Reaching the conclusion as to whose view of the mind is more accurate requires a purely subjective opinion. Consideration of the contrasting positions and philosophical deductions of Descartes and Hobbes does, however, lay the groundwork for an interesting discussion.

In the context of the question posed, two concepts must be examined. First, the concept of rationalism must be contrasted with the concept of empiricism. Second, the mind-body problem must be addressed.

Rationalism is the school of thought propounded by scholars like Rene Descartes, who argues that all knowledge is innate in human beings. He proposes that the mind can discover knowledge through deductive reasoning.

Empiricism is the school of thought followed by Thomas Hobbes, who suggests that all knowledge is derived from experience. Hobbes favors inductive reasoning to acquire knowledge through sensory perceptions, not innate ideas.

The mind-body problem, or the concept of dualism, stems from philosophical skepticism over the nature of the human mind in relation to the human body. The area to be examined is the function of the brain and how it relates to consciousness. Philosophical theory is not consistent as to whether there is a difference between the brain and the mind. Dualists believe the mind is a separate entity from the physical brain.

Hobbes views human beings as purely biological entities. He is an empiricist. He opines that humans are natural, physical beings with “animal spirits” that utilize sensory organs to process their thoughts. In his view, the thought process, along with human feelings and intentions, can naturally explain all physical material consistent with scientific findings. However, to Hobbes, human judgment is unreliable. In order to reach a level of scientific certainty, the mind, which is one with the body, must experience the world through the senses. Observation through the senses is necessary for the mind to acquire knowledge.

Descartes, on the other hand, is a dualist. He believes that mind and matter are separate entities. He considers the mind to be more closely akin to a soul that exists independently of the physical body. As a rationalist, Descartes believes we can develop “clear and distinct” ideas about the physical world by questioning the existence of physical matter using the mind alone without the senses. His view of skepticism leads him to conclude that the mind should doubt any matter that cannot be proved with scientific certainty. He develops his theory by seeking what he can know without a doubt to be true. He reasons what becomes his classic logical argument, “cogito ergo sum” or “I think, therefore I am.” He knows that with certainty and now can approach the material world from the same vantage point.

Hobbes, the empiricist, views the mind as an integral part of the body. It retains knowledge we acquire only after visual and other sensory perceptions upon which we then reflect. Descartes, the rationalist and dualist, believes the mind is distinct from the body and uses reason to acquire knowledge. We recognize the reality that is innate in our minds without the need for physical or sensory contact.

The philosophical posits of both Hobbes and Descartes have been challenged for centuries, so no conclusion can be reached as to who is more correct in his assumptions. However, empirical views have been given more credibility by most academics today.

How do Descartes's and Hobbes's views of the mind differ?

This is a great question! There is no definitive answer, as both philosophers deal with theories of the existence. Certain modern-day philosophers lean toward Descartes, while others view the mind and existence in a way that is more relevant to Hobbes's arguments—ultimately, it comes down to how one perceives the mind and living creatures.

Descartes is recognized predominately for his theory "Cogito, ergo sum," which translates to "I think, therefore I am." In other words, the fact that he is questioning his existence means that he cannot doubt that he exists; he must exist, because he is questioning his existence in the first place.

Hobbes similarly deals with human existence, but he focuses on its relation to other beings. He argues that the "natural condition of mankind" is what existence would be like if there were no structures dictating the connections between other human beings (e.g., government, civilization, laws). He concludes that an individual's life, in a state of absolute nature (lacking other human connections), is a short and meaningless life. Individual thought means nothing, essentially, if an individual cannot interact with other human beings.

When comparing Descartes and Hobbes, it is difficult to compare which set of theories is better, because they deal with different circumstances of existence altogether. One focuses on existence of the self, while the other focuses on existence of the self in relation to other human beings.