and the Moral Good from the Person Up, defines a person as a “real, objective, albeit emergent entity [who’s developed] a conscious, reflexive, self-transcending center of subjective experience [and] durable identity” (Martin). Smith’s definition of a person is basically someone who has developed themselves physically and mentally by enduring various lifetime experiences and has formed relations with other people in the process. By doing so, this person was able to establish values, ideas, and beliefs that they felt best represented themselves as an individual. Secondly, when trying to figure out what a person is you must realize that a person must be both rational and understanding. This is the case because according to the early Greeks, men are the only rational animals on earth, and a man’s understanding sets him above all other sensible beings (Adler). Now with the understanding of what a person is, it is necessary that we determine various traits that help to shape an individual’s personal identity. Overall, I think a person’s identity is formed from his or her experiences, actions, and distinction of oneself in a group ownership, but I think identity can be altered by context at any time. Many people would say it does not really matter how a person acquires his or her identity. They may feel that as long as a person has an identity to claim as his or her own, then what is the point of investigating the specific aspects that contributed to shaping one’s identity. This general, careless viewpoint of people (when it comes to acknowledging how you acquire your personal identity) fit the ideology of one of the first modern philosophers, Rene Descartes. For Descartes, he didn’t see personal identity as a true problem. Rather, he believed the soul to be an immaterial substance. First, Descartes stated that personal identity consisted in the identity of a mental substance or the soul (Thiel). This mindset represents the view of dualism, which in philosophy is the difference between mind and matter (Calef). Dualists, such as Descartes, viewed the brain as being different from the mind, in that there is a distinction when talking about your mind and body because the two are not a part of one another as it is presumably thought. Secondly, Descartes said that the identity of mental substances is a direct consequence of its immaterial nature (Thiel). Because of the irrelevance, or distinction, between the mind and the body, things are not subject to change. Rather, they will remain the same over time. For instance, since my internal thoughts, like love, are deemed separate from my body, which consists of physical aspects, then there will never be a change in what I know about myself (which I stated in the introduction as being the general definition people take personal identity to mean). Overall, Descartes acts in opposition to what I see as an important matter. Since he doesn’t even attempt to come up with aspects that could contribute to shaping an individual’s personal identity, he is the person (out of all the modern philosophers who address identity) I least see myself agreeing with, in terms of his basic philosophy. The second modern philosopher who urged for a break from the Cartesian view of personal identity was John Locke. Locke suggested that a person’s identity and individuality is not made up independently and prior to consciousness—the opposite of Descartes’s view. Rather, Locke said that we first needed to be able to tell what made up the identity of a person. He, unlike Descartes, believed the personal identity of a person to exist in the same organic body (Thiel). Whereas, Descartes, who was a dualist, thought that there was a specific distinction between our mind and our body, in which they exist separately from one another. Locke also said that our personal identity could be shaped by what we know “about the self through inner experience or consciousness uniting thoughts and actions” (Thiel). I agree with this particular ideology of Locke’s because I believe that my personal identity is created by undergoing worldly experiences, such as traveling overseas to places such as France, London, and Nigeria. By interacting with people who are very different from Americans, I am able to gain more inner experience than some of my classmates who may not have had these opportunities. In this sense, my own personal identity is created by the various actions I have experienced that help set me apart from those who haven’t undergone such experiences. When I associate what I already know about the world before engaging in those altering experiences and the knowledge that I gain from enduring those experiences, then I am able to create my personal identity by formulating a link between my inner thoughts and the actions and experiences I have encountered. Locke said that “through consciousness we [can] link the present with past thoughts and actions, thereby constituting our personal identity,” and this is an idea that I believe is true (Thiel).
For instance, I am able to know about things in the present based on events that I have already experienced beforehand. This knowledge that I have acquired represents the overall shaping of my personal identity. Ultimately, I agree with John Locke’s views more than Descartes’s views. I agree with his idea that our personal identity is shaped mainly from experiences we have sustained, but, I personally feel that our identity is not set in stone after undergoing those experiences. I believe that a personal identity is a constantly evolving thing that is subject to change with the more experiences people have withstood versus those who haven’t had any …show more content…
experiences. The third modern philosopher who, much like Locke, rejected the Cartesian view for the formation of a person’s identity was David Hume. Hume disagreed with the Cartesian viewpoint on the grounds that “through inner experience one can identify only a variety (a ‘bundle’) of distinct perceptions; there is no experimental evidence of a soul that remains the same through time” (Thiel). Basically, I think Hume feels that a person who undergoes an experience will never be the person he or she was before the experience occurred. For instance, a person who has experienced an event that proved to be life changing to them, such as the interaction between wealthy people in America with very impoverished people of Africa, will help develop a person’s identity through that particular experience alone. Hume feels that we have a natural tendency to attribute unity and identity to the self (Thiel). This viewpoint primarily means that our imagination connects our ideas in a way that causes us to believe that there is a single place where all of these ideas exist. For example, if I think up many different characteristics that make me the person I am—such as I’m outgoing, studious and energetic—Hume feels that all the thoughts I come up with would overall exist in one place, and that is my mind. Ultimately, he believes our personal identity is shaped by both the changing effect that experiences can have on us and the presence of thoughts that exist in a single place: the mind. Lastly, Hume states that a person’s personal identity is reduced to their “experiences or perceptions and [the essential self can be] denied beyond the perceptions” (Thiel). This means that an individual’s identity can be denied if it lies beyond “what we know about the world having been perceived by others or ourselves using our five senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell” (O’Brien). For instance, if something can’t be perceived using our senses, such as a concept or idea, then overall it can’t be a part of the factors used to shape our personal identity. I agree with two aspects of Hume’s philosophy. I agree with his point that humans are generally never the same after undergoing an experience. I can validate this because I have undergone many experiences that range from traveling to third world countries to having siblings expand their post-high school education in locations other than the South. When I endured both of these experiences, I can honestly say that my life was changed. I acquired an appreciation for all the basic things we take for granted in America that people in Nigeria would greatly long for. As well, by visiting my siblings in an environment different from the South, I was able to learn about the different regions of the country, such as the Midwest, and experience these areas’ aspects that aren’t found in the South. These experiences might not seem important to onlookers, but they have changed me, and so in that sense I agree with Hume’s philosophy. I also agree that all of our past experiences and thoughts about our personal identity are contained in our mind. I have a problem, though, with Hume’s philosophy when he states that something can’t be a part of your identity if it can’t be regarded in terms of your senses. I believe that an idea or concept about something can contribute to my identity just as much as something I can touch, feel, see, taste or hear. Because of my beliefs, I find it necessary to disregard that part of Hume’s philosophy when creating my own philosophy about personal identity. The fourth modern philosopher, who seems to agree with both Locke and Hume on their views about the formation of a person’s identity but adds his own twist, is Immanuel Kant. He introduces a different way to classify a person’s identity that was not seen in either Hume or Locke’s philosophy. Kant says that there is a distinction in a person’s consciousness. He states that people have both a “pure self-consciousness” and an “empirical consciousness.” The pure self-consciousness declares “unity and identity of self-consciousness are required for any thought to be possible at all… [pure self-consciousness] is original because it preceded a priori all my determinate thought” (Thiel). On a basic level, this idea means that there must be a link formed between unity and your self-consciousness, and this link is required for you to come up with thoughts contributing to the shaping of your personal identity. But, my pure self-consciousness is important because it is the step that comes, from reasoning, before my thoughts. For example, I am unable to formulate thoughts about my identity and myself unless I have a successfully linked self-consciousness (which is anything that I am aware of at a given moment). Kant’s second classification was a person’s empirical consciousness, which was itself “diverse and without relation to the identity of the subject” (Thiel). Kant used empirical consciousness in order to show that individuals are merely simple “substances [whom] are identical at different points of time” (Thiel). This idea of empirical consciousness leads into Kant’s view that you will remain identical in your identity at those points in your life if you never acquire knowledge about objects around you and yourself. Kant believes that attaining knowledge—about your identity/self—requires experience. In this respect, Kant resembles both Hume and Locke who talk primarily about this topic of experience. For example, if you undergo a breakthrough experience in which you conquer your fear of heights, then you learn new things about yourself that you didn’t know before. So, in that sense, by conquering your fears, you can become more confident in yourself, and that confidence will be a characteristic that you can attribute to your identity. Kant says that it’s through these very experiences that we can shape our overall identity and become the person we are today. The fifth modern philosopher, Paul Ricoeur, shifts the creation of a person’s identity from experiences to what he calls the notion of narrativity. Using the notion of narrativity, Ricoeur states that “our personal identity is not given to us or constituted metaphysically prior to or independently of our activity of making sense of our own self by telling ourselves a story about our own lives” (Thiel). In simple terms, Ricoeur feels we can shape our personal identity by “forming an autobiographical narrative for our self” (Thiel). For example, I can form my identity by stating things that I think are important or unique to me as a person. These could be characteristics such as me being funny, sociable, admirable or driven. Ricoeur also says we should tell others about ourselves so people around us can get an idea of who we are. For example, since I’ve been to Nigeria, I can use all the experiences I underwent there and include them as factors that have made me the person I am today. Then, I can narrate to people around me about my experiences there. My narration, not the actual experiences, is what constitutes the makeup of my personal identity. I like the direction Ricoeur goes in with his idea of the notion of narrativity, but I feel that if you use this method as a technique in shaping a person’s identity, some self-deception will occur. If people are able to tell you their “life stories,” they could easily manipulate and state things that are not true about themselves, which will only serve to deceive people who think they are getting an accurate portrayal of that person’s identity. For instance, I could say I’m hard-working, I’ve encountered experiences in Tanzania, and I’m very independent, and out of those three things only one of them could actually be true in comprising my identity. In this regard, I feel the notion of narrativity is a good method in theory, but in terms of realistic use, I don’t think it would hold up as a strong method for shaping a person’s identity. The term “personal identity” is an idea that is more prevalent in our modern society, but classical philosophers still attributed their own viewpoints to this subject. They, however, used a different term to describe it. Instead, they called our identity our “character”. The first classical philosopher who was concerned with the shaping of a person’s character was Aristotle. Aristotle said that the development of our character was overall left up to the “individual, with help from family, religion, and other non-governmental institutions” (Clayton).On a more basic level, Aristotle believed that we, the individual, had total control of our personal identity and all the factors that could possibly contribute to our identity. He didn’t say, like the modern philosophers, that there were ‘musts’ that had to occur for our identity to be shaped properly; rather, he felt our identity is whatever we made it to be. He believed, though, that various factors—such as the family, religion and non-governmental institutions—could serve as an aid in helping us form our personal identity. For example, a person may feel abandoned by everybody, and the only way to cope with this feeling is to confide in his or her faith. Therefore, this person uses a higher power—God—to help them deal with their problems. The ability to turn towards God for help could make this person get in touch with their religion, and this would make them very spiritual. The fact that they are a really spiritual person could be used as a characteristic to define a portion of their personal identity. Aristotle also said that stable equilibrium is another factor that constitutes our character (Sachs). Lastly, Aristotle claimed that one could shape their identity by performing excellent actions, meaning that having experiences was important (Lutz). I agree with Aristotle’s views, to an extent, because I think the development of our character is dependent on ourselves and what we want our identity to be. I disagree, though, with the idea that we are entirely in control of shaping our identities because I feel that our identity can be altered when in group situations. For instance, our identity becomes masked when in large groups because we try to blend in with the group, and we adapt the entire group’s identity as our own (Spears). This behavior is what I mean when I say group ownership. The second classical philosopher who suggested various factors that helped shaped a person’s character was Antiochus. Antiochus said that our character could be shaped by using what he called the cradle argument. The cradle argument states that if we attend to infant behaviors, that have yet to be corrupted by coming into contact with society, then we will be able to isolate original natural impulses and discover what the first objects of natural attachment are (Allen). More simply, this idea means that as an infant, we naturally seek only pleasure and nothing else. So, Antiochus is saying that if other people could take notice of our behavior when we were infants, then they could observe the first things we took pleasure in. This observation would help identify aspects that we will attribute to our personal identity later in life. My parents, for example, could make close observations about me when I was a baby, such as whether or not I was sociable with other kids, playful or secluded. After they made these observations, they could determine whether or not I would adopt these traits as characteristics for myself later in life. If I was really sociable as an infant, then they could foresee that I would be a sociable person in general, and that characteristic could be a factor that I could attribute as a part of my personal identity. Antiochus also said that it is not our character over time that would be transformed as we developed (Allen). Rather, he felt it was the entire self, which he said was the “object of natural concern” that would be transformed as we developed (Allen). It is clear that Antiochus did not regard our character as a separate entity; instead, he combined the character into this overall being which he called the self. For example, I have changed from being very shy, as a kid, to being pretty outgoing as a teen, but Antiochus would say that me being shy—which is an aspect of my character—did not transform; rather, my entire self-transformed, causing me to be outgoing as a teen. Overall, I disagree with Antiochus and the cradle argument because I feel it can be misleading in actually providing you an accurate portrayal of what characteristics will be applicable to a person’s identity later on in life. This is so, because as an infant you could display characteristics of being very outgoing, but when you reach childhood, you could be very secluded and shy. Therefore, I don’t think that the cradle argument is a full- proof way to judge the shaping of a person’s identity. I do agree with Antiochus’s viewpoints concerning how and what parts of a person are transformed and developed. I agree because I see our character existing as only a sub-section of a larger part of us and that larger part, to me, is our self. The next view that I believe helps explain factors that help shape a person’s identity is existentialism—a viewpoint attributed to the philosopher Sartre.
Existentialism says that overall there is “no pre-existing blueprint of humanity to which we must conform” (Warburton). This means that there is no set path or ideas that we must follow in order for us to shape our personal identity. Instead, humans decide what they are to become. Secondly, an existentialist “exists first and later makes of [themselves] what [they] will” (Warburton). This idea states that a person first establishes their existence. Then through whatever occurs in their lifetime, they can shape the person they want to be and the personal identity they want to have. Existentialism also states that there is “no pre-determined function, no givens, [and] no maker in whose mind our essence could have been determined” (Warburton). For example, my personal identity is not determined beforehand, and there is no individual who has a personal identity that is predetermined because in the existentialist viewpoint it is not possible for your identity to be prearranged. Finally, an existentialist feels that we “are not simply the products of society or our genes…but rather of our own choices” (Warburton). If I were to take an existentialist’s life and display it, this is how it would look: First, the existentialist is born without any knowledge of what his personal identity consists of. Then, as he
undergoes life and aspects that come along with life (such as experiences and other individuals), he is able to begin to develop characteristics about himself that he can identify as his personal identity. Finally, as he is forced to make choices in his life, he recognizes that the choices he makes overall combine to make him the person he currently is. Those choices and experiences he underwent and individuals he met in his lifetime serve as factors that make up the creation of his personal identity. I agree primarily with existentialism as a philosophy that serves to help shape a person’s identity because I feel it is the most realistic philosophy in terms of how we actually live. For instance, we come into the world unknowing of everything, and as we undergo various experiences, interact with other people, and make choices that define who we are, I think all three of these things serve as the basis for what I believe our personal identity to be. I also agree with the philosophy because I like that it does not force anything on people. For example, in existentialism, you don’t necessarily have to undergo experiences or observe infants from birth; rather, the philosophy allows you to do what you want. The last classical philosophers that talk about the shaping of a person’s identity are the Stoics. The Stoics believed that virtue equals knowledge and that one should strive throughout one’s life to acquire wisdom (LAP). They had no interest in all the objects that cause joy and grief in normal humans (LAP). The Stoics feel that once a person comes to understand what the world around us is really like, then we will be transformed (Baltzly). Lastly, once humans undergo that transformation, they will be able to recognize virtue as the only human acts for the sake of the good (Allen). The Stoics overall felt that after this transformation, no factors in a person could change, and this included factors that would contribute towards shaping a person’s identity. Since there can be no change of a person’s identity after they’ve undergone this transformation, then the Stoics philosophy is one that really clashes with my own philosophy. For example, if a person decided to practice Stoicism, then after they underwent all the steps mentioned above, their personal identity would be set in stone. I disagree with the Stoics in that after that transformation a person can’t change their identity because I feel that no matter what, a person’s identity is always subject to change because, to me, context can be altered at any time. If context is altered, then that can present a person with new situations that they have to endure. But, in terms of a Stoic, enduring such experiences could never result in changes of a person’s identity. I feel that this viewpoint can never be the case because like Hume said, a person who undergoes an experience will never be the person he or she was before the experience occurred. I ultimately disagree with Stoicism and feel that is contributes least towards supporting my philosophy. My philosophy primarily states that a person’s identity is formed from experience, actions, and the distinction of oneself in a group ownership, but I think it can be altered by context at any time. To me, experience is the most important factor in shaping a person’s identity, and like Hume, I feel that after you undergo a meaningful experience, you will never be the same. For instance, I used to conform to everything in my school—whether it was views on people from other countries or feeling self-conscious of expressing my individuality. After I underwent some life changing experiences, though, I have, been able to establish who I really am and what I believe my own personal identity is. The establishment of my personal identity came primarily from my experiences in foreign countries such as Nigeria, Paris, London and Jamaica. After I went to those countries and realized how different their lifestyles were from American’s lifestyles, I started to have a great appreciation for people of cultures other than my own. When you are stuck in a private school setting where most of your classmates still have close-minded views about places, such as Africa, and they still believe that all African people live in grass huts, you realize what experience can do for you. In my case, seeing how African people lived in comparison to what my classmates told me for years astounded me. When I realized that African people were no different than Americans, except for the fact that they seemed to have a greater appreciation for things more than Americans do; I too adopted that sense of appreciation to my personal identity. Without undergoing that experience in Africa, though, I would still remain unknowing like many of my classmates. I am not suggesting that because many of my classmates do not know the “truth” about, for instance Africa, that their personal identities are incorrect. I’m just suggesting that our identities are different because I’ve undergone more meaningful experiences, in my opinion, than they have. I believe that we grow from our past experiences, and we learn things about ourselves that we never knew before, and just the ability to learn those things serves as a factor that helps shape my personal identity. I also feel that the actions we showcase to people around us really help define what our personal identity represents. I feel that if we make horrible decisions all our life, such as getting into things you shouldn’t do (like drugs), or constantly getting in trouble and as a result becoming apathetic about many things in life, that we will make up a bad identity for ourselves that we will regret. The beauty of my philosophy, though, is that I don’t think your personal identity is set in stone, so you do have the ability to change your identity if you’re willing to do so. In that respect, my philosophy resembles existentialism because our identity is overall what we make it. Also, if I show through my actions that I am, for instance, hardworking, then I can, ultimately, attribute hardworking as a characteristic that I can claim as applicable to my own personal identity as a whole. I believe that these characteristics that we make up for ourselves through our actions serve as another factor for shaping our personal identity. Lastly, this idea of group ownership, I believe, works towards creating our personal identity. I say this because group ownership to me is defined as the ability to distinguish oneself from others when in a large group of people. I feel this is the true test of shaping a person’s identity because you have to use those characteristics you have attributed for yourself and the knowledge you have acquired from undergoing previous experience in order to distinguish your identity from everyone else’s. This is important to me because I feel sometimes when people are in a group; their identities become masked because they feel the need to have the same identity as everyone else in that group. This behavior is kind of like the formation of clicks.
Ultimately our identities are constantly changing due to context, such as the settings we are placed in or the people around us. To me, our personal identities cannot be adequately formed without experience, actions, and the distinction of oneself in a group ownership. As a result of these three factors, I can proudly establish the shaping of my personal identity as an individual named Chidi Ekeledo.
Works Cited
Adler, Mortimer Jerome. How to Think about the Great Ideas: From the Great Books of Western Civilization. Peru: Carus Publishing Company, 2002. Print.
Allen, James. “Antiochus of Ascalon.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2008. Web. 14 Mar. 2011.
Baltzly, Dirk. “Stoicism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2010. Web. 16 Mar. 2011.
Calef, Scott. “Dualism and Mind.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 9 June 2005. Web. 27 Feb. 2011.
Clayton, Edward. “Aristotle: Politics.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 27 July 2005. Web. 14 Mar. 2011.
Lutz, David W. “Rival Traditions of Character Development: Classical Moral Philosophy and Contemporary Empirical Science.” JSCOPE. 25 Jan. 1996. Duke U .Web. 16 Mar. 2011.
Martin, Raymond. “What Is a Person? Rethinking Humanity, Social Life, and the Moral Good from the Person Up.” Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. 20 Feb. 2011. Notre Dame. Web. 19 Feb. 2011.
O’Brien, Daniel. “Objects of Perception.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 26 Nov. 2007. Web. 27 Feb. 2011.
Sachs, Joe. “Aristotle: Ethics.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 22 July 2005. Web. 14 Mar. 2011.
Spears, Russell. New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Farmington Hills: Thomson Gale, 2005. Print.
Thiel, Udo. New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Farmington Hills: Thomson Gale, 2005. Print.
Warburton, Nigel. Philosophy the Classics Second Edition. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2001. Print.