In what sense does Meursault triumph at the end of The Stranger? (This was what Camus intended, but you're welcome to argue that, in fact, Meursault doesn't triumph at all.) Does Meursault overcome society's judgment, and thereby, its shackles? Or is it more important that he rebelled against conformity? And what's up with him wishing for a large crowd of hating spectators at his execution? Think about the protagonist's plight in Albert Camus's story "The Myth of Sisyphus"in terms of crime and punishment, and think about Meursault's situation in The Stranger. Discuss the absurdity of their situations. In what ways do Sisyphus and Meursault represent "absurd heroes"?

Read the passage from chapter 17 of the prince. and of all princes, it is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers. hence virgil, through the mouth of dido, excuses the inhumanity of her reign owing to its being new, saying: "res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt moliri, et late fines custode tueri."(*) nevertheless he ought to be slow to believe and to act, nor should he himself show fear, but proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and too much distrust render him intolerable. . against my will, my fate a throne unsettled, and an infant state, bid me defend my realms with all my pow'rs, and guard with these severities my shores. which statement best evaluates machiavelli’s argument? machiavelli ineffectively argues that new princes should do everything in their power to guard their kingdoms. machiavelli effectively argues that new princes must be cruel and cautious in order to protect their new kingdoms. machiavelli effectively argues that new princes should not be cruel and should proceed carefully in their new kingdoms. machiavelli ineffectively argues that new princes should not show fear, but should be self-confident and intolerable.