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

91–100 of 135 posts

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

#91

Post by jseliger »

criddell wrote: post #75
throwaway64643 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always felt a sense of betrayal when someone sought a new partner after their spouse dies. But when I read a passage by Freeman Dyson about Feynman's trip to Santa Fe to meet his new girlfriend, my view has significantly shifted. Dyson (or perhaps someone else; I don't recall exactly) spoke of Feynman as someone who cannot stay out of a romantic relationship for too long. Some men just always want to love and be lo…

If you die before your partner, do you want them to remain single the rest of their lives? If that were to happen to me, I definitely want my wife to love and be loved again.

I'm facing just this problem and would not: https://jakeseliger.com/2023/08/30/turning-two-lives-into-on...

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

#92

Post by protastus »

sampo wrote: post #3

Somewhat related: http://www.rosenfels.org/Feynman After the war, Feynman got a "D" from an army psychological evaluation because he, among other things, told the psychiatrist that he occasionally talks to his late wife. "Thinks people talk about him. Thinks people stare at him. Auditory hypnogogic hallucinations. Talks to self. Talks to deceased wife."

I see two sides to this story.

By his own account, Feynman thought the psychiatrist was a bullshitter (I can see his point), turned the interview around, trolled him and presented a clearly adversarial attitude.

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

#93

Post by acbart »

Ten days from now will mark the one year anniversary of my wife's death. We would have been together for 11 years last November. It's tough. I really understand this letter, I think. You can't stop loving them. Why would you want to? It hurts. I send her Facebook messages, although earlier today it said it couldn't send them. I could write a letter, but that is not how we communicated. I may have to think of some other form of "communication" soon. An email, perhaps.

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

#94

Post by coldtea »

medstrom wrote: post #68
coldtea wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people don't find someone as good again though. Good spouses/friends/etc are not that replaceable. Or rather, they're replacable practically, but the new persons are not necessarily offering the same level of connection.

You used an interesting view of "practical" :) Deep connection is not just some bonus, I think, but in fact the main practical thing about a relationship. So I share your concern, but even so I'm not that worried. The deeper a connection you've been able to forge in the past, the better your chances of forging another deep connection.

This is twofold I think.

If having had a deep connection happened because you are in general someone easily capable of deep connection, it would be indeed easier to connect deeply again.

But if having a deep connection happened despite you not being such a person, but, e.g., because the person you lost had an equally rare disposition as you, or you lived through special circumstances that bonded you more deeply, it's probably harder to replicate this.

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

#95

Post by AlbertCory »

I hosted Shaun Usher, the author of Letters of Note, at Google:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg7LRg2NAfM&list=PL4ugKP-T4L...

I had Googlers pick a letter out of the book and read it aloud. I don't think we did that one, though. There are a lot of moving and occasionally funny letters in that book and it'd make a great gift for someone.

Interestingly enough, Shaun courted his wife entirely by pen-and-paper letters, and this was well after the Internet era.

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

#96

Post by smeej »

criddell wrote: post #75
throwaway64643 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always felt a sense of betrayal when someone sought a new partner after their spouse dies. But when I read a passage by Freeman Dyson about Feynman's trip to Santa Fe to meet his new girlfriend, my view has significantly shifted. Dyson (or perhaps someone else; I don't recall exactly) spoke of Feynman as someone who cannot stay out of a romantic relationship for too long. Some men just always want to love and be lo…

If you die before your partner, do you want them to remain single the rest of their lives? If that were to happen to me, I definitely want my wife to love and be loved again.

I've even heard stories where the one who is dying offers advice to the one who will survive about which of their single friends would likely make the best match.

And why not? Who knows the remaining spouse better than the departing one? Who has better insight than that? It seems like a deeply loving thing to do.

Even though her death was sudden and there was no chance to prepare for it, it makes me smile to know my sister's widower married someone who knew and loved my sister too. And it's probably easier for the second spouse this way too, because she does have context for her husband's grief. She also grieves the anniversary of my sister's death, obviously not in the same way, but with an understanding that someone who didn't know my sister would struggle to have.

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

#97

Post by kelnos »

jebarker wrote: post #21
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.

I'm not sure where this letter was first published, but Feynman's daughter edited a book of many of his letters private and professional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfectly_Reasonable_Deviation... I found it very beneficial to read recently so I'm grateful that his family chose to publish. I enjoy "Letters of Note" and many of the most impactful letters are personal ones between private individuals.

I agree in general, and enjoy reading things like this. But just because we enjoy something, it doesn't mean that it's right.

I'm very torn on this. As I said, I also enjoy reading things like this. But I always get the uncomfortable feeling that I'm reading someone's private diary without their consent.

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

#98

Post by smeej »

acbart wrote: post #93

Ten days from now will mark the one year anniversary of my wife's death. We would have been together for 11 years last November. It's tough. I really understand this letter, I think. You can't stop loving them. Why would you want to? It hurts. I send her Facebook messages, although earlier today it said it couldn't send them. I could write a letter, but that is not how we communicated. I may have to think of some oth…

FWIW, I still "call" my sister. I pick up the phone and dial it. Pop my earbuds in. Then I just hit the button to lock the phone instead of the one to call the number. And we talk.

It's been 6.5 years since she was alive to answer the phone, but my heart knows her voice and what she would say. I don't always actually dial the actual phone these days, but we still catch up.

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

#99

Post by kelnos »

multjoy wrote: post #88
karaterobot wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Because you are dead. You have ceased to be and your wishes no longer bind the living beyond the division of your assets, and even then that is only because of bitter legal argument between the survivors of an estate.

That's not an absolute truth, that's just what you believe. I happen to believe the opposite, that a person's death does not cancel our obligations toward that person or that person's wishes.

> You have ceased to be and your wishes no longer bind the living beyond the division of your assets

Why are assets special? Why do you draw the line there? A more consistent position would be that we're free to ignore a decedent's last will and testament because they're dead and their wishes no longer matter. But if we believe in the importance in honoring someone's will, then I think we should honor any agreement or social norm that was in effect while they were alive.

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

#100

Post by swyx »

nequo wrote: post #34
jebarker wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After reading lots of biographical material on Feynman it seems like he was a very loving father and husband (especially to his first wife) but obviously devoted to physics. I would imagine it's very difficult to find the balance between his kind of career and family such that the family feels they get sufficient attention.

It’s difficult when you want to live three lives in one human lifetime, and academia is one of those careers where that might happen to you.

> academia is one of those careers where that might happen to you

why? i dont follow. is academia so special there?

Post reply on HN