Descartes vs. Hume: A Philosophical Comparison
Let’s compare Descartes to Hume and later the rationalist authors. Hume was an empiricist. Empiricism, like rationalism, focuses on knowledge, sharing a concern for the epistemological and how we know (the reason for rationalism and empiricism of sensitive data), as well as materials that are factual knowledge. The main representatives of empiricism were Locke, Berkeley, and Hume in the English Enlightenment. The main representatives of rationalism were Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, and Malebranche.
Descartes’ Theory of Ideas
First, the contrast to make is based on the concepts of understanding, imagination, and ideas. Descartes, in his Meditations, said among many other approaches, that ideas can be classified into three types:
- Innate ideas (born with me)
- Adventitious ideas (strange or foreign to me)
- Fictional ideas (created by me)
These views lead him to propose that innate ideas exist within the subject. An objective reality of ideas, such as God, is not of ourselves and not the product of those images or ideas alien to our spirit, concluding that we are not alone in the world. Thus, he proves the existence of God as immutable, eternal, and omnipresent. We exist because of God, according to Descartes, for if we had created ourselves, we would have eliminated any serious human deficiency, automatically transforming into God. The conception of the idea of God is not capable of being produced by ourselves for two reasons: firstly, because it is an objective idea beyond human limitations, and secondly, because we have no ability to increase or decrease that possibility; that is, the idea of God. The look on dubious metaphysical and philosophical paradigms of Descartes’ contemporaries concludes that the understanding of an idea is not equal to its imagination, since the first is the inspection of the spirit itself, and the body is the product of imagination and deception of the senses (evil genius). In other words, the world of ideas is strictly related to the soul, and later, Hume will demolish it with his corner of history.
Modern Relevance of Descartes’ Arguments
Regarding the valuation of the current application, we can start by pointing out that in current Western societies, which are secular, religion has lost much of its social importance. Therefore, the demonstration of the existence of God is not currently an important topic in philosophy. But this does not signify that belief in God has been abandoned, but only that it has been displaced by other issues as the central problem of philosophical reflection. Modern science has also abandoned the hypothesis of God and is primarily concentrated on technical aspects of how to apply our conditions to improve life skills and explain natural phenomena by purely natural causes. But this does not mean that at a given time, one cannot postulate the existence of God. The mechanistic conception of the universe uses mathematics (coordinates) to apply mathematical knowledge.
Hume’s Empiricism and Critique of Descartes
Descartes and Hume are distinctly defined, as in the first instance, before the concept of an idea, there are impressions, presentations, and current experiences: what we hear, feel, desire, etc. This concept will lead to the idea as a representation of an impression or feeling, and this impression is necessarily coeval with existence; that is, it must be current. In this way, each idea must necessarily come from an impression. To feel or want is equal to an impression; an impression, in turn, is equal to an idea; an impression, in turn, is equal to reality. There is no reality or existence that does not follow this natural course. Here lies one of the many differences between the two philosophical expositions.
If there are no impressions that constitute a certain idea, then the concept, for Hume, is defined as fictitious. This is similar to Descartes’ concept of imagination but is clearly used with different, opposing shades. The self, on the other hand, is only a fictitious idea attributed to an erratic set of impressions and ideas. From this, we get the name “self”; that is, I am a set of experiences, impressions, and ideas, which are defined as mine but do not distinguish the self. Causality is somewhat similar in Hume’s models, defining it as associations that are coupled when they are similar. In even simpler terms, an idea arises, and then another follows by succession. Hume criticizes the precept of innate ideas, stating that man is like a blank piece of paper whose contents are filled with impressions. In moments of greatest distress, belief is used, as opposed to the metaphysics of Descartes on the existence of God. I do not exist; there is no God, only experiences, impressions, and ideas, reaching the peak in contrast, if searched.
Substance: Descartes vs. Hume
Another controversial concept is substance. The res extensa (matter) in Cartesian philosophy is defined as existing and completely due to factors not needing anything outside itself to exist. Moreover, God would, in this case, be an infinite substance because other people need him, becoming his extension. Animals, as finite substances, would not need to be anything more than God. The soul is thought and understanding, and the body is extension. These correspond to an attribute of each substance, an essence, which distinguishes them clearly and distinctly. Dualism in Cartesian philosophy is certainly a strong feature. The soul and body do not need each other to exist as substances. Here, Hume shatters the Cartesian concept, expressing in his proposals that substance does not have any impression, hence no idea. Substance is just a set of individual perceptions, the product of custom. The usual concept for Hume is crucial in the development of his philosophy, being the guide in human life, indicating the belief that the repetition of a past event will occur.
Rationalist Alternatives to Descartes
Compared with the rationalist authors, Descartes solves the problem of the soul-body relationship. Other authors contribute within the rationalist proposals. Malebranche argues that universal ideas come from God because there is a connection between the independent substance but related to body and soul. Spinoza argues that soul and body are one and that God is the only substance, nature being a manifestation of God himself. Leibniz says that every body is formed by simple substances he calls monads and does not support mechanism because monads do not act on each other.