solved Instructions: Choose three of the four prompts. Your answer for

Instructions: Choose three of the four prompts. Your answer for each prompt MUST be written in a single, coherent essay format– you will lose points if the answers are in bullet points or broken up responses. There is no limit on how much or little but ideally about 600-1,000 words each. Question 1: The Myth of SisyphusChoose one example in which Camus characterizes the absurd, describe it in your own words. Camus says that the absurd is a relation between humankind and the world – explain this and use the example you chose to illuminate the concept. Why is the absurd so problematic as to inspire Camus’ famous opening line that “there is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.” (Hint: do not argue (yet) with Camus, pretend you are him, and reconstruct the argument/problem in your own words – be sure to emphasize the thoroughness and power of absurdity). Camus claims that without a middle way through, there are two responses to the absurd: nihilism and philosophical suicide. Define both of these, then describe how they are (insufficient) answers to absurdity according to Camus. Camus’ middle path is ‘radical acceptance’ of absurdity. Describe this radical acceptance in your own words and the ‘three consequences’ it inspires. Finally, choose one of Camus’ absurd heroes – the lover, the actor, and the adventurer. Describe how this character employs the three consequences to face the absurd and live in spite of it. Once you have constructed a charitable vision of Camus’ absurd hero, do you also think that they are a hero? Do they live heroically and overcome the problem of absurdity? Give an argument why you think so, or why not.Question 2: Existentialism is a HumanismExistentialism is a Humanism was a public lecture meant to aid in vindicating existentialism from two very public concerns/objections. What are these objections (hint: use the lecture slides). Choose one of them and develop its argument against existentialism in your own words. In response to these objections, Sartre begins by defining Existentialism as the school of thought for which “Existence Precedes Essence.” What does this mean? Give an example. When it comes to humans, why does the precedence of existence become a problem (hint: it has to do with permissibility and freedom). Define ‘radical freedom’ as Sartre understands it. Radical freedom leads us to anguish, abandonment, and despair. Define each of these three attitudes and how they relate to one another in the context of being radically free. Sartre responds to the second set of charges by claiming that freedom necessitates intersubjectivity. What is intersubjectivity according to Sartre? Why does the project of living in a radically free way commit us to the freedom & being of others. Define ‘bad faith’ in your own words. Use an example of acting in bad faith that illuminates why Sartre thinks bad faith runs counter to the intersubjectivity of radical freedom. Finally, do you think that Sartre has adequately rebutted the objection that existentialism is inhuman and impersonal? Give an argument why you agree with or disagree with Sartre’s conclusion that ‘existentialism is a humanism.’Question 3: The Ethics of AmbiguityWhat is the difference between ‘ambiguity’ and ‘absurdity?’ Why does Simone de Beauvoir object to understanding existence as ‘absurd,’ and instead favors the idea that existence is ‘ambiguous’ (Hint: see the second word of the title of the book)? ‘Ambiguity’ is supposed to be a quality of consciousness inspired by the two forms of being that make up what it is to be human: the ‘for itself’ and the ‘in itself.’ What are the ‘for itself’ and ‘in itself’ in human Being, and why do they inspire ‘ambiguity?’ How do these forms of consciousness and Being relate to ‘natural freedom’ and ‘ethical freedom’? Define both natural and ethical freedom as you give your answer. Why do an ethics require willing ‘ethical freedom’ – why can’t natural freedom do the job? Choose EITHER the ‘serious man’ or the ‘sub man’ – explain what sort of person this is (using an example) and why they fail to will freedom in the right way. The ‘positive aspects of ambiguity’ give rise to a methodology for an ethics of ambiguity. These positive aspects are the aesthetic attitude, freedom & liberation, the antinomies of action, and ambiguity. What is the aesthetic attitude, according to de Beauvoir? What is the relationship between this attitude and the communal project of willing ethical freedom? What is the antinomy of action and why does it pose a problem? De Beauvoir argues that the ‘future’ can help resolve the antinomy of action – what does she mean by ‘future’ and how is it supposed smooth over the antinomy of action? At the end of the day (and book), de Beauvoir admits that there is no escaping ambiguity, even by willing a finite future for the sake of liberation and ethical freedom. Is her ‘methodology for an ethics of ambiguity’ enough to make the world a better place? Give an argument why you think so, or why you think not.