Let's start with the instruction "Make sure you say something about each part of the topic". What are the parts of the topic?
The basic requirements of the topic are stated in the first paragraph, of four sentences:
What is Descartes' "Method of Doubt"? Why does he engage in it? Say what you think are one or two merits of his approach. Also discuss one or two of the alleged defects, set out in the following two criticisms. Those four sentences state the four parts. So we can number them as follows:
Part 1: What is Descartes' "Method of Doubt"?
Part 2: Why does he engage in it?
Part 3: Say what you think are one or two merits of his approach.
Part 4: Also discuss one or two of the alleged defects, set out in the following two criticisms.
First, you must understand that "one or two" is meant numerically. You are told in Part 3, either to say what you think is one (1) of the merits of Descartes' approach (namely, the Method of Doubt), or to say what you think are two (2) of the merits of his approach. It's your choice!
Similarly you are told in Part 4, to discuss one or two (1 or 2) of "the alleged defects". Which alleged defects? Those which are set out in "the following two criticisms" - "Criticism 1" and "Criticism 2".
The idea is that each of these criticisms alleges that there is a defect in Descartes' approach. So one defect is alleged by Criticism 1, and one defect is alleged by Criticism 2. It is your choice whether to discuss both of these criticisms - these alleged defects - or just one of them, whichever you choose.
I hope that clarifies what is required. (The suggestion about discussing the JTB plus" view of knowledge is an optional one. I don't list this as a separate part because the idea is that you might like to include some mention of it in dealing with one of the four parts already listed.)
Take care at each point to make clear which part of the topic you are dealing with, and which choices you have made: which merit or merits you are discussing; and which defect or defects you are discussing.
The required length is 1300 words
You will WRITE ON ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO TOPICS:
TOPIC 1:
What is Descartes' "Method of Doubt"? Why does he engage in it? Say what you think are one or two merits of his approach. Also discuss one or two of the alleged defects, set out in the following two criticisms.
Criticism 1: Descartes takes seriously doubts which are very improbable. But it is absurd to think that just because we can imagine some unlikely fantasy, we don't know basic facts, such as the fact that the world contains many people who have arms and legs and can walk and talk, even if that's what's actually true. Surely, if the world really is the way Descartes normally supposes, then his normal true beliefs are not merely true, they really are knowledge. So: if
"certainty" means being able to conclusively refute all such possibilities - Descartes must be mistaken in thinking knowledge requires certainty.
Criticism 2: Descartes is attempting to doubt everything all at once. But this is a mistaken plan. In order to arrive at any knowledge, he needs to be able to trust something. For instance he needs to trust his own powers of reasoning, if he is to be able to arrive at conclusions by argument, or evaluate reasons for doubt. Therefore his project is doomed to failure.
Where applicable, you may like to refer to the "JTB plus" view of knowledge, and discuss whether it contrasts with Descartes' view.
Note: do not waste words writing the above criticisms out in full in your essay. When you discuss them just refer to them as "Criticism 1", and "Criticism 2". If you wish you can refer to the individual sentences in them as "Cr1, Sentence 2" - meaning "second sentence of criticism 1" - and so on.
Make sure you say something about each part of the topic, including clearly answering the questions about what the Method of Doubt is, and why Descartes engages in it.
TOPIC 2:
To what extent does Descartes' argument "cogito, ergo sum" in the Second Meditation, overcome the sceptical doubts he raises in the First Meditation? Does it totally succeed, totally fail, or partly succeed but partly fail? If you think it partly succeeds but partly fails, discuss which kinds of beliefs you think it can save from sceptical doubts, and which kinds of belief it cannot save.
Discuss.
Make sure you include discussion of Descartes' actual argument, as you understand it, and some important criticisms of it which have been discussed in the lectures and notes.