Descartes's Argument Of Rationalism

Envision a world in which there was insufficient logical thought processes for the attainment of knowledge. For ages, humankind has struggled with the idea of how one obtains this knowledge, if for nothing more, than to learn efficiency in its acquisition. Without Descartes ' reasoned arguments of rationalism, Hume would not likely have been so inspired to formulate his counter argument of empiricist thought. Descartes defined his basic persona as a, "thinking being" more precisely; he stated famously, "I Think, therefore I am" (Dodson; Avery, 31). Hume acknowledged that rationalism is useful in certain contexts, and that it was an advancement of thought for its time. However, Hume disagreed with much of what Descartes taught, especially in …show more content…
One notes that after Descartes deconstructed his perceptions of the world down to its basic premise (thinking being), he surmised that because he still had an original thought of God 's existence, there must be a God. This leaves one with a serious question, did Descartes have his original thought of God through his own natural rationalization, or was this thought formed through the passing down of ideas, as Hume would argue. Hadn 't Descartes already heard of God through his own religious training that he undertook at a Jesuit school prior to his stripping his perceptions? Therefore, the notion of God existing, and placing the world into a logical harmony is incorrect under his own rationalization, because he has not truly stripped himself down to a mere thinking being. One could argue that Descartes was actually a stripped down thinking mind, with a preconceived notion of God. Intellectually, is it even possible to remove all of one 's preconceived notions, and truly become that, "thinking being" in the first place? According to what Hume taught, Descartes would have had this notion of deity because he had learned about God at the Jesuit school. So, if this conception of God was not an original thought by Descartes, as it certainly it may not have been; then the origin of Descartes ' theory comes into question. In other words, Descartes ' philosophical …show more content…
Hume seems to have argued correctly, when he states that Descartes ' rationality is useful in, "matters of fact," such as in Algebra or Geometry (Dodson; Avery, 42), but that true knowledge is gained through cause and effect. It is logical to think that true knowledge is not just the mere mechanics of a discipline, such as the rote application of math, but also of how people utilize mathematics in order create something of value. This application, according to Hume, is effectively the learned process of cause and effect. Hume does not argue that rationality does not have a useful function; he argues that rationality is not the origin of human knowledge. Therefore, empiricism is not a replacement of rationalism, but rather, an advancement of it. One can see the realities of knowledge in Hume 's notion of cause and effect, not as Descartes ' thinking being, but as a human learner who can see how a bridge might collapse, if past lessons are not applied to the