Hume believes that the self is an illusion or a fiction. What is his argument? Do you find it convincing? Why or why not?
Hume argues that there is no self. Many former philosophers before him argued that there has always been this idea of self. The idea of self is well known in the Western teachings of philosophy. Hume however takes the approach practiced by buddhists. Hume comes across many great arguments as to why he believes that there is no self rather just illusions or fiction. One example is when he states, “When I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some articular perception or other. . . I never catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe anything but the perception“. This argument alone states in short that when Hume tries to look deep within to the core of “himself” he is clouded by images, illusions and perceptions. In other words all a person really is a collection of their perceptions. Hume then goes on to state that, “The mind is a kind of theatre.” “Where several perceptions successively make their appearance.” This depicts again that all the mind does is display or illuminate what we perceive and based upon that perception it creates an illusion. This analogy or comparison of the mind being similar to a theater also could be argued that it is fiction.
Im not really sure i believe that all we are is what we perceive. In a way it kind of reminds me of that saying “you are what you eat”. Its a very bold statement. To me i’d like to think that i am more than just what i’ve seen or what i’ve experienced. This also brings back some psychology teachings of nature vs nurture for some odd reason. I think its due to the fact that in a way what you see and what you surround yourself like you environment can make a person who they are. However, a person can also have the ability to change on their own based upon their willingness to.
Angelica's blog 