DAVID HUME - CONCEPT OF THE “SELF”

There is no such thing as a “Self”

The ideas that do not represent something in reality is an abstract idea and meaningless.

For hume, we can have an idea, that is an impression of something, if we

experience it concretely. For this reason, Hume argues that the ideas that do not
represent something in reality is an abstract idea and therefore meaningless.
The idea of a unicorn or a talking fairy is an example of abstract idea since
there’s no unicorn or a talking fairy in reality.
For hume, soul, mind, or self is abstract idea. That there’s no such thing as the self.
To deepen our understanding about this Hume’s argument, let us jump into his
objection.

HUME’S OBJECTION:

The idea of the self is just an illusion, there is no such thing as a “Self,”

For Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and other philosophers of the

SOUL AND self and soul and mind refers to a thing or substance which is
MIND supposed to be invariably the same through time.
 But, for Hume, if we possess this substance (Soul and Mind or Self), then we must have
an impression of it.
In addition, for Hume, we do not and cannot have an impression of such idea. Therefore,
for him, the term soul, mind or self is one of those meaningless words that we utter. Hume does
not affirm or refute the concept of the "self". It's just that for him, talking about the "self" doesn't
make any sense to him.

Hume's Theory of Ideas

As John Locke argues, "Ideas come from sensation and reflection", which Hume called
"Impression". Hence, it must be noted that when Hume use the term Impression, he means
Idea. In addition, when we say impression in Hume's term, it includes sensation and reflection.
For Hume, THERE IS A MULTIPLICITY OF IDEAS; YET ALL THESE IDEAS ARE LINKED
TOGETHER THAT FORM A COHERENT WHOLE.

For Hume there are three kinds of Law of Associations:

HUME’S LAWS OF ASSOCIATION

CONTIGUITY IN TIME OR PLACE

RESEMBLANCE CAUSE AND EFFECT

In the contiguity of time or place,
when we think of thunder for
The idea of one object tend to call In the Law of cause and effect,
instance, we tend to think of
to mind ideas of the resembling when we think of a fresh egg
lightning or rain
object. falling to the ground for instance,
e.g. The idea of honey resembles it will cause our mind to have the
the sweet and liquid. idea of splattered mess.
 For Hume, THERE IS (NECESSARY) CONNECTION ONLY THROUGH EXPERIENCE
(IN COMMON LIFE AND PRACTICE) WHICH IS BASED ON HABIT. Hence, the only evidence
assuring us of any real existence and matters of fact is EXPERIENCE, that is,

1st The present testimony of our senses.

2nd The records of our memory, and,

3rd The causal (experiential) reasoning based on the

empirically observed regularities of past experiences.

According to him, we know that facts exist in reality simply because we

experienced them.
FOR HUME, IF WE LOOK INSIDE OURSELVES, WE CANNOT FIND AN
IMPRESSION (that is an idea) OF A "SELF" AS A SUBSTANCE.
WE CANNOT EXPERIENCE THE SELF CONCRETELY. HENCE, WE HAVE NO
REASONS TO SUPPOSE THAT WE ARE OUR SELVES OR MIND OR SOULS.
AS HUME FAMOUSLY SAYS, "WE ARE JUST A BUNCH OF IMPRESSION".
THE IDEA OF THE SELF IS SIMPLY AN IDEA AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE
THAT IT EXISTS IN REALITY. IT IS NATURAL TO TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE EXIST,
BECAUSE WE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO IT, BUT TO SUPPOSE THAT THERE IS WITHIN US
AN UNCHANGING SUBSTANCE CALLED THE "SELF" IS AN ILLUSION.

A little detour on Kant’s philosophy response to Hume’s; Kant’s dictum, that all knowledge
begins with experience but does not arise from experience, is precisely this: you need some
material to reflect on before you can discover you’re a priori categories