Hume Empiricism

817 Words2 Pages

In this essay I will discuss the following metaphors or ideas: Descartes’ “thinking thing” and Hume’s “empiricism”. I will outline the similarities and differences between these two metaphors concerning what each implies about the meaning of being human. I will also explain which of them is more relevant as a means to gain insight into my own life and/or local and contemporary life in general.
Hume was an atheist whereas Descartes believed in God. For Hume, facts of the world is meaningful when the ideas that constitute one's knowledge can be passed through Hume's fork and shown to be 'matters of fact', as opposed to 'relations of ideas'. At the same time, an understanding of the role of custom and habit reveals a truth about all knowledge – at best, knowledge is limited to causal probabilities, and human beings have no recourse to any necessary causal truths; indeed, despite your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, it might not. Descartes argued that to be human is to be a thinking thing, a mind, not a body. To be truly human is, moreover, to be the self-conscious “measure of all things” which means that I alone am both free and responsible to be my own intellectual authority on all matters.
Hume and Descartes agree on “the self”, both assuring that it is the beginning stage of philosophy. Both philosophers argued where human knowledge is derived from. They disagreed whether knowledge was based on reason or experience. Descartes was a rationalist. Descartes argues how can anyone be sure of something and that what we believe may not be entirely true or correct. He argues that the mind and body are two different aspects entirely, the mind is thinking and the body is extending and the two aspects are completely different....

... middle of paper ...

...ves that our senses will determine our existence, how does having the ability to see or touch determine that we currently exist without thinking about it? It is the mere fact that we have thought about how we can see and touch determines our existence, because we used our minds doubting our senses as proof.
I will also explain which of them is more relevant as a means to gain insight into local and contemporary life in general. The role of Professor McLaughlin's sceptic is to introduce certain 'sceptical hypotheses', hypotheses which imply the falsity of most of what we believe about the world. Professor McLaughlin asks whether these hypotheses are coherent and thus whether they can tell us anything about what are entitled to believe, or to claim to know. He concludes that, semantic externalism notwithstanding, these hypotheses are both coherent and threatening

Open Document