Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
In this paper, I will compare the arguments of Rene Descartes and David Hume about the nature of knowledge while arguing that it is specifically the argumentative stance of the latter, which should be given most credits.
Probably the main discursive aspect of Descartes view on the nature of knowledge is that, according to the philosopher, it is indeed possible for a person to attain a thoroughly adequate understanding of the surrounding realitys workings at least in theory. The reason for this is that there are many axiomatic qualities to the relationship between such reality and a thinking individual within it. This, in turn, presupposes the full objectiveness of ones existence. As Descartes pointed out: 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 (17). The philosopher used to promote the idea that knowledge is, in fact, something that derives out of ones analytical ability to process informational inputs, which come in the form of different experiences. Therefore, according to him, deduction indeed represents a thoroughly legitimate gnoseological instrument.
The epistemological stance of David Hume, in this respect, could not be more different. Being a committed empiricist, Hume strived for nothing less than undermining the scientific validity of the metaphysical paradigm in philosophy.
Humes understanding of the objective reality implies the absence of substance, within the framework of ones rationale-based reasoning. The logic behind this is concerned with the idea that there is a deep-seated fallacy to the very methodology of deductive reasoning; as such that reflects the mechanics of ones rationalist mindset. As he noted: If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion (Hume 32).
We are all aware of how an apple tastes, for example. However, within the context of Humes philosophy, our assumption that apples will taste the same, regardless of how many times we savor them, constitutes a logical fallacy, as there is absolutely no objective reason as to why apples should not taste like roast beef, on a millionth and one time we try them. Hence, Humes suggestion that the method of inductive/deductive inquiry cannot be deemed fully appropriate all because it presupposes the axiomatic irreversibility of the manner in which causes and effects interrelate. According to the philosopher, however, this presupposition is essentially observational and as such, it cannot contain any in-depth insights into the subject matter in question, by definition.
As can be seen above, the views of Descartes and Hume on the nature of knowledge are rather incompatible. Whereas the former believed that information (knowledge) exists independently of peoples cognitive domain, the latter never ceased arguing that this could not possibly be the case, because even the most abstract types of knowledge are impressionable to an extent, and therefore subjective.
I personally find Humes line of argumentation, in this respect, much more convincing. The reason for this is that the Cartesian gnoseology refers to God, as the main force that ensures the continued stability of the universe, which in turn puts us in the position of being able to learn its laws. However, it never occurred to Descartes that the very notion of divine omnipotence presupposes the impossibility for the universe to function in the way to which we are accustomed. The reason for this is simple if God did, in fact, create the universe, it would have been reflective of his miraculous ways. That is, it would have been possible for the material objects in this world to be simultaneously both: existent and non-existent. It would also be possible to reverse the effects of the laws of nature on the surrounding environment. However, as we are well aware of, such possibilities simply do not exist.
Another weakness of Descartes argumentative positioning, in regards to the issue of gnoseology, is that according to the philosopher, a persons ability to operate with abstract categories is metaphysical to a degree, in the sense that ones consciousness can exist independently of his or her body. In light of the recent discoveries in the field of biology/neurology, however, such a claim will appear highly disputable.
Hume, on the other hand, was able to reveal that even the most axiomatic sounding abstractions (such as math formulas, for example) strongly connect with peoples sensual sphere. He desacralized cognitive processes inside of ones mind, by exposing them to be the extrapolations of his or her atavistic agenda. By doing it, Hume proved himself to be much ahead of his time, in the intellectual sense of this word. After all, his theory of knowledge can be discussed as the actual precursor of epistemological relativism a philosophical trend that nowadays continues to become increasingly popular in the West.
Even though Humes epistemological stance may appear overly defeatist, it is nevertheless strongly humanistic. The reason for this is apparent according to the philosopher, no one is in the position to claim that there are pure and tainted types of knowledge. All that we know about the surrounding world and our place in it is subjective in one way or another. Consequently, this presupposes the sheer inappropriateness of assuming that knowledge has the value of thing in itself, which can be recognized outside of the affiliated societal circumstances the idea that resonates perfectly well with what the recent discoveries in the sociological domain.
This, however, does not mean that Descartes argument about what is knowledge should be brushed aside. After all, even though it revolves around the notion of God, this argument is concerned with addressing the issue of human imperfection, as something predetermined by the impersonal laws of nature. Because of this, the philosophers views continue to be appreciated by contemporaries.
Works Cited
Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Print.
Hume, David 2010, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. PDF file. 2016. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.