In this blogpost, I’d like to come back on a detail mentioned by many philosophers we have studied : the notion of authentic existence, authentic life. Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger used this term. I will (very) briefly summarize their ideas :
- For Kierkegaard, to live an authentic existence you have to achieve selfhood. You have to renounce to the aesthetic life ; the couch potato, the business man and the aristocratic hedonist do not live an authentic existence. You have to choose the ethical life which means you are in despair and you are aware of it, and yet you aren’t authentic. Finally you’ll experience the leap of faith and briefly, temporarily be authentic.
- According to Nietzsche to live an authentic existence, you need to affirm life, to manage the good and bad parts of it. You have to free yourself from the metaphysics, the not-inborn morals and live according to your will of power.
- For Heidegger, to live an authentic existence you have to free yourself from the addiction toward the others and live toward death, that means being aware that we are, as humans, as existent beings, doomed to death. And we should live according to this knowledge of this unavoidable end.
As you can see, each one of them has a different conception of what is an authentic existence. I quite agree with the idea that we should live an authentic life as far as possible. But what strikes me, or even upsets me is the fact that these three philosophers define what is supposed to be MY (or your) authentic life.
( Thank you Britney for expressing my thought)
I really do not appreciate when someone, even if it’s a well known philosopher, explains to me that I don’t really live an authentic existence. It is even more irritating when this person describes how I should authentically exist, how every human being should authentically live. In my opinion it is a denial of my freedom and my individuality.
Indeed, the word authentic comes from the greek word authentikos which literally means “from the author” or “who is master of him/herself”. Hence, as the master of my life, I consider myself able to determine what is my authenticity and how I will authentically exist.
We can define in a less normative and substantial way what is living authentically without denying individuality and autonomy. I would say that living an authentic life is living according to a kind of ideal which you have yourself determined. More widely, you can consider that you have act authentically when you have no regrets, when your acts match what you are, what you consider yourself to be.
I'll be sincerely glad to hear you about this conception of authentic life !
To come back on my dear philosophers, I'd like to add some considerations on their conception of the authentic life. First Kierkegaard. If existing authentically is being in despair and is giving up on being SOMETIMES a couch potato (come on I know you like it too !) or feeling bad because hedonism is not authentic life (although it seems to have some nice aspects), well I'm not sure I want this authentic life !
Concerning Nietzsche, I am in the perspective of affirming life. However, if this means to live according to my will of power, I don't think I gonna live very longer. Without devalorising myself, I don't belong to the more powerfull and the stronger people so, this kind of life is not really attractive to me.
To finish with Heidegger, I think his conception of authentic life is maybe the most interesting and the less binding. Being aware of our death, of the fact that it can happen anytime, help us, I believe, to give to our life a meaning, a goal. Just as Harold Crick in Stranger than fiction, having in mind our finitude allow us to determine a goal for our life and to try to achieve it (playing the guitar for instance). And it thus helps us to live OUR authentic life and not just being carried through life thanks to necessity (brushing your teeth, getting dressed, working...)
To conclude, I’d like to naïvely encourage all of you to life authentically ; to define who you are and what you want to be, and to live according to this, and not according to what you are supposed to be, what they want you to be. It’s not that easy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Anna !
DeleteAs far as I agree with you on knowing better that anyone what authentic life is for me (Britney rules ahaha), my analysis of those three philosophers differ a lot !
Indeed, as you wrote it, to live an authentic life is to be the true master of oneself. But becoming the true master of oneself is a hard and tidous task and thinkers of all time gave us the keys to attain that goal. Of course, you have Kierkegaard's solution ( = turn only to God, for He is the one you might want to trust to cure your despair), Nietzsche's solution ( = free yourself from the constructed ideas of good and evil and live a dangerous life, go ahead of existence so you can become the ûbermensch) or Heidegger's solution ( = do not surrender yourself to anyone and be aware you will be dead in the longer run) but you have plenty others, like Kant's ( = to live an authentic life is to be the one that decide upon the rules and laws one has to follow), Platon's (= to attain the "Sky of Ideas", the true world, you should not listen to the doxa, the common opinion and gossips, and only seek the mathematical truth) or Epictetus' ( = to be happy you must learn to disntiguish the thing you can change of the things you can not and only focus one those you can change. If not, you will become miserable.)
Sure, some might be more appealing than others for you but they all have in common to give you ways to free yourself from the influence of exterior factors - morality, laws, gossips - so you can become the true master of yourself. I actually think that the pursuing of an athentic life - or a happy one, or a meaningful one - is a theme that you can find in almost every philsophy. Everyone wants to discover the path to the "truer existence" and apparently, nobody has found the miracle recipe yet.
You are the master of yourself indeed and you are free to choose the solution you will rather follow. Perhaps it is one of the philosophers propositions, perhaps it is not and frankly, both are fine. Philsophy is not an exact science anyway.
(Hope I made sense ?)
Hi Cécile !
DeleteThanks for your comment. I think I see your point. What I wanted to show in my post was that I personally find the "ways to free yourself" given by these philosophers were too restrictive and normative, on the contrary Kant for example does not give me this feeling.
Moreover, I am under the impression that for them authentic and happy life are fiercely opposed. That hurts me personally and that is why I wanted to come back on these conceptions. I just wanted to express that I would not choose their solutions.
Hello Anna !
ReplyDeleteI really liked your post, I found it was great you summed up the different perspectives these three philosophers give us on the authentic life !
Yet, isn’t your vision of these authors a little bit pessimistic ? I do not think they are trying to impose anything on us by telling us how to live an authentic life. Quite on the contrary, same as Cécile, I think they are trying to give an answer to the insoluble question of existence and to free us from external and sometimes unconscious factors that prevent our existence from being our own making it unauthentic.
I don’t really get your point concerning Nietzsche’s will to power. In my opinion, his philosophy is not a very binding or harsh one to follow contrarily to Kierkegaard's. It is very optimistic, affirming creation at the center of life and the destruction of norms and values that crush you on a daily basis.
Yet, I understand the criticism you make, but the great thing is we do not have to agree on everything these philosophers said ! Their toughts are merely hints to develop our own conception of life, and make it meaningful !
Hi there!
ReplyDeleteI really liked your post and ai thought the same thing. They all talk about authentic life but instead they define what it is. Maybe we should take them as a kind of advice and not as a real way of living; mostly because the paths that they expose are not for every personality.
I think that if we lived thinking about despair or death, I would personally be depressed.. I am those kind of persons that need happiness to continue life! On the other hand, others are able to find the meaning of life living in the way that these philosophers explain.. So as a result, I support the idea that they are just remarks and that one has to be authentic in their own way and matter.
I would like to answer you, Lucie and Lucia in the same comment.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree and know that we do not have to agree with these philosophers. In this post, I just wanted to express my disagreement with their conceptions. May be was I a little bit too offensive. I finally do believe that their thesis help us to define what our authentic life is, by rejecting their views for instance. I am now convinced that there is no "magic recipe" as Cecile said, and that everyone has to define his/her own authenticity.
Lucie, concerning my point on the will of power, let's forget it. It is an aspect I have developed in my mid-term paper. But seen the correction, it is probable that I misunderstood Nietzsche so...
I thank you both for your comment :)
Hi Anna! Really enjoy your post because it sort of hits on the entire reason why I decided to take this class. Not only did I want to finally understand what people were talking about at parties they got all serious about the "meaning of life," but I also wanted to find an escape from my own musings and see what other people had to say.
ReplyDeleteI have a theory that for someone to be an existential philosopher, they first have to be very depressed in order to even begin considering the meaning of death and how one can possibly find meaning in a world devoid of values. In learning about each philosopher's theories, I've tried to take bits and pieces of each and see how they fit within my own life. Though I must agree, they do at times seem a bit imposing because of how confident each philosopher seems in their theories (though that may also be because of how energetic of a speaker Bob is when he delivers his lectures). I took was looking for the "magic recipe," to finally uncover the secret to life and to end my bouts of sadness. If anything, this class has proven that to each, there really is their own.
Hi Anna! I've really enjoyed your post, but i disagree with your analysis of Kierkegaard's goal. I don't think that he is trying to force us to adopt an authentic life. He even says that having an inauthentic relationship to she Surd can be a useful fiction.
ReplyDeleteBesides, I don't think that he is dictating us what to do, indeed with his indirect communication and socratic irony, he is letting us finding our own way toward true selfhood as he does not conclude which of the three "almost authentic existence" is actually the best
Though i agree with you when you say that he is a little bit hard on "couch potato" aesthetes