Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reflection about the self by David Hume
David hume an enquiry SKEPTICAL DOUBTS
Importance of memory to who we are
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Reflection about the self by David Hume
After Hume’s philosophical investigation about the metaphysical question regarding the problem of the external world, Hume turned to this closely related issue, the problem of self or personal identity. Here, In this sentence, Hume indicate the idea of personal identity is merely an imaginary one. Again, we have to keep in mind that Hume’s philosophical investigation method is through observation and experiences, which depends on his first principle of thought, all we know arise from experience. Naturally, for the problem of personal identity, he first consulted his perception. “When I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, …show more content…
Therefore many people accuse Hume being inconsistent with his analysis of self. This following passage shows Hume uses the notion self which was rejected by him previously. “The immediate object of pride and humility is self or that identical person of whose thoughts, actions, and sensations, we are intimately conscious.” (2.1.5.3) Based on my understanding of the book, I believe Hume is not inconsistent since the focus on book one and two are significantly different. In the book one, skepticism of self is focused on the role that memory played in forming our idea of self. In book II, although the notion of self is not philosophically justified, Hume must presuppose the common view of self or even external objects to be able to analyze the role of passion in our …show more content…
While other times he enjoys life and “necessarily determined to live”(1.4.6.10), even though he can still feel his former disposition (skepticism of self, the external world, etc), but he is ready to throw all his book into the fire. From such different reaction to his philosophy, Hume concludes the natural inclination/expectation must drive our motivation. This discovery of the internal motivation behind our thinking has shown Hume what manner we ought to adopt in life to ensure us achieve our wishes and free from external interference, namely our skepticism. In his words, “where reason is lively, and mixes itself with some propensity, it ought to be assented to. Where it does not, it never can have any title to operate upon us.” (1.4.7.11) Hume’s emphasis on the importance of skepticism in his philosophical inquiry shows we can achieve true liberation when we have our ability to think and judge, and other’s testimony or falsely popular opinion won’t have the power to influence
Personal identity, in the context of philosophy, does not attempt to address clichéd, qualitative questions of what makes us us. Instead, personal identity refers to numerical identity or sameness over time. For example, identical twins appear to be exactly alike, but their qualitative likeness in appearance does not make them the same person; each twin, instead, has one and only one identity – a numerical identity. As such, philosophers studying personal identity focus on questions of what has to persist for an individual to keep his or her numerical identity over time and of what the pronoun “I” refers to when an individual uses it. Over the years, theories of personal identity have been established to answer these very questions, but the
Personal identity examines what makes a person at one time identical with a person at another. Many philosophers believe we are always changing and therefore, we cannot have a persisting identity if we are different from one moment to the next. However, many philosophers believe there is some important feature that determines a person’s identity and keeps it persistent. For John Locke, this important feature is memory, and I agree. Memory is the most important feature in determining a person’s identity as memory is the necessary and sufficient condition of personal identity.
His claim is that the mind is merely a bundle of perceptions that derive ultimately from sensory inputs or impressions. He follows on to say that ideas are reflections of these perceptions, or to be more precise, perceptions of perceptions, therefore can still be traced back to an original sensory input. Hume applied this logic to the perception of a ‘self’, to which he could not trace back to any sensory input, the result was paradoxical, thus he concluded that “there is no simplicity in (the mind) at one time, nor identity in different; whatever natural propension we might have to imagine that simplicity and
If the idea of the self is somehow able to exists in a potentially altered version of Hume’s epistemology that accounts for what is known, now, about the subconscious synthetization of ideas, It could function in the deflection of such claims as the soul and god but could hold an idea of identity that could not be conflated with the two because it still must rely on experience. If Hume’s epistemology included the subconscious and it and be argued that from the subconscious ideas can form behaviorally from our impressions, our illusion of self could stand as an idea within Hume’s vision of the mind. This would circumvent many problems that are created when there is no justification for the self. Ideas such as guilt, punishment, and whether or not your life can have meaning are not necessarily uprooted by Hume’s analysis of how the mind
Although Hume makes many points, there are a lot of flaws I find in his argument. To begin, if we accept that the mind is nothing but a bundle of sensations and memories, then it is possible that each strand of the bundle could have the capacity to function on their own and therefore act and exist independently. In addition, we designate certain sensations to the respective bundles they belong to and such shows a dependency of sensations on our minds that is in contrast to the prerequisites of the bundle theory. Ayer states that "if perceptions can exist only as members of the minds to which they belong, then it would seem that any account of the mind in terms of relations between perceptions would be viciously circular". This
Hume distinguishes two categories into which “all the objects of human reason or enquiry” may be placed into: Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact (15). In regards to matters of fact, cause and effect seems to be the main principle involved. It is clear that when we have a fact, it must have been inferred...
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 constituted the less vivid impressions. For example, the recalling of a memory. From this distinction, Hume decreed that all ideas had origin within impressions.
What is personal identity? This question has been asked and debated by philosophers for centuries. The problem of personal identity is determining what conditions and qualities are necessary and sufficient for a person to exist as the same being at one time as another. Some think personal identity is physical, taking a materialistic perspective believing that bodily continuity or physicality is what makes a person a person with the view that even mental things are caused by some kind of physical occurrence. Others take a more idealist approach with the belief that mental continuity is the sole factor in establishing personal identity holding that physical things are just reflections of the mind. One more perspective on personal identity and the one I will attempt to explain and defend in this paper is that personal identity requires both physical and psychological continuity; my argument is as follows:
“The great variety of Taste, as well as of opinion, which prevails in the world, is too obvious not to have fallen under every one’s observation”(text pg 255), Hume states in his opening. He then points out, “Every voice is united in applauding,”(text pg 255) all kinds of values like “elegance” and “simplicity” that are supposedly seen in an object. Hume conveys the idea that every person has their own unique tastes in art, and they all seem to agree on the aesthetic value of an object. He then brings in the critic who analyzes the pieces of the object and proposes that all previous judgments were not accurate. Hume says, “But when the critic comes to particulars, this seeming unanimity vanishes”(text pg 255).
Hume believes that metaphysical reasoning of all kinds has failed to provide an accurate representation of the natural world. In A Treatise on Human Nature, he concludes that the only unyielding foundation one can give to science must be rested upon experience and observation. Logically, this empirical inquiry should provide knowledge on matters of fact, general conclusions that arise from particular experiences; however, as a radical epistemic skeptic, Hume concurrently argues that reason cannot provide any knowledge of the external world. He finds it “evident that the essence of the mind being equally unknown to us with that of external bodies…must be equally impossible to form any notion of its powers and qualities otherwise than from careful
In Appendix I., Concerning Moral Sentiment, David Hume looks to find a place in morality for reason, and sentiment. Through, five principles he ultimately concludes that reason has no place within the concept of morality, but rather is something that can only assist sentiment in matters concerning morality. And while reason can be true or false, those truths or falsities apply to facts, not to morality. He then argues morals are the direct result of sentiment, or the inner feeling within a human being. These sentiments are what intrinsically drive and thus create morality within a being.
Hume believes that there is no concept of self. That each moment we are a new being since nothing is constant from one moment to the next. There is no continuous “I” that is unchanging from one moment to the next. That self is a bundle of perceptions and emotions there is nothing that forms a self-impression which is essential to have an idea of one self. The mind is made up of a processions of perceptions.
By applying his own empirical criterion of meaning to the examination of such a notably philosophical concept as substance, Hume flat out disposes of the entire notion itself. As has been formerly introduced by Descartes, substance is a fluctuating thing that takes on the same meaning as is best described by that certain je ne sais quoi. It is that certain something you just can’t put your finger on, and “by substance, we can understand nothing else than a thing which so exists that it needs no other thing in order to exist,“ (qtd. in Jones 174-175). Descartes naturally takes this thing to be God, but never questions the meaning of God or substance a...
David Hume, following this line of thinking, begins by distinguishing the contents of human experience (which is ultimately reducible to perceptions) into: a) impressions and b) ideas.
Truth of oneself makes it visible when faced with absurd events in life where all ethical issues fade away. One cannot always pinpoint to a specific trait or what the core essence they discover, but it is often described as “finding one’s self”. In religious context, the essential self would be regarded as soul. Whereas, for some there is no such concept as self that exists since they believe that humans are just animals caught in the mechanistic world. However, modern philosophy sheds a positive light and tries to prove the existence of a self. Modern philosophers, Descartes and Hume in particular, draw upon the notion of the transcendental self, thinking self, and the empirical self, self of public life. Hume’s bundle theory serves as a distinction between these two notions here and even when both of these conception in their distinction make valid points, neither of them is more accurate.