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…
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