Hume vs Locke
What is personal identity? What is the “self”? There is a great debate that surrounds this subject in philosophy. So, which philosopher has the right idea? Is it David Hume with his theory of impressions? Or is it John Locke with his theory of consciousness? Both men are famous for their views on the matter, and both pose very interesting ideas. On the surface their views seem quite similar, both men believed our experiences shape us. However, Locke believes that our experiences are what embody the “self” and Hume believes that because of our experiences it would be impossible see a true “self”. So, which philosopher makes the best argument?
David Hume was a Scottish philosopher famous for his radical empiricism and skepticism. …show more content…
He explains that, “…I may venture to affirm … that persons are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in perpetual flux and movement.” Therefore, when we look at who we are, we simply remember our past experiences that shaped us and the impressions they instilled in us. These perceptions change as we grow, and create a new perception of ourselves with each new experience. So how can we have a single persisting “self” when our impressions are what make us who we are, and they are always changing? Hume’s answer to this question is simple, we …show more content…
How can this possibly be true? If I do not remember being a baby, does that mean I was never actually a baby? If I don’t remember the first house I ever lived in, does that mean it did not exist? To say these things would be incredibly ignorant. Of course you were once a baby, just because you don’t remember it doesn’t mean it never happened. It doesn’t mean that experience has nothing to do with who you have become. The idea that everything we are is solely reliant on the memories we have is very hard to comprehend. I don’t believe that if a person were to be in an accident and lose their memories then who they previously were has been completely destroyed. Yes, they would be different, but their loss of memory didn’t destroy their personal identity all together. Our experiences have made us who we are today, even the ones we have forgotten. They are still remain a part of
What is personal identity? What is the “self”? There is a great debate that surrounds this subject in philosophy. So, which philosopher has the right idea? Is it David Hume with his theory of impressions? Or is it John Locke with his theory of consciousness? Both men are famous for their views on the matter, and both pose very interesting ideas. On the surface their views seem quite similar, both men believed our experiences shape us. However, Locke believes that our experiences are what embody the “self” and Hume believes that because of our experiences it would be impossible see a true “self”. So, which philosopher makes the best argument?
David Hume was a Scottish philosopher famous for his radical empiricism and skepticism. …show more content…
He explains that, “…I may venture to affirm … that persons are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in perpetual flux and movement.” Therefore, when we look at who we are, we simply remember our past experiences that shaped us and the impressions they instilled in us. These perceptions change as we grow, and create a new perception of ourselves with each new experience. So how can we have a single persisting “self” when our impressions are what make us who we are, and they are always changing? Hume’s answer to this question is simple, we …show more content…
How can this possibly be true? If I do not remember being a baby, does that mean I was never actually a baby? If I don’t remember the first house I ever lived in, does that mean it did not exist? To say these things would be incredibly ignorant. Of course you were once a baby, just because you don’t remember it doesn’t mean it never happened. It doesn’t mean that experience has nothing to do with who you have become. The idea that everything we are is solely reliant on the memories we have is very hard to comprehend. I don’t believe that if a person were to be in an accident and lose their memories then who they previously were has been completely destroyed. Yes, they would be different, but their loss of memory didn’t destroy their personal identity all together. Our experiences have made us who we are today, even the ones we have forgotten. They are still remain a part of