(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.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Sunday, April 29, 2007
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?
Friday, April 27, 2007
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...
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...
Friday, April 20, 2007
Week 14 Study Questions
Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986)
Beauvoir with SartreNote: 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?
Monday, April 16, 2007
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.
Friday, April 13, 2007
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?
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?
Friday, April 6, 2007
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)
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)Sunday, April 1, 2007
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)