Epistemic Dilemma: Hume Versus Descartes Essay

While Descartes believes that friendship back tooth be gained by primer alone, Humes empiricist philosophy suggests that we can single gain knowledge from the experiences of perceptions, which he called Impressions. Rationalists use skepticism to consider the most clear and distinct truths and urinate their foundations from there. Ultimately, Descartes states there are 3 substances that exist- God, learning ability and body. From doubt and confusion, Descartes finds clarity.Empiricists on the other hand, withstand rationalism suggesting knowledge that can non be traced back to an impression from the right(prenominal) world does not have both meaning. Hume also believes that there is no spring in the world, therefore we can never gain knowledge from events that we have witnessed in the past or the future. Unlike Descartes, how starts in skepticism and ends in clarity, Hume starts with a laborious view of how our minds collect raw sense data and ends in skepticism. I pre sent that Humes philosophy is more than functional because it relies on the senses.Both philosophies were born from the get up of the Scientific Revolution. According to Descartes, to gain avowedly knowledge, you essential first doubt everything. When you touch on the point at which you cannot doubt anymore, you give the foundation of knowledge. When you doubt everything, you realize that the only thing you cannot doubt is that you are a doubting thing therefore you must exist in some way.From there, you can reason that there is a more perfect be that exists because you are not perfect if you doubt, and you have an idea what a perfect being is. This perfect being is God. God is also a proper being becauseDescartes calls these truths, these clear and distinct perceptions. From reason alone, we can affirm the existence of God, musical theme and the Body.