Editing David Hume (section)

=== 'Self' ===
Empiricist philosophers, such as Hume and [[George Berkeley|Berkeley]], favoured the [[bundle theory]] of [[personal identity]].{{sfn|Dicker|2002|p=15}} In this theory, "the mind itself, far from being an independent power, is simply 'a bundle of perceptions' without unity or cohesive quality".{{sfn|Maurer|2013}} The self is nothing but a bundle of experiences linked by the relations of causation and resemblance; or, more accurately, the empirically warranted idea of the self is just the idea of such a bundle. According to Hume:<ref name=":4" />

{{Blockquote|text=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 I am insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist.|title=''[[A Treatise of Human Nature]]''|source=Book I.iv, section 6}}

This view is supported by, for example, positivist interpreters, who have seen Hume as suggesting that terms such as "self", "person", or "mind" refer to collections of "sense-contents".{{sfn|Ayer|1946|pp=135–136}} A modern-day version of the bundle theory of the mind has been advanced by [[Derek Parfit]] in his ''[[Reasons and Persons]]''.{{sfn|Parfit|1984|p=?}}

However, some philosophers have criticised Hume's bundle-theory interpretation of personal identity. They argue that distinct selves can have perceptions that stand in relation to similarity and causality. Thus, perceptions must already come parcelled into distinct "bundles" before they can be associated according to the relations of similarity and causality. In other words, the mind must already possess a unity that cannot be generated, or constituted, by these relations alone. Since the bundle-theory interpretation portrays Hume as answering an [[ontology|ontological]] question, philosophers like [[Galen Strawson]] see Hume as not very concerned with such questions and have queried whether this view is really Hume's. Instead, Strawson suggests that Hume might have been answering an epistemological question about the causal origin of our concept of the self.{{sfn|Strawson|2011|p=?}} In the Appendix to the ''Treatise'', Hume declares himself dissatisfied with his earlier account of personal identity in Book 1. Corliss Swain notes that "Commentators agree that if Hume did find some new problem" when he reviewed the section on personal identity, "he wasn't forthcoming about its nature in the Appendix."{{sfn|Swain|2008|loc=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Qoh7_nZbBjYC&dq=hume+blackwell+new+problem&pg=PA143 p. 142]}} One interpretation of Hume's view of the self, argued for by philosopher and psychologist [[James Giles (philosopher)|James Giles]], is that Hume is not arguing for a bundle theory, which is a form of reductionism, but rather for an eliminative view of the self. Rather than reducing the self to a bundle of perceptions, Hume rejects the idea of the self altogether. On this interpretation, Hume is proposing a "[[Personal identity#The no-self theory|no-self theory]]" and thus has much in common with [[Buddhism|Buddhist]] thought (see ''[[anattā]]'').{{sfn|Giles|1993|p=?}} Psychologist [[Alison Gopnik]] has argued that Hume was in a position to learn about Buddhist thought during his time in France in the 1730s.{{sfn|Gopnik|2009|p=?}}{{sfn|Garfield|2015|pp=45, 107}}