marriage, while each spouse retains a
separate-property interest in his or her other property. Yet even these more egalitarian
community-property systems can operate unfairly whenever spouses contribute unequally;
accordingly, some community-property states are now modifying their systems for even
greater flexibility and fairness.