Is a human authentic dasein (existence, life) possible?

[Arminius]

Children develop and learn to be like adults. The older a child the more similar to an adult.

untab

entwicklung_vkze.jpg

And why oh why is that important in this matter?

If children are capable of living authentically and adults are not capable of living authentically anymore, then the difference of both is because of development and learning, ubringing and education, thus because of natural and cultural processes which cause that adult humans are not capable of living authentically anymore.

[objet petit a]

If children are capable of living authentically and adults are not capable of living authentically anymore, then the difference of both is because of development and learning, ubringing and education, thus because of natural and cultural processes which cause that adult humans are not capable of living authentically anymore.

That is correct. Do you know why?

[Arminius]

If children are capable of living authentically and adults are not capable of living authentically anymore, then the difference of both is because of development and learning, ubringing and education, thus because of natural and cultural processes which cause that adult humans are not capable of living authentically anymore.

That is correct. Do you know why?

Yes.

[objet petit a]

Then why did you start the topic with precisely this question?

[Arminius]

Then why did you start the topic with precisely this question?

I started the topic with that question in order to find out what some ILP members think about the topic.

[objet petit a]

I can understand that.
Do you want me to give you a Freudian perspective on that?

[Arminius]

I can understand that.

I also can understand that.

Do you want me to give you a Freudian perspective on that?

Feel free to do it.

[MechanicalMonster]

As a writer once said, there really aren't any adults at all, just children in more grown up bodies. So your analysis here on the count of children and adults per "authenticity" capacity is dubious. Much more elaboration would be needed for you to make your point, let alone defend it.

[Arminius]

Your "writer" is wrong.

[James S Saint]

So as long as people remain extremely naive and healthy, they can live "authentically"/"honestly" (albeit childishly).

But then exactly who is going to ensure they stay that way throughout generations? Children are far from being self-governing (as anyone can see at the UN).

[Arminius]

We can say that an "authentic human life" means a "life according to the human's nature", whereas an "unauthentic life" means a "life according to the human's culture/s".
In other words: Humans need their culture/s to not live according to their nature and need their nature to not live according to their culture/s.
If humans are humans because of about 2% of their nature and because of about 98% of their culture/s (=>#), then they have merely a chance of about 2% to live authentically.

[MechanicalMonster]

Your "writer" is wrong.

How so?

[Ben JS]

Life is a journey - An experience.

We want to live well - to have a valuable journey.

Anyone can pursue this, regardless of their environment.

To act to the best of one's knowledge, with due consideration, in pursuit of one's ideals - that's authentic.

To enable the flourishing of that which one values - authentic.

-

We have a plentiful source of wisdom within.

Our bodies don't lie. They always respond authentically to their environment.

[Orbie]

We have created a difference, or differance, to set the stage for the showdown of the noumenal with the phenomenal world, and if I were aKantian, I could say, we should stick to our guns and resist the phenomenal invasion into our cultural authenticity.
But, this has been the war since the Rennaissance, ever accelerating, and brought into focus in the twentieth my (WWI&II) , and now, the Third Stage,
The final possibility for a resolution of ressentiment.

[LaughingMan]

It's possible but only with the complete destruction of the giant prison structure known as civilization first.

We had an authentic lifestyle of freedom and independence in animalistic form at one point in human history where civilization destroyed that completely.

Civilization is where humanity has conquered itself creating a virtual prison of enslavement, servitude, dependency, and social bondage.

The problem arises that this dangerous human enterprise has become so self destructive that once it destroys itself it will probably make all of life impossible in an extinction style event...

Not what people wanted to hear but my two cents on the subject nonetheless.

[Orbie]

We've heard of 'the cultural revolution' before, and it has been tried within various utopian visions. Soit's not going to go that way, for sure, time cannot wait, as with interest ptincipal draws, it cannot wait. The inflation eats away at a dormancy. So there is no economic factors within cultural revolution either, political economy is very top heavy for that, the trickle down theory made that perfectly clear.

What remains? Either fully blown projects for escape, like those of SpaceX, and/or simultanious creation of virtul worlds, completely authenic looking, (while waiting for ticket to ride), and unless both can be achieved before a critical mode is reached, authentic dasein will not only become outdatedm but impossible. I give it one more generation, although may be off on that.

[LaughingMan]

We've heard of 'the cultural revolution' before, and it has been tried within various utopian visions. Soit's not going to go that way, for sure, time cannot wait, as with interest ptincipal draws, it cannot wait. The inflation eats away at a dormancy. So there is no economic factors within cultural revolution either, political economy is very top heavy for that, the trickle down theory made that perfectly clear.

What remains? Either fully blown projects for escape, like those of SpaceX, and/or simultanious creation of virtul worlds, completely authenic looking, (while waiting for ticket to ride), and unless both can be achieved before a critical mode is reached, authentic dasein will not only become outdatedm but impossible. I give it one more generation, although may be off on that.

You give one more generation? You're optimistic...

[Arminius]

Our bodies don't lie. They always respond authentically to their environment.

Because they are part of the nature.

We can say that an "authentic human life" means a "life according to the human's nature", whereas an "unauthentic life" means a "life according to the human's culture/s".
In other words: Humans need their culture/s to not live according to their nature and need their nature to not live according to their culture/s.
If humans are humans because of about 2% of their nature and because of about 98% of their culture/s (=>#), then they have merely a chance of about 2% to live authentically.

___

We have created a difference, or differance, to set the stage for the showdown of the noumenal with the phenomenal world, and if I were a Kantian, I could say, we should stick to our guns and resist the phenomenal invasion into our cultural authenticity.

You told me that you beleived in the "world peace"/"perpetual peace" (Kant), Orbie, so at least in this way you are a Kantian. .... Do not forget ....

[Ben JS]

Sorry for not acknowledging your contributions.

Our bodies don't lie. They always respond authentically to their environment.

Because they are part of the nature.

Furthermore, if one fancies themselves a determinist -

One can say it's impossible to do any action that is inauthentic.

As all actions are a direct response to the past - and the mind is not beyond the body in terms of causality.

This is not to say all actions are ideal to us, rather that they are sincere actions resultant from the vast array of human drives / priorities / influences.

We can say that an "authentic human life" means a "life according to the human's nature", whereas an "unauthentic life" means a "life according to the human's culture/s".
In other words: Humans need their culture/s to not live according to their nature and need their nature to not live according to their culture/s.
If humans are humans because of about 2% of their nature and because of about 98% of their culture/s (=>#), then they have merely a chance of about 2% to live authentically.

Well said.

[I believe...]

Culture was an outgrowth of ourselves. It was shaped by our ancestors, and continually influenced by new generations.

Over time, certain aspects of our culture were rewarded/reinforced and became inflated in comparison to us - out of proportion, as a reflection of ourselves.

We ought determine our culture, not it us . And that is the disconnect. Our culture/society has grown to be an entity beyond any of us, and pressures us to contort/conform to something maladjusted to us.

Yet, culture/society still has a degree of authenticity. In science, philosophy, art, community (and more) - areas where despite the chaos / noise, people can be genuine to their humanity. And these fields can influence, guide us, and promote healthy growth.

Therefore, I wouldn't say that all culture distances us from authenticity.

[objet petit a]

@Ariminius:
It took me while because I was thinking about how deep to go. I logged in now because I decided on the short Freudian version. I am also considering starting a new topic in the coming days on a related topic that I have recently been pondering. I will pm you if/when I do.

Here goes:

Freud is famous for his seperation between 'it', 'ego' and 'superego'. The way he means that is that the ego (what we (decide) to show the world) is build up of a compromise between what we really are (the drives known as 'it') and what we think we should be (what we have learned from the world around us/culture known as 'superego').

Now, this means that the 'real' is factually what Freud calls the 'it'. It encompasses our natural drives; our connection to the real world. In that sense really 'being there' for a 100% is absolutely blocked by our cultural superego.

Some examples:
-A child has no problem laughing and crying with friends. Only when we get older we learn it is not received well if we cry, or get mad or something like that. So, we leard to 'hide' our real drives.
-Teenagers might feel the drive to immediately grab eachother and start fucking in the car/toilet/whatever. When we get older we learn our culture does not allow this. In fact, some people feel this so strong that they get into trouble showing sexual attraction at all.

This does not mean it is impossible for adults to really be there, but it does make it a lot more difficult. We could momentarily 'let go' of previous lessons and cultural ideas and really be there in the moment.
The question arises if one actually should promote this in the first place. Imagine someone liking the campfire so much he burns himself. Most kids hurt themselves once or twice that way. And how to judge the pervert that drags a girl into the bushes to have his way with her? He must have let go of the cultural inhibition to an extreme. Then again, the first kiss is always scary. We might be encouraged not to try by our culture. Letting go at that time out of love seems to be the right thing to do.

If you ask me, life takes a combination of restrains and moments of letting go. I have considered that the leading emotion should be indicative of when to let go and when not to. But this is not the only condition. There are moments and places to let our drives run their course(s). If we do not control when we do so, things can be anything from embarrassing to downright scary.

Well, I hope this benefits someone.

[Arminius]

@Ariminius:
It took me while because I was thinking about how deep to go. I logged in now because I decided on the short Freudian version. I am also considering starting a new topic in the coming days on a related topic that I have recently been pondering. I will pm you if/when I do.

Here goes:

Freud is famous for his seperation between 'it', 'ego' and 'superego'.

The precise translation:
- "Es" <=> "id"
- "Ich" <=> "ego"
- "Über-Ich" <=> "superego".

The way he means that is that the ego (what we (decide) to show the world) is build up of a compromise between what we really are (the drives known as 'it') and what we think we should be (what we have learned from the world around us/culture known as 'superego').

Now, this means that the 'real' is factually what Freud calls the 'it'. It encompasses our natural drives; our connection to the real world. In that sense really 'being there' for a 100% is absolutely blocked by our cultural superego.

Some examples:
-A child has no problem laughing and crying with friends. Only when we get older we learn it is not received well if we cry, or get mad or something like that. So, we leard to 'hide' our real drives.
-Teenagers might feel the drive to immediately grab eachother and start fucking in the car/toilet/whatever. When we get older we learn our culture does not allow this.

Very young children already learn what their culture allows and forbids.

[James S Saint]

@Ariminius:
It took me while because I was thinking about how deep to go. I logged in now because I decided on the short Freudian version. I am also considering starting a new topic in the coming days on a related topic that I have recently been pondering. I will pm you if/when I do.

Here goes:

Freud is famous for his seperation between 'it', 'ego' and 'superego'.

The precise translation:
- "Es" <=> "id"

Glad to see someone ELSE point that out.

Very little [few] children already learn what their culture allows and forbids.

[Mithus]

Very little [few] [small] children already learn what their culture allows and forbids.

[Ben JS]

'Very little [few] [small] [young] children already learn what their culture allows and forbids.'

And I'm pretty sure James was intentionally altering the meaning of the statement, in order to express how his view differs from it. Hence the color red for correction, i.e. 'you're wrong, I'm right. lalala.'

You might be doing the same, I don't know...

[Arminius]

Thanks.

I think "young" fits a bit better than "small" and "little". So:

Very young children already learn what their culture allows and forbids.

They learn for example some hygienic aspects or the eating habits of their culture.