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

Yes, but there is a lot of arguing about that, which is why I asked for your meaning.

…as well as the intimate man-women love, mother-child love, and honorable devotion.

All life actually wants to be immortal, else it isn’t actually life.

Children can only because they live under the canvas of the adults.

That is not true. If that were the case, prisoners could do so as well.

There’s something to the newness of being a child, that the aggregate of suffering is cumulative. Children simply haven’t had as much shit and time to contemplate it, to question life.

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

[tab]entwicklung_vkze.jpg[/tab]

And why oh why is that important in this matter?

Emmm… no.

Although prisoners get along about as well as other children, the fact that one group can do something under condition A, doesn’t mean every group can do something under condition A.

Then condition A is not conditional and really just a coincidental occurance, isn’t it?
-Just like the fact that deflated is not a condition for being a blue ball.

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.

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.

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

I also can understand that.

Feel free to do it.

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.

Your “writer” is wrong.

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).

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.

How so?

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.