Letters to Solovine: 1906-1955
Page 4
I had already learned of Langevin’s death. He was one of my dearest acquaintances, a true saint, and talented besides. True, the politicians exploited his goodness since he was unable to ferret out the base motives which were so foreign to his nature. It is surprising that France is recovering so slowly; I believe that this is the reverse of her individualism, which does not allow responsible public opinion to come to light unless it serves the purpose of national pride. Never thank me again for whatever bits we have the right to send you; it confuses me too much. I thank your doctor profusely for his well intentioned and competent advice, but I must be careful in describing my health, without lying too much, as bad, for this is my only effective weapon. Besides, they have already discovered that it was due largely to a deficient diet; by enriching the diet, they were successful in restoring my good health. I read your Epicurus with intense interest. He is quite right in saying that ethics must not be based on belief, that is, on superstition. The eudemonic concept is certainly fitting. But I feel strongly that it is too primitive. Good acts are like good poetry. They are sensed easily but are only partially understood. Even if the doctrine is accepted, the feeling of goodness is a precarious basis, for the more closely one looks, the more nebulous it becomes. The most ingenious people have not succeeded in determining even the nature of the escape of mind and mood and the basis of their powerful effect. Subjectively my sister feels well, but she is going down a steep grade from which there is no return. Hers is a little steeper than that of most people of the same age. Currently I am reading Xenophon’s Cyropaedia to her in the evening. It is an exquisite work. Something so fitting and so natural was realized only by the Greeks. It was very kind of you to have invited Mrs. François. Heine’s beautiful line applies to her: “If it rained ducats, she would have only holes in her head.” In Mr. Straus’ company I am always bothered considerably by the verification (or refutation) of my equations. But we are far from having surmounted the mathematical difficulties. It is a hard matter, which even a real mathematician would not have the courage to attack. As for the book, I am convinced that you did a good job in correcting it. I do not know where the ridiculous passage about the sunset is. The reader enjoys discovering such a lapse, so why deprive him of his pleasure (Epicurus). Did the latter have a place for malicious pleasure on his balance sheet? According to him, it would definitely be considered as positive if the injury is not caused by men. (Here I am only kidding.) I surmise that you wish the English Evolution…. Sending the stupid thing is not worth the bother. It is probably not obtainable in the latest English editions.
All the best you both!
Your
A. Einstein
August 26, 1947
Dear Solovine,
I am getting along well, with a few ups and downs, and so is Maja (all things considered). I was delighted to read your Epicurus. All in all, it would be hard to deny that the man’s system of ethics is logical. Against this, it seems to me that he fails to exhaust his subject, for the values shown as positive are to some extent incommensurable and can not without further elaboration be added or subtracted. Suppose, for instance, that we are convinced that the cumulative happiness of ants is higher than that of men. Would it then be right from the ethical point of view for men to surrender to the ants? Regardless, do not lose your temper because of me and my stubbornness, and rest assured that as far as heat and humidity are concerned, we can offer you large-scale competition.
I torment myself bravely with my main problem but without obtaining any decisive result.
With cordial greetings from all of us to you and your wife.
Your
A. Einstein
November 25, 1948
Dear Solo,
The good Lord seems to have been very nonchalant about accepting your consignment, but the effect was still the same, as you see by this letter. He probably follows scrupulously the maxim of a governmental employee: There is no affair so pressing that it will become more pressing if laid aside for some time.
My friend Lowe spoke to me about you. From his account it is clear that aside from the above-mentioned God and some black marketeers, no one in France lives better. It is worth noting also that there are attempts to uphold “our” policy of bringing the Nazis back to power in Germany in order to use them against the wicked Russians. It is hard to believe that men learn so little from their toughest experiences. Following his suggestion, I sent Hadamard a telegram to support opposition to the policy. In it I said: “This world war would not have occurred if people had listened to the far-sighted Clemenceau.” Let us hope that the intellectuals will achieve something.
At home, everything goes smoothly so far. My sister does not suffer, though, objectively, she sinks visibly. I always read to her in the evening—today, for instance, the odd arguments which Ptolemy advances against Aristarchus’ opinion that the world rotates and even moves around the sun. I could not keep from thinking of certain arguments of present-day physicians: learned and subtle, but without insight. The examining of arguments in theoretical affairs is precisely a matter of intuition.
In my scientific activity, I am always hampered by the same mathematical difficulties, which make it impossible for me to confirm or refute my general relativist field theory, though I have a very competent young mathematician as collaborator. I shall never solve it; it will fall into oblivion and be discovered anew later. That has already happened to many problems.
Among the works that I have been reading to my sister in the evening are certain things from the philosophical writings of Aristotle. They were actually deceptive. If they had not been so obscure and so confusing, this kind of philosophy would not have held its own very long. But most men revere words that they can not understand and consider a writer whom they can understand to be superficial. That is a touching sign of modesty.
The English show a kind of cheap resentment which I would not have believed possible against our small Jewish tribe. But their internal politics really deserves praise. They are perhaps the only ones to end outmoded capitalism without a revolution. Objectively they are actually in a worse condition than France, which is neither overpopulated nor reduced to importing foodstuffs.
During these last months, one of Conrad Habicht’s sons came here; he is a very clean-cut, well-built boy, who is also a mathematician. Once again I had news of the old man. We really had a wonderful time in Berne, when we were intent upon our studies in our happy “Academy,” which was less childish than the respectable Academies that I became more intimately acquainted with later on.
One of the good sides of old age is in gaining the right perspective for viewing all things human. You certainly do not have to grow old for that.
Cordial greetings and wishes from
Your
A. E.
Lido Beach
Sarasota, Florida
Februrary 22, 1949
Dear Solovine,
The exchange of letters with a South African schoolgirl which you refer to was a dismal failure. The main outcome was astonishment at the news that I had not been dead for 300 years (confusion with Newton).
I am here in Florida for three weeks, with four more days to go. The operation was a stomach incision based on a conjecture which was not entirely correct. I have made a good recovery and the operation was not useless, because certain defects were corrected. But I am still weakened, for at this age one can no longer expect very much.
With cordial regards to you and your wife,
Your
A. Einstein
March 28, 1949
Dear Solovine,
I was deeply moved by your affectionate letter, which contrasts so sharply with the countless other letters that have reached me on this unhappy occasion. You imagine that I regard my life’s work with calm satisfaction. But a close look yields a completely different picture. I am not convinced of the certainty of a simple concept, and I am uncertain as to whether I was even on the right track. In me my contempor
aries see both a heretic and reactionary who has, so to speak, survived himself. That, to be sure, is a matter of fashion and short-sightedness, but the feeling of inadequacy comes from within. Well, it can not be otherwise when one has a critical mind and is honest, and mood and modesty keep us in balance in spite of external influences.
God knows how right you are in everything you say about human experience. But whatever is done justly cannot be done otherwise. What is most grievous is the social drama which is being played on the world stage. This domination of blind impulses. America, England, Russia and the smaller ones—may the devil take them, and he will.
The best that remains are some upright friends whose heads and hearts are in the right place and who understand each other, as we two do.
I am curious about the material you have assembled on Heraclitus. I think that he was a stubborn, melancholy man. It is a pity that these gigantic individuals can be seen only through a thick fog.
My very best, to you and your wife.
Yours,
A. Einstein
January 25, 1950
Dear Solovine,
I sent you a thick volume thinking that certain things in it would probably interest you, among them my little quarrels with professional physicists. Soon I shall also send you the new edition of my book with the Appendix which produced so much excitement in the newspapers a few weeks ago even though no one, except the translator, had seen it. This is really amusing: laurels given out in advance! I shall also send you another book containing essays composed at odd intervals as soon as they are printed. It contains the odd exchange of letters between me and the (so-called) Russian academicians.
I hope that life in Paris is gradually becoming tolerable for the non-black marketeers, and that you are well, you and your wife. Our own private life is satisfactory.
Cordial greetings from
Your
A. Einstein
June 12, 1950
Dear Solovine,
Enclosed herewith is the confirmation sent to Gauthier-Villars. It would be more appropriate to have the Appendix appear in the same format as in the fourth edition of the Lectures, now in preparation. The theory of gravitation has had one mistake in logic deleted and has been corrected.
I agree with you about the title which you propose to substitute for Out of My Later Years. If you have not yet received from me a copy of my book, write to me, please, and I will send you one.
Concerning the question of Statistics against Determinism, this is the way it appears: From the point of view of immediate experience there is no such thing as exact determinism. Here there is no disagreement. The question is whether or not the theoretical description of nature must be deterministic. Beyond that, the question is whether or not there exists generally a conceptual image of reality (for the isolated case), an image which is in principle completely exempt from statistics. Only on this subject do opinions differ.
With cordial regards
Your
A. Einstein
July 10, 1950
Dear Solovine,
I received your letter of June 30 and agree to all your proposals. The matter of spectral rays is of course explained by the fact that I had nothing at all do with the publication of my essays and the publishers had no notion of the subject. I am curious to learn just how far our opinions on religion differ. I can not imagine how, basically, our opinions could be widely divergent. If that is the way it appears, I probably failed to express myself clearly.
Personally I am getting along well, though my sister has retrogressed, without suffering much, however.
The next edition of the Appendix is still being held up because I can find no completely satisfactory proof for the compatibility of the new field equations. Hence the delay.
With my cordial greetings,
Your
A. E.
January 1, 1951
Dear Solovine,
Many thanks for your detailed letter of December 7. Here are the answers to your questions:
The militarization of Germany came about shortly after 1848 following the rise of Prussia, where militarization had a much earlier beginning. I believe that one century is the best rough designation of the length of the process.
Conclusion of the article on Kepler: The remark will draw attention to this psychological and historically interesting point. Kepler did reject the astrology of his era but still promoted the idea that the existence of rational astrology is entirely possible. This is not so extraordinary, for the positing of causal animistic connections, which is almost always characteristic of primitive man, is not unreasonable in itself, and was given up only gradually by science under the pressure of systematically acquired data. Kepler’s research doubtless contributed much to the process, which developed as a harsh inner struggle in his mind.
I can well understand your aversion to the use of the word “religion” when what is meant is an emotional or psychological attitude, which is most obvious in Spinoza. I have found no better expression than “religious” for confidence in the rational nature of reality insofar as it is accessible to human reason. Wherever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism. For all I care, the parsons can make capital of it. Anyway, nothing can be done about it.
I can not concur in you opinion concerning science and ethics or the determination of aims. What we call science has the sole purpose of determining what is. The determining of what ought to be is unrelated to it and can not be accomplished methodically. Science can only arrange ethical propositions logically and furnish the means for the realization of ethical aims, but the determination of aims is beyond its scope. At least that is the way I see it. But if you do not agree with me, I respectfully ask, which imbecility should find a place in the book, yours or mine?
With cordial greetings and best wishes for 1951.
Your
A. Einstein
February 12, 1951
Dear Solovine,
In the German text I wrote “limited” in the sense of “not too common.”
The editorial mix-up is unfortunate, for Flammarion is in possession of a contract which I negligently let slip through (my friend and collaborator Infeld is looking into it now); the extent to which Flammarion is entitled to publication rights is still in doubt. I hope that you have been paid for the translation, which was marked by so many difficulties. If so, publication matters little to me, to be truthful. Let the publishers arrange matters between themselves.
My sister’s affliction has naturally become increasingly severe in the interval, but she does not suffer from it directly. I myself can not complain of my health, although the effects of old age are making themselves felt. I do not come from a long-lived family, as you know.
The unified field theory has been brought to a conclusion. But it is hard to use it mathematically for, in spite of all the trouble I have gone to, I am not able to verify it in any way. This state of affairs will last for many more years, mainly because physicists have no understanding of logical and philosophical arguments.
Cordial regards,
Your
A. Einstein
March 23, 1951
Dear Solovine,
I thank you sincerely for your amiable letter and for the book by La Mettrie with your interesting Foreword. It is not easy to understand how cultured people of the 18th century found this book revolutionary. I read a part of it to my sister every evening. You would laugh if you could hear me stammer out the precious French sounds. The reader is also struck by the flowery rococo style, which contrasts so sharply with the heavy spirit of our time.
I sometimes wonder how Solo looks upon international political blunderings. Our outlook is probably different, for each is inclined to react most bitterly against what is close at hand.
All is well with us, but my sister’s condition has worsened in the inverval. She can scarcely pronounce an intelligible word, though her mind is still clear.
Cordial reg
ards to you
Your
A. Einstein
March 29, 1951
Dear Solovine,
I am sending the correction herewith. I wrote my comments in German; if you do not understand them, write me again. I notice besides that even after the corrections the Appendix on the theory of gravitation is quite difficult to understand. It is more important for the subject to be intelligible than for the volume to appear as soon as possible.
I am very sorry about the package mix-up. Schiller’s “The Ring of Polycrates” comes to mind. Find out whether the so-called “Care” packages are subject to high duties too. You owe this whole blessing to Truman and his helpers.
There is no need for you to bother about the book after having been paid for the translation. I have no illusion of being able to better the world through this book, and it makes no difference to me whether the book appears later or not at all. In any case, I do not intend to be mixed up in it. If it is published, we can always bash our heads in over the portrait.
Schrödinger’s equation is wholly in order. E is a function of q and p alone. But Schrödinger’s function psi, formed from E, depends on the time t.
La Mettrie writes interestingly, though we were struck by his flowery rococo style. I read all of it to my sister. It is hard to understand how his contemporaries managed to find it so exciting.