Please find a list of questions covering the LAST section/theme of our class –
from Descartes to Sartre; there are two questions on Descartes, and then one
for all the other – Kant, Sartre and Marx. You MUST answer the Kant question
and then any ONE other question of your choice. Please make sure to make
use of as much course notes/text material as possible either by direct
quoting/referencing or indirectly. Do not submit TWO separate document files to the
drop box; answer each question separately but submit it on ONE file/document and
clearly separate by page break or titles where each question begins and end. Each
question should be answered with approx. 850-1000 words each so approximately
1700-2000 words for whole document. [Please do not exceed 2500 words]

1. Descartes: On Doubt.

Reading carefully through Descartes’ FIRST meditation, elaborate on the purpose and function of his Method of Doubt.
Illustrate the different stages, or levels of doubt, always attempting to put
things in the context of what he is ultimately after; absolute certainty! What is
the result of each one of these levels or stages of doubt and, most importantly,
what is the conclusion of radical doubt in the last couple of paragraphs?
Elaborate by examining and commenting on the FIRST meditation.

2. Descartes: On the Nature of Self as Pure Thought.

Reading carefully through the transition from the FIRST to the SECOND
meditation, how does Descartes illustrate his arrival at FIRST CERTAINTY as
a necessary result of the limitations of DOUBT in general? What exactly IS
Descartes certain of at this point of the argument? We typically paint this as a
certainty about THE SELF, which is why this is so central to a study of Human
Nature— BUT, what is this SELF whose existence Descartes claims to have
absolute certainty about? Elaborate by examining and commenting on the
SECOND meditation.

3. Kant: On Moral Philosophy (REQUIRED QUESTION)

Reading carefully through the Groundwork for A Metaphysics of Morals
(especially first two sections) describe and comment on the main foundations
of Kant’s moral philosophy system. The core theme of his Deontological
approach is, as we have seen, that the moral worth of an action is not
dependent in any way on either the consequence of that action or the desired
gain by those who enacted it. The moral worth of the action is the INTENTION
and WILL of those who performed it in so far as that will is grounded by a
DUTY to obey laws of and Imperatives of reason.

In Kant’s world, what is GOOD are not actions, but the HUMAN will to act in accordance to
universalise-able principles of reason. What is ethical is NOT what produces
good results; what is ethical is what expresses GOOD Will and, a good will is
one that is grounded and driven by reason’s ability to provide these
universaliseable principles, principles applicable to all RATIONAL agents. I
would like you to analyze this and look carefully at his views on the
Categorical Imperative; offer a critique of its feasibility or problematic nature.

4. Marx and The Means of Production:
Much of the discussion in the Marx chapter focuses around what we have
come to call Historical Materialism. Most importantly, it affirms – – in part at least – that the
different historical phases of humankind can be understood in terms of the
means of production found in each era. That is to say the means of production
necessary to produce/create the necessities of life; food, shelter etc.

Marx analysis focuses on the balance/imbalance that results within the different
socio-political class structures; namely those how are the workers and those
who OWN the means/tools of production. While this dynamic is found
throughout all stages of our history, the imbalance of power takes a distinctive
character or form within the Capitalist economic system – – a system that Marx
insisted was characterised by our complete ‘Alienation’ – – alienation from our
work, the ‘production’ and thus ourselves. Using your readings, course notes
and any other external/online notes, I would like you to critically reflect upon
In addition, Marx’s critique of the capitalist system, as well as his approach to the
SOLUTION of overcoming this system.

5. Sartre: Radical Freedom and The Nothingness of Human Nature.

We have seen that What starts in Marx as a shift away from any abstract or
spiritual, or metaphysical explanation for human nature takes a more decisive
and radical angle in Sartre’ Existentialism. With Sartre we see an outright
denial of the Human Nature question to begin with; tables and cars and trees
etc these things have a Nature – – that is to say something that defines
WHO/WHAT they are, what their essence is.

However, how are humans different in this regard? The moto of Sartre’s approach as you have read is that existence
comes prior to essence, precisely because unlike a car or a tree that have and
essence, we – HUMANITY – as creatures with consciousness have NO fixed
essence that makes us act or behave in this/that way. In Sartre’s famous
wording, ‘man is a NO-THING’. We are not fixed determinate essence,
instead we EXIST as pure freedom of consciousness.

To be human is to have NO definite THIS or THAT essence but rather to create our essences, says
Sartre, as a reflection of the choices we make throughout our lives. So, it is
not so much that we have no essence but rather that we are not given a
universal sense of essence prior to our individual existence, an essence that
GROUNDS our behaviour; instead we each MAKE our own individual
essence based on each of our’ life-stories/life choices’. Now as you my have
seen already from my notes, on the one hand there is something very
appealing and liberating about this kind of radical FREEDOM, but, there is
also a much darker, sombre side to it. Discuss this issue pointing out some of
the difficulties in the Existentialist system and what they ultimately mean.