Hume stated the passage when discussing personal identity. In this paper, I first aim to provide an analysis of the statement, dissecting Hume’s view of what the “self” entailed, and how the mind works in helping deceive us into thinking that there is a “self”. After which, I hope to provide a greater insight of the theatrical metaphor used, as theatre is often cited to be “an essential and central metaphor for life” (Wilshire 1985).
Analysis of passage
Hume asserts that “we are nothing but a bundle… of different perceptions”. This is essential in understanding his stance that we are merely a series of thoughts and that there is no mental substance or “holder”, unlike traditional accounts of the self. There is no “I”, which is invariable and uninterrupted across time.
Next, as we are only capable of having one perception at a time, Hume justifies that “our thought is still more variable than our sight”. This is because Hume, being an empiricist, maintains that it is the “perpetual flux and movement” of our thoughts, or more precisely, our imagination, that creates the illusion of the continual succession of perceptions. This feigned succession is a result of relations of resemblance, causation and contiguity of the perceptions of the mind – either ideas or impressions. It is …show more content…
This is similar to a stage where plays are subjected to interferences. However, these interruptions are often expertly handled by cast and crew members, and the entire performance is seemingly cohesive to the audience. Similarly, the individual perceptions, though isolated, are brought together via the relation of ideas and the mind is tricked into believing the continued succession. These perceptions make appearances, retreats and “mingle” to deceive us and bombard us so much so that we are drawn into this belief of a
Analysis of passage
Hume asserts that “we are nothing but a bundle… of different perceptions”. This is essential in understanding his stance that we are merely a series of thoughts and that there is no mental substance or “holder”, unlike traditional accounts of the self. There is no “I”, which is invariable and uninterrupted across time.
Next, as we are only capable of having one perception at a time, Hume justifies that “our thought is still more variable than our sight”. This is because Hume, being an empiricist, maintains that it is the “perpetual flux and movement” of our thoughts, or more precisely, our imagination, that creates the illusion of the continual succession of perceptions. This feigned succession is a result of relations of resemblance, causation and contiguity of the perceptions of the mind – either ideas or impressions. It is …show more content…
This is similar to a stage where plays are subjected to interferences. However, these interruptions are often expertly handled by cast and crew members, and the entire performance is seemingly cohesive to the audience. Similarly, the individual perceptions, though isolated, are brought together via the relation of ideas and the mind is tricked into believing the continued succession. These perceptions make appearances, retreats and “mingle” to deceive us and bombard us so much so that we are drawn into this belief of a