The Self and Personal Identity: David Hume.

Hume: 'The Self as a Bundle'

'A Treatise of Human Nature'

Humes paper was provoked by what he saw as certain philosophers taking for granted the idea of the enduring self. He was particulary focussed on attacking Joseph Butler. Hume believed his idea of an enduring self was a fiction.

Like Locke Hume was an empiricist. He believed sensory experience is the source of our thoughts. He termed these sensory inputs as impressions. Impressions are basic things derived from our perceptions (such as pain, pleasure, etc). When we think about these impressions we are then provided with ideas of them. Thus if we see a Rhino this is an impression. When we close our eyes we have a idea of this impression. Ideas then are weaker than impressions as they are only weaker versions (or footprints).

Because the idea of the self was described as a elemental or simple idea it must be based on a it must come from a unchanging impression, but, for Hume, this was not the case. When you look inside your mind you only see a constant flux of perceptions such as pleasure, pain, misery; but you do not see the self itself. It is this bundle of constantly changing perceptions that make the self. But there is no string, or platform, to tie these strings of perceptions together.

Therefore the enduring self, as proposed by Butler, is a myth.

Now Hume believes he knows why people are often confused when they naturally think they have an enduring self. This comes from the confusion of the terms 'sameness'.

Hume distinguishes between two types of sameness (similar to numerical and qualative). There is exact sameness and related sameness, which while they are distinct, are often confused. For example , if we see a tree today and a tree tomorrow we often think this exactly the same object, yet it would only be closely linked- the tree would have grown, insects would have made a home in it, leaves would have fallen from branches, etc.  The mind lazily tricks itself into thinking that these are two discreet objects when in fact they are merely related.

This fraudulent belief that this sameness exists is  comfounded when you view identity of self. The perceptions of the senses are in constant flux but because they arise in quick succession  appear seamless, hence there must be a enduring self through time. People invent terms for this connectedness such as the soul, spirit, or whatever but this is a false trick!! In fact there is no enduring self only related objects.

This view led Hume to conclude that death is the ultimate annililation, because the perceptions cease to persist.

An counter view is that of Kant. He thought the self was not an empirical idea, rather it was structural. A person always has the frame of reference of self. You always say 'I am.....'