No Title
Published in
8 min readSep 30, 2015
- Before I begin my analysis/questionnaire on the philosophies of authenticity I must say that although my views may not be coherent with the authors or others, it is my individual interpretation/questions based on how I understood the reading, and so I will begin:
- First in order to define the origins of “self” I will give a very brief synopsis of Porters “Know Yourself” through two quotes:
- “The question who am I? was turned into a matter of how our cognitive processes operate: identity resides within the house of intellect” (Porter 7). Basically Porter is describing that until “man” (literally just men at this time women had no rights) began to think outside of what the ecclesiastical authorities had given them no one had any identity, we were all servants of god. Once people began to think outside the realms of god we began to realize and ask the question, aside from God what am I and what does my existence represent? Which of course based on the experience of individual lives will be asked and interpreted differently.
- The second quote: “Society was the product of free men coming together to set up a political society to protect fundamental rights to life, liberty and property” (Porter 9). I simply chose this quote because it brings me to ask the question: when do women begin to find their identity, and even a step further, have we found our identity even today? Still today I feel as though women are told who they are and what their role in life is, but that is an argument for a different day.
- Moving on to Taylor’s “Ethics of Authenticity” I will interpret each chapter individually for the sake of fluidity.
- In Three Malaise he begins by explaining the malaise of modernity, ..“I mean by this features of our contemporary culture and society that people experience as a loss or a decline, even as our civilization ‘develops’” (Taylor 1). By saying this he means that although society seems to be developing in every way, technology, agriculture, medicine, etc a part of society, the inner part, ourselves seem to be in a state of decline. We seem to slowly be losing more and more of what is self. He continues to say “…This great familiarity hides bewilderment…” (Taylor 2). Or that all though we all seem to realize something beyond us is happening we are not sure what or how to address it.
- Throughout this chapter he then addresses his three main concerns:
- 1) Individualism: Taylor begins by saying that in today’s society with all the liberties we are granted individualism should be exploding because we have to opportunity to create any life we want, but it is actually quite the opposite as many are finding it hard to find any meaning in life at all. Many find it increasingly difficult to define what their purpose is, which he attributes to a change in “order”. “ People used to see themselves as part of a larger order. In some cases, this was a cosmic order, a “great chain of Being,” in which humans figured in their proper place…” (Taylor 3). I understood this as a more ecclesiastical order of life, in which everyone was able to see themselves in some sort of purpose or use on earth to higher power in which there work would be attributed to and found useful. Without a society based so heavily on religion and our “earthly lives” many people have problems being able to define a purpose for themselves.
- 2)The disenchantment of the world: He best describes this phenomenon when he says, “ Similarly, once the creatures that surround us lose the significance that accrued to their place in the chain of being, they are open to being treated as raw materials or instruments for our projects” (Taylor 5). Basically life becomes a struggle of moral dilemmas and cost efficiency. Things that should be determined by other criteria such as quality of life etc will be decided in terms of efficiency or cost benefit. Although as he states this change in decision may be liberating it also causes us to lose sight of what is morally right and wrong.
- 3)Political level: “This brings us to the political level, and to the feared consequences for political life of individualism and instrumental reason” (Taylor 8). Because of this new moral stance based on efficiency it makes us do things we would never do if our decisions were based purely on morality, one example he gives is thinning the ozone layer. Another good example would be in the inequality of life observed across the globe. Of course if these decisions were based on morality people would not be living in mud huts dying of curable diseases while others have three summer homes.
- Moving on to the second chapter Inarticulate Debate:
- “One Ought not to challenge another’s values” (Taylor 14). If morality is based on internal values then how can we be moral and challenge another’s values, that in itself is immoral. This brings me back to the idea of cognitive dissonance: If a person lives their life thinking one way of life is moral or the “correct” way to live then to challenge their values we will also challenge their way of life creating a cognitive dissonance for them, making it even harder to see another stance or another side of what may or may not be moral.
- What I explained and questioned above is a good precursor to Taylor ‘s next point of relativism which he states we all have a right to make a life grounded on our own sense of values, be true to ourselves, and no one else can determine this for us. But if we go back to the idea of this disenchantment of the world then we begin making decisions based on efficiency and power rather than our own values.
- The next big point is the moral ideal: “not in terms of what we happen to desire or need, but offer a standard of what we ought to desire” (Taylor 16). This is basically the grounds of ethics: do what is the best for the majority rather than what we feel is best for ourselves. But something he describes that is peculiar of our age is many feel “called” to sacrifice relationships and other things in order to pursue personal goals. This is something I have experienced myself. I can say out of experience this is not something that is innate to us it is something that society has taught us and creates great conflict within oneself if we are not able to follow this “norm” as we feel we are not reaching our full potential. Which (Taylor 16) also states, “ By this I mean the view that moral positions are not in any way grounded in reason or the nature of things but are ultimately just adopted by each of us because we find ourselves drawn to them”.
- Now we move to chapter three Sources of Authenticity: One of Taylor’s main point through the book and that is reiterated in this chapter is the idea of an inner voice that is our true self and tells us what is right and or wrong. The dilemma though is whether or not we hear this voice and if we do, do we follow it or ignore it based on societies conformities. Taylor states, “ This voice is most often drowned out by the passions induced by our dependence on others, of which the key one is “amour propre” or pride” (Taylor 27). This is exemplified in people who find happiness or self in others rather than themselves. They begin to identify their own being and character with another person, which they are then lost entirely to their own self identity. Self can only be found in solitary which he describes more thoroughly in the next chapter. Although self in someone else may be good for a time, when the person you identify yourself finds themselves in their own moral dilemma of unfulfillment of life and leave their relationships to pursue their own “identity” then the other person is left with this existence with no purpose nor identity.
- Finally Chapter four Inescapable Horizons: In this chapter he poses two questions:
- 1)What are conditions in human life of realizing an ideal of this kind? (moral)
- 2) What does the ideal properly understood call for? (In order to live “morally” what conditions must be present?)
- In this chapter Taylor states, “ The genesis of the human mind is in this sense not “monological,” not something each accomplishes on his or her own, but dialogical” (Taylor 33). By this Taylor means to say we acquire the “languages” of self definition through exchanges with others close to us. We do not simply come up with our own definition of what is self. But because our idea of self is so dependent on the ideas of others self, does it not then make it harder for someone to determine their individual self because they become stuck in this idea that they must in some way fit a criteria of what is “self”? This creates a paradoxical problem: If you are your own completely new “self” without the influence of what is self then you do not fit the criteria of a societal definition of self but at the same time if you follow the “norm” of what is considered self then you have also created an identity that is still not you. To me after reading this it seems there is no way to really create an individual identity aside from all others, in some way you will always be conforming.
- Another quote that describes the journey to finding “self” is, “We are expected to develop our own opinions, outlooks, stances to things, to a considerable degree through solitary reflection” (Taylor 33). The problem with this idea is that with the current generations at least even when we are alone we are never alone in our own minds. We are constantly being bombarded with the ideals and ideas of our peers through social media. If it is not us who is being bombarded then we are littering social media with our thoughts in hopes of positive affirmation, a way to confirm what we believe or feel is “right” or “good”. In this way of thought we are never creating anything novel or unique we will continue to think in a way that society deems acceptable.
- To sum up the process of self choosing identity I will end with this thought: In order to have a self choosing identity nothing can have “significance”, but in order for your self chosen identity to be true it must be significant in you choice or it becomes incoherent.
- Finally to explain my title as it may seem odd I chose No Title as somewhat of a metaphor for what I got out of the reading: If I chose a title to represent what this writing is then I am assigning it an identity. Not only that but then if I give it a witty or unique title then I am simply following what I think is to be, but at the same time with no title am I also not following confirmation by trying to be unique with a metaphorical title for what is and what is not.
- *I hope I have not gone to far off of what you wanted.
