On the German Philosophy tribe I've been considering the Frankfurt school critique Heidegger, and the Existentialists in general, for their project of authenticity.
This has gotten me thinking, because in my view authenticity is extremely important. When I consider that idea critically, I see that to some degree my focus on authenticity is pre-reflective. I have a visceral response to discourse of authenticity and an innate impulse to move in that direction.
I think it's high time I put it on the table, and this seems like a good forum to start.
My basic position is that authenticity is of fundamental importance to treating human problems, both on an individual and societal level. It is my belief that often when people behave in destructive ways, they are often not being honest with themselves about what they are doing. To put it another way, when people understand the truth of what they want in the world, they are less likely to cause suffering for themselves or others.
I realize there is a core optimism at the heart of this belief, which is a little funny because I am something of a cynic and a misanthrope. However, one can draw systematic empricial support for this view. The foundation of psychoanalysis, for example, is that when people understand the truth of what is going on in their lives it has an immensely therapeutic effect.
I would also add that when people act in coarsely destructive ways, such as certain American politicians I could name, it is often accompanied by coarse and obvious instances of dishonesty. On the contrary, the rare politicians I have seen who seem highly ethical, like Senator Russ Feingold from Wisconsin, exhibit a deep commitment to truthfulness.
Of course, it is not necessarily the case that more ethical behavior will lead to less suffering, but I believe that by definition ethical behavior at least works TOWARDS less suffering.
So there it is - the short version of my conviction that authenticity is the ground of ethical and therapeutic human action. I'd love to debate it on an ideas level.
PS I have cross-posted this idea to a couple different tribes, but I don't think that is inappropriate because I'm willing to carry on the discussion independently in each Tribe.
This has gotten me thinking, because in my view authenticity is extremely important. When I consider that idea critically, I see that to some degree my focus on authenticity is pre-reflective. I have a visceral response to discourse of authenticity and an innate impulse to move in that direction.
I think it's high time I put it on the table, and this seems like a good forum to start.
My basic position is that authenticity is of fundamental importance to treating human problems, both on an individual and societal level. It is my belief that often when people behave in destructive ways, they are often not being honest with themselves about what they are doing. To put it another way, when people understand the truth of what they want in the world, they are less likely to cause suffering for themselves or others.
I realize there is a core optimism at the heart of this belief, which is a little funny because I am something of a cynic and a misanthrope. However, one can draw systematic empricial support for this view. The foundation of psychoanalysis, for example, is that when people understand the truth of what is going on in their lives it has an immensely therapeutic effect.
I would also add that when people act in coarsely destructive ways, such as certain American politicians I could name, it is often accompanied by coarse and obvious instances of dishonesty. On the contrary, the rare politicians I have seen who seem highly ethical, like Senator Russ Feingold from Wisconsin, exhibit a deep commitment to truthfulness.
Of course, it is not necessarily the case that more ethical behavior will lead to less suffering, but I believe that by definition ethical behavior at least works TOWARDS less suffering.
So there it is - the short version of my conviction that authenticity is the ground of ethical and therapeutic human action. I'd love to debate it on an ideas level.
PS I have cross-posted this idea to a couple different tribes, but I don't think that is inappropriate because I'm willing to carry on the discussion independently in each Tribe.
posted by:
|
-
Re: authenticity
Fri, March 4, 2005 - 11:43 AMIt is interesting, especially the idea that more localized ethical behavior could lead to more, not less, globalized suffering. I think there has always been a tension between the immediate and long-term good. Too much of one can forsake the other.
The philosophical dilemma I have been stuck in (well, at least identified) is the question of peace versus justice. I think people often fall in one or the other camps of peace-serves-justice and justice-serves-peace (i.e. "peace should be afforded at the cost of some injustice" versus "justice should be afforded at the cost of some peace").
If you believe that life is itself inherently meaningful, I would guess you would side more with peace and less with justice. The problem I see is if you relinquish the notion that existence is itself meaningful, and that it is one's own responsibility to /imbue/ meaning into life, then justice takes priority over peace, in that the struggle itself gives meaning, regardless of whether goals are ever achieved. I think that is both alluring, and dangerous, and to some extent omnipresent. The idea that we are doing good itself lends meaning to our lives.
For the very reason that I do not think our lives are implicitly meaningful, or that there is some global plan which we must subserviently follow like automata in hopes of some mythical afterlife, I am strongly in the camp which favors justice over peace. But it does worry me because the same conclusion could be used in any context, for any ostensibly just cause. It's more worrying when the agents of injustice are unaware of the injustice they passively perpetrate. -
-
Re: authenticity
Fri, March 4, 2005 - 11:51 AMSo I guess I'm agreeing with the notion that although being authentic might (in extreme cases) lead to more suffering/less peace, I suppose being disingenuous or unauthentic is even worse. It's hard to quantify "unauthentic" but I imagine it as disregarding injustice due to complacency.
-
