Locke's Idea Of An Enduring Body Analysis

Humes has an entirely different viewpoint on Locke’s idea of a persisting self; his own theory which is that the “self’ is nothing but a bundle of impressions. In response to Locke’s theory of an enduring body, Hume would point out two outstanding errors with Locke’s theory which are that the self is in fact not constant and enduring, and Locke’s lack of evidence. Locke’s view on identity lacks sufficient evidence to back it up. With Locke truly believing that there is a persistent self that means that there is one lone impression giving rise to all of the ideas that man has which is completely bizarre. This is because self or a person is not just one but a many several impressions put together. To have a persistence self, one must exist without
perception which cannot be done, because the ‘self’ cannot stand alone separate from perception, for example, when my perceptions are removed from what Locke supposes is “self” myself will truly cease to exist. The consciousness that Locke holds so very dear that is the bases of his theory is simply just a perception. Because without perception there can be no consciousness, self is dependent upon perceptions and not upon consciousness.
There has been countless arguments against the bundle theory, a common one is that if someone is simply nothing but just a bundle of perceptions then it is impossible for the person to change. This argument in a way unintentionally further buttresses Humes theory of perceptions because has we have all deduced, the perceptions that make up the bundle are forever changing and thus no enduring self. And because of this most think that the “self” should then be able to endure changes over time and this is wrong.