Tuesday's exam

Click here for the half-dozen questions I found in the October powerpoint file. Also eligible for inclusion on Tuesday's exam are any question-topics posted to this site in October, as well as topics discussed in my posts.

For extra credit you can prepare an answer to the discussion question of your choice in advance and bring it with you to turn in with your exam, OR write your answer in class. I'll suggest an extra credit question.


We'll sign up again for three groups, so that everyone knows what portion of each day's assigned reading to post questions about (Group #1 gets the first third, Group #2 the second etc.)... but it looks like we're through with separate group discussion.


Following last night's incredible Game #6 I'm in the mood to do a small gratuitous kindness, so... essays are now due Thursday. 


P.S. And, following the Cards' World Series WIN, I'm declaring a mini-holiday. We'll do our exam on Tuesday but that's all. Discussion of JMH will resume on Thursday. We'll do any remaining presentations then also, unless someone prefers Tuesday.

Factual Questions from Bertrand Russell

1. How should man view his problems to achieve relief from anxiety and a greater happiness?

- nothing in one's life has any cosmic importance

2. what in human nature is a better substitute to envy?

- admiration

3. What test might reveal whether one's art (or any productive contribution to society) is bad due to the public's rejection of it or if it is good and the public is simply ignorant to it.

- is your contribution conceptual or at least inspired by come conviction from the self or is it inspired by a need for attention

"do you produce because you feel an urgent compulsion to express certain ideas or feelings, or are you actuated by the desire for applause?"

Next

Th 27 H 9-12. Money. 

Again, Exam #2 has been postponed until Tuesday. Please post your questions. Report presenters please be ready.

Exam #2 postponed

We'll do the October exam on Tuesday, not tomorrow. Essays are due from non-presenters on Tuesday as well. 

I found only a half-dozen questions in the Powerpoint file, so they've either been lost or not entered. Please post any questions pertaining to the October material (Russell mostly) you'd like me to consider including in the exam by Saturday.

JPO

Throughout the reading for class today, I was most focused on a particular phrase in Chapter 6: "Wakefulness is productive. Bliss wastes time." Here, she was discussing how cocaine was viewed by and large as a "happiness drug" while today we refer to caffeine as a "wakefulness drug." In our society today is completely true--especially for a hectic college student--that being awake somehow denotes productivity, progress, and profit while we hesitate to view happiness in and of itself as productive, progressive, and profitable. If I spent my time taking a walk, hiking, reading for pleasure (things that make me "happy") then mostly I would be considered wasting my time, but if I am awake and sitting in an early morning business meeting in a deadened stupor then somehow I am being more in touch with American views on happiness i.e. what is profitable. At a point later in the book, I think Hecht does discuss how money can aid in happiness, but by and large in modern culture how we get money is not also how we become happy. Additionally in this section Hecht is touching on something we've discussed extensively--how products are marketed by appealing to the happiness factor of whatever is being sold example: Coca-Cola.

So, discussion question: What is it about the marketing/selling of drugs that holds such appeal to American buyers and how does this relationship influence our daily lives?

Factual question: In what study did Freud explore his fascination with cocaine?

A: On Cola

-Bonnie W.

Jonathan's comments

"In chapter 8 Hecht discusses the culture of drugs in modern America. I have dabbled in narcotics a few times over the past few years (nothing too extreme) and I can say from experience that there definitely are some positive effects about it. It has opened my eyes to whole new side of life and of the world and has opened my mind to a new sense of spirituality. On the flip side I look out at the world today, especially in the college and other such youth-oriented parts of society and see that drugs are being vastly over used and have clouded the minds of many people."

I personally have never tried drugs or alcoholic drinks (not a serious amount), but drugs in American and even in other countries tend to be heavily related to gang activity and violence. In my criminal justice classes we touched on this “Deadly Triad”. I suppose drugs themselves aren't a global issue when it's just a lone kid stuck in his attic smoking pot(individual use); and for those that get addicted it's their and their family's problem (albeit unfair perhaps). But drugs combined with gang activity and violence has become a heath academic for everyone, even those not involved in the three. That's when drug use becomes an issue for anyone's happiness. Gangs sell it to create revenue to buy weapons and kill off the competition, and innocents are killed in the process. Hence why some may call it a “War on Drugs”, and that's just in America, I heard things become far worse in other countries.

That being said there is no simple solution to this problem, but it is a serious issue and not just to the criminal justice world, but even politically. There is no policy that can be written to handle single users of drugs and people who sell it as a business. If there is a ban on drugs, it must be applied universally, and if it is allowed the same applies.

More factual ?s

pg.72)What did Russell use the peacock example to explain?

Envy


pg.50) What is not the natural lot of man, and can be avoided by pursuing excitement?

Boredom


Pg.77) What are the two painful feelings after committing sin?

remorse and repentance

Wooden nickle

Hect says that everyone knows that money doesnt buy happiness. then she says that this is a little too simple of a staement, but outside her prescription of moderation in our endulgence for those above the poverty line, her message for this chapter got lost in translation for me. I read the money chapter twice and didnt real take anything new or profound from it. Did anyone find a nugget that i missed?

Fact Q: Who posseses the same level security that the king is fighting for, dispite his rank in life?
A: The beggar, who suns himself on the side of the highway.

Drugs Today

In chapter 8 Hecht discusses the culture of drugs in modern America. I have dabbled in narcotics a few times over the past few years (nothing too extreme) and I can say from experience that there definitely are some positive effects about it. It has opened my eyes to whole new side of life and of the world and has opened my mind to a new sense of spirituality. On the flip side I look out at the world today, especially in the college and other such youth-oriented parts of society and see that drugs are being vastly over used and have clouded the minds of many people.

Discussion question: Can/should there be a middle ground with drugs? Or should we shun them all together just to be safe? Or should we just say "screw it" and go all out as long as its fun?

Factual question: What is the more common name for MDMA? -Ecstasy

Next

T 25 H 5-8 Drugs. Midterm report presentations begin.

Remember, everybody: post your questions about Hecht on drugs & happiness before class Tuesday.


Midterm report essays from non-presenters are due Thursday, which is also exam day. We'll review on Tuesday. If you or your group haven't yet posted all your October questions, please do so before class begins.


Here's the order of presentation. We'll plan to do two presentations per class, but if you're "on deck" or "in the hole" please be ready, in case those ahead of you in this schedule fall sick or mute. 

Presenters, when it's your turn please give me a brief written bullet-point summary of the main points of your talk. Meanwhile, those of you who've still not committed to a topic please let us know ASAP.


1. Erik M.: Meditation


2. Jason: Myth & truth


3. Marie: Buddhism


4. Connor: ??


5. Eric S.: ??


6. Brian: ??

Group 1 Factual Questions

Factual Question: What did the young Chinese visitor expect when going to form his own school? (118)

Factual Question: What two elements make work interesting, according to Russell? (164)

Q: "Today, we are all used to the idea that the people around us may announce at any time that they are trying to make a grand change, that they are finally going to become themselves, and that, yes,
A: this is an implicit critique of who they had been, and perhaps of who you are now." - Hecht, p.51

Q: "Even the wise will tell you that when it comes to battles and kisses, somes the only choice is a
A: screaming, brutish plunge." p.48

Identity Loss and Taking What's "Yours"

According to Jennifer Hecht, William James believed anxiety came from American forms of religious devotion. I think he might have misplaced the blame. Anxiety in America seems to come more from the need to adjust and conform to social norms, whether it is Christianity in the West, Hinduism in India, or whatever. In folk literature, at least in Germany when it was Christianized, always made the outsiders the bad people (Rumplestiltskin, Hansel and Gretel, etc), which is still relevant to the problem during William James’s time, that the anxiety from religious devotion is due to trying not to believe in anything else. The necessity to conform rather than “respecting the sound you produce…as a new power in nature.”

Which brings me to my point: If anxiety is more to do with conforming to the lifestyles of the general public, how will a person be able to trust himself about his goals rather than acknowledge that these goals are probably just products of his subconscious tendency to will what everyone else wills? There were several modernist writers worried about who they were because they believed they were just products of their culture and they were overwhelmed by this lack of identity. This problem is still pretty prevalent. Where’s that unique sound Emerson talks about, if we’re all moving involuntarily to one personality?

Factual question: Why does Marcus Aurelius say life is not like a theater?

The sobering of death.

Chapter 4

I know that this chapter isnt in my group's "area," but I couldn't resist. Just from my own perspectives I agree that America has a lack of realism when it comes to facing death. While I do not agree that death is the end of our existence I do think that it should still have a sting to it. Christianity is a religion that is based on death and life through death. I also think that taking the time to ponder our own deaths is a very biblical idea. There is nothing that is more sobering than the thought that I will die. This usually pushes me to look at the circumstances in my life and evaluate their importance in a completely different way.

Take What's Yours, p.49 - 51

"Today, we are all used to the idea that the people around us may announce at any time that they are trying to make a grand change, that they are finally going to become themselves, and that, yes, this is an implicit critique of who they had been, and perhaps of who you are now." - Hecht, p.51

Maybe it's because I was in a childhood friend's wedding that I didn't necessarily support this weekend, but this passage sticks like the needle in a broken sewing machine. We're surrounded by advice in how to respond to these grand changes and implicit critiques that works for only "battles and kisses", but that advice is not always up to par. "Even the wise will tell you that when it comes to battles and kisses, somes the only choice is a screaming, brutish plunge." p.48

I agree with this, but does this not far too often only lead us further into the "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" that Hecht mentions?

She quotes Marcus Aurelius earlier in the chapter, "With all your soul to do justice and say the truth. What reamins except to enjoy life by joining one good thing to another so as not to leave even the smallest invertals in between?"

My only question is where to draw lines between taking what is yours and what you believe will cause happiness, not only for yourself, but the whole as well. What I believe might be beneficial to the whole, you could be sitting right beside me, mulling over how that will interfere with your personal happiness and I could never have a clue. How often do we need to voice what we believe to be the "truth" and how often should we have moments like mine this weekend, where there's no other option that to keep your mouth snapped shut and wish for the best?

Remembering to Rember Death

in chapter 4 of Jenifer Hecht's book, "The Happiness Myth", she discusses the collective averted gaze of modern society to death. She makes a case that we should embrace death as we do birth, and this had been the case until our quit recent past. i do subscribe to a healthy view of death as a natural and inevitable end stage of our brief existence, but find it troubling that she doesn't qualify her stance with a polar extreme that is prevalent in the world today. There is a significant portion of the middle east that regularly beats their chest while proclaiming their love of death over life. These populations cant avert their gaze from scenes of death and suffering if they wanted to, and i would venture a guess that this not conducive for a healthy society. Does anyone else find her sighting of "healthy" Christian, and Jewish rituals that remind man of their eventual terminus, while not touching on what is obviously a "unhealthy" fixation on death by some fundamentalist imams unbalanced?

Fact Q: In the past, where were cemeteries often found in small towns and villages?
A: In the center of town. (pg. 56)

Next

We're back from Fall Break Thursday (hope yours was happy) with Jennifer Hecht's Happiness Myth [hereafter referred to as JMH] thru p. 68, the "Wisdom" chapters. Everybody: please post your questions pertaining to Happiness Myth prior to Thursday's class.

Looking ahead to November: my copy of For the Benefit of All Beings just arrived. Better order it, if you haven't yet. OR, try this link to an allegedly free download, and let us all know if it worked.

Also note: this link to the NYTimes' Dalai Lama page. Of special interest: op-ed essays by the DL, "Our Faith in Science," "The Monk in the Lab," & "Many Faiths, One Truth"...

A little off topic

So I missed class tuesday but I used my sick time to read Russells essay "Why I'm not a Christian." I must say that I was a little let down. So far I have enjoyed the logical yet insightful writing of Russell. Yet for a man that is so sternly set on the 'facts' as the basis for inquiry, I felt that this essay was nothing but a personal and emotional responce. I have read much better arguments from significantly less intellectual people. Does anyone else have a take on this, as I'm sure my view is of the minority lol.

Ch. 14- Work

Russell's view of work and happiness is unique. He shows us that while it could have been in the first half of the book dealing with unhappiness, he deals the cause and effect relationship and how happiness is a product of good work because it prevents boredom. This is a good analogy but he seems to think that work with monetary income is more important than work that takes place in the home. Stating that working in the real world results in a higher level of happiness than that of someone who works in the home is unfair. Certainly there are people who take pride and are content after cleaning the house and looking after the children more than they would if they were to be in a regular 9-5 job.

Factual Question: What two elements make work interesting, according to Russell? (164)

Discussion: Obviously time relevance plays a part in Russell's opinions, but what would he say about today's stay at home fathers that are currently in the role that so many women didn't have a choice in back in mid 1900's?

Chapt. 17

Factual question: To place does Russell relate our natural human passions to? (P.167)

Discussion question: "Where outward circumstances are not definitely unfortunate, a man should be able to achieve happines, provided that his passions and interests are directed outward, not inward." (P.167)

- When I read this, and the whole chapter in general, I get a strong feeling that Russell rejects the notion that we should think that the self is important, atleast in regards to the world. It's almost like what a "tough" father would say to his son - "get over it, move on, be a man" - and I can't help but see this as just suppresing your feelings, especially negative ones, and slowly degrading into a more unhappy person. Now no doubt for more intellectual people these negative thoughts may be easier to rationalize, but for some, perhaps even the most unhappy, I don't see this being a key to happiness.

Are you a "Citizen of the Universe"?

I have found some interesting excerpts throughout Russel's book and the ending didn't disappoint me either. on the very last page of the book Russel sums up his treaties on happiness brilliantly. when talking about the "happy man" he says this: "Such a man feels himself a citizen of the universe, enjoying freely the spectacle that it offers and the joys that it affords, untroubled by the thought of death because he feels himself not really separate from those who will come after him." I don't know about y'all, but that seems like a state of mind i would buy on eBay if they sold such things. i personally think this book could have been a lot shorter if he put that on the first page. It sums up his whole book so succinctly. Here are the three things that I took from previous quote and the book as a whole: 1.Don't think yourself too important because your surrounded by a vast and wondrous cosmos. 2. After you acknowledge your small place in the big scheme of things, experience and enjoy as much as you can, while you can. 3. Don't fear death, because its coming like Christmas and there is no amount of fear or worry that can stop it. If you guys have found a quote that hit you upside the head in Russel's book, like this one did me, share it below. Good luck finding a better one though.

Fact Q: In chapter 17 Russel suggest that you should admit to yourself everyday... A. a personal failing B. that your fears are, more than likely, irrational ones C. a painful truth
Answer: C. a painful truth (page 189)

Work

In chapter 14 Russel discusses happiness derived from work. I detest most forms of working as I find them to be unbearably monotonous. Conversely, I find some work, such as video editing or any other form of digital design kind of work to be very compelling and captivating. However, when I step back and look at it objectively, I see that it is just as monotonous as any of the work that I hate. So...

Discussion Question - What is it about the different specific kinds of work that different people find enjoyable that makes them enjoyable?

Factual Question - At what age are politicians apt to be happier than anyone else?

Next

Th 13 CH 14-17


Everyone: post questions about Russell prior to class. We'll also sign up for midterm reports.

Subjectivity & Altruism

What does Bertrand attribute man's tendency to believe his vision is objectively right?
(Subjective Certainty P.95)

In contrast to Ricard, Bertrand contends that man is incapable of a purely altruistic act. Motivation is the core contention of this philosophical debate. Is it tangible for man to act for all intents and purposes solely for another, or is altruism contingent upon an individual's own well-being and survival?
Discussed on P. 93-98

Questions

We're 45 minutes from class and a few of you have posted questions pertaining to today's assigned reading. Thank you. For the rest: it's not yet too late to comply with the new policy. Jump on it!

Chapter 10

Part two of Russel's book starts out with a question, much like the first, Is Happiness Still Possible? In the previous chapters, Russel has showed us what makes a person unhappy, but here he describes the different types of happiness and which groups of people they apply to. I disagree with his comparison of the two types of happiness. Limiting happiness to certain characteristics, such as only achieving a type of happiness due to the ability to read and write, seems to discredit the term. Surely people with lower mental functions can obtain a certain happiness and to say that because we are able to achieve a greater happiness because we are able to perform certain acts seems to demean those people. Our happiness is not greater because we are smarter or can do certain tasks. Obviously Russel believes the way of science is vastly superior to those who have other occupations, but by studying and analyzing everything could they not miss happiness? When comparing the artist to the man of science Russel states, "All conditions of happiness are realized in the life of the man of science." In my opinion, it seems as though he is saying that unless you are in an occupation that has outcomes that effect society as a whole, you cannot be TRULY happy. To be an artist means to not be as complex as the man of science, and thus unable to attain the same kind of happiness.

Factual Question: What did the young Chinese visitor expect when going to form his own school? (118)

Discussion: On Russel's theory of fads and hobbies, is there really a difference between those and Fundamental Happiness (121)

Persecution Mania

In chapter eight, Russel considers the milder forms of "persecution mania" and its adverse effects on one's happiness. i can say that i fit into one or more of these categories at different times, and i can honestly say, that when i have succumbed to self absorption it doesn't translate to me having a better day. when i returned to TN to go back to school i had "fits" of irrational panic when i was in large crowds of people. Going to a large school like MTSU was a new and nerve racking experience for me. If i was in the library at a peek time of day and couldn't find a computer or a quiet place to sit because of hoard of students in the library at that particular time i would think that i was being scrutinized from every side. in my mind i would tell myself that this was irrational but i would leave immediately none the less. Eventually i got over this Tick and settled into a normal routine and these terrifying thoughts ceased. i cant imagine anyone feeling this way 24 hours a day, and can attest that it is NOT conducive to one's happiness. anyone else ever have these "fits" of irrationality.....or any of Russel's examples from chapter 8?

Group 2 questions

Discuss.-1) Is there a difference between conscience as 'the fear of being found out' and conscience as a Protestant revelation of the sinfulness of a possible action? Or is the 'fear of being found out' really at the core of the Protestant perspective?(pg 77-78)

Factual.-2) What does Russell say of the idea that 'rationalism, if allowed free play, will kill all the deeper emotions? (pg86)

I somewhat agree with Russell on his basic views of what conscience is. I would have to say though that it is incomplete and this incompletion is what I think leads him to the rest of his views about it and... rebellion for instance. In specific regard to the 'fear of being found out' I agree with this, but I would also pose the question of by whom are you afraid of being found out. As somewhat of the Protestant perspective I can say that my fear, as the center or 'simplist' layer of my conscience is not directed at men. It is directed at God.

Jonathan's comments

"Russel writes how the idea of sin creates limitations when pursuing happiness. Based upon your beliefs and experiences, do you believe Russel's view on sin and the idea of sin is true?
As a factual question: What does Russel say about happiness that requires intoxication?"

Like most of the book so far, Russel seems to be focusing on select groups of individuals and their experiences and deeming them unhappy. For those individuals he is probably right, but for those who are not victims of competition, boredom, fatigue,envy, sense of sin, persecution, and fear of public opinion; it's really not an issue with them.

"I was interested in the last book we read about Buddhist teachings and approach to happiness, but find the current readings for this class much more appealing. B.R. is obviously not a believer in anything supernatural and this is a huge draw for me. i am a recovering roman catholic that finds his views on religion a much more credible source in my search for happiness and the good life than the Dhali Lama. My discussion question is: Does Russel's rejection of the supernatural and religion make you more or less interested in what he has to say on the pursuit of happiness? Is this a non issue?
Factual Question: what are the two historical examples given for the "megalomaniac" in chapter 1?
Answer: Alexander the Great; Napoleon "

I personaly like how easy his book is to read, but how he characterizes certain groups of people (business men, bored people, fatigued and envious, religious, those suffering from public opinion and so on) is a little extreme and too specific to be of any use of a pursuit of happiness to people who find themselves outside of those groups; or at least as he describes them. It's not that I'm less/more interested, but I feel as though it simply doesn't apply to me.

I would like to apologize for my awkward commenting technique, but I am having trouble commenting again.

Chapt. 13

Factual question: What social institution, according to Russel at the time this book was written, is the most "disrailed and disorganized"? (P.145)

Discussion question: "In all human relations it is fairly easy to secure happiness for one party, but much more difficult to secure it for both. The Jailer may enjoy guarding the prisoner; the employer may enjoy browbeating the employee; the ruler may enjoy governing his subjects with a firm hand..." (P.155)
Although all of the examples Russel gave do seem to be one-sided in regards to who is happy, is it just to say that all relationships would be hard to secure happiness for both?

I do somewhat agree on his point, and maybe it would just be in rare cases where a relationship is so strong that happiness is inherently developed easily for both parties that would break this rule. Then again if one is already unhappy in a certain situation, say the inmate in a jail, it would already be unlikely that the prisoner would ever be in happy in a jail and most likely be inclined to not be happy in relation to a jailer. This would also apply to a employee who doesn't neccesarily want to work at say Mcdonalds, but he must and therefore is unhappy because of that so when he is around the employer he portrays his unhappiness on the employer.
Therefore I think in the right situations happiness can be easily gained among both parties, and in situations where one party already has a predisposition to a certain situation or group of people it will be unlikely or harder for both parties to be happy.

Next

T 11 CH 10-13. Midterm report presentation signups (reports begin in two weeks)


And don't forget to post your questions prior to class. (Scroll down to my last post on Wednesday, if you've forgotten.)

Chapter 12

In the chapter Affection Russell describes three types of people based on their reactions to a lack of being loved. Though I would not say my life has been utterly devoid of love, certainly it has neither been utterly filled with it, and I have found myself falling prey to each of these reactions at one point or another.

Discussion Question - Should we define ourselves by which reactions we take or are they just individual effects of individual circumstances that come and go as do their inciting situations?

Factual Question - Is it affection given or affection received that Russel thinks brings a greater sense of security?

On the subject of sin

Russel writes how the idea of sin creates limitations when pursuing happiness. Based upon your beliefs and experiences, do you believe Russel's view on sin and the idea of sin is true?

As a factual question: What does Russel say about happiness that requires intoxication?

For the record...

Buddhism is essentially a humanist religion. Buddhist teaching does not acknowledge the existence of a higher power. It is an individual's own respective choice if she or he decides to believe in an "ultimate creator." The Dalai Lama himself refutes the logic of its possibility in For the Benefit of All Beings.

"According to Buddhism, there is no such thing as something arising without a cause. Everything is conditioned by something else... Buddhism teaches that everything arises from causes and conditions and that therefore there is no such thing as an uncaused cause. If there were such a thing, then everything could be said to arise from nothing! Alternatively, the primal substance would have to be constantly giving rise to (causing) something. But as we can see, phenomena sometimes manifest and at other times do not. This is because the causes and conditions on which they depend sometimes come together and at other times do not. If the cause were independent and able to create constantly, then of course its results would also have to be constant. Since the results are not constant, we can argue that their cause also is not constant: it is impermanent. Belief in such a creator is simply not logical."

Many of his books acknowledge this fallacy.

It is also a common misconception that Buddhism is incompatible with Science. The Dalai Lama speaks most reverently of Science and speaks at length about cosmology, physics, and biology in most of his texts asking his readers to examine the true nature of reality- (hence scientific investigation ;)

Wiki has a nice summary page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_science

My apologies Mr. Russell, back to the conquest of happiness!

Group 1 Oct 6

Group 1

pg.61 Which fatigues are considered good according Russell?
        good- physical and intellectual,  bad- emotional and nervous  

pg.61 Russell would prescribe to any man who considers his work as important?
          a holiday

pg.75 Why is propaganda so much more successful when it stirs up hatred then when it tries to stir up friendship?
       because man is more prone to hatred because he is dissatisfied, because he missed the meaning of life or that other have procured the meaning

Discussion:

pg.85 What human instinct makes it a priority to us to compare ourselves to others?
How are we suppose to reprogram our ideas of sin and guilt if we are caught in a cycle of hating reason and seeking distraction as temporary relief?
 If, in religion, things that make us happy are sins and sins are something to be guilty for, than where is the happiness in religion?

October 6, 2011 2:15 PM 

Problems commenting?

I have tried repeatedly over the last few hours to try and comment on one of the posts. Is any one else having this problem?

The need to succeed.

Russell says that what people really mean by the struggle for life is really the struggle for success. As someone that has a tendancy to put to much stuff on my plate and a tendancy to try to be the best in all those areas, Russell's quote definately hit home with me. I actually had to stop and ask myself how much of my life is motivated by the need to succeed? Do I want to be a good husband because I love my wife or because I feel this subliminal pulling to compete against The mainstream scheme of what a good husband should be.

My Question is this: How much of your life is motivated by the need to succeed, to compete, or to win?

The Atheism of Bertrand Russel

I was interested in the last book we read about Buddhist teachings and approach to happiness, but find the current readings for this class much more appealing. B.R. is obviously not a believer in anything supernatural and this is a huge draw for me. i am a recovering roman catholic that finds his views on religion a much more credible source in my search for happiness and the good life than the Dhali Lama. My discussion question is: Does Russel's rejection of the supernatural and religion make you more or less interested in what he has to say on the pursuit of happiness? Is this a non issue?
Factual Question: what are the two historical examples given for the "megalomaniac" in chapter 1?
Answer: Alexander the Great; Napoleon

Next

Well, I hope what's next is a sharp improvement in attendance and participation. Again: that's half your grade. We're a small class, we can't afford to have more than a third of us out on any given day. Nobody's posted a thing here this week but me, and that simply won't do.

For tomorrow:

Th 6 CH 5-9

Everybody, go ahead and post your thoughts on Russell. Don't wait for your nominal group leader. I look forward to posts from all of you, and to the happy return to class of Sloane, Anais, Eric J., Connor, Trey, Jason, and Josh.

We're going to give the group format a fair trial in October, with a couple of new reforms, before revisiting the question of whether to continue with it. There are three groups, as organized last week: Group #1 is Jason, Claire, Josh, Eric S., Trey, Jonathan, and Alexandra. Group #2 is Sloane, Connor, Anais, Christopher, and Marie. Group #3 is Colton, Bonnie, Brian, Eric J, and Erik M. (Rebekah can choose between 2 or 3).

Here's what's new:

• From now on group #1 will focus on the first 3d of each day's assigned reading, group #2 on the second 3d, and group #3 on the last. We'll implement this retroactively to the beginning of Conquest for Happiness, so to catch up today each group needs to post its factual & discussion questions from Tuesday (CH  thru ch4) and for today (CH 5-9). 
• From now on, every group member should post directly to the blog and not in "comment" responding to the group leader's post, and every group member post a factual and discussion question prior to class, pertaining to their group's focus material for that day's class. Every student should be posting every class day.  

So: every student should be posting to the class blog prior to each class. I encourage you all to continue (or begin) to comment on classmates' posts as well.

Also, note Marie's comment on our November text selection:

I know I had said How to See Yourself as You Really Are was the shorter title, but it is hard to say. For the Benefit of All Beings is only 125 pages vs How to See Yourself As You Really Are at 270 pages. It is a smaller book; however, there are fewer pages in For the Benefit of All Beings, and after revisiting each I sort of feel the content is more relevant and applicable in the latter title. Just a thought.

Amazon has it for $10.74. Or, we could try to hunt up something online. What are your thoughts?

Finally, are any of you planning to "Occupy Nashville" today? If so, please let me know in advance of class Thursday.

Next

Time for Bertrand Russell's Conquest of Happiness.

T4 CH pref., ch1-4

And note the next Big Thing, report sign-ups on Oct. 11 (a week from Tuesday). All need to decide if you're going solo or doing a collaboration on a presentation or an essay, on any relevant "happy" topic you choose.

And remember, the winner for the November sweepstakes was the Dalai Lama's How to See Yourself as You Really Are. Amazon has it for $10.20, and a kindle version for $11.99

POSTSCRIPT: Marie's had second thoughts about her nomination of this title, read her comment here. We need to revisit our decision soon.