l v i i i I N T R O D U C T I O N T O V O L U M E 1 5 Eduard’s comments on his father reveal how very difficult it was for him to be the son of a celebrity. In February 1926, he expressed admiration for Einstein’s ability to “always have a suitable maxim at hand” (Doc. 190). He was unsure of the sincerity of Einstein’s praise for his poems (Doc. 241), and reached the conclusion that he had to “be careful” vis-à-vis Einstein, as his father was “superior” to his “primitive thoughts.” He confessed that at times it was pleasant to have such an “illustrious father,” but at other times “it is rather uncomfortable... One feels so insignificant” (Doc. 274). Half a year later, in reaction to Einstein’s attempts to nor- malize and contextualize his son’s agonized introspection, Eduard concluded that it was “completely hopeless to argue” with his father, as Einstein himself had already thought about these matters and was “at least 30 years ahead of him in every respect.” He also decided that it was “very, very dangerous” to present Einstein with observations that were not completely “nailed down.” Ironically, both father and son feared each other’s criticism (Docs. 195 and 433). Eduard’s letters gradually became more intellectual in both tone and content. He discussed simplicity and feeling in art, and defended Schopenhauer, the adolescent Einstein’s erstwhile hero, against his father’s criticism (Doc. 190). Between May and December 1926, father and son engaged in their most heated discussions to date. Eduard began to express beliefs that may well have been intended to provoke. In his opinion, human achievements, especially those of individuals, were “com- pletely insignificant and indifferent,” and the importance of the mind was “over- rated” (Doc. 274). He pursued this line of thought by arguing that there was “a desperately small difference between a genius and an idiot.” Works of art were lacking “any intrinsic value” and, indeed, science was “totally useless” (Doc. 414). Einstein strongly disagreed “about the worthlessness of intellectual production.” It was impossible not to acknowledge the highest stage of consciousness as “the most supreme ideal,” he wrote. He believed that Eduard was advocating eudaimonism, which Einstein described as “a dreary swine-herd ideal.” In contrast, “cognition in the artistic and scientific sense [was] the best thing we have.” He suggested a pal- liative to what he perceived as Eduard’s nihilism: the boy should “become a small cog in the great machinery of life: If one hears the angels singing a few times in one’s lifetime, then one can give something to the world and one is a particularly happy and blessed person” (Doc. 415). But Eduard did not consider eudaimonism to be such a dismal ideal. To him, science was “harmful” because of its overempha- sis on cognitive activity. Those who follow mostly intellectual pursuits “sire sickly, nervous, and sometimes completely moronic children,” Eduard wrote in typically self-denigrating fashion, citing himself as a prime example (Doc. 433). By mid-1925, Einstein’s relationship with Mileva Mariü had begun to improve.