Administration Guide

9. The Assignment One topic

You have a choice of two questions. The first has less to do with Descartes’ Foundationalist Project against the sceptic about knowledge, but is well-handled by Sober. The other is squarely on the topic of scepticism and knowledge, but is harder; also it appears as a bit of "Hey presto!" in Sober; the Study Guide attempts to fill in some of the major gaps.

EITHER:

What is Descartes’ argument in Meditation Three for the existence of a non-deceptive God? Is it a good argument? Why or why not?

OR:

Given his proof for the existence of God, what is Descartes’ subsequent argument for his "inner" to "outer" bridging principle that "clear and distinct ideas are true"? Does this argument work? Why or why not?

Here are some guidelines appropriate for both choices:

Do not be exhaustive about Descartes’ entire anti-sceptical project. There is just too much to it. And neither question actually asks for any such thing if you read it carefully (which is one of the skills we want to make you sensitive to).
We are not asking for anything particularly elaborate or advanced. Your task is a very modest one. This is a 100-level course after all, and gets you only 12.5 credits. We ask only that you try to understand what the question asks and make your best fist at answering that specific question rather than some other. (You would be surprised how much intellectual discipline even that task requires.)
Aim no higher than to demonstrate your ability at an exercise in explaining and evaluating what some philosopher has argued. For that is what this is, a practice exercise not a treatise or an article for publication. Do NOT aim to give the Last Word on the topic or to come up with something utterly original. Again, your best shot will be competent and competence is hard enough to achieve. Lay aspirations to brilliance and genius to one side. The dazzle is nice, but sometimes it dazzles.
Part of the point of asking a question about Descartes is that you have the original text right before you - plus two sets of notes which try to help you make sense of that text. You do not to read more than these bits in pieces to answer the question. It will be an especially bad idea to think you must master the "fundamentals" of Descartes’ thinking by reading another general book about him - Descartes for Dummies and Descartes Made Simple are particularly unhelpful here.
Play to your strengths. If you find some piece of the whole impossibly difficult this early on, that is perfectly natural. What you can’t do, just don’t do (an admission to this in the actual essay is no shame). What you can do, do the best you can.
You are being asked to write an essay between 1000 and 1500 words in length. Aim for about 1200 words. This is neither too short nor too long. If you write less than 600 words, you almost certainly have not come to grips with the problem. For instance, you haven’t written out the argument in a premises plus conclusion form, you have no examples, you haven’t looked at any criticisms, or the like. If you write more than 2000 words, you almost certainly need to do some editing. [Role model problems here again.] For instance, you are spending too long in an introduction telling us what you are about to do rather than knuckling down and doing it, you aren’t focusing on a single argument or on a single example, you are trying to say something about every issue connected with the problem, you are starting too far back, or the like. As for actually counting words, be relaxed. If you use a word-processor, it will count the words for you. Depending on your handwriting, we are talking about a 4 to 5 page paper (at 300 words per page).

Previous Section: How to Read Philosophy
Contents Page
Next Section: The Assignment Two Topic