Clifford Vs. Descartes

Paper Summary:

The paper explains that while Descartes relied upon rationalism to its furthest extents to indicate what propositions were likely to be true and what false, Clifford expressed an extreme form of empiricism with regard to metaphysical truth. The paper shows how these two points of view are utterly incongruous in the real world, as well as within the realm of philosophy.

From the Paper:

"To a large extent, Clifford's and Descartes' points of view regarding evidence and belief could not create a more stark contrast. Whereas Descartes relied upon rationalism to its furthest extents to indicate what propositions were likely to be true and which were likely to be false, Clifford expressed an extreme form of empiricism, with regard to metaphysical truth. According to Clifford, it is morally wrong in every instance to believe any proposition for which there is insufficient empirical evidence. However, he does not provide a clearly workable formula or method by which to determine at what point evidence becomes sufficient to ascribe one's belief to a given proposition. Descartes, from his rationalistic point of view, explicitly suggests a manner by which claims can be said to be false--if there is sufficient cause to doubt them."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Cahn, Steven M. and Maureen Eckert. 2006. Philosophical Horizons: Introductory Readings. California: Thomson and Wadsworth.

More papers on Clifford Vs. Descartes:

• Comparison Essay # 32032 : "Descartes' Nativism vs. Locke's Empiricism"
• Essay # 85731 : "Descartes: A Thinking Thing"
• Analytical Essay # 4510 : "Descartes Proving God"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: