Prescribed text study - Descartes, reconstruction and application
In a mock exam, a student, A., analyses a prescribed extract from Descartes' Meditations. The extract argues that because he can doubt the existence of his body but not that he is thinking, he can conclude he is essentially a thinking thing. A. writes: 'Descartes proves the soul is immortal and separate; therefore, abortion is wrong.' The teacher marks it as a misreading: the extract establishes only that thinking is essential to what he can doubt, not the soul's immortality or moral conclusions. A. protests that the exam question asked for 'philosophical significance', and that applying the argument to a contemporary issue should earn credit. The department must decide whether to award partial credit, and how to teach the difference between textual reconstruction and application.
1. Assess whether A.'s application is a legitimate philosophical use of the extract.
Read the worked answer
Distinguish: (a) exegesis - what the extract argues; (b) application - what follows for a contemporary issue; (c) evaluation - whether the argument is sound. A.'s move mixes all three.
Textual point: the extract's argument is: I can doubt my body, but not that I am thinking; therefore I am essentially a thinking thing. Even if valid, it establishes only that thinking is essential to what he can doubt, not that he has an immortal soul. Immortality requires additional premises, such as the soul being simple and indivisible. The abortion conclusion requires further moral premises.
Application: applying Descartes to abortion could be legitimate if A. first reconstructs the argument, then asks whether the premise about essential thinking supports a claim about moral status. But A. leaps from 'thinking thing' to 'immortal soul' to 'wrong'.
Verdict: not a legitimate use as written; it is a misapplication. It could become legitimate if A. identifies the missing premises and argues for them. The exam's request for 'philosophical significance' does not license inventing conclusions the text does not support.
2. Explain what a correct reconstruction of the cogito argument would need to establish.
Read the worked answer
Steps: (1) method of doubt: senses and body can be doubted; (2) the act of doubting is a form of thinking; (3) while thinking, I cannot doubt that I exist; (4) therefore, I exist as a thinking thing.
Scope: this establishes existence as a thinking thing, not the essence of a soul. To get essence, Descartes needs the further claim that he can clearly and distinctly conceive himself without body; to get immortality, he needs a separate argument about the soul's simplicity and incorruptibility. The extract does not supply those.
What A. must show: either that the missing premises are in the text, or that they are independently justified. A. also needs a bridge from metaphysical claims about the soul to moral claims about abortion. Without that bridge, the conclusion is a non sequitur.
Verdict: a correct reconstruction would conclude 'I exist as a thinking thing' and would flag the gap to immortality and morality.
3. Recommend a marking decision.
Read the worked answer
Decision: award limited credit for relevance, but mark the misreading as a significant error.
Reasoning: the response shows engagement with a contemporary issue, which can earn some AO2 credit for application. But AO1 knowledge and understanding of the text is inaccurate: it attributes immortality and a moral conclusion to the extract. In a philosophy exam, accurate reconstruction is a prerequisite for legitimate evaluation.
Marks: if the question is out of 25, award perhaps 8–10: some credit for structure and relevance, but cap because the central textual claim is wrong. Feedback should separate 'what Descartes argues', 'what you added' and 'what would be needed'.
Teaching point: use a two-column exercise - 'text says' versus 'I infer'. Require A. to write the missing premise before applying. This teaches the difference between reconstruction and application without discouraging contemporary relevance.