Experience of Truth While both Philosophers, Rene Descartes a rationalist and David Hume an empiricist had vastly different views on where the bulk of individual knowledge is gained. Both had the power of persuasiveness of opinion that could become conceivably believable if while reading their writings, a reader does not keep in perspective that it is their (the writer) belief. Descartes believed in a priori knowledge and that ration and experience would aid a person’s ability in seeking truth. He chose not to rely on senses for fear of trickery. Descartes described himself as “a thing that thinks” (30). Hume, years later did not agree. He believed in a posteriori knowledge that senses are based on past experiences and they are more valuable in mind leading conclusions. Hume asked the question on doubt of ideas, “from what impressions is that supposed idea derived” (41)? While both can have acceptable beliefs, I find Hume’s reasoning more compelling. Animals (people) know nothing without first being exposed to IT. Lack of exposure is likely to leave one behind. With all the acquired knowledge that one may attain, it cannot compare to the knowledge gained through past experience and senses. In other words, walking through the chapters of life is an experience that is priceless. The reason that I believe in Hume and his empiricist view is the fact that to experience is to believe. As Hume’s states, an experience is what leads us through our daily lives. For example, my dog had never eaten table food before. According to Hume she did not know what table food was, only her dog food because that was all she had eaten. Once she was older and received table food, she then experienced a different sensation than what the dog food afforded. Now that she has had the sensation of table food, which came with the sound of plates, pots, microwave chimes, refrigerator