5 ms·

There is something indescribably vulgar about auctioning off a letter a man wrote to his dead wife. I am quite sure that when Feynman penned that letter he had

There is something indescribably vulgar about auctioning off a letter a man wrote to his dead wife. I am quite sure that when Feynman penned that letter he had no idea it would eventually be sold by strangers for profit.

hirundo 5y ago
Is it the selling of these historical artifacts that offends you, or just the fact that they have become public documents? I don't think we can categorically call it vulgar to make public the private correspondence of long dead historical figures. They can certainly help us understand those people better. So is it the fact that someone is making a profit from the transaction that you find disturbing? That doesn't bother me. It just transfers the letters from someone who values the money more to someone who values the documents more. I don't find it tasteless or indecent for the previous or new owner to make that judgement.
- 300bps 5y ago
  Not OP but similarly offended. To me it’s that I assume these items went to a next of kin possibly multiple times to get to a person who cared so little of them that they are cashing in. It’s not just the letters either. His prestigious awards and other things are for sale on that site.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  The answer appears to be pretty plain in the original post: the letters are deeply personal.
  - randombits0 5y ago
    - toolz 5y ago
      Can you elaborate how sleeping with many women or enjoying strip clubs is related to "not equating yourself with women"?
    - stathibus 5y ago
      Fortunately Feynman is already dead and doesn't have to endure random strangers on the internet reading his personal letters or making sweeping moral judgments about his true nature based on anecdotes.
    - option_greek 5y ago
      And that makes it okay to make private communication public? Isn't it hypocrisy to argue to for privacy of the living (HN being pro privacy) but not of the dead.
- globular-toast 5y ago
  I doubt anyone values the documents that much. They are just another financial instrument now.
- echelon 5y ago
  Just wait until they auction off the frozen body of Ted Williams in a hundred years or so. The moral questions over private correspondence will pale in comparison. I imagine if buying dead people becomes as commonplace as buying art, some future Cards Against Humanity performative comedy outfit might try an analogously outrageous "cut up a Picasso" stunt. Which is all to say that selling love letters is relatively tame in the scheme of all the things that happen after we die.
  - throwawaycities 5y ago
    Look up Body Worlds. The owner has been obtaining bodies primarily from China, plasticizing them, and displaying them all over the world (primarily in the US) charging public admission for all to see. There is significant controversy and speculation about the origin of the bodies themselves, such as being Chinese political agitators and/or originating from “camps”. Some “returned” bodies clearly died of head trauma, others of bullet wounds. Two doctors in Russia were charged with supplying 56 bodies without consent that included homeless and mentally ill.
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  > They can certainly help us understand those people better. What exactly do you think you would learn about Feynman that is so important you feel your right to his personal correspondence to his wife outweighs his privacy (even from the grave). It’s not a new or novel debate, one of the more famous discussions on the topic would be the publication of the diary of Anne Frank. Unlike Feynman she wasn’t a historical figure, until after publication of her diary. If you agree with the publication do you object to the decision to withhold publication of a number of pages and if so on what basis? It’s also not entirely unrelated to archeology/grave robbing. What exactly gives people/governments the right to dig up and loot tombs? Courts are still trying to figure out the remedies where those bodies/artifacts were taken by foreign governments and are currently being proudly displayed in foreign museums to the public. Presumably you might think it tasteless to go down to a local cemetery and begin digging up graves in search for jewelry and personal affects, but would being a “historical figure” really change your mind? Do you not see the connection? If not what is your moral distinction since you don’t think it’s tasteless so long as the market is deciding the value?
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    They're dead, they're beyond caring. Honestly this "sanctity of the dead" concept is a bit antiquated. Cremate the bodies, recycle the physical goods, move on.
    - wyager 5y ago
      You should apply chesterton's fence to long-standing social traditions like this. There are certainly compelling reasons to respect the dead's wishes, even if the reasons are not apparent to you personally.
      - robertlagrant 5y ago
        Chesterton's fence is hard to apply in a vacuum, especially for subjective matters. Got any clues as to where to start? If not, this is just like when business people talk about "scalable" in meetings. Means nothing without more info.
kaiwen1 5y ago
Perhaps it's just too soon? Would you feel the same about Solomon's letters to his (first) wife? Or Mark Antony's letters to Cleopatra?
- BoxOfRain 5y ago
  I think a reasonable bar is when a person passes out of living memory. Once it’s reasonably likely the last person who knew them is also dead, there’s no material harm that can be done by revealing their correspondence and the benefit to historians would outweigh any potential hurts to living people’s memory of someone.
  - kurthr 5y ago
    Agreed... met the man. Refuse to read the letter.
ykevinator2 5y ago
On the other hand he knew we were all just carbon and that morality is exclusively a weapon for the living.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
DangitBobby 5y ago
When my grandmother died, one of her children discovered a box full of correspondence between her and my grandfather while he was in the war. They subsequently turned this collection of letters into a book and published it. I was horrified, but the rest of the family seemed to think it was a great idea. It's a real head-scratcher to me.
inglor_cz 5y ago
I wouldn't be as harsh. We do not really know the entire picture and we are too often primed for outrage nowadays. Perhaps the heirs ran into some serious trouble that can be alleviated with money. If a kid needs an expensive operation or a paralyzed person a better wheelchair, may the letters of the dead help them.
Buttons840 5y ago
If it makes you feel any better the government was reading his letters, and both parties knew their letters were being read. Not applicable to your complaint in general though.

hirundo 5y ago

Is it the selling of these historical artifacts that offends you, or just the fact that they have become public documents? I don't think we can categorically call it vulgar to make public the private correspondence of long dead historical figures. They can certainly help us understand those people better. So is it the fact that someone is making a profit from the transaction that you find disturbing? That doesn't bother me. It just transfers the letters from someone who values the money more to someone who values the documents more. I don't find it tasteless or indecent for the previous or new owner to make that judgement.

300bps 5y ago
Not OP but similarly offended. To me it’s that I assume these items went to a next of kin possibly multiple times to get to a person who cared so little of them that they are cashing in. It’s not just the letters either. His prestigious awards and other things are for sale on that site.
throwaway894345 5y ago
The answer appears to be pretty plain in the original post: the letters are deeply personal.
- randombits0 5y ago
  - toolz 5y ago
    Can you elaborate how sleeping with many women or enjoying strip clubs is related to "not equating yourself with women"?
  - stathibus 5y ago
    Fortunately Feynman is already dead and doesn't have to endure random strangers on the internet reading his personal letters or making sweeping moral judgments about his true nature based on anecdotes.
  - option_greek 5y ago
    And that makes it okay to make private communication public? Isn't it hypocrisy to argue to for privacy of the living (HN being pro privacy) but not of the dead.
globular-toast 5y ago
I doubt anyone values the documents that much. They are just another financial instrument now.
echelon 5y ago
Just wait until they auction off the frozen body of Ted Williams in a hundred years or so. The moral questions over private correspondence will pale in comparison. I imagine if buying dead people becomes as commonplace as buying art, some future Cards Against Humanity performative comedy outfit might try an analogously outrageous "cut up a Picasso" stunt. Which is all to say that selling love letters is relatively tame in the scheme of all the things that happen after we die.
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  Look up Body Worlds. The owner has been obtaining bodies primarily from China, plasticizing them, and displaying them all over the world (primarily in the US) charging public admission for all to see. There is significant controversy and speculation about the origin of the bodies themselves, such as being Chinese political agitators and/or originating from “camps”. Some “returned” bodies clearly died of head trauma, others of bullet wounds. Two doctors in Russia were charged with supplying 56 bodies without consent that included homeless and mentally ill.
throwawaycities 5y ago
> They can certainly help us understand those people better. What exactly do you think you would learn about Feynman that is so important you feel your right to his personal correspondence to his wife outweighs his privacy (even from the grave). It’s not a new or novel debate, one of the more famous discussions on the topic would be the publication of the diary of Anne Frank. Unlike Feynman she wasn’t a historical figure, until after publication of her diary. If you agree with the publication do you object to the decision to withhold publication of a number of pages and if so on what basis? It’s also not entirely unrelated to archeology/grave robbing. What exactly gives people/governments the right to dig up and loot tombs? Courts are still trying to figure out the remedies where those bodies/artifacts were taken by foreign governments and are currently being proudly displayed in foreign museums to the public. Presumably you might think it tasteless to go down to a local cemetery and begin digging up graves in search for jewelry and personal affects, but would being a “historical figure” really change your mind? Do you not see the connection? If not what is your moral distinction since you don’t think it’s tasteless so long as the market is deciding the value?
- stickfigure 5y ago
  They're dead, they're beyond caring. Honestly this "sanctity of the dead" concept is a bit antiquated. Cremate the bodies, recycle the physical goods, move on.
  - wyager 5y ago
    You should apply chesterton's fence to long-standing social traditions like this. There are certainly compelling reasons to respect the dead's wishes, even if the reasons are not apparent to you personally.
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      Chesterton's fence is hard to apply in a vacuum, especially for subjective matters. Got any clues as to where to start? If not, this is just like when business people talk about "scalable" in meetings. Means nothing without more info.

kaiwen1 5y ago

Perhaps it's just too soon? Would you feel the same about Solomon's letters to his (first) wife? Or Mark Antony's letters to Cleopatra?

BoxOfRain 5y ago
I think a reasonable bar is when a person passes out of living memory. Once it’s reasonably likely the last person who knew them is also dead, there’s no material harm that can be done by revealing their correspondence and the benefit to historians would outweigh any potential hurts to living people’s memory of someone.
- kurthr 5y ago
  Agreed... met the man. Refuse to read the letter.

ykevinator2 5y ago

On the other hand he knew we were all just carbon and that morality is exclusively a weapon for the living.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

DangitBobby 5y ago

When my grandmother died, one of her children discovered a box full of correspondence between her and my grandfather while he was in the war. They subsequently turned this collection of letters into a book and published it. I was horrified, but the rest of the family seemed to think it was a great idea. It's a real head-scratcher to me.

inglor_cz 5y ago

I wouldn't be as harsh. We do not really know the entire picture and we are too often primed for outrage nowadays. Perhaps the heirs ran into some serious trouble that can be alleviated with money. If a kid needs an expensive operation or a paralyzed person a better wheelchair, may the letters of the dead help them.

Buttons840 5y ago

If it makes you feel any better the government was reading his letters, and both parties knew their letters were being read. Not applicable to your complaint in general though.