Abstract

The present study aims to point out a possible inconsistency between David Hume’s account of the personal identity problem and the methodology of the philosophical project he sketches in A Treatise of Human Nature, and also to assess Nelson Pike’s defense of the Hume’s position, which is considered by many to have dissolved the problem. It will be argued that this solution turns out to be insufficient since it does not solve the explanatory gap left by the inconsistency. In order to make this visible, a reformulation of the objection based on the work of Donald Ainslie will be presented, as it is a proposal that also serves as a plausible explanation for Hume’s discredit of his own account in the Appendix.