y distinguishes idea from impression as two essential, though unbalanced means of human belief. "Hume logically developed to its extreme conclusions the empiristic principle that subjective impressions alone are the immediate objects of knowledge. The passage outside our sensitive impressions is not possible. Hence there is no metaphysics: we know nothing of God, of the exterior world, or of our own soul."
             My thesis in response is a simple, open-minded degradation of his proposed pillars of support. Coming to a loosely-knit conclusion, if it may so be called such, Hume, regardless of the honesty of his argument's finality, weakly defines and defends his achievement.
             Any given man on this planet has certain knowledge of the world around them. This knowledge, and where it is based, is the question at hand. David Hume recognizes the gap that resides between what one can physically see with their eyes, and what one can visualize of that same imagery when one's eyes are closed. The impression, or sensation, is the physical and more real – as in terms of our sensory perception – certainty that humans are able to receive from the environment. The idea, or thought, is the resulting lingual ability to describe such a sensation. Humans, having mastered both abilities, can, for example, view in perfect clarity the sight of a dog's tail wagging while it sits and pants in your direction. This moment is reality and maintains the most genuine, vivid and lively understanding one can have. This is the impression. A recollection of this moment, with either eyes closed, or days after its occurrence may produce the same feeling as that had at that moment, carrying with it the same characteristics, but it will still be inferior to that of when the moment actually took place. This is the less potent idea. The idea, no matter how accurate, will ever be able to match the vivacious essence of the original impr
             ...