Descartes Vs Hume

In Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes does and experiment with wax to try to prove that things actually exist in this world. This essay is going to prove how we can tell that things actually exist and what can perceive the wax.

Berkeley and Hume are both philosophers that thought rationally and relied of reason instead of sensory experience to explain the world around us. Berkeley gives both an epistemological argument and a metaphysical argument to why the idea of mind independent matter is not an object of knowledge. I think Hume is also on the same page as Berkeley and gives an epistemological claim to why matters of fact is not a strong tool, Hume in a way is a lot like Berkeley just less fantastical.

The concept of self identifies the essence of one’s very being. It implies continuous existence having no other exact equal, i.e. the one and only. Whether or not the specific characteristic(s) used to define self are objectively real, i.e. physical attributes, or purely subjective, i.e. imaginary traits, the concept makes distinct one entity from another. Rationalism is the theory that truth can be derived through use of reason alone. Empiricism, a rival theory, asserts that truth must be established by sensual experience: touch, taste, smell, et al. Rene Descartes, a philosopher and rationalist concluded that one self was merely a continuous awareness of one’s own existence; one’s substance was one’s ability to think. On the other

René Descartes was a skeptic, and thus he believed that in order for something to be considered a true piece of knowledge, that “knowledge must have a certain stability,” (Cottingham 21). In his work, Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes concludes that in order to achieve this stability, he must start at the foundations for all of his opinions and find the basis of doubt in each of them. David Hume, however, holds a different position on skepticism in his work An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, for he criticizes Descartes’ claim because “‘it is impossible,’” (qtd. in Cottingham 35). Both philosophers show distinct reasoning in what skepticism is and how it is useful in finding stability.

Have you ever been driving in a car with a child who asked a million questions starting with “why”? Regardless of how well you think you answered their question, they will ask why the answer to that question is what it is, and so on and so forth. This is characteristic of all human beings; children just are not as restrained and willing to ask whatever questions comes to their minds, while adults are more inclined to accept the first level answer and question it no further. However in the back of our minds we all want to know the truth, and we will eventually conjure up a reason why what we accept as truth, in fact, the truth. Two very prominent philosophers, René Descartes, and William James were concerned with truth and how people come to believe and accept something as true or false. They believed that there is a very definite truth, but they mapped out different routes in order to get to the place where truth could be found.

Rene Descartes, a rationalist, said that each person contains the criteria for truth and knowledge in them. Finding truth and knowledge comes from the individual themselves, not necessarily from God. Descartes also believed that reason is the same for every single person. Descartes believed that nothing could be true unless we as humans could perceive it. He also believed that you could break down things into smaller simpler parts. Descartes also believed that there was a relationship between the mind and body. He also believed that the idea of being perfect originated from God since God himself was perfect. He also integrates his mathematical concepts into his methodology. Descartes also applied doubt to his ideas before he

Assignment: Compare Aristotle’s teleological view of nature with the mechanistic view of nature, with particular emphasis on Descartes.

step, because I can take my idea that a perfect being (God) exists. Since this

Descartes is responsible for the skepticism that has been labeled Cartesian doubt. Hume critiques this skepticism in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. After his discussion of Cartesian doubt, he offers a different type of skepticism that he considers as being more effective philosophically. Is Hume right in his characterization of Cartesian doubt and is the skepticism he offers better?

Locke’s view one must make an inference to substance; it is not a part of sense-experience. And, he thinks it is a justified inference. General idea of substance is an unknown something that supports accidents. Particular substance is nothing but several combinations

exists and his idea of what a perfect being is, such as God, then God exists.

John Locke and David Hume, both great empiricist philosophers who radically changed the way people view ideas and how they come about. Although similar in their beliefs, the two have some quite key differences in the way they view empiricism. Locke believed in causality, and used the example of the mental observation of thinking to raise your arm, and then your arm raising, whereas Hume believed that causality is not something that can be known, as a direct experience of cause, cannot be sensed. Locke believed that all knowledge is derived from our senses, which produce impressions on the mind which turn to ideas, whereas Hume's believed that all knowledge is derived from experiences,

It is hard to believe that somehow a planet fell into orbit at the perfect place, and time within a galaxy to cause an entire ecosystem to grow on it. Planet earth is just warm enough to sustain life, it holds air and water neatly within that atmosphere, and provides a home for intelligent life. Whether it is all coincidence, or the product of an almighty creator is the question. From that question, comes other questions. Religion is the answer. The answer to every question that the human race has ever conjured and could not explain has been written down and credited to a higher power. Things that people have no way to answer ourselves. There cannot be intelligence without curiosity.

Descartes is a dualist and John Locke is a monist and they are both historical figures of psychology. Dualism is when a person believes an actuality can be physical and non-physical. In addition, humans are made up of a mind, god, spirt, or soul which can be defined as an immaterial substance that exists along with the brain and body. I am a dualist like Descartes because I believe that I have a physical body and I will be able to preform and participate in physical activities, but once I pass away I believe that my spirit will live on and go to heaven. I believe once people die they will be able to see their past family members and friends that have pasted away in this separate world that us humans know nothing about. People who believe in

     Knowledge is gained only through experience, and experiences only exist in the mind as individual units of thought. This theory of knowledge belonged to David Hume, a Scottish philosopher. Hume was born on April 26, 1711, as his family’s second son. His father died when he was an infant and left his mother to care for him, his older brother, and his sister. David Hume passed through ordinary classes with great success, and found an early love for literature. He lived on his family’s estate, Ninewells, near Edinburgh. Throughout his life, literature consumed his thoughts, and his life is little more than his works. By the age of 40, David Hume had been employed twice and had failed at the family careers,