[HN Gopher] No Other Love: Letters from Richard Feynman to His L...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       No Other Love: Letters from Richard Feynman to His Late Wife,
       Arline
        
       Author : Stratoscope
       Score  : 76 points
       Date   : 2021-12-25 08:22 UTC (14 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.sothebys.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.sothebys.com)
        
       | tchalla wrote:
       | > After the initial fear of a cancer prognosis, Arline was
       | diagnosed with lymphatic tuberculosis in 1941, possibly
       | contracted from unpasteurized milk.
       | 
       | I want to take a step back and realise how far humans have come
       | in 80 years.
        
         | bskinny129 wrote:
         | Plus I believe Feynman's baby brother died from an infected
         | hangnail. Going off memory from Gleick's book, so please
         | correct if slightly off.
        
         | orgels_revenge wrote:
         | Here here. What a great thing to no longer confront in our
         | daily lives.
        
         | scotty79 wrote:
         | It always irks me how people bash modern food and its safety
         | and glorify all the natural handmade and handpreserved food.
         | Literally zero respect for painstakingly developed processes
         | that save life and health of hundreds of thousands people on
         | daily basis.
        
       | gautamcgoel wrote:
       | There is something indescribably vulgar about auctioning off a
       | letter a man wrote to his dead wife. I am quite sure that when
       | Feynman penned that letter he had no idea it would eventually be
       | sold by strangers for profit.
        
         | inglor_cz wrote:
         | I wouldn't be as harsh. We do not really know the entire
         | picture and we are too often primed for outrage nowadays.
         | 
         | Perhaps the heirs ran into some serious trouble that can be
         | alleviated with money. If a kid needs an expensive operation or
         | a paralyzed person a better wheelchair, may the letters of the
         | dead help them.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | ykevinator2 wrote:
         | On the other hand he knew we were all just carbon and that
         | morality is exclusively a weapon for the living.
        
         | DangitBobby wrote:
         | When my grandmother died, one of her children discovered a box
         | full of correspondence between her and my grandfather while he
         | was in the war. They subsequently turned this collection of
         | letters into a book and published it. I was horrified, but the
         | rest of the family seemed to think it was a great idea. It's a
         | real head-scratcher to me.
        
         | kaiwen1 wrote:
         | Perhaps it's just too soon? Would you feel the same about
         | Solomon's letters to his (first) wife? Or Mark Antony's letters
         | to Cleopatra?
        
           | BoxOfRain wrote:
           | I think a reasonable bar is when a person passes out of
           | living memory. Once it's reasonably likely the last person
           | who knew them is also dead, there's no material harm that can
           | be done by revealing their correspondence and the benefit to
           | historians would outweigh any potential hurts to living
           | people's memory of someone.
        
             | kurthr wrote:
             | Agreed... met the man. Refuse to read the letter.
        
         | hirundo wrote:
         | Is it the selling of these historical artifacts that offends
         | you, or just the fact that they have become public documents? I
         | don't think we can categorically call it vulgar to make public
         | the private correspondence of long dead historical figures.
         | They can certainly help us understand those people better.
         | 
         | So is it the fact that someone is making a profit from the
         | transaction that you find disturbing? That doesn't bother me.
         | It just transfers the letters from someone who values the money
         | more to someone who values the documents more. I don't find it
         | tasteless or indecent for the previous or new owner to make
         | that judgement.
        
           | globular-toast wrote:
           | I doubt anyone values the documents that much. They are just
           | another financial instrument now.
        
           | 300bps wrote:
           | Not OP but similarly offended.
           | 
           | To me it's that I assume these items went to a next of kin
           | possibly multiple times to get to a person who cared so
           | little of them that they are cashing in.
           | 
           | It's not just the letters either. His prestigious awards and
           | other things are for sale on that site.
        
           | echelon wrote:
           | Just wait until they auction off the frozen body of Ted
           | Williams in a hundred years or so. The moral questions over
           | private correspondence will pale in comparison.
           | 
           | I imagine if buying dead people becomes as commonplace as
           | buying art, some future _Cards Against Humanity_ performative
           | comedy outfit might try an analogously outrageous  "cut up a
           | Picasso" stunt.
           | 
           | Which is all to say that selling love letters is relatively
           | tame in the scheme of all the things that happen after we
           | die.
        
             | throwawaycities wrote:
             | Look up Body Worlds. The owner has been obtaining bodies
             | primarily from China, plasticizing them, and displaying
             | them all over the world (primarily in the US) charging
             | public admission for all to see.
             | 
             | There is significant controversy and speculation about the
             | origin of the bodies themselves, such as being Chinese
             | political agitators and/or originating from "camps". Some
             | "returned" bodies clearly died of head trauma, others of
             | bullet wounds. Two doctors in Russia were charged with
             | supplying 56 bodies without consent that included homeless
             | and mentally ill.
        
           | throwawaycities wrote:
           | > They can certainly help us understand those people better.
           | 
           | What exactly do you think you would learn about Feynman that
           | is so important you feel your right to his personal
           | correspondence to his wife outweighs his privacy (even from
           | the grave).
           | 
           | It's not a new or novel debate, one of the more famous
           | discussions on the topic would be the publication of the
           | diary of Anne Frank. Unlike Feynman she wasn't a historical
           | figure, until after publication of her diary. If you agree
           | with the publication do you object to the decision to
           | withhold publication of a number of pages and if so on what
           | basis?
           | 
           | It's also not entirely unrelated to archeology/grave robbing.
           | What exactly gives people/governments the right to dig up and
           | loot tombs? Courts are still trying to figure out the
           | remedies where those bodies/artifacts were taken by foreign
           | governments and are currently being proudly displayed in
           | foreign museums to the public. Presumably you might think it
           | tasteless to go down to a local cemetery and begin digging up
           | graves in search for jewelry and personal affects, but would
           | being a "historical figure" really change your mind? Do you
           | not see the connection? If not what is your moral distinction
           | since you don't think it's tasteless so long as the market is
           | deciding the value?
        
             | bobthepanda wrote:
             | Honestly, the best people to make that kind of judgement
             | would be the person's personal relatives. It seems like
             | Feynman's estate is selling the objects, it's not like
             | someone robbed his grave.
        
               | saagarjha wrote:
               | One of the problems here is that the Feynman estate has a
               | significant conflict of interest when making this
               | decision: namely, they get money from it.
        
               | tcgv wrote:
               | > the best people to make that kind of judgement would be
               | the person's personal relatives
               | 
               | To expand on that the best person to make this kind of
               | judgement would be Feynman himself.
               | 
               | But then I'm not sure if had he ever made a claim on
               | whether he would allow these letters to become public /
               | be sold, if such a claim would have any legal value to be
               | enforced after his death.
               | 
               | In the end we are left with his personal relatives, and
               | what the law regulates regarding their rights to share
               | Feynman private letters posthumously.
        
             | stickfigure wrote:
             | They're dead, they're beyond caring. Honestly this
             | "sanctity of the dead" concept is a bit antiquated. Cremate
             | the bodies, recycle the physical goods, move on.
        
               | throwawaycities wrote:
               | You may not care, yet Humans have codified an entire body
               | of law known as estate planning to see deceased's wishes
               | carried out.
               | 
               | Do you not have an estate plan on the basis once you're
               | dead you are beyond caring? Or do you have an estate plan
               | but feel it is ok to violate on the basis you will be
               | beyond caring and there is no sanctity of the dead?
               | 
               | Why even suggest cremation? Such a preference seems to
               | contradict being beyond caring.
        
               | mattigames wrote:
               | I hope someone publishes the sex tapes of your
               | grandparents 33 years after their death to help you put
               | things into perspective, or perhaps you really believe
               | what you are saying and would consider the enjoyment of
               | those videos by strangers as "recicling".
        
               | wyager wrote:
               | You should apply chesterton's fence to long-standing
               | social traditions like this. There are certainly
               | compelling reasons to respect the dead's wishes, even if
               | the reasons are not apparent to you personally.
        
               | robertlagrant wrote:
               | Chesterton's fence is hard to apply in a vacuum,
               | especially for subjective matters. Got any clues as to
               | where to start?
               | 
               | If not, this is just like when business people talk about
               | "scalable" in meetings. Means nothing without more info.
        
               | kodah wrote:
               | I think it's less sanctity of the dead and more consent
               | on what is allowed to be published. It's a fair argument.
               | If I stumble across someone's messages to their ex-
               | girlfriend who is now well-renowned in my circles, am I
               | allowed to publish them? If they're dead does it really
               | impact the ethics?
        
               | ignoramous wrote:
               | Privacy of their personal information is now well and
               | truly something for the famous to consider codifying it
               | in their Will going forward...
               | 
               | Much like in the Google/Meta dominated online world, the
               | default is _opt-in_ , it'd seem, as that likely generates
               | capital such "estates" need, to survive.
        
               | stickfigure wrote:
               | > If they're dead does it really impact the ethics?
               | 
               | Yes? I feel pretty comfortable saying that the live/dead
               | status of the author (and subjects) is one of many
               | factors that affects the ethics involved in publishing
               | something like that. That seems to be the question of
               | this thread, no?
        
           | throwaway894345 wrote:
           | The answer appears to be pretty plain in the original post:
           | the letters are deeply personal.
        
             | randombits0 wrote:
        
               | toolz wrote:
               | Can you elaborate how sleeping with many women or
               | enjoying strip clubs is related to "not equating yourself
               | with women"?
        
               | option_greek wrote:
               | And that makes it okay to make private communication
               | public?
               | 
               | Isn't it hypocrisy to argue to for privacy of the living
               | (HN being pro privacy) but not of the dead.
        
               | stathibus wrote:
               | Fortunately Feynman is already dead and doesn't have to
               | endure random strangers on the internet reading his
               | personal letters _or_ making sweeping moral judgments
               | about his true nature based on anecdotes.
        
       | gigatexal wrote:
        
         | pjc50 wrote:
         | I think that was _after_ his first wife died. I do wonder to
         | what extent his later somewhat casual sex attitude was
         | influenced by the traumatic experience of his first deep love
         | dying young.
        
           | mynameisash wrote:
           | My understanding is that this attitude predated Arlene's
           | death. In his writings (I think it was _What do you care what
           | other people think?_ ), he noted that someone told him Arlene
           | (his then-girlfriend) was 'running around' with other guys.
           | It was an attempt to make him jealous, but he noted that he
           | was dating other girls, so it was only fair. (My phrasing,
           | not his.)
           | 
           | It very much sounded like they were both comfortable with
           | their relationship. Granted, this was _his_ writing many
           | years after the fact.
           | 
           | I don't think the claims that he was a womanizer are relevant
           | or fair. People say that kind of shit about MLK to discredit
           | him. Similar claims against Feynman don't discount his love
           | for his wife.
        
         | throwaway55421 wrote:
         | Interestingly, your wife isn't Feynman's wife.
        
         | bell-cot wrote:
         | Contrary to stereotypes, many men seem quite capable of both
         | deep, loving devotion...and of enjoying various sorts of
         | commercialized sex (strip clubs, "dirty" magazines, etc.,
         | etc.).
         | 
         | It makes for a _lot_ of miscommunication and drama.
        
         | amanaplanacanal wrote:
         | Huh. Mine loves strip clubs.
        
           | [deleted]
        
       | 02020202 wrote:
        
       | rurban wrote:
       | Not his late wife, his first wife, who died early. With his 2nd
       | he took a miss. She was a right-wing radical McCarthyan who
       | denounced him to the FBI as possible Russian spy. His third and
       | late wife was finally ok then.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-12-25 23:01 UTC)