Authenticity

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Authenticity

Post by Pattern-chaser »

So social compulsion is why we act inauthentically? That makes sense to me. Or rather, it doesn't. But it does seem to explain what is otherwise baffling.

There's an old (Yorkshire?) saying: there's nowt so queer as folk.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
AmericanKestrel
Posts: 356
Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
Location: US

Re: Authenticity

Post by AmericanKestrel »

chewybrian wrote: July 8th, 2021, 11:06 am One more... Sarte uses the example of a waiter and a customer. People often treat others almost as objects rather than subjects. They might take up the roles in which they find themselves, acting differently toward each other in that situation than they might if they met under different circumstances. By becoming the waiter and the customer rather than Joe and Eileen, they both lose a bit of themselves. They are not really acting as their true selves during this interaction. If the customer is rude, for example, the waiter might pretend they are not rude because he wants a tip, or not to be fired.
What would it look like if Joe and Eileen were acting with authenticity? Why would Joe being courteous and Eileen being kind not be authentic? Are there times when we are more authentic than not?
"The Serpent did not lie."
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Authenticity

Post by Sculptor1 »

chewybrian wrote: July 8th, 2021, 11:06 am One more... Sarte uses the example of a waiter and a customer. People often treat others almost as objects rather than subjects. They might take up the roles in which they find themselves, acting differently toward each other in that situation than they might if they met under different circumstances. By becoming the waiter and the customer rather than Joe and Eileen, they both lose a bit of themselves. They are not really acting as their true selves during this interaction. If the customer is rude, for example, the waiter might pretend they are not rude because he wants a tip, or not to be fired.
Of course the big trouble with Satre is that he is acting in bad faith. He always used to act like he was a philosopher. Even some of his book titles were imitations of Heidegger's book titles in the lie around him. But Satre was not quite Heidegger. Sartre was always a bit too thinky, a bit too aloof, a bit too much of an observer, never really engaging. He neer really made the grade as an existentialist - well not like Camus anyway. If Satre wanted to be a real and authentic romantic philosopher he should ahve contrived to be found dead in mysterious circumstances with rumours of him working as a spy. But Sartre was just acting.

I find the image of the waiter fully authentic. He made the choice to act in a waiterly way, with a tea towel drapped over his arm, carrying the plates with a flourish, swinging in and out of the kitchen. Just like Gaston the waiter who brings the bucket to Mr Creosote - he is fully aware of his play acting. He's not stupid. Satre misses the subtlety. He is too high minded and seem himslef as superior to the waiter and assumes that the waiter has no volition of his own. And sadly Sartre give no account of what a waiter is supposed to act.
The waiter is authentically play acting. Sartre is the myopic one here.
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Authenticity

Post by chewybrian »

Sculptor1 wrote: July 8th, 2021, 4:41 pm
chewybrian wrote: July 8th, 2021, 11:06 am One more... Sarte uses the example of a waiter and a customer. People often treat others almost as objects rather than subjects. They might take up the roles in which they find themselves, acting differently toward each other in that situation than they might if they met under different circumstances. By becoming the waiter and the customer rather than Joe and Eileen, they both lose a bit of themselves. They are not really acting as their true selves during this interaction. If the customer is rude, for example, the waiter might pretend they are not rude because he wants a tip, or not to be fired.
Of course the big trouble with Satre is that he is acting in bad faith. He always used to act like he was a philosopher. Even some of his book titles were imitations of Heidegger's book titles in the lie around him. But Satre was not quite Heidegger. Sartre was always a bit too thinky, a bit too aloof, a bit too much of an observer, never really engaging. He neer really made the grade as an existentialist - well not like Camus anyway. If Satre wanted to be a real and authentic romantic philosopher he should ahve contrived to be found dead in mysterious circumstances with rumours of him working as a spy. But Sartre was just acting.

I find the image of the waiter fully authentic. He made the choice to act in a waiterly way, with a tea towel drapped over his arm, carrying the plates with a flourish, swinging in and out of the kitchen. Just like Gaston the waiter who brings the bucket to Mr Creosote - he is fully aware of his play acting. He's not stupid. Satre misses the subtlety. He is too high minded and seem himslef as superior to the waiter and assumes that the waiter has no volition of his own. And sadly Sartre give no account of what a waiter is supposed to act.
The waiter is authentically play acting. Sartre is the myopic one here.
"I'll have the lot."

I don't see Sartre as looking down on the waiter. He is only giving an example of the way roles being assigned or chosen affects behavior. Look at something like the Milgram experiment. Subjects thought they were giving shocks and carried on because they were put into the role of "teacher" and following the rules of the experiment, even when they really did not want to give the shocks. Yet, in other versions, when actors were playing teachers and quit giving the shocks, the subjects were much more likely to also quit very early. This shows that people will act against their nature simply by accepting roles they are assigned, and how peer pressure can work for good or evil.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Authenticity

Post by LuckyR »

chewybrian wrote: July 8th, 2021, 7:12 am
LuckyR wrote: July 8th, 2021, 2:23 am I like how you are starting this idea. I would add that authenticity is consistency in the following three steps (that I think you were alluding to). Your interpretation of what you observe, your worldview or philosophy or moral standard based on those interpretations and your behavior, given that moral standard.
I think what you said makes sense in that it would be a process of steps. You observe the state of the world, make assessments about what is happening and what it implies, and what would be the proper course of action. Then you reflect on your actions to see if you did the right thing, and maybe tweak or change your assessment for next time.

But, I think the idea of a worldview or standard can become a problem, if you etch it in stone. People are apt to do this. It seems like our brain is wired to put as much as possible on the back burner, through heuristics or some other process, so that we can focus on staying alive or completing important goals. If we are not careful, we take things as 'givens' based on past experiences and the result is that we may not be authentic in the present. It's fine to have some general principles to guide you, but you just don't want to let them become commandments.
I completely agree. The "assessment" needs to include "reassessment".
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Authenticity

Post by chewybrian »

Sculptor1 wrote: July 8th, 2021, 9:59 am ALL instances of doing the right thing are always about the approval of others.[/color]
I don't agree at all. This is the worst and least productive reason for doing the right thing. It doesn't make you a better person or a happy person. You should do the right thing for yourself, for self respect. You should do it because it helps you to become calm and content with yourself.
I do not regard Keirkergaard as in any sense authentic, since inspite of himself he made himself the dupe of a god he could not have known, and was willing to create his own false reality that he knew a god that he could not. He was just replacing one set of fallacies for another.
The point is that his version of Christianity was a genuine one, driven by what Christ actually said and did, not by rules laid down by others who obviously did not have the following of Christ's teaching at the top of their to-do list.
There is plenty in the bible to justify that.
Not in the New Testament. Not from Jesus.
SO is duty at all times completely inauthentic? Or is it just duties that you pesonally do not like?
No, but you should not do your duty without examination. You have a duty to wait your turn in line, not to drive drunk, or to care for your children. But, when someone tells you that your duty is to go burn down a village and slaughter women and children, don't you think you should examine the facts and determine that it is your duty to say no?
If you deny your desire then you are rejecting autneticity. SInce your passions are what make you the person you are.
Well, you should not deny that you have the desires. As Jung advises, you should always investigate the shadow and acknowledge that you have desires that don't match up with the type of person you want to be. But, that doesn't mean you should follow through with those dark desires, or that doing so would be authentic. The authentic life is an examined life.

I have a passion for cycling. I enjoy it and it is reasonably good for me and doesn't negatively impact the rest of the world in any appreciable way. It is authentic when I pursue this passion. But, if I have a desire to snort cocaine or rob a liquor store, I don't have to follow through on these desires in order to be authentic. Rather, I should examine my motives and decide that these actions do not help to create a world in which I hope to live. If everyone went around doing that, my life would be worse. Therefore, I should not set this example to the world of the way a man should be. These acts would not be authentic in the sense of the word I am using here. They might be consistent with my raw urges, but not considered actions intended to make myself what I really want to be.
DOn't recognise the analogy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark
If you follow Kant you cannot be authentic. Following is not authenticity. Existentialist would not follow Kant.
I can follow the advice of anyone who gives me good advice, and this does not mean that my behavior is not authentic. I follow the advice of Epictetus not because it is my religion or because I want the approval of other would-be stoics. I follow it because it seems sound and useful to me, and because I have been happier since adopting some of the principles I found in his works.

Authenticity is not simply following your desire. It is examining your motives and aligning them with building the world you would like to see. You can't take an authentic act unless you would like to see others do the same thing under the same terms. This is what Sartre said:

"And when we say that man takes responsibility for himself, we say more than that - he is in his
choices responsible for all men. All our acts of creating ourselves create at the same time an
image of man such as we believe he must be. Thus, our personal responsibility is vast, because
it engages all humanity.
...
Each man must say to himself: am I right to set the standard for all humanity? To deny that is to
mask the anguish. When, for example, a military leader sends men to their deaths, he may have
his orders, but at the bottom it is he alone who chooses."
I doubt you have come anywhere near athenticity since you cannot extricate yourself from the emblandishements of your peri-christian assumptions. You are far from free in my view. You seem nervous about your humanity, but also nervous about following the "scriptures". Where is the YOU in all this? Deny your desire and you deny your true self; deny your self and you undemine your chance to be authentic.
Well, I am not the least bit nervous about following scriptures, because I don't follow them. I only used it as an example of an inauthentic way of being. You should use the scriptures because they resonate with you (if they do), but you should not follow them simply because they are the scriptures. You shouldn't accept religion without questioning it, as if you had no other choice, just as you shouldn't swallow the platform of a political party hook line and sinker.

I don't claim to be authentic, any more than I would claim to be a stoic sage. I only claim that it is something I aspire to achieve. As I have made small steps in these directions, I've found my life is better. So, I keep trying.

If we are going to analyze each other based on a few comments on a forum, then I might guess that you have not suffered from anxiety, depression, anger, addiction or other such problems (or perhaps you have not acknowledged them). If you had, you would surely see that life can't just be about following your desires. There is a wealth of philosophy that explicitly warns against following desires, and preaches the wisdom of suppressing desire. I know you must have encountered these themes. Do you think they have it all wrong?
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Authenticity

Post by Sculptor1 »

chewybrian wrote: July 8th, 2021, 9:13 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: July 8th, 2021, 4:41 pm
chewybrian wrote: July 8th, 2021, 11:06 am One more... Sarte uses the example of a waiter and a customer. People often treat others almost as objects rather than subjects. They might take up the roles in which they find themselves, acting differently toward each other in that situation than they might if they met under different circumstances. By becoming the waiter and the customer rather than Joe and Eileen, they both lose a bit of themselves. They are not really acting as their true selves during this interaction. If the customer is rude, for example, the waiter might pretend they are not rude because he wants a tip, or not to be fired.
Of course the big trouble with Satre is that he is acting in bad faith. He always used to act like he was a philosopher. Even some of his book titles were imitations of Heidegger's book titles in the lie around him. But Satre was not quite Heidegger. Sartre was always a bit too thinky, a bit too aloof, a bit too much of an observer, never really engaging. He neer really made the grade as an existentialist - well not like Camus anyway. If Satre wanted to be a real and authentic romantic philosopher he should ahve contrived to be found dead in mysterious circumstances with rumours of him working as a spy. But Sartre was just acting.

I find the image of the waiter fully authentic. He made the choice to act in a waiterly way, with a tea towel drapped over his arm, carrying the plates with a flourish, swinging in and out of the kitchen. Just like Gaston the waiter who brings the bucket to Mr Creosote - he is fully aware of his play acting. He's not stupid. Satre misses the subtlety. He is too high minded and seem himslef as superior to the waiter and assumes that the waiter has no volition of his own. And sadly Sartre give no account of what a waiter is supposed to act.
The waiter is authentically play acting. Sartre is the myopic one here.
"I'll have the lot."

I don't see Sartre as looking down on the waiter. He is only giving an example of the way roles being assigned or chosen affects behavior. Look at something like the Milgram experiment.
LOL
That is a bit of a jump.
Subjects thought they were giving shocks and carried on because they were put into the role of "teacher" and following the rules of the experiment, even when they really did not want to give the shocks. Yet, in other versions, when actors were playing teachers and quit giving the shocks, the subjects were much more likely to also quit very early. This shows that people will act against their nature simply by accepting roles they are assigned, and how peer pressure can work for good or evil.
I think you missed the humour here.

I was using irony
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Authenticity

Post by Sculptor1 »

chewybrian wrote: July 9th, 2021, 6:07 am
Sculptor1 wrote: July 8th, 2021, 9:59 am ALL instances of doing the right thing are always about the approval of others.[/color]
I don't agree at all. This is the worst and least productive reason for doing the right thing. It doesn't make you a better person or a happy person. You should do the right thing for yourself, for self respect. You should do it because it helps you to become calm and content with yourself.
I do not regard Keirkergaard as in any sense authentic, since inspite of himself he made himself the dupe of a god he could not have known, and was willing to create his own false reality that he knew a god that he could not. He was just replacing one set of fallacies for another.
The point is that his version of Christianity was a genuine one, driven by what Christ actually said and did, not by rules laid down by others who obviously did not have the following of Christ's teaching at the top of their to-do list.
This is a tragically inauthentic set of statements.
There is plenty in the bible to justify that.
Not in the New Testament. Not from Jesus.
SO is duty at all times completely inauthentic? Or is it just duties that you pesonally do not like?
No, but you should not do your duty without examination. You have a duty to wait your turn in line, not to drive drunk, or to care for your children. But, when someone tells you that your duty is to go burn down a village and slaughter women and children, don't you think you should examine the facts and determine that it is your duty to say no?
I suppose you could always take the trip to Canada?
If you deny your desire then you are rejecting autneticity. SInce your passions are what make you the person you are.
Well, you should not deny that you have the desires. As Jung advises, you should always investigate the shadow and acknowledge that you have desires that don't match up with the type of person you want to be. But, that doesn't mean you should follow through with those dark desires, or that doing so would be authentic. The authentic life is an examined life.
That is true. And if you find you love to have all sorts of bizarre sex then you ought to persue that to its end. Othersied you are just lying to yourself.

I have a passion for cycling. I enjoy it and it is reasonably good for me and doesn't negatively impact the rest of the world in any appreciable way. It is authentic when I pursue this passion. But, if I have a desire to snort cocaine or rob a liquor store, I don't have to follow through on these desires in order to be authentic. Rather, I should examine my motives and decide that these actions do not help to create a world in which I hope to live. If everyone went around doing that, my life would be worse. Therefore, I should not set this example to the world of the way a man should be. These acts would not be authentic in the sense of the word I am using here. They might be consistent with my raw urges, but not considered actions intended to make myself what I really want to be.
DOn't recognise the analogy
Jumping_the_shark
The moment is lost for this one.
If you follow Kant you cannot be authentic. Following is not authenticity. Existentialist would not follow Kant.
I can follow the advice of anyone who gives me good advice, and this does not mean that my behavior is not authentic. I follow the advice of Epictetus not because it is my religion or because I want the approval of other would-be stoics. I follow it because it seems sound and useful to me, and because I have been happier since adopting some of the principles I found in his works.
Being authentic and following are anathema.

Authenticity is not simply following your desire. It is examining your motives and aligning them with building the world you would like to see. You can't take an authentic act unless you would like to see others do the same thing under the same terms. This is what Sartre said:

"And when we say that man takes responsibility for himself, we say more than that - he is in his
choices responsible for all men. All our acts of creating ourselves create at the same time an
image of man such as we believe he must be. Thus, our personal responsibility is vast, because
it engages all humanity.
...
Each man must say to himself: am I right to set the standard for all humanity? To deny that is to
mask the anguish. When, for example, a military leader sends men to their deaths, he may have
his orders, but at the bottom it is he alone who chooses."
I doubt you have come anywhere near athenticity since you cannot extricate yourself from the emblandishements of your peri-christian assumptions. You are far from free in my view. You seem nervous about your humanity, but also nervous about following the "scriptures". Where is the YOU in all this? Deny your desire and you deny your true self; deny your self and you undemine your chance to be authentic.
Well, I am not the least bit nervous about following scriptures, because I don't follow them. I only used it as an example of an inauthentic way of being. You should use the scriptures because they resonate with you (if they do), but you should not follow them simply because they are the scriptures. You shouldn't accept religion without questioning it, as if you had no other choice, just as you shouldn't swallow the platform of a political party hook line and sinker.

I don't claim to be authentic, any more than I would claim to be a stoic sage. I only claim that it is something I aspire to achieve. As I have made small steps in these directions, I've found my life is better. So, I keep trying.

If we are going to analyze each other based on a few comments on a forum, then I might guess that you have not suffered from anxiety, depression, anger, addiction or other such problems (or perhaps you have not acknowledged them). If you had, you would surely see that life can't just be about following your desires. There is a wealth of philosophy that explicitly warns against following desires, and preaches the wisdom of suppressing desire. I know you must have encountered these themes. Do you think they have it all wrong?
Personally I find your adherence to morality rather inauthentic.
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Authenticity

Post by Leontiskos »

Pattern-chaser wrote: July 8th, 2021, 9:33 am
chewybrian wrote: July 7th, 2021, 12:27 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: July 7th, 2021, 12:00 pm I am wondering how, in general terms, "authenticity" differs from "truth", in a philosophical sense and (hopefully) the context of this topic? They seem very similar to me.
Authenticity in this sense refers to the subjective state of mind of the individual, or their manner of engaging with the world, where truth is an objective state of reality. I can only be authentic by acting in a certain way which is specific to me. No matter how I act, truth is unaffected. You approach authenticity when your actions are consistent with your beliefs, and your beliefs are formed by a best effort to find the truth. Yet you can know the truth and still be a liar or a phony, and therefore not be authentic.
Excuse me for a senile buffoon! Authentic, even by its dictionary definition, means "genuine" more than "true". 😊 But what you say does bring it back toward truth, and you mention an example of someone not being authentic because they're lying, i.e. not telling the truth (as they know it).
I think truth actually does get at it. While it is true that nowadays we see truths as objects, in ancient times there was a social virtue of representing oneself truthfully. For example, Aristotle says:
Aristotle wrote:Let us discuss the sincere or truthful man first. We are not here concerned with the person who speaks the truth in making an agreement, nor with conduct that involves justice or injustice (because this would be the field of another virtue), but with cases in which, since no such complication is present, a man is truthful both in speech and in the way he lives because he is like that in disposition. Such a person would seem to be a good type; for a lover of the truth, who speaks it when nothing depends upon it, will speak it all the more when something does depend upon it; because since he is guarded against falsehood as such, he will guard against it all the more as something dishonourable. Such a man is to be commended.

-Nicomachean Ethics, Book IV, #vii
Later on the virtue of truthfulness also came to be associated with speculative knowledge (i.e. the scientist who is truthful will not fudge his data), but I think chewybrian is right to emphasize the social context.
chewybrian wrote: July 5th, 2021, 8:35 amWhat is it?
My first answer is truthfulness or genuineness, but it also seems to me that "authenticity" is just our modern stand-in for "moral" (or "virtuous" or "holy" or "upright" or "just/righteous" or "good"). It strikes me as the classical concept of morality with an extra dash of freedom. It is a vague term, which is why I think Pattern-chaser's questions are helpful.

For example, consider these two examples you give of authenticity:
chewybrian wrote: July 8th, 2021, 10:58 amThe best excuse I can think of is fear. Say I am afraid to not fit in. Don't you think some people in Germany in 1939 or so were opposed to the aims or the methods of the Nazis? Surely, some of those opposed were too afraid to speak out. They not only feared punishment but the shame of not fitting in, when so many of their friends and neighbors must have appeared to be on board.
chewybrian wrote: July 8th, 2021, 10:58 amIn other cases, I think it comes down to following your urges above your beliefs. If I am a drug addict but don't really aspire to be one, am I being authentic? Rather than facing up to the world as myself, I might choose to escape into a fantasy world like that for various reasons. I guess you can call it fear again if you wish.
For classical virtue ethicists like Aristotle these are quite different vices. In the first case courage and truthfulness are lacking, for the Nazi sympathizer is controlled by fear and is thus prevented from speaking and acting in the way he believes to be true. The vices in that case are cowardice and lying or dissimulation (false acting). In the second case temperance, and secondarily continence & courage are lacking, for the addict is controlled by pleasure and does not have the fortitude to stand up and fight his unruly desires. The vices in that case are licentiousness, 'incontinence', and cowardice.

That's a concern of mine: in just these two examples authenticity has collapsed at least four virtues into one, and this sort of thing could be multiplied if we looked at other examples or posts. I worry that there isn't a great deal of precision around the concept, or else that it really is a catch-all such as "moral." Is there any vice that we wouldn't consider to represent inauthenticity?

At times it also feels like the concept means "being true to your True Self" or your "inner man." ...Something about not capitulating or conforming or compromising. It feels very Christian or Stoic. There must have been a great deal of inauthenticity in the last two-hundred years that caused us to recoil and look to the beacon of authenticity. Or maybe even further back? Reformation... French Revolution... Marxism... National Socialism... the World Wars... It may be a kind of reaction to groupthink and the carnage it has created in various forms of dress.

Interesting thread,
-Leontiskos
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Authenticity

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Leontiskos wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 1:54 am While it is true that nowadays we see truths as objects, in ancient times there was a social virtue of representing oneself truthfully.
Although we have been moving away from it for decades now, I was raised to admire and respect truthfulness. The idea is not so antiquated as you describe. 😉

The value of truthfulness is not complicated or obscure, it's obvious. The testimony of a person who is truthful is valuable; the testimony of someone who is not truthful is worthless: it is not useful.

For me, the difficult question that arises from here is why do we tolerate overtly non-truthful people in our world and our societies? Why, as soon as Trump (for example) is shown to have been untruthful, as has happened many times, is he not immediately removed from his position of social responsibility?

In other words, I'm not asking if we should value truthfulness, that seems clear and obvious. I'm asking why we tolerate anything other than truthfulness, and why anyone would be tempted to speak or act in a way that isn't truthful? I think "truthful" here is a synonym for authenticity, the core of this topic?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Leontiskos
Posts: 695
Joined: July 20th, 2021, 11:27 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle and Aquinas

Re: Authenticity

Post by Leontiskos »

Pattern-chaser wrote: August 3rd, 2021, 8:24 amAlthough we have been moving away from it for decades now, I was raised to admire and respect truthfulness. The idea is not so antiquated as you describe. 😉
Hah. Well I was also raised to admire and respect truthfulness, but in time I found that the people who gave me that advice didn't follow it themselves. I think the American culture of that time valued niceness and propriety more than truthfulness.
The value of truthfulness is not complicated or obscure, it's obvious. The testimony of a person who is truthful is valuable; the testimony of someone who is not truthful is worthless: it is not useful.

For me, the difficult question that arises from here is why do we tolerate overtly non-truthful people in our world and our societies? Why, as soon as Trump (for example) is shown to have been untruthful, as has happened many times, is he not immediately removed from his position of social responsibility?

In other words, I'm not asking if we should value truthfulness, that seems clear and obvious. I'm asking why we tolerate anything other than truthfulness, and why anyone would be tempted to speak or act in a way that isn't truthful? I think "truthful" here is a synonym for authenticity, the core of this topic?
I would say that Trump was removed (by not being re-elected), and even when he was in office he was losing credibility. The same question could be asked about Fauci, who actually admitted that he lied to the public about the ineffectiveness of masks at the beginning of the pandemic (he claimed that masks were ineffective in order to maintain a strong supply for essential workers). Why does he still have an official voice?

I think we've just lost faith in truthfulness, particularly in public leaders and media outlets, but even in much of science. Politics and interest groups seem to trump truthfulness time and time again. So there is a cynicism and therefore odd populists like Trump or Sanders are given unprecedented attention. It's not that we don't value truthfulness in the United States. It's that we don't believe it still exists.

The reason people are tempted to mendacity is simple: it pays off. It pays off for their private good, especially in the short term. The long term public good is ignored. Truthfulness/authenticity almost always comes with a cost, and many are unwilling to pay it.
Wrestling with Philosophy since 456 BC

Socrates: He's like that, Hippias, not refined. He's garbage, he cares about nothing but the truth.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021