Explain David Hume’s argument for the non-existence of the self. Is this a good argument?

In Kafka’s novel Metamorphosis, Gregor Samsa awakes one morning to find himself transformed into a bug. Even though he continues to have human thoughts and memories, he finds himself unable to communicate with his family. Because of this inability to communicate, Gregor feels a severe sense of alienation or separation from his family, even though he is physically still living with his family.
One might argue that Gregor’s example shows that in order for one to fully be a person, it is not enough to have thoughts and memories; one must also be able to communicate with and be connected with a community of persons.

John Locke, on the other hand, argues that memory is all that is needed for one to be a person. Who has the stronger argument, Locke or Kafka? Explain your answer, one way or the other.

Why does Immanuel Kant believe that even if we cannot logically prove the existence of God, it is morally necessary for us to posit His existence? Why does Kant believe that it is more rational to believe that God exists than to believe that He does not exist?
What is the cosmological argument for the existence of God? Is it possible to believe that God is the First Cause or the First Mover without violating the principles that (1) nothing comes from nothing and (2) nothing can be the cause of itself? Explain why or why not.
Why does Descartes believe that even if the Dreaming Argument undermines our beliefs in the existence of the body and the external world, it does not undermine the truth of mathematical and logical beliefs? How does the evil genius/evil demon argument undermine these latter set of beliefs? What is the one thing that remains certain even if an evil demon exists and is running the world?
Explain David Hume’s argument for the non-existence of the self. Is this a good argument? Explain why or why not.