Descartes Vs. Hume Essay, Research Paper

Rationalism and Empiricism are most likely the two most celebrated and challenging schools of doctrine. The two schools deal specifically with epistemology, or, the beginning of cognition. Although non wholly opposite, they are frequently considered so, and are seen as the & # 8220 ; Jordan vs. Bird & # 8221 ; of the doctrine universe. The beginnings of rationalism and empiricist philosophy can be traced back to the seventeenth century, when many of import promotions were made in scientific Fieldss such as uranology and mechanics. These promotions were most likely the footing for a sudden philosophical statement: What do we truly cognize? Peoples wondered whether scientific discipline was truly giving us cognition of world. The quest for the reply to this inquiry led to the development of these two schools of doctrine. Two of the most celebrated philosophers of epistemology are Rene Descartes and David Hume, the former being a positivist, and the latter an empiricist. In this paper I will try to give an apprehension of both rationalism and empiricist philosophy, show the thoughts and parts each of the work forces made to their several schools, and hopefully give my personal logical thinking why one is more true than the other.

Rationalism was developed by several of import philosophers all around the seventeenth century. Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibnitz are all given recognition for developing rationalism. Rationalism is the thought that ground and logic are the footing of cognition. It says that cognition is unconditioned, and that it can non come from beginnings such as the senses. Positivists believe that we are all born with a agencies of obtaining truth and cognition. Empiricism besides came approximately in the seventeenth Century, largely through the thoughts of the philosophers Locke and Bacon. Although Hume wrote several decennaries after these two, he likely wrote the strongest statements for empiricist philosophy, covering some inquiries non answered by Locke and Bacon. Empiricism says that all existent cognition is based on experience. It claims that people are born with no innate cognition, and that everything that happens in the head is a consequence of our perceptual experiences.

Descartes begins his theory of cognition by presuming that nil exists. He trusts nil, non what he has seen or heard, non anything that he has thought. After careful deliberation, he comes to the foundation of his cogent evidence: I think, hence, I am. What he means by this is that he knows that he exists because he thinks. This of class can non be disproved, because to make so, would necessitate thought. Descartes believed that in order to obtain cognition, there must be some rational method for obtaining it, and that the usage of senses, or any personal experience was non a dependable beginning. In his 3rd speculation he says, & # 8220 ; I know that even organic structures are non & # 8230 ; perceived by the senses, or by the module of imaginativeness, but by the mind entirely & # 8221 ; ( Descartes 69 ) . He believed that this was the same for every homo, that we all have unconditioned thoughts in our psyche. This decidedly follows the definition of a positivist. In order to detect these thoughts in our psyche, we must travel about a method of logical thinking, which he referred to as methodological uncertainty. This method resembles the self-evident geometric system, which likely so because of his expertness and involvement in mathematics. Maxims are axiomatic principals that are so clear that they are accepted as true, and portion of everyone & # 8217 ; s cognition. He believed that cognition of external things was a consequence of merely the head, and non the senses. Descartes besides said that the existence was mathematically logical, and that anything can be arrived at by concluding. In fact, he goes on in his Hagiographas and uses this method to turn out God, the human senses, and the universe, all through his ground. Descartes believed that no inquiry was excessively hard to detect by his agencies.

Hume subsequently contradicted the theory of Descartes by disregarding his method of thought, and claiming that people learn through & # 8220 ; perceptual experiences & # 8221 ; . These perceptual experiences can by from one of two classs: feelings or thoughts. He said that feelings are what gave us the ability to hold thoughts. Hume besides believed that since everyone has different feelings, no 1 is likewise. This is besides contrary to what Descartes claimed. Hume said that there are three different ways perceptual experiences can be classified: resemblance, adjacency, and cause and consequence. Resemblance is like when a image makes you believe of the original scene. Contiguity is when a Canis familiaris is mentioned, it makes you th

ink of other Canis familiariss, and cause and consequence is when you think of a lesion, and you associate it with the hurting and hemorrhage that follows. Hume besides believed that causing was the method that humans used to ground, to travel beyond merely feelings and memories. Since causing is developed through experience, it is apparent that Hume fits the cast of the empiricist. Hume said that this ground developed from experience could be separated into two countries. One is “relations of ideas” , or things such as mathematics and logic, which can be considered certain because it merely relates thoughts to one another. Hume says, “Propositions of this sort are ascertainable by the mere operation of thought” ( Hume 71 ) . The other one is “matters of fact” , or concluding gained from perceptual experiences. It is based on the thought of cause and consequence ; if we see something go on after something adequate times, we call it the consequence and the former the cause. However, Hume is speedy to indicate out that the decisions we draw from our perceptual experiences are non needfully true. He says, “The reverse of every affair of fact is still possible” ( Hume 71 ) . He makes the illustration that we can non be certain that the Sun will lift tomorrow, even though it has every other twenty-four hours of our life. Because of this claim, he believed that obtaining existent cognition was impossible.

Both Descartes and Hume made first-class statements for their beliefs, and both schools of doctrine became rather popular, and have been of all time since. Of class finding which one is truer is non an easy undertaking, and as with any philosophical inquiry, there is no right or incorrect reply. I think before I can do my determination, I have to look at what the universe of scientific discipline today says about the two different theories, over 300 old ages after they were developed. The scientific discipline of evolutionary psychological science Tells ups that no crisp line can be drawn between information that originates from environment, and information that is acquired through cistrons. However, in analyzing of the familial theoretical account, it has been shown that cistrons can non show themselves in bodily constructions ( i.e. the encephalon ) , unless they are in a really specific, suited environment. Although no figures are purely quantifiable, 99 % of the information for constructing an being may be thought of as located in the environment, and merely 1 % in the cistrons themselves ( Steen ) . This is demonstrated by cases in which environmental information that comes through the senses activates certain cistrons, such as: cats are unable to comprehend perpendicular lines if they are non exposed to them before a certain age, and kids who have non heard a linguistic communication before the age of 10 will no longer retain the capacity to get one. When it comes to modern scientific positions, it seems that Hume has the border over Descartes. This seems a spot dry sing that Descartes believed that cognition is gained from a logical and scientific method. The really method that Descartes used to turn out his thoughts on human apprehension has been used to confute his thoughts about unconditioned truth.

After reading transitions from both authors, every bit good as readings on them, I have to state that I am non convinced that rationalism or empiricist philosophy is right. I believe that both had really convincing cogent evidence of their thoughts, that is, I could non happen any holes in their logical thinkings. Empiricism is decidedly favored by the familial theory. However, I think that rationalism and Descartes follow more closely my spiritual beliefs. Descartes relates his thoughts partly through a theological point of position. He proves that there is a God, and that God fits into his thoughts on epistemology. So on this side I have to give rationalism the border. I would hold liked to been able to take one of the schools to believe in, but at least it seems that I am in the bulk when I say that I am someplace in between. In fact, Francis Steen, from the University of California, says, & # 8220 ; the differentiation between empiricist philosophy and rationalism has become mostly nonmeaningful, like two facets of the same coin that have fused into a sphere. & # 8221 ;

Descartes, Rene. Discourse on Method and Meditations on First

Doctrine. Trans. Donald A. Cress. Hacket Printing

Company, Inc. 1998.

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Anthony

Flew, erectile dysfunction. Chicago. Open Court Publishing Company. 1988.

Steen, Francais F. Empiricism Vs. Rationalism. Department of English,

University of California, Santa Barbara. Mar 20, 2001