Compare And Contrast Descartes And Hume

His philosophy had a massive impact on further development of European philosophy. Kant, an outstanding Dutch philosopher, in all seriousness perceived many of Hume’s conclusions. For instance, that whole material of knowledge we get from experience and that empirical methods of human understanding are not able to provide its objectivity and necessity, and by this, to substantiate the potential of theoretical sciences and philosophy. Auguste Comte’s ideas about some science’ buildings which linked just with the description of phenomena but not with its explanation, and row of another positivist conclusions were based on Hume’s skepticism. On the other hand, further development of knowledge and philosophy confirmed Hume’s anxiety concerning any philosophical conclusions.

Descartes’ metaphysics are difficult in that they are over lapped. To, satisfactorily, answer the question: Does Descartes correctly respond to the problem of how can mind and matter interact as different substances? We must capture a large breadth of Descartes arguments beginning with his famous “I think, therefore I am”. For the simplicity of the paper, I shall assume that Descartes argument(s) have been sound all the way into his description of mind and matter. It would seem impossible to respond to the question posed if it cannot even be said that Descartes satisfactorily distinguishes mind and matter as different substances.

At this point in each of their processes, I have found that self-knowledge is the most significant turning point in their acceptance of truth. What could be more important than knowing that you exist? I don't really think that there is anything more important than that, especially in philosophy. How could we examine life, if there is none or if it is simply an illusion? Self-knowledge is the stepping stone to salvation for both Augustine and Descartes.

If not for this curse, humanity would have sunk in ignorance to this day. Despite that Kant’s main argument is that enlightenment is the ability to think for oneself independently, he argues in the private and public use of one’s reason, that one should obey the rules whilst be able to privately fully use one’s own reason and observe. Moreover, he states that God said, “Argue as much as you like and about whatever you like, but obey!” (Kant, 55). This means that one’s freedom is restrained, but the

The paradigm of Positivism seems to be combined of Rationalism and Empiricism. Positivism focus on a priori knowledge same Rationalism but in difference point, Positivist beliefs in nature of reality that can be verified by science process but don’t belief in the innate. The innate knowledge seems to be skeptically for them and trying to examination about the reality for support warranted beliefs. While Empiricism is rejected the innate knowledge but emphasizes truth-reliable process. It’s look like the one of science process, Such measurement which needs to be reliability and generalize outcomes.

The cogito is the concept that one’s ability to doubt, and to think in general, ipso facto proves that one must exist. Descartes comes to this realization from his state of total doubt after a final effort to locate an incontrovertible truth, asking firstly whether there is a God or other all-powerful being implanting his doubts. This line of thinking leads Descartes to question who truly conceives of his thoughts and doubts, then to question whether one necessarily cannot exist without a physical body (a concept he had

Even though David Hume and Edward Burke were writing in the same time period, at first glance their ideas seem completely isolated. David Hume describes a subjective taste, in which a person’s taste depends upon a number of circumstances, but primarily a person’s moral opinions. Burke, on the other hand, argues that it is beauty that is subjective, and it depends on the concepts of pleasure and pain, rather than morality. Initially, these may seem relatively different from each other, but the use of the idea of subjectivity, a general thought regarding morality, and the concepts themselves actually show that the two philosophers had similar ideas. One of David Hume’s main arguments in regards to aesthetics is that taste is a subjective concept, and that everyone’s

Plato describes that knowledge is possible, but is instilled in our reason. He contradicts the view of epistemology and says that our senses and experiences do not provided enough reason to be considered knowledge. Lawhead deplics Plato as being, “a typical rationalist who thought that ultimate knowledge must be objective, unchanging and universal”.(194). When it comes to the second epistemological question, rationalist believe that reason alone is the only way to find true knowledge. Lawhead uses the example of mathematics and logic to describe that we come to conclusions by means of reason.(192).

The doctrines of Mencius and Hsün Tzu are the part of the core and major, almost compulsory to the studying of Classical Confucianism. Some of the researchers found their differences, even called contradiction among discussing about human nature. Here comes the conclusion that Men Tzu and Hsün Tzu are two extremes, with completely different in their views about human nature. Nevertheless, we should refocus on the root of their philosophy, to determine rather they are different or not. Conversely, it can be concluded that Mencius and Hsün Tzu are similar base on their process of thinking, also their continuous advocation on self-cultivation and education.

Moreover, by sharing similar philosophical ideas, it enables to use Hegel’s idea of Geist as an answer to Hume’s secret power, that Hume could not comprehend. These two philosophers shared great similarities in their philosophy, allowing our understanding of modern philosophy; nevertheless, it is crucial to realize that there may be more overlapping or even conflicting philosophical ideas of different philosophers that yield various outcomes than the one presented by this paper. Finding overlapping ideas of different philosophers enhance deeper understanding of philosophy and may eventually strengthen one

Philosophy in general relies on rational inquiry, logic, the theory of deductive and inductive arguments and aims to distinguish good from bad reasoning and speculations; opinions or reasoning based on incomplete information, it is also concerned with the blending of two disciplines; Science that which is provable and rational, and mystical, having a divine meaning that is beyond human understanding. Distinguishing between these two has been somewhat of a challenge, today we live in a society reason (science), and logos (reason) is the pragmatic mode ( a state of dealing with the problems that exist in a specific situation in a reasonable and logical way instead of depending on ideas and theories), of thought that enables one to function effectively in the world. People have and will always need logos to make sense of life.

Knowledge must first be produced by the synthesis (whether give empirically or a priori) and that knowledge might need analysis beforehand if its primitive or crude, but its really the synthesis that does to collection of knowledge and unifies them (B103). So, when Kant indicates, “that analysis presupposes synthesis” he means that analysis or dissolution, is the opposite of synthesis and always pre-supposes it since when the understanding had not combined anything, it cant dissolve anything either (B130). Since the analysis presupposes that there is still something left to analyze and