Can philosophical authenticity be a bad thing?

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/23/donald-trump-first-president-turn-postmodernism/#disqus_thread
The above post got me thinking, can “being true to your self” be a bad thing? What if being true to oneself is actually a detriment to your own life and everything around you? Would it then be better to live in “bad faith” as some would say it in order to do what is for your own good? Would changing your mind in light of compelling evidence be bad faith? At that point if it is bad faith then what’s the good in following this supposed “virtue”.
Not to mention how people can possibly believe that there is a self to be true to when there really isn’t (there is no permanent self to be true to). How can the truly know what they are being true to, could they not just believe they are being authentic? How can you be true to something that doesn’t exist?
Seems to me like authenticity is more like a shield to hide behind to avoid facing threats to your ego.

The very first article I read about PC was in 1979. It said if something is “good”, and let’s assume there is a reasonable standard for determining that, and you call it “PC”, it’s a way to take something good and call it bad. As part of this multi-part serise, Samuel Spitale talks about how there was deliberate work done to make people stupider and convince them they could believe what they wanted and not worry about facts.]
It worked.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/23/donald-trump-first-president-turn-postmodernism/#disqus_thread The above post got me thinking, can "being true to your self" be a bad thing? What if being true to oneself is actually a detriment to your own life and everything around you? Would it then be better to live in "bad faith" as some would say it in order to do what is for your own good? Would changing your mind in light of compelling evidence be bad faith? At that point if it is bad faith then what's the good in following this supposed "virtue". Not to mention how people can possibly believe that there is a self to be true to when there really isn't (there is no permanent self to be true to). How can the truly know what they are being true to, could they not just believe they are being authentic? How can you be true to something that doesn't exist? Seems to me like authenticity is more like a shield to hide behind to avoid facing threats to your ego.
Ah, but Grasshopper, the "self" is always a work in progress, because none of us is perfect. And yet not being perfect, should we settle for imperfection, or try to improve ourselves? This does not mean the the concept of "self" is an illusion. True there are people who's selfish and hurtful behavior makes them a burden to everyone around them. We usually call them "donkey's behinds", and they never see any reason themselves to change. This does not mean this kind of self-serving behavior is laudable.
The very first article I read about PC was in 1979. It said if something is "good", and let's assume there is a reasonable standard for determining that, and you call it "PC", it's a way to take something good and call it bad. As part of this multi-part serise, Samuel Spitale talks about how there was deliberate work done to make people stupider and convince them they could believe what they wanted and not worry about facts.] It worked.
So authenticity then becomes a smokescreen to justify being a dick?
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/23/donald-trump-first-president-turn-postmodernism/#disqus_thread The above post got me thinking, can "being true to your self" be a bad thing? What if being true to oneself is actually a detriment to your own life and everything around you? Would it then be better to live in "bad faith" as some would say it in order to do what is for your own good? Would changing your mind in light of compelling evidence be bad faith? At that point if it is bad faith then what's the good in following this supposed "virtue". Not to mention how people can possibly believe that there is a self to be true to when there really isn't (there is no permanent self to be true to). How can the truly know what they are being true to, could they not just believe they are being authentic? How can you be true to something that doesn't exist? Seems to me like authenticity is more like a shield to hide behind to avoid facing threats to your ego.
Ah, but Grasshopper, the "self" is always a work in progress, because none of us is perfect. And yet not being perfect, should we settle for imperfection, or try to improve ourselves? This does not mean the the concept of "self" is an illusion. True there are people who's selfish and hurtful behavior makes them a burden to everyone around them. We usually call them "donkey's behinds", and they never see any reason themselves to change. This does not mean this kind of self-serving behavior is laudable. Not exactly getting at the point I'm trying to make. It seems like people are trying to use postmodernism to try and avoid responsibility and personal change, or to just shift the blow to their ego that they might be wrong
The very first article I read about PC was in 1979. It said if something is "good", and let's assume there is a reasonable standard for determining that, and you call it "PC", it's a way to take something good and call it bad. As part of this multi-part serise, Samuel Spitale talks about how there was deliberate work done to make people stupider and convince them they could believe what they wanted and not worry about facts.] It worked.
So authenticity then becomes a smokescreen to justify being a dick? I don't know how you got that from what I said. Certainly there are people who do that. I don't find "hey, I just speak my mind" much of a smoke screen though. More like a lousy excuse for being a total jerk.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/23/donald-trump-first-president-turn-postmodernism/#disqus_thread The above post got me thinking, can "being true to your self" be a bad thing? What if being true to oneself is actually a detriment to your own life and everything around you? Would it then be better to live in "bad faith" as some would say it in order to do what is for your own good? Would changing your mind in light of compelling evidence be bad faith? At that point if it is bad faith then what's the good in following this supposed "virtue". Not to mention how people can possibly believe that there is a self to be true to when there really isn't (there is no permanent self to be true to). How can the truly know what they are being true to, could they not just believe they are being authentic? How can you be true to something that doesn't exist? Seems to me like authenticity is more like a shield to hide behind to avoid facing threats to your ego.
First you have to define "authentic." It probably means different things to different people. Your definition might be completely alien to other people. It seems completely subjective to me.
The very first article I read about PC was in 1979. It said if something is "good", and let's assume there is a reasonable standard for determining that, and you call it "PC", it's a way to take something good and call it bad. As part of this multi-part serise, Samuel Spitale talks about how there was deliberate work done to make people stupider and convince them they could believe what they wanted and not worry about facts.] It worked.
So authenticity then becomes a smokescreen to justify being a dick? I don't know how you got that from what I said. Certainly there are people who do that. I don't find "hey, I just speak my mind" much of a smoke screen though. More like a lousy excuse for being a total jerk. Well the article (if you read it) makes the point that while someone might be unsavory or a jerk at least they are being real and not phony
The very first article I read about PC was in 1979. It said if something is "good", and let's assume there is a reasonable standard for determining that, and you call it "PC", it's a way to take something good and call it bad. As part of this multi-part serise, Samuel Spitale talks about how there was deliberate work done to make people stupider and convince them they could believe what they wanted and not worry about facts.] It worked.
So authenticity then becomes a smokescreen to justify being a dick? I don't know how you got that from what I said. Certainly there are people who do that. I don't find "hey, I just speak my mind" much of a smoke screen though. More like a lousy excuse for being a total jerk. Well the article (if you read it) makes the point that while someone might be unsavory or a jerk at least they are being real and not phony So a REAL unsavory jerk instead of.a phony one. Got it!
Well the article (if you read it) makes the point that while someone might be unsavory or a jerk at least they are being real and not phony
So a REAL unsavory jerk instead of.a phony one. Got it! Yeah, I think the "at least" sums it up pretty well. How's is authenticity an excuse for jerkicity?

The article implies jerks act like that because they believe everyone secretly wants to act the same way, so they feel are being more honest than everyone around them.

The article implies jerks act like that because they believe everyone secretly wants to act the same way, so they feel are being more honest than everyone around them.
Sounds exactly like what a Trump supporter would say.
Well the article (if you read it) makes the point that while someone might be unsavory or a jerk at least they are being real and not phony
So a REAL unsavory jerk instead of.a phony one. Got it! Yeah, I think the "at least" sums it up pretty well. How's is authenticity an excuse for jerkicity? From what I gathered by the article, it seems that being PC is phony and those who "say what's on their minds" (aka being a dick) are being true to themselves. They even mention Scarface briefly about how we need people like them to say what not to be and to put down to make ourselves feel better.

“Authenticity” is another word for “truth” or “my opinion is the real thing.”

Well the article (if you read it) makes the point that while someone might be unsavory or a jerk at least they are being real and not phony
So a REAL unsavory jerk instead of.a phony one. Got it! Yeah, I think the "at least" sums it up pretty well. How's is authenticity an excuse for jerkicity? From what I gathered by the article, it seems that being PC is phony and those who "say what's on their minds" (aka being a dick) are being true to themselves. They even mention Scarface briefly about how we need people like them to say what not to be and to put down to make ourselves feel better. I gathered something completely different. The author was looking into the minds of people who think like that using a fictional character in an exaggerated situation. The world and people are not binary. We are all walking bundles of contradictions, but most of us are fundamentally good people or the species would never have survived this long. Being true to ourselves means loving our family and friends, helping the neighbors once in a while, and caring about people outside our immediate reach. The author was writing about the exceptions and how they see themselves. Edit: fixed a typo
Not exactly getting at the point I'm trying to make. It seems like people are trying to use postmodernism to try and avoid responsibility and personal change, or to just shift the blow to their ego that they might be wrong
I clicked on the link to the Federalist so that I could read the original, but the page was taking so long to load on my old computer, I just bailed. If you're talking about using Postmodernism to excuse bad behavior though, I wasn't so far off the mark. It reminds me of a cartoon I saw recently which commented on how far civility and common decency have fallen by the wayside -- "We used to say about someone, 'He's a dick', but now we just say 'He has no filter.' " It's the same thing. A donkey's behind is a donkey's behind, no matter how you dress him up. (Unless he happens to be President of the United States. Then he's the Donkey's Behind In Chief, to signify his exalted status. :) )