Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science News

Diary Illuminates Einstein's Last Years 166

b00le writes "Several sources carry versions of this story about the diary of Johanna Fantova who shared much of the last years of Einstein's life (and cut his hair) and witnessed his kindness and poltical activisim. The diary does not seem to have been translated from the German yet, but the site has extracts. According to this, Fantova tried to publish the diaries herself and of course failed to find an agent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Diary Illuminates Einstein's Last Years

Comments Filter:
  • So why (Score:2, Insightful)

    by GFisher ( 78060 )
    Sorry for the ignorance, but why 'of course failed to find an agent'?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      the people in charge of knowing better don't.

      Film executives don't know anything about film or movie goers. Music executives certainly wouldn't know music if they heard it, but they understand large boobies and good skin. While a perhaps surprising number of female models look like male heroin addicts. So literary agents don't know something worth reading when it's already largely written and walks itself into their office. I'm sure we could all turn to another NetOps ForceCenter book which Tom Clancy
      • Uhhh...if Einstein's diaries are really his they'll find a publisher. Publishers publish things other than blockbusters, I mean if they didn't the entire bookstore would consist of Tom Clancy and Stephen King. There's a legitimate complaint you can make about the state of the publishing industry but I think you're going way overboard.
    • Re:So why (Score:3, Informative)

      If you read the article, it appears to be for lack of trying on Fantanova's part. She didn't make it widely known enough that she had one, it says.

  • is this real? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BobTheLawyer ( 692026 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @08:36AM (#8971318)
    perhaps I'm being over-cynical, but I can't help wondering if this is a hoax.

    Einstein calling Heisenberg "a big Nazi" is surely too funny to be true. The mistake mentioned in the article (reporting Einstein phoning his sister several years after she was dead) doesn't sound like the sort of mistake a real diarist would ever make.

    thoughts, anyone?
    • Re:is this real? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 26, 2004 @08:39AM (#8971334)
      This is possably why she failed to find a publisist.

      They check the document before publishing it. Were as newspaper's push anything they have to the public.
    • Re:is this real? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BuddieFox ( 771947 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @08:41AM (#8971342)
      Einstein calling Heisenberg "a big Nazi" is surely too funny to be true.
      Why would it not be true? Werner Heisenberg did a lot of nuclear research in germany during the second world war, research that was meant to lead to a german atom bomb.
      I dont think just because Einsteing was Einstein everything he said every day had to sound poetic and/or thouroughly thought thru, maybe he just spoke his mind occasionally? :)
      • Re:is this real? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Karamchand ( 607798 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @08:46AM (#8971380)
        But Heisenberg never did this because he was a Nazi, he did it because he chose to stay in Germany instead of emigrating. Read a Heisenberg biography.
        • Re:is this real? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by BuddieFox ( 771947 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @08:49AM (#8971396)
          I am aware of that. I am also aware that he did not sympathize with the nazis and only did his work because he had to. But nonetheless, he _did_ the work. There are stories of Heisenberg having to fake nazi sympathies in letters to friends because the nazis read everything he wrote, something that caused a lot of his old friends to think he really did sympathize with the nazis at the time and take offence.
          • by obtuse ( 79208 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @11:15AM (#8972693) Journal
            Heisenberg's motivations are still arguable. After the war, an amazing number of people suddenly "did not sympathize" with the Nazis, although they worked diligently and enthusiastically for them. Heisenberg may have been a "big Nazi." Wasn't Einstein personally acquainted with the man, and in a position to form a legitimate opinion based on evidence we may not have seen?

            Personally, I think Heisenberg was probably sabotaging the Nazi effort, but none of the evidence is compelling. He was such a convincing collaborator that it's hard to tell.

            Heisenberg's actions may have intentionally slowed down the Nazi pursuit of the atom bomb, or perhaps he was actually trying hard, and just wrong or (un)lucky. All these men were perfectly fallible.

            We're responsible to everyone for what we do, and who we pretend to be and. We're responsible only to ourselves for who we are.

            Fiction is a good arena for the unknowable. Kurt Vonnegut's _Mother Night_ is a lovely book about these very problems and even the movie is great.
        • Re:is this real? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Was that biography you read written after the Allied victory, or collected from his letters by someone who didn't have a vested interest in his image. I'm not knocking his contributions, where would physics humor be with out him, but the real truth is almost always more complicated than the one people want remembered.

          He made a lot of progress towards a German atom bomb. Could he have made more? We probably can never know the answer to that question. But from the progress he did make, there's little roo
      • Re:is this real? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Chemicalscum ( 525689 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @08:46AM (#8971384) Journal
        In fact Einstein said "ein grosse Nazi". I thnk it just about accurately sums up Heisenberg who had been active in the Bavarian extreme right even before the Nazi's came to power.
      • Re:is this real? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Welpa ( 320496 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @09:22AM (#8971589)
        Actually, this is not so unbelievable. Heisenberg apparently did believe that Germany would win and was working on developing the atomic bomb for Hitler.

        There has been a lot of attention devoted to a meeting, in 1941, between Heisenberg and Niels Bohr, a Danish physicist, in occupied Copenhagen. There has even been a play about it, called "Copenhagen".

        You can read some documents about the meeting here [www.nbi.dk].
        • Re:is this real? (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          For the German speakers. Here is a historical article about the German uran project. I heard the speaker at the Niels Bohr institute. He was quite convincing http://www.uni-muenster.de/PeaCon/wuf/wf-95/952140 1m.htm [uni-muenster.de]
        • "Copenhagen" is an excellent play. It makes what is to me a very convincing case that Heisenberg did not want to build a bomb, and does so in a way that is free from the various historical biases that have clouded the question.

          IAANP, and have done the kind of calculations that Heisenberg didn't (although not, I hasten to add, for bomb-making purposes!)

          --Tom
      • no kidding (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Wah ( 30840 )
        Werner Heisenberg is the father of the Atom Bomb.

        Just in an alternate universe.

        Yea, the Nazi's won in that one. Churchhill tripped once as a teenager and hit his head a bit too hard on the pavement. He was finally killed by the SS when they marched through London. No, not in Parliament, on the street. He was a bum.

        It's quite an alternate universe, let me tell ya.
    • Re:is this real? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by spellraiser ( 764337 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @09:02AM (#8971457) Journal

      This is from the article:

      In close succession, Einstein received visits from physicist Werner Heisenberg, who led the Nazi German A-bomb effort, and Aage Bohr, son of physicist Niels Bohr, who became Heisenberg's rival. Fantova recounted that after the visits, Einstein called Heisenberg "a big Nazi" and commented that Bohr was more pleasant but spoke constantly.

      From the context, it seems clear that Einstein is referring to Heisenberg's demeanour, perhaps also his expressed opinions and world-views. Heisenberg's past is not the issue here. Einstein was stating his personal perception of Heisenberg, as established from his own acquaintance with him.

    • Re:is this real? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Wirr ( 157970 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @10:30AM (#8972240)
      Well, speaking as a German, I think it is highly likely that he said that.
      Namecalling isn't only an American pasttime.
      And calling people Nazi's is one of my nations favorites pasttime.
      And just after the war it was bound to happen even more often - especially if you consider that Heisenberg wasn't exactly on the left side of politics, neither before nor after the war.
    • Re:is this real? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Bananenrepublik ( 49759 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @12:49PM (#8973595)
      The mistake mentioned in the article (reporting Einstein phoning his sister several years after she was dead) doesn't sound like the sort of mistake a real diarist would ever make.Well, the German word "Schwester" can mean any of "nurse", "nun" and "sister", so it's not totally unlikely that either Johanna Fantova misunderstood Einstein or the person finding that mistake misunderstood Mrs Fantova, as Einstein, being ill, certainly had to deal with nurses.

    • "thoughts, anyone?"

      Well, my first thought would be to invoke Godwin's law on Einstein's comment.
  • Bed Head (Score:5, Funny)

    by DeanFox ( 729620 ) <spam DOT myname AT gmail DOT com> on Monday April 26, 2004 @08:39AM (#8971331)


    If she is the one who cut his hair, I wonder what her writings must be like. Einstein, even on portrait day, looked worse than I do on my worst bed head day. It took so long to transcribe her notes because of her shaky hand?

  • Big Nazi Comment (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cmoll ( 646399 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @08:43AM (#8971363)
    Very interesting... I wonder how true it is. I have my concerns with the "Big Nazi" comments. From many published reports, Einstein was a bit on the touched side on social issues, but this seems a bit questionable. Having access to the "full diary" should prove the authenticity of the whole thing. I have my doubts about it, and getting excepts only raises my suspicions.
    • by ianscot ( 591483 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @09:37AM (#8971707)
      "From many published reports, Einstein was a bit on the touched side on social issues"...

      What exactly does that mean?

      It fills me with deep apprehension to see how people who might otherwise rail against "PC revisionism" will dismiss something like Einstein's various social causes, putting them in a basket like "he was a little 'touched'" to keep them at a safe distance. Heisenberg had worked for the German war machine trying to develop an atom bomb. Do we not think Einstein could possibly have strong feelings about that? Whether this diary's legit or not, that particular point doesn't seem over the edge to me. Over-candid, maybe -- as might happen in a diary...

      It' ain't just Einstein (who was an avowed socialist by the way -- boo!). A worse and weirder thing has happened with Helen Keller. Helen Keller was a hell of a woman; Winston Churchill called her "The greatest woman of our age." We've made her a curiosity, a freak show -- because we're airbrushing out her entire adult life so that she's safer for fifth-graders to read about. Okay, so these two people were socialists, and I'm not. (I'd be more of a Keynesian, along the lines of Richard Nixon, economically.) Opinions far from our own aren't inherently nuts, and we don't have to be scared of them -- do we?

      • Opinions far from our own aren't inherently nuts, and we don't have to be scared of them -- do we?

        There is nothing threatening about opinions, of course. The problem is that once an opinion becomes "endorsed" by government, it's no longer an opinion -- it's pure force.

        An opinion is something which is voluntarily accepted. Government is not capable of conducting its business through voluntary means -- if it did, it wouldn't be government (it would be free enterprise). By definition, government must condu

        • Government is not capable of conducting its business through voluntary means -- if it did, it wouldn't be government (it would be free enterprise). By definition, government must conduct its business by force.

          Er, no. Most of what we call "free enterprise" operates within a sheltered framework provided by government and protected by force where necessary.

          Absent government, "free enterprise" would be pleased to commit all manner of crimes--but they wouldn't be crimes without government, would they? It w

          • Absent government, "free enterprise" would be pleased to commit all manner of crimes

            That's what government teaches you, however the facts are that (1) no such purely capitalist society has ever existed for long enough to mature before being conquered by government, and (2) there is no evidence that services which are currently provided through forced participation (government) cannot be provided as well or better through voluntary participation.

            but they wouldn't be crimes without government, would they

  • by jacquesm ( 154384 ) <j AT ww DOT com> on Monday April 26, 2004 @08:57AM (#8971431) Homepage
    was a UN with teeth. Violate the charter and we'll come after you. Much more effective than the current talking sessions, which no violator ever takes serious. Now *that* would improve the world.

    forget the e=mc^2 stuff :)
    • by Emperor Igor ( 106953 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @09:00AM (#8971449)
      That's debateable. A UN with teeth would basically be a world government instead of a world forum. I don't think it's bearable for most countries to have laws primarily influenced by the values of other countries.
      • by JohnnyCannuk ( 19863 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @09:09AM (#8971489)
        Well that may be true, but I suspect the people of Rawanda wouldn't have given a tinkers cuss about that kind of BS. Instead of relying on the good graces of the US, UK, France etc the UN could have just gone in and stopped the slaugher of 800 000 innocent people. Lt Gen Romeo Dallaire, who headed UNAMIR at the time, pled with the UN and the Security Council to allow him to conduct offensive operations to at first prevent the genocide by capturing weapons and then to rescue people and stop the killing once it had started. But on at least 3 occasions the US, the UK and France VETOED such action. And the rest is, unfortunately, history.

        Given the choices like that, I think having a little "world government" isn't so bad. Maybe not to the extent you seem to be afraid of, but the UN should have WAY more power than it does now.

        • I think the main problem is the disproportionate power the five main nations in the UN have. It should be set up far more like the American House of Representatives where each country gets a proportional vote based on some statistic or mix of statistics.
        • Judging by the rampant corruption within the UN, they'd probally be too busy looting the meagar posessions of the Rwandans than anything else.

          Also consider that the disfunctional form of post-colonial African nations was shaped in part by the UN.
          • by JohnnyCannuk ( 19863 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @01:36PM (#8974130)
            Or maybe because the US refused to pay its dues.

            No, in the case of Rawanda EXACTLY 10 years ago, the UN had armed troops on the ground that were ready, willing and able to go after the weapons caches and the genocidaires but were ordered not to by the Security Council, led by the US, the UK and France.

            As for the dysfunctional africa because of a post-colonial past being the foault of the UN I don't see it. The French had military advisors and soldiers on the ground supporting the Goververment of the dictator that planned and started the genocide. The Belgians turned tail and ran like simpering dogs when they lost soldiers in action (imagine that!). All outside the UN or without their approval. Only Canada, Ghana, Senagal and a bunch of useless Bangledeshi's stayed to try to do anything, under the authority of the UN.

            Don't be surprised that you think the UN is corrupt and inept when it is the government of the US that undermines it in every way possible. This is called a self-fufilling prophesy.

            • There were no "weapons caches"... they were using machetes and Kalashnikovs.

              Rwanda is but one chapter of the disgraceful tale of colonial and post-colonial Africa. Do not use it as the yardstick to measure 100 years of imperial oppression. Blaming the pathetic state of sub-saharan Africa on the US is incredibly ignorant... Africa was and always will be within Europe's sphere of influence.

              Previous posters made reference to the notion that the UN "doesn't go far enough" and that the UN should be a world gov
              • There most certainly were "weapons caches" - they were stock piles of machetes and AK-47s to be distributed to the militias when the killing started. The weapons were being stored by the RGF government forces and the Presidential Guard and were being distributed to the Interhamwe militia. General Dallaire recieved information about their existance and the planned genocide from an insider in February 1994 a full 2 months before the start of the killing. When he reported that he was going to confiscate the we
        • World government will soon change to world tyranny, from which recovery will be difficult and slow, if possible at all. Not a good idea.
        • by MenTaLguY ( 5483 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @11:52AM (#8973059) Homepage
          You can't just have "a little" government (of any kind). It's all or nothing.

          And a World Government would suck because for the first time in history, if the government isn't being nice to you, you have (in the absolute sense) nowhere else to go.
          • by JohnnyCannuk ( 19863 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @02:10PM (#8974511)
            Well, perhaps "world government" is a bit strong. How about giving the UN enough just to police what power and influence it already has?

            The Yanks are always whining that they don't want to be the "world's policeman" but then won't pay their UN dues or allow the UN to take over that role for them (but I suppose that would require them to support the International Criminal Court and the International War Crimes tribunal).

            Imagine a UN with the recources and logistics to prevent the next Rawanda or to actually capture indicted war criminals in Bosnia or to have enough troops and weapons to deliver aid to Somolia without the US getting it's hand dirty...

            Not a world government, but an international body with some teeth, like NATO or TANZAC.

            • Well, perhaps "world government" is a bit strong. How about giving the UN enough just to police what power and influence it already has?

              If an institution cannot police the power and influence it putatively has, then by definition does it not in fact lack that power and influence?

              The Yanks are always whining that they don't want to be the "world's policeman"...

              Crocodile tears? Regardless of what US citizens might be saying, the present US leadership seems more eager to "police" the world than I w

              • If an institution cannot police the power and influence it putatively has, then by definition does it not in fact lack that power and influence?

                Because the UN was not set up with an enforcement arm. Hmmm, who could have wanted that? Given that they have no "police force" or standing army, the UN does a very good job at enforcing it's resolutions, all things considered. I dare say the state of New York couldn't do as well with out the New York State Police, the NYPD or the New York National Guard.

                The col
                • History has demonstrated that power is acquired de facto, not de jure. The UN's role and power in the world would be altered de facto by its aquisition of a standing army.

                  There's just too much potential for abuse, particularly as (contrasted with national armies) such a force would have no legitimate ongoing "defense" role. Idle hands... As it is, even national armies get misused on a fairly regular basis (c.f. recent US actions).

                  I totally agree with you about the meagre requirements of Rawanda -- I ju
          • Which place on earth were the US government doesn't try to fuck with my rights? And I'm not a US citizen, so it isn't even my government that isn't being nice to me.
            • Consider that a "sneak peek" at the potential issues with a World Government.
              • A world government isn't going to be run by a bunch of paranoid, Christian fundamentalist Turbo-Capitalists.
                • I don't intend to dismiss your anger at having your country messed with, because you should be angry.

                  But what safeguards against the abuse of power would a world government have? I don't think abuses of power have ever been limited to particular religions or economic system; why would it be different this time?

                  Look at what's currently happening in the EU with software patents (for example). No rabid Christians or Turbo-Capitalists involved (well, maybe Turbo-Capitalists).

                  What prevents a meta-government
        • I think you overestimate non-security council members interest in the Rwanda situation, just before the genocide took place.

          And a UN with teeth doesn't mean anyone can do anything he feels is good because he feels something was violated into the UN charter.

          Einstein's vision of the UN role seems to me too much idealistic. Something like the great worldwide governement anyone expect the great omni power (call it God if you wish) to establish. Reality is just too far away from such a picture.

          In a government

          • Sorry perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I am not advocating a "World Government" because I agree that would not be a very good thing. But niether am I standing up for a status quo in which 5 memebers of the Security Council can go against the entire world because it's not in their interest. How about a UN that can have troops sent at the drop of a hat to a hot spot at the advice of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations rather than a long, protracted bunch of debates in the Security Council, which won't mee
            • About the world government, I was only reflecting what Albert Einstein's suggestion would lead to.

              However, the UN is a post-WWII organization mainly built by WWII winners. That's what the security council reflect.

              As known today, the UN is no longer an effective organization. Corruption is a known fact for a long time. Oil vs Food program is proving this at an never ever reached scale. Would you still trust an organization which members may have been bought a long time ago by a Saddam Hussein through a ver

              • I guess if those "winners" that formed the security council paid their dues, a resource thin UN wouldn't be susceptable to corruption. The US is notoriously in arrears almost all the time.

                How bout you judge the UN by the other programmes which work quite well, like UNICEF, UNHCR and the World Court? I can tell you, I can certainly find a lot of scandal and corruption with the Bush administration, should we decide that the US system of democracy doesn't work?

                "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water"
        • To all those who will read my emotional and at time angry responses to some posters below:

          Before you judge me to harshly or think I'm some kind of nut, please read Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rawanda [amazon.com].

          I've was shocked that the world did nothing when the genociode was going on (and I remember it going on), but after reading Gen. Daillaire's book I was horrified how absolutely preventable it was. His first hand account of the tragedy has coloured my thoughts about these kinds of t
      • I don't think it's bearable for most countries to have laws primarily influenced by the values of other countries.

        Why is it any less bearable for countries to have their laws influenced by other countries than to have the laws of your own country influenced by other people?

        In any case, countries' laws are already heavily influenced by other countries - it just tends to be that weaker countries acquiesce to the demands of stronger countries. For recent examples, look at laws regarding IP, pornography, dru
    • It seems to me making the world better is a very complicated issue. I will grant you, some good might come from from a UN with teeth, but before you have a UN with teeth, you have to have a UN with consensus.

    • Violate the charter and we'll come after you.

      Yeah, what a great fuckin' idea, as exampled by America and what happens when you cross her oil charter (you know, the one that says America owns all the world's oil and has a God-given right to consume it all).

      Government sucks, and world government will suck the most. You don't put a stop to things like genocide by transforming the killers into policemen by just adding badges.
      • Yes, the existence of power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) is the *problem*, not the solution. Consolidating all world power in the hands of a single agency is quite literally the worst possible scenario.

        Instead of working to increase the availability of power, we should be working to diffuse or eliminate it. Logically, the less power available to the governing elite, the less problems they will cause.

    • "one of Einsteins better ideas was a UN with teeth..."

      Better? I am not so sure. We could have a UN with teeth, but who will be the dentist?

      Who and when to chew on is a tricky problem too.

      Alas, how would the one being chewed on react? Lean towards the other side - the anti-UN?

      :%s/N/S/g

      • :%s/N/S/g
        I love it - vi rocks

        I think the best thing that could happen to the UN is to eliminate the veto power held by The Big Five. Resolutions would still be just what they are now, a public world statement, but you could still get some resolutions through that don't now just because a significant minority state finds it unflattering from political or idealogical grounds.

    • Anakin Skywalker is that you?
  • by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @09:04AM (#8971464)
    Please see Young Einstein [imdb.com] for some amazing revelations about our favorite frizzy professor's childhood in Australia.
  • by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @09:08AM (#8971481) Homepage
    One of the more interesting things about society in the United States is the way in which "dangerous" ideas can be neutralized and forgotten without actual censorship. Jack London, Helen Keller, and Albert Einstein are good examples of people whose political opinions were successfully submerged in the popular consciousness by elevating the non-threatening aspects of their life and work.

    An example from the right rather than the left would be Charles Lindbergh.

    I remember being surprised by my discovery, in the sixties, that a) many people of my parents' generation at least recognize the tune and words of The Internationale, that virtually nobody from the sixties generation does--not even the real lefties--and that people from my parents' generation were largely unaware that people from the next generation don't know it. A song and a political emblem, into the memory hole without benefit of telescreens.
    • by IceAgeComing ( 636874 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @10:06AM (#8971992)
      political opinions were successfully submerged in the popular consciousness by elevating the non-threatening aspects of their life and work.

      A couple highly personal observations:

      * Einstein's genius was in part the ability to envision abstract relationships, possibly at the expense of understanding human relationships. He had a (perhaps overly) simple vision of a simple and just social order. I admire it and share in his probable wish that people could lead simple, straightforward lives and help the less fortunate along the way.

      * Journalism, in its attempt to be sexy, has tried to make Einstein sexy. Humanitarianism is about as un-sexy as it gets, which just kills my own idealism by the way. So of course we don't know about that part of his life. Instead we are left thinking about how he helped bring about the very sexy Atom Bomb.

    • by Pentagram ( 40862 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @12:13PM (#8973250) Homepage
      Jack London, Helen Keller, and Albert Einstein are good examples of people whose political opinions were successfully submerged in the popular consciousness by elevating the non-threatening aspects of their life and work.

      And that's pretty sad. Helen Keller in particular: the part of her life where she first managed to overcome some part of her disabilities is remembered, but the campaigning work she did afterwards is forgotten. It's just about the most patronizing thing I can think of.

      With respect to Einstein, I think that he earned the right to have his views heard (though not automatically agreed with of course!) In that spirit, here's Einstein on socialism [monthlyreview.org].
    • by br00tus ( 528477 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @01:00PM (#8973718)
      Einstein's most famous political essay was probably "Why Socialism? [monthlyreview.org], which appeared in the first issue of the Monthly Review.

      The first thing he addresses in it is what someone here already responded, why does it matter what an expert (or genius) on physics thinks about political matters? His first answer is that since physics is a physical science, e.g. a "real" science, while economics is a social science, pretty much anyone can have an opinion on a social science and have it be of possible equal validity since there's no scietific method of finding a "correct" answer. He also says that the violent, predatory nature of the existing system intrudes on a scientific study of political economy (for example, property "rights" are enforced by...force). His second answer is that this is a social-ethical question more than a scientific question. So in other words, he dismisses the notion that there are experts in economic or social matters whom one can objectively say know more than the average person. It would be like a theologian telling an atheist he understands the nature of the universe better than the average person.

      As far as socialism, it never really made much of an inroads in the USA. If it's dealt with it all, it's said that it's "big government"...which sounds more like good old American New Deal Democrat liberalism. It's kind of like Plato's cave, the only reference to the body of socialism would be the shadow of liberalism. Einstein came from Europe where socialism was quite a big thing (as was communism) in the 20th century (in the east and the west - the largest political party in France was communist until 1956, Italy practically elected a communist government in 1976 losing by 5% of the vote, Germany's parliament was majority socialist and communist prior to Hitler, Spain had an anarchist/communist war against fascism in 1936 and was under a military dictatorship for decades afterward, and so on and so forth - socialism, anarchism and communism dominated Europe in the 20th century alongside fascism and Christian democrats). Einstein was steeped in these politics in Europe and had a much more intimate understanding of them then most Americans would. I've found most Americans think they know a lot about 20th century European history and the political philosophies of socialism, communism, anarchism, fascism and so forth, but they really don't. For example, you always hear how the USSR "forced" Hungarians to be communist. You'd never have known Hungary had had a bolshevik revolution in 1919, which lasted until Romania invaded. Of course, Russia had some influence on eastern Europe, but the US could be said in many respects to have "forced" France and Italy to be capitalist - especially Italy - the post-war elections were a total fraud, and as late as 1976 there were secret plans drafted by the USA to have NATO invade Italy if they voted communists into power in the 1976 election, which nearly happened. I don't know which is more disturbing - that Americans know so little about all of this, or that they know so little about all of this but think they do know all of this.

      • , and as late as 1976 there were secret plans drafted by the USA to have NATO invade Italy if they voted communists into power in the 1976 election,

        Did you know:

        The USA has un-to-date plans to invade:
        Canada,
        Mexico,
        Eastern Montanna,
        Noam Chomsky's Bathroom.

        The US Militairy has plans for just about any contingency - unfortunalty some of those plans are kept a bit *too* secret. Like NORADS plans for dealing with a hijacked airplane, where the hijackers inteneded to crash it into a 'famous building.'
      • The USA has un-to-date plans to invade: [...] Mexico

        Well, putting aside the Mexican-American war, don't forget that General Pershing marched into Mexico with his troops in 1914 during the Mexican revolution. I don't think the US is on the verge of invading Mexico right now, but the Foreign Affairs crowd is much more concerned about Mexico than most people probably realize. Don't forget that Clinton bailed out their economy in 1995. Steve Forbes also called Mexican immigration a "safety valve for domest

  • by akaina ( 472254 ) * on Monday April 26, 2004 @09:19AM (#8971560) Journal
    ...was "I live in that solitude which is painful in youth, but delicious in the years of maturity."

    It's surprising that someone so respected would need to chase a carrot like that. It sounds like that solitude extended indefinitely. Maybe extreme genius demands solitude.

    Any thoughts?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Its not that genius demands solitude, it is genius that creates solitude.
    • It's surprising that someone so respected would need to chase a carrot like that.

      I'm not sure I get your metaphor. This is how I view Einstein: more comfortable around equations than people. A logical mind finds that people are complex AND annoyingly difficult to understand at their core; equations are complex but are at least a fixed target.

      Both can be extremely interesting, but I suspect Einstein ultimately chose solitude because he found most people frustratingly difficult to understand.
      • Do you really think he chose solitude?

        • Do you really think he chose solitude?

          Yes. His quote suggests that it was painful realizing in his earlier years that he wasn't a witty socialite and probably didn't excel at friendships. As he aged, he accepted his strengths and weaknesses and learned to use them to good effect.

          Personally, I'll bet he had some awesome daydreaming skills. Socializing would have probably interfered with the exercising of this talent.

          • ...painful realizing...

            That sounds as though you are rationalizing emotions. Feelings aren't at all rational. For some reason he was alone as a youth and it hurt him, but as he grew older he grew to enjoy being alone... It doesn't mean he chose solitude... he was probably like most geeks, a quirky outcast who was difficult to live with.

            We're all governed by emotions and horomones. Our bodies and our needs change as we grow older.

            ... or I'm overanalyzing it and he was just responding to being a g

            • It doesn't mean he chose solitude... he was probably like most geeks, a quirky outcast who was difficult to live with.

              I don't disagree. The word "chose" as I originally meant it is not expressive enough. If the world had been full of people he understood and who understood him, I'm sure he would have been a happy socialite. I'm projecting my own experiences onto him here, but I believe his quote mentioned at the start of this thread indicates that solitude was a painful adjustment but one that he ada
    • Two of the people he cared about most shared his home with him, for the last 20 years or so of his life. His younger sister, whom he was very much devoted to, also lived in the same house until she died (a few years before Einstein's death). He had close friends (Fantova was only one of them).

      I know many elderly people who live in much greater solitude than that.

  • by dawg ball ( 773621 )
    ... Werner Heisenberg was quite a small man. Why would Albert call him a big nazi?

  • Ok, maybe that statement doesn't surprise some of you, but it did surprise me, when I hit on this eloquent article [monthlyreview.org] that was printed in the first issue of Monthly Review [monthlyreview.org]. I was not aware of this publication, or of Einsteins political views until I stumbled on this (I don't remember how I did now...).

    Anyway, this was something never mentioned at least in my primary and secondary education.

    You can also add to that list George Orwell, which although it may sound counterintuitive, was a staunch Socialist to h
    • I think the problem is the most people think that socialism == state socialsm or totalitarianism. There is such a thing as libertarian socialism (AKA anarchism) for one thing.
      People like Einstein get a hard time because of misconceptions like this.

      If someone says they're a socialist, it may mean they're a state socialist, or it may mean they believe in some of the concepts in socialism, and their views on the state could be many things.

      • Yes, I agree. I think it is understandably hard for people to accept the term "libertarian socialist", since those terms would superficially seem to be contradictory. Socialism is a very vague and generic term but some people have built up an instinctual reflex against it (or for it for that matter) without actually digging deeper.
    • this was something never mentioned at least in my primary and secondary education.

      If that education was done in the U.S.A., that's not surprising.
      Remember all that swearing to a flag they had you do? That's what "education" is in the states: indoctrination.

      To the U.S., socialism is evil (I believe that the United States of America indeed has a state religion, and that it is called Capitalism). Therefore there will be no talk associating something evil to someone called a genius.
      (Genius good, socialism ba
  • by 1iar_parad0x ( 676662 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @11:36AM (#8972893)
    On a tagential, but seemingly related note. Hao Wang's book "A Logical Journey: From Gödel to Philosophy" is a similar type of book. It's really more of a historical source, not a book. The author merely collected and recorded facts based on Godel's life. Godel and Einstein spent 20 years together at the Institute for Advanced Study. Often times they would take walks together and they seemed to be good friends. Also, Godel seemed to have had an active interest in cosmology, prehaps presceint of the rigourization of cosmological models in the post-Einstein era.

    Godel lived a rather mundane life. He was no Feynman. He was quiet. While Einstein seemed to enjoy, if not ask, to be treated as a scientific god, Godel seemed to hate such exclusion. Often times, mathematicians and philosophers feared to even talk to the great Godel. Even Von Nuemann (who seemed to have little respect for Einstein [see Ulam's autobiography]), referred to Godel as the greatest philosopher since Aristotle. Facts, as found in Wang's book, such as Godel's fondness for "chicken and biscuits" or Godel spending Sunday mornings in bed reading the Bible are mundane. However, these men were mundane. They're world was completely of the mind. Often these men quirks are the only really interesting things about them. They were virtually indisguishable in public. In fact, in Martin Davis book, "The Universal Computer" Davis' wife exclaimed, upon first seeing Einstein and Godel together at Princeton, that see had seen "Einstein and his lawyer".

    In the case of this woman's diaries, I'm more concerned she deified Einstein, thus tainting her view. I believe the publishers may have been right in this case. Her diaries probably read more like notes. They probably would have requried some extensive work or further research before being worthy of a book.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    "This political persecution of his associate was a source of bitter disillusionment," Fantova wrote, of the effect on Einstein of the persecution of Oppenheimer by the house un-American activities committee, led by McCarthy.

    I really wish the Guardian would check their facts before printing mistakes like this. (It has to be an editorial mistake by the Guardian, since someone alive at that time would have known better.)

    The House Un-American Activities committee was a committee of the House of Representat

  • department (Score:2, Funny)

    by sharkdba ( 625280 )
    from the never-has-the-topic-icon-been-more-fitting dept.

    Actually it has [slashdot.org].
  • They Wrote Books (Score:3, Interesting)

    by toddhisattva ( 127032 ) on Monday April 26, 2004 @04:33PM (#8976097) Homepage
    Which in Einstein's case is unfortunate, as his The World as I See It [amazon.com] clearly shows him to be an idiot savant: untouchable at mathematical physics, but laughably and tragically stupid about nearly everything else.

    Heisenberg's Physics and Beyond [amazon.com] is, on the other hand, a brilliant chronicle of the development of quantum physics. Heisenberg's disgust at faculty loyalty oaths and other trappings of National Socialism is clear. Heinsenberg also records the brilliance and humor of his colleagues, like Wolfgang Pauli, "There is no God and Dirac is His prophet!" Heisenberg is quite gracious to Einstein, so it is sad Einstein couldn't rise above his petty bitterness to all things quantum (what a cranky idiot savant).

    Since this is Slashdot, there is of course no need to urge folks to read Stan Ulam's Adventures of a Mathematician [amazon.com]. Y'all got it next to Feynman on your shelves, right?

  • ... he had dated Marilyn Munroe, and it had ended not on the best terms.

    He spent most of the rest of his life taking cold showers.

  • As I read the posts here, it strikes me that now is no different, it's just a different group that the public hears. The scientists, poets, playwrights of earlier times were the celebrities of that era. They were looked up to and listened to. That's why so much of that history is tied to political leanings.

    Just as the celebrities of our time are just as outspoken. Actors, actresses, musicians--their comments on Bush, Iraq, Blair.

    It's just a different era and those that have the public's ear are not th

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...