The 17th Century: Philosophy, Conflict, and Enlightenment

The 17th Century: A Transformative Era

Sociopolitical and Religious Landscape

The 17th century, often associated with the late Renaissance and early modern period, was marked by significant crisis and anxiety, leading to numerous rebellions. The Protestant Reformation had shattered religious unity, which was met with the Counter-Reformation.

Religious conflict across Europe culminated in the devastating Thirty Years' War, which concluded in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia. This landmark treaty formally recognized religious tolerance among states.

Politically, the century was dominated by absolutism, exemplified by the model of Louis XIV of France. Simultaneously, the rising bourgeoisie sought to limit monarchical power, advocating for individual rights and greater participation in public office.

Cultural and Intellectual Developments

Culturally, the era saw a strong emphasis on the dissemination of printed books and the flourishing of philosophy. Masterpieces were created by renowned artists such as Velázquez and Bernini.

Intellectually, two dominant philosophical streams emerged: Rationalism and Empiricism. Both shared a fundamental belief in human reason as the primary faculty of knowledge, rejecting the traditional Christian view that truth was solely revealed by God. Instead, they asserted that true knowledge is discovered through rational inquiry.

Both movements aimed to overcome skepticism, not by blindly accepting any proposed idea, but by demanding rigorous assurance of its truth. In this context, epistemology (the theory of knowledge) gained prominence over ontology (the study of being).

While both Rationalism and Empiricism assigned a crucial role to the individual, their approaches differed significantly. Rationalism posited that fundamental principles of reason are innate, whereas Empiricism argued that knowledge is derived from sensory experience and observation.

Descartes and Hume: Divergent Philosophical Paths

The Existence of Corporeal Things

When comparing René Descartes and David Hume, their views on the existence of corporeal things diverge significantly. For Descartes, after initial methodological doubt, the existence of the external world is ultimately guaranteed by God, who created our ideas and ensures their correspondence with reality. The challenge for Descartes lies in understanding this correspondence.

For Hume, however, we can only know what we perceive directly through our senses. Our belief in external objects stems not from inherent certainty, but from the imagination, due to the consistency and constancy of our perceptions.

The Existence of God

Regarding the existence of God, Descartes famously argued that the idea of a perfect being (God) is innate and could not have originated from himself, an imperfect being. Therefore, a perfect being (God) must exist as the cause of this idea.

In stark contrast, Hume contended that since we have no direct sensory impression of God, we cannot perceive His existence and thus can never truly know Him through empirical means.

The Nature of the Self

Finally, concerning the nature of the self, Descartes concluded, "I think, therefore I am." He posited that his essence is that of a thinking substance, a clear and distinct idea evident to his consciousness.

Hume, however, argued that we do not possess a single, constant impression of the self. Instead, what we perceive as our identity is merely a "bundle" of distinct perceptions. It is imagination and memory that create the illusion of a continuous, unified self.