For extra credit: How might you use
Section 13 of the First Essay of Genealogy of Morals to criticize
Descartes' arguments?
1. Give a brief summary of how Descartes
gets to his cogito--"I think, therefore I am." Make sure that in doing
so you are clear about (i) what Descartes is after, or what he's trying
to do in the Meditations, and (ii) how he goes about about doing it.
Also, take your time to explain clearly and carefully
exactly how he gets to his
conclusion--it's a lot trickier than it looks.
2. Descartes concludes that he is a thinking thing--a thing that
doubts, affirms, wills, etc. But then he goes on to say what this
thinking thing IS--namely, an immaterial, non-extended substance that's
NOT identical to his body. (Notice that this is basically the soul view
that Miller espouses in Perry's dialogues.) Tell me where he says this
and why.
3. Pick ONE argument from Perry's dialogues that Wierob gives against
the soul view and walk me through it. This is your chance to show that
you really understand the Perry dialogues, so be clear. Also, be sure
to explain why this argument works (or is supposed to work) against
Descartes' view.
4. Who, if anyone, do you think is right: Wierob or Descartes? Why? Get
your two cents in here, but be sure to always
support your claims.
5. If you decide to write on Nietzsche, you can either incorporate it
into your paper, or tack it on as a separate short answer.
Back to
Phil
26 Page
Back to
Meg's Main Page