Similarities Between Descartes And Hume

René Descartes believed that all truth could be found by rationalization, that it is not that any one person lacks the ability to come to the conclusion of truth, but that we all think differently and do not analyze situations in the same way. To understand his strategy, you must first understand the type of life that Descartes lived. Descartes was always a very intelligent person with a passion for learning. He spent much time studying in school in order to learn about truth and the world, but what he found was that he had not actually found

PHI 62 Final Paper Truth While reading Hamlet, there were characters named Hamlet and Polonius looking for truth. Both of these characters had their own perception of truth and their own approach to find truth. In class we have also learned about philosophers Descartes and Hume; which can both be related to the two Hamlet characters with their own approach to truth, and the ways to obtain truth. Hamlet was contacted by the ghost of his father with the story of how he died from murder through the new king. When Hamlet hears this story, he feels as if he has to find the truth and verify it for himself.

As a thinking entity, Descartes is a consciousness mind aware of the potential to engage in various modes of existence. To the numerous operations of “thought” he includes doubting, understanding, affirming, denying, willing, refusing, imagining, and sensing. As varied and manifold as these operations appear, they are but expressions of two principal types of conscious activity, to which Descartes eventually traces the nature of error. Thinking and reasoning, together with all belief in general, depend upon the operation of the twin faculties “knowing” and “choosing,” or the free will. Garrett Thompson writes:

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

Descartes is able to examine ideas and gain knowledge form them. Innate ideas mean they are present at birth, in other words we are implanted with certain ideas at our creation. He often uses ‘innate ideas’ to explain the mind’s original programming. “An infant’s mind is programmed with the rules of logic. Consider as an example the valid rule, modus ponens. Let P and Q stand for variables… the rules states that, if P then Q is true and P is true, then it follows that Q is true. We know that we are programmed with this rule because young children, who have never studied logic and have never entertained the rule, when given an argument in which the variables above are replaced by actual sentences, are able to intuit the validity of the argument.” Descartes believed our minds are programmed with eternal truths, “Whatever comes into existence must have been brought into existence by something else.” He also discovers that the idea of God is only part of his initial programming but also that God, operating through secondary sources such as his parents, is the programmer.

It was once said by René Descartes that, “if you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.” In other words, when one wants to pursue the knowledge of this world, one must be able to question possibilities before coming to a conclusion. Throughout the Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes discusses his thoughts in a coherent manner. He strongly states that ‘true knowledge’ is gained through reasoning. On the opposing side, a philosopher known as David Hume, believes that all knowledge cannot exist without emotion. However, an individual’s feelings can distort their understandings of reality. While humans are blessed with

The two philosophers from the course I have chosen to compare and contrast are Scottish philosopher David Hume and French philosopher Rene Descartes. Both these famous philosophers have opposite viewpoints on the very existence of God. Descartes heavily believed in the existence of God with good reasoning. While Hume was basically an atheist and rejected any belief that God exists. For this paper I will be supporting statements made by Rene Descartes.

Socrates once said, “As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.” Several philosophers contradicted Socrates’ outlook and believed that true knowledge was in fact attainable. This epistemological view however had several stances to it, as philosophers held different beliefs in regards to the derivation of true knowledge. Rationalists believed that the mind was the source of true knowledge, while in Empiricism, true knowledge derived from the senses. Rene Descartes, a rationalist, and John Locke, an empiricist, were prime examples of epistemologists who were seen to differentiate greatly within each of their philosophies. However, although Descartes and Locke’s ideas did contrast in that sense,

Hume's idea on that we derive our ideas through our experiences is very knowledgeable in my opinion. Everyone has different experiences throughout their lives, not everyone's is the same, so we must get our ideas through our experiences. If a little child puts his hand on the hot stove top, hi is in pain from the heat. He will learn from that experience that stoves are hot and not to touch them. Descartes believed that everyone's thoughts and ideas were equal, unlike Hume. How could Descartes idea on equal thoughts be true when not everyone may even have a stove in their house so each little child may not be able to experience the same things?

Socrates once said, “As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.” Several philosophers contradicted Socrates’ outlook and believed that true knowledge was in fact attainable. This epistemological view however had several stances to it, as philosophers held different beliefs in regards to the derivation of true knowledge. Rationalists believed that the mind was the source of true knowledge, while in Empiricism, true knowledge derived from the senses. Rene Descartes, a rationalist, and John Locke, an empiricist, were prime examples of epistemologists who were seen to differentiate greatly within each of their philosophies. However, although Descartes and Locke’s ideas did contrast in that sense,

The author mentions Descarters' views on the process of human knowledge, he mentions how Descartes "did not understand that the machinery of the mind can only transform knowledge, but never originate it, unless it be

With the development of modern science, many people have shifted away from the idea that the existence of God is the sole explanation for the creation of mankind. Modernity has persuaded us to question all philosophical claims and assertions and has led to the growth of many religious skeptics over the last few centuries. In this paper, I will discuss the effects of living in a world of only matter and forces through the examination of my own perspective with reference to the philosophies of Rene Descartes and David Hume.

Descartes argued that nothing is perfect, powerful and loving enough to have created God, therefore the only possible creator would be God himself. Descartes' Cogito is based on this principle, that he could only be sure that himself and God existed. Descartes attempted to prove that it is possible to have synthetic a priori knowledge, knowledge acquired prior to sense experience. Knowledge about the world is not true by definition but can be found using reason alone. As he established in his earlier argument, the senses could not be trusted, therefore the issue of knowledge that empiricists would argue as only possible a posteriori, could be opposed using the analogy of a wax

     Through his philosophical search Descartes was able to find one indubitable certainty, that we are thinking beings. We always think, even when we have doubts that we are thinking we are still thinking because a doubt is a thought. Although Descartes found this one universal truth, he was still not able to believe in anything but the fact that he was a thinking being. Therefore he still doubted everything around him. He used this one certainty to try to find a system of knowledge about everything in the world. Descartes idea was to propose a hypothesis about something. For example he might say that a perfect being was in existence. He would go around this thought in a methodical way, doubting it, all the while trying to identify it as a certainty. Doubting everything was at first dangerous because in doubting everything he was also admitting that he doubted the existence of God, and thus opposing the church. However he made it a point to tell us at the beginning of his Discourse on Methods that what he was writing was only for himself and that he expected no one but himself to follow it (Descartes 14, 15). Descartes eventually managed to prove the existence of a higher being. He said that since he had the idea of a perfect being, then that perfect being must exist. His

The two philosophers namely Descartes and Locke vary greatly on the issue of the source of knowledge. Descartes doesn’t believe in knowledge arising from experience while Locke also doesn’t agree with the issue of the existence of inherent ideas in the mind. Both Descartes and Locke are skeptics about the possibility of certain knowledge. Descartes is a rationalist who believes that there is definitely certain knowledge and human reasoning is the only source of that knowledge while Locke