Penelhum’s arguments on Hume’s concept of personal identity in terms of“linguistic mistake”: A Defense

• Dr. Nargish Afroza

  University of Beira Interior, Portugal

  Author

  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2818-0704

In this paper, I have pointed out how Penelhum overruled Hume’s interpretation of identity theory in his famous work “Hume on Personal Identity”. This paper has argued that the extent to which Hume’s theory of identity is tenable in this respect and has tried to make clear that Penelhum’s interpretation of Hume’s theory is in no way tenable. Penelhum thinks that Hume misinterpreted the linguistic convention in describing identity theories, that he did not use the words “numerically one” and“variable” correctly, to clarify the “identity” term in his work “A Treatise of Human Nature”. Because, according to Penelhum, Hume tried to explain the identity of animals and plants based only on general views, where he did not use examples such as sentences or musical themes to explain the identity properly. However, the main purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that Hume’s account of personal identity is a logically plausible account.

1. Dr. Nargish Afroza, University of Beira Interior, Portugal

   Ph D. in Philosophy, Department of Communication, Philosophy and Politics.

Ashley, L., Stack, M. (1974). Humes theory of the self and its identity. Dialogue, Cambridge University Press, 239-254.

Baxter, D. L. M. (2008). Humes Difficulty: Time and Identity in the Treatise. Routledge Taylor Francis Group, New York and London.

Bender, S. (2019). Is Leibnizs Principle of the Identity of Indiscernible Necessary or Contingent? Philosophers Imprint, 1-20.

Chitwood, A. (2004). Death By Philosophy: The Biographical Tradition in the Life and Death of the Archaic Philosophers Empedocles, Heraclitus, and Democritus. University of Michigan Press, USA.

Duque, C. E. G. (2009). Hume and Self-Identity. Discusiones Filosoficas, 13-25.

Giles, J. (1993). The No-Self Theory: Hume, Buddhism, and Personal Identity. Philosophy East and West, 175-200.

Hume, D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press, London, Edinburgh, and New York.

Kahn, C. H. (1979). The art and thought of Heraclitus: an edition of the fragments with translation and commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Leibnitz. (1898). The Monadology and Other Philosophical Writings. Oxford University Press, London.

Leibniz, G. W. (1996). New Essays on Human Understanding. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Leibniz, G. W., Clarke, S., Ariew, Roger. (2000). G. W. Leibnitz and Samuel Clarke: Correspondence. Hackett Publishing Company Inc, Indianapolis.

Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons. Clarendon Press, Oxford, New York.

Penelhum, T. (1955). Hume on Personal Identity. Philosophical Review, 571-589.

Penelhum, T. (1968). Hume on personal identity. In Chappel, C. Hume. University of Notre Dame.

Perrett, R. W. (2016). An Introduction to Indian Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.

Perry, J. (2009). Hume and Frege on identity. Philosophical Studies, 413-423.

Stone, J. (1981). Hume on Identity: A Defense. Philosophical Studies, 275-282.

• PDF

Copyright (c) 2025 Dr. Nargish Afroza (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.