Zaffar+Ahmed+Shaikh

= **Compare and Contrast the epistemological and ontological arguments of Descartes and Hume** =

In an effort to gain knowledge, the epistemological philosophy of Rene Descartes tends towards Rationalism and David Hume’s towards Empiricism. Rationalists and empiricists do not agree on which of the two, “reason” or “sensory experience” is fundamental. Rationalists claim that knowledge comes from reason, that knowledge is “a priori”, that comes before experience; while empiricists claim that knowledge is “a posteriori”, that comes after experience. Rationalism believes that knowledge not only includes geometry, mathematics, but also substance, and God. It argues that experience cannot provide a stable foundation for the sciences. Descartes approach for knowledge is based on absolute certainty. To his view, something can be known to us only when it is reliably true. While Hume reject ideas like substance and God because they do not derive from our experience of the world. In short, empiricism is hostile towards metaphysics, while rationalism heavily relies on it. The only point at which both rationalists and empiricists agree that self is the starting point for philosophical reflection. Rationalists argue that the content of knowledge sometimes exceeds from the information gained through sense experience, in this case, only reason provides that additional information about the world. In reply to rationalists’ arguments, the empiricists’ accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists’ cite or opt for skepticism that we do not have such knowledge at all.

**//Epistemology of Descartes and Hume// **
Rene Descartes had a different point of view regarding knowledge that of Hume’s. He was conceived that man has ultimate knowledge of his own existence because he is a thinking being “cogito ergo sum”, that means that “I think, therefore I am”. For this, he attempted to doubt all his previous beliefs/opinions in order to discover there are any that he cannot possibly doubt. The reasons he doubted beliefs were: the senses are sometimes deceptive, duplicate-able in vivid dreams, and God allows human beings to go wrong. On the other hand, Hume divides sense experiences between impressions and ideas. Impressions, the sensations and passions of a human being, are more powerful than ideas, the “faint images of these in thinking and reasoning” (Treatise, p. 1). Hume also holds that reason must be based on common sense beliefs (he is also called the philosopher of common sense), if not, it must explain why the conclusion does not comply with it.

//**An ontological argument for the existence of God**//
Descartes attempted to address the issue of existence of God via his method of doubt, the epistemological ground-zero to find truth. Here he finds God something that lies beyond all doubt. Since, he was certain about his existence (as he thinks), hence, he proceeds to demonstrate God’s existence, and that God cannot be a deceiver. Therefore, anything that is clear and distinct can be understood at certainty, and provides the epistemological foundations. While David Hume, offered an empirical objection, criticizing its lack of evidential reasoning and rejecting the idea that anything can exist necessarily. Descartes argued that the concept of God, the supremely perfect being, holds all perfections, hence, existence is perfection: it would be more perfect to exist than not to exist. Thus, if God does not exist, it lacks perfection. On the other hand, if God, who is supremely perfect, does not exist, is unintelligible. Therefore God must exist. Hume argued that nothing can be proven to exist using only a priori reasoning. He says that it cannot be claimed that the idea of God implies his existence. From this, we can conceive both the existence and non-existence of God, as the existence is not a quality of perfection, so the concept of a completely perfect being need not exist. Therefore, he claims that the existence of God can be denied.