Good essay, but I think it’s worth clarifying that both “true self” and “authenticity” are being attacked in their very dumbed down forms. Knowledge of the “true self” in traditions like hermeticism, Hinduism, and Buddhism really referred to knowledge of the transcendent ultimate reality. The “true self” was not essential but pre-essential. Authenticity, from what I understand, comes from Heidegger and his successors. It does not mean being true to your nature, but being true to your beliefs out of an internal sense of them, rather than for some sort of external validation. Yes, our beliefs are influenced by those around us, but there is a difference between being exposed to a dish and taking a liking to it, and pretending to like a dish because it signals something to others. In this context, one’s internal flaws are not to be embraced, but the reason for acting virtuously must come from within.
This article is Blank Slatist nonsense. The very fact that biological Human Nature exist is proof that authenticity is an objective reality, even if the "self" is itself a psychological illusion. Social existence DOES NOT precede essence, nor is it separate from it.
People are most fulfilled psychologically when they are living in a manner that's most in line with their innate natural selves & proclivities regardless of the consequences and of any moral standards. That's why (for example) closet homosexuals are a lot more miserable & neurotic on average than open homosexuals are.
Like most other Blank Slatists and Westerners in general, you create a false dictomy between culture/civilization and nature. In reality, cultures & civilizations themselves are reflections & products of the nature of the peoples who created them, there's nothing "unnatural" about Human civilization because it is within human nature to create cultures in the first place (hunter gatherers and even wild animals have cultures too). In a sense, Humans don't "have" cultures, they ARE cultures.
There's no such thing as objective morality/values (zero scientific evidence for it), but moral sentiments & values are themselves are products of the people who invent them and reflect their self-interests.That's why there's literally hundreds of thousands of different morality and value systems throughout the world and history (there's no such thing universal morals/values) because they reflect the diversity of human nature.
To embrace the artificial willingly which is something only (Post) Modern White Western people would think is good advice, for embracing the artificial is to embrace relativism & falsehood and to devalue Truth. There's nothing virtuous about that at all. That advice is based on the Modern myth that Humans are infinitely malleable blank slates who therefore have no authentic nature.
The theme of being authentic to one's self exist in every major Shakespeare play (both comedies & tragedies). He wasn't mocking it, that's just you projecting your false views into Hamlet.
And I wouldn't take anything said by Freud seriously, for he was nothing more than a narcissistic charlatan and Psychoanalysis as a whole is complete pseudoscience.
> To embrace the artificial willingly which is something only (Post) Modern White Western people would think is good advice, for embracing the artificial is to embrace relativism & falsehood and to devalue Truth.
(Post) Modern White Western people are frankly the only ones who would reject objective morality, or embrace nonsense like "authenticity".
Objective morality is not a universally held notion throughout the world. There's plenty of cultures out there (especially before the Modern era) that didn't believe in objective morality and viewed Ethics as a tribal thing.
Even in Religion, there's been entire sects and many theologians/philosophers that didn't believe in objective morality & values and they can be found in every major world faith. For example, in the Abrahamic religions in general it takes the form of the Divine Command Theory of Ethics (and with Christianity in particular it takes the form of the idea that Salvation is only through the Grace of Christ and nothing else), in the Indian religions it takes the form of the idea that Good & Evil are illusions born of ignorance & suffering and that spiritual Enlightenment entails breaking that illusion, in most Ethnic/Pagan religions (as well as Judaism) it takes form of the view that ethics only concerns the interests of the tribe/ethnic group in question, etc.
> There's plenty of cultures out there (especially before the Modern era) that didn't believe in objective morality and viewed Ethics as a tribal thing.
That's a modern anthropologist's back-projection. Those cultures viewed "their tribe's ethics" as objectively correct and weren't too concerned about how other tribes thought. An admittedly primitive philosophy, but rather different from post-modernism.
> For example, in the Abrahamic religions in general it takes the form of the Divine Command Theory of Ethics
That would be an example of objective morality.
> in the Indian religions it takes the form of the idea that Good & Evil are illusions born of ignorance & suffering and that spiritual Enlightenment entails breaking that illusion,
No, in Indian religion the Good is to seek out Enlightenment to free oneself from ignorance. Also various versions of the law of karma that in hurting others, one ultimately hurts oneself.
You are appealing to stupidity by failing to give rational arguments to support your position.
Since you are unable to understand it for yourself, the point is that "good" and "evil" can only be defined from a subjective perspective. Defining "good" and "evil" from any perspective does not make it objective. If you disagree, then the burden of proof is on you to prove why "good" and "evil" apply to everybody.
If you cannot coherently define "good" and "evil", then your claims have no ground to stand on. So go ahead and define them, or concede.
I'm glad that the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis was brought up in this post. I think that most people have a poor understanding of linguistic relativity, how it works, and how important it is.
"Social existence precedes essence". Sounds like a blank slate view. Certainly no proof of that, and its negation is NOT inconsistent with the view that humans are social beings or that society or culture influences our character and personality. I think it is more akin to essence manifests through society in different ways.
As far as Hitler and Dahmer being authentic, it's of course undeniably the case, but there are many more others in this world whose natures are less harmful. Roussean and Hobbes are both correct.
I just wrote on this Sept 25! Over 40 years ago someone told Bill Cosby that "cocaine is great because it intensifies your personality," to which he replied "But what if you're an a**hole?"
We toggle among approximately equivalent selves, which are modified by situation and audience, as they should be. A person of "integrity" is integrated among his parts, not identical.
I agree with this. I'm a bit wary of the adjacency to blank slate stuff but you're obviously not arguing that. I do think particularly it's values we hold, which are objects we aspire to, which explain our actions.
Bo always writes about things I'm interested in but have never managed to think through. A nice essay.
Strangely is the second essay on this general topic I have read this week. In some other Substack someone wrote about Wyndham Lewis's criticism of D.H. Lawrence's praise of the simple soul of Mexican Indians. Is there something in the air or just a coincidence?
Authenticity in the Heideggerian sense doesn't imply 'being yourself', it's a deep exploration of your being-in-time and who you want to become. Sartre said similar, so I am surprised you referenced him and still missed the point. Nor are these existential theories of authenticity incompatible with the virtue ethics that you posited here. I think this article deeply misunderstands what is meant by authenticity in a philosophical sense. I offer my essay on the topic as a counterpoint: https://otterlycorrect.substack.com/publish/post/149412125.
Glad to see someone else say this. It felt like the entire essay was arguing against what a word stands for without understanding the context in which people use it and the nuance that people load into its usage. It renders the whole argument moot. They even initially touch on how proponents of the value of authenticity wouldn't define Hitler's Holocaust as being authentic to his inner antisemitic self but then, with no further comments, jump to hypocrisy as an explanation. It's very easy to assemble an argument when you see it as a black-and-white dichotomy, so it feels like laziness.
Wikipedia level understanding of philosophy, I suspect. I actually go through the pain of reading pages of philosophy to make sure I get my takes as close to accurate as I can.
"Would Eddie Van Halen’s authentic self have remained dormant if he had been born in 3000 BCE? Would he have popularized an aggressive style of play on a rudimentary lyre?" Possibly as there were musical innovations before the modern age. although a Bronze Age Van Halen might simply have added more strings.
“… a cursory glance at children on a playground refutes the intrinsic nobility of human nature. Selfish and aggressive acts are not anomalies; they are commonplace.”
Sounds like the idea that all men are born naturally good, which is central to the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the 18th-century French philosopher. In his seminal work, “Emile, or On Education,” Rousseau argues that humans are inherently good.
In contrast, you and I are more like Thomas Hobbes, who believed that humans are naturally selfish and that society is necessary to restrain our baser instincts. One of Thomas Hobbes’ most famous quotes comes from his work “Leviathan” (1651), where he describes life in the state of nature (without government or societal repression):
”…and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
It was Hobbes’ belief that without a strong, central authority, human life would devolve into chaos and violence due to humanity’s inherently selfish and “competitive” nature.
In modern parlance, we might compare the above dispute to our present struggle between “Leftism” and “Conservatism”. What you present new to this age old argument is the modern concept (synonym) of “authenticity”, which as you point out is overrated given Hobbes’ insight.
Never thought quite this deeply on the issue. My Christian teachings that “man is fallen” has been enough for me in the past. Thanks for the additional insight.
The term "human being" is normally a noun, but it can also be phrase that describes what a human does. The being that humans do is complicated. Unlike other animals on the planet, our intelligence gives us the ability to somewhat choose our own thoughts, and thus to literally change our way of being. Philosophies such as stoicism try to instill in us a self awareness of this ability, but how?
I think our mode of being at any given time is weighed down by the numerous concerns that are slightly below the surface of our awareness. For instance, a person having financial issues will feel the constant stress of this issue whether they are are actively thinking about it nor not. Our mind tends to bother us about concerns/needs until they are resolved.
Religious beliefs and philosophies like stoicism can, in effect, cancel out our concerns with metaphysical knowledge. Certain types of beliefs, when we adopt them. allow us to somehow transcend ourselves, ordering our minds to a higher reality.
Good essay, but I think it’s worth clarifying that both “true self” and “authenticity” are being attacked in their very dumbed down forms. Knowledge of the “true self” in traditions like hermeticism, Hinduism, and Buddhism really referred to knowledge of the transcendent ultimate reality. The “true self” was not essential but pre-essential. Authenticity, from what I understand, comes from Heidegger and his successors. It does not mean being true to your nature, but being true to your beliefs out of an internal sense of them, rather than for some sort of external validation. Yes, our beliefs are influenced by those around us, but there is a difference between being exposed to a dish and taking a liking to it, and pretending to like a dish because it signals something to others. In this context, one’s internal flaws are not to be embraced, but the reason for acting virtuously must come from within.
This needed saying
This article is Blank Slatist nonsense. The very fact that biological Human Nature exist is proof that authenticity is an objective reality, even if the "self" is itself a psychological illusion. Social existence DOES NOT precede essence, nor is it separate from it.
People are most fulfilled psychologically when they are living in a manner that's most in line with their innate natural selves & proclivities regardless of the consequences and of any moral standards. That's why (for example) closet homosexuals are a lot more miserable & neurotic on average than open homosexuals are.
Like most other Blank Slatists and Westerners in general, you create a false dictomy between culture/civilization and nature. In reality, cultures & civilizations themselves are reflections & products of the nature of the peoples who created them, there's nothing "unnatural" about Human civilization because it is within human nature to create cultures in the first place (hunter gatherers and even wild animals have cultures too). In a sense, Humans don't "have" cultures, they ARE cultures.
There's no such thing as objective morality/values (zero scientific evidence for it), but moral sentiments & values are themselves are products of the people who invent them and reflect their self-interests.That's why there's literally hundreds of thousands of different morality and value systems throughout the world and history (there's no such thing universal morals/values) because they reflect the diversity of human nature.
To embrace the artificial willingly which is something only (Post) Modern White Western people would think is good advice, for embracing the artificial is to embrace relativism & falsehood and to devalue Truth. There's nothing virtuous about that at all. That advice is based on the Modern myth that Humans are infinitely malleable blank slates who therefore have no authentic nature.
The theme of being authentic to one's self exist in every major Shakespeare play (both comedies & tragedies). He wasn't mocking it, that's just you projecting your false views into Hamlet.
And I wouldn't take anything said by Freud seriously, for he was nothing more than a narcissistic charlatan and Psychoanalysis as a whole is complete pseudoscience.
> To embrace the artificial willingly which is something only (Post) Modern White Western people would think is good advice, for embracing the artificial is to embrace relativism & falsehood and to devalue Truth.
(Post) Modern White Western people are frankly the only ones who would reject objective morality, or embrace nonsense like "authenticity".
Objective morality is not a universally held notion throughout the world. There's plenty of cultures out there (especially before the Modern era) that didn't believe in objective morality and viewed Ethics as a tribal thing.
Even in Religion, there's been entire sects and many theologians/philosophers that didn't believe in objective morality & values and they can be found in every major world faith. For example, in the Abrahamic religions in general it takes the form of the Divine Command Theory of Ethics (and with Christianity in particular it takes the form of the idea that Salvation is only through the Grace of Christ and nothing else), in the Indian religions it takes the form of the idea that Good & Evil are illusions born of ignorance & suffering and that spiritual Enlightenment entails breaking that illusion, in most Ethnic/Pagan religions (as well as Judaism) it takes form of the view that ethics only concerns the interests of the tribe/ethnic group in question, etc.
> There's plenty of cultures out there (especially before the Modern era) that didn't believe in objective morality and viewed Ethics as a tribal thing.
That's a modern anthropologist's back-projection. Those cultures viewed "their tribe's ethics" as objectively correct and weren't too concerned about how other tribes thought. An admittedly primitive philosophy, but rather different from post-modernism.
> For example, in the Abrahamic religions in general it takes the form of the Divine Command Theory of Ethics
That would be an example of objective morality.
> in the Indian religions it takes the form of the idea that Good & Evil are illusions born of ignorance & suffering and that spiritual Enlightenment entails breaking that illusion,
No, in Indian religion the Good is to seek out Enlightenment to free oneself from ignorance. Also various versions of the law of karma that in hurting others, one ultimately hurts oneself.
"Objective Morality" is an oxymoron. It is complete nonsense: https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2024/08/the-case-against-moral-realism.html.
Wow, talk about "appeal to stupidity".
"Good and evil aren't real because I'm too dumb to think of a way they could work."
You are appealing to stupidity by failing to give rational arguments to support your position.
Since you are unable to understand it for yourself, the point is that "good" and "evil" can only be defined from a subjective perspective. Defining "good" and "evil" from any perspective does not make it objective. If you disagree, then the burden of proof is on you to prove why "good" and "evil" apply to everybody.
If you cannot coherently define "good" and "evil", then your claims have no ground to stand on. So go ahead and define them, or concede.
I'm glad that the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis was brought up in this post. I think that most people have a poor understanding of linguistic relativity, how it works, and how important it is.
I've written my thoughts on Sapir-Whorf here, from a linguist's perspective: https://zerocontradictions.net/language/sapir-whorf-theory
"Social existence precedes essence". Sounds like a blank slate view. Certainly no proof of that, and its negation is NOT inconsistent with the view that humans are social beings or that society or culture influences our character and personality. I think it is more akin to essence manifests through society in different ways.
As far as Hitler and Dahmer being authentic, it's of course undeniably the case, but there are many more others in this world whose natures are less harmful. Roussean and Hobbes are both correct.
I just wrote on this Sept 25! Over 40 years ago someone told Bill Cosby that "cocaine is great because it intensifies your personality," to which he replied "But what if you're an a**hole?"
We toggle among approximately equivalent selves, which are modified by situation and audience, as they should be. A person of "integrity" is integrated among his parts, not identical.
Sorry to skip the link: https://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2024/09/the-true-self.html
I agree with this. I'm a bit wary of the adjacency to blank slate stuff but you're obviously not arguing that. I do think particularly it's values we hold, which are objects we aspire to, which explain our actions.
All this 'true authentic self ' nonsense began with Rousseau and the Noble Savage fallacy.
Bo always writes about things I'm interested in but have never managed to think through. A nice essay.
Strangely is the second essay on this general topic I have read this week. In some other Substack someone wrote about Wyndham Lewis's criticism of D.H. Lawrence's praise of the simple soul of Mexican Indians. Is there something in the air or just a coincidence?
Authenticity in the Heideggerian sense doesn't imply 'being yourself', it's a deep exploration of your being-in-time and who you want to become. Sartre said similar, so I am surprised you referenced him and still missed the point. Nor are these existential theories of authenticity incompatible with the virtue ethics that you posited here. I think this article deeply misunderstands what is meant by authenticity in a philosophical sense. I offer my essay on the topic as a counterpoint: https://otterlycorrect.substack.com/publish/post/149412125.
Glad to see someone else say this. It felt like the entire essay was arguing against what a word stands for without understanding the context in which people use it and the nuance that people load into its usage. It renders the whole argument moot. They even initially touch on how proponents of the value of authenticity wouldn't define Hitler's Holocaust as being authentic to his inner antisemitic self but then, with no further comments, jump to hypocrisy as an explanation. It's very easy to assemble an argument when you see it as a black-and-white dichotomy, so it feels like laziness.
Most people who talk about "authenticity" use it in the way the article describes.
Tbf I don't find it fundamentally different from how it's used.
Wikipedia level understanding of philosophy, I suspect. I actually go through the pain of reading pages of philosophy to make sure I get my takes as close to accurate as I can.
"Would Eddie Van Halen’s authentic self have remained dormant if he had been born in 3000 BCE? Would he have popularized an aggressive style of play on a rudimentary lyre?" Possibly as there were musical innovations before the modern age. although a Bronze Age Van Halen might simply have added more strings.
“… a cursory glance at children on a playground refutes the intrinsic nobility of human nature. Selfish and aggressive acts are not anomalies; they are commonplace.”
Sounds like the idea that all men are born naturally good, which is central to the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the 18th-century French philosopher. In his seminal work, “Emile, or On Education,” Rousseau argues that humans are inherently good.
In contrast, you and I are more like Thomas Hobbes, who believed that humans are naturally selfish and that society is necessary to restrain our baser instincts. One of Thomas Hobbes’ most famous quotes comes from his work “Leviathan” (1651), where he describes life in the state of nature (without government or societal repression):
”…and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
It was Hobbes’ belief that without a strong, central authority, human life would devolve into chaos and violence due to humanity’s inherently selfish and “competitive” nature.
In modern parlance, we might compare the above dispute to our present struggle between “Leftism” and “Conservatism”. What you present new to this age old argument is the modern concept (synonym) of “authenticity”, which as you point out is overrated given Hobbes’ insight.
Never thought quite this deeply on the issue. My Christian teachings that “man is fallen” has been enough for me in the past. Thanks for the additional insight.
The term "human being" is normally a noun, but it can also be phrase that describes what a human does. The being that humans do is complicated. Unlike other animals on the planet, our intelligence gives us the ability to somewhat choose our own thoughts, and thus to literally change our way of being. Philosophies such as stoicism try to instill in us a self awareness of this ability, but how?
I think our mode of being at any given time is weighed down by the numerous concerns that are slightly below the surface of our awareness. For instance, a person having financial issues will feel the constant stress of this issue whether they are are actively thinking about it nor not. Our mind tends to bother us about concerns/needs until they are resolved.
Religious beliefs and philosophies like stoicism can, in effect, cancel out our concerns with metaphysical knowledge. Certain types of beliefs, when we adopt them. allow us to somehow transcend ourselves, ordering our minds to a higher reality.