By themselves, things like eye contact, uninvited first name use, informality (as opposed to rigid formality), style of clothing, volume and content of speech (loudness), etc. can't be measures of authenticity. These are all cultural features.

Authenticity, as I understand it, derives from the consistency between aspiration and actuality within one's person. When what one strives for as good for ones self is contrary to how one acts with respect to ones self and others, one is probably losing authenticity. For example, if one considers equality between persons as good, but one maintains inequality with most other people, one would be inauthentic (in that respect).

“To thine own self be true!” Polonius says to Hamlet, as the conclusion to a speech of good advice.

But what do we mean if we say that somebody is an authentic person, or a very genuine person? Personal authenticity is often defined as being true and honest with oneself and others, having a credibility in one’s words and behavior, and an absence of pretence. Its meaning is then often clarified by contrasting it to inauthenticity, like comparing light to darkness. But in the absence of any clear criteria for judging authenticity, the boundaries between being authentic and being inauthentic are amorphous and uncertain, and often porous.

Philosophy Now

Authenticity is more of a process than an established condition. Authenticity is also difficult to judge in other people. If I am being served by an obsequious waiter, I can't tell whether the waiter is being authentic or whether he is playing a role. I also can't tell whether a waiter is being authentic if his behavior is caustic and condescending. He also could be playing a role (which may or may not be consistent with his own person).

One has to know someone quite well to know whether they are being authentic or not. One can't even automatically assume authenticity for ones self without some self-examination.

Authenticity is more of a process than an established condition — Bitter Crank

I agree with you.

One has to know someone quite well to know whether they are being authentic or not. One can't even automatically assume authenticity for ones self without some self-examination. — Bitter Crank

It is a kind of automatic reaction when one identifies something as not natural, not usual.

Levinas founded his ethics on the relation with the Other, and one of the essential elements was looking directly at the Other’s eyes. For Levinas, it was the most challenging moral test – to open yourself toward the other world. In North America, the direct eye contact has become a cultural norm. In general, don’t we encounter
a situation, where the slogan “Be Yourself” has become a tool for imposing dominating cultural standards? And, at the same time, real authenticity, related to becoming and therefore invisible, is pushed aside?

The problem of authenticity is not just about curious cultural observations or one’s pretension for looking original and unusual. It has much more implications. Nowadays, many groups of people (for example transgenders) try to support their claims for the legitimacy of their new self-identification by appealing to the authenticity of their feelings.

Not I, you or the Good Lord want you to be authentic. An authentic asshole is invariably full of shit; the project is to be fake - to fake humanity.

Faking one's humanity involves faking authenticity, which means wearing the right brand of jeans 'by accident'. I am a tremendous faker, the best faker you have ever seen, I'm so tremendously talented at faking that everyone thinks I'm authentic, except those who are pretending not to be impressed, and they really think I'm authentic, they just don't like what I authentically am, which they believe, by the way. So everyone thinks I'm authentic, and I even believe it myself. And that's what authenticity is - a convincing fake.

Yeah, I don't get the whole authenticity thing either. I've always thought Sartre was gratuitously judgemental about that waiter.

To the extent that authenticity means anything to me, it is relaxation, and it is a privilege rather than a virtue. It is the gift that very few people have of being able to just act without constantly judging themself or wondering what others think of them. It is something to aspire to in the same way as learning to meditate is something to aspire to - because the better we get at it the more content we will be and possibly the more pleasure we can give to others, like Baudrillard's naturally smiling waiter.

But it is no more something to criticise someone over for not having it than one should criticise someone who has never been able to learn to read.

An authentic asshole is invariably full of shit; the project is to be fake - to fake humanity. — unenlightened

I am a tremendous faker, the best faker you have ever seen, I'm so tremendously talented at faking that everyone thinks I'm authentic, except those who are pretending not to be impressed, and they really think I'm authentic, they just don't like what I authentically am, which they believe, by the way. So everyone thinks I'm authentic, and I even believe it myself. And that's what authenticity is - a convincing fake. — unenlightened

So, if you do not believe in authenticity, why are you still a part of the game?
How can we differentiate between fake and authentic?

I've always thought Sartre was gratuitously judgemental about that waiter. — andrewk

Maybe Sartre's waiter is more authentic, his reactions are not finally determined yet.

To the extent that authenticity means anything to me, it is relaxation, — andrewk

What about reflection? Most likely, a true authenticity lives in the thought.

It is the gift that very few people have of being able to just act without constantly judging themselves or wondering what others think of them. — andrewk

It is almost impossible. So-called "authenticity" is like an imperative: we must live and judge ourselves
according to dominating "authentic" norms.

There's no reason to suppose that an authentic person will also be pleasant company: honest, considerate, thoughtful, etc. The internal consistency and congruence of any given jerk may be very high. They may be the real thing -- and also a thoroughgoing jerk.

I'm inclined to go with Kant: treat others not as means ONLY but ALSO as ends in themselves.

IOW, the waiter treating their customers like shit is at fault, and the the customer treating a waiter like shit is also at fault. Season to taste with varying cultural norms.

I'm inclined to go with Kant: treat others not as means ONLY but ALSO as ends in themselves. — gurugeorge

I understand your position and your advice. Yet, the problem with authenticity is that it replaces possible ethics in relations with the other. Levinas founded his ethics with the exception of looking at other’s eyes, and nowadays direct (and authentic) eye contact has become a cultural norm serving the business. From one side, it is so convenient, from another it almost eliminates ethics dimensions.

Adorno wrote a book “Jargon of Authenticity,” analyzing the phenomenon and its implications for our societies.
"While the
jargon of authenticity overflows with the pretense of deep human
emotion, it is just as standardized as the world that
it officially negates; the reason for this lies partly in its
mass success, partly in the fact that it posits its message
automatically, through its mere nature. The jargon affirms
the reliability of the universal by means of the
distinction of having a bourgeois origin , a distinction
which is itself authorized by the universal. Its tone of
approved selectivity seems to come from the person
himself. The greater advantage in all this is that of
good references . It makes no difference what the voice
that resonates in, this way says ; it is signing a social
contract."

I think you're overthinking. There's a hallucinatory quality to ideologues trying to outdo each other in terms of originality in uncovering ever-subtler ways in which capitalism is bad yo. :)

The jargon affirms
the reliability of the universal by means of the
distinction of having a bourgeois origin , a distinction
which is itself authorized by the universal. — Number2018

2018, it isn't your fault that Adorno writes this way. I can't figure out HOW this sentence could be meaningful. Is a truth-teller merely a juggler of jargon?

So, if you do not believe in authenticity, why are you still a part of the game?
How can we differentiate between fake and authentic? — Number2018

That was an attempt at humour and parody. Of course it is an important distinction to make in others. And even more important to make in oneself. The serious point, though, is that trying to be authentic, trying to be anything, is faking an authenticity one lacks. But as with art, fakes can be very convincing, so I don't have a universal answer for your question. Indeed a soon as one gives an answer in any general case, it becomes another attribute that can be faked.

This book is really difficult. Adorno tried to make points related to the situation in Germany in 1960s, and, particularly tried to show that so-called "authenticity" is the phenomenon of mass-culture societies, but it was established in works of Heidegger, Jaspers, and others.

Of course it is an important distinction to make in others. And even more important to make in oneself. — unenlightened

Absolutely! I try not to judge others, the most important for me to find out if I am authentic myself.
This problem related to our values (Do we still have them?), and about our lives (Can we change anything in our lives? Can we even pose a problem of a proper life nowadays?)

:smile: :lol: