Reasoning for Reason
Rene Descartes and David Hume are both philosophers and their various works have had an impact in the world of philosophy. In this paper, I will argue that Hume’s position on reason is better than Descartes’ because it makes more sense logically whereas Descartes’ position is based on something that cannot be scientifically proven.
In Descartes’ opinion, everything you believe should be based on a solid, rational foundation. He explains that he, “had to raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundations” (AT 7:17) to fulfill his belief. In order to test his belief, Descartes says he will not “survey each opinion individually” (AT 7:18) in order to make sure that he would not get any false outcomes. Descartes determines that his senses …show more content…
To me, Hume’s argument is more suited to anybody whereas Descartes argument is aimed at a certain audience. What I mean by a certain audience is that since Descartes believes in God and makes many references to God. Someone who does not believe in God might have trouble agreeing with his argument whereas a Christian might be more willing to accept it since they accept God as existing. Since Hume’s position is more suited to anybody regardless of religion, more people might be more willing to agree with him. Another reason why I think that Hume’s argument is better because I think that trusting our experiences and our natural instinct are better ways to make judgments rather than just to trust our senses like Descartes believes. I believe this because your senses are important and can tell you all about what is happening at that moment, but your past experiences are what you use to decide how to react and make a decision. Your senses cannot tell you how to react, they can only be used as evidence or reason as to why you make a certain judgment because your senses themselves do not contain knowledge of your past
Rene Descartes and David Hume are both philosophers and their various works have had an impact in the world of philosophy. In this paper, I will argue that Hume’s position on reason is better than Descartes’ because it makes more sense logically whereas Descartes’ position is based on something that cannot be scientifically proven.
In Descartes’ opinion, everything you believe should be based on a solid, rational foundation. He explains that he, “had to raze everything to the ground and begin again from the original foundations” (AT 7:17) to fulfill his belief. In order to test his belief, Descartes says he will not “survey each opinion individually” (AT 7:18) in order to make sure that he would not get any false outcomes. Descartes determines that his senses …show more content…
To me, Hume’s argument is more suited to anybody whereas Descartes argument is aimed at a certain audience. What I mean by a certain audience is that since Descartes believes in God and makes many references to God. Someone who does not believe in God might have trouble agreeing with his argument whereas a Christian might be more willing to accept it since they accept God as existing. Since Hume’s position is more suited to anybody regardless of religion, more people might be more willing to agree with him. Another reason why I think that Hume’s argument is better because I think that trusting our experiences and our natural instinct are better ways to make judgments rather than just to trust our senses like Descartes believes. I believe this because your senses are important and can tell you all about what is happening at that moment, but your past experiences are what you use to decide how to react and make a decision. Your senses cannot tell you how to react, they can only be used as evidence or reason as to why you make a certain judgment because your senses themselves do not contain knowledge of your past