ethics of authenticity

(1991) charles taylor [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_(philosopher)]:

In 2016, he was awarded the inaugural $1-million Berggruen Prize for being “a thinker whose ideas are of broad significance for shaping human self-understanding and the advancement of humanity”.

missing piece #1

Following Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Michael Polanyi, and Wittgenstein, Taylor argues that it is mistaken to presuppose that our understanding of the world is primarily mediated by representations.

martin heidegger, maurice merleau-ponty, ..

via sh and this:

Dr. Andy Root on Authenticity

taylor thinks authenticity is a post 60s reality.. filtering in after cultural rev of 68-69.. before that living in age of mobilization.. coming after age of kings and queens

mobilization not as much a driving force.. denomination doesn’t know what to do with it.. in authenticity only follow what you speaks to you.. have to find unique way of being.. point of crisis..

taylor believed age of authenticity is a good thing.. conundrum it puts us in.. we don’t know what it means to have communities of faith – how to fund them et al – inside age of authenticity.. what drives us.. forms our imagination is authenticity.. hard for youth worker.. needing institution to get a pay check.. but also knows you’re going to get a huge sense of meaning.. not just from authority/historians/dogma

reading along with root’s theo turn in youth min

notes/quotes from 154 (131) pg pdf of ethics of authenticity:

via google docs [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0_FjdluRK7uYTg0ZjYxNzYtOGRiZi00ZDk2LTlhZmYtZTY3M2VhYWQ5ZjNm/]

12 (1)

1 – three malaises

malaise: discomfort.. unease.. cause difficult to id

13 (2)

in principle.. people are no longer sacrificed to the demands of supposedly sacred orders that transcend them.. many think still incomplete .. that econ arrangements or patterns of fam life or traditional notions of hierarchy still restrict too much of their freedom

any form of m\a\p.. keeping us from us

14 (4)

modern freedom came about thru the discrediting of such orders.. but at the same time as they restricted us.. *these orders gave meaning to the world and to the activities of social life.. the discrediting of these orders has been called the ‘disenchantment’ of the world.. with it.. things lost some of their magic

*rather.. meaning to sea world and the activities of whale life.. **oi

this is not what i want to focus.. i want to rather at what some have seen to be consequences of for human life and meaning

15 (5)

people no longer have a sense of higher purpose.. or something worth dying for.. nietzsche: ‘ have no aspiration left in life but to a ‘pitiable comfort’.. lost broader vision because focus on individual lives.. less concerned with others.. recently resurface in ‘permissive society’ the doings of the ‘me generation’

16 (6)

the primacy of instrumental reason.. when we calc most economical application of means to a given end.. max efficiency.. best cost output ratio.. is its measure of success

21 (10)

3 malaises about modernity i want to deal w in this book: 1\ loss of meaning 2\ end via rampant instrumental (tech) reason 3\ loss of freedom

24 (13)

2 – the inarticulate debate

28 (17)

what we need to explain is what is peculiar in our time.. it’s not just that people sacrifice their love relationships and care of their children to pursue their careers.. something like this has perhaps always existed.. the point is that today.. many people feel called to do this.. feel they ought to do this.. feel their lives would be somehow wasted or unfulfilled if they didn’t do it.. thus what gets lost in this critique is the moral force of the ideal of authenticity.. it’s somehow being implicitly discredited.. the ideal sinks to level of axiom something one doesn’t challenge but also never expounds

in adopting the ideal, people in the culture of authenticity, as i want to call it, give support to a certain kind of liberalism.. the liberalism of neutrality.. one of basic tenets is that a liberal society must be neutral on questions of what constitutes a good life.. the good life is what each individual seeks.. in his/her own way

in undisturbed ecosystems ..the average individual, species, or population, left to its own devices, behaves in ways that serve and stabilize the whole..’ –Dana Meadows

29 (18)

result of their theory is to banish discussions about the good life to the margins of political debate.. the result is an extraordinary inarticulary about one of the constitutive ideals of modern culture.. its opponents slight it and its friends can’t speak of it.. the whole debate conspires to put it in the shade.. to render it invisible

2 other factors that conspire to intensify this silence: 1\ moral subjectivism.. that moral positions not grounded in reason.. 2\ that human nature will define right/wrong .. generally opposing authenticity 3\ all about social change.. which then involve some recourse to human motivations.. but what are often invoked are motivations that are non normal

any form of m\a\p = non normal/natural.. itch-in-the-soul = natural drive (to get to undisturbed ecosystem et al)

32 (21)

the result of all this is to thicken the darkness around the moral ideal of authenticity

maté trump law et al.. brown belonging law et al

critics of contemp culture tend to disparage it as an ideal, even to confound it w a non moral desire to do what one wants w/o interference.. the defenders of this culture are pushed into inarticulary about it by their own outlook.. the general force of subjectivism in our philosophical world and the power of neutral liberalism intensify the sense that these issues can’t and shouldn’t be talked about

do whatever you want?.. gaiman/degrasse whatever law.. gershenfeld something else law.. the thing(s) you can’t not do.. this is not ridiculous to an undisturbed ecosystem

and then on top of it all.. soc sci seems to be telling us that to understand such phenom as the contemp culture of authenticity we shouldn’t have recourse (source of help) in our explanations to such things as moral ideals.. but see it in terms of say.. recent changes in mode of production.. new patterns of youth consumption.. security of affluence..

does this matter? i think so very much.. would like to argue that far from being a reason to reject moral ideal of authenticity.. it should itself be rejected in its name..

33 (22)

a similar point can be made for those appeals to authenticity that justify ignoring whatever transcends the self: *for rejecting the past as irrelevant, or denying the **demands of citizenship, or the ***duties of solidarity, or the needs of the natural environ.. similarly .. the affirmation of the ****power of choice as itself a a good to be max’d is a deviant product of the ideal

*history ness **informed populace/citizenry et al .. any form of democratic admin.. ***red flags.. ****decision making is unmooring us law et al

34 (23)

to go along with this have to believe three things.. all controversial 1\ authenticity is a valid ideal 2\ can argue in reason about ideals & conformity of practices to these ideals 3\ that these arguments can make a diff

oi oi oi .. cancerous distractions.. will not get to legit authenticity if spending all time on this

36 (25)

3 – sources of authenticity

40 (29)

being true to myself means being true to my own originality, and that is something only i can articulate and discover..*in articulating it .. i am also defining myself.. i am realizing a potentiality that is properly my own.. this is the background understanding to the modern ideal of authenticity and to the goals of self fulfillment or self realization in which it is usually couched.. this is the background that gives moral force to the culture of authenticity, including its most degraded, absurd or trivialized forms.. it is what gives sense to the idea of ‘doing your own thing’ or ‘finding your own fulfillment’

*not sure we need to articulate or define.. naming the colour ness et al.. or realize or be proper or have goals.. thinking they are all cancerous distractions

42 (31)

4 – inescapable horizons

i want to take up the 2nd claim i made.. can you talk in reason to people who are immersed in the contemp culture of authenticity.. who seem to *accept no allegiance other than their own development.. those who seem ready to throw away **love, children, ***democratic solidarity, for the sake of some career advancement..

if throwing away **these and keeping ***these.. then not *this.. (assuming it is legit authenticity).. legit free people would have let go of any form of democratic admin.. any form of m\a\p.. and grokked deeper love and children et al.. yet true (again if legit authentic) reason isn’t the language of legit free people

43 (32)

what are conditions in human life of realizing an ideal of this kind

if this kind means 8bn legit free people.. conditions/needs: a&a.. so we would need to org around those two legit needs

45 (34)

(on authenticity being dialogical rather than monological.. because we define selves via language we learned in dialogue w significant others) we will need relationships to fulfill but not to define ourselves

oi.. language as control/enclosure.. need more idiosyncratic jargon ness and self-talk.. because 1\ all currently (and have always been) in sea world and .. 2\ in sea world – we think we need to define ourselves.. and so do all the other whales.. ie: maté parenting law et al.. trumps our authenticity..

if legit brown belonging law.. defining ourselves would be an irrelevant

46 (35)

when we come to understand what it is to define ourselves.. to determine in what our originality consists.. we see that we have to take as background some sense of what is significant.. defining myself means finding what is significant in my difference from others.. then we are in the domain of recognizable definitions

i don’t think legit free people would spend time on this

48 (37)

things take on importance against a background of intelligibility.. let us call this a horizon

rather.. perhaps.. a death sentence..

49 (38)

it can’t just be assumed a priori (random) on the grounds that anything we choose is all right

has to be.. have to trust that.. or legit authenticity will never happen.. we won’t be us.. just other people

50 (39)

for the moment the general lesson is that authenticity can’t be defended in ways that collapse horizons of significance

if has to be defended.. not authenticity.. (earlier defining horizons of significance via what other people have decided)

public consensus always oppresses someone(s) – aka: keeps someone(s) from their authenticity

there is a picture here of what human beings are like.. placed between this option for self creation and easier modes of copping out.. going with the flow.. conforming with the masses.. and so on.. which picture is seen as true.. discovered.. not decided.. horizons are given

so.. horizons as any/all form/s of m\a\p.. oi

51 (40)

following nietzsche i am a truly great philosopher if i remake the table of values.. but this means redefining values concerning important questions not redesigning the menu at mcdonalds.. to shut out demands emanating beyond the self is precisely to suppress the conditions of significance and hence to court trivialization.. *destroys the condition in which the ideal can be realized.. otherwise put.. i can define my id only against the background of things that matter.. **but to bracket out history, nature, society, the demands of solidarity, everything but what i find in myself, would be to eliminate all candidates for what matters

*there haven’t been any such conditions to date.. so nothing to destroy.. only to re\set.. hari rat park law et al

**that’s all whalespeak.. circling around enough so to distract/confuse.. along with thinking we have to id self

54 (43)

4 – the need for recognition

not a legit need

56 (45)

the way our id’s are formed in dialogue with others.. in agreement or struggle with their recognition of us.. the discovery and articulation of this fact in its modern form came about in close connection w the developing ideal of authenticity

oi.. brown belonging law.. maté trump law.. et al.. that won’t get us at legit authenticity.. being true to self

on honour and hierarchy vs dignity (citizen dignity) and democratic society

nah.. that’s same song.. any form of democratic admin.. any form of m\a\p.. same song.. not authenticity.. not legit free people .. only whales still in sea world

58 (47)

on there not being inward derivation of self.. only via recognition from other

on each heart ness is blinded/muted/trumped by recognition ness et al

66 (55)

6 – the slide to subjectivism

72 (61)

the notion that revelation comes thru expression is what i want to capture.. suggests a connection between self discovery and artistic creation.. artist becomes agent of original self defn

art (by day/light) and sleep (by night/dark) as global re\set.. to fittingness (undisturbed ecosystem).. but no need for self defn

82 (71)

7 – la lotta continua

83 (72)

instead of dismissing culture of authenticity (as too egoistic) or endorsing it as it is.. we ought to attempt to raise its practice by making more palpable to its participants what the ethic they subscribe to really involves.. this means engaging in a work of persuasion

? oi.. people telling other people what to do

i’m suggesting both sides are wrong.. that we ought to be doing is fighting over the meaning of authenticity and trying to persuade people ..

oi oi oi.. fighting? over defn?.. naming the colour ness et al.. to me .. if we have to persuade.. fight.. define.. we’re doing it wrong.. we’re not tapping into what is already on each heart.. if we legit listened to and trusted that for all of us.. that’s when we’d see legit a & a.. that’s when we’d get back/to an undisturbed ecosystem..

sans any form of m\a\p

92 (81)

8 – subtler languages

102 (91)

it was perhaps not by accident that in romantic period self feeling and feeling of belonging were linked.. perhaps loss of this sense of belonging thru a publicly defined order needs to be compensated by a stronger more inner sense of linkage.. perhaps this is what a great deal of modern poetry has been trying to articulate.. and perhaps we need a *few things more today than such articulation

*just one.. sans articulation et al (even good articulation like brown belonging law and thurman interconnectedness law)..

need 1st/most: means to undo our hierarchical listening to self/others/nature ie: tech as it could be

104 (93)

9 – an iron cage

117 (106)

we need to bring together two orders of considerations.. drawing on a\ the conditions of human life that must condition the realization of the ideals in question.. we can determine b\ what the effective realization of the ideals would amount to