David Hume: Ideas, Facts - Essay Example

Introduction As a Scottish philosopher, historian, essayist and economist, David Hume (May 7, 1711 – August 25 1776) was wellknown for his philosophical skepticism and empiricism. Because of his immense output in these fields, Hume is regarded as one of the most important figures in the history of Scottish Enlightenment and Western philosophy, and is normally placed in the same pedestal with George Berkeley and John Locke and other British Empiricists. One of Hume’s masterpieces is his work, A Treatise of Human Nature which he did in 1739. In A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume says that "The identity, which we ascribe to the mind of man, is only a fictitious one...." What Hume Means By This Statement Particularly, Hume says, "The identity, which we ascribe to the mind of man, is only a fictitious one, and of a like kind with that which we ascribe to vegetables and animal bodies." Because of this, Hume continues that, “…It cannot, therefore, have a different origin, but must proceed from a like operation of the imagination upon like objects.”(Hume, 259) By this statement, Hume intended to mean that the idea of self does not emanate from senses, and also not from rational thought. Instead, according to Hume, the idea of self comes from imagination. In turn, imagination stems from causation and memory. To this effect, Hume is of the persuasion that the sole question concerning the creation of self identity is how the elements [contiguity and causation] combine so as to produce the uninterrupted idea of self. In regard to the above, Hume’s intended to mean that ideas are fundamentally ancillary to impressions, including sensory perceptions. In this case, Hume intends to mean that the impressions are the acquired, the lively, forceful and uncontrollable inputs of the senses, imagination and memory. In this case, ideas are taken as the images of the impressions are deemed by Hume as not being accurate, so that he renders them fictitious. Similarly, Hume’s mental existents are all based on the givens of perception, so that he is deemed as a British empiricist. As he uses the term copy to signify the relationship among the relationships which exist among the impressions and the very ideas which are dependent on them, Hume reiterates that complex ideas are based equally on impressions, though one step removed. In the case above, Hume is of the persuasion that a proposition which may not admit of much dispute that all human ideas are merely copies of impressions so that it is impossible to think of anything which has never been antecedently felt by either internal or external senses. To this effect, complex ideas may be known by definition and may be nothing more than an enumeration of parts or simple ideas which composed them (Yolton, 548-50). The significance of Hume’s standpoint above concerning relationship between ideas and impressions is that if an idea is valid or proper, then an individual will be able to relocate the very impressions on which it is based. In the event that no such impressions are found, then the very idea at hand is merely an arbitrary construct of human imagination which may therefore be fictitious, and having nothing extant on what it is based. Again, Hume continues that identity is not reality or a real idea, but a fiction of a person’s imagination. Hume maintains that this is the case since no individual can find an impression from which that identity can be considered a reality. Just as Lamprecht observes, Hume takes the persuasion that all that is given to man is a flow of impressions which are merely individual perceptions. In this light, the concept of unity is then to be premised on a single and unique sensory impression of solitary lump of things that are unchangeable. Because of this, the concept of unity becomes based on perceived uninterruptedness and invariableness of perception. Because of this, Hume is convinced that the principle of individuation is merely uninterruptedness and invariableness of an object through supposed variations of time by which the human mind traces the object in different periods of existence. This is provided that the mental tracing takes place without being compelled to form the idea of number or multiplicity or without the breaking of the view (Lamprecht, 81, 82). In a closely related wavelength, the idea of identity becomes fictitious, based on the mind’s mistaken extension of the same idea of unity, across distinctly independent impressions which human beings experience over time. Why and How Hume Reaches Such a Conclusion Hume reaches his conclusion by first separating and defining the elements which are important in the discussion. These elements are contiguity, causation and resemblance. Hume starts at this point so as to determine and qualify the relationship among these elements and how they help in the creation of self through imagination. Hume rules out contiguity, on the account that in space, it does not apply to ideas. At the same time, the issue of resemblance is also ruled out, on the account that it is faulty. This is because, someone may imagine himself as being similar to a known idea and this may be faulty as well. Aspects of resemblances may be faulty, due to disturbed vision or poor recollection. In respect to the above, Hume asserts that at best, resemblance of past perceptions and experiences may be more of a device which is to be used to lock or consign an identity into place. Again, Hume asserts that the idea of self may not emanate from senses and not from rational thoughts. Instead, the same may stem from imagination, according to Hume. Because of this, Hume took the persuasion that imagination stems from causation memory and causation. Whether Hume Is Right or Not What Hume advances is noble and intellectually captivating and cogently argued. However, in as much as I consent to his ideas in part, I similarly cannot take in Hume’s standpoint as worthy of credence to the letter. This is because of some flaws which are exhibited in his arguments. The first lacuna in Hume’s argument is the manner in which he neglects some important elements between memory and causation. Resemblance and contiguity of objects are always linked in the mind. It is for this reason that if one has a perception of how his car looks like, then each time that individual will think of the car, he will always perceive the shape of the key he uses to ignite the car. In this case, the car and its ignition keys are linked through the memory of the mind because of the interconnectedness which exists between memory and causation. This gap in Hume’s argument presents a serious problem to logic and logical processes. Particularly, going by the argument which Hume advances, the car’s ignition keys produced the need or importance of the car, in lieu of the car producing the need for its ignition keys. Personal Reflections on Hume’s Standpoint I totally agree with Flew’s observation that the gap above has serious implications and remains injurious to his theory on the identity of self. Hume’s dissertation raises serious questions on identity: whether people have identity or not, how identity can be defined and what constitutes his identity, whether or not a person can have an identity outside the parameters of his experience. In this case, many are likely to take the standpoint that identity cannot be possessed outside experience. The problem with this standpoint is that it does not address the question: how one is to state poignantly that there is a point at which everybody conceives identity. Again, this standpoint that many philosophers including Hume take is likely to inspire another question- if one happens not to have experiences, then is the individual a tabula rasa? The same standpoint is likely to compel naysayers or critical minds to ask whether by some construct, the mind begins to make provision for imaginative experiences that have not been witnessed firsthand, but through inference and thought processes. Similarly, it is important to note that even in light of Hume’s theory of identity, if the imaginative experiences that an individual has changes that individual and are able to contrive a form of self identity on the individual, then the entire theory of experiences being testable and tangible is shot (Flew, 365). Conclusion From a personal standpoint, I surmise that the best test for Hume’s theory on identity is time [the ability of time to influence an object]. Should an object remain unchanged even after time has acted upon it, the consistency the object exudes is to be taken as the initial beginnings of identity. This is to the effect that if a person is to react to a particular situation the same way every time the situation comes up, then it might be right to surmise that, that specific personality trait is an identifiable and integral part of the person’s identity. Nevertheless, the strength in Hume’s theory lies on the fact that he leaves out the consideration of emotions as human condition, so that it becomes easy for both Hume’s critics and proponents to agree with him. This is because; emotions are too erratic to be used to describe a person’s character. It is nevertheless important to note that even if emotions are not directly related to a person’s character, the human emotional sense may also serve as a source of change towards a supposed or known personality trait. For instance, a girl may continuously exhibit a tendency and tradition of snubbing young men who attempt to seduce her, but when a person she is attracted to shows up, she may drop this mannerism. In this case, it may be inappropriate to state that the girl’s character has changed, for it is her emotional stated of being that may have modified her behavior. Instead, the senses that Hume refers to or generally disregards are relatable to the five senses which are used to gather data. It is however important to acknowledge the fact that Hume provides in his discussion, an array of great insights into the manner in which the human mind works, reasons and makes deductive and inductive logic. Hume’s works herald further, the discovery of a human person’s true inner self and the manner in which he arrives at different conclusions. For this reason, Hume’s theories and writings have weathered the test of time, even though some scholars continue to argue over the validity of Hume’s work or his writings. With regard to identity, the relation of Hume’s works to time and existence proves that Hume had a valid argument on human personality. Works Cited Flew, Antony. “David Hume.” The Philosophical Quarterly, 26.105 (1976): 365 – 366. Print Hume, David. A Treatise on Human Nature. London: John Noon, January, 1739. Print Lamprecht, P. Sterling. “David Hume.” The Journal of Philosophy, 60.6 (2003): 81 – 83. Print Yolton, W. John. “David Hume.” The Journal of Philosophy, 96.42 (2009): 545 – 550. Print Read More