I think I see why people don't take it seriously. It just uses a lot of subjective terms and doesn't really take you anywhere when it comes to understanding people. I mean authenticity is the vaguest term I have ever heard and they don't describe what it means, or how one can be sure they have found it.
If you have really no idea what authenticity is, I understand why you have so many problems. Authenticity is highly related with psychological health; a lack of it with depression.
I don't know what is unclear:]
In existentialism, authenticity is the degree to which one is true to one's own personality, spirit, or character, despite external pressures; the conscious self is seen as coming to terms with being in a material world and with encountering external forces, pressures, and influences which are very different from, and other than, itself. A lack of authenticity is considered in existentialism to be bad faith.
Your link is broken.
There is no such thing as authenticity because there is no "you". People are a product of their environment and biology. There is nothing one can call "oneself" or "I" and that is where existentialism fails. You can't be true when there is nothing to be true to, your will is not your own and never was. Things like that. Any notion of an "authentic self" is an illusion.
Yep. But I thought you would find what to look for. It is just 2 clicks from the point my link brings you. I am not responsible for the shortcomings of the http-protocol.
There is no such thing as authenticity because there is no "you". People are a product of their environment and biology. There is nothing one can call "oneself" or "I" and that is where existentialism fails. You can't be true when there is nothing to be true to, your will is not your own and never was. Things like that. Any notion of an "authentic self" is an illusion.
Hammer philosophy.
Why would people being a product of their environment and biology mean that being authentic has no meaning? Please explain.
And of course 'I' and 'oneself' exist. You only should not see these as separate, independent, and unchangeable entities. Trying to find a characteristic self independent of how you became what you are now is of course not possible. But that does not mean that you do not have your preferences, fears and character traits now.
Because being a product of what’s around you means that there is nothing you about “you”. You are just an echo of your past, that’s what the self is. Just a story we repeat every day that doesn’t exist in the end. Thas why words like “true self” and phrases like “to thy own self be true” are meaningless because there is no you to be true to. It’s just an illusion.
Because being a product of what's around you means that there is nothing you about "you". You are just an echo of your past, that's what the self is. Just a story we repeat every day that doesn't exist in the end. Thas why words like "true self" and phrases like "to thy own self be true" are meaningless because there is no you to be true to. It's just an illusion.
So whatever I say about you, about your preferences, fears and character traits, it is all true? You do not hate to do certain things, and love to do others? If I force you to do something that you hate doing, e.g. by threatening you, Is that action then not less authentic for you than something that you do because you like it?
Because being a product of what's around you means that there is nothing you about "you". You are just an echo of your past, that's what the self is. Just a story we repeat every day that doesn't exist in the end. Thas why words like "true self" and phrases like "to thy own self be true" are meaningless because there is no you to be true to. It's just an illusion.
So whatever I say about you, about your preferences, fears and character traits, it is all true? You do not hate to do certain things, and love to do others? If I force you to do something that you hate doing, e.g. by threatening you, Is that action then not less authentic for you than something that you do because you like it?
It's all the same.
As I said there is no such thing as authenticity. People can eventually with time learn to like things. But they want to hold onto the notion of an solid core because they fear change. Well more to the point they don't as long as there is something solid they can hold onto (part of the reason I think we build homes and structure society as such). When they have no control they fall into despair. That's why existentialists want there to be an authentic self, because they recognize other things as flux so they need a holdfast to anchor them. Sadly there is no such thing.
You can force me to do something and I can change to like it. It happens. The self is just as fluctuating as everything else we know. There is no part of you that is you. You are different from a week, month, etc ago. So with something so unstable and changing what can you call "you"? Nothing. Everything you are is an echo of your experience. Ideas, morals, even likes. Nothing is authentic, it's all "fake".
So something you do because of fear is the same as doing something you do because you like it, or because you think it is the moral correct thing to do?
As I said there is no such thing as authenticity.
Yes, you said that. But you still did not make the point why this is so.
People can eventually with time learn to like things. But they want to hold onto the notion of an solid core because they fear change. Well more to the point they don't as long as there is something solid they can hold onto (part of the reason I think we build homes and structure society as such). When they have no control they fall into despair. That's why existentialists want there to be an authentic self, because they recognize other things as flux so they need a holdfast to anchor them. Sadly there is no such thing.
Yes. You could be an existentialist (at least an 'arm chair existentialist'), saying all this. At the same time you display exactly what you are writing: you fear to change your view, because you are afraid to commit yourself. Sartre could write an interesting story about you! You are a role model for somebody in an existential crisis. Existentialists do not provide easy answers, as you suggest here.
You can force me to do something and I can change to like it. It happens. The self is just as fluctuating as everything else we know. There is no part of you that is you. You are different from a week, month, etc ago. So with something so unstable and changing what can you call "you"? Nothing. Everything you are is an echo of your experience. Ideas, morals, even likes. Nothing is authentic, it's all "fake".
Well, who is writing this when it is not you?
And you make the same error over an over again: because 'you' can change, you think it cannot be authentic. That is just not true. Being authentic has to do with your desires and aspirations at this moment. 'Being authentic' does not mean that you do not change, e.g. because you are getting older, get new insights, meet new people etc; it also does not mean that there is some real 'you' in the core. It is all about accepting your inner desires, about overcoming your fears to commit yourself to the world.
I have changed from believing there is an authentic self to there not being one.
It is “me” writing this.
Being authentic is not about your desires and aspirations in the present moment. In fact it can’t be because those very same things are not yours. They are just an echo from your environment. You get them from people who get them from others, etc.
There isn’t anything authentic about you. We humans are little more than copies of others.
Your will is not your own, neither are your thoughts. In a sense we are all fakes, because the self is just an illusion. It’s a mask people put on.
You speak about overcoming, but the one thing you don’t get is that you have to overcome the notion that there is a you to be true to. There isn’t, it doesn’t exist. It’s just an illusion woven by the mind, a narrative to tell over and over again. There’s nothing authentic about it. It’s just an imitation of what we experience.
Right. There is nothing authentic in your desires and aspirations taken on its own. But somebody is authentic when he acts and speaks according to them, instead of keeping them hidden because of fear or strategical reasons. To be authentic just does not mean ‘born from nothing’.
And that has nothing to do with ‘you’ not existing as an uninfluenced, never changing object.
I know there is a proper name for Tita’s fallacy, but I call it the “it’s just” fallacy. It happens when you see something about a thing then say that thing is “just” that. So, humans are “just” copies of other humans. Well, we’re certainly no perfect copies, we’re different from any other type of copy I know of. Or, we’re just products of our environment. Sure, but we’re a unique product. I could go on.
I know there is a proper name for Tita's fallacy, but I call it the "it's just" fallacy. It happens when you see something about a thing then say that thing is "just" that. So, humans are "just" copies of other humans. Well, we're certainly no perfect copies, we're different from any other type of copy I know of. Or, we're just products of our environment. Sure, but we're a unique product. I could go on.
Hmm, yes. If one highlight the 'just's, there are quite a few in Titanomachina's posts:
I have changed from believing there is an authentic self to there not being one.
It is "me" writing this.
Being authentic is not about your desires and aspirations in the present moment. In fact it can't be because those very same things are not yours. They are justan echo from your environment. You get them from people who get them from others, etc.
There isn't anything authentic about you. We humans are little more than copies of others.
Your will is not your own, neither are your thoughts. In a sense we are all fakes, because the self is just an illusion. It's a mask people put on.
You speak about overcoming, but the one thing you don't get is that you have to overcome the notion that there is a you to be true to. There isn't, it doesn't exist. It's just an illusion woven by the mind, a narrative to tell over and over again. There's nothing authentic about it. It's just an imitation of what we experience.
In the end, a steam locomotive ist just steel, coal and water. And we never see steel, coal and water move along railways, don't we?
I know there is a proper name for Tita's fallacy, but I call it the "it's just" fallacy. It happens when you see something about a thing then say that thing is "just" that. So, humans are "just" copies of other humans. Well, we're certainly no perfect copies, we're different from any other type of copy I know of. Or, we're just products of our environment. Sure, but we're a unique product. I could go on.
Well we aren't unique products and some people very well are copies of others.
Humans are less unique then they believe themselves to be.
Is not really a fallacy because that's just what humans are. Copies of each other with the illusion of individuality.
Right. There is nothing authentic in your desires and aspirations taken on its own. But somebody is authentic when he acts and speaks according to them, instead of keeping them hidden because of fear or strategical reasons. To be authentic just does not mean 'born from nothing'.
And that has nothing to do with 'you' not existing as an uninfluenced, never changing object.
What if acting against them is what is right? Also how can you know if those desires and aspirations are your own? You know how easily influenced people are, you could just be following someone else's desire and aspiration, and the same for them, etc.
And assuming there is such a thing as being authentic, why is it good? People seem to do well when they are anything but themselves, it's how society functions, it's how people function. What if being authentic is just a trap?
Also how can you know if those desires and aspirations are your own? You know how easily influenced people are, you could just be following someone else's desire and aspiration, and the same for them, etc.
So what would be the alternative to this?
And assuming there is such a thing as being authentic, why is it good?
On a academic scale here, usually humans consider subterfuge, dishonesty, falsifications as bad.
It probably has to do with our communication system we use socially.
That's not to say that subterfuge doesn't have benefits. It can. It is used successfully.
But that's part of a complicated social communication system we have evolved.
And in that nutshell...."authenticity"(a stupid semantic problem for this discussion) has not been violated.
There's where you are mostly correct. And it's why "authenticity" is a dumb word.
Everything is authentic. Even fake things are authentic. Someone fighting against "authenticity" is being authentic.
People seem to do well when they are anything but themselves, it's how society functions, it's how people function. What if being authentic is just a trap?
This is all redundant and reflective of your own personal foibles.
Then you have an existential problem: the existentialist's literature is full of characters in such difficult situations.
Also how can you know if those desires and aspirations are your own? You know how easily influenced people are, you could just be following someone else's desire and aspiration, and the same for them, etc.
Again, you can find many examples of these in existentialist literature. Self-knowledge, an honest reflection of how your life works out is essential.
And assuming there is such a thing as being authentic, why is it good? People seem to do well when they are anything but themselves, it's how society functions, it's how people function.
Now you are contradicting yourself: according to you people don't have a self, and therefore they cannot be not themselves.
Of course there is a lot of fake in the world. But is that a reason to be a fake yourself? Why don't you do an honest investigation why your life does not work out as you would like?
What if being authentic is just a trap?
Yes, it could be. Stay at home. Don't change. Never try an experiment with your life. Do not commit yourself to others or any activity. Stick to your world view. Don't ever try something new. Try to convince yourself conceptually that your unhappy life is the complete truth. Then you can be 100% sure your will not be caught in this trap.
PS
This ]might be a good book for you.
I’m saying authenticity is a joke. That there is nothing to be true to because there is no self. Your desires and aspirations are not yours to begin with either.
Just because there is much fake in the world isn’t a reason to be real (not like you can be, there is nothing “you” about you).
I'm saying authenticity is a joke. That there is nothing to be true to because there is no self.
You repeated that already many times. I already showed you that your argument is wrong, but you never countered it.
Your desires and aspirations are not yours to begin with either.
This makes no sense either. You say that there is no self, and you say that "your desires and aspirations are not yours". If there is no 'you' how then can you say that something is not yours? It is a fake argument, Titanomachina.
By saying that everything is fake, you are saying that everything is inauthentic. But that means that people do as if they are something they not really are. Your judgement that everything is fake is based that there are real 'yous'.
You use a wrong meaning of 'being (in)authentic'.
Just because there is much fake in the world isn't a reason to be real (not like you can be, there is nothing "you" about you).
Oh yes, there is a good reason: living a fulfilled life.
With all this talk of you about fake, you seem to mirror just your own stance.
I'm saying authenticity is a joke. That there is nothing to be true to because there is no self.
You repeated that already many times. I already showed you that your argument is wrong, but you never countered it.
Your desires and aspirations are not yours to begin with either.
This makes no sense either. You say that there is no self, and you say that "your desires and aspirations are not yours". If there is no 'you' how then can you say that something is not yours? It is a fake argument, Titanomachina.
By saying that everything is fake, you are saying that everything is inauthentic. But that means that people do as if they are something they not really are. Your judgement that everything is fake is based that there are real 'yous'.
You use a wrong meaning of 'being (in)authentic'.
Just because there is much fake in the world isn't a reason to be real (not like you can be, there is nothing "you" about you).
Oh yes, there is a good reason: living a fulfilled life.
With all this talk of you about fake, you seem to mirror just your own stance.
You have not proven my argument to be wrong about there being no such thing as authenticity.
You seem to lack an understanding of what is meant by no self.
I'm saying humans cannot be authentic, because everything they are is an imitation. That's also part of the illusion of the self. You take certain traits to be "you" but they aren't. They are just echoes of what's around you.
You also make an in correct statement in that being authentic is needed to live a fulfilled life. You don't. People do it every day. Because as I said before, there is no such thing as authenticity. People are just fakes, there's nothing authentic about them.
It can also be argued that this world is fake, as well can never know "real" reality, just the imitation of our senses provide.
I'm saying humans cannot be authentic, because everything they are is an imitation. That's also part of the illusion of the self. You take certain traits to be "you" but they aren't. They are just echoes of what's around you.
You also make an in correct statement in that being authentic is needed to live a fulfilled life. You don't. People do it every day. Because as I said before, there is no such thing as authenticity. People are just fakes, there's nothing authentic about them.
It can also be argued that this world is fake, as well can never know "real" reality, just the imitation of our senses provide.
Titan you've come on here previously with questions concerning physical fitness and dieting, your self questioning of your sexuality and
disillusionment thereof, deep concerns about what reality is, and suicidal ponderings and the value of life and suicidal people.
People are trying to humor you or engage with you, connect with you here etc...
But let's not kid ourselves by couching this in some philosophical discussion that's meaningful or profound.
You are obviously having issues with your identity. This is about you.
Not the meaning of the Universe. You. Your emotions.
I'm saying humans cannot be authentic, because everything they are is an imitation. That's also part of the illusion of the self. You take certain traits to be "you" but they aren't. They are just echoes of what's around you.
You also make an in correct statement in that being authentic is needed to live a fulfilled life. You don't. People do it every day. Because as I said before, there is no such thing as authenticity. People are just fakes, there's nothing authentic about them.
It can also be argued that this world is fake, as well can never know "real" reality, just the imitation of our senses provide.
Titan you've come on here previously with questions concerning physical fitness and dieting, your self questioning of your sexuality and
disillusionment thereof, deep concerns about what reality is, and suicidal ponderings and the value of life and suicidal people.
People are trying to humor you or engage with you, connect with you here etc...
But let's not kid ourselves by couching this in some philosophical discussion that's meaningful or profound.
You are obviously having issues with your identity. This is about you.
Not the meaning of the Universe. You. Your emotions.
Incorrect.
No, it's correct.
I think you're trying to construct a "reality view", a perspective that you can inhabit, that is comfortable and makes sense.
And that's great! Everybody does that. We all conceive the reality that is most emotionally comfortable for ourselves.
Your's here at this time though is "under construction". It's hitting the boundaries of rationality.
Again nothing wrong with that....but you shouldn't try to vociferously argue your perspective on other people
who disagree or don't see it your way.
You can run with this worldview forever, carry that baggage that you have already revealed to us.
But trying to rearrange the geometry to fit your views and expecting everyone else to fit in the geometry too, is irrational.
Your ideas that everyone is fake and copies is not well grounded. It's grist for philosophical meanderings...
But your stubborn insistence belies a deeper struggle within yourself.
And like I said, you've already tipped your hand on other issues.
That's ok.