LedgerGermane
For from what impression could this idea [of self] be derived? This question it is impossible to answer without a manifest contradiction and absurdity; and yet it is a question, which must necessarily be answered, if we would have the idea of self pass for clear and intelligible. It must be some one impression, that gives rise to every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot, therefore, be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is derived; and consequently there is no such idea. […] For my part, 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.

David Hume: A Treatise of Human Nature (via fuckyeahphilosophy)

Hume was a barn burner for me in college. Reading the Treatise always left me with the impression that he was some kinda western buddha.

  1. ifthisismylife reblogged this from fuckyeahphilosophy
  2. sinceileft reblogged this from fuckyeahphilosophy
  3. tuxedocat reblogged this from fuckyeahphilosophy
  4. rodia reblogged this from fuckyeahphilosophy
  5. ryleyh reblogged this from fuckyeahphilosophy
  6. reclusland reblogged this from ledgergermane
  7. ledgergermane reblogged this from fuckyeahphilosophy
  8. fuckyeahphilosophy posted this