4 ms·

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one hand I am happy that we have things like Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, on the other I feel that peoples private and unpublished writings should be kept p

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one hand I am happy that we have things like Marcus Aurelius' Meditations, on the other I feel that peoples private and unpublished writings should be kept private.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.

donatj 2y ago
Après moi, le déluge. After I am dead, publish everything, correspondence, search history, location history, nude photos. I am dead, I cannot care.
- nick__m 2y ago
  Correspondences usually involve at least another person so please wait until both side are dead before publishing everything.
- rpigab 2y ago
  You won't care, but the living will. Funerals aren't meant for the deceased, they allow the living to mourn and move on. It may be irrational fears, but living people often fear what's gonna happen to them after they die, and respect for people extends after they die for most people. Not for everyone, but this means that some will feel uncomfortable about sharing private stuff. And then there's also superstition.
  - strken 2y ago
    Speaking only for myself, it has been invaluable to have access to the private papers of people like my great grandfather. It provides a real connection to a man, time, and place which I couldn't know in person. Perhaps publishing everything is a step too far, but things like semi-private diaries from a war or a voyage --- intended for immediate family to read, but not for publication --- are often okay to publish within living memory of the deceased. Sufficiently chaste love letters seem to me to be okay after a long enough time has elapsed, too.
  - Daub 2y ago
    Maybe the living will care, but maybe we should not care that they care. After he died, the entire erotic oevre of the artist William Turner was destroyed by his family on grounds of taste. If they were half as profound and amazing as his landscapes, then this was an act of profound desacration.
- mrweasel 2y ago
  If that is what you wish, then absolutely, publish everything. Where I question the morality is in private correspondence, a persons dairy and things which was explicitly never wanted to be published. There are movies, music and books which the creators specifically withheld from the world. Who are we to determine otherwise. Again I see no issue in researchers combing over half-written books, discarded sheet music or personal notes. I just think we should be respectful and keep things that was deliberately hidden from the world private. If an author leaves a 90% finished book and say they don't want it published, having family or publishers to going ahead, finishing it or publishing it in its half-finished state anyway after the death or the author doesn't sit right with me. That's not to say that something like Feynman letter to his wife isn't beautiful, it is, very much so. It was just not meant for us, it was meant for himself and a woman who would never read it.
Gooblebrai 2y ago
I think that once the author has passed, there's no harm to the publishing. In fact, I'd argue that it shows us true human nature, unfiltered and unedited. If we'd only allowed what was meant to be public, we'd be losing perspective as works meant to be public are carefully crafted for that purpose.
jebarker 2y ago
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_Deviations_from_the_Beaten_Track 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.
- max-ibel 2y ago
  Seconded. Letters of Note (there are various printed volumes as well, e.g. "Speeches of Note", "Letters of Notes: Cats", ...) are a very fine collection of thoughts. One of my favorites is "Why explore space": https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/why-explore-space https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/why-explore-space.
- kelnos 2y ago
  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.
Staple_Diet 2y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but Meditations was always written to be published though. It was less a private journal and more a write-as-you-go self help book. Marcus (Marky to his friends) hoped his writings would be read widely as it would spread his thoughts on stoicism etc.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  I assume this is a joke or satire, given the 'Marky' bit? Meditations was absolutely not written to be published. Not only does he say (and imply through omission and other statements) some pretty damaging things about powerful people whose continued support he needed to rule effectively, much of it has very specific personal context that nobody but himself has ever been able to understand or interpret. A lot of it is referencing past events from his life that he doesn't explain, so is meaningless to anyone but himself. He talks a lot about admiring people whose names and specifics he never mentions, and then massively insults people like Herodes Atticus through omission (and negative anecdotes that imply him), someone who was a famous and powerful intellectual at the time, and a tutor that was a big part of his life- he had a lot to say about what he admired about his other tutors.
begueradj 2y ago
Privacy and decency are weird notions for a lots of people nowadays who rather generate money by disclosing online everything private about their lives.
Almondsetat 2y ago
This is history. The more we know, the better. If you think it's "too soon" then let's wait until his stuff gets dispersed hundreds of years after his death like has happened for every historical figure until recently. I'm sure 2236 historians will love it.
karaterobot 2y ago
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 words, if they ever had the right to say how they wanted to be treated, why do they lose that right after death? As an example, if Bob one day told you that their name is now Alice, would you say "got, it Alice!" then go back to calling them Bob on the day they die? Why not? After all, what do they care, they're dead! To me, this sounds like a variation of the same argument against respecting someone's privacy after death, and bothers me for the same reason.
- smaudet 2y ago
  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.
- multjoy 2y ago

donatj 2y ago

Après moi, le déluge. After I am dead, publish everything, correspondence, search history, location history, nude photos. I am dead, I cannot care.

nick__m 2y ago
Correspondences usually involve at least another person so please wait until both side are dead before publishing everything.
rpigab 2y ago
You won't care, but the living will. Funerals aren't meant for the deceased, they allow the living to mourn and move on. It may be irrational fears, but living people often fear what's gonna happen to them after they die, and respect for people extends after they die for most people. Not for everyone, but this means that some will feel uncomfortable about sharing private stuff. And then there's also superstition.
- strken 2y ago
  Speaking only for myself, it has been invaluable to have access to the private papers of people like my great grandfather. It provides a real connection to a man, time, and place which I couldn't know in person. Perhaps publishing everything is a step too far, but things like semi-private diaries from a war or a voyage --- intended for immediate family to read, but not for publication --- are often okay to publish within living memory of the deceased. Sufficiently chaste love letters seem to me to be okay after a long enough time has elapsed, too.
- Daub 2y ago
  Maybe the living will care, but maybe we should not care that they care. After he died, the entire erotic oevre of the artist William Turner was destroyed by his family on grounds of taste. If they were half as profound and amazing as his landscapes, then this was an act of profound desacration.
mrweasel 2y ago
If that is what you wish, then absolutely, publish everything. Where I question the morality is in private correspondence, a persons dairy and things which was explicitly never wanted to be published. There are movies, music and books which the creators specifically withheld from the world. Who are we to determine otherwise. Again I see no issue in researchers combing over half-written books, discarded sheet music or personal notes. I just think we should be respectful and keep things that was deliberately hidden from the world private. If an author leaves a 90% finished book and say they don't want it published, having family or publishers to going ahead, finishing it or publishing it in its half-finished state anyway after the death or the author doesn't sit right with me. That's not to say that something like Feynman letter to his wife isn't beautiful, it is, very much so. It was just not meant for us, it was meant for himself and a woman who would never read it.

Gooblebrai 2y ago

I think that once the author has passed, there's no harm to the publishing. In fact, I'd argue that it shows us true human nature, unfiltered and unedited. If we'd only allowed what was meant to be public, we'd be losing perspective as works meant to be public are carefully crafted for that purpose.

jebarker 2y ago

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_Deviations_from_the_Beaten_Track 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.

max-ibel 2y ago
Seconded. Letters of Note (there are various printed volumes as well, e.g. "Speeches of Note", "Letters of Notes: Cats", ...) are a very fine collection of thoughts. One of my favorites is "Why explore space": https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/why-explore-space https://news.lettersofnote.com/p/why-explore-space.
kelnos 2y ago
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.

Staple_Diet 2y ago

I agree with the sentiment, but Meditations was always written to be published though. It was less a private journal and more a write-as-you-go self help book. Marcus (Marky to his friends) hoped his writings would be read widely as it would spread his thoughts on stoicism etc.

_yb2s 2y ago
I assume this is a joke or satire, given the 'Marky' bit? Meditations was absolutely not written to be published. Not only does he say (and imply through omission and other statements) some pretty damaging things about powerful people whose continued support he needed to rule effectively, much of it has very specific personal context that nobody but himself has ever been able to understand or interpret. A lot of it is referencing past events from his life that he doesn't explain, so is meaningless to anyone but himself. He talks a lot about admiring people whose names and specifics he never mentions, and then massively insults people like Herodes Atticus through omission (and negative anecdotes that imply him), someone who was a famous and powerful intellectual at the time, and a tutor that was a big part of his life- he had a lot to say about what he admired about his other tutors.

begueradj 2y ago

Privacy and decency are weird notions for a lots of people nowadays who rather generate money by disclosing online everything private about their lives.

Almondsetat 2y ago

This is history. The more we know, the better. If you think it's "too soon" then let's wait until his stuff gets dispersed hundreds of years after his death like has happened for every historical figure until recently. I'm sure 2236 historians will love it.

karaterobot 2y ago

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 words, if they ever had the right to say how they wanted to be treated, why do they lose that right after death? As an example, if Bob one day told you that their name is now Alice, would you say "got, it Alice!" then go back to calling them Bob on the day they die? Why not? After all, what do they care, they're dead! To me, this sounds like a variation of the same argument against respecting someone's privacy after death, and bothers me for the same reason.

smaudet 2y ago
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.
multjoy 2y ago