Descartes and Hume may have both come from Europe, but there ideas concerning self are opposing. They do both hold similar ideas in some form but their philosophical methodologies lead to conflicting viewpoints.
Descartes believes that the mind and body are separate of one another causing the problem to form in the transmission of information between the mind and the body. Hume does not conquer this task of mind and body one or separate. He is more concerned with the idea of self and how one is maintained over a period of time. He believes there is no such thing as self. That each moment we are a new being due to the fact that we are forever changing and nothing remains constant within ourselves. Yes, our DNA may be the same but that is not
…show more content…
But his habitual ideas and opinions are still present no matter how hard he tries not to present them, to solve this problem he decides that all of his opinions are false. Descartes finds himself certain about one thing that nothing is certain. Resorting back to the idea that his senses are the only way he is able to obtain the truth in life, he believes that his senses are apart of his mind and body. He uses a honeycomb to examine this topic that the body and mind are one. The wax changes shape therefore he uses imagination to understand it
Hume uses senses, like Descartes, to find the truth in life. By using the senses he states that all contents of the mind come from experience. This leads to the mind having an unbound potential since all the contents are lead by experiences. The mind is made up two parts impressions and ideas. Impressions are the immediate data of the experience. For example, when someone drops a book on the desk and you hear a loud sound. The sight of the book dropping and hitting the desk is registered by an individual’s senses- sight, sound, feeling. Hume believes there are two types of impressions, original and secondary impressions. Original impressions are based on the senses,
…show more content…
That one’s self are built off of experiences that come from events that have taken place over a period of time.
Hume believes that there is no concept of self. That each moment we are a new being since nothing is constant from one moment to the next. There is no continuous “I” that is unchanging from one moment to the next. That self is a bundle of perceptions and emotions there is nothing that forms a self-impression which is essential to have an idea of one self. The mind is made up of a processions of perceptions.
In conclusion, Descartes and Hume believe that one finds the truth through the use of one’s senses. Even though they may be perceived differently and used in memory in different forms. Hume believes that there is no such thing as self. One is ever changing and different in each individual moment in time. While Descartes argues that one is built off of the past and the body and the mind are one. That the body and mind act in sync with one another, whatever the body does the mind directs or understands the task at
While Descartes believes that all bad things that happen are actually good if we could just see the bigger picture, Hume says this does not matter. The human and animal mind is not created to think of the bigger picture, it is only able to think about what is right in front of it. So in this aspect, humans and animals are both able to perceive what is right and wrong, therefore supporting Hume’s idea that humans and animals aren’t so different. Despite having polar opposite views, Rene Descartes and David Hume were both very prominent philosophers of their time. They both contemplated the ideas of reasoning within animals and sought to find the truth about the acquisition of knowledge.
In conclusion of this paper, from the arguments stated above about Humes’ and Descartes philosophical positions, Hume has a stronger position on the existence of the external world.
His claim is that the mind is merely a bundle of perceptions that derive ultimately from sensory inputs or impressions. He follows on to say that ideas are reflections of these perceptions, or to be more precise, perceptions of perceptions, therefore can still be traced back to an original sensory input. Hume applied this logic to the perception of a ‘self’, to which he could not trace back to any sensory input, the result was paradoxical, thus he concluded that “there is no simplicity in (the mind) at one time, nor identity in different; whatever natural propension we might have to imagine that simplicity and
Contrary to many critiques Hume does believe that there is a God, however he does not believe that God is all greatness like society commonly assumes and excepts. Hume argues that because one sees an effect that doesn't mean that we can automatically know or assume its cause. This argument can be used to explain the creation of the world. We know that the universe is here but we don't know if God make it or if there was a scientific reason for the creation of the world. Perhaps the most obvious example of Hume's argument is.
Hume based his position in ethics off of what some would describe his naturalistic, or empirical theory of the mind and is known for asserting four major principles. (1)He
rity and distinction, but we can conclude what Descartes means. He is saying that we can be sure that these primary qualities exist in bodies in the same way that they do in our ideas of bodies. This cannot be claimed for qualities such as heat, color, taste and smell, of which our ideas are so confused and vague that we must always reserve judgment. This can be seen in the wax example. Do you think that Descartes qualifies to your satisfaction that the mind and body are separate from each other?
The teaching of Descartes has influenced many minds since his writings. Descartes' belief that clear and distinct perceptions come from the intellect and not the senses was critical to his ultimate goal in Meditations on First Philosophy, for now he has successfully created a foundation of true and certain facts on which to base a sold, scientific belief structure. He has proven himself to exist in some form, to think and therefore feel, and explains how he knows objects or concepts to be real.
Comparing Knowledge in Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy and Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,
Hume on the other hand, he believes that there is also two principles to his argument as well. First, “the capacity of the mind is limited, and can never attain a full and adequate conception of
Descartes makes a careful examination of what is involved in the recognition of a specific physical object, like a piece of wax. By first describing the wax in a manner such that “everything is present in the wax that appears needed to enable a body to be known as distinctly as possible” (67), he shows how easily our senses help to conceive our perception of the body. But even if such attributes are modified or removed, we still recognize the changed form, as the same piece of wax. This validates Descartes’ claim that “wax itself never really is the sweetness of the honey, nor the fragrance of the flowers, nor the whiteness, nor the shape, nor the sound” (67), and the only certain knowledge we gain of the wax is that “it is something extended, flexible, and mutable” (67). This conclusion forces us to realize that it is difficult to understand the true nature of the wax, and its identity is indistinguishable from other things that have the same qualities as the wax. After confirming the nature of a human mind is “a thinking thing” (65), Descartes continues that the nature of human mind is better known than the nature of the body.
Rationalism and empiricism have always been on opposite sides of the philosophic spectrum, Rene Descartes and David Hume are the best representative of each school of thought. Descartes’ rationalism posits that deduction, reason and thus innate ideas are the only way to get to true knowledge. Empiricism on the other hand, posits that by induction, and sense perception, we may find that there are in fact no innate ideas, but that truths must be carefully observed to be true.
In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes states “I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in as far as I am only a thinking and unextended thing, and as, on the other hand, I possess a distinct idea of body, in as far as it is only an extended and unthinking thing”. [1] The concept that the mind is an intangible, thinking entity while the body is a tangible entity not capable of thought is known as Cartesian Dualism. The purpose of this essay is to examine how Descartes tries to prove that the mind or soul is, in its essential nature, entirely distinct from the
Descartes argues that the mind and body can be thought of as separate substances. Descartes writes “I have a body that is very closely joined to me, nevertheless, because … I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, insofar as I am merely a thinking thing and not an extended thing and because … I have a distinct idea of a body, insofar as it is merely an extended thing and not a thinking thing, it is certain that I am really distinct from my body and can exist without it” ( Descartes 50). With this quote, Descartes is saying that the mind and body are separate because he has two distinct ideas of the body and the mind and the body is not a thinking thing as he is but an extended substance. Another point to Descartes argument is that the mind and body are different due to one being indivisible and the other being divisible. Descartes writes “a body, by its very nature, is always divisible. On the other hand, the mind is utterly indivisible” (53). Here is saying that there are ...
They both divide their metaphysics and epistemology into two sections. Descartes explains his in two meditations while Locke explains his in two qualities. They both describe how the mind plays a very important part in describing what is real. Of course the mind is a main factor for humans to describe what is real and how we receive our knowledge but they both explain their theories in different ways. Descartes explains that our main source of knowledge comes from our sense perception. In his theory we have to doubt our perceptions and ideas. In his view nothing is certain but us, he makes it simple by saying “I think therefore I am. He uses the immaterial mind to explain the existence of things. Locke on the other hand believes that our main source of knowledge is sensory experience. Locke provides strong evidence of his theory but his theory is known as one of the most confusing in his work. He views that without experience or reason, we have to question our reality and the external world we live in. Through experience comes sensation and reflection and that is how we know what is real because all ideas to form complex ideas come from those two
Truth of oneself makes it visible when faced with absurd events in life where all ethical issues fade away. One cannot always pinpoint to a specific trait or what the core essence they discover, but it is often described as “finding one’s self”. In religious context, the essential self would be regarded as soul. Whereas, for some there is no such concept as self that exists since they believe that humans are just animals caught in the mechanistic world. However, modern philosophy sheds a positive light and tries to prove the existence of a self. Modern philosophers, Descartes and Hume in particular, draw upon the notion of the transcendental self, thinking self, and the empirical self, self of public life. Hume’s bundle theory serves as a distinction between these two notions here and even when both of these conception in their distinction make valid points, neither of them is more accurate.