Descartes vs. Hume Essay

     It is Cleanthes who gets the ball rolling in Part II of Hume by laying out his “argument from design.” Cleanthes believes that there is ample evidence in the nature that surrounds us to draw conclusions

Like Berkeley David Hume also believed that understanding is rooted to experience. Hume developed the three laws of association: resemblance, contiguity and cause/effect. Resemblance is an object reminds and individual of another object or thing through similarity. Contiguity means experiencing things together. Cause and effect is

Hume rejected lockes theory of experiencing cause. He argued that you do not feel the connection between your mind and arm, and thus don't sense the cause of the muscles contracting to raise your arm. Cause, in Hume's mind, is a synthetic experience used to explain the unobservable things in reality. To help explain he used the billiard ball experiement. Ball A is hit and put into motion towards ball B.When ball A collides with ball B the cause of ball B's movement is not experienced, there is no observable connection between the two. This would mean that there is no way to be certain that everytime Ball A collides with ball B that ball B will move, ball A could just as likely bounce off and begin rolling in a random direction. He believd that there is no way of knowing for certain the outcome of an event without being able to perceive the cause.

Hume argues that we cannot prove that there is a real world outside our experience, much less that our experience is an accurate representation of that world. He says we need to get outside our experience to see whether it does fairly represent the world, however, its near impossible to do that.

Have you ever wondered about the world beyond its original state? How we know that electricity produces a light bulb to light up or causes the sort of energy necessary to produce heat? But in the first place, what is electricity? Nor have we seen it and not we encountered it; however, we know what it can do, hence its effects. To help us better understand the notion of cause and effect, David Hume, an empiricist and skepticist philosopher, proposed the that there is no such thing as causation. In his theory, he explained the deliberate relationship between the cause and effect, and how the two factors are not interrelated. Think of it this way: sometimes we end up failing to light a match even though it was struck. The previous day, it lit up, but today it did not. Why? Hume’s theory regarding causation helps us comprehend matters of cause and effect, and how we encounter the effects in our daily lives, without the cause being necessary. According to Hume, since we never experience the cause of something, we cannot use inductive reasoning to conclude that one event causes another. In other words, causal necessity (the cause and effect being related in some way or another) seems to be subjective, as if it solely exists in our minds and not in the object itself.

What Came First: The Chicken or the Egg? David Hume moves through a logical progression of the ideas behind cause and effect. He critically analyzes the reasons behind those generally accepted ideas. Though the relation of cause and effect seems to be completely logical and based on common sense, he discusses our impressions and ideas and why they are believed. Hume’s progression, starting with his initial definition of cause, to his final conclusion in his doctrine on causality. As a result, it proves how Hume’s argument on causality follows the same path as his epistemology, with the two ideas complimenting each other so that it is rationally impossible to accept the epistemology and not accept his argument on causality. Hume starts by

Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge.  Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims.  For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument.  Another issue with Descartes' philosophy

Both Hume and Locke agree that the brain starts as a “blank state” going against what Descartes thought. While Descartes wrote that everything was already in the mind and it just needed to be “unlocked” through doing

He also talks about how he describes "Matters of fact". Hume explains how one learns from experiences. Like the example of a baby learning not to touch a fire by contacting it. I think this thought is true because a lot of people know the common saying "you learn from your mistakes." In this case someone might do something wrong, you could try to fix the way you went about something the next time. One thing I disagree with Hume is that there is not always

     Hume began his first examination if the mind by classifying its contents as Perceptions. “Here therefore [he divided] all the perceptions of the mind into two classes or species.” (27) First, Impressions represented an image of something that portrayed an immediate relationship. Secondly, there were thoughts and ideas, which

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?

Hume is a philosopher who believes in the Copy Principle. That all ideas derive from vivid

Next, Hume explores the existence of “necessary connextion” when the will commands a new idea. Again there are three arguments. In the first argument the soul’s production of an idea is examined: it “is a real creation; a production of something out of nothing” (45).

Renee Descartes, as a Rationalist viewed knowledge as something that we achieve through reason. Descartes begins his theory of knowledge by assuming that nothing exists. By doing this he would have to trust nothing. Not his senses, not anything that he has thought. As a Rationalist he sought to eliminate all doubt and anything else that wasn 't completely credible. Because he found that his senses were not one hundred percent reliable, as he found they sometimes deceived him, he did not trust them. Descartes believed that in order to obtain knowledge, there must be a rational method for obtaining it, and that the use of the senses, or any personal experience was not a reliable source. Finally, in Meditations on First Philosophy he concludes that he is a thinking thing: “I think, therefore I am”. He knows that this is true because he thinks, and to disprove that would require thinking and since he

Therefore Hume claims that there is no necessary connection, it is just that we infer the idea of necessary connection but in actual fact we never actually observe it directly in nature. Hume goes on to convince us that we cannot observe the act of causation, for example he points out that we are aware of our ability to move our body i.e. fingers, hands etc. but this does not make us aware of the connection between the act volition and the movement of our body. He points out that we are capable of moving our fingers at will but we have no control over our internal organs. Why is this? Hume believes that we are incapable of rationalising a causal connection and things happen according to some sort of law, however these laws and necessities are beyond our understanding.