Authenticity and Identity: What Does it Mean to Find One's 'True' Self?
This is an area which I have been thinking about, especially in relation to modernity and postmodernism, and reading, 'Modernity and Self-Identity in the Late Modern Age', by Anthony Giddens. He argues that this involves self-knowledge and that,
'To be true to oneself means finding oneself, but since as an active process of self-constuction it has to be informed by overall goals_ those of becoming free from dependence and achieving fulfilment'. He points to the rites of passage in social life and the sense of meaning, including honesty and integrity. He looks at the way in which identity became mobilised through modernity and how bodily appearance became more significant, including lifestyle regimes.
Giddens draws upon the ideas of RD Laing's, 'The Divided Self'. I have reread this recently and while it was important in relation to the antipsychiatry movement, which has faded to a large extent, this work stands out for me in the way in which it looks at the existential aspects of the self and being a person. One aspect of the idea of the 'true' self and the 'false' self. The false self is connected to the idea of the persona, which is the front or way a person projects themselves in social life. Laing says,
"A man without a mask" is indeed very rare." One even doubts the possibility of such a man. Everyone in some measure wears a mask...'
Laing also looks at the idea of 'ontological security', and he argues that a 'basically ontological secure person will encounter all the hazards of life, social, ethical, spiritual, biological from a centrally firm sense of his own and other people's reality and identity. He draws upon the idea of the imaginary self and the real, developed by Sartre. Laing argues that, 'Without an open two-way circuit between phantasy and reality anything becomes possible in phantasy'.
I am asking the question of what it means to find the "true" self. It is a fairly complex question because it involves the social and existential sense of selfhood? How important is the idea of a 'true' self? To what extent is the self bound up with relationships with others, or as being, alone, in relation to the wider cosmos, and making sense of this?
'To be true to oneself means finding oneself, but since as an active process of self-constuction it has to be informed by overall goals_ those of becoming free from dependence and achieving fulfilment'. He points to the rites of passage in social life and the sense of meaning, including honesty and integrity. He looks at the way in which identity became mobilised through modernity and how bodily appearance became more significant, including lifestyle regimes.
Giddens draws upon the ideas of RD Laing's, 'The Divided Self'. I have reread this recently and while it was important in relation to the antipsychiatry movement, which has faded to a large extent, this work stands out for me in the way in which it looks at the existential aspects of the self and being a person. One aspect of the idea of the 'true' self and the 'false' self. The false self is connected to the idea of the persona, which is the front or way a person projects themselves in social life. Laing says,
"A man without a mask" is indeed very rare." One even doubts the possibility of such a man. Everyone in some measure wears a mask...'
Laing also looks at the idea of 'ontological security', and he argues that a 'basically ontological secure person will encounter all the hazards of life, social, ethical, spiritual, biological from a centrally firm sense of his own and other people's reality and identity. He draws upon the idea of the imaginary self and the real, developed by Sartre. Laing argues that, 'Without an open two-way circuit between phantasy and reality anything becomes possible in phantasy'.
I am asking the question of what it means to find the "true" self. It is a fairly complex question because it involves the social and existential sense of selfhood? How important is the idea of a 'true' self? To what extent is the self bound up with relationships with others, or as being, alone, in relation to the wider cosmos, and making sense of this?
Comments (103)
If living in accord with the constraints of external reality without any kind of internal or external deception or equivocation is egoistic. In the pejorative context you suggest, doesn't ego usually imply some kind of falsity or error?
It is difficult to know to what extent the ego is or isn't involved in finding oneself. It may depend on the criteria used, and values of what matters or is is meaningful. Some may judge themselves on social roles, successes and outward achievements. Others, on the basis of inner qualities and it may be a mixture of all these in many instances. Conscience may be one aspect and others' opinions, although some may be less influenced by others' perceptions.
People who are on shaky ground in terms of survival will find they have to morph into whatever they need to be to gain security.
Once one finds some measure of security, this tendency to live out society's expectations will probably continue out of habit. It takes some courage to step beyond what others want you to be into a form that expresses your own deeper imperatives. There are real risks involved in doing this, in some cultures more than others.
For instance, if you're in Portland, Oregon, you'll find others actually encouraging you to become who you really are. If you're in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, it will be made very clear to you that you need to conform, or you'll be punished.
So the whole issue can become moot depending on your circumstances.
It is true that social and material circumstances affect what potential there is. Also, it may vary at different stages of life. In particular, there may be more options early on and they may narrow down once a particular pathway has been chosen, or open up wider for those who have achieved, especially in careers. However, it is not just about work but the whole range of options.
As far as others' opinions, it may vary how much one can step outside of social expectations. However, part of who one is may be about choices of moving outside specific circles, including family or communities, such as those of a church. Often, to break with certain social ties can involve courage as most people rely on a certain amount of social support.
Absolutely. And breaking from family expectations may dredge up psychic drama you didn't even know was there. Suppose your family's religious identification demands an ongoing war with some other religious group. Dropping that might mean letting go of the ancestral continuum, or at least it may seem so.
All that said, I think there are people who just can't live inauthentically. If they don't find a way to survive without the social facade, they'll just die.
Once again, the type of society you're in plays into this. Some societies will become havens for those who need to be authentic. Some societies will just kill them.
Yes, I am not sure how helpful the term ego, and I guess this may depend on how ego and egoism is defined. It also, may vary at different stages in terms of the importance of goals. For example, in Eastern traditions there was more of an emphasis on the spiritual aspects of oneself later, after worldly goals had been achieved. It may be more fluid in Western culture and following ideas of truth may be an ongoing quest, involving religious, political or other aspects of life. However, truth as conscience may be about following certain moral codes, such as what was oneself spoken of as selling or losing one's own soul when people turn aside from their innermost values to gain popularity or worldly success.
Hi Jack.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Where does the idea of "true self" come from? What is it based on?
How can it be considered as "true"? As opposed or compared to what? False, fake, divided, imagined, idealized?
"True" indicates something absolute, but can there be such a thing in this case? And if there existed such a thing, how could one recognize it? How could one be absolutely certain about such a thing? Because, if a self could not be recognized as such, it couldn't be called "true", would it?
The effects of family and community are profound. For example, gay and transgender people may sometimes try to deny this side to their lives out of pressure, especially if they are from religious backgrounds. In particular, I have met people who were gay and of African descent and they told me how to be open about themselves was a likely means of being ostracized from the community. Also, in Muslim culture, people are often forced into arranged marriages under extreme pressure.
Generally, there is more opportunity for stepping outside of social groups and backgrounds in Western culture, in the context of liberal values. However, people who challenge the social norms of social groups may experience certain costs, such as rejection.
RD Laing spoke of the idea of the true and false self, but I believe that the actual idea was developed by the psychoanalyst, Donald Winnicott. However, going back to ancient times, Plato spoke of being true to oneself.
Yes, I'd agree with this. If your true self is in bad faith, that is still your true self. Maybe what @Jack Cummins is describing is the best self?
The self IS its relationships. The concept only makes sense as a comparison that simultaneously defines the I and the not-I. I dont think the masks we wear and the roles we play are necessarily an impediment to a true self. On the contrary , the self is nothing but its
creative possibilities. The more audaciously and aggressively we try on new masks the closer we get to our true self. The only sorts of masks that hinder the development of self are those that we adopt mechanically and superficially. An inauthentic self is a fragmented self , one that reacts rather understands, that copies without embracing. The self isnt any particular content or identity. It is a way of moving forward that is integrated.
I agree that the self IS in relationships and it can be hard to stand back from it and, here, may a lot of blindspots. It is not as if everyone analyses themselves. The most obvious problems are when someone has such problems that the self fragments, which can lead to some kind of breakdown, especially in the form of psychosis. Laing's writing was important in this respect, showing how people are given confusing messages. This involves double binds and it has also been looked at in the cybernetic theory of Gregory Bateson. A double bind can be a person being told that they should seek happiness, but, at the same time being given loads of restrictive rules.
I am not necessarily referring to the 'best' self because that may be about the ego ideal, almost with a moralistic overtones. However, it may be about bringing out potential, so it is about some kind of reaching for the heights, but this is where it gets complicated because it is not about morality as such, but about finding one's calling in life and some have spoken of finding vocation. As far as I can see, the quest for authenticity involves juggling of all of these and it is likely to be a difficult quest for some. It may be that it is hard to achieve, like the U2 song title, 'I Still Haven't Found What I Am Looking For'.
One writer who Laing draws upon is Lionel Trilling, who looked at the difference between sincerity and authenticity. Trilling suggests that there has been a move from the value of sincerity to authenticity. With the idea of sincerity there was an emphasis on trustworthiness and being true to one's word. Authenticity is more about finding oneself through experimentation.
Trilling and Laing were writing in the twentieth century and identity and meaning have probably shifted. There may be a greater degree of fragmentation of identity, especially in the context of online communication often replacing face to face interaction. Individualist values may be strong but probably with a greater degree of anonymity and amidst the masses there may be often the feeling of being a number; with this depending a lot on the community in which one lives and whether one has quality relationships.
Quoting Jack Cummins
To my mind, in sum, each one of us is a heteronomous¹ (e.g. natal-embodied, socialized, historicized ...) being who, at best, strives for integrity to do what one says and say what one does in living according to one's ability to keep one's expectations aligned, or consistent, with reality.
¹ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronomy
The idea of heteronomy is interesting because as the opposite of autonomy it is worth thinking about the forces which impact on human beings and choices.
Also, since discussion on a previous thread I have read Martin Buber's, 'I and Thou'. It does have bearing on the this thread because how one sees the 'thou' influences the nature of subjective reality and identity. What I thought about was how when I was a teenager I used to pray a lot and I often thought of myself in communication with God. That didn't mean that I didn't care about the opinions of others as much as later. So, in some ways the loss of God as the significant other may lead to a far greater narcissism, with the opinions of others often being the significant mirror, although that doesn't rule out the idea of self in relation to the wider nature of reality, whether it is seen as the divine or, the realm of the intersubjective, or however, reality itself is understood.
I haven't read Weber but I learned a little about Calvinism in history. One aspect which I do think comes into play is the context of values related to the basic economic structure of social life. In particular, this relates to consumer materialistic society. Baudrillard spoke of the way in which images of consumerism affect the nature of human identity, with people buying products which include status symbols, such as property and cars. These all affect the sense of self in the way of being tokens of 'happiness' and he points to the shopping mall as being seductive in the pursuit of finding pleasure and contentment, in the context of individualism and materialistic values.
Insofar as "God" is a three-letter swear word for ego, I believe my own "loss of God" made me less ego-centric rather than more, though not nearly as other-centric as Buber seems (or, even moreso, Levinas). The I-Thou relationship without "the eternal Thou" (or thou separate from the I-Thou encounter) speaks morally and existentially to me; and so, paraphrasing the famed Cartesian bumpersticker, You (We) are, therefore I am. :smirk:
It is interesting to hear how loss of belief in God made you less egocentric. I am sure it can go in many different ways. Belief in God can lead to some forms of dogmatic arrogance and inflated sense of oneself in the relationship with the divine.
Narcissism is in itself a complex topic because it comes in various forms, and one book which I read on it is, 'The Fragile Self: The Structure of Narcissistic Disturbance', by Phil Mollon, which looks at disturbances in the sense of self. This traces it back to childhood and some of the ways one develops a core sense of self. Mollon explores Freud's idea of religion as playing a role in illusions rather than reality. Of course, the reality of social life in itself may be a source for the need for comforts of many kinds, including escapism, including addiction as well as religion.
Religious ideas may involve guilt and its management and suffering itself may be one of the biggest existential problems, and one of the most helpful forms of coping with the subjective sense of self may be the arts, including listening to music.
I don't think there is a true self. But people do live lives based on what they think others or 'society' or belief systems expect from them. Often it is a projection, a ghost driven narrative. "I should be more like..." everyone knows variations of this. The stories people tell themselves about themselves are critical and I have lost count of how many ostensibly successful people I have met who are filled with self-loathing and insecurities about their identify and who make a great effort to project a compensatory confidence. I generally hold that it is best not to be driven by expectations and not judge yourself against others or against impossible standards. How this looks depends on what you are a slave to and especially upon how much insight you have.
:up:
It may be that there is no 'true' self and it is a mythic concept. The problem may be more where people have developed such a fragmentary or fragile self that it becomes unstable. However, this may not be a fault of finding the self but a variety of factors involved biological and social circumstances, including trauma, especially in the early years and the damage done to the internal structure of object relations.
Quoting Jack Cummins
'Fragmented' people in a post-traumatic sense don't necessarily benefit from a more stable self - they tend to respond to clear boundaries set by others and some skills development in emotional regulation DBT, etc. But of course, only a small percentage of this seems to work. We're heading down the murky road of psychology and therapeutic interventions.
The search for a 'true self' as you put it is generally a search for a better way of coping. But how do you identify 'better' if it is one's inadequate or 'lesser' self selecting the frame of reference?
... ergo anatta. :flower:
NB: Hume's "bundle", Nietzsche's "competing drives", Parfit's "continuity", Metzinger's "phenomenal self model", embodied cognition,
etc.
Raise the bar and there's no self; lower the bar and there is a self. Clearly the Buddha was bang on target, vita is dukkha - we're obviously dissatisfied with who we are!
Yes, I read that, but shouldn't you question Laing's idea of the true and false self? This is what I did.
I also read "being true to oneself". It refers to a person's integrity, honesty, etc., which is quite different from the concept of "true self" (as one could possibly imagine it). And, as I explained it is impossible to define or describe. It was on this that I would like to have your say.
As you mention social life, there is also the whole competing sociological traditions of Rousseau and Hobbes to consider in this context. Society as separating man from his fundamental goodness versus society as the source of order, controlling man's destructive and selfish urges.
Hey Jack, those are terrible goals to set, and impossible to achieve. "If you wish to be independent, first create your own universe." - (or was is if you wish to be an apple pie?) I suggest you should turn right around and set your goals in the opposite direction. Maximise your dependencies and aim for void-emptiness instead of fulfilment. A rock is pretty independent and fulfilled, but a human should be vulnerable and sensitive, responsive to every nuance, social and environmental. Relationships are dependencies - of exploitation and/or care. The more one is engaged with the world and others, and the less one is concerned with oneself, the happier and the sadder one will be, and that sensitivity is what it is to be in touch with one's feelings.
It means one has lost it.
One loses it early; total dependency is the first relationship, and to the extent that that relationship is insecure, one is forced into the division of not being oneself.
Don't cry. Be good for Mummy. Go to sleep. Eat up. Go to the toilet. Work hard. Do as I say.
Deny your body and your impulses, not because you wish to control them, but because your life depends on meeting your carer's wishes.
What on Earth would you do if you were not doing what you have been told all your life? Who would you be if you were not being good for Mummy? Some outrageous monster, no doubt.
To find one's true self is to confront that monster, and set it free from the prison of the unconscious. It is to face the fear and shame of oneself.
:fire:
Dependency or independence is a conflict. As a teenager I used to be extremely close to my parents and trying to please them. I was an only child and my parents had me when they were almost 40. I left home to study when I was 19 and I think that my parents expected that I would return home after studying and they were rather disappointed that I wished to stay in London. One aspect which I chose not to have shared with my parents was my questioning of religion and Catholism. I have been unsure whether this is cowardice on my part or protecting them. However, it has always felt the best way on an intuitive level.
Dependency and co-dependency in relationships and friendships can be problematic for most people. It can be that or a less social life which can go as far as isolation. It is hard to get the right balance. I haven't had many long term relationships but have found that it can be difficult if a partner is jealous about all other social interactions. I do have friends who have fairly serious mental health problems and phone me late at night often. It can be difficult to negotiate boundaries in friendships, and it can also be hard to find the right places to even find friends, and knowing who to trust, as one of the aspects of finding an authentic place in an upside down world.
There is the issue of egoism versus altruism and how this relates to human nature. Getting the balance between one's own needs and other beings, moving towards the larger spheres of humanity can be an ongoing conflict. The basic needs can be difficult to meet at times and knowing how much to give and take is difficult and determining one's own genuine needs. It is hard not to swing to extremes and the Buddhist idea of the middle way can be useful but it has to be negotiated in all the lopsided aspects of living as a member within various overlapping subgroups of other people.
So our ducks can never really be in a row?
It is a good question whether it is one's lesser self or not which is seeking ways of coping. It make involve reasoning but also deeper, less conscious aspects of motivation. This is where the issue of will and the unconscious come in. I sometimes find that I get illnesses, like infections and viruses when I am stressed and it is like my deeper sense of self is trying to slow me down and allow rest. Even accidents can be seen in that way but, of course, it is all about interpretations of experience. It is almost like the unhelpful defense mechanisms have a place, or the aspects of false self are an important opposition in the ongoing journey of becoming, especially as mistakes can be important lessons in life.
Perhaps, the notions of God and the devil serve as guiding ideas about the heights and the depths of the possibilities for becoming, and individuation is about weaving through these extremes. Some may gravitate more towards the devil figure and some more to God, even without necessarily believing in these literally as metaphysical beings. It may be that the human quest is mythical and life experiences are narrative stories in the creation of narrative identity subjectively.
I must beg to differ unless someone's managed to find a solution for the amount of stress involved in being mindful 24×7.
Trust the gods of evolution (Charles Darwin & Alfred Russell Wallace) - if our natural state is to be not mindful then there's a very good reason why. Don't want my brain to explode.
It was never attributed to you, it was made by me, Agent Smith misread the post, which was clear enough.
And, FYI, mindfulness is not a new idea but is, in fact, one of the core principles and techniques of Buddhism.
Accuracy is so important, isn't it? In fact....mindfulness. Wow.
Agreed. Mindfulness is the source of peace that so many struggle to find otherwise.
I didn't expect to come across a post riffing off Giddens. For context: I have a degree in sociology, but I haven't been keeping up with the subject matte, and it's been about 20 years since I last read sociology. I did a little linguistics on the side, and did keep up with that a little better over the years, so as a result I'm more confident with my linguistic knowledge now than I am with my sociologogical knowledge. However, I do remember Anthony Giddens fairly well. I've found him fascinating; among system theories and hermeneutic theories he stood out by proposing a theory based on an ongoing process of structuration, and his methodology involves (among other things) a focus on time and space, something that was rarely as central to sociology at the time as it was to his approach.
I haven't read Modernity and Self-Identity, but I do own his Constitution of Society. A short summery of his theory of structuration might read like this (if my memory serves well): Knowledgable agents skillfully reproduce social structures through their daily activity, but due to unacknowledged conditions of action and unintended consequences of action, there's no guarantee that you end up reproducing structures perfectly, and thus every instance of reproduction of any social structure comes with the potential for change. In effect, that means that any social structure is best viewed as an ongoing process of structuration. Things like self-identy are (at least partly?) social structures, so it makes perfect sense to me that he'd say that to be true to oneself/find oneself is an active process of self-construction. I doubt Giddens would see the "true self" as something there, something to be discovered. You have a person who moves through time-space, interacts with others, and uses the concept of self in the process, and as a by-product reproduces self. I sort of think of the true self (as seen through a Giddens-lense) as the carrot dangling from the stick that keeps the donkey going. (The donkey might eat the carrot at the end of the day, but it turns to shit, and there's a new one the next day... maybe I'm taking my metaphors too far?)
I haven't read the text in question, but I'd guess that for the question of the "true self" to arise you'd need a life-style that... fragments your social contacts? I mean, before the industrial revolution you often lived where you worked. You were part of the village you lived in. You were the village blacksmith, or the milkmaid on Mr. Brown's farm. There's a typical (but not universal) time-space unity here. You move through your biography fairly linearly. With the industrial revolution, you start to get things like opening and closing times of fabrics, a typical (but not universal) distinction between where you live and where you work, and as time goes on, there'd also be the places where you spend your spare time. There will be transitional spaces (roads in your own car; mass transport...). And you behave differently everywhere, you meet different people everywhere... etc. So you're this social vortex who accumulates different practises, but you're also the only you to move through your biography; so there's now an increased need to integrate disparate skill sets into one personal package. What is it that ties all those disparate patterns together? Who are you? Basically, the more fragmented your social space becomes, the more important such questions tend to become.
I'm not sure that's what Giddens says here; I might have gotten it totally wrong. But I'd imagine it'd have been something like that. This post was mostly just an excersise for myself, and I hope there's something interesting in it. I'll probably look up the text some time in the future.
Oh!
[quote=Ranjeet]A thousand apologies.[/quote]
This is (very bascially) broken down into four stages where the outward social projection is pretty much nullified - Persona - followed by exploring and accepting your inner dark side - incorporating your Shadow - then coming to terms with the feminine/masculine opposite - anima/animus - which then leads the individual to a fuller sense of self by realising they are in fact multifaceted and more complex than they ever first imagined.
This is something akin to realising the ego and not exactly kicking it out, but more or less realising the necessity of the ego whilst not placing it on a pedestal.
The process of Individuation is likely to be traumatic and at the very least a large mental/spiritual feat to take on. For some it happens accidentally (like it did mostly for myself) but I guess it can happen through a pure wilful pursuit (although I cannot fathom how this would work).
Oh! :up: I can't live ... with or without you!
It may be that the issue of authenticity is related to Jungian individuation more than any other approach. It does seem that some people go down this path accidentally and like you, I did and found Jung's writings helpful on the way through many of the difficulties.
The shadow is the most difficult part of the process of knowing oneself because it can be a form of destructiveness on many levels, including selfdestructiveness and may include addiction or even suicidal ideas. Alternatively, it may be about bringing up anger and not in a destructive way towards self or other but as a way of positive energy as empowerment. My own experience of the shadow involved a time of listening to nu metal music and going to see live metal and punk music. It felt as if through doing this I was seizing a raw energy, as a way of transmuting it positively.
I hadn't read Giddens until I came across the book in a charity shop a few months ago. I found it worth reading and, a little later, I came across Laing's 'The Divided Self' which was along a similar line of thinking.
The idea of the self is often seen as an aspect of psychology and as one of philosophy to some extent. However, the aspects of sociology are also important too, especially the the idea of the social construction of reality. This includes social life, including gender construction, ideas of deviance and the sociology of religion. When I did study sociology the sociology of knowledge went into aspects of epistemology too. Some writers within the tradition of sociology do explore the nature of subjectivity in relation to a sense of otherness, such as GH Mead. Also, Erving Goffman's understanding of the social presentation of self in everyday life do explore the social construction of human identity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81 ^^
For an uneducated opinion, based in intuition, I offer you this.
The first step toward understanding a 'true self' would be to move beyond assigning importance to thoughts about how others perceive you. You would have to assign no significance at all to any thoughts about what others might think about you, and how they might view you, completely freeing your mind from such influence.
After realizing the value of freeing one's thinking from such external influences, the next step would be to extend this freedom toward a more absolute level. This would require the effort of freeing oneself from the idea that any external influences have any importance. In classical terms, this is to completely deny any importance of any material goods, for the sake of spirituality. The external is not a part of the 'true self', so it cannot be allowed to have any influence over any thoughts developed by the authentic self. These thoughts are the source of anxiety, stress, and suffering.
If this could be obtained, one might find the 'true self', the real inner being, free from external dependence. The true self would be free to assess the aspects of internal dependence, where one would find a 'true' dependence, and ultimately develop principles of 'true dependence' to establish a navigable relationship between the internal and the external.
I am fairly impressed by the Buddhist idea of anatta, or no self, and Buddhist philosophy of mind in general. I have just begun reading a book called 'The Mind Illuminated', by John Yates, Matthew Immercut and Jeremy Graves (2017). It is an exploration of Buddhist understanding of consciousness alongside the ideas of cognitive neuroscience. It is a large hefty volume to read but I do see this area as an important one for understanding the mind, body problem, especially subjective experience.
It is a challenge to throw aside all the ideas of oneself relating to others' opinions. Even if one seeks to do it, I wonder to what extent it is possible because as a person one is involved in group situations throughout most of life, like being part of an intersubjective bubble. It operates on so many levels, from early relationships with others to feedback during interaction and even basic fundamental values.
Perhaps, the possibility of it remains more so if one has secret aspects of experience, not shared with anyone. Also, one way of stepping outside of the network of narcissist self construction is in reflective writing because it gives a certain amount of distance, and seeing beyond what is projected onto oneself by others. Also, time in solitude may aid this, and it is possible that those who are less embedded in groups and group consciousness may be in a better position to become aware of a 'true' self as an ongoing nature of awareness.
But what is the self in the first place?
I think whats usually being asked with questions like this is: doing what youd like to do or being who youd like to be.
We all have a sense of how wed like to grow or improve in some way doesnt have to be fancy or complex; for example, learning to knit, or losing some weight. This sense of who wed like to be is related to whats meant by our true selves, in my view.
When youre doing what youd like to be doing, youre being true to yourself to your professed values. Otherwise Im not sure what its supposed to mean assuming the question makes any sense to begin with, which is arguable.
There's a problem in terms of how we think of the self when we think of it as something that can be found, like a Mars Bar that fell down the back of the couch. And it doesn't work any better when we make the Mars Bar into a gold bar or a diamond or whatever happens to be current and valued. When we project the "problem" onto the self, we distract from the context the self finds it in. The context is that which forms the space in which the self finds itself, and so forms the self, whether or not we consider it found. We are always already found and if something is wrong it is where we find ourselves. But it's a neat trick of contexts to render themselves invisible so that we absolve ourselves of the responsibility to change them while we focus on this nebulous Mars Bar that always disappears when we have the munchies. Erm, anyway :point:
Quoting unenlightened
And to lose oneself is to look for it in abstraction, in ideology, in navel gazing, in allowing the unconscious to work freely under our comfortable habits so that the context which it has created for us can go on making us what we don't wish to be,
Doing what one enjoys doing is definitely a sign of being on an authentic path. I remember a couple of jobs which I did briefly which I loathed, trying to do my best. A friend was suggesting to me that I should try to cope with these as best as I could in order to make a living and concentrate on enjoying my free time. It didn't really work and I don't think that my managers thought very much of me. However, in one of the jobs I was told that I needed to do all the tasks which had been done by a previous colleague. I didn't feel that I was being given any opportunity to develop my skills in a unique way.
Some people seem to manage to do day, or even night jobs, in work which they detest. I am not able to do this easily and in some ways I wish that I could. If I dislike doing something I do badly at it, even going back to when I was at school I found this. I remember when I got 17% in a chemistry exam. Fortunately, my parents weren't particularly bothered because I had got a lot of other good marks and I never pursued chemistry beyond age 14. Some people seem so adaptable but all along I was inclined towards authenticity.
It is not just about jobs but also about relationships. If one doesn't enjoy being with another person on many levels it may be best to not pursue them too far, as it may be a disaster waiting to happen. I remember on my mental health nursing training course there were so many marriages between students and most of them collapsed by the time the course ended. I am inclined to try to avoid relationships if they don't feel authentic and social interaction which seems lacking in meaning.
I probably do too much navel gazing and it can be hard to spend too much time thinking or acting spontaneously. In the first place, when I left school I studied Social Ethics in Lancaster and couldn't get a work at all until I had done 3 voluntary jobs. Part of the difficulty can be getting the balance right. Some people seem to be able to make clear plans and follow them through consistently, whereas others seem to need to find direction more slowly.
However, even though navel gazing can be detrimental in some ways, it is likely that there is a lot going on unconsciously or subconsciously. Some people seem to be born with more of a leaning to live a life of questioning, with philosophy being an important part of this. It seems to make sense for those who are inclined towards philosophy to have more of a life of searching or otherwise philosophy would be simply an academic discipline, detached from the experience of life itself.
I suppose this is why many will say that the truly authentic self is an impossibility.
Some may argue that the authentic self is an impossibility but that is probably an exaggeration of the situation. People may not always be seeking authenticity in principle or by name. However, it is likely to be going on beneath the surface of conscious living because life involves trial and error. Making mistakes in life may be one of the side-effects of human life and the biggest snakes may arrive before the ladders. So, the only alternative to authenticity might involve giving up in defeat. So, most people struggle on and some have more failed experiments in life, but it is part of the learning curve of being a human being.
I am doubtful as to whether the seeking of authenticity could actually be going on at a subconscious or unconscious level. "Authenticity", or "true self", appears to be a conscious principle, which could only be sought by a conscious mind.
The issue I see with authenticity is the disconnect between the conscious level, and the other levels, which allows the conscious principles of action to conflict with the subconscious causes of action. This is how I would describe inauthenticity, this sort of self-confliction which results in hypocrisy, and people doing what they really do not want to do. This form of self-confliction can incapacitate a person in numerous different ways, starting with the simple lack of confidence.
It is related to trial and error, but it cannot be described simply as trial and error, though trial and error makes a good example. You can see that the conscious principle "I cannot proceed without certainty" if adhered to, would deny one the capacity of trial and error. However, at the subconscious levels we are "programmed" to proceed through trial and error because this experience is fundamental to the learning process. So we have a form of self-confliction here. We are naturally inclined to proceed without certainty, while the conscious mind wants certainty before proceeding. The self-confliction tends toward incapacitation.
As you can see, the problem is with the conscious approach. The consciousness wants something from the self, which the self cannot give. The consciousness demands the impossible. Therefore this type of incapacitation ought to be rectifiable through a change in the conscious approach.
Quoting Jack Cummins
This is sort of backward, because authenticity as described above, would actually require accepting defeat. To achieve authenticity, the conscious mind must accept that the goals which it has for itself are actually impossible, and therefore it must allow compromise. In a sense this is "giving up in defeat", but since the authentic human life is filled with mistakes and failed experiments, it is a move which brings us nearer to authenticity.
Selfs
1. Who you really are [True self/Objective].
2. Who you think you are [False self/Subjective].
3. Who others think you are [False self/Subjective].
I suppose when I speak of the potential defeat about authenticity it is not really the principle of authenticity but the underlying goals which have not been achieved. These are more about the tangible or practical implications rather than in practice rather than in theory. It is possible to seek fulfillment in an authentic way but end up unhappy with the reality of what occurs in real life.
The search for authenticity and knowing oneself may still result in the experience of the dungeon state, as described in the poem.
Yes, the issue may be who one is objectively or as one thinks one is or as others perceive one to be. It reminds me of a model which I remember being described in a model called Johari's window. Johari describes a quadrant based on self known privately, known to others and self, and the final box is the potential for the unknown aspects of oneself to be known to self based on the feedback from other human beings. It does lead to a closer relationship between subjective self knowledge and the objective.
However, it still may be open to question whether there is any real objective knowledge of any self because it is connected to the development of opinions, even if there is general consensus.
When we say someone is looking for their 'true self' there seems to be an underlying assumption that the true self is a more integrated and honest account of their identity, which would (presumably) result in a more genuine relationship with the world and with others. On reflection, I think all selves are true selves, it's just that some manifestations of one's identity and will are better suited to certain tasks than others. Even if you are projecting a self you think the world wants, it is still you making the choice to project and you that is contriving a self from your own psychic resources.
While I sympathize with the anatta (no self) doctrine (Buddhism), I don't quite understand it fully. I read some versions of the argument online but I'm not yet convinced. Maybe I disagree with the Buddhist definition of a self - it seems deliberately designed to prove anatta, a no true Scotsman fallacy or thereabouts.
Here's food for thought: Gravity doesn't recognize a self - there's no difference in the way you fall and the way a block of stone of equal mass falls. With respect to physics at least, anatta.
Maybe...
Who you really are = Who you think you are + Who others think you are.
Two wrongs don't make a right? :chin:
Anyway, each side (you & others) sees only half of you and the real you is a fusion of both. There are two sides to every story, eh?
I still think that the important and significant thing to recognize is the difference between what is possible and what is impossible. A person would not set a goal which one knows as impossible. The reality, in an ever changing world, is that those goals which are possible, and those which are impossible, are rapidly changing their status as time passes. This means that goals must be flexible, dropped or altered, at a moment's notice, as time passes, because an impossible goal is not a rational goal. In this way, the unhappiness of a failed goal cannot ever occur because as soon as failure becomes inevitable, that goal which is doomed to failure is rejected, altered or replaced, therefore no longer a goal. The point of failure is therefore never reached, because the failing goal is rejected and replaced with an obtainable goal before failure occurs.
Having flexibility, and the capacity to alter goals is very important to safety in a dangerous work place for example. The circumstances which dictate the degree of safety at any particular time, are never static. When the risk increases, and accident is possible, goals must be changed immediately. The capacity to perceive changes to circumstances which produce the need to alter goals, and to take immediate action on this need, I think is mostly derived from a type of intuition. However, the intuition may be honed, and is greatly increased through experience.
This is not so true, because at the time of falling there are many possibilities open to the human being which the stone does not have. We can flail around, scream, grab for things, reach for a parachute, whatever. A stone doesn't have these options.
I think Heidegger had a lot to say about fallenness. It appears like Dasein has fallen into the world, or something like that. I think this is the process whereby authenticity is replaced by inauthenticity, it has something to do with being present in time.
Indeed, we may protest in all and sundry ways but the tug of gravity - the force acting on you and a stone with equal mass to yours - will be the same. Nevertheless we maybe able to [s]reduce[/s] counter gravity by increasing our air resistance via maximizing our surface area either by simply stretching out our limbs and assuming a prone/supine position or with the aid of a parachute or a wingsuit.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
What be dasein?
Interesting stuff although I couldn't parse it to my satisfaction. Perhaps you identify with a future self - who you wanna be as a person - and finding your present self falls short of the mark, you deny that there's a self.
The "force" is said to be the same, that's how the concept of "force" was created. But the effect of that force, on the stone vs. on the human being, is not the same, that's how we can walk upright. Since the effect is different, then we can say that the cause which is identified as the force of gravity is not the same in relation to you as it is in relation to a stone. Why this cause is different in relation to you, from what it is in relation to a stone, I don't know.
Quoting Agent Smith
Heidegger's "Being and Time" is very difficult and there is as many interpretations of it as there are readers who claim to understand it. A quick glance at Wikipedia tells me that Dasein is "being-in-the-world". I believe he is commonly interpreted as saying that there are two types of things in the world, or more precisely two different ways of looking at things, those which are present-at-hand, and those which are ready-to-hand. Roughly speaking, things present-at-hand are all the things surrounding us which we are extremely familiar with, the day-to-day items we use on a regular basis, the things whose existence we take granted. Things we don't quite understand, and so we enquire into their nature, therefore things not taken for granted, are things ready-to-hand. You can see why I say, more precisely it's two different ways of looking at things, because the same items might be present-at-hand, or ready-to-hand, depending on one's perspective.
Muchas gracias señor for your valuable input.
[quote=Sherlock Holmes]I don't have data Watson. It's a capital mistake to theorize without data.[/quote]
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Boooring!
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Shocking!
The use of the word self may vary. It may be that there is no actual entity which can be spoken of, as the Buddhists argue. However, the idea of being one's true self may be more of a loose description, meaning that one is developing one's potential in a genuine way, as opposed to being chained by rigid demands of specific social roles and expectations.
The idea of not being one's true self may be the exaggerations of conformity. However, it is true that there are various sides to oneself which can be projected in different situations. I remember my mother saying that it is when you live with someone it is that you really know someone. She was meaning that people relax their fronts at home and are seen at various points, like when they get up first thing in the morning. I know that I feel barely human until I have my first coffee.
One aspect of self projection which is also worth discussing with you is the professional role personas put on, especially as mental health professionals. I remember when I was doing my mental health nursing training, a tutor told the class that we would find that our 'self' would change by the time we had qualified. To some extent, I thought that I changed, especially in what I said or shared with people, especially patients. I was never that sure about the idea of being a role model, because each person is unique. I do act and think a little differently out of work, mainly in what I disclose about myself. I am less tidy in appearance at work, although I don't think that I presented myself in a corporate way.
At present, I am not working and I would rather pursue a different path to being a nurse, but I definitely would consider still working with people with mental health issues. As it is, at present, because I am not working I have probably gone a bit outside of feeling that I think and act like when I was working. However, I still live in the area where I worked. This means that I meet people who I nursed in the past. They still come up and talk to me, and many don't know that I don't work in the hospital now, so when I am speaking with them, I do feel that I am back in the mental health nurse persona in a conscious way.
Actually, I will admit that I go into dark dungeon states of mind at times. I try to be proactive and try and find my way out before the dungeon gets darker and darker. Music and even a glass of wine. I most probably would have been completely chained into the dungeon during the second lockdown in England if I hadn't found this site, as some of that time I was using it almost from the time I got up until I went to bed. Some people don't seem to end up in dungeons whereas some have dungeons and mazes constantly. I also get lost physically at times, since wandering off into unknown places in childhood and I still sometimes get the wrong bus and end up almost anywhere. My mum used to speak of me 'going off the planet'.
[quote=J. R. R. Tolkein]Not all those who wander are lost.[/quote]
I stayed out fairly late last night and wasn't lost. A friend who was trying to call me last night was extremely cross with me with me though and I hadn't taken my phone. I had not got lost like my Radcastle Station story. Meandering around has always been my tendency and getting lost at times seems symbolic in the quest for authenticity and in philosophy. I wonder if many other people get lost literally as well as in the confusion of philosophical uncertainty.
"Dasein" means 'being there' or 'there being'. Heidegger means that dasein's being is an issue for dasein. "To be or not to be, that is the question". To be or not to be what?
I believe philosophy's central project has always been to optimize agency by helping one to unlearn 'self-immiserating habits' (i.e. foolery/stupidity) through various daily reflective practices (e.g. pythagorean, epicurean, stoic, pyrrhonian, cynical, neoplatonic, peripatetic ... pragmaticist, absurdist, etc). This is how I make sense of "true self" in the (western) philosophical tradition.
As you suggest, most people put on a professional face at work. That's probably going to be the case whether you are a psychiatrist or a real estate agent. Most roles requite some role paying - especially in hospitality jobs. In medical and mental health services, as you say, you are likely to project a more bounded and attentive persona than if you're working in refrigeration. The tasks are different.
I think the question of 'authenticity' is an interesting aspect of this discussion. Do we pin this preoccupation on middle class existentialism, pop-psychology and hipsters? Authenticity seems to preoccupy a certain demographic, not just psychologically but aesthetically. Good book on this by Andrew Potter.
The object of their desire, the essential core of life, is something called authenticity, and finding the authentic has become the foremost spiritual quest of our time. It is a quest fraught with difficulty, as it takes place at the intersection of some of our cultures most controversial issues, including environmentalism and the market economy, personal identity and the consumer culture, and artistic expression and the meaning of life.
? Andrew Potter, The Authenticity Hoax: How We Get Lost Finding Ourselves
Quoting 180 Proof
I think this is a very helpful way to frame the subject. Nice.
:up:
I thought "to lose oneself in ..." was a good thing. I can't recall where exactly I heard that being praised though.
Too, the flip side of the coin is "lost in his own world" which some regard as an unhealthy state of mind as one supposedly loses touch with reality but in this case too the detachment one experiences maybe beneficial in unconventional, sublime ways.
That all said, being lost isn't a pleasant experience due to the fact that we dread it - ships & planes (voyagers) which lose their bearings meet a sticky end if you catch my drift.
It is a great source of anxiety. But... we can learn to embrace our anxiety, because anxiety is the source of motivation.
Up to a point! Nec quid nimis.
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting.[/quote]
What, if I may be so bold as to ask, have you to report since being on the path to (self) realization?
Mead's pretty important, yes. He's conceptualising the self as a social process, the dynamic between the "me" (what you think you are in the eyes of the others) and the "I" (what reacts to the me). The self emerges from that process. Mead would have to be one of the first to import the mind of subject into sociology.
Goffman's more of an excentric in sociology. He's had pretty influential ideas, but unlike many others he doesn't present a clear theory. One of the most interesting ideas, I think, from Presentation of Self would be role distance. A social role is some set of perceived expectations based on some trait you have: your job, your gender, your relationships... anything. So, when you're playing the role of "waiter" in a restaurant, then there are things you're supposed to do, and things you're not supposed to do. You can accept or reject the role. It's possible to play the role in a way that makes it clear you'd rather do something else. Goffman calls that cynical roleplay. However, no role completely determines your behaviour, and there are many ways you can "bring yourself" into the role (my words, not Goffman's; it's been too long since I read him, and I read a German translation to boot, because that's what was available). To the extent that you bring yourself into the role, you display role distance. Displaying role distance can be a way to reject the stricures of role play, withoug rejecting the role. It's not cynical role play. Interestingly, people who exhibit no role distance, Goffman says, are often perceived as "overly correct", or "creepy" (certainly my words). So role distnace is part of the expectations that come with playing social roles, but they're not part of the expectations of any specific roles. This is what allows people to have "their favourite waiter", for example. Public roleplaying is always geared both towards your role and what you bring to it personally.
I don't really remember what Goffman said about that beyond that; but I figure, in the context of this thread, this means that it's a structural property of life that you have to invent yourself in public. How much of yourself are you supposed to give up? Too much and you're imposing; too little and you're too reticent. That puts more pressure on the being-yourself-part than it would among "friends". You're supposed to be organically or spontaneously yourself, but in public you need to claclulate yourself, too. And if you get into the habit of playing roles and see "friend" as a role, too, eventually you might end up feeling that you can only "be yourself" when you're alone, but there's little you can do alone, and you feel like there must be some sort of mythic "true self" - something you can be anywhere, anywhen - no matter what role you play - without effort. (That's me riffing off Goffman.)