David Hume Research Paper

Born in the United Kingdom; David Hume was a Scottish philosopher, historian, and writer, who is best known today for his influence as a philosophical empiricist. Hume wrote his fair share of titles but is quite well known for a few notable pieces of work like, A Treatise of Human Nature, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. By the same token he is famously known for his adoption of the no self-theory, similar to that of the Buddhist following. Specifically “the mind itself, far from being an independent power, is simply a bundle of perceptions without unity or cohesive quality.” With this being one of Empiricist biggest ideas to run with, this has to be one of the biggest ideas I run

against. In case, there is no way that I don’t immediately ask myself the question, “Is my life and yours just a bundle of experiences?” And I, promptly doubt the legitimacy of the theory. Granted, I do acknowledge and recognize the points Hume brings in support of the “bundle theory”.
Starting with; A Treatise of Human Nature, Hume brings up, that we have no "clear and intelligible" idea of the self.

Also, he argues that our concept of the self is just a result of our natural habit of wanting to attach the existence to any collection of similar parts to make a whole. These are reasonable “anti-self” points to make, however besides these, Hume falls flat at presenting a compelling argument that isn’t filled with pure dislike for a substrate point of view. I do agree with Hume when he says that we have not “clear and intelligible” concept of self. It is true, when I try to describe what makes Langston well Langston, it’s really hard to do so without using perceptions. On the other hand, I firmly believe that one can’t be perceive without having a perceiver. It’s that simple you cannot read without a reader, listen without a listener,

etc.
I find Hume’s pretty much gloomy and bleak outlook on life to be irrational.

For instance a good example of this you can find in the third book of the Treatise; Passions, since they don’t represent anything real and are not arguments in and of themselves. Now I would Love to be corrected if I’m wrong, but aren’t passions real things that you care about and enjoy? Does that mean my passion for music just some bundle of impressions or judgments? Sure I had to experience Music to get an impression of it, to further make a judgment from it but, after that a unexplainable sensation dwells inside that makes me want to pursue music. Moving past that, Hume speaks on cause and effect a lot and how causation and pretty much Newton’s third Law, “Every action has an opposite or equal reaction”. He believes that we can perceive cause and effect or two events being related to one another. Yet, it is no more than our desire to associate sequences together, which Hume of course finds the use of association “unfounded and meaningless”. I struggle with seeing how even Hume can stand his malarkey. Because if I push a chair over, and it falls over, there is very much a connection between those events. The

chair
didn’t by chance just so happen to fall down in the direction I pushed it at the same time I did. Someone whom may have been observing the whole situation from afar would not think that a chair randomly fell when I touched it. Yes it is true, that not every time, I push against a chair it will fall, I need to exert enough energy, the chair mustn’t be bound by anything, etc. However If I have the strength the chair shall fall every time.
Lastly, I would like to say I do believe Hume makes a good point that, “reason does not form the basis of morality, it plays the role of an advisor rather than that of a decision-maker”. Following with; immorality is immoral not because it violates reason but because it is displeasing to us. All of this is very much true we base things completely of what pleases us, with the assistance of what is logical. By way of contrast, I don’t think Hume has taking his own philosophy in terms of concluding that there is no-self. Because if he did he’d leave all his personal beliefs at home, and realize that life has to have purpose. Our why else would everything in nature have a function and work in order and cohesion? He probably wouldn’t have an answer but I do, there is something that makes up all of us separate from one another. We may not able to explain it in full detail, or say how it is that we are aware of its existence, but we know it’s there. Whether you call it a soul or whatever else you please it exist as yourself. And that self is what holds your impressions together not some nothingness.