1) Descartes" argument "Cogito Ergo Sum" I am, I exist is a complex one, in alot of ways, he makes a convincing argument for the existence of the self, and for the process of the thinking being, the essence of the self. He tries to convince both the readers, as well as himself, of his theory we must reject all our present ideas and beliefs and start from nothing. Descartes is a rational thinker and he rationalizes through his studies that nothing in the world is known. He believes that the only thing that has any certainty at this point is his own existence as thinking being, Descartes" method and theory on knowledge was well planned and carefully thought out. Descartes must have been a very one-dimensional person and one has to forgive him for his lack of ability to enjoy the world around him. On the outside, he appears to be confident that his argument bears validity, but my personal opinion is that he was insecure after all. This says to me that his theories and the way he proves his theories not to be concrete in any way. On the other hand, Friedrich Nietzsche had some interesting ideas about people's values and personality types. According to him, all morality is a manifestation of will to power. His term "master morality" refers to all the values of the strong willed people. The point to the master morality is the "slave morality ". This appeals to those who are uncertain of themselves, weak willed. They define "good" as what makes life easier. I agree and disagree with Nietzsche. I agree with the will to power because I want to be in charge of my future. The slave morality on the other hand, I think has some virtues and downfalls as he suggests. The part of slave morality that I do not like is people who are dependent, look at others and follow lack of self-respect, and people who waste their talents. The overall problem of thought that makes his master morality is that you cannot classify people into categories.