Authenticity, Can We Have An Authentic Life?

July 12 2020

‘’Be yourself’’ or’’ be authentic’’ seems to be common advice and a very encouraged rule in modern life, but what do we mean by ” be yourself”, and is it realistic?

Personal authenticity is a human construct. It is generally defined as being true to yourself without pretense. Following your own standards and living up to your truth. The quest for authenticity is a quest for autonomy. To be the architect of one’s own life without succumbing to cultural conditioning and external factors like social rejection. An inauthentic life, according to the general notion, seems to cause inner conflicts and prevents us from reaching a state of harmony. In this article, I will show the different standpoints regarding authenticity by different philosophers and thinkers who explored this concept.

Who Are we? And How Do We Become Who We Truly Are?

Authenticity is a reflection of the ”self” or the identity, and a lot of thinkers attempted to understand the human mind, with its potentialities and its tendencies. People are generally afraid of delving deep into their minds, for it reveals complex depths they can not be ready to face. So we will start by trying to understand this ”Self” based on Nietzsche’s definition.

Nietzsche was the first to conceive the psyche as constituted of multiple layers and that it is impossible to understand it all. So how can we know ourselves?

If the psyche is a vast limitless territory, is it possible to be ourselves and be ”authentic” while we do not have access to these sides of us? The ability of the human mind to understand cognitive processes or to examine great amounts of information is limited, further leading to an incomplete understanding or an erroneous representation of what is observed or experienced.

Human knowledge always remains incomplete, yet without full awareness, no complete authenticity is attainable, so at any given moment, authenticity can be only partial.

Can We Create Ourselves?

Some philosophers claim that we are absolutely free to create ourselves, but is that possible?

As humans, we can not be fashioned in any way we please. Each one of us has a deep nature that sets limits on who to become. Deep down, there is something unteachable, of a spiritual nature that can not be acquired or transformed.

Nietzsche describes humans as chaos. In contrast to other philosophers who claim that the mind is a unitary device, Nietzsche says that the mind is a multiplicity, an accumulation of intertwined psychological entities. These entities are influenced by life’s experiences and memories, by social conditioning and the traits inherited by our ancestors. According to him, even historical factors influence who we are through the traditions of past cultures that live on within us from the deeper layer of our psyche.

He says that our freedom to create ourselves is limited because of the already existing drives that we can not control. The most general picture of our essence is an association of drives with constant rivalry and particular alliances with each other. He described the human mind as a city in which numerous sub-personalities try to coexist together, so the task according to Nietzsche is to harmonize these opposing drives and impulses and provide coordination. As Nietzche says” to make ourselves, to shape a from various elements, that is the task! The task of a sculptor! Of a productive human being! ”

Authenticity In Different Philosophies

Now that we have introduced the ‘’self’’ we shall explore authenticity from different angles according to some philosophers.

1/ For Jean Jack Rousseau, authenticity is diminished by the need for esteem that is fulfilled by external sources. He argues that personal authenticity comes from within and does not require the approval of others.

2/The existentialist philosopher Martin Heidegger said that authenticity is choosing the nature of one’s existence and identity. He also linked authenticity to an awareness of mortality, since only by keeping in mind one’s inevitable death can one lead a truly authentic life. He said that authenticity and inauthenticity are not exclusive or separate, but they have a complex relationship: They are complementary and interdependent, and we can not disregard external influences because they are natural.

3/Jean-Paul Sartre argued that there is no unchanging essence to the self, but we have a free will that gives us complete freedom to determine our lives from the choices available. According to Sartre, the human being first comes into existence and then continually defines oneself, rather than coming into being with an already given nature. So for Sartre, authenticity requires taking full responsibility for our life, choices, and actions. Therefore the anxiety or ‘angst’ which results from our realization of our own inescapable freedom is an integral part of authentic living. However, it should be emphasized that the individual’s freedom is constrained by nature and society, as well as by their own limitations.

What Are The Limitations Of Full Authenticity?

Some argue that authenticity is impossible to achieve as an ongoing state of being since any real authenticity is hard to maintain indefinitely. Our identity is multidimensional and dynamic, So they will coexist in one individual multiple identities depending on the roles the individual holds in society, including personal, occupational, cultural, ethnic, national, political, and religious identities. The dynamics of identity can be complex and unpredictable.

According to Jung, who was immensely influenced by Nietzche, We have many archetypes in our unconscious that have totally different desires, beliefs, and priorities as if there are other people residing in our psyche. So how can we settle on one definite character? These factors make it hard to identify one stable identity or one ”self.”

Authenticity is supposed to be a reflection of our identity, which can not be measured or defined. Complete authenticity is unattainable. Our feelings, opinions, and habits are always evolving. Personal authenticity involves principles and ideals which are continually reevaluated through self-examination and social interaction, so who is to judge if someone else is being authentic or not?

There are a lot of situations in which we have to compromise our opinions because of priorities. For example, you can not declare your offensive opinions to your boss or you will risk losing your job, so here you are being inauthentic according to the modern standards of authenticity. However, true authenticity isn’t about expressing one’s inner self with its full range of shifting emotions in all situations. Setting priorities and unbiased self-awareness in the present moment are of great importance.

Another factor that can limit our authenticity is our personal filters that prevent objective awareness. Achieving personal authenticity is complicated by the presence of illusions and biases, including self-deception, wishful thinking, and the tendency to behave differently while under observation in social gatherings.

Other factors include one’s prior programming, the fear of rejection and failure, and the social pressure to conform (and thus live inauthentically). In the latter cases, individuals typically try to show their best faces and express what is expected of them so that they will be perceived in a good light. In many situations, the need for collaboration with others may demand some adaptation, that is, some inauthentic compromise. Being under constant observation inhibits authenticity. Thus, politicians, for instance, cannot be authentic, since they always have to appear confident and nearly flawless.

Another limitation is related to the language used, which is open to misinterpretation, and words and language are inadequate for expressing the full spectrum of one’s thoughts and feelings. In addition, words and sentences are often ambiguous, having more than one possible meaning. A completely clear language with a direct and evident correspondence between thoughts and words does not exist. Sometimes individuals do not even understand themselves, so it definitely sets limits to authenticity.

What Can We Conclude?

So we can define authenticity as an individualistic and continuous mission that differs from one to another and does not follow a defined set of rules since it is always contextual. The question that we can ask here is: is authenticity possible, or even desirable? The question is possibly misleading as it implies an absolute yes or no answer, and does not give space to any possibility of ‘partial authenticity’. This leads us toward an interpretation of the concept of authenticity as an absolute, which is unrealistic.

These philosophical views on personal authenticity vary, but there is a common theme of personal authenticity as a dynamic process of endless becoming in a changing society and world, rather than a fixed state of being. We can conclude that authenticity and inauthenticity should not be considered as mutually exclusive states, but rather as mutually dependent concepts. Due to the imperfection of humans, absolute authenticity is not attainable. Partial and realistic authenticity isn’t about expressing one’s inner self with its full range of shifting emotions in all situations. Setting priorities and unbiased self-awareness in the present moment are of great importance.

Author: Hibat Errahmane Hadjadj.

Soruces:

Nietzche:

Ecce Homo

The Free Will

Beyond Good And Will

The Gay Science

The Dawn Of Day

Dr Ben G. Yacobi

‘’Philosophy Now’ 2012’

The Fallacy of Universal Morality

April 21 2020

morals, universal morality

Morality has always been an extremely controversial topic due to the lack of any clear universal methodology that governs it. However, the overwhelming majority of controversies regarding morality are not concerned with moral values themselves but the precedence of each value relative to other values. This is due to the fact that moral values often contradict one another. One instance of this is the judicial system. Does justice take precedence over freedom and if so to what extent? Should criminals be punished in the name of justice, discouraging future offenders, or rehabilitating criminals back into society? It is easy to notice that the previously mentioned ongoing debate is not a matter of identifying moral values but a matter of weighting them relative to one another.

There is no absolute universal way of prioritizing moral values which has led to every civilization shaping its own moral standards according to their culture, religion, social structure ,and practical imperatives. However, by the dawn of the eighteenth century, the western nations of Europe managed to dominate most of the world with the aid of a combination of technological advances and colonial pursuits. Western culture soon developed a sense of moral superiority to other civilizations they saw as barbaric. An image that quickly attributed European supremacy to their entire culture in the minds of other civilizations rather than a more complex array of factors such as climate, geographical position, and economic imperatives [1]. An image that still stands to this day.

This new belief of “universal moral principles”, the idea that there exists only one unique moral perspective , justified Western enforcement of their own culture and morality upon other nations with no consideration for the differences between various cultures. One key example of this, is the enforcement of Western democracy on people who do not believe in it. This has only led to the people standing idle as their democracies were crippled by dictatorships or simply fell into chaos.

Western morality emerged from European society shaped by its own historical experiences and, therefore, adjusted to its own culture. This becomes abundantly clear when noticing the extreme emphasis on personal freedom and choice above all in Western legal traditions and political narratives. I believe this situation stems from centuries of oppression under the Cathollic Church and the medieval feudal system. Yet, other cultures did not suffer as much as Europeans did from restrained personal freedom or at least did not experience the violent revolutionary liberation from said restraint. This is why, many Eastern societies such as the Japanese and Chinese are more willing to trust governmental authority and are willing to sacrifice much of their personal freedom in exchange for the greater benefit of their society.

The idea of a universal morality creates a linear scale that civilizations are placed upon according to their adherence to the Western interpretation of moral principles and more importantly the priorities set between morals. This divides civilizations into progressive and regressive, with Western civilization being the ideal model to be mimicked. Even though some cultures clearly infringe on basic principles of morality, many others simply follow a different system of morality as emphasis is shifted from one moral value to another. Therefore, the spectrum of morality is non-linear.

Cultures whose history, society and economics differ from their western counterparts should not be in any way inferior but simply branches of a vast spectrum of morality. Thus, their morality should be judged according to their own culture and society rather than being compared to a Western model.

The consequences of the illusion of universal morality are not only noticeable in the unrest, instability, and disturbance caused to nations forced to follow principles that emerged from a completely different culture. But are also apparent in mostly left-wing political movements. If morality was a line then pushing forward to “progress” is the only thing that matters. In a line, there is only progress and backwardness, therefore, any change is always a good change.

However, if we consider the idea of a nonlinear morality, every change is not simply a path onward but a shift in a compromise. There is no reason to believe that this world is somehow required to fit our morality. It is clearly evident that moral principles from personal freedom, to social interest, to justice all contradict one another in many instances. Therefore, any change comes at a cost of one of these values.

True morality is simply striking a balance among all of them as there is no path of progress merely a web of choices and compromises.

Author: Wail Rimouche.

Pondering on Free Will

March 31 2020

free will, philosophy

The question of whether a person is free to make their own choices or merely under the illusion of possessing such freedom and simply following their biological instincts has been debated since the dawn of humanity. However, I will not even attempt to resolve this question with what little knowledge I possess. I simply wish to give my own views on the matter as yet another drop into the sea of discussion this subject has accumulated throughout history.

Have you ever asked yourself if your actions are truly your own? If they are, then why do you regret them even if you were completely aware of their consequences? It is considered an accepted fact that we as humans lose control of ourselves in moments of anger. This is easily supported by both statistics [1] and the number of people voluntarily taking anger management courses. But this leads us to question whether anger is exceptional in its ability to strip us from our conscious control over ourselves or perhaps it shares this ability with other sensations.

I personally tend to believe the latter option as anger is only an extreme case that only seems exceptional because of the feeling of regret that follows it. I seek to bring forward the idea that all sensations cause a loss of control over ourselves even if it occurs to a lesser degree. My claim is not a solid fact and I never intended it to be one. But we need to ask ourselves whether we have truly made a choice if we cannot even recall any ponderings on the options at hand but merely impulses.

My view is that more often than not, our choices are made for us based upon our predispositions. But this assumption does not necessarily dictate that our free will is an illusion. According to my own personal introspection, these tendencies stem from our subconscious, as it is the source of our desires and feelings. Therefore, our free choices are not the ones made in the midst of the moments of our everyday lives as we get overwhelmed with emotions. In those situations, we merely find ourselves following our impulses. Our true free choices are those made in our moments of solitude and contemplation. This can be seen through the emphasis many religions and schools of philosophy offer to contemplating one’s sins and acts of virtue.

I suspect that we do not directly choose our actions but we choose the tendencies that govern them. It follows that our subconscious acts as a buffer between our conscious will and our actions. In other words, we indirectly control our actions by conditioning our subconscious as we slowly adjust our tendencies and struggle against our desires. This has led me to believe that the judgments we assign to our actions in retrospect are more important than the actions themselves. As our subconscious is conditioned through remorse or satisfaction.

This idea can be seen in how watching a motivational speech or a convincing debate does not change any long-held views. People do not simply get swayed in an instant. They require to be slowly nudged by an idea, to be surrounded by it. So that it could eventually become capable of swaying their subconscious and shifting their nature. Afterward, a moment of clarity or some event makes the final push towards a different attitude.

This idea, in my view, explains the unreasonable dichotomy between the heart and the mind. I would as far as to say it explains how we have chosen our love, displeasure, admiration, and even trust in things all around us, by slowly conditioning our subconscious one judgment at a time. This is the idea of how we slowly shape our personalities with the choices we make in our hours of solitude.

Author: Wail Rimouche.

Stoicism: A Timeless Life Philosophy

February 22 2020

Marcus Aurelius, meditations, philosophy

In life, humans have been fighting the different factors around them that caused negative feelings like fear, irritation, failure, and despair and that has not changed since the beginning of humanity. The new technology and modern life with all that it offers could not liberate humans from these aspects of life. This dilemma drove one of the greatest emperors of Rome, Marcus Aurelius, to write his diary that survived against all odds of two millenniums. Because the lessons that it presents to this issue are still applicable nowadays. Especially that life is getting more complicated with the materialistic development of the new world. This book is ‘’Meditations.’’ It prompts the readers to review their relationship with themselves, the others, God and life itself.

The Philosopher Emperor and The Book of Life:

Marcus Aurelius was the Emperor of the greatest civilization back in 180 AD: the Roman civilization. He is the only historical figure that was introduced as an emperor and a philosopher. He proved the theory of Plato that every ruler has to be a philosopher to succeed. In spite of his daily duties and personal problems, he managed to keep a diary. Surprisingly, he did not intend to publish it, but just as a means to keep reminding himself of the rules and principles that he learned through life. Little did he know that these instructions would remain till the 21st century and inspire lots of other people in their lives including myself. His diary was published as” Meditations”.

This book constitutes the bedrock of what is known as Stoicism or the philosophy of indifference. It is an ancient philosophy that was one of the most popular disciplines in the West. Practiced by both the rich and the poor, the kings and the slaves in the pursuit of The Good Life. I was impressed to know that great historical figures like George Washington, Emmanuel Kant, Thomas Jefferson, etc. I have followed this philosophy that defeated the frames of time and place.

How Can We Attain Peace Of Mind?

When you go through the different passages and pages, you can sense how Marcus was addressing himself. So his words were genuine, realistic and show a level of wisdom that a lot of preceding emperors could not attain. He did not utilize complex terms or deep philosophical notions, but simple and relatable words of truth that we all could understand if we open our minds and hearts. Each quote made me stop and think about how compatible it is with my life. I was personally influenced by this philosophy. It encouraged me to delve myself into introspection. It taught me how to meditate on my thoughts and behaviors towards different matters.

Meditations made me grasp the fact that I have no control over anything external in my life, not my body, not calamities, not how people judge me. The only thing I can control is the way I perceive those things like he said: ” If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” that was helpful with dealing with anxiety and stress.

Through his pages I learned to be present at the moment, for the past is already gone, and the future has not come yet. They are both a result of human thoughts so why worry about it? We only live once, and the future that we anticipated yesterday is ”now” so why do we keep escaping it? As he said: ” Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it if you have to, which the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present”.

The Subjective Perception Is Not Reality

He praised gratitude and highlighted a very important idea which is our judgmental nature. We are too oblivious to the fact that we filter life through our own opinions and judgments without observing it for what it is in reality. According to him, whatever happens in life is neutral, but the way we respond to it depends on our subjective view. For instance, Some may see hardships as a negative experience that would make their lives miserable and fall into the victim trap. While others may view them as a positive experience, a challenge, or a test from God…etc

Marcus states that it is misleading to label anything in life as positive or negative. Instead, we should observe it the way it is and react to it based on virtue and honesty. As I quote:” Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” So the only thing we can do is to alter the way we see and react to life, then everything will change accordingly, just as he said:” You have power over your mind, not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.’’

Follow Your Virtuous Nature

In addition to many other important lessons mentioned in the book, he emphasized the most important rule: virtue and nature. He helped me answer a question that baffled me for a long time: what is the meaning of life? Marcus simply answers that by Nature. He argues that humans are naturally virtuous and they should pursue this characteristic no matter what. To subside to their nature that requires them to work and do their duties for the common good. And get rid of laziness, selfishness, and fear of life and death. To seek honesty and authenticity, to do good and avoid vices and live in peace with one another.

This may seem Utopian, but it is indeed realistic if we think about it thoroughly. It is also mentioned in most religions in spite of the fact that ”Meditations” did not hold a religious or conceptual theme. Stoicism is a practical philosophy that people with different ideologies and beliefs could apply.

Author: Hibat Errahmane Hadjadj.

The Nature of Bias

February 21 2020

bias, science, subjectivity

Science’s greatest virtue has been and always will be its detachment from subjective opinions. Thus, making bias the nemesis of proper scientific progress. Bias -either scientific or otherwise- originates from our very nature. In fact, I would assume its origin lies in our mind’s need to avoid contradictions between internal desires and external reality even at the expense of truth itself.

Our flawed, incomplete knowledge of the world around us compels our mind to fill in the gaps according to our own “narratives”. Hence, ignoring many facts that do not fall within them and emphasizing the ones that do. Therefore, making us see the world the way we wish to see it. Enclosing us within an echo-chamber where only our narratives are heard. These narratives are commonly the result of abiding by an authoritative source. Such as social norms, religious doctrines, or even political figures. To a point where your own mind considers these sources more truthful than your own senses.

There is one notable psychologist who delved deep into his exploration of the mind’s perception of both itself and the world around. It is Sigmund Freud. He conceived the concept of “repression”[1] which he described as a mechanism where the mind hides all desires that do not conform to the previously mentioned authoritative sources within the subconscious. These repressed desires however still play an important role in making some views more appealing than others without the person even noticing on a conscious level.

This is also the reason behind the unreliability of anecdotal evidence – evidence originating from personal experience- in science. Since we would always be inclined towards noticing things supporting our views. Another source of bias is our mind’s tendency to rationalize events around us. In other words, giving them a reason for occurring after the event has already occurred. These mechanisms give “inertia” in the form of resistance to changes in our previously held opinions; therefore, compromising our judgment in various matters.

The only escape from the image drawn to us by our minds to fit our paradigm of reality is to doubt our own instincts and thoughts. It is only through empirical evidence and complete negligence of any concepts that we take for granted, unless supported by reality, that we can come into a proper view of this world. However, I do not wish to imply that this concept applies to scientific thoughts alone. Even though it is mostly spoken of in such context. But instead, I would emphasize the fact that we are prone to bias in every opinion we hold. Be it political, social, cultural, ethical or even those opinions we hold about each other. We must always be watchful of biases. So that we never find ourselves stuck in a foolish sentiment that reflects nothing but a narrative we wrote ourselves.

Philosophy

Authenticity, Can We Have An Authentic Life?

Who Are we? And How Do We Become Who We Truly Are?

Can We Create Ourselves?

Authenticity In Different Philosophies

What Are The Limitations Of Full Authenticity?

What Can We Conclude?

Author: Hibat Errahmane Hadjadj.

The Fallacy of Universal Morality

Author: Wail Rimouche.

Pondering on Free Will

Author: Wail Rimouche.

Stoicism: A Timeless Life Philosophy

The Philosopher Emperor and The Book of Life:

How Can We Attain Peace Of Mind?

The Subjective Perception Is Not Reality

Follow Your Virtuous Nature

The Nature of Bias

Author: Wail Rimouch.