There are some philosophers who imagine we are every moment intimately conscious of what we call our self; that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence; and are certain, beyond the evidence of a demonstration, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. The strongest sensation, the most violent passion, say they, instead of distracting us from this view, only fix it the more intensely, and make us consider their influence on self either by their pain or pleasure. To attempt a further proof of this were to weaken its evidence; since no proof can be derived from any fact of which we are so intimately conscious; nor is there any thing of which we can be certain if we doubt of this.
Unluckily all these positive assertions are contrary to that very experience which is pleaded for them; nor have we any idea of self, after the manner it is here explained. For, from what impression could this idea be derived? This question it is impossible to answer without a manifest contradiction and absurdity; and yet it is a question which must necessarily be answered, if we would have the idea of self pass for clear and intelligible. It must be some one impression that gives rise to every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot therefore be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is derived; and consequently there is no such idea.
But further, what must become of all our particular perceptions upon this hypothesis? All these are different, and distinguishable, and separable from each other, and may be separately considered, and may exist separately, and have no need of any thing to support their existence. After what manner therefore do they belong to self, and how are they connected with it? For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception. When my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep, so long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist. And were all my perceptions removed by death, and could I neither think, nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor hate, after the dissolution of my body, I should be entirely annihilated, nor do I conceive what is further requisite to make me a perfect nonentity. If any one, upon serious and unprejudiced reflection, thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess I can reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continued, which he calls himself; though I am certain there is no such principle in me.
But setting aside some metaphysicians of this kind, I may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux and movement. Our eyes cannot turn in their sockets without varying our perceptions. Our thought is still more variable than our sight; and all our other senses and faculties contribute to this change: nor is there any single power of the soul, which remains unalterably the same, perhaps for one moment. The mind is a kind of theatre, where several perceptions successively make their appearance; pass, repass, glide away, and mingle in an infinite variety of postures and situations. There is properly no simplicity in it at one time, nor identity in different, whatever natural propension we may have to imagine that simplicity and identity. The comparison of the theatre must not mislead us. They are the successive perceptions only, that constitute the mind; nor have we the most distant notion of the place where these scenes are represented, or of the materials of which it is composed.
What then gives us so great a propension to ascribe an identity to these successive perceptions, and to suppose ourselves possessed of an invariable and uninterrupted existence through the whole course of our lives? In order to answer this question we must distinguish betwixt personal identity, as it regards our thought or imagination, and as it regards our passions or the concern we take in ourselves. The first is our present subject; and to explain it perfectly we must take the matter pretty deep, and account for that identity, which we attribute to plants and animals; there being a great analogy betwixt it and the identity of a self or person.
Selection from Appendix of A Treatise of Human Nature on
Personal Identity
I had entertain'd some hopes, that however
deficient our theory of the intellectual world might be, it wou'd
be free from those contradictions, and absurdities, which seem to attend every
explication, that human reason can give of the material world. But upon a more
strict review of the section concerning personal identity, I find myself involv'd in such a labyrinth, that, I must confess, I
neither know how to correct my former opinions, nor how to render them
consistent. If this be not a good general reason for scepticism,
`tis at least a sufficient one (if I were not already
abundantly supplied) for me to entertain a diffidence and modesty in all my
decisions. I shall propose the arguments on both sides, beginning with those
that induc'd me to deny the strict and proper
identity and simplicity of a self or thinking being.
When we talk of self or substance, we must have an idea annex'd
to these terms, otherwise they are altogether unintelligible. Every idea is deriv'd from preceding impressions; and we have no
impression of self or substance, as something simple and individual. We have,
therefore, no idea of them in that sense.
Whatever is distinct, is distinguishable; and
whatever is distinguishable, is separable by the thought or imagination. All
perceptions are distinct. They are, therefore, distinguishable, and separable,
and may be conceiv'd as separately existent, and may
exist separately, without any contradiction or absurdity.
When I view this table and that chimney, nothing is present to me but
particular perceptions, which are of a like nature with all the other
perceptions. This is the doctrine of philosophers. But this table, which is
present to me, and the chimney, may and do exist
separately. This is the doctrine of the vulgar, and implies no contradiction.
There is no contradiction, therefore, in extending the same doctrine to all the
perceptions.
In general, the following reasoning seems satisfactory. All ideas are borrow'd from preceding perceptions. Our ideas of objects,
therefore, are deriv'd from that source. Consequently
no proposition can be intelligible or consistent with regard to objects, which
is not so with regard to perceptions. But `tis
intelligible and consistent to say, that objects exist distinct and
independent, without any common simple substance or subject of inhesion. This
proposition, therefore, can never be absurd with regard to perceptions.
When I turn my reflection on myself, I never can perceive this self without
some one or more perceptions; nor can I ever perceive any thing but the
perceptions. Tis the composition of these, therefore, which forms the self.
We can conceive a thinking being to have either many or few perceptions.
Suppose the mind to be reduc'd even below the life of
an oyster. Suppose it to have only one perception, as of thirst or hunger.
Consider it in that situation. Do you conceive any thing but merely that
perception? Have you any notion of self or substance? If not, the addition of
other perceptions can never give you that notion.
The annihilation, which some people suppose to follow upon death, and which
entirely destroys this self, is nothing but an extinction of all particular
perceptions; love and hatred, pain and pleasure, thought and sensation. These
therefore must be the same with self; since the one cannot survive the other.
Is self the same with substance? If it be, how can that question have place,
concerning the subsistence of self, under a change of substance? If they be
distinct, what is the difference betwixt them? For my part, I have a notion of
neither, when conceiv'd distinct from particular
perceptions.
Philosophers begin to be reconcil'd to the
principle, that we have no idea of external substance, distinct from the ideas
of particular qualities. This must pave the way for a like principle with
regard to the mind, that we have no notion of it, distinct from the particular
perceptions.
So far I seem to be attended with sufficient evidence. But having thus loosen'd all our particular perceptions, when(23)
I proceed to explain the principle of connexion,
which binds them together, and makes us attribute to them a real simplicity and
identity; I am sensible, that my account is very defective, and that nothing
but the seeming evidence of the precedent reasonings cou'd have induc'd me to receive
it. If perceptions are distinct existences, they form a whole only by being
connected together. But no connexions among distinct
existences are ever discoverable by human understanding. We only feel a connexion or determination of the thought, to pass from one
object to another. It follows, therefore, that the thought alone finds personal
identity, when reflecting on the train of past perceptions,
that compose a mind, the ideas of them are felt to be connected
together, and naturally introduce each other. However extraordinary this
conclusion may seem, it need not surprize us. Most
philosophers seem inclin'd to think, that personal
identity arises from consciousness; and consciousness is nothing but a
reflected thought or perception. The present philosophy, therefore, has so far
a promising aspect. But all my hopes vanish, when I come to explain the principles, that unite our successive perceptions in our
thought or consciousness. I cannot discover any theory, which gives me
satisfaction on this head.
In short there are two principles, which I cannot render consistent; nor is
it in my power to renounce either of them, viz, that
all our distinct perceptions are distinct existences,
and that the mind never perceives any real connexion
among distinct existences. Did our perceptions either inhere in something
simple and individual, or did the mind perceive some real connexion
among them, there wou'd be no difficulty in the case.
For my part, I must plead the privilege of a sceptic,
and confess, that this difficulty is too hard for my
understanding. I pretend not, however, to pronounce. it
absolutely insuperable. Others, perhaps, or myself, upon more mature
reflections, may discover some hypothesis, that will
reconcile those contradictions.