David Hume, a Scottish philosopher and historian, flourished in the Age of Enlightenment. In this segment of history, also known as the Age of Reason, European scholars attempted to find the roots of knowledge, often relying on one of two dominant schools of thought, the empiricism and rationalism. Hume, an empiricist, suggested that knowledge is acquired from sensory experiences. However, René Descartes, a French rationalist, put forward the idea that knowledge relies 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 the work of Descartes. Although it should not be assumed that Hume literally wished to "throw [Descartes' work] into 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 that Descartes' work possesses, Hume's criticism is based on his methodology aimed at proving the certainty, sense of self and existence of God. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay In his work Discourse on Method, René Descartes suggested that one should use methodological doubt to question the world around one. On page 11 he states: “The first [step] was never to accept as true anything that I did not clearly know was true; that is to say, carefully to avoid hasty judgments and prejudices; and to include nothing more in my judgments than what presented itself to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I had no occasion to doubt it. Hume also recognized that a foundation of fundamental truths such as mathematical principles provides a key step toward solidifying knowledge. In the Inquiry, Hume asserted that “we must begin with clear and evident principles, advance by timid and sure steps, frequently review our conclusions, and examine with precision all their consequences; although by these means we may make both slow and short progress in our systems; are the only methods by which we can hope to attain truth and attain 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 over others, which is obvious and convincing: or if there were, could we take a step beyond it, but in using these same faculties that we need.” are already supposed to be different. He also asserted that “CARTESIAN doubt, therefore, if it could ever be attained by a human creature (which is manifestly not the case), would be entirely incurable; and no amount of reasoning could ever bring us to a state of assurance and conviction on any subject whatsoever” (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 defended the concept of "cogito", which posits that if he could think and then 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 achieving knowledge: doubting everything, including the term "I" and the sense of self (p 18). Hume thought Descartes' method was useless. On page 5 of the Inquiry, Hume asserted that metaphysics.