How does Arendt’s “thoughtlessness” compare to Beauvoir’s theory of patriarchy? Explain why thoughtlessness is problematic for politics, according to each thinker.

On the top of the first page of each response, please indicate the number of the prompt that you are responding to.Hobbes and FanonHobbes argues that fear is an animalistic instinct that emerges naturally from war and competition in the state of nature. How does this compare to Fanon’s account of fear in chapter 5 of Black Skin White Masks? If for Hobbes fear is natural, where might Fanon argue that fear emerges from? Explain why fear is important to the work of each thinker.Marx and FanonBoth Marx and Fanon respond to profound injustice that they see around them. They thus find themselves wrestling with problems of systemic injustice, social transformation, human agency, political imagination, struggle, and hope. Please write an essay comparing how Marx and Fanon understand injustice and their strategies for overcoming it. What does Fanon see that Marx does not, or vice versa? Do their accounts complement each other, or are they in tension with each other?Arendt and BeauvoirHannah Arendt tells us that Adolf Eichmann’s crimes against humanity are connected to ‘thoughtlessness,’ which she defines as an “inability to think from the standpoint of someone else.” How does Arendt’s “thoughtlessness” compare to Beauvoir’s theory of patriarchy? Explain why thoughtlessness is problematic for politics, according to each thinker.Rousseau and MarxRousseau and Marx both want to put power in the hands of the people, albeit through different means. However, both are also worried that the people may not know what’s good for them. First, explain how each defines the “people” and their justification for giving them political power. In light of this, answer the following question: why do Rousseau and Marx think that the people’s perspective on their own lives cannot be trusted? What solution does each propose? Which theory do you find more politically promising?Hobbes and ArendtIn Eichmann in Jerusalem Arendt writes: “under conditions of terror most people will comply but some people will not. […] Humanly speaking, no more is required, and no more can reasonably be asked, for this planet to remain a place fit for human habitation.” Would Hobbes agree with Arendt on this point? In answering this question, evaluate both thinkers in light of the historical events about which they write, and compare and contrast their views on political disobedience.