
The private and public lives of Albert Einstein - okfine
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/the-public-and-private-lives-of-albert-einstein-p-d-smith/
======
durpkingOP
should private lives be made public post morteum?

~~~
hyfgfh
How else we could shatter the illusion that heroes exist?

~~~
keiferski
Why is shattering this illusion a good thing? Especially if a 'false', heroic
impression of someone inspires you to achieve great things, or act more
virtuously, that you otherwise wouldn't have done.

There's a difference between 'hero worship' and 'hero inspiration', IMO. The
difficult part is getting rid of the former while not destroying the latter in
the process.

~~~
exergy
I think the parent may have been sarcastic. I certainly hope so. Life was much
better before my idols had entirely mundane Instagram feeds.

~~~
freeflight
Imho it can be very misleading to think of Instagram feeds, or any social
media for that matter, as "private life".

Many social media users are very self-conscious and calculating with the
"image" they are building with particular accounts.

It's all feeding into this idea of perfect infallible human beings, as
supposedly showcased on social media, but in reality, such humans simply don't
exist.

Particularly in the context that often it's our flaws that define us as
humans, not being able to admit to having any does not strike me as a healthy
and rational attitude.

~~~
exergy
Ah, no, I have the _opposite_ problem!

For instance, musicians one really likes, one projects them into images of
saints. Then they're out their putting selfies on, sharing insipid quotes or
just generally seeking validation, and the mirage crumbles a bit.

------
gdubs
For what it’s worth, I thought Andy Serkis really captured some of the
complexity of Einstein’s character in the movie “Einstein and Eddington” —
contrasts with the typical characterization of Einstein as the cuddly goofball
of pop culture, and paints him as a human with flaws.

------
cafard
I'm not sure why we should care. The private lives of Freud, Jung, and perhaps
Russell may be of interest because their work was bound up in telling others
how to live. Einstein did a certain amount of that--though I think more in the
large than in the small--but he did not achieve fame for his thoughts on
peace, socialism, etc. Rather his thoughts on matters of conduct became
interesting because of the fame earned through physics.

------
roundabout4ce
But...the real (big) Question was: "Why is there no spaceship with 'front-
drive'?", and speaking in terms of "Reisegefühl" ( _um_ in other words,
something like the feeling you have during traveling) _heck_ \- damned
Einstein - Why does it need mass for acceleration #=!*%?? (-:

------
andrewfromx
i read these rules he had for this 1st wife years ago "A. You will make sure:

1\. that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order; 2\. that I will
receive my three meals regularly in my room; 3\. that my bedroom and study are
kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only.

B. You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not
completely necessary for social reasons. Specifically, You will forego:

1\. my sitting at home with you; 2\. my going out or travelling with you.

C. You will obey the following points in your relations with me:

1\. you will not expect any intimacy from me, nor will you reproach me in any
way; 2\. you will stop talking to me if I request it; 3\. you will leave my
bedroom or study immediately without protest if I request it.

D. You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children, either
through words or behavior."

[http://www.openculture.com/2013/12/albert-einstein-
imposes-o...](http://www.openculture.com/2013/12/albert-einstein-imposes-on-
his-first-wife-a-cruel-list-of-marital-demands.html) and I try and be nicer.

~~~
claudiawerner
This is frankly one of the most absurd and saddest things I've read - and I'm
surprised to see it attributed to Einstein.

~~~
kick
Not only was he abusive to his first wife, he then got married to his cousin,
and almost proposed to _her daughter_. Beyond that, he had a great deal of
affairs.

Einstein may have been smart, but he was a _really_ awful person.

~~~
shadowprofile77
Being shitty about commitment and affection in your romantic life does not by
default make you an awful person. It makes you bad at strong romantic
relationships perhaps. There are however many other metrics of what makes
someone good and bad in a moral and human sense. So please, lay off the "if
you ever cheat on your wife you must be a piece of human garbage" nonsense.

~~~
lostphilosopher
Why is the relationship sphere separate from the moral sphere? How do you
decide what belongs in the moral sphere? Does the relationship sphere overlap
with the moral sphere in other areas just not in fidelity? Why doesn't it
intersect there?

Saying someone is boolean "good" or "bad" is of course complex - perhaps
beyond utility. But to the extent a moral evaluation is being made of a person
(unless your point is no such evaluation can or should ever be made?) I don't
see how their conduct in their romantic relationships could be exempted?

~~~
shadowprofile77
I did not say it shouldnt be exempted, only that on the scale of moral
judgments insofar as we are equipped to make them, cheating is and should be
far down the list compared to many other acts that individually or in summary
could and in many cases should make someone worse than a "good person" by the
normal standards of moral judgement that most of us accept and live by.

