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.