In class today the idea, favoring Descartes, that it is possible for innate ideas to exist. Suppose a baby learns that crying brings him food. Only by psychological association of ideas and operant conditioning does the baby know that crying is a cause for his or her parent to bring food. The fact that the baby doesn't have to learn this but instead knows it inherently means this idea is an innate idea thus proving Descartes' theory of innate ideas. However, in opposition to the theory of innate ideas, supporters of Hume said that this theory must be false because it can be based on no sensory experience or impression. This attack on innate ideas also brings down much of the proof of the existence of God as Descartes says that for us to have an idea of God we must have an innate idea of him.
Also in class today it seemed like the overall consensus of the defenders of Descartes was that although Hume my be correct in his attack and destruction of Cartesian philosophy, the ideas and rules that Hume leaves us with are no way to live by. Hume leaves us with the idea that we can truly know nothing as well as the fact that there can be no certainty in the supposed connections between causes and effects. As stated before, though this may be true, the world we live in today mostly abides by the laws of Descartes (trusting causes and their effects, for example) rather than Hume's ideas that we know very little truths in life.
No comments:
Post a Comment