How Did Hume Develop Our Knowledge

512 Words2 Pages

Descartes and Hume were both extremely famous philosophers. As well as having similarities, they also have an abundance of differences. Both doubted the sources of human knowledge, however their views still differed immensely. Hume did not agree with a lot of what Descartes believed in. Descartes believes that we are thinking beings, meaning thoughts are always running through our head and we always find a way to express them. He said that the ideas we accept come to be through whatever the mind sees or whatever thoughts pass through it. For example, if you see a dog barking at you, then that becomes an idea that your mind absorbs. That’s why so many people had the idea of God being real existing in their minds because they heard about it in church and read it in the Bible. He believes …show more content…

You had to be one hundred percent certain on something to consider it knowledge. He didn’t agree with the questionable ideas of chance. Hume relies more on the seven philosophical relations when it comes to our knowledge and the ideas that we have. Hume believes that we believe God to exist because we go to church and are taught his ideas and life through the Bible. Because he existed there, he must still exist now. Unlike Descartes who believes the existence of God reflects our knowledge, Hume thinks God has nothing to do with our knowledge. The seven philosophical reasons do not allow knowledge of the outside world to be considered, and in this case God would be considered the outside world. He exists in a world besides the ideas the flow through our head. Sure, we can have knowledge in the sense that we believe God exists, however there is absolutely no proof of God’s actual existence. We can’t force someone to believe in something based on the ideas and thoughts we have running through our minds. He also believed that just because something happened in the past, there is no chance that the same result will ever happen

Show More
Related

  • Comparing Knowledge in Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy and Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning

    860 Words  | 2 Pages

    Comparing Knowledge in Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy and Hume’s An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,

    Read More

  • Exploring Berkeley's Epistemological Argument

    689 Words  | 2 Pages

    However, reviewing Berkeley’s ideals on the matter, Hume seems to have more of an epistemological standpoint. Hume believes that everything that we have knowledge of is because of past experience. Everything that we know up to this point is because we have observed and learned from the past. Although everything is also the way it is because of naturalism and causation, every cause and effect that has taken place in history has been interfered with by humans and their knowledge. Berkeley believes that the world is as we perceive it to be, as does Hume. For people to believe the world to be a certain way must come from a certain ideal that we have in mind to be true. In other words, we have an idea of what the world should look like now and what it may look like in the future based off of what the past has looked like and what it is

    Read More

  • Reasoning within Animals

    1069 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Humes' and Descartes' Position on the Existence of the External World

    1321 Words  | 3 Pages

    middle of paper ... ... The operations of our own mind have created this idea of God, which rebuts Descartes’ argument that we have knowledge of the external world because of God. Descartes would argue that Humes’ idea of God is natural and never derived from impressions. Hume’ consequently has the better argument, claiming that the idea of God is actually based on ideas of perfection and infinity is inferred from the ideas of imperfection and finitude.

    Read More

  • Psychological Continuity Theory: The Persistence Of A Personal Identity

    1013 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • David Hume: Compatibilism And Hume

    1937 Words  | 4 Pages

    In this section, Hume begins by categorizing knowledge into types: relations of ideas and matters of fact. Relations of ideas are knowable a priori and negating such a statement would lead to a contradiction, and matters of fact are knowable a posteriori, or through experience, and the negation would not be a contradiction. While relations of ideas are generally used in mathematics, matters of fact are significant in determining how one experiences the world; the beliefs an individual has are formed through his experience, thus making cognition a matter of fact.... ... middle of paper ...

    Read More

  • David Hume And Spinoza

    1816 Words  | 4 Pages

    David Hume in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Benedict De Spinoza in The Ethics run noteworthy parallels in about metaphysics and human nature. Spinoza and Hume share opinions of apriori knowledge and free will. For human nature, similar concepts of the imagination and morality arise. Although both philosophers derive similar conclusions in their philosophy, they could not be further distanced from one another in their concepts of God. Regarded as an atheist, Spinoza argues that God is the simple substance which composes everything and that nothing is outside of this simple substance. Hume rejects this notion completely and claims that nothing in the world can give us a clear picture of God. Hume rejects the argument from design

    Read More

  • Hume's Ideas on Cause and Effect

    684 Words  | 2 Pages

    Cause and effect is a tool used to link happenings together and create some sort of explanation. Hume lists the “three principles of connexion among ideas” to show the different ways ideas can be associated with one another (14). The principles are resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect. The focus of much of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding falls upon the third listed principle. In Section I, Hume emphasizes the need to uncover the truths about the human mind, even though the process may be strenuous and fatiguing. While the principle of cause and effect is something utilized so often, Hume claims that what we conclude through this process cannot be attributed to reason or understanding and instead must be attributed to custom of habit.

    Read More

  • Weaknesses of Descartes' Arguments

    1636 Words  | 4 Pages

    Descartes was incorrect and made mistakes in his philosophical analysis concerning understanding the Soul and the foundation of knowledge.  Yes, he coined the famous phrase, “I think therefore I am,” but the rest of his philosophical conclusions fail to be as solid (Meditation 4; 32). Descartes knew that if he has a mind and is thinking thoughts then he must be something that has the ability to think. While he did prove that he is a thinking thing that thinks (Meditation 3; 28), he was unable to formulate correct and true philosophical arguments and claims.  For instance, his argument for faith that a non-deceiving God exists and allows us to clearly reason and perceive was a circular argument.  Another issue with Descartes' philosophy is that he wanted to reconcile scientific and religious views, which is wrong since the two maintain completely different foundational beliefs and they should exist exclusively- without relation to the other.  Thirdly, he believed that the mind was the Self and the Soul, failing to recognize that humans have bodies and the outside world exists, and through which we gain our knowledgeable. Lastly, Descartes argues that ideas are all innate while they actually are not- we gain knowledge through experience.

    Read More

  • Innate Ideas

    641 Words  | 2 Pages

    In conclusion, these two philosophers have different ideas on where innate ideas come from. What are we suppose to believe? Descartes theory that innate ideas come from God, and that God instills these ideas on us at birth. Also, do we think that the idea of God is an innate idea? Or do we take Locke's theory that you aren't born with the idea it's received through your senses and experiences? Your mind furnishes these ideas. I would like to think we weren't all idiots and weren't a blank tablet, but only time will tell. These two extremely different ideas show that this argument is far from over, and maybe Descartes and Locke now know the truth resting in their graves.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Descartes And Hume

    1247 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Descartes On The Theory Of Mind And Body

    838 Words  | 2 Pages

    “Relations of ideas are indestructible bonds created between ideas and all logically true statements and matters of fact are concerned with experience and we are certain of matters of fact through cause and effect“(Hume Section IV). This proves that the both the mind and body are one because of the cause and effect. He believes that there are connections between all ideas in the mind, and that there are three different kinds. The first is resemblance that describes looking at a picture then thinking of what it represents in the picture. Then there is contiguity looking at something then thinking of about something different. Then there is the cause and effect of something happening to you and then to imagine the pain of the wound. Once again beginning able to look at something and then create an idea from it only proves that without senses we couldn’t just come up with an idea out of the blue.

    Read More

  • Kant Answer Hume On Causality

    1060 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hume states that in nature we observe correlated events that are both regular and irregular. For instance, we assume that the sun will rise tomorrow because it has continued to do so time and time again and we assume that thunder will be accompanied by lightning for the same reason. We never observe the causation between a new day and the sun rising or between thunder and lightning, however. We are simply observing two events that correlate in a regular manner. Hume’s skepticism therefore comes from the belief that since we do not observe causal links, we can never truly be sure about what causes anything else. He then goes so far as to say that if this is the case, it must be a fact that nothing causes anything else. In Hume’s theory, there is not only no objective causation, but no objective principle of cause and effect on the whole.

    Read More

  • David Hume's Theory of Knowledge

    1350 Words  | 3 Pages

    Empiricism (en- peiran; to try something for yourself): The doctrine that all knowledge must come through the senses; there are no innate ideas born within us that only require to be remembered (ie, Plato). All knowledge is reducible to sensation, that is, our concepts are only sense images. In short, there is no knowledge other than that obtained by sense observation.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Descartes And Locke

    1019 Words  | 3 Pages

    Descartes defines knowledge as doubt and uncertainty. He describes that our main source of knowledge is our sense perception.

    Read More

More about How Did Hume Develop Our Knowledge

Open Document