Within the framework of Evolutionary Anthropodynamics, Dr. Pronab K. Chowdhury justifies
his characterization of Albert Einstein as a “bad friend” primarily through his relationship with
the physicist Paul Ehrenfest. The author argues that Einstein’s behavior in 1933 constituted a
terminal betrayal of a close friend during a moment of profound personal crisis 1, 2.
The author provides the following justifications for this assessment:
- Failure to be a “Friend in Need”
The author begins his critique with Aesop’s fable of “Two Friends and a Bear,” emphasizing
the moral that “a friend in need is a friend indeed” 3, 4. He contrasts this ideal with Einstein’s
actions toward Ehrenfest. While Ehrenfest had previously proven his loyalty by hiding Einstein
from German nationalists in his own home in 1923, the author claims Einstein failed to return
this support when Ehrenfest’s life fell into ruin in 1933 5, 6. - Prioritizing Personal Safety Over a Friend’s Crisis
In 1933, Ehrenfest was facing a trifecta of crises: extreme financial pressure, despair over the
future of physics (specifically his struggle with quantum mechanics), and the Nazi threat to his
disabled son, Wassik 6, 7.
● Betrayal of Trust: The author highlights a desperate letter (effectively a suicide note)
Ehrenfest wrote to his closest friends, including Einstein, stating he no longer knew how
to carry the “unbearable burden” of his life 6, 8.
● The “Comfortable” Escape: Instead of returning to Europe to support his friend or use
his global influence to help Wassik, Einstein fled to the “comfort nest” of Princeton 2, - The author characterizes this as a “betrayal” (wek ̂ vmNvZKZv) that left a desperate
Ehrenfest with no remaining hope, ultimately leading to Ehrenfest’s murder-suicide
involving his son 1, 2. - Exploiting Friends for Unpleasant Tasks
The author points to Einstein’s treatment of Michele Besso as further evidence of his failure as
a friend. When Einstein decided to “banish” his first wife, Mileva Maric, in 1914, he reportedly
refused to face her or his sons directly. Instead, he sent Besso to handle the legal confrontation
and the separation proceedings 10. The author argues that Einstein used his friends to shield
himself from the consequences of his “horrible crimes” and difficult emotional situations, which
he was too “cowardly” to face himself 10, 11. - Transactional Nature of Relationships
Within the author’s scientific framework, he classifies the post-1918 Einstein as a “hedonistic
opportunistic intelligent professional” 12, 13. This means the author views Einstein’s
friendships not as deep emotional bonds, but as transactional utilities 14, 15. For instance,
while Marcel Grossmann’s notes were essential for Einstein to pass his exams and Grossmann
later helped him secure his job at the patent office, the author suggests Einstein’s “idleness” and
“laziness” made him a parasite on the labor of his friends during his student years rather than an
equal peer 16-18.
In summary, the author justifies his claim by portraying Einstein as someone who gladly
accepted the support and labor of his friends to build his “brand name” and personal luxury, but
abandoned those same friends when their needs threatened his comfort or safety 2, 9.
