Alright boffins, you're going to have to redpill me on Heidegger because I am at a complete loss. I'm trying to unpack his concept of Authenticity, and from what I can tell it's a kind of cultural logic similar to Sincerity. Each is asking us something like "what constitutes an honest expression of selfhood?" While Sincerity stresses continuity between our inner-life and outer-conduct, a knowing assent and avowal of the various roles which constitute our public and private life, Authenticity (at least to my understanding) refers to "meaning" as it precedes us - the idea that we are "thrown" and inherit various symbolic structures without properly understanding them leads us to sleepwalk through our lives, something Heidegger refers to as living amidst the "they" or "das Man"... I think... This condition would be "inauthentic". The solution Heidegger seems to propose is an ongoing awareness of what constitutes our being - we should be aware of and take responsibility for our lives, as beings always becoming we should live in such a way that we properly satisfy the conditions required for us to live "honestly" (or "Authentically")... Which isn't to say we should simply do as we desire - there are plenty of things we avow but do not desire, and desire but do not avow, but now I'm waffling...Is this more or less correct? Later thinkers obviously stress the more social/structural dimensions of the implications of Heidegger's thought, but I'm honestly lost. It seems like he's trying to have his cake and eat it too: he wants to make descriptive claims about what meaning IS which dissolve any efforts to locate it in the world... Dasein for example, that's not strictly referring to systems of any kind, but simply "being there"... And what the fuck does that even mean??? It verges on the metaphysical to me, as something prior to meaning itself, but at the same time Heidegger would have rejected that kind of metaphysical notion from what I've read... My brain is fucking cooked. Help me anons.
>>25224138Lemme tell you my man. To be authentic is like, you know, being yourself, why should you care about what others think amirite? So straight up just do your thang kno I'm sayin
>>25224147You joke but this seems to be the conclusion Heidegger's pointing towards, but as soon as you try to commit to it he throws up bullshit and goes "NUH UH!!! MEANING JUST IS!!! IT'S NOT REDUCIBLE TO ANY ONE LOGIC OR SYMBOLIC STRUCTURE BUT ALSO IT'S NOT PRIOR TO ANY OF THEM EITHER BECAUSE THAT'S METAPHYSICAL AND THAT'S GAY NERD SHIT".
>>25224159In Micael Sugrue's lecture, he explains that Heidegger's philosophy is basically Christianity scrubbed of anything that would make a Nietzschian call him stupid; Sugrue seems to think that Heidegger's "meaning" is pretty close to the Christian God. His dad was a church sexton and he went to seminary for some amount of time, so it makes sense why we might find some Christian flavorings in there. I haven't read Being and Time, though, so he could be full of shit.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaobMHescwg
Read the cambridge heidegger lexicon anon
>>25224159I‘m like 8 pages into Sein und Zeit and it seems like conceptualizing a moment within the process of change plays a large part. Trying to scrub Platonism for the pre-Socratics and all.
>>25224138Authenticity is from Eigentlichkeit, which ordinarily has the sense we think of when we say something's authentic, but Heidegger's use is focused more on its etymology from eigen, meaning what is proper to someone or something, what is one's "own", so Eigentlichkeit has the sense "ownmostness," and that is itself tied up with Heidegger's early 20s study of the Greek word "ousia," which, beyond its use as "substance" or "being," meant also "property or wealth that is one's own." This kind of difficulty isn't unusual in Heidegger, unfortunately. Being & Time was written in a rushed "publish or perish" situation, so terms he developed clearly in his lecture courses got brief glosses at best in the book. The same difficulty can be seen in how "Schicksal" is treated, since it ordinarily means "fate", but Heidegger is similarly playing on its root from the adjective "schicklich," which means "what's fitting or proper," not "destined" or fatalistically pre-determined as one might expect of the word "fate."Now, as I understand it, the behaviors of the authentic man and inauthentic man might look the same, and the difference is primarily that the latter does what he does because "well, that's just what everyone does," while the former chooses and commits themselves to it out of an awareness of their possibilities. Obviously, the authentic man need not do the same things as the inauthentic, but I just want to emphasize that Heidegger's not really setting out concrete behaviors to avoid or commit to. The real bearing of authenticity, as far as I can tell (and I'm uncertain of this myself), is to set out something like what attitude or understanding might be required in order to see other already operative open possibilities (consider this with his essay on technology: someone who looks at a field as a location for mining ore because that's how a community views fields vs seeing a field and viewing it the way a peasant or a poet might). It's at least partly tied up with his Destruktion (not "destruction" but "destructuring") of the tradition in his interpretations.>>25224412There's absolutely a strong degree of influence of Christianity in his work (largely via both Augustine and Kierkegaard), but I think it would be wrong to say "Heidegger's "meaning" is pretty close to the Christian God"; part of the reason he scrapped the rest of Being & Time was because he realized what he was writing up for the third division was going to result in positing something like God, which he already disputed as any kind of proper answer to his question. Though, admittedly (by his own admission), the difficulties in expressing his subject matter tend to easily nudge in that direction.
>>25224138Meme answer: see pic related. Seriously you can make it a meme and just say it's the degree you take ownership of whatever you happen to be doing or thinking. You can even chart your authenticity as a meme and find the points at which your claims start to remove you from whatever societal norms there are.Serious answer: Heidegger basically said you not only have to self-reflect you also have to self-examine. It's a continuous process until you die and contemplating death is part of the process. There is no red pill.
>>25224497so many words>written in a rushed "publish or perish" situation,lakh wumao>set out something like what attitude or understanding might be required in order to see other already operative open possibilitiesseeing circumstancial possibillities is the intellectual excercise of prudence known to thomas as circumspection https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3049.htm#article7
>>25224632>seeing circumstancial possibillities is the intellectual excercise of prudence known to thomas as circumspectionWell, but as per Thomas via your link,>I answer that, Prudence regards contingent matters of actionWhich isn't what Heidegger necessarily has in mind; a concrete action might be a possibility chosen, but it might instead be a frame by which one understands one's life that is chosen, a frame different from one's everyday habitual frame. To use Heidegger himself as an example, his insistence on not taking the frame of modernity for granted by which to understand things, but rather to seek to retrieve the Greek, and eventually more specifically Pre-Socratic, frame of reference as a possibility for himself to choose. Whether he does so actually, or only a tendentious interpretation of it is a question, but that would be an example of what he's more or less after with authenticity.
>>25224412Bible says the fool saith in his heart there is no God. but everyone puts so much energy into refuting foolishness on the theory that the thought of foolishness is sin when God pointed out in particular that saying there is no God is foolishness. Christians are called to spread the Gospel, not to rebuke sinners, as if they needed a rebuke beyond being smitten with other men> Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, 11Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. 12But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD. 13And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? 14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.this isnt a Messianic prophesy because Jesus was always without sin
>>25224660>it might instead be a frame by which one understands one's life that is chosen, a frame different from one's everyday habitual framewhich bleeds beyond circumspection into docility, but this intellectual habit is still an exercise of prudence
>>25224668Maybe in the looser sense in which Heidegger makes evident use of his phenomenological study of phronesis in Aristotle, but not in Thomas' sense of pertaining exclusively to contingent action. Heidegger's discussion of authenticity is motivated by his question, "how do come to see beings as meaningful in the manifold senses we do?", and throwness, everydayness, and the they address how we find ourselves comporting by habit, but he also wants to know how what's going on when we break free of our customary and habitual way of seeing beings as meaningful into some other position, which includes the kinds of breaks from tradition that philosophers can be sometimes seen as responsible for. Now, thinking can certainly be treated as a kind of action insofar as it's an activity, but I think trying to fit what he's talking about too exclusively with Thomas' prudence is more likely to convey a skewed impression.
>>25224761thats neat. so the only ways an idea can enter a mind are through praxis and habit or through Divine revelation
>>25224761sadly, most Christians claim to believe that baptism upgrades their being to view things more authentically, though they dont actually believe that. calvinists claim that theyre upgraded to the point theyre incapable of doing wrong
