Authenticity/Individuality - VOTE FOR GOD'S SAKE, VOTE !!!

[Tab]

What's soccer..?

Ohhhh - you mean football.

[objet petit a]

*sigh*
You native English speakers sure mess things up with synonyms! What are we , not native English speakers to do?

[tentative]

*sigh*
You native English speakers sure mess things up with synonyms! What are we , not native English speakers to do?

Thankfully, there is no synonym for cricket. the native english speakers can keep that one all to themselves...

[Tab]

Yeah, to be honest, I don't get cricket at all. I went to a few matches, mainly when I lived in Nottingham, near Trent Bridge, and the only way to sit through an entire match was to literally get so drunk you couldn't physically move from your seat.

To play though, is terrifying. At school basically it's target practice. "Hey Martin, in this game you're allowed to throw that heavy ball as hard as you fucking like at that trembling puke just over there. What..? Stumps..? Fuck the stumps, break his fucking arm."

Ah, fond memories.

[Tab]

Bifurbicated
umbillicals
mortify
policemen

[Tab]

Bipedal
uroboros
masturbate
perniciously.

[Tab]

Bimorphic
umbrellas
mediate
perspicaciousness

[Ingenium]

I'm going to give Fuse the win, (with Tab getting a participation trophy because he set up the debate well in his initial post), because I think he took the quality ingredients provided by the other two and turned them into a very palatable dish, ending up with the approach that I found the most prescriptive, for lack of a better word. He seems to have a better appreciation of authenticity as coming from how one develops within, not particularly dependent upon whatever the 'perceptual or cultural factors' of the day may be. Or that authenticity is based on outcome rather than process, the former of which seemed to be more Tab's approach. Tab also asserts that it's impossible to 'know thyself', I think because he believes this can't happen because we can't be neutral, can't separate ourselves from 'outside influence'. But I don't see that authenticity is about 'know thyself' as much as it's about 'know enough about how one exists in one's world, just as it is.'

This knowing is always process. Fuse claims, "Authenticity ['born of action'] is rooted in choice" and that it's about "the process by which they arrived at that end" and, most importantly, that "there is no reason why it must be easy". With actions rooted in choice, an individual maintains an ongoing state of willingness to assume whatever freedom they need to act according to what they believe is of their best, most well-realized, character. Fuse calls this the individual's "own ideology--to be aware of how they see the world and go through a process of molding a new view." Reading this reminded me of Heidegger's concept of a pulling back from the world, since that being in the world produces angst. That's the ongoing process and denotes a distinctly individual state of mind. Therefore I don't see how an individual considered 'authentic' according to any outward societal standard per se would give a rat's behind about it. Other than perceiving it realistically as a cultural pressure of the world in which that individual dwells, perhaps. IMO, the individual instead has to consider their authenticity as something developmental in nature, measuring its achievement according to how they act in terms of being capable of discerning the truth of their existence in the world (Heidegger's "Dasein"), which is essential to acting according to their highest, most noble nature (and this presupposes a diligent effort at education and fearless self reflection). This can and should encompass a weighing of the costs. Meaning there's a cost element here to assuming freedom of varying degrees, although I believe it's mutable without being compromised in terms of 'authenticity'. And, finally, I don't believe it's either reasonable or necessarily noble to determine 'fatality' as a value in the authenticity equation, as Tab suggested. Although I can envision circumstances where the ultimate sacrifice could be a possibility, but I don't think that's what he meant.

Anyway, I agree that this was a murky one, so you're all to be commended for tackling it and providing some good food for thought.

[Tab]

Another day, another vote, this time from the delectable debatophile herself, ingenium.

Thanks for your vote, and commentary. Well considered, and thought-provoking in it's own right.

This puts the tally at:

Tab: 3
Fuse and D: 2

It's coming down to the wire. If I was a horse I'd be stretching my nose out right about now.

[uglypeoplefucking]

the problem with this debate is that it took place in the "challenges" section - why is that?

[Tab]

Eh, that would be me being a bit thick.

[Tab]

Bosnian
ubiquity
machiavellian
privation

[Tab]

Yeah, well hmm. Apparently Debaitor's actually RealUnoriginal.

I learnt that little factette after I'd accepted the debate. Went ahead anyway, hoping RU had somehow calmed down in the interim between now and his last incarnation.

But judging by recent behaviour, he hasn't.

Fuse, you got lumbered with a retard as a wingman, so in all fairness, I'm throwing the debate.

I'm sure we'll have another stab at it one day.

Thanks for playing.

[Debaitor]

I'm not "RU" or whoever. This person must be really intimidating for you to want to back out?

Besides, that is poor sportsmen to back out of the debate. You're even ahead in voting. You'll probably win so I don't see the big deal here.

[Tab]

No, just unstable, and not that bright. Dead wood. Anyway, frankly, given your last couple of day's posting, you aren't much better D. Which is disappointing.

[Ingenium]

Well, I didn't know "Debaitor" was that tantrum-prone RU, only that his postings were clearly inferior. (You'll notice I mentioned only two out of the three of you in my commentary.) Another name to add to the 'ignore' list. Thanks for outing him, saves me time.

[Kygron]

I'm breaking the rules voting again, but I've got stuff to say, so I hope you enjoy

Tab, I'm pleased to see your performance benefit from commentary on the the last debate. Unfortunately, my impression was similar, though not to the same degree, as that debate: Tab was eloquent and entertaining, while his opponents, though unclear, presented a more complete picture.

Even more unfortunately for Tab, I'm giving a clear vote this time, and it's not to him. As a previous voter stated, both arguments tended to trap the definition of "authentic" into their own meanings. I am therefore trapped myself in voting on the utility of the definition rather than the persuasiveness of the arguments. Tab's insistence on great amounts of individuality in order to qualify as "authentic" while declaring that amount an impossibility reduces the word to meaninglessness. If this was your purpose Tab, I salute the achievement, but I prefer my words to be meaningful tools.

The end of this thread is a bit odd. I'll assume there were posts deleted that were in bad taste. The remaining posts, in my opinion, are still in bad taste. The debate was 2 vs 1, and the handicap seemed to fit, as Fuse was able to make up for his partner's shortcomings while still making use of some of his material. Let's enjoy what we did get, it was a well thought out debate, with some great moments, and some areas pointed out for future improvement. If Tab really wants to give up(???), all he has to do now is count my vote

Great job all, it looks like a lot of work. The length of this comment is about all i have the patience to do in short notice.

[Tab]

Thanks Kyrgon. Why the hell don't you post more often..?

The end of this thread is a bit odd. I'll assume there were posts deleted that were in bad taste. The remaining posts, in my opinion, are still in bad taste.

Eh, this being the intarwebz, this happens. People get banned, come back under a pseudonym, and start the whole cycle again. Pity D was still under the radar when we started the debate, then Fuse would have won in finer style.

Okay so final results are:

3-3 draw (counting all votes either countable or uncountable)

or

Tab concedes win to Fuse.

or

3-2 win to Tab (on technicality).

Take your pick. Fun anyway.

Tab's insistence on great amounts of individuality in order to qualify as "authentic" while declaring that amount an impossibility reduces the word to meaninglessness. If this was your purpose Tab, I salute the achievement

This is my opinion, and was my end in the debate. Authenticity is something that is all but meaningless in practice. It's also tied up with free will, the lack of it slamming the last nail in its coffin.

[Kygron]

Thanks Kyrgon. Why the hell don't you post more often..?

Because reading this stuff gives me a headache, which I hope will dissipate by the time I go to work this afternoon.

It also makes me think, which is why I keep trying to come back and read anyway. In this case I was thinking about your point of view, Tab, and I believe it's idealistic and pessimistic. Idealistic because even though you left some room in your arguments for a little bit of authenticity, your final decision is all-or-nothing. Pessimistic because I could (but not nearly with your eloquence) make slight adjustments to your arguments to make the whole thing come out as if everyone's authentic all the time. It would be something like: Authenticity is the expression of the inner self, regardless of how that inner self was created. When the first bee responds to the temperature drop, that is an honest expression of its inner desires, it's authentic. Even conformity is the expression of desire to join in the group's activities, a desire of the inner self, even if it was put there by evolution. Every action becomes an expression of inner self! This is idealistic and optimistic.

As I said earlier, I prefer more meaning, more realistic definitions. For realism we must walk the fine line between the pessimistic and optimistic ideologies. We must ask to what degree a specific action follows the optimistic version versus the pessimistic version. It's a more difficult job and certainly the effects are more subtle. Perceived conformity may be the expression of fear of solitude in one case, or need to try everything out in another. I would suggest rate of expression as a measurable version of the definition. The choice to conform to one group over another is an individual choice, but the time necessary to achieve that goal precludes further expression of the same type for a while. Once the individual has conformed, they may express individuality within the confines of the chosen group, which I would count as minor choices and a lesser rate of expression. You'd still have to be careful of people who just want to try everything, which is one major choice, and not count all the minor ones involved in switching experiences. Perhaps extra points for depth of goal fulfillment? Since we're just measuring decisions, free will has no meaning here, it only applies to the ideal version of the definition.

This concludes my expression of all the thoughts in my head preventing me from falling asleep on time last night. As you can see I have trouble with idealistic thinking, so it's tough to see someone like Tab doing such a great job defending it, when I know from the first paragraph that he'll never convince me!

[fuse]

Because reading this stuff gives me a headache, which I hope will dissipate by the time I go to work this afternoon.

Thanks for the comments, Kygron. I mean it. I do have a question - for both you and tentative - what is the trouble in sticking to how authenticity is used, i.e. it's dictionary definition? Tab and I both agreed on the general definition he supplied. I don't see how it would have been helpful or persuasive to argue for an authenticity of unique definition. Might as well not call it authenticity, at that point.

[Kygron]

But you didn't agree on definition.

You said it yourself in your second post:

But here you seem to be using "authenticity" differently. You're basically saying either a Van-Gogh work is really a Van- Gogh work or it is not. I agree. Yet this is not the sense in which we have been discussing authenticity and it is not the sense in which authenticity applies to human beings.

Tab was using the "not a copy" definition, while you were using the "despite these pressures" definition. If I were a cynic would say that each of you simply reworded your own definition over and over hoping that the other would get it.

The problem with words is that people often have their own definition, whether they realize it or not. Even if you agree to use a dictionary, you may not agree on the definition of the words in the text you're looking at. I really need to read more debates to see how people solve this problem. If they truly agree on a definition what are they arguing about? If they disagree, how do they make progress other than trying to get the other to accept their own definition? Perhaps the debate should switch to a collaboration on deciding what situations to apply these different definitions?

For example, authenticity, as applied to humans, might be best used as a self development tool, while using it as a criticism of another person might be poor use, because it suggests the existence of internal states that cannot be observed by any but their owner. It's a psychologist's word, not a scientist's word.

[fuse]

Kygron,

I appreciate your feedback.

I was speaking to what you said about trapping the definition - I do not understand what this means. In my view, what happened in Tab's second post was he constructed an analogy between an authentic work of art and an authentic human being to show that since degrees of authenticity are absurd in a Van Gogh work that they are also absurd in human beings; but the question was about "the possibility of living an authentic life" (authenticity as it relates to humans), not about authenticity as it relates to art and I explained later in detail why his analogy was faulty. So we were operating on the same, or near same, definitions, but Tab changed the scope of the debate when he introduced authenticity in art.

I would not say I simply reworded my own pet def. over and over. What I did, however, was emphasize, perhaps extend, in good faith, certain parts of the definitions of authenticity, as Tab supplied, because the definition does not itself win the debate. The definition(s), at least in this case, did not suffice for all the nuance and minute distinction that arises when people actually talk about being authentic. For this reason, I emphasized and extended what I thought was sensible to highlight. And as I look back through the debate, I don't see that Tab and I had any major disagreements over definition.

[Kygron]

I would not say I simply reworded my own pet def. over and over. What I did, however, was emphasize, perhaps extend, in good faith, certain parts of the definitions of authenticity, as Tab supplied, because the definition does not itself win the debate. The definition(s), at least in this case, did not suffice for all the nuance and minute distinction that arises when people actually talk about being authentic. For this reason, I emphasized and extended what I thought was sensible to highlight.

Let me start by apologizing for my "if I were a cynic" remark. It was meant as an oversimplification and I should have followed up by saying that I thought you both did better than that. I do think you achieved what you describe here, which is why you received my vote.

I was speaking to what you said about trapping the definition - I do not understand what this means. In my view, what happened in Tab's second post was he constructed an analogy between an authentic work of art and an authentic human being to show that since degrees of authenticity are absurd in a Van Gogh work that they are also absurd in human beings; but the question was about "the possibility of living an authentic life" (authenticity as it relates to humans), not about authenticity as it relates to art and I explained later in detail why his analogy was faulty. So we were operating on the same, or near same, definitions, but Tab changed the scope of the debate when he introduced authenticity in art.

Originally I didn't see this so clearly, so I relied of tentative's post and made reference to him. Looking back, he used the phrase "locking up" and it was applied to Tab and Debaitors arguments.

I think Debaitor was going for what I described earlier as Idealistic and optimistic. He was trying to use a version of the definition of existence to force his argument. Something like: because it exists, it must be what it is, since it is what it is, it must be true to what it is. He ignores the question of if it's a copy, emphasizing the "true to yourself" bit. Do you see that there is no room for argument here? If you except his definitions, you must reach his conclusion.

Tab did similar, emphasizing the opposite parts of the definition of authenticity. He made use of the definition of evolution, both biological and cultural, saying that all things evolve as copies. If everything is a copy, nothing can be original or authentic, and again, we have winner by definition.

You tried to keep the definition in its complete, realistic form, applied to humans. Sometimes people do the things they enjoy, and sometimes they surrender themselves to the crowd. If the original purpose for the debate was: Is authenticity possible, than I suppose you won by definition as well, since the word exists. I see the debate now as more of your defense of the concept. You were able to show that your definition still had value, because Tab was being too narrow-minded. Tab still received many votes, so you might want to work on your presentation!

[fuse]

Kygron,

I understand you better now. Something I notice about my writing is I am often very brief - and here also I was probably too brief in presenting my ideas. I could definitely drive home my arguments better. Well thanks a lot, I'm glad you dropped by.



fuse

[Tab]

Thanks K, for some of the best commentary the debate-forum's seen in a while. You're a scholar and a gent.

because Tab was being too narrow-minded.

Soooooooooooooooo I'm a bit of an absolutist, whaddamagonnadoaboutit.

Seriously though, there's a method to my madness. I imagine the average punter as believing X. My intention is to move that belief to a new location - let's call it X+5 - in the direction of my beliefs.

However, I think, if I pitch my argument at +5 and +5 only, the punter eventually will be motivated to move only a couple of notches toward it - to +3 or something at best. So, instead I take an exaggerated stance, usually an absolutist one, pulling out all the stops, and hope to pull Mr. or Ms. Punter along in my wake as I hurtle off into the hinterlands of believebility, to that desired +5, before they shake their heads and call me crazy. Bright lines have an appeal all of their own.

Mysterious ways, mysterious ways.

And I hate to say it Fuse, but you are a little terse. But still, if you wanna debate something again, I'd be more than happy.