mhc

Another thread got me goin' on this.....

What does it mean for someone to be authentic, in the sense there there is an authentic self?
Does it just mean being truthful? It seems to mean more, but I'm not sure what.
My angle is that the idea of an authentic or "true" self presupposes an inauthentic or untrue self.....despite all our many aspects of personality, can the be more than one self?I don't mean psychologically, but semantically. Isn't a self necessarily a totality?
The expression "being true to one's self" means acting on one's values or ideals, but why do we introduce another self? Has self just come to mean certain configurations of physical and psychological states which tend to occur together? But surely when we talk of all these incomplete psychological states en toto, we must refer to the self, which , it seems, is necessarily singular.
Any thoughts?

johngalt

I think being authentic means just acting like you normally would under many different surroundings(i know, pretty ambiguous). I also think it means thinking for yourself and not worrying what other people will think of you. That is why authentic goes hand in hand with being an individual.

Jet Grind

Well, I guess what is meant by the "authentic-self" is the natural self. Modern geneticist estimate that 45-50% of our personality is genetic, the rest is probably shaped by your environment. So i guess that the the "authentic-self" is the self that you've naturally inherited. It's really no different from your authentic hair-color IMO.

On a side note, is it possible to act outside of your authentic-self?

mhc

That's just my point. Why posit an authentic self, if there can be no other self? If you lie, you may be being untruthful, but you are an authentic liar. You cannot be other than who you are at any time. It's kinda Zen.
THere's so much about "authenticity" these days, and for the most part it's intelligible. But an "authentic self"? What does that mean?

Amos

An authentic self already points at a non-authentic self in the same way as a free thinker could not be normally free to think. This same is true with assertiveness in that when we must be assertive, or think positive, we already admid that by nature we are not assertive, or not positive. That is why "I AM" is just that which I AM without any conditions or preconditions.

I AM is "the being" and all the rest are "conditions of being" wherein we are separated from our true self as "the being" (from Aristotles "Cathegories").

It makes reference to a state of mind wherein we have a certain capacity to percieve things and has nothing to do with lying, or cheeting, or being authentic because for some it is fun to lie or cheet and be a pretender. Yes, it is kind of Zen if Zen is allowed to be Zen.

mnkbdky

Authentic existence is a Heideggerian concept. According to Heidegger there are three modes of existence. The first is what I call native or local existence. In this type of existence one is passively defined by their local cultural background. Since birth they have been socialized and breed for conformity. Their current mode of existence is to choose to live by this standard. They have not owned up to their individual existence. Now the way this first mode of existence is described might sound negative. However, while it is not ideal to remain in this type of existence it is good by the fact that it is necessary and has the potential to lead one to the next two modes of existence.

The second way of existing is what I call circumstantial existence. When one is existing in this mode of being one identifies themself with a certain societal role, such as a lawyer or musician or lover. This stage is different than the former in that it is actively interpreting its cultural role whereas the former was being passively acted upon. Again, while this may sound like a bad place to exist, it is not. This stage lead to anxiety; one comes to ask the question, Who am I? However, that anxiety is covered up by fleeing into a societal role. The person in a sense disowns themself.

The third and final mode of existence is that of self-interpretation. In this mode the person finally acheive individuality. This is the stage of possiblities. When living in this mode one realizes that they grew up in a background culture who forced their interpretation of him or her on them. They did not choose what the background would be, rather it was decided for them--it is fate. When self-interpretation is gained it is by re-cognizing that it cannot hide or disown itself in some social or circumstantial role. After this realization anxiety or angst or dread is faced head on and one is confronted with the fact of the groundlessness of their existence. That is, they are faced with all their possiblities, including that they have the possiblity of not existing. For Heidegger the first two modes of existence (i.e., native and circumstantial) are inauthentic modes of existence while only the last one (i.e., self-interpretation) is authentic existence.


While authentic existence entails living with anxiety or the possibility not to exist, it does not mean that one curls up in the corner of their room and stops living; quite the opposite is true. Genuine authentic existence entails living and acting for the sake of one's own possibilities, even death. It does not mean that one is always self-reflective or even self-aware. Rather, one gets absorbed into the activities they choose to participate in. This is often describe by Jazz muscians as being "in the groove" or by sports players as "in the zone."

mhc

Oh, a Heideggerian concept.
No wonder it makes no sense.