1 In Meditation I, Descartes does not try to examine every one of his beliefs individually. What is his actual strategy for doubting them?
Correct. Rather than examining each belief one by one, Descartes attacks the foundations — primarily sensory experience — so that anything built on those foundations collapses with them.
Descartes explicitly says he cannot examine every belief individually. Instead he targets the underlying sources or principles — if the foundation is unreliable, everything built on it is too.
2 Why does Descartes need the Dream Argument if he has already shown that the senses sometimes deceive him?
Correct. The first argument only undermines beliefs about things perceived unclearly or at a distance. The Dream Argument extends doubt to immediate, vivid perceptions — even the seemingly obvious fact that Descartes is sitting by a fire holding paper.
Descartes notes that the first argument only applies to distant or unclear perceptions. The Dream Argument is needed to cast doubt on immediate, vivid experience — which the first argument cannot reach.
3 What is the primary philosophical purpose of the Evil Demon hypothesis in Meditation I?
Correct. The Dream Argument left mathematical truths seemingly intact (2+2=4 whether awake or dreaming). The Evil Demon closes this gap by positing a deceiver powerful enough to corrupt even seemingly self-evident rational truths.
Descartes notes that even during dreaming, mathematical truths seem secure. The Evil Demon is introduced specifically to cast doubt on those — a being powerful enough to make even clear rational intuitions unreliable.
4 Why is the cogito — "I think, therefore I am" — said to survive even the Evil Demon hypothesis?
Correct. Even if an evil demon is deceiving Descartes about everything, there must be something being deceived. The act of doubting is itself a form of thinking, and thinking requires a thinker. The cogito is self-confirming in a way no other belief is.
The cogito survives the Evil Demon because deception requires a subject. If the demon is deceiving Descartes, then Descartes must exist to be deceived. Doubting is a form of thinking, and thinking confirms existence.
5 What is Descartes trying to show with the wax argument in Meditation II?
Correct. When wax melts, all its sensory properties change — yet we still know it is the same wax. This shows that what we understand by "wax" is grasped by the intellect, not the senses. The mind is therefore more reliably known than any physical object.
The wax argument shows that genuine knowledge of physical things comes through the intellect, not the senses. Since all the wax's sensory properties change when melted, the "wax" we understand must be grasped by the mind alone — which shows the mind is better known than the body.
6 After establishing that he exists, Descartes asks what kind of thing he is. What is his answer at the end of Meditation II?
Correct. Descartes concludes he is a "res cogitans" — a thinking thing. Since the body's existence is still in doubt, he can only define himself through mental activities: doubting, understanding, affirming, denying, imagining, perceiving.
Since the existence of the body is still in doubt at the end of Meditation II, Descartes can only say he is a "thinking thing" (res cogitans) — defined entirely by mental activity, not physical embodiment.
7 In Meditation III, Descartes argues that his idea of God proves God's existence. What causal principle does this argument depend on?
Correct. Descartes applies the principle that a cause must have at least as much reality as its effect. Since the idea of God has infinite "objective reality" (infinite perfection as its content), its cause must also be infinitely perfect — only God could produce such an idea.
The causal argument relies on the principle that a cause must contain at least as much reality as its effect. The idea of God has infinite perfection as its content, so only something with infinite perfection — God — could be its cause.
8 Why does Descartes need to prove God's existence before he can establish any further certain knowledge?
Correct. The Evil Demon hypothesis is still undefeated after the cogito. Descartes needs a non-deceiving God to rule out the possibility that his reasoning faculty is systematically corrupted — only then can clear and distinct perception be trusted.
Without God, the Evil Demon hypothesis remains in play. Descartes needs to prove that a non-deceiving God created his rational faculties — only then can he trust that clear and distinct perceptions are reliable rather than the product of systematic deception.
9 In Meditation IV, Descartes explains how error is possible even though God is not a deceiver. What is his explanation?
Correct. Descartes distinguishes between the intellect (finite — it does not perceive everything clearly) and the will (unlimited — it can affirm or deny anything). Error occurs when the will judges matters the intellect has not yet perceived clearly and distinctly.
In Meditation IV, Descartes argues that the intellect is limited but the will is unlimited. Error arises when we use our unlimited will to judge things our finite intellect has not yet perceived clearly and distinctly. The fault lies in misusing our freedom, not in God's design.
10 In Meditation V, Descartes offers an ontological argument for God's existence. What is the core claim of this argument?
Correct. The ontological argument holds that existence is a perfection — part of what it means to be maximally perfect. Just as a triangle necessarily has interior angles summing to 180 degrees, God necessarily exists because existence is contained in the very concept of a most perfect being.
The ontological argument argues from the concept of God alone. Since God is defined as the most perfect being, and existence is a perfection, God must exist — a non-existent God would lack a perfection and therefore not be the most perfect being conceivable.