1. What are the steps of Descartes Method in the Discourse of Method?

Contrast something that

this method is good at investigating and something that it is not suited to investigate.

- Early on in his writing, Discourse of Method, Descartes brings to light his method that he
developed in order to investigate natural phenomena as well as ideas and theories that
pertained to the nature of the world. The first step, Descartes states as being “never to
accept anything as true that I [Descartes] did not plainly know to be as such; that is to
say, carefully to avoid hasty judgement and prejudice” (18). Following this, Descartes
then goes on to state the second step of his method as “to divide each of the difficulties I
[Descartes] would examine into as many parts as possible” (18). Once again, this is then
followed by the third step: “to conduct my thoughts in an orderly fashion” (18). Finally,
there is the last step, described as, “everywhere to make enumerations so complete and
reviews so general that I [Descartes] was assured of having omitted nothing” (19). As it
can be assumed, based upon the nature of the first step of the method, it excels in
investigating that which has definitive evidence and proof, but on the other hand, falls
short of truly investigating the more “theoretical.” Descartes’ emphasis upon the notion
of something being “doubted” defines the effectiveness of this method in investigating
different areas. For example, if one were to ask Descartes his opinion upon a subjective
idea that involves individual opinion. As long as there is doubt in the possibility of what
is being discussed, Descartes would promptly devalue it. It is for this reason that
Descartes goes on to “prove” the existence of God in a later section, so that his method
can feature topics that involve spiritual ideas and not be shut down by those who doubt
God’s existence. On the other end of the spectrum, there are the topics of discussion that
include the use of physical evidence; these topics are efficiently investigated using the
method of Descartes. In fact, as it can be observed within the nature of the method, the
similarities it shares with the modern-day scientific method. The involvement and
incorporation of this method has led to the progress of many fields of scientific study
such as biology, chemistry, and other similar sciences.

2.What does it mean to say that existence precedes essence for Sartre? What is the significance
of this claim?

- Within his writings of how existentialism is a humanistic philosophy, Sartre makes the
statement that existence precedes essence. In claiming that existence precedes essence,
Sartre is making the claim that there is no human nature. The idea of existence coming
before essence suggests that humans are somewhat of “blank slates” who are rather
formed over the course of their lives without preceding factors rather than the idea that
humanity must prescribe to a set of predispositions due to the fact that we have a
inescapable “nature.” In the book, Existentialism is a Humanism, Sartre states, “What do
we mean here by existence precedes essence? We mean that man first exists: he
 materializes in the world, encounters himself, and only afterwards defines himself” (22).
This quote further explains the nature of the idea that existence precedes essence.
Furthermore, this idea is central to what Sartre is attempting to display within his writing.
In making this claim, Sartre is suggesting that humans have an innate ability to control
and develop their lives in a manner in which that if we were to have a nature, would not
be possible. Such as the idea that one is able to have a great deal of influence and power
over one’s self to change an aspect of their character that otherwise would be impossible
with a predetermined nature. Sartre describes the extent to which this applies in saying,
“In fact, in creating the man each of us wills ourselves to be, there is not a single one of
our actions that does not at the same time create an image of man as we think he ought to
be” (24). The use of the world “will” indicates the power that humanity has. Overall, the
idea that existence precedes essence is confirmed to be a vital idea by Sartre, in him
saying that it is “the first principle of existentialism” (22).

3.What is anguish according to Sartre? Why is it important to an existentialist ethics?

- When Sartre addresses the use of what he calls “lofty-sounding words,” he brings into
focus what it means when existentialists say that a man is in “anguish.” Sartre states, “a
man who commits himself, and who realizes that he is not only the individual that he
chooses to be, but also a legislator choosing at the same time what humanity as a whole
should be, cannot help but be aware of his own full and profound responsibility” (25).
One is to hold themselves not only accountable for their own actions, but also not
conduct any action that they believe that another person should not also go through with.
For example, we had previously discussed in class the idea of shoplifting as an example
of how to display anguish in a more relatable sense. While we ourselves may shoplift
something small like a candybar or pack of gum, we would not recommend others to do
the same as we have. This then puts the idea of being in anguish into perspective. The
anguish itself comes from constantly remaining in this state of being; always holding
ourselves to standards that we may not be able to live up to. The idea of anguish is vital
to the ethics of an existentialist because it allows for morals to have prevalence within a
philosophy that has no higher power that demands moral exemplarity. As stated by
Sartre, “It is this kind of anguish that existentialism describes, and we shall see it can be
made explicit through a sense of direct responsibility toward the other men who will be
affected by it” (27). Thus, it is anguish that keeps the ethics of existentialism in balance,
for if there was no anguish, there would be no need for morals. And if there were no
morals, it would simply proceed into chaos.
4.Why is virtue difficult to define and how does Aristotle manage to define it, given this
difficulty?

- The idea of virtue is not a simple one to define. Like many other ideals such as justice
and piety, virtue does not have one definitive explanation that is universally accepted
among members of varying cultures and backgrounds. As we have read in the platonic
dialogue, Meno, the conversation between Socrates and Meno about the nature of virtue
comes to a conclusion that is not very conclusive on what virtue truly is. In fact, there is
even an instance that displays the difficulty in defining virtue when Meno tells Socrates
of the differing virtues between various members of society. It is under this context that
Aristotle defines virtue; a definition, in fact, that can be applied to every person, no
matter their background or predispositions. Aristotle begins by searching for what it
means for something to be good. Aristotle begins Book I by stating, “Every art and every
inquiry, and likewise every action and choice, seems to aim at some good, and hence it
has been beautifully said that the good is that at which all things aim” (1094A). The ideas
of something being good, and something being virtuous are closely intertwined and is
thus why Aristotle makes this connection and then proceeds to use it as a gateway to
define virtue. Upon reaching a conclusion on what it means for something to be good,
Aristotle states, “it is clear that there could not be any common good that is one and
universal, for if there were, it could not have been meant in all the ways of attributing
being but only in one” (30). Like this conclusion that there is no one definition of good,
but that the idea of something being good can be applied to any area, Aristotle relates the
definition of virtue to a similar principle. He states, “Therefore, virtue is an active
condition that makes one apt at choosing, consisting in a mean condition in relation to us,
which is determined by a proportion and by the means by which a person with practical
judgment would determine it” (1107A). This definition that Aristotle produces is not one
of constraining nature, but one that can be applied to limitless situations similar to what
he had concluded about the definition of what is “good''.” Overall, Aristotle managed to
provide a definition for what virtue is and how it is applied through the study of the idea
of what is good and how it is similarly applied as well.