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?