It's interesting that he brings up Feynman, because (if you believe his version of events, anyway;) at one point after the Manhattan Project, he was feeling par

It's interesting that he brings up Feynman, because (if you believe his version of events, anyway;) at one point after the Manhattan Project, he was feeling particularly uninspired, because he wasn't playing. So he's sitting in the cafeteria watching someone throw a plate in the air. He starts wondering about the relationship between wobbling of the plate and the rotation. He works it out, has some fun, and then starts thinking about how this might relate to particle physics. This plate-wobbling play led to insights for which he received the Nobel Prize. Play is where insight happens, to borrow a phrase from another professor. That's why I don't get annoyed when I see "not deeply interesting" projects on HN. You could ask, like Hans Bethe did in the Feynman story, "yes, but what's the importance of it?" and the answer in many cases will be nil. In the long run though, I suspect that play results in those important, unforeseen changes and transformations. It might not even be some change you yourself do - sometimes it's enough to spark the mind that will. Ultimately, though, I would like to see creativity defended as an end in itself. What about play for play's sake? Our society has reached this unparalleled ability to let people engage themselves creatively, why can't that be the end-goal? http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kilcup/262/feynman.html http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kilcup/262/feynman.html