Kirk Kirkland

PHIL 1000
Hume vs. Cartesian Genesis: Thoughts and Analysis
With the modernization of philosophy in the 16th and 17th century there
came an abundance of ideas that most of us today can easily relate to. The
metaphysical thoughts of Ren Descartes drove philosophy to an entirely
new level, exploring the mind, its various interactions, and the concept of
existence as a whole. This progression, however, seemed to come to a
screeching halt with David Humes skeptical empiricism, approximately a
century after Descartes. Cartesian Genesis refers to the method with which
Descartes quieted his doubts about his own, and the worlds existence.
Hume struck a number of blows to this method and refuted most of what it
sought to prove. This paper aims to examine Cartesian Genesis and the parts
of Humes perspective that undermine it. In order to do this, a quick rundown
of both parties beliefs is necessary.
Descartes is considered by many to be the father of modern
philosophy. He subscribed to the rationalist epistemology, so he believed
that reason is the primary source of all knowledge, that it is superior to sense
evidence and gives meaning to experience. As such, no observation is
actually necessary to reach certain truths and these truths are evaluated by
their rational or logical consistency with already established truths. This
method works a lot like building blocks, where more complex truths can be

put together with other known truths. Descartes cautioned against

authoritarian thinking and doubted everything, only considering a truth to be
something he could obtain himself through reason. He thought that we must
not believe anything in which we have the slightest bit of doubt. This led him
to conceive of ideas such that maybe everything around us is a dream or
that perhaps there is an evil genius who has tricked us into thinking things
are true when they are not, such as 2 plus 2 being equal to 4. In turn this led
him to believe that it was possible he was being tricked about his own
existence. In response he came to what is known as the cogito, I think,
therefore I am. Understood in the first person only, this means that no
person can doubt their existence (as a thinking being) while consciously
thinking.
With his own existence proven Descartes was left to prove that
everything else is real. For him, it became critical to prove the existence of
God, and to prove that God would not deceive him. He begins with only the
idea of God, which he can be certain, exists, but does it relate to an actual,
existing, object. In order to prove this, he argues that the idea of God is
innate in him or a priori and that this idea is of a perfect and infinite being, in
such a way that it doesnt make sense for an imperfect and finite creature
such as himself to have conceived of the idea. How could such a creature
create such an idea when it can only just comprehend it? He argues that it is
necessary for him to have an innate notion of such a being with which to
compare himself in order for him to want to be more perfect. Also, he could

not be the source of such an idea, because he would have given himself all
of those perfect qualities. Descartes argues that he couldnt have received
the idea of God from his senses or by some other event, because his own
mind is unable to add or retract from it. As far as this God being a deceiver,
it follows that it could not be because its existence is given by the idea of its
perfection, and a perfect being would not deceive. Descartes claims that it is
impossible to conceive of or imagine the idea of God without also considering
existence, since existence is clearly a part of perfection. So existence is part
of Gods essence.
Once Descartes had proven his own existence, and that of God, he
could now begin to prove that the rest of the world exists. He finds that he
has the idea of himself as both a mind and a body so by virtue of Gods
existence as a being that does not deceive (which allows Descartes to trust
his own senses); he must necessarily be both a mind and a body. Since the
idea of the body is not innate in him or can be proven true deductively, he
concludes that it has origins outside of his mind. At this point he has finally
reached a basis for proving the existence of the world around him and
basically concludes Cartesian Genesis.
Now we move a century into the future to the skeptical David Hume.
Hume was reportedly a likeable man, which would seem strange when one
considers the rather depressing conclusions he comes to. He also stayed
very true to his method, more so than most other philosophers, who would

often go to great lengths to make their philosophy match some of their

personal beliefs. Even in a heavily censored version of his very first book,
Treatise, Hume, who identified as being agnostic, argued rather successfully
against spiritual and supernatural reality, personal immortality, and the
existence of mind and matter. In the uncensored version he even denies
science by questioning cause and effect and calling reason a slave of the
passions, as well as refuting many other things. This work managed to
bring most of the philosophy that had come before to its knees, including the
work done by Descartes.
Hume rejected obscure and overly abstract speculations, finding
metaphysical speculation to be largely irrelevant to most people. He disliked
that all metaphysical speculation was based on assumptions, and that the
whole debate seemed to never end. Nothing metaphysical was ever settled,
and every theory had at least one, if not infinitesimally more, equally
compelling anti-theories. He determined that the only way to deal with these
was to inquire about the nature of human understanding and subsequently
show that because it lacks the capacity, human understanding simply isnt fit
to speculate on such topics. This argument alone discredits, while not quite
refuting, rationalism and Descartes Ontological Argument.
Humes epistemology was very much closer to empiricism than
rationalism, and therefore fundamentally different from Descartes. In
empiricism, sense evidence is given as the source of knowledge, rather than

reason. Hume noted the fundamental difference in clarity and intensity

between an idea perception and the sense perception itself. He also
distinguished ideas from impressions (both considered perceptions), which
he used untraditionally to denote something more active than an idea, such
as to feel, to love or to hate. We will use the term impression in this
manner for the remainder of the paper. By evaluating ideas further, Hume
comes to the conclusion that all ideas are derived from sense data and
experience (which may include the experience of an impression), even if
they are garbled and edited in such a way that they no longer resemble the
original. He challenges us to produce an idea that is not derived in such a
way and finds that any meaningful idea can be traced to some impression or
sense experience. Anything that does not meet this criterion can be
dismissed as a meaningless utterance. In this way, Hume has completely
denied the existence a priori ideas, and has unearthed a fundamental flaw in
Descartes reasoning for the existence of God.
Hume does not stop at simply giving Descartes Ontological Argument
trouble, he even manages to continue on and attack the Cogito. How could
someone argue against their own existence? To do this he argues against the
idea of the self. To match the criterion above, the idea of the self must be
derived from some impression and here in lies the problem. There are many
impressions that could be attributed to the self; however there are none that
are constant and invariable. All impressions, such as happiness, fear, love,
and hate, succeed each other. They never all exist at the same time, and

none exist throughout our lives, which the self is supposed to exist beyond.
From this it is possible to argue that the idea of the self cannot come from
any of these impressions, and therefore, the idea does not exist, or is
meaningless.
After destroying the idea of the fixed self, Hume offers an explanation
for what we might then be. Noting that he cannot think of himself without
stumbling on a perception, and cannot observe anything but the perception,
he says that he wouldnt exist should he be rendered insensible to himself.
He continues the idea even further by offering that without the ability to
love, hate or have impressions after his body is gone then he can think of no
further annihilation that would be required to make him a non-entity. The
consequence of this then is that we all exist as a bundle of constantly
changing perceptions, without any constant and underlying thing to unite
them.
At this point it is possible to perform an analysis of a Humean refute to
Cartesian Genesis, and determine where each side holds its own. When
talking about Cartesian Genesis, there are two main points at which these
two philosophical systems collide, once at the cogito, and again during the
Ontological Argument. In proving the existence of the self, Descartes relies
on the reasonable idea that no sane person could argue the fact that they
exist while consciously thinking about their own existence. Hume says that
he cannot affix the concept of the self to any impression or perception and

therefore the idea of the self has no meaning outside of just being a bundle
of perceptions. Its very hard to argue with Descartes on this one, because,
to put it simply, the only way I couldnt exist is if my thoughts werent my
own, and since I can very purposefully shape my own thoughts it stands to
reason that this wouldnt be the case. Much like the case of the evil genius
though, it is possible to assume that I am led to shape my thoughts in a
certain way because of my current perceptions. As such the more important
question here is if there exists a fixed I that is unchanging and could
possibly outlive my current capability of sense experience, or without any
perceptions. In order to prove this, I must first attempt to refute Humes
denial of the fixed self.
My very first argument against Hume in this case is that I find myself
able to affix the idea of the self to the impression of being, however for
some reason this seems to be inadequate. This impression of being is a
very empty one when analyzed on its own and perhaps it could just be called
a lack of perceptions. However, while focusing on this aspect of myself I can
still observe and receive sense experience, albeit experiences that I must
consciously ignore in order to isolate the impression of being. Not only
that, but it is entirely possible for me to clear away the clutter of other
perceptions and experience just being at any point, should a busy schedule
permit it, therefore it is possible to conclude that this impression could
indeed be constant and invariable. Could I not then be said to exist while
merely observing? This in no way affirms my existence on its own, but I do

believe that it makes a good case against the idea of the fixed self being a
meaningless utterance. At this point I could use Humes own logic against
him and say that perhaps the fixed self is simply something that is beyond
human understanding, which would explain the emptiness that comes with
the impression of being.
That being said, I can see no clear winner on the subject of the Cogito
and the existence of the fixed self. I cannot, in so few words, prove that there
is any underlying thing that carries Humes bundle of perceptions around,
and therefore I cannot prove that Descartes existential thinking is not simply
a product of his own perceptions.
Hume essentially denies that there is any such thing as an a priori idea
or an idea that is truly innate to a person. He says that any meaningful idea
must be traced back to some impression or perception. Descartes essentially
says that the idea of God is innate in him, as he cannot add or detract from
the idea. He describes God as being all perfection, and that it is more perfect
that God exists than if God did not exist. That is the Ontological Argument in
a nutshell, and I find the pretense of it troubling. If anything, I can say that
Descartes has proven to me that the idea of perfection exists. His argument
would be a lot sounder if he had tried to prove the existence of perfection
instead.
Hume would probably not agree though, what impression would you
affix the idea of perfection to? There is very little in the whole universe that

is perfect. Just look up entropy in a physics book. Anyways, it is of interest to

me how it could be possible for the idea of perfection to be so wide spread
among humanity, and to be so well defined. Was it a great act of wishful
thinking that was so appealing to the masses that it caught on as a common
idea? Perhaps it is a common meaningless utterance? Or is it a reaction to
ones own perception of inadequacy or the inadequacy of the world around
them? Unless perfection truly is something innate in us, or perhaps the drive
to perfect is, I have to stand by Hume on this. His philosophical process in
this matter was much sounder than Descartes. Hume also stayed true to his
method, rather than his convictions during the process. Descartes really
seems to make a huge, and literal, leap of faith in order to reconcile his
religious views with the rest of his philosophy. It seems in a way that he had
to abandon rationalism to come to this conclusion, and in doing so, one
wonders why he didnt use the existence of his emotions (or impressions) as
a route to justify the existence of the world around him. It is possible that he
could have made a similar statement about Gods existence, in a more
concrete way with firmer reasoning later on.
As a whole I feel that Descartes was a very strong foundation for
modern philosophy. I also believe that Cartesian Genesis would have been
made a much better case had he not been so keen to give merit to his
convictions. If there exists such a being as God, he didnt make a strong
enough case. God was also not necessary for him to prove that something
besides him existed. Beyond this one point I can give him a lot of credit. I

think it would be possible to reconcile the rest of his philosophy with Humes.
I do think there is a way to argue about Humes denial of the fixed self and
his bundle of perceptions theory. I honestly wonder what Hume would say to
my argument above. His epistemology is appealing because it seems to be
much more concrete, and at the same time it gives more credit to the mind
than other forms of empiricism. Both have very compelling systems, and
although Hume laid bare one of the most fundamental parts of Cartesian
Genesis, I dont feel as though he struck down the entirety of it.