Quinn

Philosophical Views on Molyneux’s Thought Experiment

William Molyneux presented an intriguing idea into philosophy that caused many after

him to question and interpret his idea in their own way. He wrote his experiment in the form of a

letter to John Locke and essentially asked:

“A Man being born blind, and having a Globe and a Cube, nigh of the same bignes,

Committed into his Hands, and being Taught or Told, which is Called Globe, and which

the Cube, so as easily to distinguish them by his Touch or Feeling; Then both being taken

from Him, and Laid on the Table, Let us Suppose his Sight Restored to Him; Whether he

Could, by his Sight, and before he touch them, know which is the Globe and which the

Cube? Or Whether he Could know by his Sight, before he stretch’d out his Hand,

Whether he Could not Reach them, tho they were Removed 20 or 1000 feet from him?”

(“An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”, John Locke).

Molyneux’s Thought Experiment created a lot of controversy regarding the truth and accuracy of

what he was suggesting. If you were to take Descartes and Hume for example, who were two

very important and intelligent philosophers, they would have completely different views and

interpretations of the Molyneux Thought Experiment. We can assume their views by the records

we have of their own understanding of God and the making of the everything.

David Hume was a philosopher who relied heavily on senses and experiences. He

believed that the only way one could know something with certainty is if they personally

experienced it themselves. He distinguished ideas and actual experiences as two different things.

For example, thinking about laying on the beach under the sun versus actually experiencing the

sun on your skin as you lay on the beach. Knowing how Hume interpreted the world and how

confident he was in the senses, it makes it quite simple to assume that he would oppose the idea
 Quinn

that a blind man who just regained his sight would be able to identify the difference between the

Cube and the Globe. Since the blind man had never experienced the Cube and Globe with his

sight, he could not possibly know with certainty the identity of both objects, he could only guess.

Even though there have been experiments where they have taken a blind person and applied

Molyneux’s Thought Experience by giving them a surgery to regain their sight, Hume would still

be skeptic because he believed the mind to be fallible.

Rene Descartes thoughts on Molyneux’s Thought Experiment would be the polar

opposite of Hume’s assumptions. Unlike Hume and his focus on the senses, Descartes believed

in reason. He believed that because everyone rises from reason, a blind man regaining his sight

would definitely be able to decipher which object is a Cube or a Globe.

“I distinguish the two as follows: there is conviction when there remains some reason

which might lead us to doubt, but knowledge is conviction based on reason so strong that

it can never be shaken by any stronger reason.” (1640 letter to Regius, AT 3:65).

He was very confident that everyone is not persuaded by their senses and feelings but rather by

the reason that they were born with. Both Hume and Descartes have their own reasoning behind

why a blind would or would not be able to distinguish between a Cube or a Globe. Both of their

philosophies are heavily influenced by their views on religion and just like their ideas of

Molyneux’s Thought Experiment, they could not be more polar opposite. Hume was an

empiricist and states:

“The idea of God, as meaning an infinitely intelligent, wise, and good Being, arises

from reflecting on the operations of our own mind, and augmenting, without limit,

those qualities of goodness and wisdom” (EU, 2.6/19; and cp. TA, 26/656; EU,

7.25/72).
 Quinn

Hume’s idea of God unsurprisingly related back to the senses, whereas Descartes refused

anything to do with the senses. In fact, Descartes rejected empiricism and that is part of why he

is known to be the “Father of Modern Philosophy” (Frank E. Smitha, pg. 1). Descartes believed

that the mind and the body were two seperate things and that God existed. He stood by these

beliefs by stating:

“That in order to question whether we really know anything, we must acknowledge that

something is indeed posing that question and that therefore whatever it is that is thinking

knows that itself exists. Descartes uses this as the foundation of his knowledge, stating

that without realising the existence of god, our own existence is the only thing that we

can be certain about.” (DK, What Did Rene Descartes Believe).

Hume and Descartes opinions on Molyneux’s Thought Experiment are essentially rooted by their

views on the existence of God.

In conclusion, Hume and Descartes were two amazing and very influential philosophers

who are studied by many. However, at the end of the day, they would disagree with each other if

asked to decipher Molyneux’s Thought Experiment. It is nearly impossible to say who would be

right or wrong in this experiment because there is no solid proof to back either of them up.

However, it is experiments like Molyneux’s that help us understand better how famous

philosophers thought and worked through situations, which in return makes us better

philosophers ourselves. Although, we have no proof to back up if this assumption would be

accurate in describing what Hume and Descartes would approach and believe in Molyneux’s

Thought Experiment, but it was easily assumed simply because of the facts we have on their

accounts on where they stood on their own beliefs of God and how the world came to be.
 Quinn

Works Cited

Dk. "What Did René Descartes Believe?" HubPages. October 19, 2012. Accessed April 13,

2018. https://hubpages.com/education/what-did-rene-descartes-believe.

Newman, Lex, "Descartes' Epistemology", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter

2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

"René Descartes." Rene Descartes. Accessed April 14, 2018.

 Quinn

http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/descartes.htm.

Russell, Paul and Kraal, Anders, "Hume on Religion", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)