Anyone fancy a debate..?

I’ve been thinking a lot about individuality and ‘authenticity’ recently, and come to the conclusion it’s damn near impossible, if not totally impossible, to be authentic in any real meaning of the word.

Three posts, with a reasonablely short response time 24-48 hours perhaps…

Any takers…?

No, the idea of “authenticity” has always seemed, ironically, kinda fake to me. I don’t consider it a legitimate basis for determining something’s quality. I don’t even consider it a legitimate distinction, actually. EVERYTHING is authentic. Taco Bell is an authentic American fast food translation of Mexican cuisine. Carlos Mencia’s jokes are an authentic rip-off of other peoples’ jokes. etc. (I fucking hate Mencia, even more than I hate Dane Cook) If everything is authentic, the word becomes meaningless.

But you Humpty, are you authentic…? How many Humpties are there, under the sun…?

I’m a robot

Hmm. Then no, we’d better not debate, lest we fervently agree with one another.

You’re a robot too?

Beep beep, boop boop.

Can authenticity even be reasonably defined?

For me it is simply the belief that you are you, and that your ‘youness’ is internally generated, crucially independent of external influences.

I of course, would argue the opposite.

If I had time, this could be fun. Oh well…

Is this just another version of free will?

Would Nietzsche’s übermensch qualify as an authentic? If so, I will take.

Tab,

If by “authentic in any real meaning of the word” you mean absolutely authentic, then I agree. We have all had the formal schooling of public/private education and the informal schooling of growing up with our parents, friends, and acquaintances, from whom we have learned many things and who have influenced us in a variety of ways. But there is no reason authenticity has to a zero-sum concept. If one simply thinks for herself, after weighing all her relevant experiences and in spite of those who may expect her to act out a different character and not out of any motive to conform or to oppose conformity, then she acts authentically.

Edit: I used to carry, as part of my signature, the phrase “thinking for oneself is the greatest act of nonconformity.” It came to me in the car one day years ago as I was trying to express what I felt to be the true essence of nonconformity. And I think nonconformity is intimately related with authenticity. Anyhow, if you want to debate you can take this as my first post and start the clock from now.

I’m game.

You take the position that Authenticity is very improbable and I take the position that Authenticity is very probable.

You post first and we will make responses in the allocated intervals to three posts each.

If Tab accepts, I would suggest a longer post with more detail.

Pav,

If Tab accepts, I would suggest a longer post with more detail.

Thanks for the tip. I have a tendency of being brief.

No, more a case of the freedom to be anything at all, at least anything unique or even novel.

I’ve a nasty feeling that N.'s Überguy is all things to all men. So, I don’t know to be frank. I don’t know enough Nietzche anyway, to make it interesting for you.

It goes far, far deeper than you have imagined it to be.

I don’t mind if you want to team up with Fuse and debate with me. And as Pav says, have a think about what you want to say first in a bit more detail if you like.

Sure I will team up with Fuse, when do we start?

Shall we commence with the debate then give the whole community voting rights for which argument was superior?

Yeah sure, it worked okay last time, after half a million bumps. Start tomorrow if you like - Do you want to go first or second, or shall we let Pav flip a coin…?

You go first, because I don’t exactly know the point you are trying to get across with authenticity.

Then Fuse or I can go, depending on what Fuse wants. If fuse wants to respond first then he can respond first and last, while I respond in the middle, 3-posts each side of the debate. So if Fuse wants to post twice or once, that is up to him.