loading…
Welcome
This is your cram companion for Exam 3. Tonight you encode — read each answer broken into argument beats, so sleep can consolidate them. In the morning, you'll drill with retrieval practice and grade against the same beats.
Press start when you're ready.
How the day works
- Encode (now, ~30-45 min): read each answer, mark beats you understand. No drilling.
- Sleep gate: go to bed. Set your phone alarm separately.
- Morning warmup: quick re-read of beat maps + glossary.
- Drill: interleaved free recall across 8 questions, adaptive repetition on weak spots.
- Handwrite: photograph handwritten answers, OCR + grading.
- Cutoff: 1:30pm — app shows STOP screen.
Encode
0 of 8 complete
Show prompt
Full draft answer (read once, carefully)
Argument beats
Tap each when you understand it. These are what you'll be graded against tomorrow.
Required terms
Glossary
Key terms across Sartre and Beauvoir. Try to define each in your head before expanding.
Go to sleep.
This is the single most important thing you'll do tonight. Sleep consolidates what you just encoded. Without it, morning drilling is half as effective.
Set your phone alarm now. This app can't wake you.
😴
Sleep. Don't open this app until your alarm.
Morning warmup
Flip through the 8 beat maps + glossary to reactivate what you encoded. ~10 min target.
Peek at beats (breaks the workout — avoid)
Before I show the grade: what do you think you scored (0–100)?
60
What you got
What you missed
Terms
Feedback
Progress
Sync
Use push if this device has the correct progress. Use pull if another device does. Check the cloud status with the dot in the top-right.
Handwrite capstone
Pick a question, write your answer on paper, photograph it, and the app will OCR and grade against the beats. This is your final round before class.
OCR text
⛔ STOP — walk to class
Review only. Don't write. Don't cram in line.
Final cram sheet
8–13 sentences per answer. Define terms on first use. Always include at least one concrete example.
1. Terms
2. Self-check: sub-questions + skeleton answers
Ask yourself each question. If you can answer with the beat listed, you've got it. If not, read it twice and move on.
Q1 — human nature
- Does Sartre have a theory of human nature?
- No — not in the traditional sense. He denies any fixed universal essence preceding individual existence.
- If so, what is it?
- "Existence precedes essence." Humans are thrown into the world, then define themselves through choices.
- Why does he reject using an account of what we essentially are as a basis for ethics?
- It allows evasion of responsibility — appealing to a fixed nature lets us excuse conduct ("it's just human nature"). If existence precedes essence, no such appeal excuses us.
- Why does he say that in choosing, each of us chooses for all of humanity?
- Any choice implicitly creates an image of what a human ought to be. We never choose what we take to be the worse; and nothing is better for us unless better for all. This is the source of the anguish that accompanies freedom.
- Contrast with paper-knife?
- For a paper-knife the artisan has the purpose in mind before making it — essence precedes existence. For humans there is no such divine craftsman, so no blueprint.
- Human nature vs. human condition?
- He denies fixed nature but accepts a universal condition — thrownness, freedom, choice, death — shared without determining who we become.
Q2 — facticity, transcendence, woman on the date
- What is facticity?
- The concrete given facts of one's situation — body, past, social position, circumstances one is thrown into. Cannot be wished away.
- What is transcendence?
- Consciousness's capacity to surpass the situation by projecting toward future possibilities. Prevents us from being reducible to a mere thing.
- What is bad faith?
- Self-deception exploiting the ambiguity between facticity and transcendence — treating one as if it were the other — to flee the anguish of freedom.
- How does she use her transcendence to dissociate from her body?
- She reduces his flirtatious remarks to their intellectual surface — takes compliments as respectful observations about her character, strips the sexual dimension, treats them as purely "transcendent" esteem.
- How does she treat her body as facticity?
- When he takes her hand, she leaves it inert — as a passive object to which events happen. She contemplates her body "as though from above" as if it were not hers.
- How does this amount to bad faith?
- She refuses to coordinate facticity and transcendence into a unified response — neither accepts her embodied situation nor genuinely exercises her transcendence by making a decision.
- What would she need to avoid bad faith?
- Acknowledge both dimensions honestly — recognize her body as her own, confront the man's intentions for what they are, and make a genuine choice: reciprocate, refuse, or leave.
Q3 — consciousness as "nothingness"
- Why is consciousness "nothingness"?
- It has no content, substance, or fixed nature. It is always consciousness of something, directed outward. Examine it and you find only directedness.
- What would follow if consciousness were "something"?
- It would be determined by that nature, lack free choice, be governed by causal laws — freedom collapses into determinism. Consciousness would become being-in-itself.
- How does "consciousness is nothing" support absolute freedom?
- No nature means nothing constrains in advance what you choose, value, or become. The "hole in being" at the heart of human reality is what makes us free.
- What is negation as the primary activity of consciousness?
- Consciousness introduces nothingness into the world by recognizing absences, making distinctions, and questioning.
- Two ways consciousness negates?
- (1) Absence — the café, expecting Pierre, felt absence as real nothingness. (2) Destruction — earthquake rearranges matter; consciousness introduces the concept of destruction by recognizing fragility. (3) Questioning — every question entertains a negative answer.
Q4 — love song and Sartre's view of love
- Which song and which lyric?
- David Guetta & Usher, "Without You": "I am lost, I am vain, I will never be the same without you, without you."
- How would Sartre interpret these lyrics?
- As a project doomed to failure. The speaker attempts to ground his entire selfhood in the beloved — overcoming the fundamental separateness of two consciousnesses.
- What is romantic love in Sartre's ontology?
- Not body-possession (that's desire) and not being-possessed (masochism), but the attempt to possess the Other's freedom — to have the beloved freely choose to make the lover the absolute center of their world.
- What is the core contradiction?
- The lover wants freely-bestowed affirmation, but the moment the beloved fully surrenders freedom she becomes an object — and the free affirmation evaporates. "I am vain" captures this: admiration that could be possessed is no longer what's craved.
- What does "our relations are essentially conflict" mean?
- Every encounter is a struggle over who is subject and who is objectified. The Other's gaze threatens to reduce my transcendence to a fixed, thing-like identity.
- What does Garcin's "Hell is other people" mean?
- Permanent entrapment under the gaze of others who define him — as a coward — without any possibility of revising that judgment through new action. He's dead.
- Is romantic love necessarily a hellish situation?
- Not necessarily literal hell, but structurally conflictual. Lovers oscillate between capturing the other's freedom and surrendering their own — neither strategy succeeds.
- How does "I will never be the same without you" connect to Sartre?
- It expresses the fantasy of the impossible synthesis of for-itself and in-itself — becoming self-grounded through the Other — which Sartre calls the futile desire to be God.
- Nuance?
- Not simply dismissive. Love reveals genuine truths about our dependence on others for self-understanding, even as the project of possessing another's freedom is contradictory. "I am lost" names that dependence precisely.
Q5 — anguish, vertigo, "the self I will be"
- Why is anguish, not fear, at the basis of vertigo?
- Fear is directed outward at external dangers (the path might crumble). Anguish arises from within — from my own freedom — because I recognize that nothing in my psychology deterministically prevents me from jumping.
- What does "I am the self which I will be, in the mode of not being it" mean?
- I am connected to my future self — I recognize the safe-walker or the leaper as me — but I am separated from that future self by a nothingness. I project toward it (so in that sense I am it), but no causal mechanism fixes my future conduct (so in that sense I am not it).
- How does this explain vertigo?
- In vertigo the paradox becomes vivid: I see myself as the person who wants to live, is resolved to be careful — yet these motives are not causes. They do not compel me like a physical force. The gap between present and future self is the nothingness consciousness introduces into being, and it is this gap that produces the dizziness.
- Broader Sartrean claim?
- We are always "separated by a nothingness from our essence" — past character, resolutions, values do not determine future conduct; they must be continually re-chosen.
- Important nuance?
- Vertigo is not an urge to leap — it is awareness of the freedom to leap.
Q6 — the look, other minds, inherent conflict
- What is "the look"?
- A direct, pre-theoretical encounter with another consciousness. The keyhole example: absorbed peering, then hearing footsteps — a radical transformation from pure subject into object in someone else's perceptual field.
- Why does it make other people's existence evident?
- The shame is not inferred or reasoned to — it is immediately felt. Its immediacy reveals the Other's existence as a subject, not merely as another body or object. It's an inescapable fact, not a hypothesis.
- Why is conflict inherent in interpersonal relationships?
- Each person is simultaneously transcendence (free subject) and facticity (embodied being that can appear as object for others). The Other's gaze reduces my transcendence to facticity — fixes me as a thing with a determinate nature (coward, voyeur, liar) — which I experience as "ontological theft."
- How do the dynamics of conflict arise from the dual nature?
- I respond by returning the gaze, objectifying the Other in turn — setting up an oscillation of mutual objectification that only reverses without resolving.
- What is the desire not to be merely "in-itself" for another?
- The refusal to be reduced to a fixed object whose meaning is entirely determined from outside. Accepting that reduction would surrender transcendence and make one equivalent to a chair or stone.
- What is the upshot?
- Conflict is the original meaning of being-for-others — the very structure of encountering another consciousness entails a struggle over who is subject and who is object.
Q7 — being-for-others vs. Heidegger, and No Exit
- What is being-for-others?
- The dimension of your being constituted through the gaze and judgment of other consciousnesses. Part of who I am is determined by how others perceive, interpret, and define me — beyond my control.
- How does this differ from Heidegger's being-with (Mitsein)?
- Mitsein treats coexistence with others as a basic structural feature — we are always already alongside others in a shared public world, absorbed in "the They" (das Man), relating through shared practices rather than antagonism. Sartre rejects this as too harmonious: encountering another is not peaceful coexistence but an event that introduces conflict.
- What point is Sartre making with Garcin's "Hell is other people"?
- True torment is not physical punishment but the inescapable gaze of others who define you against your will.
- Concrete example of hellish otherness in the play?
- Garcin wants to be seen as courageous, not as the coward who fled rather than face execution for his pacifist beliefs. Inez — clear-eyed and merciless — refuses to grant this self-image, insisting his actions define him as a coward regardless of his self-conception.
- Why is this especially hellish?
- The characters are dead. Garcin's facticity (past actions) is permanently fixed; he can no longer exercise transcendence to redefine himself through new choices.
- How are being-in-itself, being-for-itself, transcendence, and facticity involved?
- Inez's gaze reduces Garcin's being-for-itself (inner freedom, capacity for self-interpretation) to mere being-in-itself (a fixed object with a settled essence). His transcendence is blocked; only facticity remains.
- Second example?
- Estelle — condemned to be seen as the vain woman who drowned her illegitimate baby — an identity she cannot escape under Inez's scrutiny.
- Symbolic detail?
- The absence of mirrors in the room: without mirrors, each character must rely on the others to know who they are, making the Other's look the sole arbiter of identity.
Q8 — Beauvoir's ethics of ambiguity
- What does "to will oneself moral and to will oneself free are one and the same decision" mean?
- Morality is not conforming to external rules or fixed values but actively embracing one's freedom — one's capacity to choose, project into the future, and take responsibility for those choices.
- What is ambiguity?
- The fundamental condition of human existence: we are simultaneously free consciousness (transcendence) and situated, embodied beings immersed in a factual world (facticity), and these two dimensions can never be fully reconciled or collapsed into one another.
- What is an ethics of ambiguity?
- An ethics that accepts the tension rather than fleeing from it. Moral life requires embracing the discomfort of no absolute guarantees, no predetermined values, no final answers.
- Why is a straightforward theory of right and wrong inadequate?
- Deriving moral rules from God, nature, or reason falsifies the human condition by pretending values are fixed, external givens rather than products of free human choice.
- What is "seriousness"?
- The posture of subordinating one's freedom to supposedly unconditional values — treating moral rules, social roles, or political ideologies as absolutes to which one must submit, like a child accepting adult authority without question.
- Why is seriousness in bad faith?
- The serious person denies their own freedom by pretending values have an objective, thing-like existence independent of human choice, evading the anguish of having to create and sustain values through one's own decisions.
- Why is willing oneself free necessarily ethical?
- Freedom is the source from which all values spring. If I genuinely affirm my own freedom, I must affirm the freedom of others — my freedom can only be exercised meaningfully in a world shared with other free beings who disclose possibilities and meanings I cannot generate alone.
- Therefore?
- To will oneself free is to will others free. My freedom and others' freedom are interdependent, not competitive.
- Middle ground?
- Ethics of ambiguity rejects both moral absolutism (fixed rules) and nihilism (no values matter). Moral life requires ongoing, uncertain, situated engagement with concrete choices aimed at expanding freedom for oneself and for others.
3. Quotable phrases — memorize verbatim
Song (Q4): Guetta & Usher, "Without You": "I am lost, I am vain, I will never be the same without you, without you."
4. Opening-move scaffolds
Q1
Sartre does not have a theory of human nature in the traditional sense — he denies any fixed, universal essence defining all humans prior to their individual existence. His thesis "existence precedes essence" holds that humans are thrown into the world and only afterward define themselves through choices. Traditional views assume essence precedes existence — as a paper-knife is designed with purpose before being made — but for Sartre, as an atheist existentialist, there is no divine craftsman supplying such a blueprint...
Q2
Facticity refers to the concrete given facts of one's situation — body, past, social position — that cannot be wished away. Transcendence is consciousness's capacity (as the for-itself) to surpass this situation through freely chosen future projection. Bad faith is self-deception that exploits the ambiguity between them to flee the anguish of freedom. In Sartre's example, the woman on the date recognizes the man's romantic intentions but refuses to acknowledge them...
Q3
Sartre insists that consciousness (being-for-itself) is "nothingness" because it has no content, substance, or fixed nature — it is always consciousness of something, directed outward. Unlike being-in-itself, which is solid and self-identical (a rock is a rock), the for-itself is defined by what it is not: not the objects it perceives, not its past, not yet its future. If consciousness were something with a fixed nature, it would be determined by that nature and lose the capacity for free choice...
Q4
Consider the chorus of David Guetta and Usher's "Without You": "I am lost, I am vain, I will never be the same without you, without you." Sartre would interpret these lyrics as a project doomed to failure, because the speaker is attempting to ground his entire selfhood in the beloved in a way that would overcome the fundamental separateness of two consciousnesses. In Sartre's ontology, romantic love is the attempt to possess the Other's freedom — not their body (desire), nor to be possessed (masochism), but to have the beloved freely choose to make the lover the absolute center of their world...
Q5
Sartre distinguishes anguish from fear by locating the source of the threat differently. Fear is directed at external dangers in the world — I fear the unstable path might crumble beneath me. Anguish arises from within, from my own freedom — I recognize that nothing in my psychology, past decisions, or desires deterministically prevents me from throwing myself off the precipice. Vertigo is anguish, not fear, because what makes me dizzy is not the external danger of falling but the internal recognition that I could choose to jump...
Q6
Sartre argues that the experience of "the look" (le regard) provides a direct, pre-theoretical encounter with the existence of other consciousnesses, making philosophical proofs of other minds unnecessary. In his famous keyhole example, a person is absorbed peering through a keyhole — unreflectively immersed in their own subjectivity — until they suddenly hear footsteps behind them and realize someone is watching. In that instant, they are transformed from pure subject into an object in someone else's perceptual field, exposed to judgment...
Q7
"Being-for-others" (être-pour-autrui) is the dimension of one's being constituted through the gaze and judgment of other consciousnesses — part of who I am is determined by how others perceive me, beyond my control. This differs sharply from Heidegger's "being-with" (Mitsein), which treats coexistence with others as a basic structural feature: we are always already alongside others in a shared public world, absorbed in "the They" (das Man), relating through shared practices rather than antagonism. Sartre rejects this as too harmonious — encountering another consciousness is not peaceful coexistence but an event that introduces conflict...
Q8
When Beauvoir writes that "to will oneself moral and to will oneself free are one and the same decision," she means that morality is not conforming to external rules or fixed values but actively embracing one's freedom — one's capacity to choose, project into the future, and take responsibility. The "ambiguity" of her ethics refers to the fundamental condition that humans are simultaneously free consciousness (transcendence) and situated, embodied beings (facticity), and these two dimensions can never be fully reconciled...
5. Distinctions (compressed)
6. Example bank
7. Meta-tips
- Aim for 10 sentences per answer. 8 min; 13 max.
- Define terms on first use. Professor wants to see you know what they mean.
- One concrete example per answer — it's what separates A from B.
- Continuous prose, no bullets. Use connectives: "because," "which means," "for Sartre," "in contrast."
- If you blank on a term: paraphrase. "For-itself" → "consciousness as we experience it." "Mitsein" → "Heidegger's being-with." Don't freeze.
- Q4: lead with song + lyric immediately.
- Q7: minimum — Heidegger = harmonious Mitsein; Sartre = conflict via the look. Plus one No Exit example using transcendence/facticity language.
- Pace: ~25 min per question. Finish the first by 4:00pm. Save 2–3 min at the end to re-read.
- Q2 warning: transcendence to dissociate, body as facticity. Reversing = single most common error.
- Cite the text: No Exit (Q4/Q7), Being and Nothingness (Q2/Q3/Q5/Q6), Existentialism Is a Humanism (Q1), Ethics of Ambiguity (Q8).
You've done the work. Walk in calm. Write the opening move first, then let the rest follow.