Personal Identity : David Hume

Hume’s concern of how we come to know is both intriguing and perplexing as it encourages us to become skeptical of the many things we would consider to be knowledge and thus presents us with a dilemma. If we are to agree with Hume, then experience becomes counterproductive as it cannot verify our knowledge that “the sun will rise tomorrow” for instance. This would mean that science, for example, cannot provide us with truths or knowledge. No matter how convincing, many experiments are widely dependant on past experience and its outcomes’ consistency. Hume asserts that we have an expectancy that past events will resemble future events without really having any kind of valid justification for this. If we are to rely solely on matters of fact, we would be greatly

In philosophy, the issue of personal identity concerns the conditions under which a person at one time is the same person at another time. An analysis of personal identity

He started by clarifying what impressions were, “original impressions or impressions of sensation are such without any antecedent perception arise in the soul, from the constitution of the body, from the animal spirits, or from the application of objects to the external organs. Secondary or reflective impressions are such as proceeding from some of these original ones, either immediately or by the interposition of its ideas. Of the first kind are all the impressions of the senses, and all bodily pains and pleasures: of the second are the passions and other emotions resembling them,” (Hume 275). As a result, we receive impressions from our senses; they are inner impressions and original because they come from physical sources that are outside of us. Passions in contrast, come from secondary impressions. Passions, according to Hume, “Are completely different from reason and therefore cannot be put in either category of reasonable or unreasonable” (Hume 23). Hume states, “Judgments only result in opinions and nothing else, therefore when a person makes judgments about different ideas whether they are reasonable or unreasonable does not matter. Reason works in influencing our actions in two ways, directing passions to focus on proper objects and discovering connections that will incite passions, judgments have to incite passions for

Hume states that we have no impression of the self, no matter how much we try to observe. He preaches that all of our beliefs are unjustifiable, and he steers on the same track with this idea. Although the idea of belief in ourselves is natural, it isn’t correct. This idea hurts my brain the most, I try to get a grasp of my own inner-self, but it only results in me being more confused about whether what I am thinking is actually true or not. However, I do believe that we have some sort of personal identity, at least we want to believe that we

Greetings, Mr. Hume. During your colloquium, I found myself somewhat confused over the conclusions you drew regarding the self, or rather, the total lack thereof. As I understand it, you claim the concept of the self as a constant and static identity is nonexistent, as our idea of the self is influenced by our sensations, which are constantly in flux. While I certainly agree that the self is too nebulous to be reduced to some unwavering, undefinable substance that composes one’s identity, I am not so convinced that the self is nonexistent due to our own dynamic sense perceptions. My concern lies primarily with the subjectivity of impressions, in which you said: “[...] But there is no impression constant and invariable. [...] It cannot, therefore,

Hume’s belief was that there was a distinct difference between ideas and impressions. That impressions are derived from an immediate experiences, they are vivid and forceful. Ideas on the other hand come from these impressions, memories or imaginations. These ideas that were have because they are simply memories are less vivid and less

The main problem that skepticism holds is nothing is truly knowable. In regards to this problem of knowledge, John Locke and David Hume offer different answers. While Locke's response contains both empirical and rationalistic aspects, Hume's response strictly adheres to scientific methodology. In this essay, I will be comparing the arguments of Locke and Hume and explaining why Hume's response towards skepticism is better than Locke's.

Hello, Timothy! Your response to the question was interesting and unique. However, I would disagree with some of the things you said, such as “Hume believed that we can only perceive reality based on our impressions and ideas that we develop when we are experiencing it.” I disagree with this, as the essay “Lecture - Hume and Kant” describes Hume’s belief on reality as we perceive reality through our impressions which then forms our thoughts/ideas about the world. According to Hume, no ideas are formed without the basis of an impression or experience. I would also like to point out that Hume “was not willing to agree with Berkeley that sensible objects are just clusters of sensory impressions” (page 124). This, in my opinion, is an important

In fact, David Hume, known in philosophical history as Rene Descartes’s most fierce opponent, was one of those new skeptics. He offered up a new point of view on answering the fundamental questions of philosophy, and his new views on science and nature changed the future of western philosophy. With his reformulation of Skepticism, Hume cast shadows over Rene Descartes’ work with his new thoughts on knowledge and the senses. In contrast to Rene Descartes’ work, David Hume declared that knowledge is, in fact, derived from the senses and experience rather than reason. His studies of the fundamental questions of philosophy began with the difference between ideas and impressions. All of our sensations and passions make up our impression of the world around us and in being so give us greater ideas of the world itself (“Rationalism vs.

David Hume was an influential philosopher in the 1700s and is highly recognized for his view points on rationality as well as skepticism, philosophical imperialism and naturalism. One of his major pieces that he is most recognized for is his Enquiry of Human Understanding. In this enquiry he challenges many concepts such as our belief in cause and effect as well as belief in logical reasoning.

Hume begins by telling the difference between impressions and ideas. Impressions are sensory impressions, emotions, and other brilliant mental experiences, while ideas are thoughts or beliefs or memories related to these impressions. People build up all their ideas from simple impressions through three laws of association: resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect. Next, Hume distinguishes between relations of ideas and matters of fact. For the most part, we understand matters of fact according to cause and effect, where a direct impression will lead us to infer some unobserved cause. There is no contradiction in denying a causal connection, so we cannot do so through relations of ideas. Hume suggests habit, and not reason, enforces a perception

For Hume, all knowledge originates with experience, and all experience is of one’s own perceptions. We have direct knowledge only of perceptions, not of what the perceptions are of (if, indeed, they may be counted as of anything); for the perception stands between the perceiving mind and its supposed real-world object. Hume says,

David Hume was a famous empiricist from the era of modern philosophy. He is very well-known for his skepticism. He was a strict advocate of the belief that all knowledge comes from sensory experiences or impressions of reflection. He also questioned the cosmological and design arguments used by his predecessors to prove the existence of God. He criticized the belief that the order of the universe and implied the existence of God. He also rejected the idea proposed by Berkeley that the objects that cannot be perceived exist in an eternal omnipresent mind which is that of God.

David Hume was an imperialist philosopher who revolutionized scientific argument and methodology with his skepticism. His arguments about the way people though up to his day, and still today, are fundamental in explaining how we gain knowledge and what we do with this knowledge. Hume helped pave a road leading toward a higher state of consciousness for humanity with his theory concerning the perceptions of the mind. He divided the minds perception into two distinct group's impression and ideas. With these two classifications Hume rationalized the depths of human understanding. Impressions consist of the perception regarding all that is seen, felt and heard. Ideas are formulated thoughts based upon impressions. They are the perceptions of

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,