(1) I don't think you would be interested in the answers to those questions if the article was about an ordinary man. The only redeeming feature of the story is that it's about a famous genius that died recently. Remove that and tell me that story isn't inane.
(2) You're attempting to study the character of a man whose work interests you. It has turned out that his character is that of an ordinary man who acts with humanity. This is completely unsurprising but you assert that this is 'interesting'. The belief that this story is significant and unusual is utterly unbelievable to me. It suggests that many people believe that those that are considered geniuses or visionaries are somehow completely different from normal men and may not socialize or empathize with others in the same way as a normal human being.
(3) The really interesting thing about this thread is that there are so many people that (a) are trying to judge his character -- I believe that this might be because we seek our highest values in celebrities, (b) believe that they can analyze his character from just a few recounted events, (c) elevate leaders to the level that they need to be deliberately humanized with stories for others to realize that they're "just like you and me".
Please help me understand how you and others think.