Week 15 — What Is It All For? Meaning, the Absurd, and a Position of Your Own

Assignment 14 of the term — correct a post about Sartre and Camus, key two arguments and match the theory-matching set, run the 3 answers to the question of life's meaning on a case of your own, defend a reasoned position on a question from the course's roster against its strongest objection, and explain existentialism to someone new to philosophy.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into exact, well-reasoned work. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week you learned Sartre's claim that existence precedes essence and the situation objection, Camus' absurd and Sisyphus imagined happy, Beauvoir on freedom and the situation, the 3 answers to the question of life's meaning, and the 6 steps of a reasoned position. In Week 2 you learned standard form, validity, and soundness; in Weeks 11 to 13 you matched Dataset J's statements to Dataset D's theories; and every week added one case to the roster. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Philosophy Workshop practice the same ideas from other angles; this assignment, the last of the course, is where you put the whole course together.

The task

You will use this week's sources, Dataset A (the course's roster of 15 thought experiments), Dataset B, the argument set (illustrative), Dataset D (the course's table of 4 ethical theories), and Dataset J, the theory-matching set (illustrative). Datasets B and J are written for teaching and are not claims the course endorses; the course keys Dataset B's arguments for validity only, never for soundness, because the premises are open questions. The course pins no quotation from Sartre, Camus, or Beauvoir, so describe their views in your own words. The everyday cases below were written for this assignment; they are illustrative and describe no real person or place.

Part A — get the sources right, then use the tools. A post on a study-group forum reads: "Camus came up with existence precedes essence, and his story of Sisyphus proves that life is pure despair. That is why existentialists think nothing matters." Do three things:

• Correct the post. Say whose formulation existence precedes essence is, and explain it with an example of an essence of your own (not the mug); state the situation objection and a reply from the existentialist side, and say what Beauvoir adds about freedom and the situation; say what the absurd is in Camus' sense and why it is not despair; say how Camus' book ends, in your own words; and credit Sisyphus and his rock to its source on the roster.
• Key two arguments. Write Dataset B's argument 7 ("If Socrates is wise, he admits his ignorance. Socrates is wise. So he admits his ignorance.") and argument 10 ("Most people in this town favor the law. So the law is just.") in standard form, key each for validity with a one-sentence reason from the definition of validity, name argument 7's form, and say why neither is keyed as sound.
• Match the theory-matching set. List Dataset J's 8 statements by number and give the theory in Dataset D that each is keyed to.

Then work this problem, showing your reasoning:

1. Dataset D has 4 ethical theories, and Dataset J has 2 statements for each of them. How many statements does Dataset J have?

Part B — the synthesis. Work this problem first, showing your reasoning:

1. The course's roster has 15 thought experiments, 1 per instructional week, and 7 of them come in Weeks 1 to 7, before the midterm. How many come after Week 7?

Then do three things:

• Run the 3 answers. Choose a task or commitment that never quite finishes, from your own life or invented (not the river trail). Run meaning given from outside, meaning created by the individual, and meaning found in valuable activities and relationships on it, each in its strongest form, with its strongest objection and a reply from its side, without naming one answer correct.
• Choose the procedure. Pick one question from the course's roster (any week). Say which tool you will use to defend a view on it, the 6 steps of a reasoned position, a single counterexample, or a labelled variation of the thought experiment, and why that tool fits the job, and say why one of the other two fits less well.
• Defend a reasoned position. Using the 6 steps, state the question; state your position in one sentence; put your argument in standard form, marking any added premise; judge its validity and say which premises are open; state the strongest objection as its best defender would; and reply to it, ending in one plain sentence naming where you and the objector disagree. Credit the roster case to its pinned source.

Explain it to a non-expert

A cousin who has never taken philosophy says, "Existentialists are the people who think life is pointless." Write a 3–5 sentence message in everyday words that explains what existentialism holds about choice, why the absurd, as Camus uses the word, is not the same as despair, and one honest limit of what you can claim. Explain any term your cousin might not know.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a coworker who asks whether a valid argument must have a true conclusion. Model answer: "Valid only means the conclusion would have to be true if the reasons given for it were true. An argument can be valid and still have a false conclusion when one of its reasons is false. Philosophers save the word sound for a valid argument whose reasons really are true. One limit: checking the form is quick, but whether the reasons are true can take a lot more work, and sometimes people still disagree."

Use that pattern for your message to your cousin, with your own explanation of existentialism.

Reflect on your revision

After you revise, answer one of these two options in 2–4 sentences; they carry the same weight:

• (a) Which change made your sourcing or your standard form more exact, and which definition or pinned source showed you it was needed?
• (b) Which change made your strongest objection stronger, and what had you left out at first?

After this assignment

The cumulative final exam comes in Week 16. Its study guide, practice exam (the Final Practice Exam), and exam-prep tutorial sit in the Week 16 exam bundle. The synthesis move you practice in Part B, choosing the right tool, stating the other side at its strongest, and naming where you disagree in one plain sentence, is the same move those materials ask you to make with every unit of the course.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft Part A, Part B, and your message to your cousin before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Reply in your own words. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one correction, reconstruction, or statement of a view, even if your first attempt was strong, and then reflect using option (a) or (b).
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write your corrections, reconstructions, or message for you. If it credits existence precedes essence to Camus, calls the absurd despair, quotes Sartre, Camus, or Beauvoir in words the course does not pin, calls a valid argument sound, or tells you whether life has meaning, check that against Chapter 15 before you use it.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory philosophy course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about this week's ideas: Jean-Paul Sartre's formulation that existence precedes essence and the situation objection; Albert Camus' absurd, the clash between our demand for meaning and a world that offers none, from The Myth of Sisyphus (1942), which ends by imagining Sisyphus happy; Simone de Beauvoir on freedom exercised in a situation; the 3 answers to the question of life's meaning (given from outside, created by the individual, found in valuable activities and relationships); and the 6 steps of a reasoned position. Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show. Never invent a quotation, a philosopher's view, or a source; the course pins no quotation from Sartre, Camus, or Beauvoir, so quote none of them. Never call a Dataset B argument sound or unsound, and never announce a verdict on whether life has meaning or on any roster question. Keep the tone hopeful and philosophical; if I say anything suggesting real distress about my own life, pause, reply with warmth, and encourage me to talk with someone I trust or a counselor or local support service.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. Part A: I correct a forum post that says "Camus came up with existence precedes essence, and his story of Sisyphus proves that life is pure despair. That is why existentialists think nothing matters." I credit the formulation to Sartre and explain it with an essence example of my own, state the situation objection with an existentialist reply and Beauvoir's point, say what the absurd is and why it is not despair, say in my own words how Camus' book ends, and credit Sisyphus and his rock to Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus. I key Dataset B's arguments 7 and 10 (illustrative) in standard form for validity with reasons, name argument 7's form, and say why neither is keyed as sound. I match Dataset J's 8 statements to Dataset D's theories. Part B: I run the 3 answers to the question of life's meaning on a never-finished task of my own, each at its strongest with an objection and a reply. I pick one roster question, choose a tool (the 6 steps, a single counterexample, or a labelled variation) and say why it fits better than another, and then defend a reasoned position on it in 6 steps.
PROBLEM P1: Dataset D has 4 ethical theories, and Dataset J has 2 statements for each of them. How many statements does Dataset J have?
PROBLEM P2: The course's roster has 15 thought experiments, 1 per instructional week, and 7 of them come in Weeks 1 to 7, before the midterm. How many come after Week 7?
For P1 I must also supply the forum-post correction, arguments 7 and 10 keyed, and Dataset J matched. For P2 I must also supply the 3 answers on my own case, the tool choice with its reason, and the reasoned position in 6 steps; then a 3-5 sentence message in everyday words to a cousin who thinks existentialists believe life is pointless. After revising, I reflect using option (a) or (b) from my assignment page.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply, out of 100 points. Sourcing and attribution (P1): 20 if the correction credits existence precedes essence to Sartre with an essence example of my own, states the situation objection with an existentialist reply and Beauvoir's freedom-in-a-situation point, says the absurd is the clash between our demand for meaning and a world that offers none and is not despair, says in my own words that Camus' book ends by imagining Sisyphus happy without quoting it, and credits Sisyphus and his rock to Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus; 10 if at least three but not all of those five parts are accurate; 0 if fewer. Argument reconstruction and the theory set (P1): 25 if arguments 7 and 10 are both in standard form, argument 7 is named as modus ponens and keyed valid with a reason, argument 10 is keyed invalid because it moves from what people believe to what is right, neither is keyed as sound, all 8 Dataset J statements are matched 2 to each theory, and the P1 count is worked; 15 if one of those parts is missing; 5 if two or more are missing or an argument is keyed by whether its conclusion seems true; 0 if no accurate reconstruction. Evaluation and the reasoned position (P2): 25 if the 3 answers are each run on my own case at their strongest with an objection and a reply and no verdict; the tool choice is justified with a reason why another tool fits less well; the reasoned position has all 6 steps with the strongest objection stated as its best defender would and the roster case credited to its pinned source; and the P2 count is worked; 15 if one of those parts is missing; 5 if two or more are missing or the objection answered is a weakened one; 0 if no accurate evaluation. Plain-language explanation for a non-expert (P2): 15 if the message is in everyday words, says what existentialism holds about choice, explains why the absurd is not despair, and names a limit; 8 if it can be followed but omits one of those points or leaves a term unexplained; 0 if missing. Revision and reflection (P2): 15 if I show a before-and-after change plus a reflection on why it is better; 8 if only one of the two; 0 if neither.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my reply. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to check it against the definitions and the pinned sources. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word reply is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both problems with the forum-post correction, arguments 7 and 10 keyed, Dataset J matched, the 3 answers on my own case, the tool choice, the reasoned position in 6 steps, and the cousin message AND revised at least one part AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my correction, my reconstructions, my reasoned position, and my message]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work: the forum-post correction, arguments 7 and 10 keyed, Dataset J matched, and the first count; the second count, the 3 answers on your own case, your tool choice, and your reasoned position in 6 steps; your message to your cousin; and your reflection — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 15 skills — crediting Sartre's and Camus' ideas to their sources and stating them accurately, putting arguments in standard form and judging validity without keying soundness, matching statements to the ethical theories, running the 3 answers to the question of life's meaning on a case at their strongest, choosing the right tool, defending a reasoned position against its strongest objection, and explaining existentialism to someone new to philosophy — for comparable time and effort, about 75 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete Part A, Part B, the message to your cousin, and one reflection option. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion: for the correction, check each attribution against Chapter 15 and confirm that you quoted none of the three thinkers; for arguments 7 and 10, check the forms against Week 2's list; for Dataset J, confirm 2 statements per theory; for each answer and for your own position, ask whether its best defender would sign your statement of it, and whether your objection is the strongest one, not the easiest; and check that your cousin message explains why the absurd is not despair. Write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one change you made, the definition or pinned source that prompted it, and one question you still have. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The correction, reconstructions, answers, reasoned position, message, revision, and reflection must be your own words. Do not ask the chatbot to write any of them or to add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com