Permanent email address

I'll probably be on campus until August, so until then you can contact me if necessary at miyasaki@uwm.edu. I'll probably be keeping regular afternoon office hours, as well.

After August, you can reach me at the following email address: d.miyasaki@utoronto.ca.

Thanks again everyone for your hard work and discussion ideas. Have a great summer, and best of luck with your future studies!

Donovan

Live Ionesco

You'll find the final study questions, and a link to information about Tuesday's movie, in the previous post.

I've been looking for nearby theatre productions of No Exit and Rhinoceros without any luck. However, if you're up for a trip to Chicago, you can see Ionesco's first play (or "anti-play") The Bald Soprano. It's playing here from May 13th to June 24th. It's definitely an Ionesco classic--in ways funnier, and definitely even more bizarre, than Rhinoceros. You can read it online here (it's short).

Final Study Questions

You'll find the final study questions below. Tuesday we'll be watching a film, so the next discussion will be our final one on Thursday. Although our discussion will focus on study questions 1 and 2, do take a look at the others--they will help you focus your thoughts about the final reading.

Also, in preparation for the film, you might want to take a look at this New York Times review, since it will give you some context and additional background information about the film.

Finally, some aphorisms by Franz Kafka that I think go well with Beauvoir's novel:

You can hold back from the suffering of the world, you have free permission to do so and it is in accordance with your nature, but perhaps this very holding back is the one suffering that you could have avoided.

The strength to deny, that most natural expression of the perpetually changing, renewing, dying, reviving human fighting organism, we possess always, but not the courage, although life is denial, and therefore denial affirmation.

What is laid upon us is to accomplish the negative; the positive is already given.

Faith in progress does not mean faith that progress has been made. That would be no faith.

He who renounces the world must love all men, for he renounces their world too. He begins from that point to divine the true nature of mankind, which cannot but be loved, provided that one is capable of it.

The indestructible is one: it is every human being individually and at the same time all human beings collectively; hence the marvelous indissoluble alliance of mankind.

1. Think of at least two ways in which we might be able to positively apply existentialist ideas to our personal lives. (You might consider broader, general views that these thinkers all agree on, or more specific ideas from a specific author.) How might their ideas change the way we live, choose our values, or make decisions about how to act?

2. Think of at least one real-world contemporary issue--a social, moral, or political debate or problem--that existentialist thought might help us better address or confront. How do existentialist ideas (either as a group or an individual thinker's) apply? Do they help us decide how to respond?

3. One way to define "murder" is as any act of killing that is not necessary for the defense of one's own life or the life of another. On this view, it's okay to kill only if it's to save lives. On the basis of a view similar to this one, Jean's mother accuses the Resistance fighters (and, unknowingly, her own son) of murder. After all, they knew their attack would likely lead to the retaliatory killing of innocent hostages, yet they also knew these deaths would probably not save anyone else's life ("Did that bomb save the life of a single Pole?"). Is she right that this is murder? Why or why not?

4. At the end of the novel, Helene convinces Jean that her death is not his fault, but the result of her own free choice. However, Jean realizes that the hostages who will be shot as a result of his actions, unlike Helene, do not have any choice. What message is Beauvoir trying to convey? Is he guilty for their deaths or not?

Things to consider: First, remember Beauvoir's paradox in which every action for humanity is also an action against humanity. Also remember she insists that we should not take either our goal or the means to achieve the goal as unconditionally, absolutely good. Jean sometimes fails to do this. For example, when arguing for armed resistance, he says, "We must only be concerned with the end we have to achieve and do everything necessary to attain it" and that even when it's the "blood of others. The price would never be too high." So Beauvoir may mean to critically portray Jean's character and choices, even if she is sympathetic to the idea of armed resistance.

Updated list of short assignment grades

Here's a new list of short assignments turned in--updated to include the ones you've just turned in. If you're not on the list, email me.

Current Short Assignment Grades

(For the new study questions, and some background about the Beauvoir novel, see the previous two posts.)

I've put together a list (here) of the current (as of 4/30) number of short assignments turned in (you need a total of six for an A). Please check the list to make sure it's correct. If you're not on the list, it's because you still need to send me a 4-digit code of your own choice to use. If you haven't, email me with the code. I will also use it at the end of the term to post final grades.

Remember that after this week, you will have only one more opportunity to submit short assignments--I will not accept short assignments after Tuesday, May 8th. If you still need more short assignment credits, consider submitting your final essay early (the 10th) or doing a longer short assignment for extra credit. If you'd like to do a longer assignment, it should be at least 4 pages. Non-standard topics or formats should be approved by me before handing them in.

Week 15 Study Questions

If you haven't already, be sure to read the previous post for background information about the Simon de Beauvoir novel that we'll be reading an excerpt from next week.

Tuesday (CR 221-27, Simone de Beauvoir, Ethics of Ambiguity)

1. [Note that this question is from last week] What does Beauvoir mean when she says, "No action can be generated for man without its being immediately generated against men"? How does she criticize those who would use this as an excuse for oppression, or for sacrificing the individual to the group?

2. According to Beauvoir, in our actions toward others, we should take the other's good as an "absolute end [or goal] of our action." However, "we are not authorized to decide this end a priori [in advance or without appeal to experience]." Be able to explain the meaning of this quotation, using one of more of her examples in your explanation (the suicide attempt, the drug addict, or the individual "living in a situation of falsehood").

3. On the question of the former Soviet Union, Beauvoir criticizes both the staunch supporters and staunch opponents of the USSR. What fallacies does she attribute to the arguments on each side?

4. How does she respond to the militant political view that the true hero will "blindly direct himself toward an uncontested goal," thus avoiding "the pitfalls of ambiguity"? What alternative view does she present--what is the proper method of ethical decision or the proper ideal to try to realize in political action?

Thursday (CR 228-50, Simone de Beauvoir, The Blood of Others)

1. Jean Blomart worries that his friends will consider him a coward for taking a non-combat post in Paris, even though Helene arranged it against his will. He even seems to think that it might be true. Is he a coward? If he is, what should he do?

2. Why does Jean compare becoming a soldier once again to the "wonderful holidays" he experienced in childhood?

3. Jean's friend Gauthier defends his decision to continue writing and publishing his political newspaper under the control of the Nazis, saying he's just being "clear-headed." Is he right to do so? What would you do in his situation? Jean admits to himself that he's no better than Gauthier. Why?

4. When Helene's friend Denise criticizes her decision to accept a job in Berlin, Helene says it doesn't matter, since in time another system will replace the Nazis. To Denise's objection that what matters is the time in which we live, Helene replies: "It matters if we make it matter . . . It is we who decide. . . . Why should I decide if it's my personal fate that matters, or that of France, or of this century in which I happen to have been thrown?" What does she mean? Why does she later change her mind about the job in Berlin?

Introduction to Beauvoir's novel The Blood of Others

Since we'll be reading an excerpt from the end of Simone de Beauvoir's World War II novel The Blood of Others, I thought I'd give you some background information about the story and characters. (Check back for the study questions--they should be up in the next day or so.)

The novel begins with a quote from Fyodor Dostoyevsky: "Each of us is responsible for everything and to every human being." In the opening scene, we find out that a young woman named Helene has been seriously wounded while participating in a Resistance bombing mission against the Nazis. She is sleeping, but there is little hope that she will survive the night. In the next room, her friends and fellow Resistance fighters discuss plans to complete their mission the next day. Among them is her ex-lover, Jean Blomart, who has volunteered to take over the job that Helene failed to complete: to personally set the time-bomb.

As Helene sleeps and Jean waits for daybreak, he reflects back on the events that have lead up to this night. The majority of the novel is narrated from Jean's point of view, as he remembers his childhood, his break from his family, the beginnings of his relationship with Helene, the onset of the war, and their first activities in the French Resistance.

Although most of the novel is presented from the perspective of these past events, the narrator occasionally breaks into the story in order to comment, as he sits at Helene's deathbed, on his memories of these past events. This can be a little confusing, so just note that whenever you see a passage of narration that's completely italicized, it represents Jean's thoughts in the present time (on the night of Helene's death).

The character of Jean Blomart is loosely based on Jean-Paul Sartre. He is a young man from an upper middle-class background who has cut off ties from his family, abandoning a possible career as future owner of his father's printing company in order to become a laborer and union-leader. He's an active agitator for the political left, but refuses to join the Communist party out of a desire to preserve his intellectual independence--and out of an unwillingness to impose, through revolutionary action, his own values on others.

When Jean first meets Helene, she is free-spirited, selfishly individualistic, and a bit childish. She eventually falls deeply in love with him, but Jean doesn't feel the same way toward her. He initially tries to end their friendship to avoid hurting her, but it doesn't work--she only grows more attached to him. Jean's most striking personality trait is his commitment to the value of freedom--both his own and others--so it pains him to realize that he is involuntarily imposing emotional suffering on Helene. He eventually decides to lie and tell her he loves her in order to end her suffering. Despite this, he does truly care for her, and they have a reasonably happy relationship until the approaching war forces them to choose between personal happiness and social responsibility.

Beauvoir presents Jean's decision to pretend he loves Helene as a kind of bad faith: he's trying to avoid realizing the consequences his own freedom must have upon others. Throughout the novel Jean is plagued by guilt over his role in Helene's fate. He feels he is indirectly her murderer, since she would never have joined the Resistance without his influence.

Helene, on the contrary, exhibits a different form of bad faith. We learn that she had a devoutly religious upbringing, and Beauvoir's characterization suggests that in her love for Jean, Helene has tried to overcome the loss of security and authority that she once found in religion. Helene devotes herself to Jean so that she can avoid the anguish of taking up her own freedom.

Not only that, Helene's love seems selfish. When France enters the war against Germany, she is completely unwilling to accept Jean's decision to join the fight. By refusing to think about how her own happiness and peace of mind might come at others' expense, Helene denies that her choices are made on behalf of others as well as herself, thus ignoring any responsibility she may have to others.

Our selection from the novel begins with Jean's return from the front lines to Paris. Helene has used a powerful family connection to get Jean restationed, against his will, in Paris--far from the danger of combat. Jean is very upset, and feels he's betraying his friends who are risking their lives at the front...

Week 14 Study Questions

Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986)

Beauvoir with Sartre

Note: I've decided to shorten next week's readings to CR 210-220.

Tuesday: Albert Camus, The Plague

1. Throughout this chapter, the character of Tarrou uses the plague as a metaphor for a general human or social condition, saying that everyone has the plague, but some don't know it, others are content with it, and others want to fight it. What is the "plague" according to this metaphor? What, according to Tarrou, is the response of "the good man" to the plague?

2. After witnessing a trial in which the condemned is sentenced to execution, Tarrou became an "agitator," participating in a radical political group in the hope that he could fix the system that allowed such acts of "rational murder." Why did he eventually decide that this was a mistake? What arguments did his fellow members make in defense of their group? Are they right?

3. Tarrou says that his concern wasn’t these arguments, but instead his feelings about the condemned. He "chose to be blindly obstinate" and refuse to change his mind. If he's just being obstinate and is ignoring all rational arguments, how can he be sure he's doing the right thing? Is he doing the right thing?

4. Tarrou says there are only three categories of things in the world: pestilences (diseases), victims, and healers. What does he mean? What is his defintion of a "good man"?

Thursday: Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity

1. In contrast to Camus, Beauvoir thinks that violence is necessary and justified if it is in order to end severe political oppression. Is this true? Why or why not? How would Camus or Ionesco respond?

2. In contrast to Sartre, who thinks we are completely responsible for our choices no matter what our circumstances are, Beauvoir says circumstances can excuse us. For example, she says a 16-year Nazi isn’t guily, but his leaders are. Is this true. Why or why not?

3. Beauvoir not only thinks that political opression justifies violence against the guilty oppressor, she also thinks it's sometimes justifiable to use violence against individuals who are fighting for valid causes, and against those fighting on our side. Why? Is she right?

4. What does Beauvoir mean when she says, "No action can be generated for man without its being immediately generated against men"? How does she criticize those who would use this as an excuse for oppression, or for sacrificing the individual to the group?

Final Essay and Short Assignment Topics

Eugène Ionesco

These are the suggested topics for your final essays and for the remaining short assignments. For short assignments, only do one part of the chosen question (either Part A or part B). You may choose to do the same topic for multiple short assignments or different ones for each--that's entirely up to you.

Remember that you have the option of writing on a topic of your own creation for both the short assignments and the final essay, provided you email me the topic for approval first (a very short description is fine). I'll approve most topics--at most I'll probably just ask you to narrow or expand it so it will be suitable for the length of the assignment.

Also remember you have the option of creating your own short assignment in an alternate format, including short stories, artworks, or essays on texts or artworks that weren't part of the class. Email a short description for approval. And remember you may be able to get double credit for longer projects.

CRITICAL ESSAY-FORMAT:

1. Critical philosophical analysis of Camus' The Stranger

A) Is Meursault "the absurd man," as described in The Myth of Sisyphus? How is he similar or different?

B) Does the novel present Meursault in positive or negative light—as someone to either admire or criticize? Do you agree with the way he’s presented--should we admire him or criticize him? Be sure to consider at least one possible objection that might be made to your view.

2. Critical comparison of the philosophies of Sartre and Camus

A) Compare and contrast Sartre’s view of freedom in Existentialism and Human Emotions with Camus’ view of freedom in The Myth of Sisyphus.

B) Defend or critique one of the views, being sure to consider a possible objection from the other author’s point of view.

3. Critical literary analysis of Ionesco's Rhinoceros.

A) Compare and contrast the personality, views, or character traits of Berenger to those of one or more other characters in the play. Why does Berenger resist transforming into a rhinoceros when the other characters do not?

B) Ionesco seems to think that Berenger's point of view, personality, or way of life is the best one for for avoiding dangerous conformism. Do you agree? Defend your view, being sure to consider a possible objection to your view from the perspective of either Sartre, Camus, or Berenger.

EXEGETICAL ESSAY-FORMAT:

4. Literary analysis of Camus' The Stranger

A) How has Meursault changed by the end of the novel, if at all? Support your answer with specific examples and quotations from the text.

B) At very end of the novel, if Meursault had the chance to live his life over again, do you think he would still help Raymond or commit the murder? Why or why not? Be sure to consider at least one possible objection to your interpretation.

Week 13 Study Questions

Tuesday

1. Contrast the characters of Jean, Berenger, and the Logician. Which character seems the most likely to transform into a rhinoceros, and why? If we asked each character why they think they won't succumb, what would they say?

2. In what ways do the various characters react to the first encounter with a rhinoceros? How are the reactions different than we might expect if it happened in real life? What does the author want to convey to the reader through their reactions?

3. On pages 7 and 17 of the play (course reader 159 and 165), Berenger describes his strange inability to get used to life and his constant sense of fear. Compare Berenger's experience to Sartre's idea of "anguish" and to Camus' idea of the absurd.

Thursday

1. How does Jean try to justify to Berenger his sympathy with the rhinoceroses? Why is he so scornful of Berenger's "humanism"?

2. Why does Dudard think Berenger shouldn't do anything to intervene, such as contacting the mayor? Dudard says that "to understand is to justify." Is that true?

3. Why does Berenger have the strength to resist when Jean does not, despite the fact that Berenger has less will-power or self-control?

4. What advice does Daisy give Berenger about how they should deal with the rhinoceros outbreak? Is her advice reasonable? She says that "guilt is a dangerous symptom." Is that true?

Week 12 Study Questions and Tips for the readings

The study questions for Tuesday just cover the selection by Soren Kierkegaard.

Since the excerpt by Martin Heidegger is so difficult, there aren't study questions for it. But do try to make as much sense of it as you can. The first paragraph is really intimidating, but stick with it, it gets a little easier. We'll focus on paragraphs 3 and 4 on CR 139, as well as the final paragraph in the excerpt (CR 140), so give those close attention. Again, if you can't make sense of it, don't worry. I'll explain the key issues in class.

For now, I'll just give you the basic idea that he wants to get across in this reading. Heidegger believes that because we define ourselves by adopting values, choices, ways of life, and meanings that are given to us by our communities and by others, we are deeply connected to others and have a deeply social nature.

As we proceed through life, we begin by being like other people, sharing their beliefs and values and choices. But we are unique as individuals, and so we each have unique possibilities that others don't have. When we realize these possibilities in our actions and choices, we become authentic individuals, separating ourselves from our origins in a sort of social or communal nature.

He draws two important conclusions. First, because we live in a social world where we have so much in common with others, we often forget about our own unique possibilities, and society often imposes values or choices on us that are not our own, leading us to live in conformity rather than realizing our individual nature.

Second, he concludes that our social nature--the basic possibilities and meanings we share with others--is a true part of who we are, so we can't solve this problem of conformity by rejecting what we have in common with others, but we do have to realize we are more than just our roots in a shared human and cultural community.

Good luck with the reading. To get you started, here are some definitions of his terminology:

Da-sein: Heidegger uses this word to refer to humans. It means "There-Being," and with it he refers to human nature, to those primary characteristics that make us human. For Heidegger, human beings' primary characteristic is that we don't act according to a set nature but decide what we want to be, choosing among various possibilities what we will become.

The They: Heidegger's term for the anonymous crowd, and for the tendency individuals have of forgetting their own uniqueness. When an individuals act simply as one of "the they," they forget to think and choose for themselves, and instead conform to habit, pressure, or expectations of general society.

Existentially/existential: When Heidegger uses this term, he is describing something that he believes is true of every human being. Something is "existential" for Heidegger if it a primary characteristic of human beings or aspect of their existence.

Distantiality: The way that human beings care about their similarities and differences. We are exhibiting "distantiality" when we enjoy being one of the group or worry about being outside of the group, when we take pleasure in excelling and being different or better than others, or when we worry about not being as good as someone else. These are all ways that human beings care about their "distance" from each other. The reason we care about this is because as human beings we have a lot in common, and so feel "close" to each other. But we are also unique individuals, and so we also feel "distant" from each other in some ways, and even enjoy feeling distinct, separate, unique.

Referential context of significance: A worldview or basic interpretation of human life shared by members of a community or culture. This worldview may include beliefs about human possibilities, values, goals, and meanings. These possibilities and meanings provide the context in which individuals make choices, and it is in reference to them that choices and actions have significance or meaning. Because our choices take place in a world of shared meanings or values, we need others to define ourselves--we give our actions meaning by choosing from shared values and possibilities. So, the "referential context of significance" helps us define ourselves, but it's also a possible threat to individuality, since we sometimes take for granted that this shared worldview is the only correct one.

Study Questions for Tuesday:

1. Why does Kierkegaard think the crowd is untruth, even when the individuals that form it originally possessed the truth? In what way does he think the crowd is irresponsible and cowardly?

2. Why does Kierkegaard associate the crowd with the press? He says that we can’t use the press to overcome errors. Why not? What do you think he would say about web media?

3. Why is accepting the authority of the crowd a failure to love our neighbor?

4. Kierkegaard says that when he uses the word “truth,” he means “eternal truth." If we reject the idea of eternal truth, do we have to reject Kierkegaard's view and instead say that the crowd is truth?

Study Questions for Thursday:

1. In Hannah Arendt's essay, she describes the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official who helped execute the Nazi's "final solution": the systematic murder of approximately 6 million Jews. Eichmann claimed he wasn't guilty before the law. Why not? What explanation does he give for his actions? Why didn't he realize that what he was doing was wrong or oppose the plan?

2. Arendt points out that psychologists found Eichmann's mental health to be "normal," and that Eichmann did not seem to possess any deep personal hatred for the Jews. Why does she think this is important?

3. Arendt points out that some Jewish leaders cooperated with the Nazis, helping with the administrative task of identifying and rounding up the individuals who would be taken to the concentration camps. She also suggests that millions of Jews might have escaped had it not been for the advice of these leaders.

How did these Jewish officials explain their cooperation? Even if their intentions were good, does that justify their actions? What would you have done in their place?

4. How do you think Camus' character of Meursault would have acted if he was in Eichmann's place? Do you think the Meursault of Part One of the novel would have acted differently than the Meursault at the end of the novel?

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)

Hannah Arendt (1906-1975)

Week 11 Study Questions

Sorry for the delay -- I'm having problems with my web access. Here are the next week's study questions. Since we didn't get to Camus last week, I've carried over the first two questions from last Thursday for this Tuesday.

Tuesday

1. If someone you knew reacted to a loved one's death the way that Meursault reacts to his mother's death, what would you think? Is his reaction inappropriate? Is their anything wrong with him or with his attitude towards others? Based on the reading from Myth of Sisyphus, how do you think Camus would answer these questions? (Keeping in mind that the Camus, as the author, may not always agree with the views or actions of his characters.)

2. Is it wrong for Meursault to write the letter for Raymond to his mistress, even though he knows Raymond wants to harm the girl? Is it wrong for him to act as a witness to the police for Raymond? Based on the reading from Myth of Sisyphus, what would Camus say?

3. Meursault says he got used to prison, and that he imagines he could even get used to anything, even living in the trunk of a dead tree. Once he got used to prison, do you think he was less happy than when he was a free man?

4. At one point in the trial, after the caretaker's turn on the stand, Mersault says "for the first time I realized I was guilty." What does he mean? Does he mean he felt remorseful? Does he think he deserves to be punished or that the murder is his fault? If so, how do we explain his continued desire to be granted an appeal?

Thursday

1. Mersault's friends Celeste and Raymond suggest that the murder was a case of "bad luck" or "just chance." Is this true, in some sense? If so, does it mean Mersault should not be punished? Would his crime be worse if it was premeditated or if it was not?

2. The prosecutor says that Meursault is also, in a sense, guilty of another crime --a parracide (murdering one's father) committed by another person. In what way does he blame Meursault for this completely separate murder? Is he right?

3. In his final conversation with the priest, why does Meursault--after being so indifferent and dispassionate throughout the novel--suddenly become angry and start yelling at the priest? What does he mean when he says "I had been right, I was still right, I was always right"?

4. How has Meursault's character changed by the end of the novel? Does he fit Camus' description of the "absurd man" in The Myth of Sisyphus? Why or why not?

Midterm Gradelist

Here is the list of current participation grades. I've also included the number of short assignments you've completed (out of a maximum of 6) and the number of class absences. Remember that after three absences without penalty, each additional absence brings down your participation mark by one grade increment (for example, from A to A-).

If you're not on the list and would like to be, email me a 4 digit code of your own creation (not your campus ID)--I'll use it for final essay grades as well.

Week 10 Study Quesions

Albert Camus

We'll be watching a movie next Tuesday, but go ahead and do the readings in advance, so you can identify the themes from the readings in the movie. (For those who have been assigned study questions, you should prepare answers for Thursday's quesions, not Tuesday's.)

When you read Camus' novel The Stranger, compare the main character (Meursault) to Camus' description of the "absurd man" in Myth of Sisyphus. How is Meursault similar to, or different from, the absurd man?

Also think about the meaning of the title of the novel. In French, "stranger" also means foreigner or outsider. What makes Meursault an "outsider"? What is he "on the outside" of? Who is he a "stranger" to? What could he do to stop being a stranger?

Tuesday:

In preparation for the movie, think about the following questions:

1. If you knew that today is the last day of your life, what would common daily activities would you decide not to do today, that you would have done otherwise? Why not?

2. If you knew that the entire world would end tomorrow, would you consider doing anything that you would usually consider either immoral, illegal, or foolish? Would you loot, or steal, or harm others? Why or why not?

3. If the entire world were to end tomorrow, would you spend any of your final day helping others? Why or why not?

Thursday

1. If someone you knew reacted to a loved one's death the way that Meursault reacts to his mother's death, what would you think? Is his reaction inappropriate? Is their anything wrong with him or with his attitude towards others? Based on the reading from Myth of Sisyphus, how do you think Camus would answer these questions? (Keeping in mind that the Camus, as the author, may not always agree with the views or actions of his characters.)

2. Is it wrong for Meursault to write the letter for Raymond to his mistress, even though he knows Raymond wants to harm the girl? Is it wrong for him to act as a witness to the police for Raymond? Based on the reading from Myth of Sisyphus, what would Camus say?

3. Do you think Meursault is happy? Why or why not? Prior to the murder, he keeps saying that things aren't his fault, and thinks people are judging him. Apart from the murder, do you think he's guilty of anything? Why or why not?

4. What do you think of Nietzsche's question about the "eternal return"? Would you be happy if you had to live through every single event of your life, even the most miserable moments, an infinite number of times? Why or why not?

Week 8 Study Questions

Tuesday (CR 117-24)

1. Albert Camus says that "to understand is . . . to unify" and that the mind's deepest desire is for familiarity, unity, and the absolute. What does he mean by this? Why does he think that the world frustrates this desire?

2. Camus' essay is devoted to a unique feeling or experience of an aspect of the human condition that he calls "the absurd." We experience this feeling, or become aware of this aspect of our condition, in a number of ways. For example, he says a feeling of weariness over "daily routine" and the "acts of a mechanical life" can lead sometimes lead to the feeling of absurdity. What's so absurd about daily routine? After all, daily routine is familiar and comfortable. Routine also gives unity and order to life, and our daily repeated activities are perfectly meaningful, since they are mostly devoted to promoting our life and well-being. Where's the absurdity?

3. Another way in which we might encounter the absurd is through the realization that we are mortal. Camus says that sometimes when a person "situates himself in relation to time," taking stock of how much time has passed, and recognizing the inevitability of death, this lead to a feeling of revolt that is the absurd. Why should death provoke the feeling of absurdity? Death is perfectly natural, and part of the natural order of the organic world. Why is death absurd?

4. What does Camus mean when he says that when we experience the absurd, we recognize that the world is "foreign," "strange," or "inhuman"? He says that the world loses its "illusory meaning." What meaning is he referring to, and why does he think it is an illusion?

Thursday (CR 125-32)

1. What are the "two certainties" on which the absurd depends? Camus' view of the human condition is correct only if these supposed "certainties" are true. Do you think they are?

2. Camus says of the absurd man that "all he feels" is his "irreparable innocence." Kafka, Sartre, and the narrator in Camus' own novel The Fall, on the contrary, say we are guilty. How do you think Camus would respond?

3. Why does Camus think that the fact of death means that we are not truly free? Yet he also thinks the absurd individual feels less hampered and, in a sense, "freer" than the other people do. Why?

4. In Camus' description of the mythical character of Sisyphus, he says that we "must imagine Sisyphus happy." Do you think it is possible for Sisyphus to be happy, despite his predicament?

Pictures of Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky, and Kafka

Friedrich Nietzsche

Fyodor Dostoevsky


Haymarket Square, St. Petersburg
(Where Raskolnikov overhears that Alyona will be left at home alone the next day)

Franz Kafka

Prague Castle and Cathedral
Kafka's home city
(and location of the Cathedral scene in Welles' film version of The Trial)

Pictures of Jean-Paul Sartre

Week 7 Study Questions

Here are next week's study questions. Be sure to check the previous post for the topics of the short assignments and second essay.

Tuesday: (Camus - The Fall, Nietzsche - The Gay Science, Sartre - No Exit)

1. What is the meaning of the following passage in Camus' The Fall?

For it cannot be said there is no more pity; no, good Lord, we can never stop talking of it. Simply, no one is ever acquitted anymore.

2. In Sartre's No Exit, the characters find themselves in a kind of hell, where they unintentionally serve as each other's torturers. Garcin suggests that if they ignore each other and stay silent, they can avoid bothering each other. Is this true? Why or why not?

3. What is Garcin being punished for?

4. Why does he want to convince Inez that he's not a coward? At one point, Estelle agrees that he isn't a coward--why wasn't Estelle's support enough for him?


Thursday: (finish Sartre - No Exit)

1. What is Inez being punished for? Who is her torturer and why?

2. What is Estelle being punished for?

3. Why is it so important to Estelle to get Garcin's attention? Why isn't Inez' attention enough for her?

4. Are they guilty? If they are, is it for their past actions, or for the way they are acting now?

Short Assignment and Second Essay Topics

You may choose any of the following topics for your second essay (section 008: first draft is due 3/27; section 010: first draft is due 4/3).

You may use these topics for any of the short assignments leading up to the second essay. Since the short assignments are only two pages long, you should only do one part of the essay topic (either part A or part B) per short assignment. That way you'll have enough space. Also, remember that you don't have to do all of the scheduled short assignments--just up to a total of six over the course of the semester.

If you plan to write your second essay on a topic of your own creation, you may also request to write your short assignments on the same topic--but do contact me first (email is fine), so we can settle on specific guidelines.

1. Critical comparison of Dostoyevsky and Kafka.

A) Compare the Grand Inquisitor’s views, in Brothers Karamazov, about freedom and the law (moral, political, or both) to the views of either the officer in Kafka’s story "In the Penal Colony" or the doorkeeper in "Before the Law."

B) Critically discuss one (or both) of the character's views you have considered. Is it a correct understanding of freedom and law? Why or why not?

2. Literary analysis of Kafka's "In the Penal Colony"

A) Why does the officer voluntarily get into the machine?
B) Why doesn’t the procedure go normally?

In your replies, be sure to focus on the key themes of this course: the meaning and existence of morality and law, the nature of moral and legal authority, and the relation of the individual to the law.

3. Critical philosophical analysis of Sartre

A) Explain Sartre’s claim that I choose in a state of anguish because I choose for all humanity rather than for myself alone. Why should I worry about my choices, if there is no possibility of making the "wrong" choice?

B) Critique or defend Sartre's view, then consider and respond to at least one objection to your argument.

4. Literary and philosophical analysis of Sartre's No Exit

A) How does Sartre's play No Exit illustrate his philosophical view that a person is "nothing else than his life"?

B) How does it illustrate Sartre's philosophical view that we cannot be anything "unless others recognize it as such"?

Week 6 Study Questions

Tuesday: (CR 25-40)

Why does Sartre say there are "no excuses"? Why does he say we are "condemned" to be free?

In his example of a young man trying to decide between going off to war or staying with his mother, why does Sartre say that the man cannot rely on his feelings (his love for his mother) to decide or justify his actions?

Is it true that there are no “born cowards” or “born heroes”?

Sartre says that we cannot be anything "unless others recognize it as such." Why? Is this true?


Thursday: (CR 40-59, including "Freedom and Responsibility")

How can he answer the criticism that if existentialism is correct, then "you're able to do anything, no matter what"? What about the criticism that existentialists are "unable to pass judgment on others"?

What does Sartre mean when he says there are no accidents in life? Is it true that anyone who’s in a war has “chosen” it?

In what sense do I choose to be born?

More writing samples

You'll find the study questions for next week's readings in the previous post. Here are a few more writing samples for you to think about. Let's start with a selection arguing against the view espoused by the student in Crime and Punishment:

There cannot be any reason to kill an entirely innocent person no matter what the benefit. Though one may be inclined to disagree, they simply do so because of distance. For example, it is easy to surrender the life of some foreign person who one will never see, never see a picture of, never hear of, et cetera in exchange for money to give to struggling single mothers. It is especially easy for the single mothers who would benefit from this. However, you ask these same mothers to sacrifice their own child to help out one hundred other single mothers raise their children and not a single mother (at least not a rational one) will hand over her precious child. When the distance is removed and the innocent person becomes near to one, one’s opinion changes. One must keep in mind, though, that whoever this innocent person is, they almost certainly would not be willing to sacrifice themselves for this ideal, nor would anyone who was personally close to this person.

This selection is an excellent example of depth in an argument. The author anticipates an objection that killing an innocent is justified if it leads to a greater good, but heads off the objection by showing that such arguments are only convincing if it is not myself or my loved ones being sacrificed. The author then gives evidence of this by contrasting two compelling examples that illustrate how the principle of greater good becomes less convincing the closer it strikes to home.

Also notice the way the author introduces the examples with a general statement about distance, then gives detail to this general claim by appealing to specific examples, and finally (a step often overlooked), explicitly draws out the conclusion that the examples are supposed to support ("when the distance is removed...").

It's worth noting that this selection is from a paper that ultimately sided with the student, so it's a good example of sympathetic reasoning--of trying to deeply understand the other side's point of view before responding critically.

Next, another argument opposing the student's view:

In the selected passage from Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment the main character Raskolnikov overhears a peculiar conversation. He hears a student and a young officer discussing the same old woman that he has been thinking about killing. They reveal that she is very cruel to her sister and the people that knows and lends money to. They also reveal that the old woman is willing all of her money to a monastery, rather than to the people. The student concludes that one would be justified to kill her and take her money, because it would benefit so many people than if she was left to die of natural causes. It is my opinion that one would be justified in killing her, since it would help so many people.

First I will explain the opposing side's view, the view that it would not be justifiable to kill a person, no matter what. It would never be justified to kill another human being because human life is valuable above everything else. It would be wrong to extinguish the life of even the cruelest of human beings. It would be better to try and convince the woman and any other human being to do good deeds with the riches they have been blessed with. It you could show the person the error in their ways, and help them change for the better it would be a greater deed than killing them and redistributing their wealth. You would not only help all of those other people, but you would help the person with the wealth.

Here we have an excellent example of a number of aspects of form. First, the opening paragraph efficiently introduces the context (the book, the characters, the student's view) in a way that is concise (not including unnecessary details) but effective--it includes everything a general reader who has not read the material needs to know to follow the argument. It also demonstrates clarity by making evident the structure of the essay as it progresses. First it presents the student's view, then clearly identifies the author's own view to be defended, and finally makes a smooth transition to the opposing view, which it clearly identifies as a possible point of view that the author doesn't share. It's easy when juggling lots of sides of an argument to confuse the reader about which view is your own, so this is an example of how good organization and good transitions can prevent confusion.

The critical argument is also a great example of balance between clarity and depth. When taking an argument into greater depth, it is easy to get off topic, or to lose the course of the argument, which can hurt the clarity of the essay. In this case, the argument is presented in just a brief paragraph, but still shows depth. It does so, first, by going beyond the basic, obvious argument that killing is wrong. It explains why it's wrong -- life is valuable -- and goes a step further to explain that life is more valuable than anything else. This is an important clarification, since there are lots of valuable things in the world that we are sometimes willing to sacrifice for a greater end. The next statement nicely emphasizes this by pointing out that in no case, even that of "the cruelest" of persons, would this value be worth sacrificing. Finally, the passage makes effective use of an example (persuading the woman to be a better person) as a way of showing that there is potential value in any human life.

One final writing sample:

Every human, no matter how base, how despicable, how far gone into the worst possible excesses and wrongs, has the basic right to their life. The old woman from Crime and Punishment may be cheap, “disgusting,” “cursed,” “wicked,” and “capricious,” but she too does not deserve to lose her life. She also does not deserve to have others decide what is “right” to do with her money. The woman is obviously still in her right mind; there is no mental disability that calls into question her decision-making. She simply wants all her money to go to a convent that she has picked out. While this choice may seem a waste to the student and the officer, and may certainly seem heartless to her half-sister Lizaveta, it is nonetheless the decision put down in the old woman’s will, and that should be honored.

The basic problem with deciding to kill this old woman in order to rid the world of one cruel hag and use said hag’s money in order to accomplish good is one of authority. No matter how persuasive the case, no matter how grotesque the crime, it is authority that is needed in order for one human to deem another unworthy of life.

This is an excellent example of both clarity and depth. It begins with a very explicit statement of its key claim: that every human has a right to life. While by itself, this would just be a contradictory and controversial view, and not give us reasons for accepting it, the author backs it up with a number of strong reasons. First, the author suggests that this right can be questioned only if the person deserves death--in other words, by turning the tables and insisting that the opposing side justify the right to kill. The author adds an additional reason for questioning the student's proposal--it would involve assuming the right to make decision on behalf of a free and rational adult. The author adds depth to this point by explaining why the woman's case is not a justified case of imposing on freedom of decision--there's no specific reason to treat her as not responsible for her own decisions (as there might be in the case of children, the mentally ill, etc.). Finally, the author clarifies the position by underlining the basic problem: whether the student claims a right to kill or a right to decide on behalf of someone else, in both cases the student claims to possess a special kind of authority over others.

Week 5 Study Questions

Tuesday: (Kafka, "In the Penal Colony," Course reader pp. 66-79)

1. What's the point of the punishment? Why doesn't the officer just quickly execute the prisoner?

2. This form of punishment takes place in a "penal colony" -- a prison camp located in a colony that is governed by a foreign empire. Presumably, this extreme form of punishment can only be found in the colonies, not in the ruling nation. How do you think the officer would justify this inconsistancy?

3. Halfway through the punishment, the prisoner supposedly experiences a form of redemption or enlightenment. Why? Is this enlightenment worth the suffering it requires?

4. Why does the officer put himself into the apparatus? Why does it go to pieces?


Thursday: (Sartre, Existentialism and Human Emotions, pp. 9-24)

1. What does Sartre mean when he says "essence precedes existence"? What is the important difference between a human being and a manufactured object, such as his paper-cutter example?

2. Why does Sartre think existentialism involves a feeling of "anguish"?

3. In answer to the question "What if everyone acted that way?", Sartre says it's dishonest to answer: "Everyone does not act this way." Why does he think that?

4. Why does Sartre say we are "condemned" to be free?

Writing Sample

You'll find the study questions for next week in the previous post. Here is a writing sample from the first short assignment. This piece is a very good model to follow for a number of the major grading criteria. The best way to improve in each area is practice, but it should be helpful to have examples of what you're aiming for. So, take a look and compare your own work to see where you might improve.

People that have gone down in history as having a “great love for humanity” have usually attempted to save our race from something that hurt it. This “something” could vary from hunger, to poverty, to foreign or domestic enemies. In The Brothers Karamazov, the Inquisitor from the story Ivan tells believes he has a greater love for humanity than his prisoner, even though that prisoner may very well be Jesus Christ. The Inquisitor believes this because, just like other famous people from history, he has helped to save our race from something that hurt it greatly – our own freedom.

This is an excellent introduction. Notice how the author has managed, in a just few sentences, to draw the reader's attention, introduce the context of the story and characters, and identify briefly the key issue to be developed: the inquisitor's belief that freedom is harmful to humanity.

Throughout the monologue that the Inquisitor has outside the cell of the prisoner, he tries to show how dangerous limitless freedom is to humanity. He understands that through the gift of freedom, Jesus hoped to give man the ability to love and follow him freely, but he wonders how it did not occur to the prisoner what a terrible burden he was placing on man’s shoulders with this freedom. This freedom is very “seductive,” and seems at first to be a wonderful thing, a thing that all men have right to, but the Inquisitor believes it to be “tormenting” as well. The torment comes when man is left adrift in a sea of decisions and possibilities, with only the image and words of an unseen God to guide him. The Inquisitor says men in this situation will invariably start to question and reject this image and words because of this freedom they have.

Here we have an example of good reasoning: the Inquisitor understands that humans do desire freedom, but believes this desire is based on a mistaken belief about freedom. By emphasizing these points, the author has anticipated and answered the most obvious objection: the objection that humans want freedom, so they won't be happy without it. But if the desire is based on a mistake, that's not necessarily so. The Inquisitor's reasoning has been made clearer and, as a result, his argument stronger.

This is also an example of depth. Rather than repeating the Inquisitor's basic assertion that freedom is harmful, the author clearly explains why and how it is harmful: because it's very difficult to make decisions without any guidance.

Now, skipping ahead to a later part of this assignment--the critical reply:

The monologue from the Inquisitor to the prisoner is a really fascinating one. He truly believes that he has the greater love for humanity, and he expresses it very eloquently, but it is very hard to agree with him. The argument is somewhat similar to the one that parents make to their children when they forbid certain things because they know from their greater experience it will not be good for the child. They take away certain freedoms out of love for their children. This is the same kind of love that the Inquisitor has, except his is on a much greater scale, but the same principle cannot apply. After all, humans are not all children, and who is this Inquisitor to be the parent?

Here we have both depth and good reasoning. The author takes a simple analogy of parenting, but draws out in depth how the analogy fits the Inquisitor's case. But the author doesn't stop with the comparison to parenting. The author shows strong reasoning by clearly explaining the important difference between the two cases: it may be appropriate to protect children in this way, but not adults. Rather than just saying, "Taking away freedom is bad," the author makes a stronger case by identifying when taking away freedoms may or may not be appropriate.

No matter how verbose and interesting his speech is, it cannot hide the fact that he wants to take away man’s freedom. Freedom of choice may be one of the most tormenting things in life, but it one of the key traits that make up what it means to be human. It is not within the rights of any man to take away the freedom of another just because they think that they know better. It is also interesting that even after everything the Inquisitor says about how Jesus failed and the mistakes he made, the prisoner does not rail against him or make excuses. He simply looks with understanding in his eyes and kisses the Inquisitor.

In this final section, we find another great example of strong reasoning. The author clarifies that the Inquisitor is right about the difficulty of freedom, but wrong to think we can do without it, since it's part of human nature.

This is a much stronger criticism than simply saying that freedom is a good thing so he shouldn't take it away. If the Inquisitor is right in his belief that humans are naturally too weak to handle freedom, it wouldn't matter that freedom is a good thing--it would be out of our reach anyway. But if he's wrong about human nature, as the author has suggested, then the Inquisitor loses his justification for sparing us from freedom--anyone can, as a human being, potentially bear the burden of freedom.

Week 4 Study Questions

(See previous post for information about the grading criteria and the meaning of the letter grades.)

These questions are all for next Thursday, since we'll be watching a film on Tuesday.

In the reading by Franz Kafka, a priest is telling a character named Joseph K. a parable, a moral or educational story. It is a tragic story about a man trying (and failing) to gain entrance into "the Law" and about the doorkeeper who guards the entrance.

1. The priest and "K." debate a number of different interpretations of this story. K. originally suggests that the doorkeeper is guilty of deceiving the poor man who is trying to gain entrance to the Law. But the priest suggests an alternative interpretation, in which the doorkeeper is a decent citizen doing his duty, and maybe even a victim of deception himself. What support does he give for this view? Do you agree?

2. In The Trial, it appears that the authorities eventually find K. guilty. What is he guilty of? What could he have done differently to avoid the film's unhappy end?

3. The Trial can be interpreted as a story about human justice and the human institution of law. Viewed in that way, does it have anything unique or important to say?

4. The Trial can also be interpreted as a symbolic story. On this view, we don't have to interpret K.'s trial literally. For example, his trial might be a symbol for the human condition, or for the relationship between the human and the divine, or between the individual and society. Can you think of ways of interpreting the story symbolically rather than literally? Interpreted in this way, what are the main ideas that The Trial expresses about human existence?

Grading Criteria

Remember to check this blog weekly--I'll try to post study questions and short assignment topics (when we have them) each Thursday, so that's the best day to check. Sometime in the next week, I'll be posting anonymous samples of good critical writing from our first short assignment, alongwith explanations of how they succeed. Do watch for those, they'll give you a better sense of what to aim for.

You'll also notice in the upper right corner a section where you can download the syllabus and any handouts. If you miss a class, be sure to check the blog for any handouts you might have missed.

Here are the basic criteria used to determine grades for writing assignments. The letters in the grade summary ("Good," "OK," "Improve") refer to these criteria, as do any circled letters that you find in the body of the text of your assignment.

Clarity - well-expressed ideas made understandable to a general audience (not assuming familiarity with the readings), in both the overall presentation (organization of key ideas, logical sequence of points) and in the details (clearly-written and phrased sentences that make your, or the author or character's, point of view easy to follow and understand). The first step to clear writing is clear thinking. You must not only have a strong understanding of the material, but be able to clearly explain the material to yourself before explaining it to your reader. The best way to make sure you can do this is through re-reading, taking notes, free-writing, and outlining key points and arguments before writing.

Accuracy - Fair and careful interpretation of an author or character's point of view or intended meaning, as well as of their reasons for holding that point of view. The goal is to understand another's ideas or intentions from their point of view and as the other person wants to be understood. It is a matter of reading and listening well, and above all, interpreting charitably or generously--making sure you know what they're trying to get across, even if they do not always explain themselves perfectly.

Form - The appearance and readability of your written work, including presentation (margins, fonts, spacing, neatness), mechanics (grammar, spelling, punctuation), and style (for example: avoiding awkward or convoluted phrasing, correct use of paragraphs, smooth transition from one thought or idea to the next, avoiding overly informal speech or excessively technical or convoluted language, making your writing inviting and accessible to your reader).

Depth - Thoughtful presentation of ideas from the text, demonstrating that you have, in your reflection on the text, come up with something of your own to contribute to the ideas in the reading. A paper shows depth when the reader gains something from your paper that they would not have gotten from the readings alone--a unique point of view, an original interpretation, a critical perspective, an improved argument, or a clearer understanding. Ways to add depth: take an argument from the reading and make it more explicit and clear, or make it better-defended and stronger; take an argument from the reading and consider critical arguments for or against that aren't already presented in the reading; in a literary piece, draw out important themes or issues that the author hasn't made obvious or explicit; when putting forward a unique view of any kind (a philosophical argument, a literary interpretation), consider different possible points of view, and be able to show why your unique take on the material is strong or worthy of consideration.

Reasoning - Carefully and explicitly conveying to your reader the reasons why they should take seriously both your own point of view and the views of others that you are discussing. A paper displays strong reasoning by clearly and accurately identifying the primary reasons for a point of view. They answer the question: why could or should a person agree with a view, or at least find it well-worth considering? The primary reasons for a point of view are not usually stated explicitly in the text; they are not usually the first answers that come to mind when asking critical questions. To find them you must push your critical questions further; don't take the first answer to a critical question as complete; keep questioning until you run into the basic convictions upon which the view rests. When attempting to identify primary reasons for a view, try to find basic beliefs or "premises" that support the view, but are not very controversial. Then show how those non-controversial premises offer evidence for the view you are explaining. You can show strong reasoning in non-argumentative papers, too. For example, when explaining why a certain theme is important in a story, or interpreting the message or significance of a literary work, you can display strong reasoning by presenting evidence from the work that supports your claims about the work.

How letter grades work:

This is a very general explanation of how the letter grades connect to your grade summary. Please note that this is not a strict formula. The final grade takes into account the degree of strength or weakness in a given area, so you cannot directly deduce the final grade from the grade summary. But this will give you a general sense of how the summary informs the grade.

A: only minor problems in any area. Good in many areas, including D and R.
A-: only minor problems in any area. Good in many, including D or R.
B+: at least one significant problem in an area. Good in many, OK or better in most.
B: multiple significant or one serious problem area. OK or better in many, including F, C, or A.
B-: multiple significant problem areas, including one in F, C, or A. OK or better in some areas.
C+: many significant problem areas, including two in F, C, or A. OK or better in some areas.
C: very significant problem areas in F, C, or A. OK or better in some.
C-: very significant problem areas in F, C, or A. OK in only one.
D-F: only in cases of very incomplete or late work, or work that very seriously fails to meet assignment requirements.