Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I love my wife. My wife is dead (1946)

lettersofnote.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 135 posts

Re: I love my wife. My wife is dead (1946)

#51

Post by patcon »

dang wrote: post #47

Reposts are fine after a year or so but this topic had a major thread within the last year, so the current post counts as a dupe by HN's standard. See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html . Love after life: Richard Feynman's letter to his departed wife (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37914958 - Oct 2023 (127 comments) Earlier threads, in case of interest: No Other Love: Letters from Richard Feynman…

REPOSTED from deleted top level comment.

@dang I'm seeing that it was posted 7 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37914958

I appreciate the rules, but am very disappointed. There are some incredibly moving comments in here. I rarely feel as connected to the hacker news community as when reading these comments. The fact that it was erased off the front page for some rigid application of the rules, that leaves me with a bad taste.

For your consideration in the next cycle: pls consider valence of comments when determining dupes. If there is either an unfolding of (1) very valuable and new information, or (2) very sincere and vulnerable feelings, people might appreciate your bending the rules. thanks for considering

Re: I love my wife. My wife is dead (1946)

#52

Post by smaudet »

karaterobot wrote: post #46
mrweasel wrote: post #8

On one hand I am happy that we have things like Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, on the other I feel that peoples private and unpublished writings should be kept private. It's reasonable enough to let a limited number of researchers access private documents, but the broader public, no. This isn't a letter meant for us, it's not meant for anyone to read and I feel that publishing it is a little disrespectful.

If anyone believes people have a right to decide what information about them is made public, but believes they lose that right after death, I'd love to hear the argument for that. For me, the basis for accepting the first proposition is that you buy in to self-determination as a value in and of itself, worth respecting not just because the person is around to stop you from doing whatever you want to them. In other wo…

I think the answer is buried somewhere in the mists of...time. Put another way, there is a temporal degree of respect for the dead, i.e. can you and for how long put the wishes of the dead above those of the living.

Of course, for immediate death, as others have noted, there are plenty of "stakeholders", family members, etc. who have direct interest in the wishes of the dead being upheld (not having their communications exposed, as others have noted). These needs must be considered, but eventually those grandchildren will also themselves pass, and those stakes will have also vanished.

Even for immediate death, the wishes of the dead can be invalid and ir-respected, such as in the case of a suicide bomber or a recently deceased captor/dictator.

On the flip side, for those dead (tens of) thousands of years, we engage in a practice known as archeology, that I think you would have a hard time arguing the opposite - the information we glean from their table scraps is too valuable to worry about their death wishes, assuming they had any.

In the great in-between, then, the question is, whose wishes matter more? Those of the deceased or those of the living. Usually, those of the living. And it is generally in our interest that we not disturb the dead too much, because at least we would like to live in a society that continues to grow, and does not need to disturb them (too much), respect our own wishes, etc. But ultimately, once it can be said it no longer harms any living, or any future living, then the desires of the living trump the desires of the deceased.

Re: I love my wife. My wife is dead (1946)

#53

Post by mycologos »

graemep wrote: post #48
mycologos wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think strenholme is saying that those casual relationships are morally wrong, but that they're only facsimiles of the connection found in a deep and long relationship (especially one formed when young), and that pursuing facsimiles maybe brings you close enough to the original that you keep pursuing, but not close enough to ever approximate the original, and if what you miss is the original, then this is not…

Interesting point, but surely the reasoning that they are "only facsimiles of the connection found in a deep and long relationship" is a major argument for regarding them as morally wrong? If you believe you have a moral duty to be the best person you can then passing up that opportunity in favour of the facsimiles is morally wrong.

> If you believe you have a moral duty to be the best person you can then passing up that opportunity in favour of the facsimiles is morally wrong

Maybe a better statement would be that casual connections only offer facsimiles of the depth of a deep and long relationship, because the sheer accumulation of time and experiences with another person cannot be replaced quickly. However, you can also say that a deep and long relationship only offers a facsimile of the breadth of many shorter relationships, as one person can only offer so many things. If you change your passionate pursuit every decade, finding a partner with the same one each time might make that pursuit more fruitful. It's not how I personally feel, but "best person" is subjective like that.

Re: I love my wife. My wife is dead (1946)

#54

Post by dang »

patcon wrote: post #51
dang wrote: post #47

Reposts are fine after a year or so but this topic had a major thread within the last year, so the current post counts as a dupe by HN's standard. See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html . Love after life: Richard Feynman's letter to his departed wife (2017) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37914958 - Oct 2023 (127 comments) Earlier threads, in case of interest: No Other Love: Letters from Richard Feynman…

REPOSTED from deleted top level comment. @dang I'm seeing that it was posted 7 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37914958 I appreciate the rules, but am very disappointed. There are some incredibly moving comments in here. I rarely feel as connected to the hacker news community as when reading these comments. The fact that it was erased off the front page for some rigid application of the rules, that l…

Ok, I've turned off the dupe marker on this one.

Re: I love my wife. My wife is dead (1946)

#55

Post by solardev »

dang wrote: post #54
patcon wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

REPOSTED from deleted top level comment. @dang I'm seeing that it was posted 7 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37914958 I appreciate the rules, but am very disappointed. There are some incredibly moving comments in here. I rarely feel as connected to the hacker news community as when reading these comments. The fact that it was erased off the front page for some rigid application of the rules, that l…

Ok, I've turned off the dupe marker on this one.

Thanks for being flexible with the rules! This is the first time I've seen this post, and I appreciated it.

Re: I love my wife. My wife is dead (1946)

#56

Post by patcon »

dang wrote: post #54
patcon wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

REPOSTED from deleted top level comment. @dang I'm seeing that it was posted 7 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37914958 I appreciate the rules, but am very disappointed. There are some incredibly moving comments in here. I rarely feel as connected to the hacker news community as when reading these comments. The fact that it was erased off the front page for some rigid application of the rules, that l…

Ok, I've turned off the dupe marker on this one.

you are delightful. i appreciate you, dang

Re: I love my wife. My wife is dead (1946)

#57

Post by patcon »

coldtea wrote: post #36

People appreciating this letter might also appreciate "A crow look at me" by Mount Eerie (a one-person music project), written by Phil just after his wife died of cancer, and dealing with it. Here's an example track: https://genius.com/Mount-eerie-real-death-lyrics

THANK YOU. I'm listening to this now, and deciding what is appropriate to share with my family <3

Re: I love my wife. My wife is dead (1946)

#58

Post by nathan_compton »

graemep wrote: post #48
mycologos wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think strenholme is saying that those casual relationships are morally wrong, but that they're only facsimiles of the connection found in a deep and long relationship (especially one formed when young), and that pursuing facsimiles maybe brings you close enough to the original that you keep pursuing, but not close enough to ever approximate the original, and if what you miss is the original, then this is not…

Interesting point, but surely the reasoning that they are "only facsimiles of the connection found in a deep and long relationship" is a major argument for regarding them as morally wrong? If you believe you have a moral duty to be the best person you can then passing up that opportunity in favour of the facsimiles is morally wrong.

I don't think this follows unless you think there is something particularly special about sexual relations per se. I'm monogamous but I don't see why people should avoid casual sex.

Re: I love my wife. My wife is dead (1946)

#60

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

cyberlurker wrote: post #15
strenholme wrote: post #10

My wife died 10 years ago, so I understand that pain. Dealing with death is never easy. The thing I miss most about my wife is the depth of emotional connection; she knew everything about me being very deeply in love with me and everything I did really mattered to her. It has taken me nearly 10 years to build a network of friends who can give me comparable levels of socialization and attention; I have about two dozen…

I mean this seriously. Why not both? I don’t see the problem with having multiple types of relationships with people, including sex. As long as everyone is on the same page (consensual, they know it’s casual, etc.) Sorry for your loss and glad you’re doing better.

> Why not both? I don’t see the problem with having multiple types of relationships with people, including sex.

May I suggest retiring to The Villages in FL? They seem to have the multiple partners thing worked out.

https://duckduckgo.com/?hps=1&q=the+villages+florida+sex&ia=...

Post reply on HN