Question 1

This passage builds on, and details, the general idea in Montaigne that one

assumptions about the world are often wrong (for example, On Cannibals discusses how the

cannibals which the supposedly civilized westerners look down upon are often far more

civilized than those that look down upon them). However, while On Cannibals is most

certainly aimed at giving this idea that one’s viewpoint is often flawed, and that adherence to

a single-mindset is bad, and feels like a dialogue with the reader, this passage creates the

opposing feeling. Montaigne in this essay constantly talks about “I”, “discover [his]self” (i.e.

my), and just repeat these pronouns that refer to his own constantly. In that sense, this feels

less like an essay written for others and more like an essay written for-himself, almost like

note to himself. One must also consider, how the general idea of this passage is the role of

chance, or accidents, or unintended event in gaining greater understanding not just about

others or reality, but about one’s self. This is interesting, because in other Montaigne essays

we’ve read Montaigne employs a rigorous logic in showing flaws of adhering to a single-

viewpoint, on the other hand, in this essay he seems to be arguing that both he and others

appear to be discovering new, interesting things in his writings and in his self, more by

accident rather than by using “judgement” or reason. While it is possible to see this as a

paradox of sorts, between use of reason and intuition, I disagree with this. A more proper

interpretation, and generalization of this passage, suggests that Montaigne was seeing chance

or accident as a factor, having certain prejudices and presumption about the world itself, that

allowed him (and allows others) to see flaws in their own presumptions, or as events that

show them an aspect of reality that they had not considered before, and through deliberation

on the hesitation caused by the discovery of these new aspects, actually leads them to better

arguments.
Question 2

This passage tackles a major issue in Descartes, namely the issue of skepticism and

the question of whether anything observed can be trusted (because senses themselves can be

deceived, for example). Fitting the subject, Descartes’ own language swaps between first-

person, “we” and “I” and then a summary of the ideas of the “best minds”, and then

examination of the issue from an example that presupposes the existence of God and whether

that example can provide a proof or refutation about this issue of skepticism. However, there

seems to be slight disapproval about the methods in which “the best minds” of Descartes’

times have approached this issue with, which in turn is explained by another passage from

Descartes, the part where he explains despite being “in one of the most famous colleges in

Europe”, what he learned was in many ways insufficient (2-3). Indeed, he reverses the logic

of absolute belief in God, and argues that if there is confusion in people, then by extension so

God too must contain an element of confusion, and thus flawed, showing that an argument

based on absoluteness of God and his presence in people cannot solve the problem of

skepticism. However, one must note that despite refuting an idea, Descartes retains his

inquiring and questioning mode of speech, and as a result, it can be argued that his language

is mirroring that of his subject. However, from the way this passage is constructed (and

looking at other parts of the text), this passage is simply a particularly clear example of the

general structure of text — a clear example is never definitely given, each answer, proof or

refutation, leads to another argumentation. From this, it can be argued that what matters is not

giving the perfect answers, but thinking constantly to provide ever better answers, even if a

perfect answer is impossible. As such, this passage embodies the main idea of Descartes’

text, namely what matters is constantly thinking, and thinking properly, because even though

a person might be doubtful about how true any claim about any subject is, as long as they are
questioning they can be sure that at least their thoughts exist, and their thoughts can be made

better.

Question 3

This passage is from the end of the seventh part of Stevens’ poem Credence’s of

Summer. In the text as a whole, Summer is described as a transitionary period between

Spring and Fall, perhaps embodying the best of both. Similarly, the 7th part which this

passage belongs to serves as a transitionary part to the final parts of the poem, and this

passage being the end of the itself serves as a conclusion to this transitionary part. As a result,

one can expect this passage to conclude what was being discussed beforehand. That is indeed

the case. This passage itself appears to be making a statement about post-industrial period

and about materialism. Here the “thrice concentrated self” arguably refers to a Freudian view

of the individual, in a way individuals that have been objectified into three-parts. That

explains the following part whether it is people, or the individual that subjugates the object,

i.e. materialism/industrialism, or is the one being subjugating by them. One must also note

how the language is repeated, both in terms to materialism, and in the final line of the passage

“fully made, fully apparent, fully found”. This seems to hint at the advantage of a material-

based view of the world — it is far easier to fully grasp it. However, since this passage, and

the part it belongs to are not the final parts of the poem, one can also view the final line in an

ironic matter, suggesting that the idea of fully grasping the world, through materialism, is

representing and unreal optimism. Overall, in a subtler way this passage seems to be making

an argument related to the one both Descartes and Montaigne is making, that it is fruitless to

make absolute statements about the world.