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
The story of Clive actually provides evidence to Hume’s claim that consistency is not present throughout life. Hume came to this conclusion through the perceptions he acquires by the scenes, but Clive’s experience is much more evident. He is literally starting from scratch every time he blinks, therefor, he never remains who he once was. This vivid transition exaggerates Hume’s point that all people have been influenced extensively at all moments of their lives while awake and are continuously taking on a new form of “entity” so to speak. Despite the fact that Hume’s outlook on who a person is corresponds with Clive, I have quite different views on which philosophical historian manifest my idea of what personal identity
Hume was an empiricist and a skeptic who believes in mainly the same ideals as Berkeley does, minus Berkeley’s belief in God, and looks more closely at the relations between experience and cause effect. Hume’s epistemological argument is that casual
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
Hume based his position in ethics off of what some would describe his naturalistic, or empirical theory of the mind and is known for asserting four major principles. (1)He
David Hume is was a strong advocator and practitioner of a scientific and empirical way of thinking which is reflected in his philosophy. His skeptical philosophy was a 180 degree shift from the popular rational philosophy of the time period. Hume attempted to understand “human nature” through our psychological behaviors and patterns which, when analyzing Hume’s work, one can clearly see its relation to modern day psychology. Hume was a believer in that human behavior was influenced not by reason but by desire. He believed that “Ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity, friendship, generosity, public spirit—these passions, mixed in various proportions and distributed throughout society, are now (and from the beginning of the world always have been) the source of all the actions and projects that have ever...
The next major theory on how one obtains knowledge comes from David Hume’s Empiricism. Empiricism itself is the idea that all knowledge obtained is done so through senses or experiences throughout life. This theory itself clearly contrasts with rationalism as rationalists believe at no point that they should gain knowledge through senses/experiences. Furthermore, as an empiricist, he does not value anything that is not attained through experience. One of Hume’s beliefs is the idea that everyone is born with a mental “blank slate”. Because all knowledge we gain is thought to be gained through experience (which a newborn would have none at that point) the “slate” starts as blank and will filled in as the person learns through experiences. This
Cause and effect is a tool used to link happenings together and create some sort of explanation. Hume lists the “three principles of connexion among ideas” to show the different ways ideas can be associated with one another (14). The principles are resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect. The focus of much of An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding falls upon the third listed principle. In Section I, Hume emphasizes the need to uncover the truths about the human mind, even though the process may be strenuous and fatiguing. While the principle of cause and effect is something utilized so often, Hume claims that what we conclude through this process cannot be attributed to reason or understanding and instead must be attributed to custom of habit.
Hume’s ultimate goal in his philosophic endeavors was to undermine abstruse Philosophy. By focusing on the aspect of reason, Hume shows there are limitations to philosophy. Since he did not know the limits, he proposed to use reason to the best of his ability, but when he came to a boundary, that was the limit. He conjectured that we must study reason to find out what is beyond the capability of reason.
Hume gives five considerations to the roles of reason and sentiment within the confines of moral motivation. These considerations are his premises for the final supposition which links sentiment and morality immaculately together, and rejects reason as a plausible explanation form oral motivation. His first consideration allows for reason to be presumed true, as the causation of moral motivation. It follows however that reason “judges either matter of fact or of relations. (Hume 84) When considering the moral crime of ingratitude as Hume does, it seems foolhardy to relate ingratitude with a matter of fact, and when I speak of matter of fact I imply the likes of the geometry, chemistry, algebra etc. A matter of fact that can be proven true or false and will always be true and false and can be learned by a leaner and taught by a teacher (though ingratitude might be taught and learned I suppose. Ingratitude is certainly not a matter of fact then, and so it must be discounted because it “arises from complication of circumstances w...
This paper will argue that the philosopher John Locke would have agreed that the human being Karla Faye Tucker should have been executed. I will start by examining the fundamental difference between a human being and a person as forwarded by Locke. In addition, this paper will address what identity over time or what it means to be the same person over a period of time is. I will then show that through Locke's personal opinions, he would have believed that the human being Karla Faye Tucker was the same person who committed the crime 14 years ago and is thus culpable for punishment. A strong objection to my argument however is of Hume's opinion or lack of opinion (account or lack of account) on personal identity. Hume argues that the concept of personal identity is a falsification and that our personal identity is nothing more than a collection of memories which we bundle together as memories. I will counter-argue however that "
... Hume proposes attributes a sense of moral responsibility lost in Hume’s interpretation for the doctrine of liberty and necessities, for humans are responsible only for their choices.
Hume, David. “A Treatise of Human Nature. Excerpts from Book III. Part I. Sect. I-II.”
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.
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.