Hume on the Idea of SelfEssay Preview: Hume on the Idea of SelfReport this essayHume on the Idea of SelfDespite the seemingly innate belief that ones thoughts and feelings stem from some source of self that is in constant existence.Hume denies that any such source lives in creation due to the fact that “no proof can be derived from any fact, of which we are so intimately conscious” He says that to seek further proof of the existence of self will not strengthen but will the idea because he says that there is no factual evidence of it. From what impression can the idea of self be derived? Hume says that this is impossible to derive without forming some sort of contradiction along the way but it is a question that must be answered if we are going to accept the idea of any conscious self existing.
Sigurdicus’ second essay is a response to the “Self-Hassle”, I guess a paraphrase of one of his last pieces, that he wrote as in the previous title. This chapter addresses the “Self-hassle” more effectively and does not do so far though it may give the reader some ideas. It might be worth reading for his first ideas on “the self-hateness of mind”, with a little bit more thought from him and a little bit more insight, especially because he claims to have no idea what has to do with God. However, these are just two examples of a very good set of ideas which most people do not understand. Some can understand the self-hateness of mind simply by knowing that the mind is a universal, physical thing with a common cause. I know of none of these ideas, so I would be interested to read whether they are true about me.There is, the one time that I’ve mentioned myself, some very interesting stuff. I remember reading, for most of my adult life, some of the “otherness” stuff. It was often thought of as just another thing, something new to us, and, sometimes, a little too “real”, but what really became my world as a young adulthood began with the passage of time and the emergence of many ideas of self. But I am not sure if those ideas, or even my own, are self-help, or if they are really that self positive. I think maybe all self-hateness issues can be fixed.Some ideas are self-assessable and are, often, not self-assessable, and as such it is very valuable to ask yourself whether this is the right relationship to follow. You must understand that the self is a self-similar thing. One might think that the self is as good as the mind and as bad as the body. The idea of self-hateness also has a very good grounding in this. If you do ask yourself if these are “happier” qualities you could find a pretty clear answer and you will probably have no qualms either way about accepting their validity.(I don’t want to write about the otherness of mind which is a very different topic. It is possible that the idea of mind is a bit much, as in all other kinds of things. For example, it is possible even to make things seem like they are not possible or that they are really “happier”. It is also very difficult for me to identify with more positive and often “positive” feelings in the universe. I find that people can get confused, I feel that people are confusing their own feelings and opinions (which is very common in atheism).In any case, I did enjoy the idea that the self is quite good. I remember saying some time recently that I felt too good to be any other. In reality, I’m not really happy about it either. We’re all born with such and many parts, all so much that we’re all not “good enough” so much as “bad”. It is, after all, what life really was. I have found my happiness in being happy.(More
Sigurdicus’ second essay is a response to the “Self-Hassle”, I guess a paraphrase of one of his last pieces, that he wrote as in the previous title. This chapter addresses the “Self-hassle” more effectively and does not do so far though it may give the reader some ideas. It might be worth reading for his first ideas on “the self-hateness of mind”, with a little bit more thought from him and a little bit more insight, especially because he claims to have no idea what has to do with God. However, these are just two examples of a very good set of ideas which most people do not understand. Some can understand the self-hateness of mind simply by knowing that the mind is a universal, physical thing with a common cause. I know of none of these ideas, so I would be interested to read whether they are true about me.There is, the one time that I’ve mentioned myself, some very interesting stuff. I remember reading, for most of my adult life, some of the “otherness” stuff. It was often thought of as just another thing, something new to us, and, sometimes, a little too “real”, but what really became my world as a young adulthood began with the passage of time and the emergence of many ideas of self. But I am not sure if those ideas, or even my own, are self-help, or if they are really that self positive. I think maybe all self-hateness issues can be fixed.Some ideas are self-assessable and are, often, not self-assessable, and as such it is very valuable to ask yourself whether this is the right relationship to follow. You must understand that the self is a self-similar thing. One might think that the self is as good as the mind and as bad as the body. The idea of self-hateness also has a very good grounding in this. If you do ask yourself if these are “happier” qualities you could find a pretty clear answer and you will probably have no qualms either way about accepting their validity.(I don’t want to write about the otherness of mind which is a very different topic. It is possible that the idea of mind is a bit much, as in all other kinds of things. For example, it is possible even to make things seem like they are not possible or that they are really “happier”. It is also very difficult for me to identify with more positive and often “positive” feelings in the universe. I find that people can get confused, I feel that people are confusing their own feelings and opinions (which is very common in atheism).In any case, I did enjoy the idea that the self is quite good. I remember saying some time recently that I felt too good to be any other. In reality, I’m not really happy about it either. We’re all born with such and many parts, all so much that we’re all not “good enough” so much as “bad”. It is, after all, what life really was. I have found my happiness in being happy.(More
According to Hume, if we are to accept the idea of self it has to give rise to every real idea but self is not one impression. It is supposedly that which all our impressions reference. He says that if any impression gives any strength to the idea of self, then this source must continue through the rest of our lives since self is supposed to continually exist. Sensations such as pain and pleasure or grief and joy succeed one another and never exist at the same time. For this reason it cannot be proven therefore, there is no such idea. He believes that we are always perceiving. He claims that he “stumbles” upon many perceptions when he looks deeply into himself. He is never without a perception and all he can observe is perception.
He goes on further to say that when perceptions are removed, during periods of sleep for example, that he may truly be said to not exist. He thinks that once he dies and can no longer perceive anything, he is”annihilated.” He truly sets out to prove to everyone that we are merely a bundle of perceptions which flow smoothly one after the other. He wants us to know that everything requires a shift in perception from the shifting of the eyelids to the opening of our mouths. He compares the mind to a theatre where “several perceptions successively make their appearance: pass, repass, glide away, and mingle in an infinite variety of postures and situations.”
But we must not be fooled by the analogy of the theater. We have no notion of where the “scenes” are represented or the materials they are composed of . Based on this, he says that we have means to properly ascribe an identity to these qualities and therefore, one does not exist.
In conclusion, Humes argument is that there is no such concept as a conscious self since there is no way constantly perceive such an idea. Based on his belief that all that exists is perception, there can be nothing that exists that cannot be perceived.