ipl-logo

Compare And Contrast Descartes And Hume

1404 Words6 Pages

Descartes and Hume. Rationalism and empiricism. Two of the most iconic philosophers who are both credited with polarizing theories, both claiming they knew the answer to the origin of knowledge and the way people comprehend knowledge. Yet, despite the many differences that conflict each other’s ideologies, they’re strikingly similar as well. In this essay I will attempt to find an understanding of both rationalism and empiricism, show the ideologies of both philosophers all whilst evaluating why one is more theory is potentially true than the other. Descartes Epistemology: Descartes attempts to discover a foundation of knowledge as seen in his book ‘Meditations on First Philosophy’. He is essentially looking for total certainty. In order to do so, Descartes doubted everything, coming to the realization that he can only prove his …show more content…

Both philosophers acknowledged that the self was integral to the origin on the knowledge. The self was the start to philosophical reflection. Although Hume did not share the belief in the existence of the self compared to Descartes, he understood humanities with it; "our propension to confound identity with relation is so great, that we are apt to imagine something unknown and mysterious connecting the parts (126)" This exemplifies that Hume is conscious of the wants and desires of humans with their mind and soul. Logically speaking, Hume’s theory makes the most sense due to the knowledge learned from cause and effect. I understand the relationship between the beginning to its adjacent cause and it applies to everyday life in society. Unlike Hume, Descartes suggests the origin of knowledge is logical and through self-doubt. Yet, he is unable to provide proof of the existence of god despite playing a substantial role in his theory. Hume on the other hand can only confirm what has already happened, being that is the most truthful and logical

Show More
Related
990 Words | 4 Pages

There is no way to know everything there is to know. This means that knowledge will always be inherently limited by numerous different factors. According to DesCartes, knowing can only be applied to what one has clearly observed to be true (111). Observable knowledge can be limited by things such as background and sex. However, the greatest limitation may be lack of skepticism, whether it be questioning oneself or an authority.

Read More
1701 Words | 7 Pages

In the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume explored the philosophical problem of causation, and sought to answer the question of “What is involved when we say A causes B?” There have been three main interpretations of Hume’s account of causality, the Skeptical Realist interpretation, the Regularity Interpretation, and the Skeptical Naturalist Interpretation. This essay will evaluate these interpretations, and argue for the Skeptical Naturalist Interpretation as the most plausible. Firstly, Galen Strawson’s skeptical realist (SR) reading of Hume’s account of causality asserts that Hume thought that there were causal powers. Contrarily, the regularity theorists, who champion the Regularity Interpretation (RI), assert that Hume thought

Read More
213 Words | 1 Pages

In his meditations, “Evil genius” is his way of referring to himself. Descartes provides a reliable theory of knowledge to show credibility. The beliefs that the evil genius argument affect is priori beliefs. Cartesian doubt

Read More
883 Words | 4 Pages

Morality, sentimentality, and rational evaluation are some of the thrusts of enlightenment philosophy of sympathy. The first notable philosopher is David Hume who places the spotlight on moral appraisal. 2.3.1 David Hume Appraisal turns out to be the keyword in David Hume’s concept of sympathy. In An Inquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, he places emphasis on appraisal which, according to him, is a passion of settled principle of action where motive is the reason and the action is result. But an action can never be the object of moral approval or disapproval; it is only the agent’s motive or character that can be the object of moral evaluation.

Read More
177 Words | 1 Pages

Hume divides reasoning into two parts: demonstrative reasoning and causal reasoning. Demonstrative reasoning is abstract relations among different ideas. Causal reasoning are the relations among objects that we get from experience. Lastly, the will is defined in Humes Treatise, book 2, part 3, section 1 as "the

Read More
1273 Words | 6 Pages

Descartes’ doubt is methodical in that he questions the foundations of his beliefs and uses this doubt in order to discover knowledge that is entirely certain through perceptions that simply cannot be doubted. He devises the Method of Doubt in which he proposes a belief, negates it, and evaluates the possibility of the negation. In the book, Descartes focuses on the reliability of the senses, putting forth the belief that the senses are reliable, proposing the negation that the senses are unreliable, then evaluating the possibility of this negation. If the negation is impossible, then the belief is certain, and if the negation is possible, then the belief is suspended. Since medieval science is rooted in the reliability of the senses, and the argument that the senses are reliable does not

Read More
567 Words | 3 Pages

Hume’s first published book was titled, “A Treatise of Human Nature.” In which he first reveals his thoughts on empiricism, “the theory that

Read More
892 Words | 4 Pages

In this paper I will explain how Hume defends his claim on causality, or in other words, how even though we see that two events occur in union -one after the other- through our immediate senses at a specific instance, there is no way for us to know the nature of their connection. Given Hume’s claim, I will raise a concern about how this claim might be challenged. Hume explains how we confuse experience with causality. In other words, we often assume that if we tip over an open container then the object inside will scatter but that is merely a speculation and, an assumption that we are seemingly witnessing cause and effect.

Read More
1162 Words | 5 Pages

Elie Maamary Final Draft A1310623 CSPR202A Hume’s Challenge to Knowledge David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, was one of the main figureheads of the potent Empiricism proclivity. During the 18th century, it was obvious the aggressiveness between the Empiricism and the Rationalism at that time. He was a drastic rival opponent of rationalism, as well as an atheist and skeptic.

Read More
762 Words | 4 Pages

Hume denied the existence of reality and everything except the human consciousness, and believed that the world exists only in that consciousness . In the same manner, he believes that all experience consists of perceptions, and one can never predict the outcome of an event by just examining it, but by experience and experimentation. Since all the basis of pf modern science are based on theories and examination then we cannot know for certain which of these theories is wrong or right. Ironically Hume had a very strong appreciation for Newton’s work and his experimental

Read More
921 Words | 4 Pages

In a very broad sense, Hume built his theories under the idea that “experience” is the only way one can realize the extent of their knowledge. Today, he is regarded as a preeminent figure of the Enlightenment,

Read More
1452 Words | 6 Pages

In Book 1 Part 3 Section 1 of David Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature, the philosopher—grounded in the British skeptical and empirical tradition—attempts to offer his standard and criteria for epistemological certainty, presumably in response to René Descartes’ epistemology presented in his Discourse and Mediations. Hume asserts “there is no single phenomenon, even the most simple, which can be accounted for from the qualities of the objects, as they appear to us, for which we [could] foresee without the help of our memory and experience” (Treatise 1.3.1.1). In other words, Hume argues that knowledge of the world and its objects is only possible a posteriori, but, he asserts in 1.3.1, that statements about the relations of ideas—primarily

Read More
724 Words | 3 Pages

There is a crisis of personal identity and the ‘self’ which arises from David Hume’s conclusions of living life in a balanced manner. According to Hume, a balanced life integrates reason, sociality, and business in such a way so that they have a “mitigated skepticism.” However, if one of these three areas is more focused on than the others, such as reason, than one begins to lead a not-useful, non-goal-oriented life full of “little satisfaction.” Pure reason also leads to extreme skepticism and is against nature. Hume explains that “no durable good can ever result from [excessive skepticism]” because it has no influence on society or on the mind.

Read More
1435 Words | 6 Pages

David Hume, a highly influential Scottish empiricist philosopher and historian in the 18th century, is well known in philosophy for his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, in which he discusses many philosophical matters, including epistemology, moral theory, miracles, free will and determinism. Hume follows the arguments regarding these topics wherever they lead without hesitation, resulting in many disturbing, but well-grounded conclusions. In Section IV of the Enquiry, Hume makes several claims: all of our reasonings concerning matters of fact are derived from cause and effect, all knowledge of cause and effect is based on experience, and any reasonings based on cause and effect depend on the assumption that the future will resemble

Read More
979 Words | 4 Pages

David Hume, one of the most prominent figures of skepticism in philosophy, firmly believed that philosophy is the science of human nature. It is precisely why, one of his most famous and widespread work was the one revolving around the human mind and how it functions in acquiring knowledge. In his work entitled An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, the Scottish philosopher questions the principle of causality and postulates whether it was a mere fabrication of the human mind. Being a firm empiricist, Hume concluded that no theory of reality is possible; there can be no knowledge of anything beyond experience, and since no empirical evidence supports the theory of causality, Hume finds himself rejecting it altogether. Half a century later,

Read More

More about Compare And Contrast Descartes And Hume

Open Document