This is an essay I wrote during my sophomore year of college. It's for my Introduction to Philosophy class. It's a redo assignment, which discusses Hume's and Descartes' skeptical views.

1. Emilio Solomon
April 6, 2014
2.
David Hume, as an empiricist, was skeptical that knowledge can be derived through reason.
Hume argued against reason, stating that knowledge can be derived from empirical data. In
“Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,” Hume used different concepts to emphasize his
argument. For example, Hume used his concept of ideas and impressions. Hume stated that our
ideas are based upon our impressions. “All our ideas or more feeble perceptions are copies of
our impressions or more lively ones.” Hume also used his concept of the association of ideas.
Hume argued that our ideas can be associated through resemblance, contiguity (in time and
space), and cause or effect. Hume also argued that all causes and effects are based upon a
posteriori knowledge; knowledge that requires experience, not a priori knowledge.
Unfortunately, Hume had doubts about the previous claims he made. Hume doubted that all
our ideas are based upon our impressions. Hume argued that our simple ideas are not always in
every instance, derived from corresponding impressions. Hume used his example of the
‘missing shade of blue’ to emphasize his argument. Hume stated that a person who has an idea
of all shades of blue, except for one shade can still notice that there is a missing shade of blue.
Hume seems to suggest that we can use reason to notice that there is a missing shade of blue.
Hume also doubted that we can use the association of ideas for matters of fact. Hume argued
that our matters of fact does not rely on our association of ideas. Hume used his example of the
“sun” to emphasize his argument. Hume stated that we do not need to associate our ideas to
know whether the “sun will not rise tomorrow.” Hume seems to suggest that we can use
reason to know whether the “sun will not rise tomorrow.” Finally, Hume doubts that all causes
and effects are based a posteriori knowledge, and not a priori knowledge. He uses the billiard
balls as an example. Hume stated that when a billiard ball hits another ball, the other ball will
move, making it a priori. Hume seems to suggest that we can use reason to know that the ball
will move.
Because of his doubts, Hume attempted to resolve his skepticismthrough induction, by
assuming that our knowledge is based upon empirical data. Hume argued that all our
reasonings about causes and effects are based upon experience. “What is the foundation of all
our reasonings about cause and effect?” “We can answer in one word, experience.” Hume also
argued that causes and effects cannot be associated with other causes and effects. Hume uses
the bread example to emphasize his argument. Hume stated that an experience of eating a
certain bread at one time does not entail a similar experience of eating a certain bread at other

2. times. Similarly, Hume also uses the coal example to emphasize his argument. Hume stated that
fire consumes coal does not entail that other fires would consume coal at other times. Hume
suggests that we need to rely on experience in order to understand other causes and effects.
Despite his attempt to resolve his skepticism, his method of induction is simply a problem.
Hume does not show any proof of sameness or coherence, especially in his arguments on
causes and effects.
Unlike David Hume, Rene Descartes, as a rationalist, was skeptical about his existence. Unlike
Hume, Descartes initially had doubts. In “Meditation I,” Descartes doubted the senses, stating
that our senses can mislead us. “I observed, however, that these sometimes misled us’ and it is
the part of prudence not to place absolute confidence in that by which we have even once been
deceived." Descartes, then doubted the dreams, stating that our dreams are real and not
imaginary. “…therefore, that those general objects, at all events, namely, eyes, a head, hands,
and an entire body, are not simply imaginary, but really existent.” Descartes then doubted God,
questioning whether he exists or not. “How then do I know that he has not arranged that there
should be neither earth, nor sky, nor any extended thing, nor figure, nor magnitude, nor place,
providing at the same time.” Descartes then doubted the evil demon, stating the demon is
trying to deceive him. “I will suppose, then, not that Deity, who is sovereignly good and the
fountain of truth, but that some malignant demon, who is at once exceedingly potent and
deceitful, has employed all his artifice to deceive me.”
Because of his doubts, Descartes attempted to resolve his skepticismthrough the method of
doubt. For example, in “Mediation II”, Descartes asked, “Am I, then, at least not something?”
Descartes also asked “Am I dependent on the body and the senses that without these I cannot
exist?” Through his questions, Descartes became certain that he exist. In other words,
Descartes was persuaded by his questions. He concluded by saying, “I am, I exist” “I think,
therefore I exist” and “I am a thinking, thing.” Descartes also attempted to resolve his
skepticismthrough analysis. Descartes analyzed his concept of substance dualism that we
humans, consist of a body and soul. He argued that in order to have perceptions, we need to
exist as a body and soul. Descartes also analyzed his ‘wax example.’ In his wax example,
Descartes argued that our perceptions are not based upon our senses, but our intuitions.
Although Descartes attempts to resolve his skepticismthrough the method of doubt, Descartes’
method of doubt is simply a form of circular reasoning. If we were to take the phrase, “I think,
therefore I exist” and negate it to “I don’t think, therefore I don’t exist,” the latter phrase would
simply not make any sense. Our thoughts presupposes our existence, meaning we would have
to exist, in order to think. Also, Descartes’ analysis of substance dualismis simply debatable,
since it suggests that both our body and soul exists in time and space. However, our soul is
intangible.

3. In general, both Hume’s skepticismand Descartes’ skepticismposes serious implications.
Adopting either Hume’s skepticismor Descartes’ skepticismwould lead to serious metaphysical
implications. By adopting Hume’s skepticismor Descartes’ skepticism, we would be challenging
natural phenomena. Adopting either Hume’s skepticismor Descartes’ skepticismwould also
lead to serious implications in religion. By adopting David Hume’s skepticismand Descartes’
skepticism, we would be challenging religion. Religions such as Christianity, emphasize the
importance of one’s existence. Adopting either Hume’s skepticismor Descartes’ skepticism
would also lead to serious epistemological implications such as cultural relativism and ethical
relativism. Cultural relativism emphasizes that all beliefs, ethics, and customs are relative to
each culture. Ethical relativism emphasizes that our ethical judgments depends on each person.
By adopting either Hume’s skepticismor Descartes’ skepticism, we would disrespect other
cultures or a person’s ethical beliefs. Besides the metaphysical and epistemological
implications, adopting David Hume’s skepticismand Descartes’ skepticism, would lead to
serious implications in the sciences. Science is based upon deductive reasoning, and not
induction and can be tested, refuted, and falsified.