Aya Sleiman

202151249
Exam 2
Third Topic

The Philosophy of knowledge is a branch in philosophy revolving around the study of its

origin. The main argument that arises from skeptics and skepticism is: is it possible to attain

knowledge about the world? Two of the most famous philosophers take the quest in answering

the question and claiming they know how to answer what knowledge is the way people

understand it; Rene Descartes, who takes a rationalist approach, and David Hume, who takes and

empiricist approach. Although both philosophers have polarizing theories, and many differences

that overlap in their claims, they are shockingly similar as well. In this essay, I will attempt to

evaluate and analyze the empiricist approach and the rational approach, that heavily use skeptical

questions for their arguments, as well as compare their viewpoints on how humans seize to know

about the existence of reality.

In Descartes’ book “Meditations on First Philosophy”, he attempts to find out the origin

of knowledge. Taking a rationalist approach, he establishes knowledge and the existence of

reality based on science and facts, going through a procedure of doubt to filter out false beliefs.

Essentially, Descartes is looking for total certainty. He started with his argument from self-

deception, meaning our perceptions can deceive us. He stated, “from time to time I have found

that senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even

once.” (Rene Descartes, p. 241) What we take from that claim is that since there are many times

our senses have not been reliable, then we should dismiss it completely as rational data. Moving

on, he claimed that one’s imagination should not be trusted as well through his dream argument;
for humans can imagine wrong things. He gives an example of wax; once the wax melts we

know it is the same on, yet not through our senses. Not only that, but we cannot use our

imagination to know that it is wax, as there are endless possibilities. Thus, Descartes takes his

doubts and beliefs to uncover them as false and deceiving. Descartes eventually gets out of this

method of doubt to prove the rationality behind his existence. He then concludes that there must

be a different way in which we acquire knowledge, separate from senses, and that is our rationality,

and our thought. Thus, he proves a human’s existence, merely by the fact that if we acquire

thoughts, we exist. The theory of “I think, therefore I am” is backed up by recognizing two types of

existence: existence of the mind, and the existence of the body. He says in his second meditation

"But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly

deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as

much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am

something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this

proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my

mind." (Rene Descartes, p. 245) This further crystalizes what Descartes meant by two existences;

he can justify the existence of his mind, but not of his body and the surroundings. Therefore, he

strongly believed in the existence of the mind, and that it is only through rationality and logic do

we obtain knowledge about the objects surrounding us, and not through our senses nor

imagination.

Moving on to David Hume, in An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume

utilizes the idea of cause and effect, unlike Descartes’s theory of skepticism. He introduces the idea

that why we acquire knowledge in the things we do and the existence around us is because of one’s

experiences and ideas. In a way, he similarly uses senses to find the truth behind reality and
existence, like Descartes, but he employs it to such an extent that all knowledge in the mind comes

from experiences. He started by separating the definition and the reasons of causes, as relation of

ideas and a matter of fact, and how knowledge can be a result of either. To sbetter explain his

procedure of thought he gives the example that “heat and light are collateral effects of fire, and on

effect may justly be inferred from another” (David Hume, p. 296). What we conclude from that

statement is that what caused the action is due to the string of ideas one has rather than the

dependency for the characteristics the object holds. Hume does not admit to the ideology that

something can be a result of another, and believe that “causes and effects are discoverable, not by

reason, but by experience” (David Hume, p. 297). Hume believed that the brain is made up of two

impressions: original and secondary impressions. Original impression being those detected directly

through our senses, whereas secondary impressions are those that arise from ideas. He gives the

example of a stranded man finding a watch on an island. That man would conclude that there had

once been men o that island as well. Regardless of the origin of that impression, the foundation of

that conclusion and reasoning corresponds to the relation of cause and effect. Thus, we conclude

that all ideas in one’s mind is based on created impressions, which is also the needed connection

for the cause-and-effect relationship. Meaning, the connection from our ideas comes from existing

knowledge, and that “without the influence of custom, we should be entirely ignorant of every

matter of fact beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses.” Concluding, that

one uses his judgment as result of habit, rather than rational justification. For, "All inferences from

experience, therefore, are effects of custom, not of reasoning". (David Hume, p. 304); existence of

knowledge does not influence objects, but the mind.

After the analysis and explanation of both Descartes’s and Hume’s ideologies, we clearly

realize how Descartes takes a rationalist approach; claiming that the reality of existence of objects
and basic truths is due to rationality and reason not our experience. Although, he does not

completely undermine the effect of experience, but he claims that it cannot be a part of the

foundation of facts and science. On the other hand, it is clear how Hume takes an empiricist

approach, claiming that experience is the origin of knowledge. Despite these denoted differences,

the two philosophers do have similarities in their claims. For, they both claim the self as a

fundamental part for the existence of knowledge. They both take the self to reflect on their

philosophies. For, both philosophers were conscious and aware of the wants of the human mind.

In my opinion, Hume does a better job in explaining his ideology and beliefs. For,

Descartes often contradicted himself throughout his arguments. For example, he claims the

knowledge comes from rationality and the method of doubt, yet he can be seen trapped in his

argument in the second meditation. He says that senses must be discredited, but once he gave the

wax example, he knew it was a piece of wax due to his senses before it was melted. HE claims that

the mind sees an object and then assumes what it is based on our rationality, but yet he knew what

the piece of wax was based on his senses. Whereas, logically speaking, knowledge form cause and

effect is more practical, being that Hume did not believe our ideas are innate, unlike Descartes, but

are derived through senses and experiences.

Feinberg J., Shafer Landau R., REASON AND RESPONSIBILITY Readings in Some Basic

Problems of Philosophy, 2017 version

The readings used are the following:

DAVID HUME: An Inquiry Concerning Human understanding

RENE DESCARTES: Meditations on First Philosophy