Title: PROTOTYPE COLUMN

Q: Rate the profiles on a scale from 1 to 5 based on their a) persuasiveness and b) relevance today. Justify your decisions.
A: As a young person in school, I would rate the profiles of the philosophers as follows:

1. Friedrich Nietzsche: a) Persuasiveness: 4, b) Relevance today: 4
Nietzsche's ideas about creating one's own purpose and rising above societal norms are very persuasive and empowering. His emphasis on personal growth and authenticity resonates strongly in today's society where individualism is highly valued.

2. Jean-Paul Sartre: a) Persuasiveness: 5, b) Relevance today: 5
Sartre's philosophy of existentialism, with its focus on freedom, choice, and responsibility, is extremely persuasive. Many young people today are searching for their own identity and path in life, making Sartre's ideas highly relevant and relatable.

3. Albert Camus: a) Persuasiveness: 4, b) Relevance today: 4
Camus' perspective on the absurdity of life and finding joy in the struggle is both persuasive and comforting in a world that can often seem chaotic and meaningless. His philosophy encourages resilience and finding personal meaning, which is very relevant for today's challenges.

4. Viktor Frankl: a) Persuasiveness: 5, b) Relevance today: 5
Frankl's emphasis on finding meaning even in suffering is incredibly persuasive, especially given his own experiences. His ideas are extremely relevant today as people face various personal and global challenges, and his message of resilience and purpose is universally inspiring.

5. Immanuel Kant: a) Persuasiveness: 3, b) Relevance today: 3
Kant's focus on moral principles and the categorical imperative is persuasive in a rational sense, but it might seem a bit rigid to some young people today who value flexibility and personal freedom. However, his ideas about ethical living are still important and relevant.

6. Arthur Schopenhauer: a) Persuasiveness: 3, b) Relevance today: 3
Schopenhauer's pessimistic view of life driven by the will to live and resulting in suffering is less persuasive and appealing, especially to young people who might be looking for more hopeful perspectives. While his ideas about finding solace in art and compassion are meaningful, they might not resonate as strongly in today's more optimistic and solution-focused mindset.

Q: What similarities and differences do these philosophers have? Who could be a perfect match? Justify your decision.
A: These six philosophers share a common thread of seeking meaning in life, but they each have unique perspectives on how to achieve it. Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sartre both emphasize individual freedom and creating one's own purpose, but Nietzsche's idea of the Übermensch is more radical compared to Sartre's focus on existential freedom and responsibility. Albert Camus and Viktor Frankl both deal with suffering, with Camus focusing on the absurdity of life and Frankl on finding meaning through suffering. Immanuel Kant and Arthur Schopenhauer both discuss moral principles, but Kant's categorical imperative is more prescriptive, while Schopenhauer's focus on the will to live is more pessimistic.

A perfect match could be Nietzsche and Sartre, as they both prioritize individualism and authenticity. However, Nietzsche's disdain for conventional morality might clash with Sartre's emphasis on responsibility. Another good match could be Camus and Frankl, as they both explore meaning in adversity. Yet, Camus' acceptance of absurdity might conflict with Frankl's more hopeful approach.

Ultimately, the perfect matches could be:
- Nietzsche and Sartre: Both value individual freedom and purpose, but Nietzsche's radical ideas might be challenging for Sartre.
- Camus and Frankl: They both find meaning in struggle, though their approaches to life's absurdity differ.
- Kant and Schopenhauer: Both discuss moral principles, but Kant's rationalism might contrast with Schopenhauer's pessimism.

Each pair has positive aspects, such as shared values and complementary perspectives, but also negative aspects, like potential philosophical clashes. These differences are what make their interactions interesting and dynamic.

Existential Coffee Date

Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus met through a niche dating app for philosophers. They decided to meet at a quaint Parisian café, where the walls were adorned with abstract art and the aroma of freshly brewed coffee filled the air.

Jean-Paul Sartre: So, Albert, you believe life is absurd. How do you find meaning in that chaos?

Albert Camus: I find it in the rebellion against that very absurdity, Jean-Paul. By embracing the struggle, we can find joy. Like Sisyphus pushing his boulder, don't you think?

Jean-Paul Sartre: Interesting. For me, it's about freedom. We are condemned to be free, and it's our choices that define our essence. Do you ever feel weighed down by that freedom?

Albert Camus: Sometimes. But I see it more as an opportunity. Even in the face of absurdity, we can create our own meaning. Isn't that what you meant by existence preceding essence?

Jean-Paul Sartre: Exactly. We start with nothing, and through our actions, we become something. It's both a burden and a gift. Do you think Sisyphus ever feels content?

Albert Camus: Perhaps, in his acceptance. It's in his defiance where he finds his freedom. Jean-Paul, do you think we can ever truly escape the weight of our choices?