The document discusses and compares the philosophical principles of Rene Descartes and David Hume. It summarizes Descartes' view that substances can exist independently without needing other things for support, and his argument that God's existence is necessary. It then discusses Hume's problem of induction, which argues that past experiences cannot logically justify beliefs about the future. The document analyzes how Descartes' view relies on God where Hume and Locke emphasize empirical evidence. It notes Hume's problem of induction poses difficulties for empiricist accounts of knowledge and cannot be fully justified through deductive or inductive means.

1. Running Head: DESCARTES AND HUME 1
Philosophy
Name:
Course title:
Instructor:
Institution:
Date Due:

2. DESCARTES AND HUME 2
Philosophical Principle of Descartes Rene and David Hume
There are many principles of knowledge that have been postulated by various theorists.
Among the notable ones are those of Discartes Rene and David Hume who provides
contradictory views on the concept of Knowledge.
For Descartes René, the distinction between the relations of the mind occurs between two
and more elements. He articulated a substance as something, which does not require any support
for its survival or approval. In his opinion, a substance can survive on its own without requiring
any evidence. In his book principle, part I, section 5, Descartes, argues that a substance exhibits a
mode quality, which has a capability to have affection. It is this quality of mode, which enables a
substance to survive on its own. Further, the substances mode exhibits sphere shaped tendencies.
Being sphere shaped means that the object portrays three dimensions to exist. The survival of a
substance therefore is not depended upon on other elements. Descartes postulated that God
created objects or substances to exist independently and not be dependent upon each other. It is
only God who is depended upon by other creatures to survive. This is a basis for his rationale of
the distinction of the mind and the body as well as the theory o knowledge (Veitch, 2005).
From his ontological perspective, Descartes appears to be a firm believer of God. He does
not fear to speak his mind concerning things that could only be possible through God. For
instance, he has talked about the essential truths and eternal life, which were established by God
the almighty. Further, Descartes is also noted to stand firm in this belief by asserting that there
are things, which humans distinctly and clearly assume to be possible. He goes on to claim that
that there are beings who only exists through possibilities. Descartes also perceives that the
almighty God can come with anything, which he distinctly and clearly perceives to be right.

3. DESCARTES AND HUME 3
In one of the replies to his colleagues, he says that human beings ought to differentiate
between the necessary and possible existence. I this sense, they must note that the possible
existence is construed on the notion of all the things, which humans distinctly and clearly
understand. This necessary existence according to Descartes can only be possible through the
idea of the existence of an invisible force.
In his relation with God, Descartes is popularly known for his triangle argument to
explain this God theory. In this perspective, he says that imagining that God does not exist is the
same way as trying to figure out a triangle, which has only two angles or a squire that is a
triangle, an aspect that is practically not possible. Descartes also argues that imagining that God
does not exist is the same way as figuring a mountain with no valley.
Descartes classifies some kind of ideas that are in his mind in an attempt to evaluate the
ones that are proper bearers of truth and those that are not. Some of these ideas include images of
objects, ideas, sky, God, volitions, judgments, and his emotions. In his own volition, Descartes
says that ideas cannot be false. He elaborates this by giving an example that whether he is
imagining a chimera, or goat, he is in both of these cases imagining these aspects. In the same
way, when one desires something which may not exist, he or she still desires them anyway
whether they are in existence of not. Hence, Descartes only worries in making wrongful
judgments. As he articulates, among a major mistake, which be located, includes his judgment
that the ideas that are in him conform or are similar to those elements that were outside him.
A correlation of Descartes Ideas with those of Locke
In essence, Descarte’s conception is a direct contradiction of Locke’s theory. This is
because while Descartes considers the possibility of God’s existence in explaining some things

4. DESCARTES AND HUME 4
that may not be easily perceived, Locker centers his believe on finding evidence to explain truth
or knowledge. In particular, Locke argues that human knowledge can only come from
experience. In addition, individuals are born with practically empty minds until they begin to
perceive the environment around them. In accordance to Locke, individuals are born with no
instinctive ideas and that the minds are subsequently filled as they acquire experience in their
lives.
In other words, all knowledge must be based on some kind of evidence. The primary
qualities of an object according to Locke are those that can be easily identified through
experience while the secondary qualities are those are not necessarily acquired through
experience but by way of education. Locke goes on to articulate that the original state of nature
could are featured by tolerance and reason.
In essence, Descarte’s argument could withstand those of Locke since there are many
things that cannot be perceived by a human being. In particular, it may be hard to explain most of
the things with disregard to the existence of the invisible being. Although Locke has relied on
empiricism to ascertain elements, there are many elements, which cannot be ascertained by use
of this method.
While pondering on Locker’s idea, we are forced to consider man as being a product of
the universe. This fact cannot be doubted and is certain for many people. However, it is also true
that individuals have capabilities of fabricating ideas and thoughts that are completely abstract
and fictitious. In light of this, we are forced to ask ourselves how man who is derived from the
universe that is non-fictional and concrete is able to fabricate fictional and abstract thoughts. It
therefore, becomes strange that a human mind, which is derived from the universe, is capable of

5. DESCARTES AND HUME 5
conceptualizing things that may appear unworkable. However, we might as well ask ourselves
other questions like why individuals have capabilities of thinking beyond factual things despite
the fact that they are indeed born out of the factual? In essence, this idea cannot be better
explained without reconsidering the existence of an unseen force. This basically means that the
Descartes idea may be better believed in comparison to Locke’s empiricism.
The Problem of Induction by David Hume
The problem of induction is a theory that was postulated by David Hume. Typically, the
theory centers on the validation or support of the inductive techniques that infer or predict.
According to Hume, instances where people did not harbor experience may be related to those
where people had experience. These techniques are particularly critical in scientific evaluation
and the operation of the day-to-day life. Hume’s theory could be interpreted as purporting to
portray that individuals opinions in regard to what they have not yet observed cannot be justified.
The author asserts that this obstacle cannot be remedied, irrespective of the number of
observations, which people might make; they could still not be entitled to any opinions in regard
to what they had not yet observed. In particular, Hume argues that individuals cannot be entitled
to any level of confidence, no matter how slight the predictions are in regard to what they have
not yet observed. For instance, there cannot be justification for having a 90% confidence that the
sun is likely to rise the next day, or more confidence that it will raise than it than that it will not
rise.
However, this theory is particularly problematic for empiricist accounts of knowledge
due to a number of factors. The problem with this theory is that we may not fully articulate
how to justify or support it and this in most cases leads to a dilemma. Moreover, there is no

6. DESCARTES AND HUME 6
deductive proof of applicability of this principle. This is because its necessary and contingent
truths could only be proved by deductive means. Moreover, this principle can neither be
supported inductively through assuming that the principle has usually and always been relied
upon in the past. Otherwise, this would beg the question of assuming of what has to be proved.
This principle therefore presents a serious problem in the sense that inductive methods
have not only multiplied but also fissured in recent perspective. This aspect has made the
definition of induction to be harder that rewarding.

7. DESCARTES AND HUME 7
Reference
Veitch, J (2005). Descartes Meditations. Available from
http://www.wright.edu/~charles.taylor/descartes/mede.html