UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

David Hume : self identity Browning, Walter Frank 1974

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A8 B76_3.pdf [ 3.39MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093199.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093199-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093199-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093199-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093199-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093199-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093199-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093199-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093199.ris

Full Text

DAVID HUMS: SELF IDENTITY BY WALTER FRANK BROWNING B . S c , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 19&9. A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS In the Department of P h i l o s o p h y V/e accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 19 7*+ In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e H e a d o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t o f P h i l o s o p h y The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r 8 , C a n a d a D a t e A u g u s t 1 2 , 197^ i A B S T R A C T 1 I n t h e ' A p p e n d i x ' t o t h e T r e a t i s e o f H u m a n N a t u r e D a v i d H u m e a s s e r t s t h a t h e h a s b e e n u n a b l e t o e x p l a i n t h e p r i n c i p l e s w h i c h c a n a d e q u a t e l y a c c o u n t f o r t h e u n i t y a n d t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e s e l f . T h e r e e x i s t s i n B o o k I o f t h e T r e a t i s e , a p r i n c i p l e , w h i c h c a n i n f a c t a c c o u n t f o r t h e u n i t y a n d i d e n t i t y o f t h e s e l f . H u m e u t i l i z e s t h e p r i n c i p l e i n h i s e x p l i c a t i o n o f o u r b e l i e f i n t h e c o n t i n u e d a n d i n -d e p e n d e n t e x i s t e n c e o f a m a t e r i a l w o r l d . H e d i d n o t , h o w -e v e r , u t i l i z e t h e p r i n c i p l e i n h i s e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e u n i t y a n d i d e n t i t y o f t h e s e l f . I n t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n I i n d i c a t e w h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e a s s e r t s a n d p r e c i s e l y h o w H u m e u t i l i z e s i t . I n c h a p t e r o n e I e x a m i n e H u m e ' s c o n c e p t o f i d e n t i t y w i t h a v i e w t o w a r d s c l a r i f y i n g s o m e p u z z l e s w h i c h a r i s e i n h i s a c c o u n t . A l s o i n t h i s c h a p t e r I p o i n t o u t h o w h i s e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h i d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d o f a m u l t i p l i c i t y c a n b e i m p r o v e d . B o t h t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n a n d c h a p t e r o n e p r e p a r e t h e w a y f o r a c l e a r s t a t e m e n t o f t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h i d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d o f t h e s e l f i n c h a p t e r t w o . I s h o w f u r t h e r m o r e , h o w a n i m p r e s s i o n o f t h e s e l f i s p o s s i b l e u p o n t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f B o o k I . 1. A l l r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e T r e a t i s e a r e t o t h e L . A . S e l b y B i g g e e d i t i o n , O x f o r d a t t h e C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1955. i i C O N T E N T S page I n t r o d u c t i o n : The G a l l e y P r i n c i p l e 1 Chapter I : I d e n t i t y 18 Chapter I I : The S e l f 38 Conclusion: >+9 B i b l i o g r a p h y : 51* i i i A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T I s h o u l d l i k e t o t h a n k D r . W a r r e n M u l l i n s f o r h i s a s s i s t a n c e i n p r e p a r i n g t h i s t h e s i s . i v DEDICATION F o r Tannis and M i c h a e l I. INTRODUCTION The sense i n which the n o t i o n of personal i d e n t i t y presents a p h i l o s o p h i c a l problem i s t h a t sense i n which a person i s s a i d to be i d e n t i c a l l y the same at two non co-temporary moments. Thus i t may be j u d i c i o u s l y asked: i s Lorimer, who now meekly stands at the f o o t o f the bench, the same person as Lorimer who yesterday m e r c i l e s s l y accosted Haldane? Now t h i s f o r m u l a t i o n i s not at odds w i t h Hume's statement of the personal i d e n t i t y problem, but at the same time Hume's statement has i t s p e c u l i a r i t i e s . In the s e c t i o n 'of personal i d e n t i t y ' Hume concluded t h a t the i d e n t i t y of the s e l f could be explained i n the same way that the i d e n t i t y of p l a n t s and animals and ships and ta b l e s could be explained. The i d e n t i t y of these objects i s a f i c t i t i o u s i d e n t i t y . I t a r i s e s Hume argues, from the a c t -i v i t y o f the ima g i n a t i o n upon the succession of percepts which c o n s t i t u t e th© o b j e c t . The s e l f , Hume c l a i m s , c o n s i d -ered as a succession of as s o c i a t e d percepts, has an i d e n t i t y o n l y i n t h i s f i c t i o n a l sense. In th© 'Appendix' to the T r e a t i s e , Hume's f i n a l thoughts on th© n o t i o n of personal i d e n t i t y are expressed. There he does not recant anything he has p r e v i o u s l y argued, 1. This u n f e l i c i t o u s statement w i l l be c l a r i f i e d im th© f o l l o w i n g pages. 2 but he r e i t e r a t e s h i s c l a i m t h a t the s e l f , as an a s s o c i a t i o n 2 o f p e r c e p t s , has no r e a l u n i t y . Furthermore, the o n l y i d -e n t i t y t h a t can be poin t e d to i s t h a t the a s s o c i a t i o n o f percept s f e e l s as i f i t were an i d e n t i t y . T h i s i s b a s i c a l l y the argument he uses to show how an i d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d o f an o b j e c t which i s c o n s t i t u t e d by a m u l t i p l i c i t y , t h a t i s , a s u c c e s s i o n o f a s s o c i a t e d p e r c e p t s . Hume argues t h a t h i s i n a b i l i t y to e x p l a i n the u n i t y o f the s u c c e s s i o n o f percepts a r i s e s from two p r i n c i p l e s which he cannot r e c o n c i l e nor i s he w i l l i n g to abandon e i t h e r o f them. The p r i n c i p l e s are the f o l l o w i n g : . . . a l l our d i s t i n c t p e r c e p t i o n s are d i s t i n c t  e x i s t e n c e s , and...the mind never p e r c e i v e s  any r e a l connexion among d i s t i n c t e x i s t e n c e s . Hume argues t h a t the s e l f , as something d i s t i n c t from the s u c c e s s i o n o f p e r c e p t i o n s i n the mind, i s i t s e l f never p e r c e i v e d . At most, one i s aware o n l y o f the 2 . Hume argues t h a t the p r e d i c a t i o n o f i d e n t i t y to a suc-c e s s i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t the s u c c e s s i o n f i r s t be viewed as a u n i t y by the i m a g i n a t i o n . I t i s . S u f f i c i e n t , f o r the moment, to d i s c u s s o n l y the q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g the u n i t y o f a s e r i e s . The i d e n t i t y p r e d i c a t e d o f a u n i t y i s di s c u s s e d l a t e r i n chapter one. P e r c e i v a b l e u n i t y i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by what Hume c a l l s i n v a r i a b l e n e s s and un i n t e r r u p t e d n e s s . The proble m a t i c case f o r Hume i s to e x p l a i n how a s e r i e s , an i n t e r r u p t e d s u c c e s s i o n o f per c e p t s , c o n s t i t u t e s a u n i t y . 3 . ( T. 636 ) Hume«s i t a l i c s . 3 succession of percepts, nothing more. How then, Hume asks, can the u n i t y of the succession a r i s e ? No connections are ever perceived amongst the d i s t i n c t percepts; no subject of in h e s i o n , as something d i s t i n c t from the percepts, i s d i s -covered. I t i s c l e a r that Hume thought that a s s o c i a t i o n s amongst percepts d i d not c o n s t i t u t e r e a l observable bonds. Presumably, he thought that the a s s o c i a t i n g q u a l i t i e s : r e -semblance, c o n t i g u i t y and caus a t i o n d i d not c o n s t i t u t e some-t h i n g which e x i s t above and beyond p a r t i c u l a r perceptions. These q u a l i t i e s are explanative of h i s o b s e r v a t i o n that i f percepts repeatedly appear together. They do not, Hume argues, c o n s t i t u t e an inseparable bond amongst percepts. The imagination i s a b l e , where i t perceives a d i f f e r e n c e a-5 mongst ideas , to perform a se p a r a t i o n and a reunion. This p r i n c i p l e accounts f o r the existence of the f i c t i o n s of the imagination - those ideas which cannot be cashed immediately through impressions. These f i c t i o n s however may be traced , 6 by an appeal to Hume's p r i o r i t y p r i n c i p l e , to the simple h . Hume thought t h a t a s s o c i a t i o n s explained how simple ideas r e g u l a r l y form complex ideas. ( T. 10 ) f . I argue l a t e r t h a t Hume i s committed to the view that these q u a l i t i e s a l s o account f o r a s s o c i a t i o n s o f complex i d e a s . 5. I b i d . 6 . Hume's p r i o r i t y p r i n c i p l e i s t h i s : ' . . . a l l our simple ideas i n t h e i r f i r s t appearance are d e r i v ' d from simple impressions, which are correspondent to them, and which they e x a c t l y represent.' ( T. h ) k impressions which give r i s e to those simple ideas which have been united to form a p a r t i c u l a r complex i d e a . What i s not c l e a r i s why Hume thought that the a s s o c i a t i n g q u a l i t i e s d i d not e x p l a i n the u n i t y of the suc-c e s s i o n of percepts which c o n s t i t u t e the mind. He d i d t h i n k that the a s s o c i a t i n g q u a l i t i e s which y i e l d e d a complex idea from simple ideas c o n s t i t u t e d what he c a l l s u n i v e r s a l p r i n -7 c i p l e s of the imagination. Perhaps Hume thought that the separation p r i n c i p l e of the imagination was s u f f i c i e n t to render an a s s o c i a t i v e u n i t y , a m u l t i p l i c i t y . Perhaps he thought, i n other words, th a t a u n i t y which could be e a s i l y d i s a r r a y e d was not i n f a c t a u n i t y . I t i s doub t f u l t h a t Hume held t h i s view however: there i s no reason to suppose that the book i n f r o n t of me, which was rendered i n t o a thousand p i e c e s , was not at one time a u n i t y . I t i s more l i k e l y that Hume's o b j e c t i o n to con s i d -e r i n g a s s o c i a t i o n s o f perceptions as c o n s t i t u t i n g a u n i t y i s the existence of an observable d i s c o n t i n u i t y i n the success-i o n . The desk I perceive i n f r o n t o f me i s one desk, i f my perc e p t i o n of i t i s continuous. But i f I b l i n k , or t u r n my head, and the one per c e p t i o n i s i n t e r r u p t e d but fo l l o w e d by another resembling p e r c e p t i o n , then there e x i s t two percepts. U n i t y has been destroyed. That the two percepts are o n l y 7. ( T. 10 ) 5 a s s o c i a t e d - e v e n f o l l o w o n e a n o t h e r s o c l o s e l y t h a t t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n i s b a r e l y p e r c e p t i b l e - n e v e r t h e l e s s d e s t r o y s t h e u n i t y . S t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g , t h e d i s c o n t i n u i t y w h i c h I h a v e r e f e r r e d t o i s a d i s c o n t i n u i t y o n l y i n t h e p e r c e p t o f t h e d e s k . T h e i n t e r r u p t i o n w h i c h e x i s t s b e t w e e n t h e t w o d e s k p e r c e p t s i s n o t a n i n t e r r u p t i o n i n t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f p e r c e p -t i o n s r u n n i n g t h r o u g h m y m i n d . H u m e w o u l d w a n t t o a r g u e t h a t w h a t h a s b e e n d e s t r o y e d i s t h e u n i t y o f t h e d e s k p e r c e p t , e v e n b y t h e i n t e r p o s i t i o n o f o t h e r p e r c e p t s w h i c h f o r m a c o n t i n u o u s s u c c e s s i o n b e t w e e n t h e t w o d e s k p e r c e p t s . T h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e u n i t y o f t h e d e s k p e r c e p t i s d e s t r o y e d i s f o u n d e d u p o n t h e s e p a r a t i o n p r i n c i p l e o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n . W h e r e v e r t h e i m a g i n -a t i o n p e r c e i v e s a d i f f e r e n c e t h i s i m p l i e s t h a t t h e r e e x i s t p e r c e p t s x ^ h i c h a r e d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . P e r c e p t s w h i c h a r e d i s -t i n g u i s h a b l e a r e s e p a r a b l e b y t h e i m a g i n a t i o n . T h e p o s -s i b i l i t y o f a s e p a r a t i o n b y t h e i m a g i n a t i o n m e a n s t h a t a : u n i t y d o e s n o t e x i s t . A s e p a r a t i o n i m p l i e s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a m u l t i p l i c i t y . W h a t d e s t r o y s t h e u n i t y o f a s u c c e s s i o n o f p e r c e p t s o f t h e d e s k i s t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n i n t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e p e r c e p t . N o w t o a r g u e f r o m t h i s k i n d o f d i s c o n t i n u i t y t o t h e d i s c o n t i n u i t y o f t h e s u c c e s s i o n o f p e r c e p t s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e 8. ( T . 18 ) 6 the mind i s not e a s i l y done, and Hume doesn't take up the matter. C l e a r l y , however, the d i s c o n t i n u i t y o f the succes s -i o n o f percepts which c o n s t i t u t e the mind i s not c o n s t i t u t e d by an i n t e r r u p t i o n i n the appearance o f a p a r t i c u l a r percep-t i o n . Even when I b l i n k , I experience a b l a c k o r g r a y i s h , o r i n some cases a r e d i s h v i s u a l p e r c e p t . L i k e w i s e t a c t i l e p e r c e p t i o n s may change t h e i r l o c a t i o n i n space, but they are not d i s c o n t i n u o u s . I may cease to f e e l the desk w i t h my w r i s t when I cease w r i t i n g , but I con t i n u e to f e e l the f l o o r beneath my f e e t . Indeed, i t may be a dubious p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t the s u c c e s s i o n o f percepts which c o n s t i t u t e my mind i s i n some sense d i s c o n t i n u o u s . I f i t i s the case however t h a t u n i t y i s destroyed by i n t e r r u p t i o n s i n the appearance o f per c e p t s o f say, the desk i n f r o n t o f me then, r i g h t l y Hume argues, the b e l i e f i n the u n i t y i s to be ex p l a i n e d . Hume however does not seem t o th i n k t h a t the nature o f the d i s c o n t i n u i t y o f the per c e p t s which c o n s t i t u t e the mind r e q u i r e s e x p l a n a t i o n . When he comes to e x p l a i n the b e l i e f t h a t one has i n the continued and independent e x i s t e n c e o f body, h i s explan-a t i o n c e n t e r s around g i v i n g an account o f how the c o n t i n u i t y o f a s u c c e s s i o n o f pe r c e p t s (as i n the case o f the desk) can be e x p l a i n e d . Hume s t a r t s out as i f the c o n t i n u i t y o f a s e r i e s o f percepts can be expl a i n e d by an appeal to q u a l i t i e s o f s u c c e s s i o n s o f p e r c e p t s : constancy and coherence. 7 The n o t i o n o f constancy i s e s s e n t i a l l y the n o t i o n o f exact resemblance. Hume i l l u s t r a t e s the concept: Those mountains, and houses, and t r e e s , which l i e a t present under my eye, have always appear'd to me i n the same or d e r ; and when I l o s e s i g h t o f them by s h u t t i n g my eyes o r t u r n i n g my head, I soon a f t e r f i n d them r e -t u r n upon me without the l e a s t a l t e r a t i o n . 9 The n o t i o n o f coherence i s not so c l e a r l y understood. I t i s intended to p o r t r a y the changes which o b j e c t s undergo, and a t the same time to a s s e r t a dependence amongst the s u c c e s s i v e changes; the concept i s i l l u s t r a t e d by Hume: When I r e t u r n to my chamber a f t e r an hour's absence, I f i n d not my f i r e i n the same s i t u a t i o n , i n which I l e f t i t : But then I am accustom'd i n oth e r i n s t a n c e s to see a l i k e a l t e r a t i o n produc'd i n a l i k e time.... The n o t i o n o f coherence i s something l i k e , Hume suggests, the n o t i o n o f c a u s a l i t y . C a usation i s e x p l a i n e d , by an appeal to the laws o f a s s o c i a t i o n . In s h o r t , c a u s a t i o n i s d e r i v e d from custom and experience. Coherence i s much l i k e t h i s because one has been presented, i n the p a s t , w i t h a f i r e i n the hea r t h f o l l o w e d by the coldness o f the ashes. The s u c c e s s i o n o f events between the occurrence o f the f i r e and the o c c u r r -ence o f the ashes has been observed on numerous o c c a s s i o n s . Now, the p e r c e p t i o n o f the ashes may be s u f f i c i e n t f o r one 9. ( T. 19h ) 10. ( T. 195 ) 8 to conclude t h e r e was a f i r e i n the he a r t h . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n e s t a b l i s h e s o n l y t h a t the f i r e i n the h e a r t h i s the remote cause of the ashes. The n o t i o n o f coherence however i s i n -tended to convey the i d e a o f the continued e x i s t e n c e o f the f i r e between the two percepts o f the f i r e i n the hearth and the ashes. The c o n c l u s i o n however, t h a t the f i r e continued to e x i s t d u r i n g one's absence, i s a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t cannot be founded upon the c a u s a l law. C a u s a l i t y says noth i n g a-bout the c o n t i n u i t y o f the f i r e between the two p e r c e p t s . That c o n c l u s i o n i s a d i s t i n c t i d e a . Hume saw t h i s . He says t h a t the c o n c l u s i o n drawn from the coherence o f the percepts i s not d e r i v e d from custom tempered by experience i n the 11 same way t h a t the c a u s a l i n f e r e n c e i s a r r i v e d a t . The e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e i s that the c o n c l u s i o n drawn from co-herence i s one which cannot be founded upon experience alone: Any degree, t h e r e f o r e , o f r e g u l a r i t y i n our p e r c e p t i o n s , can never be a fo u n d a t i o n f o r us to i n f e r a g r e a t e r degree of r e -g u l a r i t y i n some o b j e c t s , which are not p e r c e i v ' d . . . . 12 But the i n f e r e n c e t h a t the f i r e continued to e x i s t i s p r e -c i s e l y drawing a c o n c l u s i o n from evidence which cannot j u s t -i f y the c o n c l u s i o n . S i n c e the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the f i r e con-t i n u e d to e x i s t i s drawn, and i t cannot a r i s e from the h a b i t 11. ( T. 197 ) 12. I b i d . 9 a c q u i r e d through repeated o b s e r v a t i o n s , i t r e q u i r e s as i t s 13 j u s t i f i c a t i o n the c o - o p e r a t i o n o f other p r i n c i p l e s . The p r i n c i p l e which Hume appeals to i s one o f the i m a g i n a t i o n : ...the i m a g i n a t i o n , when s e t i n t o any t r a i n o f t h i n k i n g , i s apt to continue, even when i t s o b j e c t f a i l s i t , and l i k e a g a l l e y put i n motion by the o a r s , c a r r i e s on i t s course without any new impulse. Ik The p r i n c i p l e accounts f o r the c o n c l u s i o n to which the co-herence o f the percep t s l e a d s one. Given a dependence amongst p e r c e p t s , say o f a c a u s a l nature, the im a g i n a t i o n l e a d s one to conclude, say i n the case o f the f i r e , t h a t i t continued to e x i s t between the two p e r c e p t s . Thus i n the case o f m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s which d i s p l a y an observed coherence, the i m a g i n a t i o n i s prompted to render the s e r i e s as complete as p o s s i b l e . Hume suggests t h a t the n o t i o n o f complete coherence i s e q u i v a l e n t to the idea o f 15 continued e x i s t e n c e . Thus the n o t i o n o f complete coherence e n t a i l s the n o t i o n o f an unobserved c o n t i n u i t y . Hume f i r s t u t i l i z e s t h i s p r i n c i p l e i n arguing f o r the e x i s t e n c e o f imaginary standards which cannot be founded 16 upon custom and experience. While the ex i s t e n c e o f these 1 3 . ( T. 198 ) l ^ ' I b i d . T h i s p r i n c i p l e remains u n t i t l e d by Hume. I t i s h e r e i n r e f e r r e d to as the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e o f the ima g i n a t i o n . 1 5 . ( T. 198 ) 1 6 . ( T. h8 ) He suggests here that the n o t i o n o f e q u a l i t y i s an i d e a which a r i s e s i n the i m a g i n a t i o n . 10 standards were thought to be imaginary, they were a l s o 17 thought to be ' n a t u r a l and u s u a l 1 . He i l l u s t r a t e s what he means by an imaginary standard: A m u s i c i a n f i n d i n g h i s ear become every day more d e l i c a t e , and c o r r e c t i n g him-s e l f by r e f l e c t i o n and a t t e n t i o n , pro-ceeds w i t h the same a c t o f the mind, even when the s u b j e c t f a i l s him, ana e n t e r t a i n s the n o t i o n o f a complete t i e r c e or octave, without being a b l e to t e l l whence he d e r i v e s h i s standard. A p a i n t e r forms the same f i c t i o n w i t h regard to c o l o u r s . . . . l i g h t and shade... are imagin'd to be capable o f an exact comparison and ^ q u a l i t y beyond the judgment o f the senses. 18 Now, the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e o f the i m a g i n a t i o n a s s e r t s the e x i s t e n c e o f two important i m a g i n a t i v e p r o p e n s i t i e s : a) The p r o p e n s i t y o f the i m a g i n a t i o n to extend the coherence o f a s u c c e s s i o n o f percepts beyond what i s observed. and b) The p r o p e n s i t y to render the s e r i e s as complete as p o s s i b l e by the appeal to the e x i s t e n c e o f an imaginary standard. T h i s standard answers to a n o t i o n o f completeness. Of these two p r o p e n s i t i e s , n e i t h e r one i s s u f f i c i e n t w h i l e both are necessary. A gre a t e r than observed coherence 19 i s not n e c e s s a r i l y a complete coherence. L i k e w i s e a com-p l e t e coherence does not always e n t a i l a g r e a t e r than observed 17 . I b i d . 18. ( T. hB-h9 ) Hume's i t a l i c s . 19 . As when I a t t r i b u t e . : to the head o f the person p e e r i n g around the corner, a v o i c e but no body. 11 20 coherence. I t i s important t h e r e f o r e to understand the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e to commit the im a g i n a t i o n to both extending the observed coherence o f a s e r i e s and completing that co-herence by an appeal to imaginary standards. The complete coherence o f a s u c c e s s i o n o f per c e p t s c o n t r i b u t e d by the g a l l e y e f f e c t o f the im a g i n a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s a u n i t y . Hume has i n d i c a t e d t h at the complete coherence o f a s e r i e s i s e q u i v a l e n t to the idea o f continued e x i s t e n c e . Con-sequentl y the n o t i o n o f continued e x i s t e n c e s u p p l i e d by the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e r e s o l v e s the observed d i s c o n t i n u i t y o f the s e r i e s o f p e r c e p t s . The u n i t y o f an i n t e r r u p t e d s e r i e s i s t h e r e f o r e con-t r i b u t e d by the i m a g i n a t i o n . I t i s i n t h i s sense, a con-s t r u c t e d u n i t y , an unobserved u n i t y . What i s important i n Hume's a n a l y s i s i s th a t he r e l i e s upon the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e o f the i m a g i n a t i o n to pr o v i d e the e x i s t e n c e o f a standard, albeit an imaginary one, to account i n p a r t , f o r the b e l i e f i n the continued and independent e x i s t e n c e o f body. F u r t h e r -more he i s now r e l y i n g upon the a c t i v i t y o f the i m a g i n a t i o n to p r o v i d e f o r the n o t i o n o f the continued e x i s t e n c e o f body. Hume goes on to c o n s i d e r how the n o t i o n o f constancy c o n t r i b u t e s to the b e l i e f i n a continued and independent r e a l i t y . Here he does not r e l y upon the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e o f the i m a g i n a t i o n i n e x p l a i n i n g how the c o n t i n u i t y o f a s e r i e s 2 0 . There e x i s t observed u n i t i e s which a re complete; the soap bubble whose e x i s t e n c e spans a s h o r t continuous i n t e r v a l before a n n i h i l a t i o n . 12 i s a r r i v e d a t . I t i s not c l e a r why Hume dropped the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e i n t h i s r e s p e c t . He w i l l argue that i d e n t i t y i s predicated of a s e r i e s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by constancy because i t f e e l s , mistakenly to the imagination, l i k e an i d e n t i c a l per-cept. This confusion, I w i l l argue, could not i n f a c t occur, unless the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e were invoked. But i f i t i s t r u e , I f u r t h e r argue, that the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e must be invoked to ex p l a i n the i d e n t i t y of the s e r i e s , then the confusion which 21 Hume argues f o r i s unnecessary. Not o n l y can the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e e x p l a i n the u n i t y of a s e r i e s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by coherence, but a l s o i t can ex-p l a i n the u n i t y of a s e r i e s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by constancy. In so doing i t provides Hume wi t h a f i r m foundation which can e x p l a i n i n p a r t , the b e l i e f i n a continued and independently e x i s t i n g world. More i m p o r t a n t l y , f o r the purposes of t h i s t h e s i s , the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e accounts f o r the u n i t y of a s e r i e s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by constancy or coherence so th a t i d e n -t i t y can consequently be predicated of those u n i t i e s . For, i n Hume's p e c u l i a r approach to the personal i d e n t i t y problem, selves c o n s i s t of successions of percepts, and the i d e n t i t y o f the s e l f i s the i d e n t i t y o f a s e r i e s o f percepts. Thus f a r I have examined only the sense i n which u n i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d of a s e r i e s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by coherence. 21. This argument i s taken up i n chapter one. 13 My i n t e n t here i s to s e t out, as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e , the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e o f the i m a g i n a t i o n and the manner i n which i t i s u t i l i z e d to e x p l a i n the u n i t y o f a s e r i e s o f p e r c e p t s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by coherence. Thus I do not f o l l o w Hume's development. I t i s important, I b e l i e v e , to understand Hume's appeal to the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e b e f o r e examining h i s concept o f i d e n t i t y . . For he w i l l argue t h a t the i d e n t i t y p r e d i c a t e d by the i m a g i n a t i o n o f a s e r i e s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by constancy i s a mistake. My sugge s t i o n however, i s t h a t Hume overlooked the u t i l i t y o f the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e . Since i d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d upon the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a u n i t y , the d i f f i c u l t y Hume must meet i s t h a t a s e r i e s o f p e r c e p t s c h a r a c t e r i z e d o n l y by constancy has o n l y one o f the n e c e s s a r y q u a l i t i e s o f a u n i t y . The s e r i e s l a c k s con-t i n u i t y . A f t e r examining Hume's concept o f i d e n t i t y I t u r n to a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f how the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e might be u t i l -i z e d to account f o r the u n i t y o f a s e r i e s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by constancy. Where Hume t a l k s about the i m a g i n a t i o n being duped i n t o a s c r i b i n g i d e n t i t y , I p o i n t out how h i s account might be made p a l a t a b l e by r e l y i n g upon the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e to e x p l a i n the u n i t y o f the s e r i e s , and consequently the i d e n t i t y . Hume began h i s account o f our b e l i e f i n the continued l i t and independent e x i s t e n c e o f body by sug g e s t i n g that c e r t a i n q u a l i t i e s o f s e r i e s o f pe r c e p t s could account f o r two o f the fundamental c o n s t i t u e n t s o f t h a t b e l i e f : the u n i t y and the i d e n t i t y o f the s e r i e s . I n h i s account o f coherence, Hume s h i f t e d to a r e l i a n c e upon the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e to pro v i d e f o r the unobservable u n i t y o f the s e r i e s . In h i s account o f the i d e n t i t y p r e d i c a t e d o f a u n i t y Hume i s q u i c k to see t h a t i d e n t i t y i s i n f a c t p r e d i c a t e d o f u n i t i e s which cannot be ex-p l a i n e d by an appeal to constancy and coherence alone. Here again Hume s h i f t s h i s a n a l y s i s to i n c l u d e , as p o s s i b l e can-d i d a t e s o f i d e n t i t y a s c r i p t i o n , concepts o t h e r than s e r i e s o f percepts c h a r a c t e r i z e d by constancy or coherence. An exam-i n a t i o n o f t h i s s h i f t w i l l conclude chapter one. At t h a t p o i n t a c l e a r statement o f the i d e n t i t y o f the s e l f w i l l be undertaken. 15 CHAPTER I I want to give f i r s t l y , an account o f Hume's views of the o r i g i n of the no t i o n of i d e n t i t y . I undertake t h i s task because Hume's a s s e r t i o n s are a t l e a s t p e r p l e x i n g , and at most p a r a d o x i c a l . In order to make sense of Hume's views of the i d e n t i t y of the s e l f , h i s views on i d e n t i t y i n general must f i r s t l y be understood. This i s so because Hume argues that the i d e n t i t y predicated of the s e l f occurs i n the same way th a t i d e n t i t y i s predicated of pl a n t s and animals and 1 ships and houses. In t h i s s e c t i o n I examine o n l y Hume's n o t i o n of i d e n t i t y as i t a p p l i e s to obj e c t s other than the s e l f . Hume introduces the idea o f i d e n t i t y i n the s e c t i o n 'of r e l a t i o n s ' . There he says: I d e n t i t y may be esteem'd a second species of r e l a t i o n . This r e l a t i o n I here consider as apply'd i n i t s s t r i c t e s t sense to con-stant and unchangeable o b j e c t s ; without examining the nature and foundation of per-sonal i d e n t i t y , which s h a l l f i n d i t s place afterwards. Of a l l r e l a t i o n s the most un-i v e r s a l i s that o f i d e n t i t y , being common to every being, whose exis t e n c e has any d u r a t i o n . 2 This passage prompts a number o f comments. Hume suggests here that s t r i c t i d e n t i t y i s a p p l i c a b l e to constant and un-changeable o b j e c t s . What are these o b j e c t s ? Hume doesn't 1. ( T. 259 ) 2 . ( T. lh ) Hume's i t a l i c s . 16 s a y w h a t t h e y a r e i n h i s s t a t e m e n t o n i d e n t i t y . B u t i n h i s s t a t e m e n t s o f o t h e r p h i l o s o p h i c a l r e l a t i o n s h e i n d i c a t e s 3 t h a t f i r e , w a t e r , h e a t a n d c o l d a r e o b j e c t s . H e a d d s t h a t o b j e c t s w h i c h h a v e c o m m o n q u a l i t i e s m a y b e c o m p a r e d . T h u s t h e r e l a t i o n ' h e a v i e r t h a n ' a l l o w s o b j e c t s t o b e c o m p a r e d i n t h a t r e s p e c t . A s w e l l , H u m e m e n t i o n s t h a t ' i s t h e s a m e c o l o u r a s * i s a r e l a t i o n w h i c h a l l o w s o b j e c t s t o b e c o m p a r e d . I n r e f e r r i n g t h e n t o c o n s t a n t a n d u n c h a n g e a b l e o b j e c t s o f x t f h i c h i d e n t i t y m a y b e p r e d i c a t e d H u m e d r a w s n o d i s t i n c t i o n b e -t w e e n m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s a n d i m p r e s s i o n s . I d e n t i t y t h e n i s t o b e p r e d i c a t e d o f w h a t e v e r d i s p l a y s c o n s t a n c y a n d u n c h a n g e a b l e -n e s s . T h e r e i s n o r e a s o n t o s u p p o s e t h a t p e r c e p t i o n s a l o n e h a v e a l i e n o n i d e n t i t y a s c r i p t i o n . F o r , m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s , i n w h a t e v e r s e n s e o n e t a k e s t h a t p h r a s e , m a y a p p e a r c o n s t a n t a n d u n c h a n g e a b l e . H u m e ' s r e f e r e n c e t o i d e n t i t y ' i n i t s s t r i c t e s t s e n s e ' s e e m s t o i m p l y t h a t t h e r e i s a s e c o n d s e n s e i n w h i c h i d e n t i t y c a n b e p r e d i c a t e d . T h i s i s n o t q u i t e r i g h t h o w e v e r . H u m e i s a w a r e t h a t ( a n d t h e s e w i l l b e e x a m i n e d l a t e r ) t h e r e e x i s t p r o b l e m a t i c c a s e s o f i d e n t i t y a s c r i p t i o n . H i s s e c o n d a s s e r t i o n o f i d e n t i t y , t h a t i t i s c o m m o n t o e v e r y b e i n g w h o s e e x i s t e n c e h a s d u r a t i o n , i s o n e a r e a i n w h i c h a p r o b l e m e x i s t s . B e f o r e 3. ( T . 15 ) h. I b i d . 5. H i s r e f e r e n c e t o h e a t a n d c o l d a n d c o l o u r i s p r e s u m a b l y a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e i m p r e s s i o n s o f h e a t a n d c o l d a n d c o l o u r . 17 d i s c u s s i n g t h i s problem, i t i s ne c e s s a r y to examine the man-ner i n which Hume claims that i d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d o f con-s t a n t and unchanging o b j e c t s . Hume's p r i n c i p l e o f i d e n t i t y , or p r i n c i p l e o f i n d i v i -d u a t i o n i s the f o l l o w i n g : Thus the p r i n c i p l e o f i n d i v i d u a t i o n i s nothing but the i n v a r i a b l e n e s s and un-in t e r r u p t e d n e s s o f any o b j e c t , t h r o ' a suppos'd v a r i a t i o n o f time, by which the mind can t r a c e i t i n d i f f e r e n t p er-io d s o f i t s e x i s t e n c e , without any break o f the view, and without b e i n g o b l i g ' d to form the id e a o f m u l t i p l i c i t y o r number. 6 Hume s t i l l i n s i s t s t h a t i d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d o f o b j e c t s , and here t o o , 'object' i s to be understood as whatever d i s -p l a y s i n v a r i a b l e n e s s and u n i n t e r r u p t e d n e s s . In p a r t i c u l a r , a p e r c e p t i o n i n the mind which d i s p l a y s these q u a l i t i e s w i l l be g i v e n an i d e n t i t y when th a t o b j e c t p a r t i c i p a t e s i n a sup-posed v a r i a t i o n o f time. Hume's r e f e r e n c e to a supposed v a r i a t i o n o f time i s intended to s o l v e a d i f f i c u l t y which he f i n d s w i t h the n o t i o n o f i d e n t i t y . I t u r n now to a c o n s i d e r -a t i o n o f t h i s problem. Hume asked the q u e s t i o n : how does the i d e a o f i d e n -7 t i t y a r i s e ? I d e n t i t y , he argues, cannot a r i s e from a u n i t y . The a l l e g e d i d e n t i t y o f a u n i t y , Hume argues, would take the 8 form: 'an o b j e c t i s the same wit h i t s e l f . But s i n c e i d e n t i t y 6 . 7. 8. ( T. 201 ) Hume's i t a l i c s . ( T. 200 ) I b i d . 18 i s a r e l a t i o n h o l d i n g between a t l e a s t two d i s t i n c t members the i d e a expressed by 'object* must be d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the i d e a r e f e r r e d to by ' i t s e l f . In a u n i t y however the i d e a s r e f e r r e d to are one and the same. Thus i n the statement •i+=2+2' i f '*f« and '2+2' r e f e r to f o u r and o n l y f o u r , then the statement i s not one o f i d e n t i t y . Hume concludes t h a t the i d e a o f i d e n t i t y cannot a r i s e from a u n i t y . He then asks whether the i d e a o f i d e n t i t y can a r i s e from a m u l t i p l i c i t y . ^ Take the same example. I f i n the statement 'U-=2+2' l5+' r e -f e r s to f o u r and '2t"2' r e f e r s to the o p e r a t i o n o f adding the number two to i t s e l f , then these ideas are d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . As such they a re not i d e n t i c a l . Hume does not use mathematical examples to i l l u s t r a t e that i d e n t i t y cannot a r i s e from e i t h e r a u n i t y or m u l t i p l i c i t y . He c o n f i n e s h i m s e l f to e x i s t e n t s . H i s c o n c l u s i o n r e g a r d i n g the i d e n t i t y o f a m u l t i p l i c i t y i s th a t the i d e a o f i d e n t i t y cannot a r i s e where 'existences a r e 9 e n t i r e l y d i s t i n c t and independent'. The i d e a o f i d e n t i t y \tfhich Hume i s attempting to t r a c e i s t h i s : an o b j e c t e x i s t e n t a t one time i s the same as 10 the o b j e c t e x i s t e n t a t another time. Hume's r e f e r e n c e to an o b j e c t e x i s t i n g through a supposed v a r i a t i o n o f time i s intended to convey t h a t i d e a . Now a supposed v a r i a t i o n o f time i s an imagined v a r i a t i o n , as opposed to a r e a l v a r i a t i o n 9 . ( T. 200 ) 10. ( T. 201 ) 19 11 o f t i m e . A n o b j e c t e x i s t i n g t h r o u g h o u t a r e a l v a r i a t i o n o f t i m e c o n s t i t u t e s a m u l t i p l i c i t y o r a u n i t y , a s s u c h i t c a n n o t g i v e r i s e t o t h e i d e a o f i d e n t i t y . T h e p o i n t o f H u m e ' s r e f e r e n c e t o a n i m a g i n e d v a r i a t i o n o f t i m e i s t o a -v o i d t h e r e l i a n c e u p o n e i t h e r a u n i t y o r a m u l t i p l i c i t y a -l o n e i n t r a c i n g t h e o r i g i n o f t h e i d e a o f i d e n t i t y . T h a t i d e a r e q u i r e s t h i s v e r y o d d i m a g i n a t i v e a c t i n w h i c h a n u n c h a n g e a b l e o b j e c t ( a u n i t y ) p a r t i c i p a t e s i n a s u p p o s e d v a r i a t i o n o f t i m e . H u m e c o u l d n o t a p p e a l t o c o n s t a n t a n d u n c h a n g i n g p e r c e p t i o n s t o c o n v e y i d e n t i t y b e c a u s e t h e y c o n v e y o n l y u n i t y . H e a p p e a l s t h e n t o a u n i t y c o n c e i v e d t h r o u g h a n i m a g i n e d v a r i a t i o n o f t i m e t o g r o u n d t h e n o t i o n o f i d e n t i t y : T h i s f i c t i o n o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l l y t a k e s p l a c e ; a n d ' t i s b y m e a n s o f i t , t h a t a s i n g l e o b j e c t , p l a c ' d b e f o r e u s , a n d s u r v e y ' d f o r a n y t i m e w i t h o u t o u r d i s c o v e r i n g i n i t a n y i n t u r r u p t i o n o r v a r i a t i o n , i s a b l e t o g i v e u s a n o t i o n o f i d e n t i t y . 12 H u m e ' s r e l i a n c e u p o n t h e n o t i o n o f a s u p p o s e d v a r i a t i o n o f t i m e t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e o r i g i n o f t h e i d e a o f i d e n t i t y i s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f h i s b e l i e f t h a t (1) i d e n t i t y i s a r e l a t i o n h o l d i n g b e t w e e n c o n s t a n t a n d u n c h a n g i n g o b j e c t s e x i s t e n t a t t w o n o n -c o t e m p o r a r y m o m e n t s . (2) d u r a t i o n c a n n o t b e p r e d i c a t e d o f c o n s t a n t a n d u n c h a n g i n g o b j e c t s . 11. T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n w i l l b e c l a r i f i e d s h o r t l y . 12. ( T . 201 ) 20 The problem Hume must overcome Is t h a t i d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d o f c o n s t a n t and unchanging o b j e c t s which e x i s t a t d i f f e r e n t times. T h i s i s a problem because to say th a t an; o b j e c t e x i s t s i n v a r i a b l e and u n i n t e r r u p t e d a t two d i f f e r e n t times i s to say t h a t the o b j e c t p e r s i s t s throughout a d u r a t i o n . But d u r a t i o n , Hume b e l i e v e d , could not be p r e d i c a t e d o f constant and unchanging o b j e c t s . Why does Hume h o l d t h i s view? In h i s i n i t i a l statement on the r e l a t i o n o f i d e n t i t y Hume poin t e d out t h a t i t i s 'common to every b e i n g , whose e x i s t e n c e has any d u r a t i o n 1 . D u r a t i o n i s the temporal i n -t e r v a l d u r i n g which an o b j e c t p e r s i s t s . Hume argues t h a t ...the i d e a o f d u r a t i o n i s always d e r i v ' d from a s u c c e s s i o n o f change-a b l e o b j e c t s . 13 He adds t h a t the i d e a o f d u r a t i o n ...can never be conveyed to the mind by anything s t e d f a s t and unchangeable. Ik And he adds f u r t h e r that s i n c e the i d e a o f d u r a t i o n can never be d e r i v e d from an unchangeable o b j e c t . . . i t can never i n any p r o p r i e t y or exactness be apply'd to i t , nor can any t h i n g unchangeable be ever s a i d to have d u r a t i o n . 15 13. ( T. 37 ) l k . I b i d . 15. I b i d . 21 T h u s a c o n s t a n t a n d u n c h a n g i n g p e r c e p t i o n c a n n o t b e p r e -d i c a t e d w i t h d u r a t i o n b e c a u s e t h e i d e a o f d u r a t i o n i s d e r -i v e d f r o m a s u c c e s s i o n o f c h a n g e a b l e o b j e c t s . H u m e ' s n o t i o n o f a s u p p o s e d v a r i a t i o n o f t i m e i s i n t e n d e d t o m e e t t h i s d i f f i c u l t y . B o t h u n i t y a n d m u l t i p l i c i t y w e r e t h o u g h t b y H u m e t o b e i n c a p a b l e o f g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e i d e a o f i d e n t i t y . T h e o r i g i n o f t h e i d e a m u s t l i e h e a r g u e s , i n a u n i t y c o n c e i v e d t h r o u g h a n i m a g i n e d v a r i a t i o n o f t i m e . H u m e b e l i e v e s t h a t t h i s m a n e u v e r d r a w s a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e i d e a s r e f e r r e d t o b y ' o b j e c t ' a n d b y ' i t s e l f i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f i d e n t i t y : a n o b j e c t i s t h e s a m e v r i t h i t s e l f . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s d r a w n H u m e c l a i m s , w i t h o u t r u n n i n g t h e u n i t y i n t o a m u l t i p l i c i t y . T h e a p p e a l t o a s u p p o s e d v a r i a t i o n o f t i m e h a s t h e f u r t h e r a d v a n t a g e t h a t , a n u n c h a n g e a b l e o b j e c t c a n b e c o n c e i v e d t o e x i s t t h r o u g h a n i m a g i n a r y d u r a t i o n i n s p i t e o f i t s c o n s t a n t a p p e a r a n c e w h i c h l e g i s l a t e s a g a i n s t d u r a t i o n b e i n g p r e d i c a t e d o f i t . N o w t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h a n u n c h a n g e a b l e o b j e c t p a r t -i c i p a t e s i n a f i c t i o n a l t i m e i s n o t c l e a r l y e x p l i c a t e d b y H u m e . W h a t i s c l e a r i s t h a t H u m e h e l d t h e v i e w t h a t t h e i d e a o f t i m e a n d t h e i d e a o f a n u n c h a n g i n g e x i s t e n c e w e r e i n c o m -p a t i b l e ; t h e y m a y e v e n b e c o n t r a d i c t o r y . S p e c i f i c a l l y H u m e a r g u e d t h a t t h e i d e a o f t i m e w h i c h a l l e g e d l y a t t e n d s a n u n -c h a n g i n g e x i s t e n t , i f t h e r e b e s u c h a n i d e a , h a s n o o r i g i n 16 i n i m p r e s s i o n s , e i t h e r o f s e n s a t i o n o r r e f l e x i o n . ^ h e 16. ( T . 65 ) 22 i d e a o f d u r a t i o n without any change or s u c c e s s i o n i s d e r i v e d , Hume c l a i m s , by the p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f the unchanging o b j e c t i n a f i c t i o n a l time. T h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f the constant o b j e c t i n a f i c t i o n a l time produces the i d e a we have o f a constant and unchanging o b j e c t e x i s t i n g through a r e a l dur-a t i o n . The import o f Hume's a n a l y s i s o f the o r i g i n o f the ide a o f time p r e d i c a t e d o f an unchanging o b j e c t i s t h a t i t 17 i s a f i c t i o n . A consequence o f that c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t s i n c e the o r i g i n o f the i d e a o f i d e n t i t y r e q u i r e s the n o t i o n o f the d u r a t i o n o f an unchanging o b j e c t , then the p r e d i c a t i o n o f i d e n t i t y r e s t s upon t h i s i m a g i n a t i v e a c t . I t i s c l e a r furthermore t h a t Hume b e l i e v e d that t h i s a c t o f the imagin-a t i o n was not one o f the 'weak, changeable and i r r e g u l a r * p r i n c i p l e s , but r a t h e r i t belongs to the category o f u n i v -e r s a l p r i n c i p l e s o f human nature: those which are 'permanent, 18 i r r e s i s t a b l e , and u n i v e r s a l ' . The p r o p e n s i t y o f the imag-i n a t i o n to i n d u l g e i n c o n c e i v i n g u n i t i e s through imagined 19 v a r i a t i o n s o f time 'almost u n i v e r s a l l y takes p l a c e ' . Hume i l l u s t r a t e s how the i d e a a r i s e s . The f o l l o w i n g example borrows the e s s e n t i a l elements o f Hume's example. I observe the desk i n f r o n t o f me as constant and unchanging. 1 7 . ( T. 65 ) 1 8 . ( T. 225 ) 1 9 . ( T. 201 ) 23 I l e a v e t h e r o o m a n d r e t u r n a f t e r a n h o u r . A g a i n I o b s e r v e t h e d e s k a s c o n s t a n t a n d u n c h a n g i n e , r e s e m b l i n g t h e f o r m e r p e r c e p t i o n . S i n c e t h e r e e x i s t s a c o n t i n u a l s u c c e s s i o n o f p e r c e p t i o n s i n t h e m i n d H u m e a r g u e s , t h e i d e a o f t i m e i s a l w a y s p r e s e n t . C o n s e q u e n t l y t h e t w o r e s e m b l i n g p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e d e s k a r e s u s c e p t i b l e o f t h e s a m e n u m b e r o f c h a n g e s a s t h e s u c c e s s i o n o f p e r c e p t i o n s i n t h e m i n d . H u m e d o e s n ' t m e a n t h a t t h e o n e h o u r i n t e r v a l i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a s u c -c e s s i o n o f p e r c e p t i o n s i n t h e m i n d t o w h i c h t h e t w o r e s e m b -l i n g p e r c e p t i o n s a r e a s s i m i l a t e d . F o r t h a t w o u l d r e q u i r e a f u r t h e r h o u r . R a t h e r , o n e r e m e m b e r s t h a t t h e o n e h o u r i n -t e r v a l w a s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a s e r i e s o f a c t i v i t y . T h u s I r e m e m b e r w a l k i n g u p s t a i r s , d r i n k i n g a c u p o f c o f f e e , r e a d i n g t h e n e w s p a p e r , r e f l e c t i n g o n t h e i d e n t i t y p r o b l e m . T h i s s u c -c e s s i o n o f m e m o r i e s o f t h e o n e h o u r i n t e r v a l d o e s n o t i t s e l f r e q u i r e a f u r t h e r o n e h o u r i n t e r v a l . T h i s i m a g i n e d i n t e r v a l o f o n e h o u r ( o r m o r e c o r r e c t l y , t h i s r e m e m b e r e d i n t e r v a l ) i s s u f f i c i e n t t o c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e r e a l i n t e r v a l o f t i m e b e -t w e e n t h e r e s e m b l i n g p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e d e s k . T h e s e n s e t h e n o f a s u p p o s e d v a r i a t i o n o f t i m e i s j u s t t h i s . I t i s t h e m e m o r y o f t h e o n e h o u r i n t e r v a l . T h i s m e m o r y m a y b e c o n -s t i t u t e d b y w h a t e v e r d e t a i l s o n e c h o o s e s t o r e m e m b e r , a s l o n g a s t h e y a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e o n e h o u r i n t e r v a l . T h u s , H u m e c o n c l u d e s 2h ...that the object was s u s c e p t i b l e of such a number o f changes bet w i x t these appearances.... 2 0 The two appearances of the unchanging object i n other words, are a s s i m i l a t e d to the remembered i n t e r v a l , This i s Hume's explanation f o r the o r i g i n of the idea of d u r a t i o n attended w i t h a pe r c e p t i o n c h a r a c t e r i z e d by i n v a r i a b l e n e s s . No\tf, the o r i g i n of the idea of i d e n t i t y r e q u i r e s a s i m i l a r a c t of the imagination. The idea of i d e n t i t y a r i s e s , Hume argues, by a u n i t y conceived through a supposed v a r i a t i o n of time. Here however, the per c e p t i o n i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by both i n -v a r i a b l e n e s s and uninterruptedness. The idea of i d e n t i t y i s conveyed by such an ob j e c t conceived to be i n v a r i a b l e over at l e a s t two d i f f e r e n t moments. This completes Hume's account of the o r i g i n of the idea o f i d e n t i t y . Whatever the m e r i t s of h i s account are, there e x i s t numerous d i f f i c u l t i e s . The primary d i f f i c u l t y , as I see i t , i s tha t Hume, i n e x p l a i n i n g how the idea a r i s e s from a d i s t i n c t i v e imaginative act removes the p r e d i c a t e of i d e n t i t y from a very l a r g e c l a s s o f o b j e c t s . Since i d e n t i t y a r i s e s from the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of a constant and uninterrupted o b j e c t i n an imagined v a r i a t i o n o f time, the problem Hume must meet, i s to e x p l a i n how i d e n t i t y i s predicated of ob-j e c t s c h a r a c t e r i z e d o n l y by constancy; o b j e c t s whose existence 2 5 i s i n t e r r u p t e d , o b j e c t s w h o s e e x i s t e n c e i s t e m p o r a l . H u m e 21 s e e s t h i s p r o b l e m , a n d p r e s e n t s h i s s o l u t i o n . T o e x p l a i n h o w i d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d o f a s u c c e s s i o n o f p e r c e p t i o n s w h i c h d i s p l a y o n l y c o n s t a n c y , H u m e a p p e a l s t o w h a t h e c a l l s a c o n f u s i o n o f d i s p o s i t i o n s . I d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d o f t h e r e s e m b l i n g p e r c e p t i o n s b e c a u s e t h e m i n d , c o n f u s e d l y , t a k e s t h e s u c c e s s i o n t o b e a u n i t y . T h e i n t e r r u p t i o n s , i n o t h e r w o r d s , 22 a r e f i l l e d b y s o m e t h i n g o f w h i c h w e a r e i n s e n s i b l e . B a s i c a l l y , t h e d i f f i c u l t y H u m e m e e t s h e r e i s t h e p r o b l e m o f c o n t i n u i t y . A s u c c e s s i o n o r s e r i e s o f p e r c e p t s l a s k s c o n t i n u i t y , a n d a s H u m e h a s i n d i c a t e d , l a c k o f c o n t i n -23 u i t y d e s t r o y s i d e n t i t y . H u m e m u s t e x p l a i n " t h e n h o w , i n t h e f a c e o f d i s c o n t i n u i t y , i d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d o f a s e r i e s o f r e s e m b l i n g , b u t d i s t i n c t p e r c e p t i o n s . T h e p r e d i c a t i o n o f i d e n t i t y r e q u i r e s t h e p r e s e n t -a t i o n o f a u n i t y t o t h e i m a g i n a t i o n . U n i t y i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y t h e i n v a r i a b l e n e s s a n d u n i n t e r r u p t e d n e s s o f p e r c e p t i o n s . I d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d o f a u n i t y c o n c e i v e d t h r o u g h a s u p p o s e d v a r i a t i o n o f t i m e . T h e i d e n t i t y m e c h a n i s m o p e r a t e s t h e n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g w a y . I p e r c e i v e t h e d e s k i n f r o n t o f m e 21. 22. 2 3 . ( T . 201-202 ) ( T . 208 ) ( T . 209 ) 26 c o n t i n u o u s l y , the percept remains constant and unchanging f o r f i v e minutes. During those f i v e minutes, the d u r a t i o n o f constancy was measured by p e r i p h e r a l l y p e r c e i v i n g a 2k pageant o f p e r c e p t i o n s . I f the q u e s t i o n a r i s e s : was the i n i t i a l p e r c e p t i o n i d e n t i c a l to a p e r c e p t i o n a t any p a r t i c u l a r moment o f the f i v e minute d u r a t i o n , presumably Hume's i d e n -t i t y mechanism would be t r i g g e r e d . An imagined (more c o r r e c t -l y ^ a remembered) v a r i a t i o n o f time would be conceived d u r i n g which the constant and u n i n t e r r u p t e d p e r c e p t would p a r t i c i -pate. I d e n t i t y would be p r e d i c a t e d o f the l a t t e r and the former p e r c e p t s . T h i s i s undoubtedly a crude model o f Hume's account. I t po i n t s out however, a number of i n t e r e s t i n g f e a t u r e s o f the p r e d i c a t i o n o f i d e n t i t y . F i r s t l y , i d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d r e t r o s p e c t i v e l y . Given a p a r t i c u l a r p e r c e p t -t i o n , one can ask: i s t h i s present p e r c e p t i d e n t i c a l w i t h any t h i n g t h a t has been pe r c e i v e d ? The percept i s i n d i v i -duated o n l y i f i t i s i n v a r i a b l e and u n i n t e r r u p t e d , t h a t i s , a u n i t y conceived through a supposed v a r i a t i o n o f time. Second-l y , i d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d o n l y upon the o b s e r v a t i o n o f con-stancy and c o n t i n u i t y . I d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d g i v e n s p a t i o -temporal c o n t i n u i t y and constancy. Thus f a r i n Hume's account, no p r o v i s i o n i s made f o r e i t h e r l a c k o f c o n t i n u i t y o r l a c k o f 2k. c f . H.H. P r i c e , P. ^0 Hume's Theory o f the E x t e r n a l  World, Oxford a t the Clarendon P r e s s , F i r s t Ed..l9MO, r e p r i n t e d 191+8, 1963. 27 c o n s t a n c y . T h a t i s , n o p r o v i s i o n h a s b e e n m a d e t o c o v e r t h e a c o r n b e c o m i n g t h e o a k ( a c a s e o f p r e s u m m e d c o n t i n u i t y , b u t l a c k o f c o n s t a n c y ) . N o p r o v i s i o n h a s b e e n m a d e t o c o v e r t h e a c o r n b e c o m i n g t h e o a k , u n p e r c e i v e d . ( T h e a c o r n - o a k i d e n -t i t y o u g h t n o t p r e s u p p o s e m y c o n t i n u e d p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e a c o r n i n i t s b e c o m i n g t h e o a k ) . N o p r o v i s i o n h a s b e e n m a d e t o c o v e r t h e q u e s t i o n : w i l l t h e o a k c o n t i n u e ( i n t o t h e f u t -u r e ) t o b e t h e s a m e o a k . T h e l a t t e r c a s e i s n e v e r d i s c u s s e d b y H u m e . H e d o e s h o w e v e r , g o o n t o c o n s i d e r c a s e s o f i d e n -t i t y a s c r i p t i o n w h i c h i n v o l v e s u c c e s s i o n s o f p e r c e p t i o n s i n w h i c h ( a ) c o n s t a n c y i s p r e s e n t , b u t c o n t i n u i t y i s a b s e n t . ( b ) n e i t h e r c o n t i n u i t y n o r c o n s t a n c y a r e p r e s e n t . I t u r n n o w t o a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f e a c h o f t h e s e c a s e s . I h a v e b r i e f l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t H u m e ' s s o l u t i o n t o e a s e s o f t y p e ( a ) i n v o l v e s f i l l i n g i n t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n i n t h e e x i s -t e n c e o f t h e o b j e c t . T h i s f i l l i n g i n t h a t H u m e r e f e r s t o i s i n f a c t t h e f i c t i o n o f c o n t i n u e d e x i s t e n c e . T h e p r e d i c a t i o n o f i d e n t i t y t o s e r i e s o f p e r c e p t i o n s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y c o n s t a n c y o n l y i s e x p l a i n e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g w a y . H u m e ' s e x a m p l e i s t h i s : I s u r v e y t h e f u r n i t u r e o f m y c h a m b e r ; I s h u t m y e y e s , a n d a f t e r w a r d s o p e n t h e m ; a n d f i n d t h e n e w p e r c e p t i o n s t o r e s e m b l e p e r f e c t l y t h o s e , w h i c h f o r m e r l y 28 s t r u c k m y s e n s e s . T h i s r e s e m b l a n c e i s o b s e r v e d i n a t h o u s a n d i n s t a n c e s . . . . 25 H u m e c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n i n v i e w i n g t h e s u c c e s s i o n o f r e s e m b l i n g p e r c e p t s i s v e r y m u c h l i k e t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n i n v i e w i n g a c o n -s t a n t , u n i n t e r r u p t e d p e r c e p t . T h e y a r e h e s a y s ' a l m o s t 26 t h e s a m e t o t h e f e e l i n g ' . O n t h i s b a s i s H u m e c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e s u c c e s s i o n o f r e s e m b l i n g b u t d i s t i n c t p e r c e p t s a r e g i v e n a n i d e n t i t y . T h e r e i s , i n s h o r t , a s t a t e o f c o n -f u s i o n w h i c h e x i s t s . T h e i m a g i n a t i o n i s s e d u c e d i n t o p r e d -i c a t i n g a n i d e n t i t y t o a s u c c e s s i o n b e c a u s e ( a ) t h e r e s e m b -l i n g p e r c e p t s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e t h e s e r i e s p r o v i d e a n e a s y t r a n s i t i o n o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n a l o n g t h e s e r i e s , a n d ( b ) t h i s e a s y t r a n s i t i o n f e e l s , t o t h e i m a g i n a t i o n , m u c h l i k e a c o n -s t a n t a n d u n c h a n g i n g p e r c e p t . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e i n t e r r u p t -i o n s a r e n o t f i l l e d , t h e y a r e i g n o r e d . T h e s u c c e s s i o n h a s t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f a u n i t y , i d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d o n t h a t b a s i s . H u m e ' s a c c o u n t h e r e r e l i e s s o l e l y u p o n t h e l a w s o f a s s o c i a t i o n . T h e r e p e a t e d o b s e r v a t i o n s o f t h e c o n s t a n c y o f t h e p e r c e p t s o f t h e f u r n i t u r e a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o d u p e t h e 25. ( T . 20k ) 26. ( T . 23k- ) 29 i m a g i n a t i o n i n t o viewing the m u l t i p l i c i t y as a u n i t y . I d e n t i t y p r e d i c a t e d o f a s e r i e s i n t h i s f a s h i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t the i n t e r r u p t i o n s i n the p e r c e p t i o n s be r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t , such as those c r e a t e d by lowered e y e l i d s . The con-f u s i o n o f d i s p o s i t i o n s was intended by Hume to account f o r the p r e d i c a t i o n o f i d e n t i t y to s u c c e s s i o n s o f t h i s n a t u r e . I t becomes apparent however, t h a t the p r e d i c a t i o n o f i d e n -t i t y to a s e r i e s o f resembling percepts cannot be expl a i n e d by r e l y i n g upon s o l e l y the laws o f a s s o c i a t i o n . There e x i s t s e r i e s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l e n g t h y i n t e r r u p t i o n s which do not all o w the easy t r a n s i t i o n o f the i m a g i n a t i o n even i f the s e r i e s i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a stro n g resemblance amongst the perc e p t s . (The snowman I b u i l t l a s t y e a r , which, unknown to me, was ' r e b u i l t 1 with the same hat and broom and s c a r f con-sequently resembling the former, i s not p r e d i c a t e d w i t h i d e n -t i t y when I p e r c e i v e i t . What r e q u i r e s e x p l a n a t i o n i s the f a c t t h a t i d e n t i t y i s not p r e d i c a t e d o f any s e r i e s d i s p l a y i n g constancy.) What happens when the i n t e r r u p t i o n s cannot be ignored? Hume c o n s i d e r s t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . He argues t h a t the i n t e r r u p t i o n i n the appearance o f a p e r c e p t i o n does not 27 n e c e s s a r i l y imply an i n t e r r u p t i o n i n the e x i s t e n c e . The n o t i o n o f continued e x i s t e n c e i s necessary to f i l l the i n -t e r r u p t i o n s i n the appearance o f the p e r c e p t i o n s . At t h i s 27. ( T. 206-207 ) 30 p o i n t Hume ought to have r e l i e d upon the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e , although he f a i l s to see i t s u s e f u l l n e s s h e r e . He simply p o i n t s out th a t where i n t e r r u p t i o n s cannot be ignored, the 28 continued e x i s t e n c e o f the o b j e c t i s ' f e i g n e d ' . Hume might have argued however, t h a t the i m a g i n a t i o n g i v e n an observed constancy i n a s e r i e s , renders t h a t s e r i e s complete. Es-s e n t i a l l y t h a t i s h i s argument. For, the f e i g n e d continued e x i s t e n c e o f the o b j e c t d u r i n g the i n t e r r u p t i o n s completes the u n i t y o f the s e r i e s . H i s account might have preserved an economy however, had he appealed to the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e to render s u c c e s s i o n s complete given e i t h e r an observed con-stancy or an observed coherence. Type (b) o b j e c t s are those which d i s p l a y an ob-served coherence. There i s n e i t h e r constancy nor c o n t i n -u i t y . I t i s c l e a r however t h a t i d e n t i t y w i l l be p r e d i c a t e d o f the acorn-cum-oak upon the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f an observed coherence i n a s e r i e s o f p e r c e p t i o n s . The g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e , g i v e n an observed coherence, renders t h a t coherence complete. The complete coherence o f the s e r i e s e n t a i l s the continued e x i s t e n c e o f the per c e p t s while they a re not p e r c e i v e d . There i s , i n s h o r t , a u n i t y bestowed upon the s u c c e s s i o n by the im a g i n a t i o n . I d e n t i t y can be p r e d i c a t e d o f the c o n s t r u c t e d u n i t y . 28. ( T. 208 ) 'Feigned' probably means supposed, but not attended with b e l i e f . 31 Hume's explanation of the p r e d i c a t i o n of i d e n t i t y to successions of objects which do not d i s p l a y necessary q u a l i t i e s f o r i d e n t i t y a s c r i p t i o n , i s p r i m a r i l y that the imagination takes the i n t e r r u p t e d s e r i e s to be a u n i t y . The i d e n t i t y a s c r i b e d to successions of perceptions occurs o n l y where the succession i s taken to be a u n i t y . Thus f a r , Hume's piecemeal approach to the i d e n t i t y p r e dicated of successions of objects has l e d him to conclude that: (1) i n t e r r u p t i o n s are ignored, i f they are r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l . and (2) i n t e r r u p t i o n s are f i l l e d , i f they cannot be ignored, by supposing the perceptions to continue i n existence during t h e i r absence from the mind. I have suggested that Hume could have invoked the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e i n both cases, to provide the necessary c o n t i n u i t y f o r i d e n t i t y a s c r i p t i o n . The imag i n a t i o n , given e i t h e r an observed constancy or an observed coherence i n a s e r i e s o f percepts, completes the s e r i e s . This i s not to suppose that the p r i n c i p l e operates independent of experience. I t i s not to be supposed t h a t the snowman I constructed continued to e x i s t i d e n t i c a l l y between the appearance of my two perceptions of i t . I n the s e c t i o n 'of personal i d e n t i t y ' Hume gives f u r t h e r cases i n which i d e n t i t y i s predicated of a s e r i e s o f d i s t i n c t , but associated p e r c e p t i o n s . Here too he i n d i c a t e s 32 that i d e n t i t y i s pre d i c a t e d of as s o c i a t e d perceptions where the t r a n s i t i o n of the imagination along the succession i s 29 smooth and easy. The i d e n t i t y of a s e r i e s i n these cases r e s t upon the confusion of d i s p o s i t i o n s f o r which he has p r e v i o u s l y argued. Hume extends the c o n d i t i o n s which con-t r i b u t e to an easy t r a n s i t i o n of the imagination. Where an observed constancy and coherence provided necessary con-d i t i o n s f o r an easy t r a n s i t i o n of the imagination along the succession, Hume now i n d i c a t e s t h a t i d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d 30 wherever the c o n t i n u i t y of the thought i s l e a s t i n t e r r u p t e d . He says: What i s n a t u r a l and e s s e n t i a l to any th i n g i s , i n a manner, expected; and what i s expected makes l e s s impression, and appears of l e s s moment, than what i s usual and e x t r a o r d i n a r y . 31 32 Thus the church which was b u i l t of b r i c k , was destroyed and r e b u i l t of free-stone remains the same church i n s p i t e of a complete change of m a t e r i a l s and design. This i s so, 2 9 . ( T. 255 ) 30. ( T. 256 ) 31. ( T. 258 ) 32. ( T. 258 ) 33 Hume would argue, because the church i s not the b u i l d i n g which was d e s t r o y e d . The c o n t i n u i t y o f the church i s pre -served by the b u i l d i n g ' s r e l a t i o n to the i n h a b i t a n t s o f the p a r i s h . T h i s c o n t i n u i t y i s not destroyed by the r e -placement o f the former b u i l d i n g with the l a t t e r . Conse-quently the i m a g i n a t i o n moves wit h f a c i l i t y a l o n g the per-c e p t i o n s o f the two b u i l d i n g s even though the d i s t i n c t i o n between them would seem to c o n s t i t u t e an abrupt i n t e r r u p t i o n i n the t r a n s i t i o n o f the i m a g i n a t i o n from the one to the ot h e r . N e v e r t h e l e s s , Hume's account o f the p r e d i c a t i o n o f i d e n t i t y to suc c e s s i o n s o f p e r c e p t i o n s r e s t s upon the im-a g i n a t i o n viewing the s u c c e s s i o n as a u n i t y . The u n i t y o f a s e r i e s , c h a r a c t e r i z e d by constancy, a r i s e s Hume has argued through e i t h e r the i m a g i n a t i o n i g n o r i n g the i n t e r r u p t i o n s or by f i l l i n g the i n t e r r u p t i o n s by the p o s t u l a t i o n o f continued e x i s t e n c e . In the case o f coherence, the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e o f the i m a g i n a t i o n grounds the u n i t y o f the s e r i e s . In each case, Hume has argued t h a t the s e r i e s i s amended. The u n i t y i s a . c o n s t r u c t e d u n i t y opposed to an obs e r v a b l e u n i t y . Now however, Hume argues t h a t the u n i t y (and consequently the i d e n t i t y ) o f the i n t e r r u p t e d s e r i e s i s not c o n s t i t u t e d by amending the s e r i e s . The u n i t y i s c o n s t i t u t e d by a con-33 t i n u e d o p e r a t i o n of the i m a g i n a t i o n . Or more c o r r e c t l y , 33. ( T. 20»f, 256, 258 ) 3^ the u n i t y o f the s e r i e s i s c o n t r i b u t e d by the c o n t i n u i t y o f the a c t i v i t y o f the i m a g i n a t i o n . T h i s c o n s t i t u t e s a dramatic s h i f t i n Hume's account o f the p r e d i c a t i o n o f i d e n t i t y to succ e s s i o n s o f p e r c e p t s . S i n c e i d e n t i t y a s c r i p t i o n r e q u i r e s the e x i s t e n c e o f a u n i t y conceived through a supposed v a r -i a t i o n o f time, i t i s c l e a r t h a t constancy and coherence alone cannot account f o r the p r e d i c a t i o n o f i d e n t i t y . S i n c e s t r i c t i d e n t i t y i s destroyed by i n t e r r u p t i o n s i n the appear-ance o f an o b j e c t , i n v a r i a b l e n e s s and un i n t e r r u p t e d n e s s can-not account f o r the i d e n t i t y p r e d i c a t e d o f a s e r i e s o f asso c -i a t e d , but d i s c r e t e o b j e c t s . The i d e n t i t y o f a s e r i e s i s not an i d e n t i t y i n the s t r i c t sense. Hume e x p l a i n s the i d e n t i t y o f a s e r i e s by arguing t h a t the f e e l ( i m p r e s s i o n o f r e f l e x i o n ) o f a s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d s e r i e s i s much l i k e the f e e l o f an i d e n t i c a l o b j e c t . Wow, i f Hume does h o l d the view t h a t the exi s t e n c e o f an i d e n t i c a l o b j e c t i s always necessary f o r the c o n f u s i o n o f d i s p o s i t i o n s to occur, then h i s account i s untenable. For i t i s simply f a l s e t h a t i n every case o f the a s c r i p t i o n o f i d e n t i t y to a s e r i e s there always e x i s t s an i d e n t i c a l p e r c e p t which f e e l s the same to the i m a g i n a t i o n as the a s s o c i a t e d s e r i e s . In the case o f the church, what con-s t i t u t e s the i d e n t i c a l p e r c e p t w i t h which the s u c c e s s i o n o f percepts o f the two churches i s confused? There does not e x i s t an i d e n t i c a l percept i n t h i s case. The i d e n t i t y o f the church, Hume argued, was c o n s t i t u t e d by the r e l a t i o n between 35 the members o f the p a r i s h and any b u i l d i n g . A more p l a u s i b l e view o f the c o n f u s i o n o f d i s p o s i -t i o n s i s to understand Hume to a s s e r t t h a t the p r o p e n s i t y to t r e a t an i n t e r r u p t e d s e r i e s as i f i t were an i d e n t i c a l p e r c e p t a r i s e s from cases where th e r e does e x i s t an i d e n -t i c a l percept The d i f f i c u l t y w i t h t h i s however i s t h a t i t c o n f l i c t s with one o f Hume's p r i n c i p l e s r e g a r d i n g the nature o f mental h a b i t s . Any h a b i t a c q u i r e d by the mind, through a s s o c i a t i o n s o f p e r c e p t i o n s , can never exceed the r e g u l a r -3^ i t y o f the a s s o c i a t i o n . Thus, from the strong resemblance which e x i s t s betxfeen d i s t i n c t p e r c e p t s o f the desk i n f r o n t o f me, I may a c q u i r e the h a b i t o f c o n f u s i n g that s e r i e s o f percept s with an i d e n t i c a l percept o f s i m i l a r d u r a t i o n . But tha t h a b i t cannot be founded upon my experience o f the r e -semblances amongst the p e r c e p t i o n s . F o r , the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the resembling s e r i e s i s an i d e n t i t y goes beyond what ex-pe r i e n c e d i c t a t e s . In p r e d i c a t i n g an i d e n t i t y o f a s e r i e s , a l b e i t m i s t a k e n l y , i t i s not d i f f i c u l t to see how the pro-p e n s i t y to do so c o u l d a r i s e . That p r o p e n s i t y , Hume ought to have argued but d i d not, a r i s e s from the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e of the i m a g i n a t i o n . T h i s p r i n c i p l e grounds the p r o p e n s i t y of the i m a g i n a t i o n to a t t r i b u t e an i d e n t i t y to a s u c c e s s i o n of a s s o c i a t e d , but d i s t i n c t p e r c e p t s . In the case o f coherence 3«+. ( T. 197 ) 36 t h e p r i n c i p l e p r o v i d e s f o r t h e g r e a t e r t h a n o b s e r v e d c o -h e r e n c e , t h a t i s , t h e c o n t i n u e d e x i s t e n c e o f t h e p e r c e p t s . L i k e w i s e i n t h e c a s e o f t h e p r o p e n s i t y o r h a b i t o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n t o i n d u l g e i n i d e n t i t y a s c r i p t i o n g i v e n a s u c -c e s s i o n o f a s s o c i a t e d p e r c e p t s , t h e g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e p r o -v i d e s t h e b a s i s o f t h a t p r o p e n s i t y . I s h a l l a r g u e t h a t t h e i d e n t i t y p r e d i c a t e d o f t h e s e l f c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d i n t h e l i g h t o f t h i s c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f H u m e ' s e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e 35 m a n n e r i n w h i c h i d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d o f a s e r i e s . T h e i d e n t i t y o f a s u c c e s s i o n i s c l e a r l y n o t a s t a n -d a r d g i v e n i n e x p e r i e n c e . T h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e i d e n t i t y o f a s e r i e s o f p e r c e p t s i s n o t s o m u c h f i c t i o n a l ( i . e . f a l s e ) a s i t i s a n o t i o n o f c o m p l e t e n e s s , a t r a n s c e n d e n c e o f t h e d a t a p r e s e n t e d . H u m e o u g h t t o h a v e a r g u e d t h a t s u c c e s s i o n s o f p e r c e p t s w h i c h l e a s t i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n i n i t s v i e w o f a s u c c e s s i o n o f p e r c e p t s , a r e v i e w e d a s a u n i t y b y t h e i m a g i n a t i o n . T h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e u n i t y i n a f i c t i o n a l t i m e c o n s t i t u t e s t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e s e r i e s . H u m e m i g h t h a v e a r g u e d t h a t t h e p r o p e n s i t y o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n t o p r e d i c a t e i d e n t i t y o f s u c c e s s i o n s w h i c h l e a s t i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f i t s o p e r a t i o n i s t o b e u n d e r -s t o o d a s a u n i v e r s a l p r i n c i p l e o f h u m a n n a t u r e . 35. c h a p t e r t w o . 3 7 C H A P T E R I I H u m e s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e i d e n t i t y p r e d i c a t e d o f t h e s e l f c a n b e e x p l a i n e d i n t h e s a m e w a y t h a t h e h a s e x p l a i n e d t h e i d e n t i t y p r e d i c a t e d o f m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s . H e s u g g e s t s f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e s e l f i s t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e m i n d . T h i s c a n b e s e e n i n t h e s e c t i o n ' o f p e r s o n a l i d e n t i t y ' w h e r e h e f i n a l l y t u r n s t o t h e q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g p e r s o n a l i d e n t i t y , b u t h e s a y s : T h e i d e n t i t y , w h i c h w e a s c r i b e t o t h e m i n d o f m a n , i s o n l y a f i c t i t i o u s o n e , a n d o f a l i k e k i n d w i t h t h a t w h i c h w e a s c r i b e t o v e g e t a b l e s a n d a n i m a l b o d i e s . I t c a n n o t , t h e r e f o r e , h a v e a d i f f e r e n t o r i g i n , b u t m u s t p r o c e e d f r o m a l i k e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n u p o n l i k e o b j e c t s . 1 H u m e ' s v i e w o f t h e m i n d i s t h a t i t i s a s u c c e s s i o n o f p e r -2 c e p t i o n s o n l y , c o n n e c t e d b y a s s o c i a t i o n . I n t h e ' A p p e n d i x ' h e r e i t e r a t e s t h i s v i e w : W h e n I t u r n m y r e f l e x i o n o n m y s e l f , I n e v e r c a n p e r c e i v e t h i s s e l f w i t h o u t s o m e o n e o r m o r e p e r c e p t i o n s ; n o r c a n I e v e r p e r c e i v e a n y t h i n g b u t t h e p e r -c e p t i o n s . ' T i s t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e s e , t h e r e f o r e , w h i c h f o r m s t h e s e l f . T h e s e l f v i e w e d a s a s u c c e s s i o n o f a s s o c i a t e d p e r -c e p t s h a s n o r e a l i d e n t i t y . I n a c c o u n t i n g f o r t h e a l l e g e d 1 . ( T . 259 ) 2 . ( T . 2 0 7 , 2 5 3 , 261 ) 3 . ( T . 6 3 ^ ) H u m e ' s i t a l i c s . k. ( T . 2 0 7 , 2 5 3 ) 38 i d e n t i t y o f t h e s e l f H u m e u n d e r t a k e s t h e t a s k o f e x p l a i n i n g h o w a n i d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d o f t h e s u c c e s s i o n o f p e r c e p t -i o n s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e t h e m i n d . P r i o r t o t h i s h o w e v e r H u m e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e c a n b e n o i m p r e s s i o n o f t h e s e l f a s s o m e t h i n g w h i c h e x i s t s c o n t i n u o u s l y a n d i n v a r i a b l y t h r o u g h -5 o u t o n e ' s l i f e . S i n c e n o i m p r e s s i o n e x i s t s c o n t i n u o u s a n d i n v a r i a b l e t h r o u g h o u t o n e ' s l i f e , n o i m p r e s s i o n o f t h e s e l f e x i s t s i n t h a t m a n n e r . H u m e c o n c l u d e s f r o m t h i s , t h a t w e h a v e n o i d e a o f t h e s e l f a s a c o n t i n u o u s , i n v a r i a n t e x i s t e n t . I m p r e s s i o n s d o e x i s t h o w e v e r , w h i c h a r e c o n t i n u o u s a n d i n v a r i a b l e , , n a m e l y t h o s e p o s s e s s i n g s t r i c t i d e n t i t y . . T h e i r e x i s t e n c e i s r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t . H u m e d o e s n o t s a y t h a t t h e r e c a n b e n o i m p r e s s i o n o f t h e s e l f w h i c h e n d u r e s , h e s a y s s i m p l y t h a t t h e r e i s n o n e . T h i s i s t o s a y t h a t t h e n o t i o n o f a c o n t i n u o u s a n d i n v a r i a b l e i m p r e s s i o n i s n o t s e l f - c o n t r d i c t o r y ; i t i s a t l e a s t c o n c e i v a b l e . I t c a n b e s h o w n , u p o n t h e p r i n -c i p l e s o f B o o k I , h o w t h e i d e a o f t h e s e l f c a n b e c o n s t r u c t e d , a n d f u r t h e r h o w t h e i d e a t h e s e l f g i v e s r i s e t o a n i m p r e s s i o n o f r e f l e x i o n . T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h H u m e ' s a c c o u n t o f 6 t h e o r i g i n o f i m p r e s s i o n s o f r e f l e x i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h H u m e ' s r e f e r e n c e s i n B o o k I I t o i m p r e s -7 8 s i o n s o f t h e s e l f a n d t h e i d e a o f t h e s e l f . T h e i d e n t i t y 5 . ( T . 251 ) 6 . ( T . 7 ) 7 . ( T . 3 1 7 , 3 2 0 , 3 ^ 0 , 1+27 ) 8 . ( T . 35*t ) 39 o f t h e s e l f c a n b e e x p l a i n e d o n c e a n i m p r e s s i o n o f t h e s e l f c a n b e c o n s t r u c t e d . T h e a r g u m e n t i s a s f o l l o w s . A t a n y p a r t i c u l a r t i m e , t h e i d e a o f t h e s e l f w h i c h i s p r e s e n t t o t h e m i n d , i s t h e i d e a o f a p a r t i c u l a r s e g m e n t o f t h e p e r c e p t i o n s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e t h e m i n d . S u c c e s s i v e a w a r e n e s s e s o f d i s t i n c t s e g m e n t s o f t h e t o t a l i t y o f p e r c e p t s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e t h e m i n d w i l l b e a s s o c i a t e d a n d c o n s t i t u t e t h e i d e a o f t h e s e l f . T h i s i s , t h u s f a r , H u m e ' s o w n a c c o u n t . H u m e c o n c l u d e s h o w e v e r t h a t t h e o n l y u n i t y t h a t a r i s e s h e r e , i s t h e u n i t y p r o d u c e d b y t h e a s s o c i a t i o n o f s u c c e s s i v e i d e a s o f t h e s e l f . T h e r e i s h e a r g u e s , n o r e a l b o n d a m o n g s t t h e p e r c e p t s t h e m s e l v e s . H u m e g o e s o n t o e x p l a i n t h a t t h e a s s o c i a t i o n s a m o n g s t t h e s e i d e a s a r e p r i m a r i l y r e s e m b l a n c e 10 a n d c a u s a t i o n . T h i s a s s o c i a t i o n , H u m e a r g u e s , l e a s t i n -t e r r u p t s t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n a s i t v i e w s t h e s u c c e s s i o n : . . . o u r n o t i o n s o f p e r s o n a l i d e n t i t y , p r o c e e d e n t i r e l y f r o m t h e s m o o t h a n d u n i n t e r r u p t e d p r o g r e s s o f t h e t h o u g h t a l o n g a t r a i n o f c o n n e c t e d i d e a s . 9. ( T . 259 ) 10. ( T . 260 ) 11. ( T . 260 ) H u m e u s e s ' t h o u g h t ' a n d ' i m a g i n a t i o n ' i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y t h r o u g h o u t B o o k I . ko To e x p l a i n the p r e d i c a t i o n o f i d e n t i t y to the s u c c e s s i v e i d e a s o f the s e l f , Hume w i l l want to argue t h a t the f e e l o f the a s s o c i a t e d s u c c e s s i o n i s much l i k e the f e e l o f an i d e n t i c a l p e r c e p t , and the former i s confused with the 12 l a t t e r . Here, the c o n f u s i o n o f d i s p o s i t i o n s i s d i f f i c u l t to understand. Hume would want to argue t h a t , as I s i t here and r e f l e c t upon my a c t i v i t i e s o f the past week, t h a t suc-c e s s i o n o f memories, which forms a segment o f the t o t a l i t y o f the s e l f i s viewed by the i m a g i n a t i o n . The im a g i n a t i o n , to use Hume's language, moves w i t h f a c i l i t y a l o n g the assoc-i a t e d s u c c e s s i o n . The f e e l produced by the movement o f the im a g i n a t i o n a l o n g the s u c c e s s i o n i s confused w i t h the f e e l o f the i m a g i n a t i o n i n i t s view o f an i d e n t i c a l p e r c e p t . The a s s o c i a t e d segment f e e l s l i k e an i d e n t i c a l p e r c e p t . What i s d i f f i c u l t to fathom i n the case o f the s e l f , i s how the con-f u s i o n c o u l d a r i s e . Hume b e l i e v e d that no im p r e s s i o n o f the s e l f e x i s t e d . I t i s p o s s i b l e I have suggested, f o r the p r o p e n s i t y to such confusions to a r i s e , and thereby be t r a n s -f e r r e d to s u c c e s s i o n s o f per c e p t s f o r which no i d e n t i c a l p e r c e p t e x i s t s . Thus, the p r o p e n s i t y to confuse resemblance w i t h i d e n t i t y c o u l d a r i s e from s e r i e s o f p e r c e p t s c h a r a c t e r -i z e d by short i n t e r r u p t i o n s . But, as I have p r e v i o u s l y argued, the o r i g i n o f th a t p r o p e n s i t y would r e q u i r e as i t s 12. ( T. 25k- ) hi j u s t i f i c a t i o n , the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e o f the i m a g i n a t i o n . That p r i n c i p l e i n e f f e c t , e x p l a i n s how the mind, g i v e n an observed coherence or constancy, or i n t h i s case a s t r o n g resemblance, completes the coherence o r constancy o r resemblance. T h i s p r i n c i p l e i s necessary because the q u a l i t i e s o f a s e r i e s a re u n l i k e the q u a l i t i e s o f an i d e n t i c a l p e r c e p t . The i d e n t i t y p r e d i c a t e d o f a s e r i e s r e q u i r e s , t h a t the s e r i e s be taken as a u n i t y . But the s e r i e s i s i n f a c t a m u l t i p l i c i t y . Viewing the m u l t i p l i c i t y as a u n i t y goes beyond what custom and ex-pe r i e n c e d i c t a t e . Thus the d i f f i c u l t y w ith a r g u i n g t h a t the c o n f u s i o n o f d i s p o s i t i o n s a p p l i e s i n the case o f the s e l f i s t h a t e i t h e r (1) an i d e n t i c a l percept o f the s e l f must e x i s t w i t h which the s u c c e s s i o n o f percepts which c o n s t i t u t e the s e l f could be confused. Hume argues t h a t t h i s i s f a l s e . Indeed, what would be the p o i n t o f arguing f o r a c o n f u s i o n o f d i s p o s i t i o n s i f such a pe r c e p t d i d e x i s t ? or (2) the p r o p e n s i t y o f the i m a g i n a t i o n to i n d u l g e i n such c o n f u s i o n s must e x i s t . The e x i s t e n c e o f t h i s p r o p e n s i t y r a i s e s the same pro-blem, f o r Hume, which a r i s e s i n the case o f coherence. Hume argued i n the case o f coherence, t h a t the observed coherence o f our p e r c e p t s was i n s u f f i c i e n t to e x p l a i n the n o t i o n o f the continued e x i s t e n c e o f m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s . Those o b j e c t s r e -q u i r e a n o t i o n o f coherence which cannot a r i s e from experience. 13 . ( T. 197 ) 1+2 T h e p r e d i c a t i o n o f i d e n t i t y t o a s u c c e s s i o n o f p e r c e p t s i s c l e a r l y a c a s e o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n i n d u l g i n g i n a p r a c t i c e w h i c h c a n h a v e n o o r i g i n i n e x p e r i e n c e a l o n e . T h e g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n c a n p r o v i d e t h e g r o u n d u p o n w h i c h t h e p r o p e n s i t y t o c o n f u s e r e s e m b l a n c e w i t h i d e n t i t y c a n a r i s e . O n c e t h e u t i l i t y o f t h e g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e i s s e e n h o w e v e r , i t w i l l a l s o b e s e e n t h a t H u m e n e e d n o t a r g u e f o r t h e c o n f u s i o n o f d i s p o s i t i o n s . T h e g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e , I h a v e a r g u e d , c a n p r o v i d e f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a s t a n d a r d o f i d e n t i t y g i v e n c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s . I h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e H u m e a n p r o b l e m w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p r e d i c a t i o n o f i d e n t i t y t o s u c c e s s i o n s o f p e r c e p t s i s b a s i c a l l y t h e p r o b l e m o f c o n t i n u i t y . H u m e a r g u e d t h a t l a c k o f c o n t i n u i t y d e s t r o y s s t r i c t i d e n t i t y . S u c c e s s i o n s o f p e r c e p t s l a c k c o n t i n u i t y , c o n s e q u e n t l y s t r i c t i d e n t i t y c a n n o t b e p r e d i c a t e d o f t h e m . H u m e a r g u e d t h a t t h e g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e c a n p r o v i d e t h e c o n -t i n u i t y o f a s u c c e s s i o n g i v e n a n o b s e r v e d c o h e r e n c e . H e f a i l e d t o s e e t h a t t h e s a m e p r i n c i p l e c a n p r o v i d e t h e n e c -c e s s a r y c o n t i n u i t y i n t h e c a s e o f c o n s t a n c y , o r i n a n y o t h e r c a s e w h e r e h e a r g u e s f o r a c o n f u s i o n o f d i s p o s i t i o n s . H u m e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e s e l f p o s s e s s e d n o i d e n t i t y b e c a u s e t h e p e r c e p t s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e t h e s e l f w e r e o n l y a s s o c i a t e d ; t h e y w e r e n o t c o n n e c t e d b y a n y r e a l o b s e r v a b l e ^3 Ik b o n d . I n t h e ' A p p e n d i x ' h e c o n f i r m s t h i s v i e x t f . T h e r e h e a r g u e s t h a t i f p e r c e p t i o n s w e r e c o n n e c t e d b y r e a l o b s e r v a b l e b o n d s , o r i f t h e n o t i o n o f a s u b j e c t o f i n h e s i o n w e r e i n f a c t t r u e , t h e n t h e u n i t y a n d i d e n t i t y o f t h e s e l f c o u l d b e e x -p l a i n e d . A t m o s t h o w e v e r , H u m e c l a i m s t h a t W e o n l y f e e l a c o n n e x i o n o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e t h o u g h t , t o p a s s f r o m o n e o b j e c t t o a n o t h e r . 15 T h a t i s t h e e x t e n t o f t h e o b s e r v a b l e c o n n e c t i o n s a m o n g s t t h e p e r c e p t s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e t h e s e l f . I f t h i s ' f e e l ' i s e x a m i n e d h o w e v e r , i t s e e m s t o c a r r y m o r e w e i g h t i n i n d i c a t i n g t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e s e l f t h a n H u m e s e e m e d t o t h i n k . T h i s f e e l c a n b e e x p l a i n e d a s a n i m -p r e s s i o n o f r e f l e x i o n w h i c h a r i s e s f r o m t h e t r a n s i t i o n o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n f r o m p e r c e p t t o p e r c e p t . I t i s m u c h l i k e a f e e l -i n g o f f a m i l i a r i t y p r o d u c e d b y t h e r e p e a t e d o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e d e s k i n f r o n t o f m e . I t i s t h i s f e e l p r e s u m a b l y , t o w h i c h H u m e r e f e r s i n h i s c l a i m t h a t t h e d i s p o s i t i o n s a r e c o n -f u s e d w i t h o n e a n o t h e r i n t h e p r e d i c a t i o n o f i d e n t i t y t o s u c c e s s i o n s o f p e r c e p t s . T h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e s e l f w h i c h H u m e a r g u e s f o r i n t h e s e c t i o n ' o f p e r s o n a l i d e n t i t y ' i s t h e i d e n -t i t y a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e s u c c e s s i o n o f i d e a s o f t h e s e l f b e -c a u s e o f t h e u n i o n o f t h e s e i d e a s i n t h e i m a g i n a t i o n , t h a t i s 16 b e c a u s e t h e s u c c e s s i o n f e e l s l i k e a n i d e n t i c a l p e r c e p t . lh. ( T . 259 ) 15. ( T . 636 ) H u m e ' s i t a l i c s . 16. ( T . 260 ) kk Two things must be pointed out here. The laws of 1 7 association are applicable only to simple ideas. The succession of percepts which constitute the mind presumably i s a succession of complex perceptions. Each percept i s i t -s e l f an association of simples. As such, the succession of t h e i r ideas i s a succession of complex ideas. In what sense then can i t be said that these complex ideas are governed by the laws of association? Hume seems to imply here that the laws of association are equally applicable to complex ideas as well as to simple ideas.. Indeed, he argues that the i d -ent i t y attributed to the succession of complex ideas of the s e l f occurs s o l e l y because of the associations produced by resemblance and causation. I f these are the only associating q u a l i t i e s , then of course, a union of ideas must depend upon those associa-t i o n s . But these are not the only q u a l i t i e s which can ac-count f o r the union of ideas. A succession of ideas chara-cterized by coherence, was thought by Hume, to be attributed with a unity by the a c t i v i t y of the imagination;. The galley p r i n c i p l e provides f or a union of ideas which i s greater than the unity of a series of associated perceptions. The com-plete coherence of a succession of percepts characterized only by an observed coherence e n t a i l s the continued e x i s t -18 ence of the percepts during t h e i r interruptions. Hume 17. Sec. IV, P. 10f 18. ( T. 198 ) k5 ought to have u t i l i z e d the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e to e x p l a i n not 19 j u s t the s y n t h e t i c u n i t y o f a s e r i e s o f percep t s c h a r a c -t e r i z e d by an observed coherence, but the s y n t h e t i c u n i t y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an observed constancy, o r an easy u n i n t e r -rupted t r a n s i t i o n o f the i m a g i n a t i o n a l o n g the s u c c e s s i o n . I t seems t h a t Hume's n o t i o n s o f constancy and coherence a re j u s t o b s ervable q u a l i t i e s o f s e r i e s o f percepts which ex-p l a i n the easy t r a n s i t i o n s o f the i m a g i n a t i o n a l o n g the suc-c e s s i o n . I have p o i n t e d out that Hume extends the q u a l i t i e s o f p e r c e p t s which p r o v i d e f o r easy t r a n s i t i o n s o f the imag-i n a t i o n to i n c l u d e not j u s t o b s e r v a b l e q u a l i t i e s . Thus, what-ever i s i n c l u d e d i n the concept o f a t h i n g p r o v i d e s an u n i n -t e r r u p t e d t r a n s i t i o n o f the i m a g i n a t i o n along the i d e a s . Hume's example o f the changing r i v e r i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s p o i n t : Thus as the nature o f a r i v e r c o n s i s t s i n the motion and change o f p a r t s ; tho' i n l e s s than f o u r and twenty hours these be t o t a l l y a l t e r ' d ; t h i s h i n d e r s not the r i v e r from c o n t i n u i n g the same d u r i n g s e v e r a l ages. 20 Hume i n d i c a t e s here t h a t the c o n t i n u i t y o f the thought i s not i n t e r r u p t e d by the ideas o f the changes i n the contents o f the r i v e r . Thus a s y n t h e t i c u n i t y i s a t t r i b u t e d to the i d e a o f the changing r i v e r , i n s p i t e o f the f a c t t h a t a r i v e r con-s i s t s i n a s u c c e s s i o n o f p a r t s . The unobserved u n i t y i s 19 . S y n t h e t i c u n i t y i s unobserved u n i t y 20. ( T. 258 ) i+6 bestowed by the imagination because the t r a n s i t i o n of the thought i s uninterrupted d u r i n g the conception of the idea of the r i v e r . An i d e n t i t y can be predicated of the u n i t y by conceiving the u n i t y through an imagined v a r i a t i o n of time. This i s p r e c i s e l y the case w i t h respect to the mind. The idea of the mind Hume c l a i m s , i s tha t i s i s a succession of perceptions i n constant f l u x , a k i n d o f theatre where ...perceptions s u c c e s s i v e l y make t h e i r appearance; pass, re-pass, g l i d e away, and mingle i n an i n f i n i t e v a r i e t y o f postures and s i t u a t i o n s . 21 Hume q u a l i f i e s the above view of the mind by a s s e r t i n g l a t e r i n the T r e a t i s e t h a t ...the tr u e idea of the human mind, i s to consider i t as a system of d i f f e r e n t perceptions,or d i f f e r e n t e x i s t e n c e s , which are l i n k ' d together by the r e l a t i o n of cause and e f f e c t , and mutually produce, destroy, i n f l u e n c e , and modify each other. 22 I t i s at t h i s p o i n t i n the T r e a t i s e , i n the same paragraph, that Hume says . . . I cannot compare the soul more p r o p e r l y to any t h i n g than to a r e p u b l i c or common-wealth.... 23 21. ( T. 253 ) He i n d i c a t e s that one should not be mislead by the reference to a t h e a t r e . He does not intend to imply that the mind i s a k i n d of con t a i n e r . 22. ( T. 261 ) 23. Ibid. h7 Hume i s d i s c u s s i n g the r e l a t i o n s which are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the p r e d i c a t i o n of i d e n t i t y to the id e a o f the s e l f . H i s r e f e r e n c e to the mind, and l a t e r to the s o u l i n t h i s c o n t e x t , I understand to imply t h a t he was unconcerned to draw any 2h p r e c i s e d i s t i n c t i o n between these n o t i o n s . In any case, the mind viewed as a s u c c e s s i o n o f a s s o c i a t e d percepts can be p r e d i c a t e d an i d e n t i t y , i n s p i t e o f the f a c t t h a t i t i s a su c c e s s i o n , by-showing how the u n i t y o f t h i s s u c c e s s i o n i s p o s s i b l e . Once i t i s understood t h a t the i d e a o f the mind j u s t i s the i d e a o f the s u c c e s s i v e p e r c e p t i o n s which c o n s t i -t u t e the mind, then t h i s i d e a can be giv e n a u n i t y by ar g u i n g t h a t the c o n t i n u i t y o f the i m a g i n a t i o n i s u n i n t e r r u p t e d i n i t s t r a n s i t i o n along s u c c e s s i v e i d e a s o f the mind. The u n i t y o f the s u c c e s s i o n o f ideas o f the mind i s a s y n t h e t i c u n i t y which a r i s e s from the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e o f the i m a g i n a t i o n . I have argued t h a t constancy and coherence are q u a l i t i e s o f suc-c e s s i o n s o f percep t s which tend not to d i s r u p t the t r a n s i t i o n o f the i m a g i n a t i o n along s u c c e s s i o n s o f p e r c e p t s . L i k e w i s e , Hume has suggested t h a t wherever the t r a n s i t i o n o f the imag-i n a t i o n i s u n i n t e r r u p t e d , (and t h i s w i l l depend upon the no-t i o n a t hand) a u n i t y (and consequently an i d e n t i t y ) w i l l be 2h, c f . ( T. 29+ ) Here Hume suggests t h a t the n o t i o n o f s o u l , substance and s e l f i s one which i s i n vented to accomodate the i n h e s i o n o f p e r c e p t s . Thus, ' s e l f , 'soul', ' s ubstance 1, 'mind' can be understood as s p e c i e s o f the gen e r i c 'subject o f i n h e s i o n ' . h8 a t t r i b u t e d t o t h a t n o t i o n . T h u s t h e i d e n t i t y a s c r i b e d t o t h e m i n d i s a n i d e n t i t y w h i c h a r i s e s b e c a u s e t h e i m a g i n a t i o n i n i t s v i e w o f t h e s u c c e s s i v e i d e a s o f t h e m i n d m o v e s w i t h f a c -i l i t y , i s u n i n t e r r u p t e d , a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y a t t r i b u t e s a u n i t y t o t h e s u c c e s s i v e i d e a s . T h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e u n i t y i n a s u p p o s e d v a r i a t i o n o f t i m e a c c o u n t s f o r t h e i d e n t i t y p r e -d i c a t e d o f t h e u n i t y . O n c e t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e s u c c e s s i v e i d e a s o f t h e m i n d h a s b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d , i t c a n b e a r g u e d t h a t t h e i d e a o f t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e m i n d g i v e s r i s e t o a p a r t i c u l a r f e e l i n t h e i m a g i n a t i o n . T h i s i m p r e s s i o n o f r e f l e x i o n I c a l l a f e e l -i n g o f p e r m a n e n c e o r f e e l i n g o f c o n t i n u i t y a n d c o n s t i t u t e s a H u m e a n i m p r e s s i o n o f t h e s e l f . k9 .CONCLUSION Once i t i s seen t h a t Hume need not r e l y upon the n o t i o n o f a c o n f u s i o n o f d i s p o s i t i o n s to e x p l a i n how i d e n -t i t y i s mistakenly p r e d i c a t e d o f some s e r i e s o f per c e p t s (those viewed by the i m a g i n a t i o n which f e e l as i f they are one i d e n t i c a l percept) then i t can a l s o be seen how the i d e n t i t y p r e d i c a t e d of su c c e s s i o n s r e s o l v e s i t s e l f i n t o o r -i g i n a l p r o p e n s i t i e s o f human nature. One may choose, p e r -haps al o n g xgdth Hume, to continue to m a i n t a i n t h a t the i d -e n t i t y a s c r i b e d to a m u l t i p l i c i t y i s n e v e r t h e l e s s a mistake. But t h i s p o s i t i o n i s more d i f f i c u l t to defend once one sees t h a t i d e n t i t y a s c r i p t i o n does not occur as a r e s u l t o f a co n f u s i o n o f d i s p o s i t i o n s , but r a t h e r i s grounded upon the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e o f the i m a g i n a t i o n which renders a s e r i e s complete, g i v e n c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s . Hume says t h a t , i n the case o f m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s , a s s o c i a t i o n s o f p e r c e p t i o n s alone c o u l d not account f o r some of the r e l a t i o n s a t t r i b u t e d to the n o t i o n o f m a t e r i a l o b j e c t . In the s e c t i o n 'of s c e p t i c i s m w i t h regard to the senses' Hume undertakes the task o f e x p l a i n i n g how c e r t a i n q u a l i t i e s o f s e r i e s o f impressi o n s , namely constancy and coherence, g i v e r i s e to the b e l i e f i n the continued and independent e x i s t e n c e o f body. H i s examination o f the n o t i o n o f coherence l e a d s him to conclude t h a t t h i s q u a l i t y , as an ob s e r v a b l e q u a l i t y 50 o f s o m e s e r i e s o f p e r c e p t i o n s , c a n n o t a l o n e e x p l a i n t h e b e -l i e f i n t h e c o n t i n u e d e x i s t e n c e o f m a t e r i a l o b j e c t s . H i s e x -a m i n a t i o n o f c o h e r e n c e h o w e v e r d i d l e a d h i m t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t e v e n t h e o b s e r v e d c o h e r e n c e o f s u c c e s s i o n s o f p e r c e p t s c a n n o t b e e x p l a i n e d b y a n a p p e a l t o c u s t o m a n d h a b i t a l o n e . T h u s h e s a y s : I r e c e i v e a l e t t e r , w h i c h u p o n o p e n i n g i t I p e r c e i v e b y t h e h a n d - w r i t i n g a n d s u b s c r i p t i o n t o h a v e c o m e f r o m a f r i e n d , w h o s a y s h e i s t w o h u n d r e d l e a g u e s d i s -t a n t . ' T i s e v i d e n t I c a n n e v e r a c c o u n t f o r t h i s p h a e n o m e n o n , c o n f o r m a b l e t o m y e x p e r i e n c e i n o t h e r i n s t a n c e s , w i t h o u t s p r e a d i n g i n m y m i n d t h e w h o l e s e a a n d c o n t i n e n t b e t w e e n u s , a n d s u p p o s i n g t h e e f f e c t s a n d c o n t i n u ' d e x i s t e n c e o f p o s t s a n d f e r r i e s . . . . 1 T h e s u p p o s i t i o n o f t h e c o n t i n u e d e x i s t e n c e o f a l l t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e l e t t e r p r e s u p p o s e s d o e s r e n d e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e l e t t e r c o h e r e n t w i t h p a s t e x p e r i e n c e . H u m e i s q u i c k t o s e e h o w e v e r t h a t t h i s c o n c l u s i o n , w h i l e r e s e m b l i n g a c o n c l u s i o n f o u n d e d u p o n c a u s a l i t y , i s q u i t e d i s t i n c t f r o m i t . H i s p o i n t h e r e i s t h a t i s s p i t e o f t h e f a c t t h a t h e h a s n o t o b s e r v e d t h e s e q u e n c e o f e v e n t s l e a d i n g u p t o t h e d e l i v e r y o f t h e l e t t e r , h e s t i l l s u p p o s e s t h a t t h e e v e n t s i n f a c t m u s t h a v e o c c u r e d . T h u s , e x p e r i e n c i n g o n l y t h e c o n c l u d i n g e v e n t -t h e r e c e p t i o n o f t h e l e t t e r - d o e s n o t l e a d h i m t o d e v e l o p 1. ( T . 196 ) 51 the b e l i e f t h a t l e t t e r s can appear without the usual sequence of events preceeding t h e i r a r r i v a l . His b e l i e f i n the dur-a b i l i t y of the e x t e r n a l world i s not shattered by what ap-2 pears to be an event contrary to experience. Hume appeals of course to the g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e of the imagination to ac-count f o r the continued existence of objects not present to the senses i n order to preserve t h e i r coherence. His n o t i o n of constancy was intended to c o n t r i b u t e to the b e l i e f i n the continued and independent exi s t e n c e of body. His account of how constancy i s res p o n s i b l e f o r that b e l i e f r e q u i r e s that he argue that the f e e l of a succession of resembling percepts be confused w i t h the f e e l of an i d -e n t i c a l percept. I have argued t h a t t h i s can mean only that the propensity to make t h i s c onfusion can a r i s e from pre-v i o u s experiences of such confusions. But t h i s p r o pensity, upon a n a l y s i s , r e s o l v e s i t s e l f i n t o a c q u i r i n g a h a b i t which cannot be acquired from experience alone. One cannot develop a propensity to confuse an i d e n t i c a l percept w i t h a s e r i e s of resembling percepts, because a s e r i e s i s t o t a l l y u n l i k e an i d e n t i c a l percept. I n sho r t , i f the confusion i s to occur at a l l , the s e r i e s must be taken as at l e a s t a u n i t y . This of course r e q u i r e s the co-operation of some other p r i n c i p l e , 2. Cf. H.H. P r i c e , PP. 50 - 9+, op. c i t . 52 n a m e l y t h e g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e . B u t i f t h e g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e p a r t a k e s i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e p r o p e n s i t y t o c o n f u s e a r e s e m b l i n g s e r i e s w i t h a n i d e n t i c a l p e r c e p t , t h e n i t i s u n -n e c e s s a r y t o a r g u e f o r t h e c o n f u s i o n o f d i s p o s i t i o n s . T h e g a l l e y p r i n c i p l e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n t r i b u t e t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f t h e s e r i e s w h e t h e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y c o n s t a n c y o r c o h e r e n c e . F i n a l l y H u m e a r g u e s t h a t t h e u n i t y o f a s e r i e s e x -i s t s w h e r e t h e i m a g i n a t i o n i s l e a s t i n t e r r u p t e d i n i t s v i e w o f t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e s e r i e s . I h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a t c o n -s t a n c y a n d c o h e r e n c e w e r e q u a l i t i e s o f s e r i e s o f p e r c e p t i o n s \ i r h i c h s a t i s f i e d t h a t c o n d i t i o n , t h a t t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f t h e t h o u g h t i s l e a s t i n t e r r u p t e d . C o n s e q u e n t l y a u n i t y , a s a n i m a g i n a r y s t a n d a r d s u p p l i e d b y t h e g a l l e y e f f e c t o f t h e i m a g -i n a t i o n , i s p r e d i c a t e d o f a n y s e r i e s w h i c h l e a s t i n t e r r u p t s t h e c o n t i n u e d o p e r a t i o n o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n . T h e i d e a o f t h e s e l f i s j u s t t h e i d e a o f a p a r t i c u l a r s e g m e n t o f t h e p e r c e p t i o n s w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e t h e s e l f . T h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e s e l f a r i s e s b e c a u s e t h e s u c c e s s i o n o f i d e a s o f t h e s e l f , v i e w e d b y t h e i m a g i n a t i o n l e a s t i n t e r r u p t s t h e c o n t i n u i t y o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n i n i t s t r a n s i t i o n a l o n g t h o s e i d e a s . T h e u n i n t e r r u p t e d t r a n s i t i o n o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n a l o n g t h e s u c c e s s i v e i d e a s o f t h e s e l f o c c u r s , H u m e a r g u e s , b e c a u s e t h e i d e a s a r e s t r o n g l y a s s o c i a t e d t h r o u g h r e s e m b l a n c e a n d c a u s a t i o n . T h e u n i t y p r e d i c a t e d o f t h e a s s o c i a t e d s e r i e s c a n b e g r o u n d e d u p o n t h e g a l l e y e f f e c t o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n t o 53 r e n d e r a s e r i e s c o m p l e t e . T h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e u n i t y i n a s u p p o s e d v a r i a t i o n o f t i m e c o m p l e t e s t h e p r o c e s s . I d e n t i t y i s p r e d i c a t e d o f t h e s e l f . M y i n t e n t i o n h a s b e e n t o a t t e m p t t o r e c o n c i l e H u m e ' s m i s g i v i n g s r e g a r d i n g h i s a n a l y s i s o f t h e s e l f a s e x p r e s s e d i n t h e ' A p p e n d i x ' w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e s f o u n d i n B o o k I o f t h e T r e a t i s e . M y a t t e m p t h a s i n c l u d e d a r e f u s a l t o d e a l w i t h a t r o u b l e s o m e q u e s t i o n w h i c h h a s p l a g u e d m e t h r o u g h o u t t h e c o n -s t r u c t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s . M y r e f u s a l t h u s f a r , t o d e a l w i t h t h i s i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n , i s i n p a r t j u s t i f i e d b y H u m e ' s r e -f u s a l t o d e a l w i t h i t a l s o . O n e m u s t a s k , u p o n a r e a d i n g b o t h e o f t h e T r e a t i s e a n d o f t h i s t h e s i s : w h a t i s t h e s t a t u s o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n ? I s t h e i m a g i n a t i o n , i n s o f a r a s i t i s s u b s u m e d u n d e r t h e H u m e a n c o n c e p t o f m i n d , n o t h i n g b u t a s u c c e s s i o n o f a s s o c -i a t e d p e r c e p t s ? D o e s t h e m u l t i f a r i o u s a c t i v i t y w h i c h H u m e a t t r i b u t e s t o t h e i m a g i n a t i o n i m p l y t h a t t h e i m a g i n a t i o n i s a n a g e n t w h i c h i n s t i g a t e s t h e a c t i v i t y ? I t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h H u m e t a l k s o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n c o u l d b e t a k e n t o i m p l y t h a t i n s o m e s e n s e w h i c h h e p e r h a p s u n d e r s t o o d b u t f a i l e d t o e x p l i c i t y a s s e r t , i t i s t h a t w h i c h a c t s u p o n t h e d a t a p r e s e n t e d t o t h e m i n d . T h e a c c o u n t g i v e n h e r e o f t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e s e l f c o u l d b e t a k e n t o i m p l y t h a t t h e i m a g i n a t i o n , g i v e n s e r i e s o f p e r c e p t s 9+ c h a r a c t e r i z e d i n c e r t a i n w a y s , a c t s u p o n t h e s e s e r i e s a n d c o n t r i b u t e s t o m y b e l i e f t h a t t h e w o r l d e x i s t s a s s o m e t h i n g c o n t i n u e d a n d i n d e p e n d e n t o f m e . T h i s a c c o u n t c o u l d b e t a k e n t o i m p l y f u r t h e r m o r e , t h a t t h e i d e n t i t y p r e d i c a t e d o f t h e s e l f \ \ r h i c h r e q u i r e s t h o s e d i s t i n c t i v e i m a g i n a t i v e a c t s a l s o i m p l i e s t h a t t h e i m a g i n a t i o n i s s o m e t h i n g d i s t i n c t f r o m s u c -c e s s i o n s o f p e r c e p t i o n s , t h a t i t i s a n a c t i v e a g e n t . I h e s i t a t e t o d r a w t h e s e c o n c l u s i o n s b e c a u s e H u m e h i m s e l f d i d n o t e x p l i c i t l y d o s o , a l t h o u g h h e s e e m s t o h a v e d o n e s o i m p l i c i t l y . I h a v e t h r o u g h o u t t h i s t h e s i s u t i l i z e d m u c h o f H u m e ' s l a n g u a g e i n r e f e r r i n g t o t h e a c t i v i t y o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n . M y i n t e n t i o n w a s t o t r y t o a v o i d i m p o s i n g a v i e w u p o n H u m e w h i c h h e w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y r e s i s t . . - n a m e l y t h a t t h e a c t i v i t y o f t h e i m a g i n a t i o n i m p l i e s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n a g e n t - w h i l e a t t e m p t i n g t o r e s o l v e h i s a d m i t t e d f a i l u r e t o e x p l a i n t h e u n i t y a n d i d e n t i t y o f t h e s e l f . 55 B I B L I O G R A P H Y H u m e , D a v i d . A T r e a t i s e o f H u m a n M a t u r e , e d . , L . A . S e l b y -B i g g e . O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1955* P r i c e , H . H . H u m e ' s T h e o r y o f t h e E x t e r n a l W o r l d , O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , F i r s t e d . 19^0, r e p r i n t e d 19*+8, 1963. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093199/manifest

Comment

Related Items