It sounds like Hume is using his skepticism to justify his skepticism. Take for example the issue of the self. If a Buddhist student went up to the Buddhist master and said "there is no self" then the mater would of hit the student on the head with a stick. Of course the student would cry out and even get angry but then the master would say "well if there is no self then where did that anger come from?" Anyway great lecture. Hume's fork is interesting and I would certainly want to study it more.
The problem of induction by Hume has been surpassed decades ago in several fields. In Linguistics we use implicative universals such as "if x, necessarily y" e.g. "if red, necessarily color/light". That example doesn't say everything is red/color/light but just that in every case of red, if we give it conditional existence, then we must give conditional existence to light etc. There are ofc actual universals but the humean account throws the baby out with the bathwater and doesn't intuitively seem how we operate quotidinally in any case.
