living an authentic life?

@Dasein,

Dasein;102853 wrote:

Zetherin;

You have a hair trigger.

I wish you all the best.

Dasein

I'm sorry you interpreted my post as such.

I wish you the best also.

Be well, my friend,

Zeth

@Idale,

I am curious. Has anybody ever noticed that humans can't be rude unless somebody else says they are being rude? That a person can't be arrogant unless someone says they're arrogant? Could arrogance, rudeness, and character be nothing more than "societal weapons" we use to manipulate others?

Again, I am curious. I never say anything stupid until someone else tells me it's stupid.

Has anybody throughout the history of man ever been rude, arrogant, stupid, or lacked character?

Could these be mis-conceptions we have? Are these part of the legacy which has been handed down to us and we don't question? Are we trying to make everybody like us so that we can be comfortable in some form of predictability?

One more time, I am being curious here. I have noticed that nobody can really "hurt" me unless I want to manipulate them by saying they have hurt me.

When you get down to it isn't all of this a waste of time? Isn't there something else we could be doing other than complaining about the muck we are mired in? Hasn't the time come for humanity to stop putting up with the drama?

Isn't authenticity something which comes from us and we contribute to the world? Isn't character a set of rules to follow given to us by the world so the world can have control over us? Who "wants" to lack character?

Isn't authenticity who you are?

Dasein

@Dasein,

Dasein;102895 wrote:

I am curious. Has anybody ever noticed that humans can't be rude unless somebody else says they are being rude? That a person can't be arrogant unless someone says they're arrogant? Could arrogance, rudeness, and character be nothing more than "societal weapons" we use to manipulate others?

Again, I am curious. I never say anything stupid until someone else tells me it's stupid.

Has anybody throughout the history of man ever been rude, arrogant, stupid, or lacked character?

Could these be mis-conceptions we have? Are these part of the legacy which has been handed down to us and we don't question? Are we trying to make everybody like us so that we can be comfortable in some form of predictability?

One more time, I am being curious here. I have noticed that nobody can really "hurt" me unless I want to manipulate them by saying they have hurt me.

When you get down to it isn't all of this a waste of time? Isn't there something else we could be doing other than complaining about the muck we are mired in? Hasn't the time come for humanity to stop putting up with the drama?

Isn't authenticity something which comes from us and we contribute to the world? Isn't character a set of rules to follow given to us by the world so the world can have control over us? Who "wants" to lack character?

Isn't authenticity who you are?

Dasein

With your permission, I will make this into a new thread. Or, you could start one yourself. Because I'm not quite sure this is what the OP of this thread intended to converse about.

(I also participated in this derailing!)

Thanks.

@Zetherin,

Zeth;

It shouldn't be a new thread. It does address authenticity. If my permission is required, then you don't have my permission.

What is OP?

Dasein

@Idale,

Fair enough, I just wasn't sure this is the sort of authenticity that the OP was speaking about; he or she specifically mentions Sartre's essay. After looking through the thread, however, it seems as though there hasn't been a problem. Sorry for insinuating you did something wrong, you didn't.

OP stands for "Original Poster".

@Idale,

Quote:

1 Tip of a flat belly:

Cut down 3 lbs of your belly every week by using this 1 weird old tip. >[/[/B]Quote]

A COMMERCIAL! RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A THREAD! AND I'M A FACSIMILE MEMBER! I LIVE IN A NON-OVALTINE DRINKING NEIGHBORHOOD! WHAT HATH DASEIN WROUGHT!

@longknowledge,

logknowledge;

You give me way too much credit!

Dasein

@Idale,

"Authenticity " as Virtue or the Good. Bad Faith or Forgetfulness of Being as Sin. Heidegger the atheist theologian.
Existentialism is essentially a religion, however sophisticated and austere. Which is not to insult it.
I just can't help finding the role-play in philosophical positions, and here I am, playing the role of the finder of role-play.
Maybe Shakespeare was the first meta-philosopher. All the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players.

No disrespect intended.

@Idale,

the best aspects of existentialism - incidentally, Heidegger emphatically distanced himself from Sartre's existentialism in the latter part of his career - such as Heidegger, Frankl and Fromm is indeed 'religion for the post-religious'. But many other forms are simply atheism, full stop.

You can be nontheist without being atheist.

@jeeprs,

I acknowledge that Heidegger distanced himself from Sartre. I still see a moralism at the root of most of what gets called existentialism.

Spengler called Nietzsche a socialist, because he cared about his neighbor's values. Nietzsche (who I love despite his absurdities) whined about the decadence of man, for instance. So the great immoralist is still a moralist. He just wants folks to be more noble. At other times, Nietzsche comes across as a quite self-satisfied mystic. And note the role that Dionysos plays in his later work. He even finally signs a letter as Dionysos. What I love about Ecce Homo is that it manifest that Nietzsche himself is one more prophet, crying in the wilderness. True, he is a sophisticated, critical prophet, but still, he has a message for humanity.

I suppose I often use the word religion as a metaphor for "the value system that structures a person's life." Does anyone live without such a value system, except in transitional moments of despair?

A person can be systematically anti-systematic, but this is of course a contradiction. The transcendental buffoonery of an F. Schlegel (and the Dada movement?) can get away with this, by means of humor. The paradox can be embraced, as paradox. But this is where philosophy is tangent to mysticism and/or comedy.

Sartre wore the righteous revolutionary hat, did he not? Sympathizing with all the downtrodden victims of Capital, etc. And Heidegger's attraction to the Nazi party was connected to the same sort of righteous moralism. They come across as intellectual do-gooders. And this is not to slander do-gooding in general, but to point out how much moralism is implicit or explicit in existentialism. And quite obviously in Marxism as well.

I'm sure you mean something different by the terms nontheist and atheist, but on the surface they are quite similar. Of course no one term could ever sum up a person's views.
With respect,

@Idale,

I think the distincion I am making between non-theistic and atheistic, is that the latter, nowadays, has a distinct connotation of 'denying the transcendent dimension of existence altogether'. So I am certainly not theistic, in the sense that most Christians would be, but at the same time, I am not a secular atheist either. Hence, non-theistic.

Incidentally there's a poster on the Forum called Dasein who has made some extensive blog entries on Heidegger which you might find interesting.

@Idale,

Do not live an authentic life.

@platorepublic,

platorepublic;155842 wrote:

Do not live an authentic life.

But make sure you're doing it authentically.

:flowers:

@Idale,

Kidding aside, the notion of authenticity is interesting. The notion is, is of course, related to that of authorship. An author of a book (say) is the one who wrote it, who created it. And by a little stretch, then, to say that a certain Chinese restaurant serves authentic Chinese food is to say that the food is of the kind it would be if it were created (and its ingredients were) the way it would be if it were made in China by Chinese as a traditional dish. So what is it to live an authentic life? I suppose it is to live as if you yourself were creating it without any influences from others (or, at least, any undue influences from others). For example, living authentically would be living so you were not trying to impress others. And so on. I wonder to what extent this is really possible.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;156017 wrote:

Kidding aside, the notion of authenticity is interesting. The notion is, is of course, related to that of authorship. An author of a book (say) is the one who wrote it, who created it. And by a little stretch, then, to say that a certain Chinese restaurant serves authentic Chinese food is to say that the food is of the kind it would be if it were created (and its ingredients were) the way it would be if it were made in China by Chinese as a traditional dish. So what is it to live an authentic life? I suppose it is to live as if you yourself were creating it without any influences from others (or, at least, any undue influences from others). For example, living authentically would be living so you were not trying to impress others. And so on. I wonder to what extent this is really possible.

You've given a good description, I think. My nieces call this being real. People who live authentically seem to rub some people the wrong way ,due to the fact they are not people pleasers. Yet they gain great respect from those who understand, and quite possibly from those they rub wrong , though never would admit to it.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;156017 wrote:

Kidding aside, the notion of authenticity is interesting. The notion is, is of course, related to that of authorship. An author of a book (say) is the one who wrote it, who created it. And by a little stretch, then, to say that a certain Chinese restaurant serves authentic Chinese food is to say that the food is of the kind it would be if it were created (and its ingredients were) the way it would be if it were made in China by Chinese as a traditional dish. So what is it to live an authentic life? I suppose it is to live as if you yourself were creating it without any influences from others (or, at least, any undue influences from others). For example, living authentically would be living so you were not trying to impress others. And so on. I wonder to what extent this is really possible.

Yeah, but those two examples seem at odds to me. Because being constrained by the traditional culture you live in is very different from writing your own book. Cultural influences often push people into a life they aren't happy with.

I think you do have to see what the forces pushing and pulling you are, so that you can make the decision for yourself. But I think the goal is to live a good life, not necessarily an authentic one. Because you always run into the problem: what is authentic? If it's living by your nature rather than the culture you grew up in, well, it's in your nature to be heavily influenced by your culture. I think you could argue that you're living authentically no matter what you do. Otherwise you are forced to make a kind of arbitrary distinction between natural and unnatural.

@Idale,

Percept; n. something that is perceived; the object of perception
Con; n. the argument against something
Concept; n. an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars; a construct

Fusing; v. to unite or blend into a whole
Fusion; the act or process of fusing; the state of being fused; to become one
Con; n. the argument against something
Confusion; n. disorder; chaos

Distract; v. to draw apart; to divert; to separate or divide

To fuse is to unite into a whole, to become 'one'. 'Con' is the argument against something, so 'confusion' is the argument against you be-ing 'one' with your 'self'.

A 'concept' is a 'construct', a combination of characteristics. A 'concept' is an argument against who you per-ceive your 'self' to be. Only by de-constructing the 'concepts' can you discover that you are not "a combination of characteristics".

You must already be intimately aware that you are 'one' with your 'self'. If you weren't intimately aware that you are your 'self' you wouldn't be able to sufficiently 'construct' an argument against it. The possibility of constructing an argument couldn't even show up.

Concepts like spirit, soul, mind, are representations of a very minute part of who you are. You are the "understanding" that all the concepts point to. You are not the concepts. You are the one who 'borrows' the world's concepts to 'represent' who you are. In the 'instant' you 'borrow' the world's concepts you are no longer be-ing authentic.

When you use concepts to represent who you are, you remove 'you' from the equation. You are no longer considering you as you really are. When you remove you from consideration then the concepts are not valid and not relevant.

When you present yourself as concepts then life is all about the concepts, life is about you understanding the concepts, agreeing with the accuracy of the concepts, arguing with someone to get them to agree with you about your concepts, or being forced to agree with someone else's concepts. There is no you!

Only by going through the 'complicated process' of de-constructing the 'concepts' will you discover that it's "not complicated".

Actually, if for the rest of your life you only did 1 thing your life would be incredibly simple and a joy forever. Just spend the rest of your life 'dismissing' the concepts the 'world' tries to shove down your throat and you will un-cover the happiest person on the planet.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;156058 wrote:

Yeah, but those two examples seem at odds to me. Because being constrained by the traditional culture you live in is very different from writing your own book. Cultural influences often push people into a life they aren't happy with.

I think you do have to see what the forces pushing and pulling you are, so that you can make the decision for yourself. But I think the goal is to live a good life, not necessarily an authentic one. Because you always run into the problem: what is authentic? If it's living by your nature rather than the culture you grew up in, well, it's in your nature to be heavily influenced by your culture. I think you could argue that you're living authentically no matter what you do. Otherwise you are forced to make a kind of arbitrary distinction between natural and unnatural.

They are not examples. They are analogies to explain the notion of authenticity.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;156058 wrote:

Yeah, but those two examples seem at odds to me. Because being constrained by the traditional culture you live in is very different from writing your own book. Cultural influences often push people into a life they aren't happy with.

I think you do have to see what the forces pushing and pulling you are, so that you can make the decision for yourself. But I think the goal is to live a good life, not necessarily an authentic one. Because you always run into the problem: what is authentic? If it's living by your nature rather than the culture you grew up in, well, it's in your nature to be heavily influenced by your culture. I think you could argue that you're living authentically no matter what you do. Otherwise you are forced to make a kind of arbitrary distinction between natural and unnatural.

Jebediah - how can you not see that choosing to have "cultural influences" dictate your existence is a decision you make. You choose to turn over responsibility for your life to something outside of your control. You have relinquished 'choice' in the matter.

The "forces pushing and pulling" is like living in a 'Habit Trail' and choosing between 'your nature' and 'your culture'. What is in your 'blind spot' is the possiblity of "authoring' 'your nature' and 'your culture' thereby creating what 'you' call 'authentic'.

How would you live your life if there were no "forces pushing and pulling"? What if "cultural influences" is nothing more than an agreement you made so you wouldn't have to endure the burden of be-ing you?

What you are missing out on is the possibility of living outside of the 'Habit Trail'.

Dasein

@Dasein,

Dasein;156083 wrote:

Jebediah - how can you not see that choosing to have "cultural influences" dictate your existence is a decision you make. You choose to turn over responsibility for your life to something outside of your control. You have relinquished 'choice' in the matter.

The "forces pushing and pulling" is like living in a 'Habit Trail' and choosing between 'your nature' and 'your culture'. What is in your 'blind spot' is the possiblity of "authoring' 'your nature' and 'your culture' thereby creating what 'you' call 'authentic'.

What you are missing out on is the possibility of living outside of the 'Habit Trail'.

Dasein

Anyway, how you become authentic (or not) and what it means for you to be authentic, are two different things. Maybe Jeb is right. No one is authentic. So what? My question is what it means for a person to be authenic.

Philosophy Forum

living an authentic life?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know