Hume 's Argument For The Idea Of Self Or Selfhood

In this paper, I will argue that the Memory Theory of Personal Identity is the closest to the truth. I will do so by showing that the opposing theories – Body and Soul Theories – have evident flaws and that the

Hume argues that we cannot prove that there is a real world outside our experience, much less that our experience is an accurate representation of that world. He says we need to get outside our experience to see whether it does fairly represent the world, however, its near impossible to do that.

In John Locke’s argument for personal identity, he believes that we are not substances or mere souls. In his argument, Locke stresses to convey that there is a crucial difference between distinguishing a “man” and a “person” (Locke 221). According to Locke’s definition, a man is a living body which is homogenous to an animal’s body. Therefore, any living body of a particular shapes refers to a “man.” Locke emphasizes that a “person” is a sensible being that is aware of its own

Personal identity is a very controversial aspect of life. Who are we? What defines us? According to John Locke, psychological continuity is what defines our personal identity. Locke discusses the case of the prince and the cobbler to help shape his theory. However, I absolutely disagree with Locke’s theory. Locke’s theory of personal identity creates many problems, such as the duplication problem. By reformulating Locke’s theory of personal identity, we still come across these problems that prove Locke’s theory false.

So, in his book Dialogues, Concerning Natural Religion, he took apart at the roots of belief by identifying the weaknesses in the creation of the universe by God notably, that the argument from design infers “a cause from its effect,” (Rachels 14). Second, Hume argued that we lack eye witness accounts of observing God create universes in the past or in the present to conclude that he created our own

Empiricism states that knowledge is based on experience, so everything that is known is learned through experience, but nothing is ever truly known. David Hume called lively and strong experiences, perceptions, and less lively events, beliefs or thoughts. Different words and concepts meant different things to different people due to the knowledge, or experiences they have. He believed, along with the fact that knowledge is only gained through experience, that a person’s experiences are nothing more than the contents of his or her own consciousness. The knowledge of anything comes from the way

     Hume began his first examination if the mind by classifying its contents as Perceptions. “Here therefore [he divided] all the perceptions of the mind into two classes or species.” (27) First, Impressions represented an image of something that portrayed an immediate relationship. Secondly, there were thoughts and ideas, which

David Hume was a British empiricist, meaning he believed all knowledge comes through the senses. He argued against the existence of innate ideas, stating that humans have knowledge only of things which they directly experience. These claims have a major impact on his argument against the existence of miracles, and in this essay I will explain and critically evaluate this argument.

     Hume on the other hand, took a different approach to the idea of self. He believed that there in fact was no such thing as selfhood. Instead he asserts that “it must be some one impression, that gives rise to every real idea. But self…is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference…” (597). By this he implies that in order to form concrete ideas, ones impressions of pain, pleasure, joy, etc. must be invariable throughout time. This, Hume states, we know without a doubt to be impossible. Passions succeed each other over time and give rise to new passions, therefore “…it cannot be from any of these impressions…that the idea of self is derived, and consequently there is no such idea” (597).

Personal identity is a concept within philosophy that has persisted throughout its history. In the eighteenth century this problem came to a head. David Hume dedicated a portion of his philosophy in the attempts to finally put what he saw as a fallacious claim concerning the soul to rest. In the skeptical wake of Hume, German idealist, beginning with Immanuel Kant, were left with a variety of epistemic and metaphysical problems, the least of which was personal identity.

Next, Hume explores the existence of “necessary connextion” when the will commands a new idea. Again there are three arguments. In the first argument the soul’s production of an idea is examined: it “is a real creation; a production of something out of nothing” (45).

If circumstances were to be repeated exactly the same, there could be no other outcome than what is expected. He illustrate that the concepts of necessary connections and causation result only from the observation of constant conjunction, “where similar objects are constantly conjoined together and the mind is determined by custom to infer the one from the appearance of another” (Hume 523). Hume progress about how human actions are necessary with a claim that there is a “great uniformity among all the actions of mankind” (Hume 523). He finds that throughout history, across cultures and across ages, human actions and behaviors remains relatively constant. Therefore, Hume emphasize that similar motives produce similar actions and similar causes produce similar events. Human passions and qualities such as “ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity, friendship, generosity, public spirit,” (Hume 523) all which have been created from the beginning of time, are still relevant sources of all the actions and driving source that is still observed among human beings—they all spring from a certain regularity and expectation.

Shifting from Descartes’ rationalist approach to things lies Hume and his empiricist approach to understanding our world. As expected of an empirical ideology, Hume believes that all ideas are generated from impressions. According to Hume’s philosophy, impressions are defined as lively and forceful sensations. Hume relied heavily on the idea of cause and effect throughout his work. According to Hume, cause and effect can be easily understood as one thing not being possible without the other. With that in mind, when it comes to ideas about God, Hume suggests that it is the

The ultimate question that Hume seems to be seeking an answer to is that of why is that we believe what we believe. For most of us the answer is grounded in our own personal experiences and can in no way be justified by a common or worldly assumption. Our pasts, according to Hume, are reliant on some truths which we have justified according to reason, but in being a skeptic reason is hardly a solution for anything concerning our past, present or future. Our reasoning according to causality is slightly inhibited in that Hume suggests that it is not that we are not able to know anything about future events based on past experiences, but rather that we are just not rationally justified in believing those things that

     Let us take a moment to talk about Hume’s origin of ideas. Hume believes in the classic theory of the blank slate – that when we are born, we come into the world with no ideas. Impression is an imprint, meaning that it is something outside the mind. Impressions are not a priori. Consider the mind to be like a ball of wax, knowledge refers to the imprints on the ball of wax. He’s looking for the intrinsic basis. His problem is that scientist and philosophers base knowledge off a priori. If you can trace the idea to the impression then you have the best idea. If you can’t then the origin is subjective. Primary qualities are not subjective; they are inseparable from the thing itself. The world that is out there, that makes an impression on your mind. Trace the idea to the impression. It is important to note that Hume believes we do not have impressions of the future.