Dienstag, 17. Februar 2009
Thoughts On Authenticity Inspired by Seth Godin
hhoyer, 12:34h
Yesterday on Twitter Michael Calienes asked about a blog post by Seth Godin on Authenticity. I read through it and replied to Michael that it felt a little "off" for me just as if Seth was on to something that resonated with me but didn't quite hit the nail.
Looking at the definition of Authenticity, three meanings show up:
But that's only part of the equation. It is what can be seen from the outside, a clue that helps other people to deal with the enigma of my inner workings in some way that will not drive them insane. It is what I would call the outward dimension of Authenticity. There is a second dimension and this is where I think Seths' explanation falls short just a bit. Remember that there were three meanings listed? The one that we haven't talked about yet is Genuineness aka "Being real" or "Being yourself" which I like to call the inward dimension of Authenticity.
If my words and actions are congruent but I am promising and doing things that I wouldn't normally do, and there are many reasons for this, then over time I will most likely feel shallow, hollow, twisted, torn, empty, wrong - call it whatever you like but there will be no feeling of Authenticity or Genuineness about myself. I am acting and I know it.
So there's something like a public and a private part to Authenticity. The reliable and trustworthy parts can be seen and commented on by the public, whereas the private part, and I totally agree with Seth on this one, is extremely difficult to judge.
But then how should we rectify this situation where we seem to be unable to make a verifiable statement about the Authenticity of a given individual? Well how about if we don't? How about if we accept the "Ignorabimus" (we cannot know) that Kant has formulated for his Metaphysics? We can assess someones reliability and trustworthiness. Whether he or she is genuine and thus overall authentic - why don't we leave that question to the experts - to those who know enough about you to make that call: Husband/Wife, Closest Friends and first and foremost - yourself.
Looking at the definition of Authenticity, three meanings show up:
- Reliable
- Trustworthy
- Genuineness
But that's only part of the equation. It is what can be seen from the outside, a clue that helps other people to deal with the enigma of my inner workings in some way that will not drive them insane. It is what I would call the outward dimension of Authenticity. There is a second dimension and this is where I think Seths' explanation falls short just a bit. Remember that there were three meanings listed? The one that we haven't talked about yet is Genuineness aka "Being real" or "Being yourself" which I like to call the inward dimension of Authenticity.
If my words and actions are congruent but I am promising and doing things that I wouldn't normally do, and there are many reasons for this, then over time I will most likely feel shallow, hollow, twisted, torn, empty, wrong - call it whatever you like but there will be no feeling of Authenticity or Genuineness about myself. I am acting and I know it.
So there's something like a public and a private part to Authenticity. The reliable and trustworthy parts can be seen and commented on by the public, whereas the private part, and I totally agree with Seth on this one, is extremely difficult to judge.
But then how should we rectify this situation where we seem to be unable to make a verifiable statement about the Authenticity of a given individual? Well how about if we don't? How about if we accept the "Ignorabimus" (we cannot know) that Kant has formulated for his Metaphysics? We can assess someones reliability and trustworthiness. Whether he or she is genuine and thus overall authentic - why don't we leave that question to the experts - to those who know enough about you to make that call: Husband/Wife, Closest Friends and first and foremost - yourself.
... link (0 Kommentare) ... comment
