21–30 of 132 posts
I never knew how to square this with stories about Feynman’s sexual predation. Were these two distinct phases of his life?
I never knew how to square this with stories about Feynman’s sexual predation. Were these two distinct phases of his life?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a good summary example of something I find distinctly dangerous about the way people think of figures they don't personally know (i.e. how people on the social web treat public figures, or even just any stranger they see on the web). We see snapshots and assemble a person in our head. We can barely do that with any degree of fidelity regarding people we personally know , much less public figures. People do go…
In addition to your comment, what I find mind-boggling is how easily people swing between the two extremes of opinion: it seems every public figure must either be adored and admired, or reviled and ostracized. People (myself included, I don't exclude myself from being human!) do not want to contemplate public figures as complex individuals with dark and bright aspects. It's always all or nothing. So Woody Allen went…
To enjoy entertainment of anyone not a saint makes you a bad person. And I want to state emphatically for the record I am a good person. I believe in all the right things, and disbelieve all the wrong ones. When those things change next year or tomorrow, I too will change and forget that I ever believed otherwise.
I never knew how to square this with stories about Feynman’s sexual predation. Were these two distinct phases of his life?
This is a good summary example of something I find distinctly dangerous about the way people think of figures they don't personally know (i.e. how people on the social web treat public figures, or even just any stranger they see on the web). We see snapshots and assemble a person in our head. We can barely do that with any degree of fidelity regarding people we personally know , much less public figures. People do go…
If you're going to argue for a gradient of perspective while assessing the character of a person there are better examples than Feynman.
I never knew how to square this with stories about Feynman’s sexual predation. Were these two distinct phases of his life?
As I recall, they married quite young and the womanizing didn’t come until he was older. The optimist in me wants to believe that if Arline had not died, the womanizing wouldn’t have happened. Feynman was a brilliant man but it was clear that losing his wife shook him. Perhaps the womanizing was a consequence of that. It certainly doesn’t excuse any behavior of his, but perhaps it explains it.
I'm having a hard time imagining how the cause you posited could conceivably lead to the effect in question. Let's also remember that when a guy "plays the field", it doesn't always have a deep story behind it! :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In addition to your comment, what I find mind-boggling is how easily people swing between the two extremes of opinion: it seems every public figure must either be adored and admired, or reviled and ostracized. People (myself included, I don't exclude myself from being human!) do not want to contemplate public figures as complex individuals with dark and bright aspects. It's always all or nothing. So Woody Allen went…
I think something you're failing to account for in peoples' reactions these figures is that the relationship between their moral transgressions and their work is not spurious. Feynman was a notable scientist but he was also one of the most famous scientists, he was a great populizer of science especially later in life. Finding out he was a sex pest or womanizer or worse has tangible consequences to that role. Was he…
Yes, this is a fair assessment. The criticisms are given voice and spread once the person falls in disgrace. They are sometimes declared "unpersons", which I find deeply irritating. I suppose this happens to artists or scientists nearer in time; nobody cares to censor/cancel a Greek philosopher if he abused boys, it's just a footnote in their biography.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think something you're failing to account for in peoples' reactions these figures is that the relationship between their moral transgressions and their work is not spurious. Feynman was a notable scientist but he was also one of the most famous scientists, he was a great populizer of science especially later in life. Finding out he was a sex pest or womanizer or worse has tangible consequences to that role. Was he…
> It's just these criticisms are not generally welcomed or amplified for figures in the prime of their accolades. Which is an interesting subject itself, I think. Yes, this is a fair assessment. The criticisms are given voice and spread once the person falls in disgrace. They are sometimes declared "unpersons", which I find deeply irritating. I suppose this happens to artists or scientists nearer in time; nobody care…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It taints the whole “woman he loved” routine as he openly acknowledged his misogyny and objectification of women throughout his life. He can’t love women so how can he love this woman?
Men are fully capable to love one woman and see others just as sex. Men are fully capable to write romantic letters and mean them in the moment and seek casual sex two hours later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a good summary example of something I find distinctly dangerous about the way people think of figures they don't personally know (i.e. how people on the social web treat public figures, or even just any stranger they see on the web). We see snapshots and assemble a person in our head. We can barely do that with any degree of fidelity regarding people we personally know , much less public figures. People do go…
The topic here specifically is his love life. If a person I personally knew was accused of half of what Feynman has been, I'd have second thoughts about inviting them over for dinner. If you're going to argue for a gradient of perspective while assessing the character of a person there are better examples than Feynman.
The degree of the subject's immorality has no bearing on my point. In fact, it's arguably better to use a "worse" example, by your definition, since it actually challenges the reader to consider the point more carefully. If the subject's crimes are petty, the reader might accidentally ignore my point, instead just jumping to the easy and fallacious thought, "yeah I agree, that person didn't do anything terrible", and moving on.
That said, to be clear, I don't have an opinion on where Feynman's indiscretions fall on the spectrum. I don't know the details beyond womanizing/objectifying/going after women in relationships. Again, I'd make the same comment regardless of the answer.