Week 15 · Chapter

Chapter 15 — Existentialism, the Meaning of Life, and the Course Synthesis

Introduction to Philosophy Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~50–60 minutes · Objective 9 (explain existentialist and other answers to the question of life's meaning, and write a reasoned position on a philosophical question that answers the strongest objection to it), with Objective 2 (identify arguments, put them in standard form, judge whether they are valid, sound, or inductively strong, and test claims with counterexamples and thought experiments) and Objective 6 (explain and apply the major ethical theories — utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, virtue ethics, and social contract theory — and the challenges of relativism and egoism, to moral cases) carried forward · Read it first this week; the lecture, the slide deck, the tutorial, the quiz, and the Philosophy Workshop all build on it.

In plain language

This week asks a question most people ask at some point: what is my life for? Three thinkers called existentialists (philosophers who start from the person who exists, chooses, and acts) give answers that begin from freedom rather than from a purpose handed down. Then you meet three wider answers to the question of a life's meaning (what makes a life worth living and part of something that matters). Finally, the course looks back at everything it has built, and you learn to defend a view of your own against the strongest objection to it. No one, the course included, hands you the answer.

Why you already care about this

Picture a farewell lunch at an office. After decades at the same desk, a coworker is leaving a steady job to train as a carpenter. Someone at the table asks the question out loud: "Why now? What is it all for?"

Maybe you have asked a version of it yourself. Choosing a major, changing jobs, starting over in a new city: each one raises the same worry. If no one tells you what your life is for, how do you decide? And if you decide for yourself, does the choice count for anything?

Philosophers took up that worry in the middle of the last century. Jean-Paul Sartre gave a lecture in Paris in 1945 called "Existentialism Is a Humanism", published in 1946. Albert Camus published The Myth of Sisyphus in 1942, about a man pushing a rock up a hill forever. Simone de Beauvoir published The Second Sex in 1949. This chapter reads all three, then gathers the whole course into one method you can keep.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

explain Sartre's claim that existence precedes essence, with an example of an essence;
state the situation objection to Sartre and the reply from the existentialist side;
explain Camus' absurd and why imagining Sisyphus happy is not despair;
state Beauvoir's point that freedom is exercised in a situation;
run the 3 answers to the question of life's meaning on a new case, each with an objection and a reply;
sort the course's 15 thought experiments by unit and credit each to its source;
key Dataset B's arguments 7 and 10 for validity, and match Dataset J's 8 statements to their theories;
write a reasoned position in 6 steps, with its strongest objection stated fairly and answered.

Carry this sentence with you: the question stays open; the method is yours to keep.

Where we are

Already covered: Weeks 1 and 2 gave you the method: the Socratic method, standard form, validity, and soundness. Weeks 3 to 5 asked what is real and what we can know. Weeks 6 and 7 asked about the mind, the self, and free will. Week 8 reviewed them and added Pascal's wager, and Week 9 weighed arguments about God. Weeks 10 to 12 built the ethical theories, Week 13 asked what makes a government legitimate, and Week 14 read Confucian, Daoist, Buddhist, and ubuntu philosophy in their own terms.
This week: Sartre, Camus, and Beauvoir on freedom and the absurd; 3 answers to the question of life's meaning; and the course synthesis, in which the 15 thought experiments are read again and you defend a reasoned position against its strongest objection.
How they connect: every earlier week taught one move of the philosopher's way of working. This week asks one last big question and then asks you to make all the moves at once.

Two tools from earlier weeks carry the weight. From Week 2, you need standard form: premises numbered P1 and P2, the conclusion last, marked C and introduced by "So". You also need the difference between valid (the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true) and sound (valid with all premises true). From Week 1, you need the habit of testing a claim with a counterexample. This is the course's last teaching week; the cumulative final exam in Week 16 asks you to use these same tools on every unit.

1. Exist first, then choose: Sartre on essence

Look at a coffee mug on a kitchen shelf. Before anyone made it, someone had a plan: a cup with a handle that holds a hot drink. The purpose came first, and the mug was made to fit it. That is the course's illustration, not Sartre's.

Essence — what a thing is: its defining nature or purpose, such as a mug's purpose of holding a hot drink.

For the mug, the purpose comes before the thing. Jean-Paul Sartre argued that for people, the order runs the other way. His lecture "Existentialism Is a Humanism" was given in Paris in 1945 and published in 1946.

Existentialism — a family of views in philosophy that starts from the individual person who exists, chooses, and acts, and asks how to live when no fixed human nature or given purpose settles who you are.
Existentialism Is a Humanism — Jean-Paul Sartre's lecture, given in Paris in 1945 and published in 1946, which argues that for human beings existence precedes essence.
Existence precedes essence — Jean-Paul Sartre's formulation of the claim that human beings exist first and make themselves through their choices, so no nature or purpose fixed in advance decides who a person is.

Worked example — the mug and the person. Ask of each one: which comes first, the purpose or the thing?

The mug: the maker has a purpose in mind, holding a hot drink, before the mug is made. Purpose first, then the thing.
The person, on Sartre's view: you exist first. What you are is not settled until you make it by choosing.
The career changer: decades at a desk did not fix who this coworker had to be. The choice to train as a carpenter is part of how the coworker becomes someone.

In words: for a made object, essence comes first; for a person, on Sartre's view, existence comes first and essence is made.

Now state the view the way its best defenders would. No fixed human nature and no purpose handed down in advance decides who you are. So you are free, and you are responsible for what you make of yourself. Its strongest appeal is that it takes your choices seriously. "I can't help it; that's who I am" is never the whole story, because who you are is partly what you keep choosing.

Every position gets its strongest objection.

Situation objection — the objection to Sartre's view that a person's body, history, and society limit what they can make of themselves, so the claim that people make themselves through their choices seems to ignore how much is given.

The career changer cannot choose to be young again, or to have had different savings. The reply, from the existentialist side: the view does not deny the facts of a situation. It says that what those facts come to mean in a life still depends on how the person takes them up, and the career changer's choice is a case of exactly that.

In one plain sentence: Sartre holds that people make themselves through their choices, and the situation objection presses how much of a life is not chosen.

Misconception check — existentialism is not the view that nothing matters. Students often think existentialists say life is pointless, so nothing we do matters. It is tempting because the view denies that a purpose is handed to us in advance. The cure is to follow Sartre's reasoning to its end. Because nothing settles in advance who you are, your choices matter all the more, since they are how you become someone.

2. Push the rock: Camus, the absurd, and Sisyphus

Now meet the week's thought experiment, the Week 15 case on the course's thought-experiment roster. Picture a steep hillside and a heavy rock at its foot.

In the Greek myth, Sisyphus is condemned to push a rock up a hill forever. Each time, it rolls back down. Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus (1942) takes that story as a picture of a human life.

The Myth of Sisyphus — Albert Camus' book of 1942, which treats life as absurd and ends by imagining Sisyphus happy.
Absurd — in Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus, the clash between our demand for meaning and a world that offers none; the word names a clash, not a feeling of despair.
Sisyphus and his rock — the thought experiment on the course's roster drawn from Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus (1942): Sisyphus, in the Greek myth, is condemned to push a rock up a hill forever, and the case asks whether a life can be meaningful in a world without given meaning.

The roster gives the case a question: Can a life be meaningful in a world without given meaning? It tests the absurd and the meaning of life.

Worked example — finding the absurd in the case. The absurd is a clash between two things, so find both.

Side one, the person: Sisyphus wants his labor to add up to something, the way anyone wants their work to count.
Side two, the world: the rock rolls back every time, and nothing in the task answers his wish.
The absurd: neither side alone. It is the clash between our demand for meaning and a world that offers none.
Camus' ending, in words: the book ends by imagining Sisyphus happy. The course quotes no line from it.

In words: the absurd lives in the meeting of a person who asks "what for?" and a world that does not reply.

Now state Camus' view the way its defenders would. The honest response to the absurd is to face it, with no false hope, and to live fully anyway. Sisyphus knows his task will never be finished, and he goes back down the hill for the rock. Its strongest appeal is that it offers a way to live well without first settling questions no one may be able to settle.

Brave-face objection — the objection to Camus that imagining Sisyphus happy changes nothing about his task, so his happiness may be making the best of a bad situation rather than finding meaning.

The reply, from Camus' side: the claim is not that the task gains a purpose. It is that a life lived in full awareness, owning its task rather than hoping to escape it, can be embraced as it is. A caveat: readers still argue about whether that reply answers the objection or changes the subject, and the course keys no verdict.

Pause and think, choosing one of these two options:

(a) Write two sentences on whether Sisyphus, as Camus imagines him, has found meaning or has put on a brave face, and give your reason.
(b) Write two sentences describing a task from your own life that never finishes, such as dishes or email, and say whether doing it with full awareness changes anything about it.

Misconception check — the absurd is not despair. Students often read "absurd" as a mood of hopelessness, as if Camus were telling us to give up. It is tempting because the word sounds bleak and the story is a punishment. The cure is the definition and the ending. The absurd is the clash between our demand for meaning and a world that offers none, not a feeling. And Camus' response to it ends with Sisyphus imagined happy, not in despair.

3. Choose inside a situation: Beauvoir on freedom

Go back to the farewell lunch. The career changer has savings to cover a year of training, health that allows physical work, and a family that will help. Another coworker at the table has the same wish. That coworker has no savings and a parent to care for.

Are both equally free to start over? Simone de Beauvoir's work helps you say what is going on.

The Second Sex — Simone de Beauvoir's book of 1949, which argues that woman has been defined as the Other in relation to man and that becoming a woman is shaped by society rather than fixed by nature.

In words, as the course gives it: Beauvoir argues in The Second Sex (1949) that woman has been defined as the Other in relation to man, and that becoming a woman is shaped by society rather than fixed by nature. Behind that argument sits a view of freedom.

Situation — in existentialist philosophy, the body, history, and society in which a person's freedom is exercised, which can widen or narrow the choices a person really has.

Worked example — two coworkers, one wish. Ask two questions of each coworker: is the choice theirs, and which choices are really open?

The career changer: this choice is real, and no one else makes it. The situation (savings, health, help) leaves training as a carpenter really open.
The second coworker: the wish is the same, and the choice still belongs to this coworker. The situation (no savings, a parent to care for) leaves fewer choices really open right now.
What Beauvoir keeps from existentialism: people make themselves through their choices.
What she adds: freedom is always exercised in a situation, and a situation can widen or narrow the choices a person really has.

In words: both coworkers are free, and the situation shapes how much that freedom can do.

Notice how Beauvoir's view meets the situation objection from section 1. Sartre's critics said his view ignored how much is given. Beauvoir keeps the existentialist claim that people make themselves, and gives the situation its full weight. A limitation of this chapter: it gives The Second Sex in a few words, and the book's arguments run much deeper than one example can show.

Misconception check — the situation does not cancel freedom, and freedom does not erase the situation. Students often think it has to be one or the other: either we are free, or our circumstances decide everything. It is tempting because each side seems to deny the other. The cure is the two coworkers. Both choose for themselves, and their situations open different choices. On Beauvoir's view, both are real at once.

4. Weigh three answers to the question of life's meaning

Picture a river trail after a storm. A volunteer walks it with a bag and a grabber, picking up bottles, wrappers, and a lost shoe. By the next storm, the trash is back. The work never finishes.

Is that work part of a meaningful life? Philosophers have given 3 broad answers about where a life's meaning comes from.

Meaning — the quality a life has when it is worth living and connected to something that matters; philosophers give different answers about where it comes from.
Meaning given from outside — the answer to the question of life's meaning that a life is meaningful because it plays a part in a purpose set beyond the person, by God or by a cosmic purpose.
Meaning created by the individual — the answer to the question of life's meaning that a life is meaningful because the person chooses and commits to what gives it meaning, so meaning is made rather than found.
Meaning found in valuable activities and relationships — the answer to the question of life's meaning that a life is meaningful when the person cares about activities and relationships that are worth caring about, such as friendship, making things, helping, and understanding.

Worked example — 3 answers on the river trail. Run each answer on the volunteer, in its strongest form, then give its strongest objection and a reply.

Given from outside, stated fairly: the volunteer's life is meaningful because it plays a part in a purpose larger than any one person, given by God or by a cosmic purpose. Its strongest appeal is that such meaning does not depend on moods, on success, or on whether anyone notices. The objection: if no such purpose exists, this answer leaves a life with none. The reply: the answer's defenders give arguments that such a purpose exists, the kind the course met in Week 9, and the question stays open.
Created by the individual, stated fairly: the work is meaningful because the volunteer chose it and keeps choosing it; meaning is made, not found. Its strongest appeal is that no one can take it away or hand it down. The objection: if choosing were all it took, a life spent on any pointless task a person happened to choose would be as meaningful as any other. The reply: the objection assumes a standard from outside, which is the very thing in question, and real commitments tie a person to others who can answer back.
Found in valuable activities and relationships, stated fairly: the work is meaningful because the volunteer cares about something worth caring about, a living river and the people who walk beside it. Its strongest appeal is that it explains why caring matters and why what you care about matters too. The objection: who decides which activities are valuable? The reply: claims about value can be argued for with reasons, the way the course argued about ethics, without a verdict handed down.

Three answers to the question of life's meaning, run on a volunteer who clears a river trail
Answer	Where meaning comes from	Its strongest objection
Given from outside	a purpose set beyond the person, by God or by a cosmic purpose	If no such purpose exists, a life is left with none.
Created by the individual	the person's own choice and commitment	Any pointless task a person chose would count.
Found in valuable activities and relationships	caring about what is worth caring about	Who decides what is valuable?

Now link the answers back to sections 1 and 2. On a standard reading, Sartre's view is a version of meaning created by the individual. Camus' absurd is what a person meets when they look for meaning given from outside and the world does not supply it.

Pause and think, choosing one of these two options:

(a) Pick one of the 3 answers, and write two sentences on how it would answer the coworker at the farewell lunch who asked, "What is it all for?"
(b) Pick one of the 3 answers, and write two sentences on the objection to it that seems strongest to you, and the best reply its defenders could give.

Misconception check — a meaningful life does not require one answer. Students often think they must pick exactly one of the 3 answers and reject the other two. It is tempting because the answers are laid out side by side, like choices on a test. The cure is to notice that they can be combined. A person can hold that meaning is given and also lived, or chosen and also found. The course keys no answer to the question of life's meaning.

5. Read the roster again: 15 cases, one method

The course opened in an Athenian courtroom and closes on a hillside. In between, every instructional week put its question in a single vivid case before it met an argument. That set of cases is the course's thought-experiment roster, Dataset A.

Course synthesis — the course's closing review, in which the 15 thought experiments on the roster are read again and a reasoned position on one question is defended against its strongest objection.

Here is the whole roster, read again.

The course's 15 thought experiments (Dataset A), by week, with each case's pinned source and question
Week	Thought experiment	Source	Its question
1	The trial of Socrates (a historical case)	Plato, Apology	Is a life spent questioning worth the risk?
2	The barber who shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves	a standard logic puzzle, usually associated with Bertrand Russell	Can there be a barber who shaves all and only those who do not shave themselves?
3	The allegory of the cave	Plato, Republic, Book VII	Could what we take for reality be shadows?
4	The evil deceiver	Descartes, Meditations (1641)	What can I know if everything I perceive might be faked?
5	The Gettier cases	Gettier (1963)	Is justified true belief enough for knowledge?
6	The Chinese room	Searle (1980)	Is following a program the same as understanding?
7	The ship of Theseus	Plutarch, Life of Theseus	Is a thing whose parts are all replaced still the same thing?
8	Pascal's wager	Pascal, Pensées (1670)	Is it rational to bet on belief?
9	The watch on the heath	Paley, Natural Theology (1802)	Does order show a designer?
10	The ring of Gyges	Plato, Republic, Book II	Would you be just if you could never be caught?
11	The drowning child	Singer (1972)	If you can save a life at small cost, must you?
12	The runaway trolley	Foot (1967); Thomson (1976)	Is it permissible to kill one to save five?
13	The veil of ignorance	Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971)	What rules would you choose if you did not know your place?
14	The chariot	the Questions of King Milinda	Is a person anything over and above their parts?
15	Sisyphus and his rock	Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus (1942)	Can a life be meaningful in a world without given meaning?

Worked example — sorting the roster by unit. Count the cases in each unit of the course.

Method, Weeks 1 to 2: the trial of Socrates; the barber. That is 2.
Reality and knowledge, Weeks 3 to 5: the cave; the evil deceiver; the Gettier cases. That is 3.
Mind and self, Weeks 6 to 7: the Chinese room; the ship of Theseus. That is 2.
Midterm, Week 8: Pascal's wager. That is 1.
God, Week 9: the watch on the heath. That is 1.
Ethics, Weeks 10 to 12: the ring of Gyges; the drowning child; the runaway trolley. That is 3.
Politics, Week 13: the veil of ignorance. That is 1.
Beyond Europe, Week 14: the chariot. That is 1.
Meaning, Week 15: Sisyphus and his rock. That is 1.
The count: 2 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 15, 1 per instructional week.

In words: the roster has 15 cases, 1 for each instructional week, and every unit of the course has at least one.

Now look at the two ends. The roster opens with the trial of Socrates, whose question is "Is a life spent questioning worth the risk?" It closes with Sisyphus, whose question is "Can a life be meaningful in a world without given meaning?" Both ask about a whole life. In the Apology, Socrates says that

"the unexamined life is not worth living" (Plato, Apology, trans. Benjamin Jowett; Dataset C, Q1)

The English words are Jowett's, not Socrates' own. Socrates spoke Greek, wrote nothing that survives, and comes to us through Plato's dialogue.

What does the whole roster test? Each case puts one question in a single vivid scene before any argument, so you can check your intuition against the theory. A thought experiment is a test, not a verdict.

Misconception check — no case on the roster has a keyed answer, and each keeps its source. Students often think a famous thought experiment comes with a right answer that philosophers already know, and they mix up who devised which case. It is tempting because the cases are so well known. The cure is the pinned record. No case on the roster has a keyed answer, and each stays credited to its pinned source: the runaway trolley to Foot (1967), with its name from Thomson (1976); the Chinese room to Searle (1980); the Gettier cases to Gettier (1963); Sisyphus and his rock to Camus (1942).

6. Rerun the tools: valid arguments and four theories

Picture a carpenter's toolbox at the end of an apprenticeship. The tools are not new, but the hands that use them are. This section takes out three tools you already own and uses them once more.

The first tool is Dataset B, the argument set (illustrative). Its premises were written for teaching, and the course does not endorse them. It has 10 arguments: 6 valid and 4 invalid.

Worked example — Dataset B, arguments 7 and 10, in standard form. Lay each argument out, then key it for validity only.

P1: If Socrates is wise, he admits his ignorance.

P2: Socrates is wise.

C: So he admits his ignorance.

Argument 7 has the form if P then Q; P; so Q. Key it: valid, modus ponens. If both premises were true, the conclusion could not be false. Soundness is not keyed.

P1: Most people in this town favor the law.

C: So the law is just.

Key argument 10: invalid. It moves from what people believe to what is right (compare normative relativism). The premise could be true while the conclusion is false.

In words: argument 7's form guarantees its conclusion if its premises are true, and argument 10's form does not.

The second and third tools come as a pair. Dataset D is the course's table of 4 ethical theories, and Dataset J is the theory-matching set (illustrative), with 8 statements, 2 per theory.

Worked example — matching Dataset J's 8 statements again. Read each statement and ask which theory's central question it answers.

Statement 1, "Count each person's happiness equally and choose the act with the best total." Key: utilitarianism.
Statement 2, "A broken promise is wrong if breaking it causes more misery than keeping it." Key: utilitarianism.
Statement 3, "Lying to get a loan is wrong because a universal rule of lying-to-borrow would defeat itself." Key: Kantian deontology.
Statement 4, "Using a person merely as a tool is wrong even if it helps many." Key: Kantian deontology.
Statement 5, "Courage is a mean between cowardice and rashness, learned by practice." Key: virtue ethics.
Statement 6, "Ask what an honest, generous person would do here, and how it shapes who you become." Key: virtue ethics.
Statement 7, "Moral rules are the terms rational people would accept so that everyone is better off than in a war of all against all." Key: social contract theory.
Statement 8, "Choose principles of justice as if you did not know whether you would be rich or poor." Key: social contract theory.
The tally: across the course they were keyed 2 in Week 11, 4 in Week 12, and 2 in Week 13, so 2 + 4 + 2 = 8.

Dataset D's four ethical theories, what each puts first, and the Dataset J statements keyed to it
Theory	Puts first	Dataset J statements
Utilitarianism	consequences	1 and 2
Kantian deontology	duty and respect for persons	3 and 4
Virtue ethics	character and flourishing	5 and 6
Social contract theory	agreement	7 and 8

In words: each statement is keyed to the theory whose central question it answers, and the key says which theory a statement expresses, never which theory is correct.

Misconception check — valid is not sound. Students often read the key "valid" as the course saying an argument's conclusion is true. It is tempting because the key sits right beside the conclusion. The cure is Week 2. Valid means the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true. Sound means valid with all premises true. Whether Socrates is wise is a further question, and the course keys only the form.

7. Defend a reasoned position in six steps

Picture a debate club before a tournament. Each member must defend a side, and the coach gives one rule: before you answer the other side, state its best argument so well that its own defenders would nod. That rule is the heart of this section.

Reasoned position — a view on a question, stated in one sentence and defended by an argument in standard form whose strongest objection is stated fairly and answered.
Strongest objection — the objection to a position that its best defender would press, stated in its best form rather than in a weakened version that is easy to answer.

A reasoned position takes 6 steps.

(1) State the question.
(2) State your position in one sentence.
(3) Put your argument in standard form, marking any added premise.
(4) Judge its validity, and say which premises are open questions.
(5) State the strongest objection as its best defender would.
(6) Answer it, and end in one plain sentence naming where you and the objector disagree.

Worked example — the 6 steps on Sisyphus. This is the course's reconstruction of Camus' conclusion, labelled illustrative. It shows the method; it is not the course's view.

(1) The question: can Sisyphus's life be meaningful?
(2) The position: yes, it can.
(3) The argument in standard form:

P1: If a person finds something worth doing in their task, their life can be meaningful.

P2: Sisyphus, as Camus imagines him, finds something worth doing in his task.

C: So Sisyphus's life can be meaningful.

(4) Key: valid, modus ponens. Soundness is not keyed; P1 and P2 are open questions.
(5) The objection, from the side of meaning found in valuable activities: P2 is false, because finding something worth doing requires a task that is worth doing. A rock that always rolls back achieves nothing, so what Sisyphus finds is an attitude, not a value.
(6) The reply: the worth is in how the task is lived, with full awareness and no false hope, and that way of living is itself a value a person can find in any task.
Where they disagree, in one plain sentence: the position and the objection disagree over whether the worth of an activity can come from how it is lived or must come from what it achieves.

In words: the argument is valid, its premises are open, and the debate turns on one question about where an activity's worth comes from. The course keys no verdict on the position.

Here is an honesty note. You could run the same 6 steps for the opposite position, that Sisyphus's life cannot be meaningful, and the steps would work as well. The method does not pick a side; it makes whichever side you take answerable.

Pause and think, choosing one of these two options:

(a) Pick any question from the roster table in section 5, and write steps (1) and (2) for a position of your own on it.
(b) Take the Sisyphus position above, and write step (5) again with a different strongest objection, stated as its best defender would.

Misconception check — the strongest objection is not the easiest one to answer. Students often pick the objection they can knock down fastest and call it the strongest. It is tempting because answering a weak objection feels like winning. The cure is the coach's rule. The strongest objection is the one its best defender would press, stated in its best form. Answering a weakened version is a defect, not a defense.

Key terms

Essence — What a thing is: its defining nature or purpose, such as a mug's purpose of holding a hot drink. (first used: 1. Exist first, then choose: Sartre on essence)
Existentialism — A family of views in philosophy that starts from the individual person who exists, chooses, and acts, and asks how to live when no fixed human nature or given purpose settles who you are. (first used: 1. Exist first, then choose: Sartre on essence)
Existentialism Is a Humanism — Jean-Paul Sartre's lecture, given in Paris in 1945 and published in 1946, which argues that for human beings existence precedes essence. (first used: 1. Exist first, then choose: Sartre on essence)
Existence precedes essence — Jean-Paul Sartre's formulation of the claim that human beings exist first and make themselves through their choices, so no nature or purpose fixed in advance decides who a person is. (first used: 1. Exist first, then choose: Sartre on essence)
Situation objection — The objection to Sartre's view that a person's body, history, and society limit what they can make of themselves, so the claim that people make themselves through their choices seems to ignore how much is given. (first used: 1. Exist first, then choose: Sartre on essence)
The Myth of Sisyphus — Albert Camus' book of 1942, which treats life as absurd and ends by imagining Sisyphus happy. (first used: 2. Push the rock: Camus, the absurd, and Sisyphus)
Absurd — In Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus, the clash between our demand for meaning and a world that offers none; the word names a clash, not a feeling of despair. (first used: 2. Push the rock: Camus, the absurd, and Sisyphus)
Sisyphus and his rock — The thought experiment on the course's roster drawn from Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus (1942): Sisyphus, in the Greek myth, is condemned to push a rock up a hill forever, and the case asks whether a life can be meaningful in a world without given meaning. (first used: 2. Push the rock: Camus, the absurd, and Sisyphus)
Brave-face objection — The objection to Camus that imagining Sisyphus happy changes nothing about his task, so his happiness may be making the best of a bad situation rather than finding meaning. (first used: 2. Push the rock: Camus, the absurd, and Sisyphus)
The Second Sex — Simone de Beauvoir's book of 1949, which argues that woman has been defined as the Other in relation to man and that becoming a woman is shaped by society rather than fixed by nature. (first used: 3. Choose inside a situation: Beauvoir on freedom)
Situation — In existentialist philosophy, the body, history, and society in which a person's freedom is exercised, which can widen or narrow the choices a person really has. (first used: 3. Choose inside a situation: Beauvoir on freedom)
Meaning — The quality a life has when it is worth living and connected to something that matters; philosophers give different answers about where it comes from. (first used: 4. Weigh three answers to the question of life's meaning)
Meaning given from outside — The answer to the question of life's meaning that a life is meaningful because it plays a part in a purpose set beyond the person, by God or by a cosmic purpose. (first used: 4. Weigh three answers to the question of life's meaning)
Meaning created by the individual — The answer to the question of life's meaning that a life is meaningful because the person chooses and commits to what gives it meaning, so meaning is made rather than found. (first used: 4. Weigh three answers to the question of life's meaning)
Meaning found in valuable activities and relationships — The answer to the question of life's meaning that a life is meaningful when the person cares about activities and relationships that are worth caring about, such as friendship, making things, helping, and understanding. (first used: 4. Weigh three answers to the question of life's meaning)
Course synthesis — The course's closing review, in which the 15 thought experiments on the roster are read again and a reasoned position on one question is defended against its strongest objection. (first used: 5. Read the roster again: 15 cases, one method)
Reasoned position — A view on a question, stated in one sentence and defended by an argument in standard form whose strongest objection is stated fairly and answered. (first used: 7. Defend a reasoned position in six steps)
Strongest objection — The objection to a position that its best defender would press, stated in its best form rather than in a weakened version that is easy to answer. (first used: 7. Defend a reasoned position in six steps)

Summary

Sartre: for human beings, existence precedes essence; people make themselves through their choices.
Existentialism does not say nothing matters; it says your choices matter all the more.
Camus' absurd is the clash between our demand for meaning and a world that offers none.
Sisyphus and his rock is the Week 15 roster case: Camus (1942).
The absurd is a clash, not despair; Camus ends by imagining Sisyphus happy.
Beauvoir: freedom is exercised in a situation that can widen or narrow real choices.
Meaning can be given from outside, created by the individual, or found in valuable activities and relationships.
The 3 answers can be combined, and the course keys none of them.
The roster has 15 cases, 1 per instructional week, each credited to its pinned source.
Dataset B's argument 7 is valid by modus ponens; argument 10 is invalid.
Dataset J's 8 statements are keyed 2 to each of Dataset D's 4 theories.
A reasoned position takes 6 steps and answers the strongest objection, not a weak one.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

A hospital chaplain, a retired dancer, and a beekeeper each describe what makes their lives meaningful. The chaplain says, "My life serves a purpose God has set." The dancer says, "I decided what my life would be about, and I keep deciding." The beekeeper says, "I care about the hives and the neighbors who share the honey, and those are worth caring about." Match each speaker to one of the 3 answers to the question of life's meaning.
A teenager says, "My family has always run this bakery, so being a baker is my nature." Using Sartre's distinction between existence and essence, explain how Sartre would answer, and then give the situation objection's point in one sentence.
Key this argument for validity and say whether the course would key it sound: "If a task never finishes, it cannot be meaningful. Keeping a garden never finishes. So keeping a garden cannot be meaningful."
A student defends the claim that a meaningful life needs no outside purpose. The objection the student answers is "Some people only like to complain." Explain why this is not the strongest objection, and state a stronger one in its best form.

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

The chaplain holds meaning given from outside, since the purpose is set beyond the person, by God. The dancer holds meaning created by the individual, since the meaning comes from choosing and committing. The beekeeper holds meaning found in valuable activities and relationships, since the meaning comes from caring about what is worth caring about. A person could combine these, so the match is about which answer each sentence expresses, not which is correct.
For Sartre, existence precedes essence: the teenager exists first, and being a baker is not fixed in advance as the teenager's nature. Whether the teenager becomes a baker is something the teenager makes true by choosing. The situation objection's point, in one sentence: growing up in a family bakery is a real fact about the teenager's situation, and it shapes which choices are really open.
The form is if P then Q; P; so Q, which is modus ponens, so the argument is valid. The course would not key it sound, because whether a task that never finishes can be meaningful is an open question. Validity says only that the conclusion follows if the premises are true.
"Some people only like to complain" attacks the people who disagree rather than their argument, so no defender of the other side would press it. A stronger objection, in its best form: if there is no purpose beyond the person, then nothing makes one chosen life better than another, so a life spent on a pointless task would be as meaningful as a life spent helping others. A reasoned position has to answer that version.

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, the quiz, the discussion, and the assignment. Next week, the cumulative final asks you to use the same method, state a view fairly, test it, and answer its strongest objection, on every unit of the course.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com