The Meaning Of It All: Thoughts Of A Citizen-scientist [Paperback]

I have to be honest to admit that I can barely read most of his scientific work. I'm just not that smart. But he was also humorous and wise and this book is more about his general belief system and other matters.

Even his prose is not easy reading. His sentences are so long and complex and so well-constructed that the reader feels like he's swimming on the surface of the deepest part of the ocean. Whole lectures feel perfectly designed and complete, all in a curious, Woody Allen, Jewish persona.

I actually believe and follow his worldview, which was roughly analagous to Einstein's.

They were Secular Humanists. They believed that God if he exists, only manifests in a very distant, abstract sense. Both were loathe to accept specific religious views.

It is Feynman's view that science rejects the type of absolute certainty at the core of most mainstream religious views of the world. Interestingly, he includes Soviet Communism as a type of religion, which is understandable when you think about it.

Much of this book is really about the intersection of science and philosophy. He asks: how do we justify right and wrong and other human standards in a world without such a self-invented reward-and-punishment system.

This is surely one of the questions for the ages, one that Feynman clearly believes is beyond the inherent limits of the scientific worldview. He believed that the flaw was inherent in human makeup, and that the solution was also there - not in the science but in the application.

His example was: why is there no water system in the slums of Rio? The money to improve people's lives is there. The will to action is not.

Both Feynman and Einstein considered capitalism a necessary but untrustworthy system, and had political leanings toward the Left.

Feynman discusses the serious responsibilities involved with science, which has in the 20th century been the Pandora's box, bringing enormous forces and power into the world for either good or abuse or evil.

He puts forward perhaps 6 absolute truths that allow for improved human interaction and the greater good of mankind. Most are obliquely political in nature, democracy, freedom of speech, separation of science from exterior interests or intervention, the value of uncertainty,

But in the end, his combined belief system is unclear. It lacks something that the human spirit requires for complete fulfillment. He fully recognized this and I don't fault him for it.

The paradox he attempts to address are inherent in the basic fabric of the world, and if he did think that he knew the answers he would be a different animal altogether.

Considering the direction the nation has taken these last few years, his voice is sorely missed.