Page 1 of 2

Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:20 pm
by Tab
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..?

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:25 pm
by Humpty
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.

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:31 pm
by Tab
But you Humpty, are you authentic..? How many Humpties are there, under the sun..?

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:33 pm
by Humpty
I'm a robot

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:35 pm
by Tab
Hmm. Then no, we'd better not debate, lest we fervently agree with one another.

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:36 pm
by Humpty
You're a robot too?

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:50 pm
by Tab
Beep beep, boop boop.

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:52 pm
by anon
Can authenticity even be reasonably defined?

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:56 pm
by Tab
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.

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:05 pm
by anon
Tab wrote: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...

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:07 pm
by Humpty
Tab wrote:For me it is simply the belief that you are you, and that your 'youness' is internally generated, crucially independent of external influences.

Is this just another version of free will?

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:55 pm
by objet petit a
Would Nietzsche's übermensch qualify as an authentic? If so, I will take.

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:57 pm
by fuse
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.

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:59 pm
by Debaitor
Tab wrote: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..?

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.

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 1:12 am
by PavlovianModel146
fuse wrote: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.



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

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 1:57 am
by fuse
Pav,

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

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

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:02 am
by Tab
Humpty wrote:
Tab wrote:For me it is simply the belief that you are you, and that your 'youness' is internally generated, crucially independent of external influences.

Is this just another version of free will?


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

objet petit a wrote:Would Nietzsche's übermensch qualify as an authentic? If so, I will take.


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.

fuse wrote: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.


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

Debaitor wrote:
Tab wrote: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..?

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.


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.

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:03 am
by Debaitor
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?

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:07 am
by Tab
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..?

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:10 am
by Debaitor
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.

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:12 am
by Tab
Hokay-Kokey, I will post something up by tomorrow night. :D Yay, debate on.

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:28 am
by PavlovianModel146
Personally, I think that both Fuse and Debaitor should get one post following each of Tab's posts, if Tab accepts the handicap. Provided Fuse and Debaitor communicate a little with one another prior to posting, redundancy can be kept to a minimum.

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:29 am
by fuse
Sure Debaitor, let's do it! :)

Tab,

I'm game as well. I'll post second, after you. But can we see if someone wants to team up with you? A two-on-two debate sounds good. Maybe advertise for a partner in a new thread?

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:29 am
by Debaitor
It wouldn't matter to me, but would be an obvious disadvantage to Tab.

Re: Anyone fancy a debate..?

PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:46 am
by fuse
So how about a partner, Tab?