, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 1–16 | Cite as

A Humean Argument for Personal Identity

  • Amihud GileadEmail author
Original Paper


Considering various arguments in Hume’s Treatise, I reconstruct a Humean argument against personal identity or unity. According to this argument, each distinct perception is separable from the bundle of perceptions to which it belongs and is thus transferable either to the external, material reality or to another psychical reality, another bundle of perceptions. Nevertheless, such transference (Hume’s word!) is entirely illegitimate, otherwise Hume’s argument against causal inference would have failed; furthermore, it violates private, psychical accessibility. I suggest a Humean thought experiment clearly demonstrating that, to the extent that anything within a psychical reality is concerned, no distinction leads to separation or transference and that private, psychical accessibility has to be allowed in the Humean argument for personal identity or unity. Private accessibility and psychical untransferability secure personal identity and unity. Referring to the phenomenon of multiple personality along the lines of the Humean argument for personal identity or unity, I illustrate both private accessibility and a possible notion of one and the same person distinct from his/her alters or psychical parts. Finally, I show why Parfit’s Humean argument against personal identity must fail.


Personal Identity Personal Unity External Reality Multiple Personality Separable Perception 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Berman, Emanuel. (1981). “Multiple Personality: Psychoanalytic Perspectives”, International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 62, pp. 283–300.Google Scholar
  2. Blackburn, Simon. (1997). “Has Kant Refuted Parfit?” In Jonathan Dancy (ed.), Reading Parfit (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 180–201.Google Scholar
  3. Braude, Stephen E. (1991). First Person Plural: Multiple Personality and the Philosophy of Mind (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
  4. Davidson, Donald. (1994) “Knowing One’s Own Mind,” in Quassim Cassam (ed.), Self-knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  5. Dennett, Daniel. (1991). Consciousness Explained (Boston: Little Brown).Google Scholar
  6. Elster, Jon, ed. (1986). The Multilple Sefl: Studies in Rationality and Social Change (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  7. Gilead, Amihud. (1999) Saving Possibilities: A Study in Philosophical Psychology (Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi – Value Inquiry Book Series, vol. 80).Google Scholar
  8. Gilead, Amihud. (2003) Singularity and Other Possibilities (Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi – Value Inquiry Book Series, vol 139).Google Scholar
  9. Gilead, Amihud. (2005). “Torture and Singularity,” Public Affairs Quarterly 19, pp. 163–176.Google Scholar
  10. Hacker, P.M.S. (1997). Insight and Illusion: Themes in the Philosophy of Wittgenstein (Bristol: Thoemmes Press).Google Scholar
  11. Hacking, Ian. (1995). Rewriting the Soul: Multiple Personality and the Sciences of Memory (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  12. Hume, David. (1969). “A Treatise of Human Nature,” In Ernest C. Mossner (ed.), (Harmondsworth: Penguin).Google Scholar
  13. Lilienfeld, Scott O. (1995). Seeing Both Sides: Classic Controversies in Abnormal Psychology (Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole–ITP).Google Scholar
  14. Parfit, Derek. (1987). Reasons and Persons (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  15. Penelhum, Terence. (2000). Themes in Hume: The Self, the Will, Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  16. Shoemaker, Sydney. (1996). The First-Person Perspective and Other Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  17. Shoemaker, Sydney. (1997). “Parfit on Identity,” In Jonathan Dancy (ed.), Reading Parfit (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 135–148.Google Scholar
  18. Wilkes, Kathleen V. (1988). Real People: Personal Identity Without Thought Experiments (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  19. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1968) Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G.E.M. Anscombe (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).Google Scholar
  20. Zemach, Eddy M. (1992). Types: Essays in Metaphysics (Leiden: E.J. Brill).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations