Hume suggests that the self is nothing more than a perception. He connects our personal identity within our thoughts of our memory. It is a mix of multiple impressions that the person contains about themselves. The idea of our self is perceived by the many trains of thought processes from the connections we have to every emotion we feel. This gives us each a personal and different idea from each other on what we perceive to be ourselves. It must be an interrupted thought to be a valid succession to explain our self.
Hume also discusses how resemblance assists on our memory of what the self is defined as. It gives a flash back to a certain location and incident that happened that day even though it could have happen many years ago. This shapes each person to who they are today. Causation explains how a person must have had past lives that assisted in how the person is in the present day. The mind does not produce a personal identity however, it is considered to be a helping hand in discovering it.
I find his argument quite convincing since there is no true way to prove him wrong. It is a personal opinion to the solution of self identity. I would agree with experiences with causation can make a person act a certain way which, in turn, will change their personality. Someone being raised in a lower poverty community may have a completely different personality if they ended up in an up-scale home with unlimited riches. Neither is bad or good. One may be more preferred over the other but they will effect the person’s attitude and social ques. For Hume to rely solely on memory seems outrageous. According to a Northwestern study, memory is almost warped every time it is recalled. If a memory of yourself seems triumphant however, it was in actual fact a less than spectacular event. A person’s ego will drive their mind into thinking how they would actually like to remember it.