Compare And Contrast Descartes And Hume

1404 Words6 Pages

Descartes and Hume. Rationalism and empiricism. Two of the most iconic philosophers who are both credited with polarizing theories, both claiming they knew the answer to the origin of knowledge and the way people comprehend knowledge. Yet, despite the many differences that conflict each other’s ideologies, they’re strikingly similar as well. In this essay I will attempt to find an understanding of both rationalism and empiricism, show the ideologies of both philosophers all whilst evaluating why one is more theory is potentially true than the other. Descartes Epistemology: Descartes attempts to discover a foundation of knowledge as seen in his book ‘Meditations on First Philosophy’. He is essentially looking for total certainty. In order to do so, Descartes doubted everything, coming to the realization that he can only prove his …show more content…

Both philosophers acknowledged that the self was integral to the origin on the knowledge. The self was the start to philosophical reflection. Although Hume did not share the belief in the existence of the self compared to Descartes, he understood humanities with it; "our propension to confound identity with relation is so great, that we are apt to imagine something unknown and mysterious connecting the parts (126)" This exemplifies that Hume is conscious of the wants and desires of humans with their mind and soul. Logically speaking, Hume’s theory makes the most sense due to the knowledge learned from cause and effect. I understand the relationship between the beginning to its adjacent cause and it applies to everyday life in society. Unlike Hume, Descartes suggests the origin of knowledge is logical and through self-doubt. Yet, he is unable to provide proof of the existence of god despite playing a substantial role in his theory. Hume on the other hand can only confirm what has already happened, being that is the most truthful and logical

Open Document