Rene Descartes and David Hume touched upon epistemology on the same inquiry. “where does human knowledge come from? ” They both came to really different decisions. Descartes claimed that our cognition came from human concluding entirely and this is an absolute certainty rule. This module of logical thinking is unconditioned tool that came with human species. He called this tool. “mind. ” which is separated from our organic structure. Hume on the other manus. claimed that human learned from detecting the empirical universe. and linking thoughts utilizing. “cause and consequence.
Rene Descartes realized that many of the things that he hold accepted as the truth was false sentiments. and consequentially the rules that were built upon them. He wanted to get down anew by attempt to happen out “the truth” . and so construct upon that. because the foundation of scientific discipline requires absolute certainty. In his effort to happen “the truth. ” he started to knock all of the things he had officially believed: using the method of uncertainties. and so take from the foundation what he found to be doubtable or deducible.
He did this as he believed as his uncertainty addition. certainty lessening and frailty versa. By the terminal of Meditation I. he was in a province called “Abyss. ” where he was disbelieving of all things and decided that the empirical universe was presented to him by an evil devil He so reasoned that for him to be deceived by the devil. he must be as something. a head or a intelligent thing After saying that his head is the exclusive certain thing. he used wax to exemplify that human can non accomplish cognition through sense. or imaginativeness entirely.
He stated that merely from detecting a piece of already melted wax. he would non be able to place it as the same piece of wax he had seen earlier in its former signifier. if he had non been witnessing the thaw procedure. So. sense entirely is non the beginning of cognition. If he so removed every qualities that a piece of wax can be without. what remain is “something extended. flexible and movable. ” From this account. a piece of wax could take any forms and volume. which would non assist him at all in placing the nature of this piece of wax.
Therefore. imaginativeness entirely besides could non be the beginning of human cognition. He concluded that the nature of a piece wax can merely be perceived through the review of the head ( pure ground ) as the other two. sense and imaginativeness. were ruled out. Therefore. cognition is a priori. and Descartes was a Rationalist. However. how could Descartes deny sense informations wholly. if he had to get the visual aspect of a piece of wax or the cognition of its nature through sense informations in the first case ( before it was melted ) .
So he started the wax statement by beliing himself by explicating to us what he sensed of a piece of wax. His answer was that an ordinary linguistic communication about every bit good led him to an mistake that he saw the wax ( from sense informations ) . but in the world his module of head interpreted the visual aspect in forepart of him to be a wax. Another of my expostulation to his statement is why making a new thing. a module of head. instate of uniting what he already mentioned and known. which are sense and imaginativeness.
In ulterior Meditation. He besides use a round statement to turn out the certainty of his logical thinking and head. as he prove God to guarantee that his logical thinking is non fooled by the devil. but we can non bury that he used his ground to turn out God in the first topographic point. His despair to turn out God. and separation of head and organic structure might be due to the fact that he wanted to function both of his passions ; scientific discipline and faith. He might be bias in this sense as he doubted until he found desire he wanted to seek. David Hume attempted to turn out that human cognition comes from the empirical informations and experience.
He started by clearly distinguished between “impression” and “thought and idea” to exemplify that human applies our originative abilities. such as combine. transpose. enlarge and psychiatrist. on our feeling to bring forth ideas and thoughts. He gave two statements for this place. The first 1 is human’s thoughts and constructs are ever complex mixture of simple thoughts which are transcripts of the human’s esthesis of the empirical universe. The 2nd statement is if a adult male hasn’t had any experience with a certain object. he would non hold any thoughts associate with that object.
He challenged oppositionists to turn out him otherwise. by giving him an illustration of idea and thought that is built upon something that had non been seen or heard of earlier. However. Hume. himself. gave one illustration that answered to his challenge which was “a losing shadiness of blue. ” A adult male would be able to indentify that a shadiness of losing colour from a colour graduated table. even though he hasn’t seen that shadiness before. Hume stated this illustration is so remarkable. it is non deserving sing.
Hume so distinguished between two object of human cognition ; dealingss of thought. which are thing which if were denied would be a contradiction to itself. and affair of fact which its contradiction would still be possible. Hume’s involvement was on the ulterior 1 as he thought the first 1 was simply a definition or a logical statement. He claimed that the connexion between our thoughts is cause and consequence. For person to believe that a individual can submerge in H2O ( consequence ) . he must had before witnessed a submerging incident or had firsthand experience ( cause ) .
For Hume this connexion can non be known by a priori logical thinking but ever come from experience. Therefore. this is a posteriori. However. he was convinced that cause and consequence is simply a merchandise of usage and wont. We experience it so many times that we generalise our hereafter on our yesteryear. with no certain land that it will go on to be like the yesteryear. This suggests that human cognition is contingent. Hume could non come up with more certain account or measure between cause and consequence. but he convinced that it was at that place. Most Descartes was a positivist.
His work shows that cognition can merely be derived from pure concluding through unconditioned ability or the module of head. which is certain and proven in Meditation II. He separated this from the organic structure. This leads to a belief that homo is more particular. as our head has an ability to supply superior concluding with give us knowledge. This was in line with Christian belief that work forces are created in God’s image. which makes us particular. By following his position. we as a species can rest assures that we are rational being who separated from the remainder.
Hume argued that our cognition which comprised of affair of fact is based on experience. which human connect it utilizing cause and consequence. Cause and consequence is simply human’s usage and wont. This makes human no more particular than any other species in geting cognition. He besides implied that human knowledge apart from the relation of thought is contingent. If one has adopted Hume so purely. one would abandon any cognition that is non base on mathematic or experience such as metaphysic. Why believe or study it. if it base on something that is contingent. and can non be proven in any sense.