Authenticity (philosophy)

Authenticity is a quality of a person, achieved when a person harmonizes actions with his or her true self. As a philosophical concept, it first emerged in critiques of the human condition after industrialization and the social changes it catalyzed. These critiques appeared under the cultural banner of Romanticism, a movement in the arts and philosophy that valued the beauty of nature and living in harmony with it. Later, the concept of authenticity became central in existential philosophy. Existentialism concerns itself primarily with how to be in the world with regard to the creation of meaning and purpose for the self, after having accepted the brute fact of existence. Authenticity is also a criterion of judgement to apply to works of art and the degree to which they express things that are genuine or sincere. Therefore, the concept of authenticity is important in the branches of philosophy called aesthetics and ethics. Aesthetics is, broadly speaking, the philosophy of art. Ethics deals with how we should behave as human beings. This article focuses on authenticity in the realm of ethics.

Background

A group of thinkers in the early 1920s, inspired by the work of Søren Kierkegaard, endorsed a sense of conviction above and beyond the contents of any doctrine they espoused. They became known as the "authentics." However, the first to introduce the term authenticity into philosophy as a key concept was Martin Heidegger. Early in Heidegger's career, he sought to establish the importance of metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of ideas that go beyond what merely exists. He did this by logically proving that "Nothing" must itself exist, however contradictory that may seem. He concluded that "Nothing" must give meaning to other things that exist, through their distinction from it. Since science concerns itself only with what exists, he asserted that metaphysics is a necessary subject alongside it. Metaphysics has traditionally been allied with religion of one stripe or another. Heidegger responded to the crisis of faith resulting from scientific discoveries, such as Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, by attempting to create secular metaphysics.

The "Nothing" makes itself known to us in the feeling of dread. Fear is always fear of something, whereas dread has no immediate object. Later, to address the problems posed by the existence of "Nothing" and the unpleasant feelings it causes, Heidegger sought to establish "Being" and its authenticity as the proper guides for us to make decisions and how to act in the world. Before he did this, he had to distinguish between things that exist, such as a rock, and things that become aware of their existence and control it.

The relevant difference between the rock and the human being is that a human can creatively shape his or her existence, while the rock cannot. This is the difference between a being-in-itself and being-for-itself. Authenticity, for Heidegger, consists of a being owning itself. This is a free choice that a being-for-itself makes. The decision to assert self-ownership is what distinguishes the authentic from the inauthentic. Furthermore, authenticity derives its meaning from the attitude of the being-for-itself toward death. Consciousness is the essential feature of the authentic being, and built into consciousness is the realization that one’s life comes to an end. Existence ends in the non-existence of death. Death is closely related to the "Nothing" discussed earlier. Therefore, the awareness of death as an eternally present possibility shapes our freely-made decisions, which allows us to achieve authenticity.

Impact

Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, and Marjorie Grene all took issue with Heidegger’s emphasis of the role of death in creating authenticity. To them, Heidegger’s account is too individualistic and abstract. Simone de Beauvoir insisted that authenticity must be thought of in terms of a specific project the individual undertakes to give one’s life meaning and purpose. The extent to which others take up that project beyond the individual's lifespan would be an indicator of authenticity. Likewise, the criticism continues, Heidegger's idea of authenticity gives us too few clues to the specific values that should guide our decisions to make them count.

Theodor Adorno went further to accuse Heidegger in particular, and German existentialism in general, of lending momentum to fascism. He argued that the jargon it used became, through repetition empty of content, a mere arrangement of signals to coerce a consensus. What people actually agreed on, however, was obscure. He noted how Heidegger removed "Being" from its social context and put it on a pedestal as the source of authentic experience. This move disguised how history and society fashion people in ways that often block their fulfillment. The existentialist hero creates meaning and purpose out of alienation and futility. One becomes the author of one’s own experience by a sleight of hand that hides the origins of alienation, disenchantment, and a host of other social illnesses. Adorno argued that "Being" is fundamentally relational both on the level of language and in reality. Our being is determined by others’ being. One’s experience is shaped as much by social relations as it is by some mythic principle of authentic selfhood. By isolating the individual in his or her relationship with "Nothing" and death, Heidegger made him or her more ready to submit to a strong, authoritarian state that filled the gap left by the erosion of religion and processes of social fragmentation.

Similarly, Karl Löwith attacked Heidegger for offering weak grounds for distinguishing between authentic beings making their own fates in history through their choices and decisions, and inauthentic beings falling prey to unchosen events and circumstances. He argues that Heidegger’s acceptance of the presidency of Freiberg University under Adolf Hitler and his subsequent promotion of a collective or group of people, German "Being" blatantly contradicts the individual basis of "Being" in his theory.

The idea of authenticity continues to circulate, from Harvey Dent’s assertion in Christopher Nolan’s film The Dark Knight that "you make your own luck," to the Dove soap advertising campaign promoting the acceptance of many different body types for women, to the ever-present mantra to "be yourself." What remains unclear is the nature of the "true self." What is it? From what vantage point do we decide that someone is or is not authentic? How do we climb up to this vantage point?

Bibliography

Anderson, R. Lanier. "On Marjorie Grene’s ‘Authenticity: An Existential Virtue.’" Ethics 125.3 (2015): 815–19. Print.

Aylat-Yaguri, Tamar, and John Stewart. The Authenticity of Faith in Kierkegaard's Philosophy. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2013. Print.

Berman, Marshall. The Politics of Authenticity: Radical Individualism and the Emergence of Modern Society. London: Verso, 2009. Print.

Braman, Brian J. Meaning and Authenticity: Bernard Lonergan and Charles Taylor on the Drama of Authentic Human Existence.Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2008. Print.

Gosetti-Ferencei, Jennifer Anna. "Death and Authenticity: Reflections on Heidegger, Rilke, Blanchot." Existenz 9.1 (2014): 53–62. Print.

McManus, Denis. "Authenticity, Deliberation, and Perception: On Heidegger's Reading and Appropriation of Aristotle's Concept of Phronêsis." Journal of the History of Philosophy 60.1, 2022, 125-53, 10.1353/hph.2022.0005. Accessed 18 Jan. 2025.

Irwin, William. "Fight Club, Self-Definition, and the Fragility of Authenticity." Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 69.3 (2003): 673-784. Print.

Shaw, Beau Carmel. "Authenticity and Death in Being and Time." Thesis. Columbia University, 2012. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.

Taylor, Charles. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge: Harvard U P, 1992. Print.