pathological forms of a military style Spartan state, and the even worse pathological forms of oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. For each of these forms of state there is a corresponding type of personality. For Plato and Aristotle, in other words, there is a fundamental logical relation between our descriptions of personal identity and our descriptions of state identity.” Freud shared this view and did not flinch from using the concepts relating to individual pathological symptoms in more universal cultural contexts: “Freudian theory is particularly valuable in the explanation of pathological phenomena. If the assumption of Plato and Aristotle relating to the logical identity of personal identity and social or political identity is philosophically defensable then, even if Freudian theory might lack an important teleological dimension this might not be of decisive significance when it comes to the characterisation of pathological phenomena whether it be of a personal or political nature. Take the phenomenon of group identity which Freud wrote a paper about(Group Psychology and the Ego). The stronger the bond of identification with the group, the stronger the reaction to "outsiders" however minimal the factual differences between the outsiders and the members of the group might be. This reasoning can be used to ground an objection to the project of globalization, namely, that the only alternative to the current concept of the nation state is some kind of world government. Now Kant particularly rejected the concept of world government on the grounds that this would be tyrannical. If we connect this Kantian point to the Freudian reflection, the consequence would seem to be the kind of middle position suggested by Ricouer in which a European project dilutes national identity and nationalism on the road to the global project of further dilution of the identification mechanisms involved in Euro-politanism. Freud clearly described the pathological consequences of identification mechanisms in relation to the mobilization of aggression against the Jews, but he did not see the full consequences of this particular battle between Eros and Thanatos. He died in 1939. Had he been alive he would probably have observed that a German Jew was just as much a German as any non- Jewish German. His analysis of the leader of the Germans at the time of Hitler's suicide would have been very cool and technical. Terms such as "pathological or chronic narcissism", "paranoia" "delusional"for him were descriptive and explanatory and embedded in a network of concepts and principles rather than emotionally laden as they seem to be for us when taken out of their medical context. Hannah Arendt points out the banality of the way in which the everyday family German participated in atrocities during the day whilst going home in the evening to be fathers to their families. In doing so, she argues, this phenomenon bears witness to the Freudian battle of the giants on the cultural stage. The same mechanism, if not same instincts, binding a child to his parents binds a citizen to his leader: one can identify out of love or as a consequence of exposure to aggression.” The European Project proposed by Ricoeur is then regarded as a staging post on the journey toward Kantian cosmopolitanism: a project of Peace between nations and justice and human rights for the inhabitants of such a world.