I think the sticking point here is the word authentic, which I'm not real clear about. You seem to be using it kind of a "untouched by modernism" way. But I think that's tricky, because authentic clearly implies better in a way that my description doesn't.

Adolescence into early adulthood is the time when people determine their identity. I suppose I'm using the word in that kind of psychological sense. We absorb the world around us, and adopt or reject it according to our inclinations. The same process occurs in people in the first world and in the third world. Everyone chooses, some people are just much more limited in what they can choose from.

I don't feel any inauthenticity here in America. I see options and freedom, which are lacking in some other countries. I don't see how women in those countries are living authentic lives, I would call it repression.

When I hear people talk about living authentically here, they mean they want to live simply and by their own needs and wants instead of chasing after cars or clothes they saw on tv.

Are you talking about identity as in, being part of something bigger than yourself? People who want that here find a place to get it.

I think the sticking point here is the word authentic, which I'm not real clear about. You seem to be using it kind of a "untouched by modernism" way. But I think that's tricky, because authentic clearly implies better in a way that my description doesn't.

People aren't a blank slate. We all come into this world with a variety of different temperaments and dispositions. So, no homogeneous society can work to our standards--someone will always get shafted. Like you said, more freedom results in less social cohesion.

Adolescence into early adulthood is the time when people determine their identity. I suppose I'm using the word in that kind of psychological sense. We absorb the world around us, and adopt or reject it according to our inclinations. The same process occurs in people in the first world and in the third world. Everyone chooses, some people are just much more limited in what they can choose from.

I don't feel any inauthenticity here in America. I see options and freedom, which are lacking in some other countries. I don't see how women in those countries are living authentic lives, I would call it repression.

When I hear people talk about living authentically here, they mean they want to live simply and by their own needs and wants instead of chasing after cars or clothes they saw on tv.

Are you talking about identity as in, being part of something bigger than yourself? People who want that here find a place to get it.

It is nearly universal on the left end of the American and European social spectrum. I actually find it hard to believe that you're not aware of this.
--

But the third world "is not white, and is poor" - ?

I've not observed that an "authentic identity" necessarily interferes with choices or modernization or freedom. In the "authentic cultures" I'm familiar with, people are comfortable with both their heritage and the modern world.

Example: I've been fascinated by a particularly strong culture in the Caucasus Mts. which teaches their children cultural traditions, especially song and dance, from the time the kids can walk and talk. It's a culture where everyone sings and dances, regularly, often in public places, the same traditional songs and dances handed down for centuries, most of which are communal in nature (all participants, no passive observers). When one person breaks into a song and/or dance, often in restaurants and other public places, many of those around, both young and old, jump right in.

The adolescents and young adults are familiar with Western culture, many of them going to university (education is prized), working in modern jobs, living under a democratically elected government -- thus simultaneously living in two worlds, old and new. I've seen "home-videos" of young people dancing to modern music in a club, then a traditional song is begun and, these same "kids" morph into a completely different posture/stature as they sing and leap and circle around the floor the way their ancestors did hundreds of years ago. It's funny to see some of the older fat adults freely join in. LIVING TRADITION AND CULTURE.

Now, how many here can sing the songs their grandparents and great-grandparents sang? Dance the dances? How many "traditional communal songs" known universally by both young and old does our society have?

What sacrifice of freedom? They have more freedoms than I do! I sure couldn't get away with that boisterous public behavior in my polite "free" society.

rebecca

Your desire for authentic tradition and culture is not shared by the majority of people, so the lack of it is not an issue for society on the whole.

How about the mythology that every person has equal rights, that every person's vote is important to the state - Jefferson's "All men are created equal" mythology.

Isn't the whole philosophy of political freedom simply our modern, uniting mythology?

Sure, it's a revolutionary mythology, but a mythos that is used to unite our nations into a single polity.

Well, we have to be careful. I think we have to remember that philosophy existed as part of religion until the enlightenment. For Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the practice of philosophy was a spiritual practice.

Sure, Divine Right is pretty well opposed to the Enlightenment concepts of political liberty, but isn't Divine Right still a political philosophy?

I'm saying that there has always been a political philosophy, and that Enlightenment liberalism is simply a newer political philosophy, just as Communism is a still younger political philosophy.

Just as today there are many priests who oppose our scientific advances.

Did the Greeks not study architecture, mathematics, biology, physics, ect? From what I have read, they established these fields in the west.

The same way I account for the differences between the politics of the Stone Age and the Space Age - the evolution of society, the constant change over time of society. We progress, for good or ill, and this occurs in our scientific learning as well as our political philosophy.

Skyscrapers were designed by architects just as cathedrals were designed by architects.

But I like that line - "The U.S. is a free economic zone, where culture is left to the private sphere" because I think you are absolutely correct. But I think we also have to recognize that individuals can come together, and in doing so they bring their private cultures into a community of shared culture. Hence the predominance of sub-cultures.

But I would also suggest that we have a great deal of shared culture, and that this shared culture is very much like the religious driven shared culture of the past. Let's go back to those skyscrapers.

In the past, the largest buildings were religious buildings and military buildings. Today, the largest buildings are economic buildings and military buildings. It seems that money has replaced religion.

I would say the same of much of our shared culture. Music, television, movies, even most books, are created out of profit-motive. Instead of art created out of religious motive, we have a money motive.

The usurpation of religion by money seems to be the real problem. Maybe that's what you're driving at.

Sure, they appeal to mass societies, but so did the Cathedrals, so did the Parthenon, ect.

I agree that lack of a prolonged, "ancient" history does have an effect on our national character; though I doubt many would see it this way. For anyone borne into any particular national mindset; it's all they know... how exactly would they be able to recognize potential drawbacks?

I can realize this because of the time I've spent overseas. Yes this is real - the only question is what, if any, effects might it have? Being so hard to discern, I'm not sure it's relevant.

Thanks

I hope that someone who posts on this thread will explain to me what an "authentic tradition" is, and how it is to be decided whether someone has it.

I can only say what it means to me. The USA is different from the nations it popped out of because its basis is words on paper: its constitution (which is now one of the oldest, if not the oldest constitution in continuous use in the world.)

France on the other hand went through a revolution... they were France before it and they were France afterwards. If France had another revolution, it would still be France. The US doesn't have that kind of identity. If the US had a revolution, the USA would cease to exist.

How was the founding of france different? They were also a collection of different groups who banded together at some point. Is it just long enough ago that it doesn't matter? The national identities of france, england, germany and spain have changed quite a bit.

There's more to the American identity than the constitution. 250 years is a fairly long time.

How was the founding of france different? They were also a collection of different groups who banded together at some point. Is it just long enough ago that it doesn't matter? The national identities of france, england, germany and spain have changed quite a bit.

There's more to the American identity than the constitution. 250 years is a fairly long time.

Well it's just that the French don't have a sense of having consciously created France (or do they?) Maybe I'm just projecting. But when I was little I took piano lessons and sat for hours making up national anthems for countries that only existed in my imagination. Nowadays I paint fake icons... they look like russian icons, but they're from artificial religions. In my imagination, you could go to the world where they exist and explore the whole thing... that's how dreams are: they have an artificial history.

But it is a poser: the word artificial suggests fake, when it basically means man-made. So that's how I reacted to authentic identity... one that grew naturally. Having grown naturally, it has roots in the external world of nature or god. But if you consciously make your own identity... there's the notion that it's only an act. I know some philosophers would say that's all there is to identity: an act.

But how does this relate to meaning? Is meaning something we discover or something we create?

It's true, America has had some time to grow naturally. Lately, the US identity has become property of the world in general. That knife cuts both ways. The question comes: what was the authentic American identity vs. American propaganda intended to persuade the third world to become western instead of Communist?

But it is a poser: the word artificial suggests fake, when it basically means man-made. So that's how I reacted to authentic identity... one that grew naturally. Having grown naturally, it has roots in the external world of nature or god. But if you consciously make your own identity... there's the notion that it's only an act. I know some philosophers would say that's all there is to identity: an act.

It's true, America has had some time to grow naturally.

But how does this relate to meaning? Is meaning something we discover or something we create?

It's true, America has had some time to grow naturally. Lately, the US identity has become property of the world in general. That knife cuts both ways. The question comes: what was the authentic American identity vs. American propaganda intended to persuade the third world to become western instead of Communist?

Think of "authentic Chinese food". Food as it is made in China, without any foreign imports of cooking. In that sense, American has an "authentic tradition". Thankgiving, Independence Day, the pledge of Allegiance, and so on. None of those are foreign imports.

That's a question, but only of historical interest I think. Was slavery authentic American identity before the abolitionist movement? Yes.