Wednesday, January 6th

Objectives:

• Continue to understand the major tenets of existentialism
• Discuss Meursault's indifference and what it might mean

Starter #3
Read and summarize the findings in the article, entitled "Stanford research: The meaningful life is a road worth traveling"

• Briefly summarize 3 different ways the researcher distinguishes between happiness and meaning
• Overall, how would the researcher, Jennifer Aaker, define happiness? How would she define meaning?
• According to her definition of these two concepts, which do you think is more important? Why?

Class Biz

• Honors lunch meeting today
• Tomorrow's Beyond The Nest Announcement! (You all get off-campus lunch privileges)

Agenda
1. 4 corners: 

• Do you think pursuing meaning is more important than pursuing happiness?

• Do you agree with Aaker's definitions of happiness and meaning? In other words, are they as separate as Aaker makes them out to be?
  
  

2. Listen to an excerpt from this Radiolab podcast on "Bliss" (first 5 minutes, 40 seconds) and watch the youtube video of Aleksander Gamme's blissful cache discover

3. Partner chat: Have you ever been this happy?  What do you think is the relationship between this guy’s happiness and his pursuit of a meaningful life?

4. Continue Existentialism powerpoint 

5. Discuss The Stranger

6. Time to read and annotate The Stranger

The Stranger, chapters 2-5 discussion questions:

Food for thought: 

• What is the significance of the title? Who is "the stranger" and in what ways are they estranged? How does Mersault's indifference relate to the Absurd?
• On pages 22-24 Mersault is characterized as a passive observer, looking down upon the city streets, judging those who pass. Does he ever define his own self? Reflect on his own identity? Pay attention to how this role changes throughout the book and think about how it relates to alienation/authenticity and existentialism more broadly

Discussion Questions
1. CH. 3 deals a lot with the concept of morality and raises the question: Is there a universal sense of right/wrong?  And how do we respond in the face of apparent injustices? Existentialists rejected the idea of a universal code of ethics but did place responsibility on individuals to decide right and wrong for themselves and to act according to the person they want to be.  What are TWO examples in chapter three that pertain to this tenet of Existentialism? Does Mersault seem moral/immoral/amoral?  

2. Why would chapter 3 end with Salamano's dog whimper?

3. Read aloud pages 40-41

• What is your analysis of Meursault's indifference? Why do you think he acts this way? 
• In his indifference, which tenet of Existentialism does his attitude contradict?
• Do you think it it possible that Meursault is meant to represent the cold indifference of the universe that Camus and other existentialists experienced in WWII OR is something else going on here?   If so, what?

4. On page 39 Salamano cries about his dead dog and Mersault thinks of Maman.  Why? Is this a change in his character? Why or why not?

5. Page 45: "No cure for old age" mirrors a line earlier on "There's no way out"-- In a way Camus is setting the stage for Mersault (and the reader) to recognize the absurd in the inevitability of death....urging us not to hide from it or deny the reality of death.