Traditionally, scholars have argued that 1.4.2 may be split into two general sections: one that concerns the "vulgar" conception of objects, and another that concerns the "philosophical" conception of objects. I argue that there is a third position: Hume's, which includes two more accounts of how we transcendentally conceive of perfect identity. We examine one of those accounts of perfect identity here (which constitutes Hume's second account of how we transcendentally conceive of perfect identity) and the other in  Chap. 7 (which constitutes Hume's third account of how we transcendentally conceive of perfect identity). In  Chaps. 8 and  9, I show why all three instances of how we transcendentally conceive of perfect identity are not to be confused with the vulgar position on objects, nor with the philosophical position.