David Hume, a Scottish philosopher and historian, thrived during the era of the Enlightenment. In this segment of history, also known as the Age of Reason, European scholars attempted to find the root of knowledge, often working through one of two prevailing schools of thought, empiricism and rationalism. Hume, an empiricist, suggested that knowledge is acquired from sensory experiences. Yet René Descartes, a French rationalist, put forward the thought that knowledge is based on reason and intellect. These two ideologies differ fundamentally, and Hume's arguments promoting empiricism in his work An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding justify his suggestion that we should ignore Descartes' work. Although it should not be assumed that Hume wanted to literally “commit [Descartes' work] to the flames,” Hume made it clear that he did not see the truth in Descartes' epistemological method. In addition to pointing out the logical errors in Descartes' work, Hume's criticism is based on his methodology of demonstrating the certainty, sense of self, and existence of God. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayIn his work Discourse on Method, René Descartes suggested that one should use methodological doubt to question the world around them. On page 11, he said, “the first [step] was to never accept anything as true that I did not clearly know to be so; that is, carefully to avoid hasty judgments and prejudices; and to include in my judgments nothing but that which presented itself to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I had no occasion to doubt it. Hume also recognized that the foundation of fundamental truths such as the principles of mathematics is a fundamental step towards the consolidation of knowledge. In the Inquiry, Hume advocated, “to begin with clear and evident principles, to advance by fearful and sure steps, to frequently review our conclusions, and carefully examine all their consequences; though by these means we will make both slow and short progress in our systems; they are the only methods by which we can ever hope to reach the truth and obtain proper stability and certainty in our determinations” (p. 103). Where he disagrees, however, is in the radicality of doubt used by Descartes. Hume wrote that there is “no original principle, which has a prerogative above others, which is in itself evident and convincing: or if there were, we could go a step beyond it, except by the use of those same faculties, of which we should already be different.” He also stated that “the CARTESIAN doubt, therefore, if it were ever possible to be reached by any human creature (as it clearly is not) would be entirely incurable; and no amount of reasoning could ever bring us to a state of security and conviction on any subject” (p. 103). These statements suggest that Hume believes in a more moderate form of skepticism and believes that Cartesian methods are of no benefit. Regarding the sense of self, Descartes supported the concept of "cogito", which assumes that if he could think and subsequently doubt, then he certainly existed. This concept led him to the statement “I think, therefore I am”, which in itself completely contradicts his method of arriving at knowledge: doubting everything, including the term “I” and the sense of self (p.18). Hume believed that Descartes' method was useless. On page 5 of the Inquiry, Hume argued that metaphysics was an “abstract philosophy” which is “objected not only as painful and laborious, but as an inevitable source of uncertainty and error.” In the.