"When I am without perceptions for a while, as in sound sleep, for that period I am not aware of myself and can truly be said not to exist (p. 133)." This is actually very much true. We're unconscious during sleep, so our "self" is inactive during this period. I think modern psychology would say that our consciousness is tied to the existence of the self.
The last paragraph on page 130 is very intriguing as well. I mean, rationally speaking, things occur in the universe through the fabric of causality all the time -- there doesn't need to be anyone with a mind to perceive such an occurrence at all. I really like that Hume is treading on waters of atheistic propositions and doubt in God as the force behind causality and the universe.
1. A passage I found of importance in this reading is when Hume states, "...Since all our perceptions are different from each other, and from everything else in the universe, they are also distinct and separable, and may be considered or conceived as separately existent." (Hume 123) In this reading Hume seems to put a large importance on the separation of perceptions. Since we have different perceptions of things and they can be separated then they must exist independently; and since they can exist independently, then they must be a substance. It is here where Hume shares his idea of what a substance is. I understand the claim he is trying to make but I believe all the perceptions we perceive have the same underlying structure so are they really that sperate from each other? 2. Something I don't understand about this reading is when Hume writes, " It is that an object can exist, and yet be nowhere." (Hume 124) He claims that an item is said to be no where when its parts are not related to one another; and gives the example of a smell or sound not being able to be a circle or square. This part just confused me and I am not sure what he is trying to say.
Right off the bat when Hume states "the intellectual world, though involved in infinite obscurities, is not tangles in contradictions such as we discovered in the natural world. What is known about it is self-consistent, and what is unknown we must be content to leave so" (122) this is very interesting. I feel as the mind is so complex and that contradictions are more likely to happen because everything is intangible, opposed to the real world where things are tangible.
On page 132 Hume states "For my part, when I look inward at what I call myself, I always stumble on particular perception of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure, or the like. I never catch myself without a perception, and never observe anything but the perception" this is very interesting to me. How He thinks you can not really look at yourself with these perceptions or adjectives even. I feel like certain perceptions depend on others like loved or hated, that would be baed on someone else's perceptions of you.
I feel like Hume takes a serious stance in this treatise. He immediately argues against more traditional definitions of substance, but goes on to claim that it is not only possible, but common for an object to exist and be nowhere. I imagine this is is answer to the location of the soul without sacrificing his materialist perspective on the world, nor compromising the mainstream Christianity of his environment.
When it comes to personal identity, Hume takes a similar stance, that we cant claim to know anything about the nature of identity if in fact we don’t even know what identity really is. Hume seems to be saying that identity is only a fiction, or an illusion, and while he says he sees no continuous thing in himself that he would call his identity, (and i agree that I also do not experience this ting) it seems to be a useful fiction that we need in order to make sense of the world, because without identity, each times we experienced a thing we would do so as if it were completely new, with no context for continuity as we would not recognize it as a thing or type of thing we experienced before. Life in this way becomes entirely incoherent and practically impossible.
1) Humes details an interesting point about perception. Humes explains that "we have no perfect idea of anything besides perception. A substance is completely different from perception." What we perceive is not always the same as what is actually there. We can see perceive a light house from a far and it could simply be an old tower when you get close enough. But what you see does not change the substance as a whole. There is no idea that we have that we did not see in some shape or form first.
1. Hume believes that changes in nature do not seem to alter our idea of identity, as those changes occur slowly. Hume writes, “The line of reasoning that has so successfully explained the identity of plants and animals, of ships and houses, and of all changing complex things—natural and artificial—must be applied to personal identity too” (136). Therefore, just as the identity we give plants and animals seems to remain constant for the slow changes in them do not seem to alter our perception, the same happens to our perception of ourselves.
2. Hume questions the idea of self, as he believes that it is not persistent. Hume states, “If the idea of self came from an impression, it would have to be an impression that remained invariably the same throughout our lives, because the self is supposed to exist in that way. But no impression is constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations follow one other and never all exist at the same time. So it can´t be from any of these impressions or from any other that the idea of self is derived. So there is no such idea” (132). We are constantly changing, feeling different emotions, and we never remain the same. We can look at ourselves and notice changes. Our perceptions of ourselves might sometimes lead us to believe that we are the same because of the memories our mind holds, but we cannot have impressions of something unchanging, as there is no object which remains constant. Therefore, our perceptions are constantly changing, just as every object.
1. I was particularly intrigued by Hume's discussion of perception and the self. He questions, "what are we to say about all our particular perceptions? They are all different, distinguishable, and separable from one other—they can be separately thought about, and can exist separately—with no need for anything to support their existence. In what way do they belong to self? How are they connected with it? For my part, when I look inward at what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure, or the like. I never catch myself without a perception, and never observe anything but the perception," (Hume, 132). From this I understand that Hume believes we are nothing without our perceptions, and that perception is what gives us our understanding of self in the first place. 2. This relates to the idea that everything we learn is from experience. It would make sense that a lot of our understanding of ourselves comes from our sensory experiences.
1.) The final section of of this work is perhaps one of my absolute favorites in all of philosophy. "But setting aside metaphysicians of this kind, I am willing to affirm of the rest of mankind that each of us is nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions that follow each other enormously quickly and are in a perpetual flux and movement". I could be completely wrong here but it seems as if Hume is laying the ground work for phenomenology. I like this notion of the skepticism of self because it can be done through a logical exercise and not through the repeating of mantra's. I believe the results to be both profound and completely useful.
2.) It seems as though here Hume is keeping the project of Descartes alive in going even further than him, I believe he finds new bedrock for all future philosophy. His work combined with Spinoza's can lead us to a vision of the world, that sees all as an inter connected state of flux. However my only critique would be that Hume does not go far enough, and perhaps future skepticism could attack the idea of being and nothingness themselves.
1. Hume brought up an interesting point when he mentions the matter and body. Hume stated “We have found the question impossible to answer with regard to matter and body; When it comes to mind there are all the same difficulties and some additional ones that are special to that subject” (Hume 132). There are certain triggers topics that can effect the mind. Some of those topics can be good and some can be bad.
2. When Hume begin to talk about personal identity in Section 6, it made me think about my own personal identity. Hume states “The strongest sensations and most violent emotions, instead of distracting us from this view of our self, only focus it all the more intensely making us think about how these sensations and emotions affect our self by bringing it pain or pleasure” (Hume 132). This reminds me about the deep emotions that I face on a daily basis. These emotions we have to face them head on despite the way they might affect our self in the long run.
1. Hume's discussion surrounding our ability to know substance was very interesting. He states, "we have no perfect idea of anything except perceptions. A substance is entirely different from a perception. So we have no idea of a substance. It is thought by some philosophers that our perceptions can exist only if they inhere in something that supports them; but notion seems to be needed to support the existence of a perception" (123).
2. Building from this Hume goes on to discuss how perceptions play an intermediate role between physical extended bodies making the physical objects known to us. He states, "The plainest and most down-to-earth philosophy informs us that na external object can't make itself known to the mind immediately; it has to appear through the interposition of an image or perception" (126).
"When I am without perceptions for a while, as in sound
ReplyDeletesleep, for that period I am not aware of myself and can truly
be said not to exist (p. 133)." This is actually very much true. We're unconscious during sleep, so our "self" is inactive during this period. I think modern psychology would say that our consciousness is tied to the existence of the self.
The last paragraph on page 130 is very intriguing as well. I mean, rationally speaking, things occur in the universe through the fabric of causality all the time -- there doesn't need to be anyone with a mind to perceive such an occurrence at all. I really like that Hume is treading on waters of atheistic propositions and doubt in God as the force behind causality and the universe.
1. A passage I found of importance in this reading is when Hume states, "...Since all our perceptions are different from each other, and from everything else in the universe, they are also distinct and separable, and may be considered or conceived as separately existent." (Hume 123) In this reading Hume seems to put a large importance on the separation of perceptions. Since we have different perceptions of things and they can be separated then they must exist independently; and since they can exist independently, then they must be a substance. It is here where Hume shares his idea of what a substance is. I understand the claim he is trying to make but I believe all the perceptions we perceive have the same underlying structure so are they really that sperate from each other?
ReplyDelete2. Something I don't understand about this reading is when Hume writes, " It is that an object can exist, and yet be nowhere." (Hume 124) He claims that an item is said to be no where when its parts are not related to one another; and gives the example of a smell or sound not being able to be a circle or square. This part just confused me and I am not sure what he is trying to say.
Right off the bat when Hume states "the intellectual world, though involved in infinite obscurities, is not tangles in contradictions such as we discovered in the natural world. What is known about it is self-consistent, and what is unknown we must be content to leave so" (122) this is very interesting. I feel as the mind is so complex and that contradictions are more likely to happen because everything is intangible, opposed to the real world where things are tangible.
ReplyDeleteOn page 132 Hume states "For my part, when I look inward at what I call myself, I always stumble on particular perception of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure, or the like. I never catch myself without a perception, and never observe anything but the perception" this is very interesting to me. How He thinks you can not really look at yourself with these perceptions or adjectives even. I feel like certain perceptions depend on others like loved or hated, that would be baed on someone else's perceptions of you.
I feel like Hume takes a serious stance in this treatise. He immediately argues against more traditional definitions of substance, but goes on to claim that it is not only possible, but common for an object to exist and be nowhere. I imagine this is is answer to the location of the soul without sacrificing his materialist perspective on the world, nor compromising the mainstream Christianity of his environment.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to personal identity, Hume takes a similar stance, that we cant claim to know anything about the nature of identity if in fact we don’t even know what identity really is. Hume seems to be saying that identity is only a fiction, or an illusion, and while he says he sees no continuous thing in himself that he would call his identity, (and i agree that I also do not experience this ting) it seems to be a useful fiction that we need in order to make sense of the world, because without identity, each times we experienced a thing we would do so as if it were completely new, with no context for continuity as we would not recognize it as a thing or type of thing we experienced before. Life in this way becomes entirely incoherent and practically impossible.
1) Humes details an interesting point about perception. Humes explains that "we have no perfect idea of anything besides perception. A substance is completely different from perception." What we perceive is not always the same as what is actually there. We can see perceive a light house from a far and it could simply be an old tower when you get close enough. But what you see does not change the substance as a whole. There is no idea that we have that we did not see in some shape or form first.
ReplyDelete1. Hume believes that changes in nature do not seem to alter our idea of identity, as those changes occur slowly. Hume writes, “The line of reasoning that has so successfully explained the identity of plants and animals, of ships and houses, and of all changing complex things—natural and artificial—must be applied to personal identity too” (136). Therefore, just as the identity we give plants and animals seems to remain constant for the slow changes in them do not seem to alter our perception, the same happens to our perception of ourselves.
ReplyDelete2. Hume questions the idea of self, as he believes that it is not persistent. Hume states, “If the idea of self came from an impression, it would have to be an impression that remained invariably the same throughout our lives, because the self is supposed to exist in that way. But no impression is constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations follow one other and never all exist at the same time. So it can´t be from any of these impressions or from any other that the idea of self is derived. So there is no such idea” (132). We are constantly changing, feeling different emotions, and we never remain the same. We can look at ourselves and notice changes. Our perceptions of ourselves might sometimes lead us to believe that we are the same because of the memories our mind holds, but we cannot have impressions of something unchanging, as there is no object which remains constant. Therefore, our perceptions are constantly changing, just as every object.
1. I was particularly intrigued by Hume's discussion of perception and the self. He questions, "what are we to say about all our particular perceptions? They are all different, distinguishable, and separable from one other—they can be separately thought about, and can exist separately—with no need for anything to support their
ReplyDeleteexistence. In what way do they belong to self? How are they connected with it? For my part, when I look inward at what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure, or the like. I never catch myself without a perception, and never observe anything but the perception," (Hume, 132). From this I understand that Hume believes we are nothing without our perceptions, and that perception is what gives us our understanding of self in the first place.
2. This relates to the idea that everything we learn is from experience. It would make sense that a lot of our understanding of ourselves comes from our sensory experiences.
1.) The final section of of this work is perhaps one of my absolute favorites in all of philosophy. "But setting aside metaphysicians of this kind, I am willing to affirm of the rest of mankind that each of us is nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions that follow each other enormously quickly and are in a perpetual flux
ReplyDeleteand movement". I could be completely wrong here but it seems as if Hume is laying the ground work for phenomenology. I like this notion of the skepticism of self because it can be done through a logical exercise and not through the repeating of mantra's. I believe the results to be both profound and completely useful.
2.) It seems as though here Hume is keeping the project of Descartes alive in going even further than him, I believe he finds new bedrock for all future philosophy. His work combined with Spinoza's can lead us to a vision of the world, that sees all as an inter connected state of flux. However my only critique would be that Hume does not go far enough, and perhaps future skepticism could attack the idea of being and nothingness themselves.
1. Hume brought up an interesting point when he mentions the matter and body. Hume stated “We have found the question impossible to answer with regard to matter and body; When it comes to mind there are all the same difficulties and some additional ones that are special to that subject” (Hume 132). There are certain triggers topics that can effect the mind. Some of those topics can be good and some can be bad.
ReplyDelete2. When Hume begin to talk about personal identity in Section 6, it made me think about my own personal identity. Hume states “The strongest sensations and most violent emotions, instead of distracting us from this view of our self, only focus it all the more intensely making us think about how these sensations and emotions affect our self by bringing it pain or pleasure” (Hume 132). This reminds me about the deep emotions that I face on a daily basis. These emotions we have to face them head on despite the way they might affect our self in the long run.
1. Hume's discussion surrounding our ability to know substance was very interesting. He states, "we have no perfect idea of anything except perceptions. A substance is entirely different from a perception. So we have no idea of a substance. It is thought by some philosophers that our perceptions can exist only if they inhere in something that supports them; but notion seems to be needed to support the existence of a perception" (123).
ReplyDelete2. Building from this Hume goes on to discuss how perceptions play an intermediate role between physical extended bodies making the physical objects known to us. He states, "The plainest and most down-to-earth philosophy informs us that na external object can't make itself known to the mind immediately; it has to appear through the interposition of an image or perception" (126).