[Radim]

Not to rain on the parade, but such glorification of "heroes" is... just awkward. Wasn't there an article on Herbert's Dune on the HN front page, just yesterday?

In particular, von Neumann was an "amazing human" as long as you don't mind him advising the military to bomb Russia out of the map, preemptively. What a wonderfully humane move.

"If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at 5 o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?"

(and this is not just some cranky scientist rambling -- he was very high up in the military circles, an advisor/policy maker).

Another common target of cringeworthy worship: Feynman. All fun stories (and I'm aware saying this is probably not going to go down well on HN) until you read about the abuse of women, paid abortions, broken marriages of his colleagues...

They're all human.

[jerf]

"If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at 5 o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?"

As a mathematician, it's probably worth pointing out the use of the implication. "If you are planning on bombing them tomorrow at 5pm then why wait?" is not equivalent to "Russia should be bombed now."

And indeed, of all the logical fallacies I see on the Internet this is one of the ones that tends to bother me personally the most. "A -> B" is not! equivalent to "B". If I meant B, I would have simply said B. I suspect the same is true of von Neumann.

[mikeash]

I agree with your sentiment overall, but I don't think it applies to von Neumann. The sentence right before that quote is: "With the Russians it is not a question of whether but of when." It seems generally accepted that he was in favor of destroying the Soviets before they gained the ability to retaliate, although I will admit that I can't find any more direct quotes about it.

It's hardly surprising either. During those few years when the US had the ability to devastate the USSR but not vice versa, it was a fairly common opinion. In addition to all the common reasons for advocating this, a Hungarian would also be influenced by the rather brutal domination of his homeland by the Soviets in that time.

[poof131]

Rain is good. No matter how smart you are, you can still be an idiot sometimes:

"Von Neumann knew that it was only a matter of time before the Soviet Union became a nuclear power. He predicted that were Russia allowed to build a nuclear arsenal, a war against the U.S. would be inevitable. He therefore recommended that the U.S. launch a nuclear strike at Moscow, destroying its enemy and becoming a dominant world power, so as to avoid a more destructive nuclear war later on."

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/projects...

[crassus2]

Nietzsche has interesting things about our need to tear down people who have great, unique accomplishments over common weaknesses - calling this the "slave morality". The weak need to feel superior to the great, so we redefine greatness to mean other things.

[calibraxis]

The context: slave vs. master morality. Democracy is a slave morality. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality)

Personally, I think slave moralities have much to recommend them, as movements against elite domination.

Intellectual culture has its own hype, like the computer world. Some with loudspeakers try to deify a few "great thinkers", focussing on (certain narrow aspects of) their personalities they wish others to emulate. Brushing others aside who don't fit their model, despite talent. (Like people with the wrong gender/race.)

Let's take another well-known philosopher (Chomsky), who pointed out how humanity's masters try to turn "great" figures into villains, when they act with exemplary slave morality:

"Compare Russell and Einstein, two leading figures, roughly the same generation. They agreed on the grave dangers facing humanity, but chose different ways to respond. Einstein responded by living a very comfortable life in Princeton and dedicating himself to research that he loved, taking a few moments for an occasional oracular statement. Russell responded by leading demonstrations and getting himself dragged off by the cops, writing extensively on the problems of the day, organizing war crimes trials, etc. The result? Russell was and is reviled and condemned, Einstein is admired as a saint. Should that surprise us? Not at all."

[darkmighty]

That's not what is being discussed here -- what's in point are his wonderful mathematical prowess, not his principles. Being good at one thing doesn't imply pristine ethics.

You also have to remember that those figures have pretty much all they ever said scrutinized, so that tends to distort things -- I'm pretty sure everyone one time or another made some unethical remarks, specially as a WWII fugitive. Horrible things happened in Europe and after that the harshness of Stalinism was also clear. I think it wouldn't be hard to get caught in "ultra-Americanism" at the time.

[mau]

Can you please add some sources for the claim about Feynman? A quick search on the web "feynman abuse" didn't gave me relevant results.

[GCA10]

Feynman's life is well-chronicled -- in its totality -- in Jim Gleick's biography "Genius." Feynman had a somewhat messy personal life, and Gleick covers the key points briefly but clearly.

For example (p. 277) "Bethe worried that Feynman was growing restless after four years at Cornell. There were entanglements with women: Feynman pursued them and then dropped them, or tried to, with increasingly public frustration -- so it seemed even to undergraduates, who knew him as the least professorial of professors."

If you get to p. 290, there's a quite astonishing section on Feynman's effort to work out the rules of flirting in a bar. You can still admire his science after reading the book. You'll be both charmed and troubled by his over-sized personality. But, hey, he was a complicated guy.

[irremediable]

The famous quote is "His ex-wife reportedly testified that on several occasions when she unwittingly disturbed either his calculus or his drums he flew into a violent rage, during which time he attacked her, threw pieces of bric-a-brac about and smashed the furniture." That was from an FBI file (https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/fbi...) on Feynman.

I don't know anything about the "paid abortion" thing.

It's tricky stuff... Feynman was (is?) a hero of mine, and I struggle to put this stuff in context.

[jerf]

"It's tricky stuff... Feynman was (is?) a hero of mine, and I struggle to put this stuff in context."

Heros have feet of clay. The correct move is to adjust your concept of "hero" to include this.

The alternative, that you will only declare someone a "hero" if they are perfect in every way yields a definition of "hero" with 0 instances, which is a useless definition.

If Feynmann was abusive to his wife to some degree, well, plenty of people are abusive to their wifes without also creating physics breakthroughs. It's OK to honor his ability to do that without having to think of him as perfect.

[irremediable]

I half-agree with you, but isn't there an ethical line past which it's wrong to call someone a hero?

[fail2ban]

Isn't that something you should decide for yourself? Also, why do you assume there's a duality between hero and non-hero? The person did what they did. Simplifying it to the point of 'hero' or 'not hero' is overgeneralizing, I think. Acknowledge their achievements. Acknowledge their faults. Labels aren't a requirement.

[jnbiche]

I tend not to engage in much hero worship anymore, but if the question is essentially whether there's an ethical line past which we can't look up to someone, then I'd say it's of vital importance to know exactly what this "abuse" entailed. Did he physically beat his wife on multiple occasions, or did he throw an ash tray or plate at a wall on a few occasions?

I know a good number of people in a relationship, both male and female, who have engaged in some variation of second offense(throwing things or breaking things during their worst arguments with their spouse/partner. But it wasn't habitual and didn't extend to physical contact.

If that's "all" Feynman is accused of, then I don't think it's that big of a deal. I mean, he had a son and daughter who looked up to him, so I am a bit skeptical that he was a brutal wife beater (who tend not to draw the respect of their children).

[jerf]

To be honest, I don't really call very many people "heros". I personally keep a pretty high bar for that. But that goes into an entirely different, and very large, discussion.

[bdamm]

Shine a bright enough light and everyone is hiding cockroaches.

[fsck--off]

> It's tricky stuff... Feynman was (is?) a hero of mine, and I struggle to put this stuff in context.

The context is that there was no such thing as no-fault divorce in the United States until 1969, and as a result, it was not uncommon for people to invent phony stories about abuse and submit false testimony to the court.

[Tycho]

I thought this was a rumour started by Feynman himself in order that the authorities would think twice about asking him to preside over something or other.

The 'his calculus or his drum playing' part is kind of a giveaway.

[jnazario]

> Not to rain on the parade, but such glorification of "heroes" is... just awkward.

you need to stop putting words in my mouth. never did i use the word hero, never did i use the word worship. never did i suggest those things, either.