De Beauvoir’s Ethics of Ambiguity seems to be an attempt to help human beings avoid being a “useless passion”. Her ethics enjoins us to accept that we can never become God, and learn how to live as persons that are neither fully spirit or matter.

In reading De Beauvoir though, I find her ethics a little bit impractical; though awesome.

we ignore the ones who adore us,

we adore the ones who hurt us

the fury rages all for vanity

I think you must visit this post by Arulba: Camus Koan Solved and the discussion below that. It should be interesting to you.

First, let me talk about ‘ego’. ‘Ego’ in hindu philosophy is ‘ahankar’. The English connotation is a little different from the exact meaning of the term, though ‘ego’ may as well define it. But, in the Hindu philosophy ‘ego’ denotes the arrogance of the ’subject of existence’. That part of us which is the source of inertia against ‘the supreme’, our realisation of the spiritual self etc. is the ego. However, I do not understand. Using these terms and drawing conclusions out of their pre-defined meaning is all I see in most spiritual texts. If I say there is no transcendence beyond the limits of existence within the existing human condition, I do not think ego becomes a problem. And if ‘ego’ is defined the other way round as ‘that thing which prevents me from transcending’, then it is a part of human condition for me. The attempt to overcome it would be what Sartre says “a useless passion”