Up@dawn 2.0

Saturday, September 28, 2019

Risky

WebMD: People who enjoy taking risks may be more content and satisfied with their lives.

A new study shows that a willingness to take risks is not only linked to personal satisfaction, but it also may be related to a person's age, sex, and even their height.

German researchers surveyed more than 20,000 people about their risky behavior and found:
  • Tall people are more prepared to take risks than short people.
  • Women take fewer risks than men.
  • Willingness to take risk decreases dramatically with age.

Nietzsche-"We have discovered happiness"

Speaking for "free spirits" and "philosophers of the future," he pronounced "the formula for our happiness: a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal.” But was he really  happy? Did he try to be? Or want to?




Friedrich Nietzsche

“Let us face ourselves. We are Hyperboreans; we know very well how far off we live. 'Neither by land nor by sea will you find the way to the Hyperboreans'—Pindar already knew this about us. Beyond the north, ice, and death—our life, our happiness. We have discovered happiness, we know the way, we have found the exit out of the labyrinth of thousands of years. Who else has found it? Modern man perhaps? 'I have got lost; I am everything that has got lost,' sighs modern man. This modernity was our sickness: lazy peace, cowardly compromise, the whole virtuous uncleanliness of the modern Yes and No. … Rather live in the ice than among modern virtues and other south winds! We were intrepid enough, we spared neither ourselves nor others; but for a long time we did not know where to turn with our intrepidity. We became gloomy, we were called fatalists. Our fatum—abundance, tension, the damming of strength. We thirsted for lightning and deeds and were most remote from the happiness of the weakling, 'resignation.' In our atmosphere was a thunderstorm; the nature we are became dark—for we saw no way. Formula for our happiness: a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti-Christ


Philosophy Matters (@PhilosophyMttrs)
Nothing Matters Part 2: Rick and Morty and Nietzsche ... buff.ly/2yavB9d

New from John Kaag




Are We Living in a Post-Happiness World?

"...happiness does have a certain subjectivity to it."  Indeed. (She kinda buries the lead.)
LISTEN. With happiness harder to come by these days, people are grasping at any moment of joy they can get.

By Laura M. Holson

Joy, it seems, is everywhere these days.

It is used to sell boxes at Ikea. It is included in asubjecds for drinks at McDonald’s and as a prescriptive for female hygiene. There are T-shirts that tout joy as “an act of resistance.” There is the “Chasing Joy” podcast. And a number of books are being published this year devoted to joyful living, including marriage, productivity, even how to live more like Hugh Jackman.

But if joy is everywhere, why does happiness feel so elusive? Haven’t we learned anything since 2014 when Marie Kondo taught us that cleaning our closets was a path to bliss? Well, so much has changed since then. Politics in the era of President Drumpf has divided Americans into two camps: angry and angrier. Our world is threatened by climate change. And the booming United States economy is showing signs of fatigue.

It is no wonder then that people are calculating well-being in mere moments. “In an age of despair, choosing joy is a revolutionary act,” said Douglas Abrams, an author of “The Book of Joy: Lasting Happiness in a Changing World,” a 2016 best seller he wrote with Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama. Joy is more attainable, he said. “Happiness seems like it is outside of us, in some perfect moment.”

So, are we living in a post-happiness world? According to the World Happiness Report, which ranks 156 countries based on inhabitants’ perception and well-being, happiness in the United States is declining. Americans said they were less content in 2018 than a year earlier, ranking No. 19 behind Australia and Canada. The 24-hour news cycle, combined with the onslaught of natural disasters, social upheaval and political strife, has left Americans exhausted. Worse, the agita shows no sign of abating; psychologists suggest anxiety is on the rise.

To explore this question, I called Ingrid Fetell Lee, the author of “Joyful: The Surprising Power of Ordinary Things to Create Extraordinary Happiness.” Many people do not know what happiness is, she said, and find the definition hard to pin down. Indeed, happiness does have a certain subjectivity to it. Experts, though, describe it as a positive state of overall well-being combined with a sense that one’s life has meaning.

Joy, by contrast, is delight in moments that, by their nature, are fleeting. “I don’t need to be happy to feel joy,” Ms. Fetell Lee said. Joy can be inspired by something as simple as tossing confetti or taking a walk outdoors. She added, “I don’t have to worry about making everything awesome in my life.”

Michelle Shiota, an associate professor of social psychology at Arizona State University, tried an experiment last January. “I started to do a diary of ‘a moment of joy’ per day,” said Dr. Shiota, who goes by Lani. “I lasted until mid-February. Then I was toast.” Tabulating a daily moment was overwhelming. And joy can be found in quiet, she said. “It shouldn’t always mean high arousal.”

Social media, though, has hastened a cultural shift toward instantaneous gratification. “We’ve moved more to a microview of well-being, having positivity in the minute,” said Dacher Keltner, director of the Greater Good Science Center at the University of California, Berkeley. And that makes him wonder, “Are we just careening from moment to moment?”

While seeking joy can be uplifting, Dr. Shiota said, it should not mask emotions like anger, sadness and disappointment. “What people call negative emotions are a symptom that something is wrong and we have to change,” she said. “We learn from them.”
Today, researchers find it troubling that businesses have co-opted joy to market soda pop, productivity planners and storage containers. “Contentment is the next growth industry,” Dr. Keltner said. “Marketers will tell you buying things will make you happy even though the opposite is true.”

A 2017 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that people who spent money on things that helped them save time — delivery or cleaning services, for example — were more satisfied than if they bought baubles or expensive wine. Having more free time helped reduce stress, the study found.

But Dr. Keltner said something else is making happiness harder to attain: a lack of togetherness. He pointed to churches and other religious congregations, which have historically been central to a community’s integrity. “Church gave you awe, joy and ecstasy,” Dr. Keltner said. “You collected in a group. You sang a little. You gave money. You got to chant.”

With the rise of Facebook, Instagram and other social media sites, virtual communities are replacing real-world gatherings. With it, the way we relate to one another is changing too. “Awe and laughter have been undermined,” Dr. Keltner said. “We don’t have the means to physically gather like we used to.”

Sharon Salzberg, a teacher of Buddhist meditation and the author of “Loving-Kindness: The Revolutionary Art of Happiness,” said people are re-examining happiness because they are worried: about health care, the economy and the unrelenting chaos in today’s politically divisive world.

“I was the defender of happiness when my books came out,” Ms. Salzberg said. “A number of people have been saying, ‘Why don’t you say ‘joy’?” Happiness was dismissed as purely the pursuit of pleasure, she said. But it is significantly more complex. “I like redeeming the idea and meaning around happiness, to have more clarity and deep understanding,” she said. “So people know what happiness actually is.”

Does Ms. Fetell Lee believe Americans are living in a post-happiness era? No, she said. But she has observed a shift. “I don’t think about happiness anymore,” she said. “I think about joy. And if you string together enough moments of joy, maybe you can have a happy life.” nyt

What's the point of art?

This was a topic of discussion at Happy Hour last Thursday, thanks to the presence of Art the art teacher/student. Art may not save the world, but its reminder that we are not alone may just make us a little happier. Research shows: the happiest people are those who value and cultivate their relationships.
====
And what is that truth, the truth of art, that freeing blade, that slaking drink in the desert of the world? It’s this: You are not alone. I am not I; you are not you. We are we...
By Michael Chabon

LISTEN. As of spring 2020, I will be stepping down as Chairman of the MacDowell Colony’s Board of Directors. It’s time for somebody else to sit in the chair. When I took this position, nine years ago, Barack Obama was the President of the United States, Donald Drumpf was facing the imminent collapse of his financial empire, and Prince, David Bowie, Leonard Nimoy, Nora Ephron, Ursula K. Le Guin, Philip Roth, Gene Wilder, Muhammad Ali, Amy Winehouse, Elmore Leonard, Alan Rickman, and my father were still with us, just to mention the people who meant a lot to me. Along with BookCourt bookstore in Brooklyn, Saab automobiles, RadioShack, and, apparently, common decency.

So, you’re welcome.

These feel like such dire times, times of violence and dislocation, schism, paranoia, and the earth-scorching politics of fear. Babies have iPads, the ice caps are melting, and your smart refrigerator is eavesdropping on your lovemaking (and, frankly, it’s not impressed).

Fascists, bigots, and guys who plan to name their sons Adolf wake up every day with a hateful leer on their faces and the Horst Wessel Song in their hearts—if you’re an ignorant, misogynist, xenophobic, racist against science, I guess times have never felt better. But for the vast rest of us—and please know, please believe, you and I greatly outnumber them—for the rest of us, things can seem so much worse than they did back in 2010, when a decent, thoughtful, level-headed, rational, and humane black man was living in the White House.

It has all seemed to fall apart so quickly. Looking around, it’s hard not to wonder who or what is to blame. I think it might be me. No, hear me out.

Some people might respond, and they might be correct, that with the possible exception of the sudden imminence of planet-wide ecological catastrophe, things have not actually gotten worse. America, these people might say, has always been a dire and violent place, founded in schism, built on the backs of enslaved people, expanded through genocide, suckled on xenophobia, and not so much rife with as addicted to paranoia. These are the folks who on the morning of November 9, 2016, looked at the people freaking out all around them and said, Well, duh.

Other people might be inclined to lay the blame for this precipitous decline, for its intensification, for the sudden strange and dismaying public permissibility of callousness, chauvinism, cruelty, barbarity, and philistinism, squarely in the lap of the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I’ve entertained that argument, and God knows I’d rather think it’s him than me.

Then there are those who point to the Large Hadron Collider, which at some point in the last decade opened a hole opened in the fabric of reality. According to this theory, this happened, perhaps, just as an episode of The Apprentice was airing, and we and all our aspirations and humanist agendas fell into it, finding ourselves in this mirror universe where America has decided its proper business is to imprison babies and the presidency is conducted on Twitter by a man whose execrable spelling is only the least of the ten thousand things that do not, inexplicably, cause him to feel shame.

But I don’t know. I stepped into this position nine years ago so full of fire and fervor and belief in the power of art, and hence the MacDowell Colony, to change the world. I meant for the better. I even came up with a catchy slogan for us that reflected this belief. It went like this: MacDowell makes a place in the world for artists, because art makes the world a better place. It turned out to be one of those catchy slogans that’s so catchy no one can actually remember it, and it never really caught on, but I meant every strangely forgettable word of it.

And over the past nine years, we went at it, here at the MacDowell Colony. We made a place for some three thousand artists, fed them some ten thousand meals, cleaned up after them, and threw parties and hectored donors and hit up foundations to raise the money it took to pay for all that. I—a quiet, solitary, covertly shy avoider of social gatherings and all interactions requiring asking anyone for anything—hosted and emceed those parties, and went around with my hand out, deeply mortified, and wrote many letters to strange and inaccessible tycoons or the foundations they established, laying bare my love of MacDowell for them and all the world to see.

We told every single one of those three thousand artists, sincerely, that their work was important. We kept the internet at bay. We kept their friends and families at bay. We kept the world at bay, so that when their time here was up, they would return to that world fortified, in fuller possession of an authentic vision, and maybe even with a little bit of swagger in their souls.

And they put forth that vision with their art. They published novels and showed in galleries and opened plays. Their operas were performed, and their poems collected. Their buildings opened to the public. The novels broke hearts, and the poems won prizes, and the paintings found their ways onto the walls of museums and of collectors, where they were free to exercise their influence on people whose means and position enabled them, in turn, to lift the levers and turn the dials of power, the power to change the world for the better.

And yet here we are, nine years into my tenure, and not only is the world not a better place—it has, in so many ways, gotten so much worse. I mean, really, what other conclusion is there? I’m sorry. Don’t hate me. I tried.

Or, I wonder if it’s possible that I was wrong, that I’ve always been wrong, that art has no power at all over the world and its brutalities, over the minds that conceive them and the systems that institutionalize them. Those folks I cited earlier, the ones who offer their grim reassurances that the world has always sucked as much as it does now, in particular for women, the poor, the disenfranchised, the enslaved, the downtrodden, and the exploited, these folks might point out that art and misery have coexisted for the whole span of human existence on earth, and suggest that perhaps the time to abandon hope for the redemptive power of art is long overdue.

Maybe the world in its violent turning is too strong for art. Maybe art is a kind of winning streak, a hot hand at the table, articulating a vision of truth and possibility that, while real, simply cannot endure. Over time, the odds grind you down, and in the end the house always wins.

Or maybe the purpose of art, the blessing of art, has nothing to do with improvement, with amelioration, with making this heartbreaking world, this savage and dopey nation, a better place.

Maybe art just makes the whole depressing thing more bearable.
 I don’t mean that we should think of art solely as offering a kind of escape from the grim reality of reality, though personally I can’t think of higher praise. To experience the truth in art reminds us that there is such a thing as truth. Truth lives. It can be found. And there is no encounter more powerful than the encounter between the slashing, momentary blade of truth and a lie-entangled mind.

And what is that truth, the truth of art, that freeing blade, that slaking drink in the desert of the world? It’s this: You are not alone. I am not I; you are not you. We are we. Art bridges the lonely islands. It’s the string that hums from my tin can, over here looking out of my little window, to you over there, looking out of yours. All the world’s power over us lies in its ability to persuade us that we are powerless to understand each other, to feel and see and love each other, and that therefore it is pointless for us to try. Art knows better, which is why the world tries so hard to make art impossible, to immiserate artists, to ban their work, silence their voices, and why it’s so important for all of us to, quite simply, make art possible.

Hey, maybe that would make a good slogan.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I feel a little better than I did when I started. The hell with fascism. The hell with bigotry and paranoia. The hell with fools falling for the lies of charlatans; that’s what fools do. We’re just going to keep on doing what we do: Making and consuming art. Supporting the people who remind us that we are in this together. We are each only one poem, one painting, one song away from another mind, another heart. It’s tragic that we need so much reminding. And yet we have, in art, the power to keep reminding each other.

Michael Chabon lives in Berkeley, California.
Paris Review
https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2019/09/23/whats-the-point/

Friday, September 27, 2019

The mortal emperor

In the Garden

Thursday, September 26, 2019

Quizzes Oct 1, 3

Stoicism: A Very Short Introduction, 1-2
Image result for under construction image
ch1
1. What do the Greek letters (Phi Beta  Kappa) mean? 2 

2. (add yours in comments)

3.

DQs
  • Have you ever followed Marcus Aurelius's advice about what you should say to yourself "before you get going in the morning..."? Will you? 1
  • Could Marvin the paranoid android have been programmed to be happy? Was it cruel of his programmers not to have done so?
  • Do you think of philosophy as "the principal guide for life"? 2 How might our society be different, if more people did?
  • COMMENT on anything posted currently on The Daily Stoic ...
  • Have you read Tom Wolfe's A Man in Full? Can a real estate tycoon be a good stoic?
  • (add yours please)


ch2

1. Why do some scholars question Marcus Aurelius's Stoic credentials? 18

2. (add yours in comments)

3.

DQs
  • Should only "professional philosophers" be considered legitimate contributors to a school or tradition of philosophy? Is there anything disreputable about "popular philosophy"?
  • (add yours please)

Oct 3
ch3
1. Why did Plato think "a benevolent and providential divinity" created the world? 27

2. (add yours in comments)

3.

DQs


  • Should Socrates (or anyone, for that matter) be "placed on a pedestal"? 27 Do we need an icon of intellectual integrity? 
  • (add yours please)


ch4
1. Which pre-Socratic philosopher identified four basic elements or kinds of stuff in the universe, and which post-Socratic philosopher did he influence? 39

2. (add yours in comments)

3.

DQs


  • Should a Platonist be expected to reject atomism? 40 Given what we've learned about atoms in the past century or so, do we also have good reasons to reject the atomism of the ancients? Are our reasons the same as, or different from, Plato's?
  • (add yours please)



Stoic pragmatists epicureans @dawn, Oct 1 - LISTEN.

Stoics & epicureans and the return to life @dawn, Oct 2 - LISTEN

T.S. Eliot

When I was an undergrad a professor once told me I wrote like T.S. Eliot. I chose to be flattered, whether or not that was his intent. My favorite lines from Eliot:

“We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Through the unknown, remembered gate
When the last of earth left to discover
Is that which was the beginning;
At the source of the longest river
The voice of the hidden waterfall
And the children in the apple-tree
Not known, because not looked for
But heard, half-heard, in the stillness
Between two waves of the sea.”


― T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets

It’s the birthday of poet T(homas) S(tearns) Eliot (books by this author). He was born in 1888 and spent the first 18 years of his life in St. Louis, Missouri with his prominent Unitarian family.
As a young man, Eliot was intelligent, hard-working, and intellectually eclectic. And as an undergraduate at Harvard University, he managed to finish both his undergraduate work and master’s degree in just four years. At college, Eliot began writing poetry and was something of a dandy — an Anglophile with a personal style of fussy, studied carelessness; his personality witty and precise and his speech free of slang or preciousness. Eliot finished his education as a graduate student at Harvard, studying philosophy under visiting professor Bertrand Russell and completing his Ph.D. thesis in 1914... WA

Spinoza on Happiness

     Baruch Spinoza was a 17th-century philosopher who became one of the great thinkers of the Enlightenment and the Dutch Golden Age. In his moral philosophies, we can find three primary elements to 'the good life,' or happiness. These three elements are the development of reason, love for 'God, or Nature,' and freedom. However, as we shall see, these three elements work in tandem and cannot be relied upon as singular paths to happiness. 
     The first element, the full development of reason, is something that Spinoza adopted, and agreed with, from Aristotle. In Nicomachean Ethics, "[t]he central questions that Aristotle raises are: What is the good that is unique to human beings? And how is it possible to achieve it?" (p.2) Though Spinoza diverged from Aristotle on many things, he does agree that we must examine these questions in order "to achieve happiness, and [that for humans] happiness lies in the full development of reason." (p.2) And, for Spinoza, the full development of reason will include an 'intellectual love of God, or Nature' and an understanding of human freedom.
     One of the most prominent ways that Spinoza diverges from Aristotle is that he does not believe that "happiness [is] the perfection of human nature." (p.2) Spinoza argued that "nothing in the universe is lacking in something it ought to possess...[and] nothing is more or less perfect. The ideas of perfect and imperfect come from our human minds, not out of Nature. The reason for this divergence comes from Spinoza's understanding of "Deus sive Nature, 'God, or Nature'." (p.5) (And here we should treat the 'or' as an equal sign.) For Spinoza, "God is identical with Nature, both as an infinite productive power that brings finite things into being (natura naturans), and as the realized system of finite things in their law-governed activities and relations with one another (natura naturata)." (p.6) Therefore, since all things are derived from, and get their power from, God, everything is what it supposed to be, perfect in itself. 
     This way of understanding God as Nature leads Spinoza to argue that gaining an understanding of Nature, "[the] intelligible nexus of laws or regularities in accordance with which events unfold," is the same as gaining an understanding of God. (p.5) This, in turn, can lead to an 'intellectual love of God, or Nature' that is "similar to what the religious call salvation." (p.6) "By cultivating such knowledge, we experience a 'continuos, supreme, and eternal joy,' the result of a love that finally discovers the only thing, infinite and eternal, genuinely capable of satisfying it." (p.6) How refreshing it must be to love Nature as the religious love their God. To see Nature as the beginning and end, as it truly is. 
     This leads us to the final element of Spinoza's philosophy of happiness, freedom. Though Spinoza argued that free will was an illusion produced in the human mind because we are unable to experience and understand "the complex causal sequences of which our actions are effects," he did think we could learn to free ourselves internally and reason through external forces to figure out our own true natures. (p.6) This was accomplished by an intellectual understanding of how we can be influenced by people, ideas, and the laws of Nature. In short, though we are not free from the same laws that govern all things, and we cannot always control outside disturbances to our minds, we could learn to free our minds and, with them, our unique selves. However, one must be unrestrained by society and guided by teachers who have freed their own minds, in order to accomplish this task. Therefore, Spinoza was "against tyranny in all of its forms." (p.7-8)
     Now we can clearly see how Spinoza's recipe for happiness must necessarily include all three elements. Without striving to understand 'God, or Nature,' one cannot truly understand the laws that govern all things, including ourselves. And, without striving to free one's inner self through an understanding of outside forces, one cannot gain full development of reason. All three elements are so intertwined that to negate one would negate the others, but, on the contrary, the development of one is the development of all.  

Works Cited:
http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Website/My%20Writings/50412775-Spinoza-on-the-Right-Way-to-Live.pdf



Quiz:
1. What are the 3 elements of Spinoza's idea of 'the good life'?
2. In what prominent way does Spinoza diverge from Aristotle?
3. How can the 'or' in 'God, or Nature' be thought of?
4. What does Spinoza think of free will?
5. How does Spinoza claim humans can have a free interior life?

Discussion Questions:
1. What do you think can be gained by thinking of God as Nature?
2. In what ways do you think a tyrannical society could hinder the development of a free mind?

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

Seasoned exam advice

The advice William James gave his Harvard students over a century ago. It holds up.


How to prepare for an exam: relax
If you want really to do your best in an examination, fling away the book the day before, say to yourself, “I won’t waste another minute on this miserable thing, and I don’t care an iota whether I succeed or not.” Say this sincerely, and feel it; and go out and play, or go to bed and sleep, and I am sure the results next day will encourage you to use the method permanently. William James, “Gospel of Relaxation"

If you’ve been up all night cramming, in other words, good luck. You’ll need it. But if you’ve been diligent, have steeped yourself in the subject all semester long, and either went out to play or to an early bed the night before, your luck will be the residue of design. You’ll do fine. Relax.

But don’t try too hard to relax.

It is needless to say that that is not the way to do it. The way to do it, paradoxical as it may seem, is genuinely not to care whether you are doing it or not.

Care later. On exam day just show up and do your best.

The ordinary beauty of ping-pong

Speaking of Pico Iyer's Beauty of the Ordinary (as we were yesterday)...



Growing up in England, Pico Iyer was taught that the point of a game was to win. Now, some 50 years later, he's realized that competition can be "more like an act of love." In this charming, subtly profound talk, he explores what regular games of ping-pong in his neighborhood in Japan have revealed about the riddle of winning -- and shows why not knowing who's won can feel like the ultimate victory.

Edwin Craig

Here you go, Ed. "Meanwhile, in Nashville. Tennessee..." LISTEN

Regarding the issue of our tribal polarization, I offer the following.

This is from the back cover of The Righteous Mind – Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion, a book by Jonathan Haidt, now a professor at NYU: As America descends deeper into polarization and paralysis, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has done the seemingly impossible – challenged conventional thinking about morality, politics, and religion in a way that speaks to everyone on the political spectrum. This book offers a way for us to learn to talk to each other despite our differences. The key to talking to each other is to understand where the other is coming from, and his perspective is in the title, The Righteous Mind. He takes the definition of righteous as “arising from an outraged sense of justice, morality, or fair play,” and self-righteous as “convinced of one’s own righteousness, especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others….” We know we are right and the other is wrong. The following TED talk introduces you to the subject of the book. Haidt is also the author of The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom. And here is the exciting thing: Jonathan Haidt will be speaking a Lipscomb University October 17th at 6 p.m. https://www.lipscomb.edu/events/jonathan-haidt-don-r-elliott-distinguished-presidential-lectures


Plugged in

Are we already merging with the machines?


Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Exam Review


Exam Review
August 29
1. Name two of the ways you can earn a base in our class. (See "course requirements" & other info in the sidebar & on the syllabus)
2. How many bases must you earn each class, to "circle the diamond" and claim your daily participation run on the scorecard?
3. How do you earn your first base in each class?
4. Can you earn bases from the daily quiz if you're not present?
5. How can you earn bases on days when you're not present?
6. Suppose you came to class one day, turned on the computer/projector and opened the CoPhi site,and had posted a comment, a discussion question, an alternate quiz question, AND a link to a relevant YouTube video before class. Did you earn your daily participation run?
7. Did you have any "extra bases" in the scenario posed in the previous question?
8. How can you indicate extra bases on the scorecard?
9. What are Dr. Oliver's office hours? Where is his office? What is his email address?

September 3
Ch1
1. Who has frequently been held up by philosophers as a paradigm of happiness?
2. What nation did Gallup find to be happiest in terms of daily experience?
3. What does Haybron say will most likely NOT be on your deathbed list of things you'd like to experience again before you go?
4. What was Aristotle's word for happiness, and what did he particularly not mean by it?
5. Which of Haybron's three happiness theories is not mainly concerned with feelings?
6. Why does Haybron consider "subjective well-being" unhelpful?
 Ch2
7. How does the author's Dad describe existence "on the Pond"?
8. What does Big Joe the commercial fisherman feel at the end of his working day, and how does he feel generally?
9. Your posture or stride reveals something deeper than what?
10. The author says moments like the one depicted in the photo on p.18 involve no what?
11. Who developed the notion of flow?
12. Tranquility, confidence, and expansiveness are aspects of what state of mind/body?
13. Though your temperament may be more or less fixed, your ___ may be more or less prone to change with circumstances.
14. What famous western Buddhist says happiness is an optimal state of being, much more than a feeling?

September 5
Haybron ch3-4, Life Satisfaction & Measuring Happiness
1. Is satisfaction with your life the same as thinking it's going well?
2. Does rating your life satisfaction provide reliably objective insight into your degree of happiness?
3. In what sense do "most people actually have good lives"?
4. Can the science of happiness tell us which groups tend to be happier?
5. What (verbally-expressed, non-numerical) ratio of positive over negative emotional states does happiness probably require?
6. What percentage of American college students said they'd considered suicide?

September 10
Haybron 5-6-The Sources of Happiness; Beyond Happiness: Well-being
1. According to Haybron, is it credible to claim that genetics render some people incapable of being happier?
2. What do studies show about consumerist materialism and intrinsic motivation?
3. At what $ level do happiness and income "cease to show a pretty substantial link"?
4. What does an Aristotelian nature-fulfillment theory of happiness find objectionable about the experience machine scenario?
5. What do Desire theories have trouble explaining?
6. How might a philosophical theory of well-being settle the strivers vs. enjoyers debate?

September 12
1. More important than whether you're happy, says Haybron, is what?
2. What makes civilization possible?
3. As a general rule, says Haybron, selfish and shallow people don't look _____.
4. A more demanding notion of the good life must meet what standard?
5. Does Haybron recommend scheduling quality family time?
6. What does Kahneman say about "focusing illusions"?

September 17
Ch1
1. For most of history, Epicureanism has conjured what image? Did J.S. Mill share that view?
2. Epicureanism asserted that there's "nothing to be feared or hope for" from what?
3. What Epicurean view did Cicero agree with? What alternative doctrines contrary to Epicurus's did Stoics subscribe to?
4. How did early Christians and Muslims regard Epicureanism?
Ch 2
1. How did the Epicureans come to believe in the early theory of atoms?
2. What pre-Socratic philosopher deemed the theory of atomism impossible?
3. By what time did an early version of Epicurean atomism become popular?
4. How did Epicureanism eventually become compatible with Christian doctrine?

September 19
Ch 3
1. What was the aim of scientific understanding, for Bacon and Descartes? 31
2. What were Locke's and Hume's laments? 33
3. How was Aristotle both correct and incorrect about how the seasons changed? Pg. 27 (Max)
4. What did the Epicureans regard as the most important contribution of philosophy to life? p. 28 (Ed)
Ch 4
1. What was Epicurus's view of soul? 38
2. The Epicureans were the target of what ostensibly-Stoic argument for the view that the universe was made for us? 41
3. What do the life cycles of plants and animals indicate? Pg. 39 (Max)
4. What were the two Epicurean ideas that helped bridge the apparent gap between non-existence and the richly populated world, and the gap between matter and life? p. 44 (Ed)

September 24
Ch 5
1. How did the Epicureans depart from the Platonic and Aristotelian traditions? 52
2. The standards of meaning and truth are what, for Epicurus? 55
3. Epicureans believe that our beliefs about the physical world ought to be recognized as true or false how? (p. 59) Ed
4. What alternatives to materialism appeared between the 17th and 18th centuries? Pg. 63 (Max)
Ch 6
1. Epicurean gods have no what? 69
2. What is the Epicurean hope, with regard to the human tendency to invoke or solicit divine intervention in our lives? 72
3. What gave the clergy control and powers of preservation over philosophical texts in the middle ages? Pg. 73 (Max)
4. What does Epicurean philosophy offer non-believers? (p. 80) Ed

September 26
You will need to get these from the quiz once they are posted.
Good luck everyone! 😊

Professionalization and Pizza Workshop

A note from Dr. King:

Dear Philosophy and Religious Studies majors and minors,

Our next Department Professionalization and Pizza Workshop will be on Tuesday, October 1st at 6PM in JUB 202. Please join us!

Event: MTSU Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies Professionalization Workshop
Description: An overview of experiencing homelessness in Rutherford County and information concerning the work done by Murfreesboro Cold Patrol.
Date: Tuesday, October 1, 2019
Time: 6PM
Location: James Union Building, Room 202

The Professionalization Series is in its second year and provides students in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies with training on how to apply their studies both professionally and as engaged community members. This workshop is second in a planned series of six Professionalization Workshop events over the course of the academic year. All are welcome to come to as many or as few as they wish. Students who attend four or more workshops will receive a certificate of completion.


Rebekka King, PhD
Associate Professor, Religious Studies
Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies
Middle Tennessee State University
404.852.8026
rebekka.king@mtsu.edu

Al Gore's almost-happy news

If you missed it,
MTSU (@MTSUNews)
ICYMI: Check out our coverage of ⁦‪@algore‬⁩ & Dr. Tony Badger's discussion of Sen. Albert #Gore's legacy with our ⁦‪@AGRCatMTSU‬⁩ & ⁦‪@mtsuhistory‬⁩ experts, along with #climate talk & how #SilentSpring spurred the VP's #environmental awareness. ow.ly/Pnpt30pznec pic.twitter.com/SLxFfrTjTN

 

Al Gore: The Climate Crisis Is the Battle of Our Time, and We Can Win


Things take longer to happen than you think they will, but then they happen much faster than you thought they could.

The destructive impacts of the climate crisis are now following the trajectory of that economics maxim as horrors long predicted by scientists are becoming realities.

More destructive Category 5 hurricanes are developing, monster fires ignite and burn on every continent but Antarctica, ice is melting in large amounts there and in Greenland, and accelerating sea-level rise now threatens low-lying cities and island nations.

Tropical diseases are spreading to higher latitudes. Cities face drinking-water shortages. The ocean is becoming warmer and more acidic, destroying coral reefs and endangering fish populations that provide vital protein consumed by about a billion people... (continues)

Happy Banned-Book Week

Margaret Renkl's latest, since we saw her here last week...

Harry Potter and the Poorly-Read Exorcists
It’s Banned Books Week — more evidence that banning books is about as useless as trying to ban air.



By Margaret Renkl




NASHVILLE — When the Rev. Dan Reehil, a Catholic priest, ordered the removal of all Harry Potter books from the parish school’s library, the St. Edward community demanded an explanation. Father Reehil responded by email, noting that he had “consulted several exorcists, both in the United States and in Rome,” and had been assured that the “curses and spells used in the books are actual curses and spells; which when read by a human being risk conjuring evil spirits into the presence of the person reading the text.”

I read all seven Harry Potter books aloud to all three of my children, one at a time, as they became old enough to understand the books’ complicated plots, so I understand why Father Reehil’s explanation assuaged no parental concerns. Exorcists? Real spells? No wonder the story became international news almost as soon as The Tennessean broke it. Articles about the incident have appeared in outlets as diverse as The Washington PostCBS NewsEntertainment WeeklyThe Independent in Britain, and Forbes, among many others.

Before I heard this story, I would not have thought it necessary to point out that Harry Potter is a fictional character and that these books are not spellbooks. They are novels, tales J.K. Rowling made up out of her prodigious imagination.

Harry Potter and his friends don’t exist in real life, but they wrestle with real-life challenges: bullies, rejection, loneliness, fear, grief — and, yes, with clueless adults whose behavior is patently ludicrous. Nashville’s St. Edward School might as well be Harry Potter’s Hogwarts, for the story of Father Rehill sounds very much like the story of Delores Umbridge, a Ministry of Magic bureaucrat-turned-school-inquisitor.

Ms. Rowling may well be a magician, but the magic she conjures is far more wonderful than even the spells in her books: She got kids to read again. And perhaps grown-ups, too — I often found myself reading deep into the night, long after the child beside me had fallen asleep, merely for the pleasure of Ms. Rowling’s translucent prose and extravagant world-building.

There was a time when the Harry Potter titles were routinely targets of a challenge, the American Library Association’s term for an attempt to remove books from a library or school curriculum. The first three volumes were among the most challenged books of the decade that began in 1990, even though they weren’t published in the United States until midway through 1999. By the following decade, the series was at the very top of the list.

According to “Don’t Tell the Grownups,” Alison Lurie’s groundbreaking 1990 exploration of the way classic children’s literature has always undercut convention, “Most of the great works of juvenile literature are subversive in one way or another: they express ideas and emotions not generally approved of or even recognized at the time; they make fun of honored figures and piously held beliefs; and they view social pretenses with cleareyed directness, remarking — as in Andersen’s famous fairy tale — that the emperor has no clothes.”

Little surprise, then, that two decades of efforts to protect children from imaginary spells have made no difference at all. Harry Potter titles have sold more the 500 million copies worldwide.

As it happens, this is Banned Books Week in the United States, so the timing of Father Rehill’s ban is richly ironic, but Harry and his friends are no longer the chief targets of book-banning adults, presumably because most adults are now aware that attempting to keep children from reading Harry Potter is about as effective as banning air. These books have already thrilled an entire generation of readers, and it’s only a matter of time before they become a powerful source of nostalgia for young parents eager to pass on the stories they had loved so much as children.

Because that’s what it’s truly about: love. The best children’s literature isn’t an attempt to teach children anything, good or bad. Children don’t read Harry Potter to learn incantations. They read Harry Potter because the stories are absorbing — intricate and exciting and funny — and because reading them makes real life seem more magical. All the children I know went to sleep the night before their 11th birthday half convinced an owl would arrive after midnight, swoop in their bedroom window, and drop an invitation to Hogwarts on their bed.

The gift of brilliant fiction, for children and adults, is the way it blurs the line between what has happened and what can happen. When a book comes to life in a reader’s imagination, the reader is changed, and so the fictional world enters the world of reality in a profound alchemical reaction that changes the nature of reality itself, though not in the way Father Rehill imagines. Because people who read fiction consistently score higher on tests that measure empathy and altruismthan those who don’t, it’s no huge leap to believe that Harry Potter has made the world a better place.

Parents and religious leaders will no doubt continue to try to keep “objectionable” books out of libraries, but they will be no more successful at keeping children from reading those books than they have ever been. I was a high-school senior, and my sister was in 6th grade when our mother found a copy of Judy Blume’s “Forever” in our shared bedroom. Ms. Blume’s books are frequently challenged, and “Forever” was no exception, featuring a teen protagonist who has sex for the first time. On purpose. With forethought and birth control.

My parents never made any attempt to censor my own reading, but the outcry over “Forever” must have gotten to Mom. Lori was too young, she thought, for a book with a sexually active heroine, and she asked me to downplay its appeal: “She won’t listen to me, but she’ll listen to you,” she told me.

Later that morning, I picked up the well-thumbed book, one my sister had borrowed from a friend. “I heard this isn’t a very good book,” I said without much conviction.

“It’s a great book,” my sister said. “I’ve already read it twice.”
==
Margaret Renkl is a contributing opinion writer who covers flora, fauna, politics and culture in the American South. She is the author of the book “Late Migrations: A Natural History of Love and Loss.”