There are guidelines one should follow, both ethical and spiritual, in pursuit of living a good life, however to me an authentic life would be much unrewarding for it would end with marriage, children, one of capitalism's sweaty jobs, and a hunger for something spiritually arousing to be present. Not fun to go out that way. Rather, one should strive to find meaning in things that can better the world around him. While being kind, sharing, and modest to those who he interacts with. Purpose and fulfillment are all that can complete a rational man.

i think you just don't like the term. an authentic life can very much be a life of striving to find meaning that can better the world. who said it has to be marriage, kids, and a sweaty job?

i think you just don't like the term. an authentic life can very much be a life of striving to find meaning that can better the world. who said it has to be marriage, kids, and a sweaty job?

It has to be something of the world, hence, 'the most important question is to suicide or not' in Camus; and the non-Buddhist answer: 'it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all;' so it's gonna be sweaty.

So, is there a "definite content?" Yes, there is definitely content.

if acting "un-authentic" is in someones nature, then wouldn't that be acting authentically?

Hi,

like i promised here comes my first question concerning Sartre and his essay existentialism is a humanism:

Do you think there is definite content to living an authentic life?

So far i could only say: that there is no definite content, everyone has to choose it for oneself, because there is no right or wrong, therefore no one has the right to dictate someone else how to live his life.

What do you think? Do you have anything else in mind, my answer seems pretty short for such an important topic. Thanks a lot Idale

Interesting,

At first blush I take the notion of "Living an Authentic Life" to be the extent to which I, though my words and actions, emulate those ideals I esteem to be most valuable and needful.

.... somewhat akin to a personal 'hypocrisy'; or more accurately, the lack thereof. Thanks

EDIT: Somewhat akin to the categorical imperative

It always amused me that authenticity, even before it was termed within existentialism, is a constant in existentialist works and yet the existentialist thinkers could never resist the urge to add on "... and so we must..." Kierkegaard had us become knights for God, Nietszche had us become supermen, Sartre tried to tie existentialism in with communism, Camus had us increase the quantity of experience... Even the existentialists could not live in an authentic world. It's almost as if without "I must..." the human brain grinds to a halt. So it seems to me anyway.

Perhaps the reality is that sometimes we can be real, meaning as Nietzsche stated, being that wheel which rolls from its centre, but perhaps only sometimes can we function so, the rest of the time we please others, we please society.

It is impossiable for the brain to come to a halt, unless in more than a metaphorical sense, one is brain dead. The world kind of demands a reaction to it, does it not, but, that natural evoking of our impluse systems is in fact, the authentic life, a natural life, responding directly subject to object.