Group 1: Zest vs. Ivory

 Yesterday we discussed two preeminent analysts—analysts which both of whom are of the philosophical or/and psychological stripe—that were contemporaries in the 1930s.  Although the St. Louis Cardinals were ranked number 1 in the National League standings, in the realm of analytics, Bertrand Russell and Sigmund Freud didn’t share the same zestful ideas about the Spirit of St. Louis.

While Russell held a zest for what some would describe as less than 99 44/100 percent purity, Freud cast a less than cheerful light on personal happiness.  Maia sketched an excellent depiction of Freud (I wish I had it to post) sprawled out on the ground as we went “jumping into Freud.”

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, but here’s Dr. Oliver summation, which shed light on to the crux of Freud’s discontent:

"Well, Freud was not a big one for zest. Who would be, in the debilitating throes of cancer? But he was dissuaded from the quest for happiness not only by bodily suffering but also by the world's assaults and those of our fellows."

The following class discussion seemed to revolve around the Aristotelian idea that virtue is married (if you will) to happiness. 

It seems the contention mounts when someone’s zest for life violates someone else’s idea of purity here in the land of what some refer to as the unwashed masses.  I doubt the propensity of pluralism will be permeate our physiology anytime soon, but it is certainly a noble pursuit — if that makes one happy. 

Here’s an old Ronnie Milsap song entitled “Pure Love” from back in the day.