Blog Prompt 15: Hume believes that the self is an illusion or a fiction. What is his argument? Do you find it convincing? Why or why not? Compare and contrast Buddhist non-self with Hume.

“…when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception” (Hume, p. 326).

Hume’s argument about personal identity is that it is nothing more than merely our memories. As the statement above states, Hume believes that there is no self, because we cannot think about ourselves without thinking about the past in which we declare makes us who we are today.

In a way I can see where Hume’s argument derives from, and what makes him believe this, however, I am not entirely convinced. Hume speaks about resemblance and causation. He says that we view our present thoughts as a resemblance to our past and therefore we think that, that makes us, us because it gives us a sense of self. We think our past is a part of us but, in actuality, it is a result of causation. Due to nostalgia we feel their is a connection from past to present, and we associate that to be our self. Hume believes the self to be nonexistent, and that there is no such thing as “I” as a whole, because when things, when people, change there is no way it has the same similarity as before.

Although what Hume says seems to make sense, I disagree with him on his argument. I do think there is a self, and I think that your past doesn’t necessarily represent who you are, but it can if you choose it to be. I see the “self” to be a conscious thing. I see myself as a conscious human being who is aware about my life and my surroundings, and I do not doubt that I, myself exists, because I make my own changes willingly.

In regards to Buddha, who also believes there to be no self, he also agrees with Hume on the fact that if a self exists then it would not change form and be a permanent thing.

The premises below are from the Buddha excerpt of non-self

1. If there were a self it would be permanent.
2. None of the five kinds of psychophysical element is permanent.
3. ∴ There is no self.

1. If there were a self, one could never desire that it be changed.
2. Each of the five kinds of psychophysical element is such that one can desire that it be changed.
3.  ∴ There is no self.

As can be concluded from the premises above, Buddha thinks that self does not exist because we desire change within ourselves. I am curious then what Hume and Buddha does consider to have a “self.” If self is associate with permanency then that means robots have a self because they do not change, and are not affected by their memory, unless programmed to do so.

491 words