Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Authentic comes from the word "Author." To be authentic means that one must be the "author" of one's life.
How is that possible?
To be born again - by your own choice.
You must be a Hindu if you believe in reeincarnation.
I am not a Hindu. I just find Dasein's pointing to "authentic" being a derivative of "Author" a brilliant insight and try to explore it's logical consequences.
Living an authentic life implies giving credit to the author of that life. If we want to get the credit, we must have control over our lives. An author is the one who gives birth to something. If we cannot do that we have to identify the true author and give the credit to him. Otherwise we run the risk of plagiarism, which is the reverse of authenticity.
Be-ing authentic has nothing to do with credit!
What you wrote in your post is theoretical and it is not authentic.
When I say it is not authentic I mean to say that the theoretical thought you posted has existed for who knows how long (2500 years?).
Reporting on life is not living life! Most people don't make that distinction and they don't even know that they are just reporting.
This is the intent of my original posting about "authenticity". Be-ing who you are happens as a result of the constant dis-mantling of the presuppositions and mis-conceptions that surround us, that includes the misconception that authenticity has anything to do with "credit".
Instead of being concerned with credit the world needs to do what is necessary to be authentic. If everybody was being authentic there would be no need for credit. Credit is the booby prize in life!
Now thats authenticity!
Before reporting that you are the source of your own life you must have control over your birth and death.
Having credit for new thoughts is not my goal - my goal is truth.
Longknowledge:
According to you I mis-spoke when I said "Authentic comes from the word "Author."
What I should have said is "To be authentic you have to be the author of your life" and you can only do that by extracting your self from the web of presuppositions and mis-conceptions we "swim" in. Until you do that you don't know that life exists outside of the goldfish bowl.
Dasein
Sitting back and looking for "etymological inaccuracies" is not living an authentic life. "You" don't have to bring anything to the party when you hide behind the curtain and just "report" on what you see when you peek out. "You" don't have to make new distinctions when you hide behind the "shield" of etymological accuracy.
You only have 2 basic choices in life. Every other choice you make is connected to these 2. Either 1) everything you do in life un-covers who you are and you end up living an authentic life by be-ing true to your self or 2) you keep "playing it safe" by hiding who you are behind the "curtain" of "etymological accuracy".
#1 is your God-given right. #2 is your birth-right.
Lets be honest with each other, I have already made my choice and you have already made yours.
Dasein
I've been living outside the goldfish bowl since I was a teenager, which has been great since I never learned how to swim. I guess it was a case of "Think or Thwim."
As to "hiding", "curtain," "un-covers," and "be-ing," this all comes from your "read-ing" of Heidegger, and all of it, including a critique of Heidegger, has been done "out in the open" by Ortega, which you would "dis-cover" if you just read his works. But, as you say, "I have already made my choice and you have already made yours." My question is, honestly: Who is "h(e)id(degger)ing" behind "what," or should I say "whom"?
I think there is absolute right and wrong, but surely not everyone agrees.
As for an authentic person, that would be One who is true to himself as he is true to all no matter that everyone or all agree.
So an authentic life is One that is good or true or me.
A tree lives an authentic life, why don't we?
=
MJA
No, MJA, I disagree with you. A tree does not live an authentic life.
Zetherin;
Bravo! Brilliant!
Authenticity is a choice. Trees can't choose, they can only be "trees". In every instant of everyday humans be-ing make a choice to un-cover who they are (authenticity) or to cover up who they are (inauthenticity). No other entity on the planet can make the choice.
Dasein
I agree completely, though. I think "authenticity", in this context, implies something about character, character trees do not have. If one is genuine to themselves and others, I would say that this person is living an authentic life.
Are you certain, however, that we're the only ones that have any semblance of this sort of decision-making, or character? Is it possible that canines, apes, or dolphins have something similar, perhaps to a lesser degree?
I am not talking about character. Character has absolutely nothing to do with authenticity. Character is a value judgement that we all get together and agree upon as the whether someone has "character" or is a "bad character". "Character" is an example of the presuppositions and mis-conceptions that we exist in. You can't be "genuine" to your self until you know your self and you can't know your self until you dis-entangle your self from these presuppositions and mis-conceptions.
This is what I meant when I said "In every instant of everyday humans be-ing make a choice to un-cover who they are (authenticity) or to cover up who they are (inauthenticity)."
They don't have a choice.
Then what does authenticity have to do with? You didn't state that, very important, part. What are the decisions humans make daily which contribute, or detract from, authenticity? Please provide an example.
If you had done the work what I said would be clear. Nobody wants to do the work. What everybody wants is a quick answer and for the most part so they can dismiss it.
It's an absurd tactic to take "They don't have a choice" out of context and propose an argument.
When I respond to posts I always go back to check if I responded completely. Please give me some latitude on what I am about to write without taking it personally.
What was your interpretation? How can I begin to respond without knowing what you interpreted? Notice how we both assumed we knew what each other was talking about and we assumed what the expectations might be when the question was answered.
How can what I say be clear to me and vague to someone else?
That's kind of arrogant isn't it? Since when do you need to get up to speed with me?
The "ground" you stand on is the legacy of mis-conceptions and presuppositions (including "character" (see previous postings) that have been passed down to us.
I have made the leap across the chasm that lies between "The Legacy" and "Be-ing". I deal with "The Legacy" every day and yet in every "instant" I make the distinction between "The Legacy" and "Be-ing" and I choose Be-ing. Don't mis-understand me, sometimes I choose "The Legacy", notice when I do and then choose "Be-ing".
What you have brought to my attention is that I can know the ground you stand on and I can know what you are saying when you talk about The Legacy, but I can only point to the ground I stand on and hope you do the work.