> Unfortunately history has taught us... the prevailing plenty of
people will happily do that which they instinctively know they
should not do ... if there is money or authority involved.
The authentic human escapes this, for s/he does not care one jot what
the "plenty" think, feel or do. Not out of callousness, indifference
or individual narcissism/solipsism, or even because authenticity
exists despite and outside of that frame - but that it flourishes
through and in it.
Sartre put is as; "One always has a choice". It's an existential truth
that even if you are on your knees in front of a ditch, with a gun to
your head and the choice "comply and live, or die on principle", you
can always choose to die. That's the essence of choice, not a mere
toss up between two picnics.
And once that threshold of understanding is passed -- that _choice_ is
the one thing that cannot be taken from you -- it is possible to see
further into Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" and "Sickness Unto
Death", in which that choice allows one to become not merely a gadfly
but "an error, stubbornly and indelibly written into the text of
consensual reality... one that refuses to be erased". The harder the
system scratches at it the more the itch spreads.
Obviously there's a lot of Christianity at the base of this, and
returning to the GP, P. K. Dick is clearly immersed in that. Maybe
that says Christianity is still a relevant religion in the
technological age? I also find it bizarre that Nietzsche, who saw
Christianity as mere bloody-minded resentment, still arrived at the
same basic idea of all-too-human authenticity. So it goes deep.
My point is: 'authentic humans' are in short supply, we have the real ones instead and that's what we should deal with. How theoretically authentic humans behave in books of SF authors isn't going to make a huge difference if in the real world such role models are few and far between especially if we count on their numbers to make up the difference between their individual powers and those wielded by your average ruler.
That's why you can keep a society of millions under control with only a few tens of thousands of dedicated assholes.
So, by giving that example you show that you have not understood anything of the discussion so far.
Let me spell it out: that's the defining moment of Tank Man's life, you have zero clue about what happened prior to that moment. And that's because really nobody seems to have a clue about who he really was, what his life was like up to that moment and so on. It's a singular act of bravery and one that I very much feel moved by. But I have zero illusion that Tank Man's life was nothing but an endless succession of moments like these where at every opportunity he did the right thing. And that's perfectly normal, doesn't make him any less, in fact it makes him more: because ordinary people making an actually stand when it matters is very powerful, no matter what their lives were like up to that point.
Let's be charitable and steelman your parent comment, and Tank Man too
(quite literally).
Character is important.
As you say we don't know much about Tank Man. It was probably more
than the defining moment of his life, it was the last day of it.
Isn't it fair to assume that whatever led up to that moment was a life
lived in good character? He may not have lived as an exemplar of
"authenticity", and if it was only a moment in an otherwise selfish
and wasted life, like those "city businessmen" who spontaneously jump
onto a subway track to save a child, we agree it doesn't that subtract
from the authenticity of the act?
As we say around here "carefully pick your hill to die on". But
there's more to the picking than a rash decision in a single moment.
There's everything that built that character too, no?
Yes, which is more or less the whole point of this argument: nobody's perfect, but people can be 'on average' good; but that's not the same as equating them with saints, it just isn't realistic (and even the saints aren't saints in terms of absolute, they are just declared to be so, by people who themselves too are very much flawed).
So let's not resort to theoretical absolutes. I don't know where 'here' is but every culture has similar idioms but at the same time every culture has something about being careful about meeting your heroes.
How exactly are you defining "authentic human"? It sounds like you're defining it as someone who always does the right thing without exception, who of course doesn't exist, QED.
What point are you trying to make, actually? Your argument seems to be that "authentic humans," however that's defined, are not just rare but nonexistent, even if other quietly heroic people who fill the same role do exist. I'm not sure what end you're trying to reach here.
The key sentence in TFA is "In essence, they cannot be compelled to be what they are not.". That's a highly theoretical argument and I simply differ of opinion. In essence everybody can be compelled to be what they are not, all it takes is the right circumstances and your Saint will be a sinner and the other way around.
I'm far more interested in the interplay between people and their circumstances than I am in labeling a particular human as authentic or not, it smacks of a value judgment in a vacuum, whereas IRL there is no such thing.
I gave an example of someone who stood up despite the consequences and did so in anonymity.
Your problem is that you stated such people don't exist despite the vast historical evidence to the contrary. Hitler's own officers wanted to kill him. Think about Harriet Tubman, or the underground railway. ad nauseum.
Would it be impolite to ask if you consider yourself one of these authentic humans?
At least to me the entire sentiment seems to fall into 'no true Scotsman' territory under any individual scrutiny. If we take someone's life apart and look at the individual pieces you'll find authentic and inauthentic moments everywhere.
> At least to me the entire sentiment seems to fall into 'no true Scotsman' territory under any individual scrutiny. If we take someone's life apart and look at the individual pieces you'll find authentic and inauthentic moments everywhere.
The Christian theological view[0] is that no human is perfect (or good), and it is essentially impossible to be perfectly good, but God still wants us to try to be as perfect as we can humanly can.
The most relevant verses on the idea that we are not good is likely Romans chapter 3, starting from verse 9:
What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away, they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”
“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. -- Jesus, in Matthew 5:48
Our inauthentic self is forgiven via Christ's sacrifice, which permits us to partake of the new life/creation promised. On the New Creation, see Revelation 21.
Actually this thread inspired me to go read Ecclesiastes again, and
ponder "vanity of wisdom". That's a real mindfuck for seekers of
wisdom (as scientists and the like), but I get it, hopefully never too
late in life. cheers
That's exactly it. Authentic humans are a theoretical construct and there isn't a single real world example of such a being. But on a moment-to-moment basis it has some validity, but even there it should be qualified in that the judgment of 'authenticity' is in itself to a large degree in the eye of the beholder.
“Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? You know, I think you’re taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us?”
> Would it be impolite to ask if you consider yourself one of these
authentic humans?
I wouldn't consider it impolite, but would say it's an unproductive
question like all such questions of "identity" that unravel in the
slightest breeze.
Perhaps a useful concept is the Hegelian take on "freedom"; that in
any epoch freedom is defined by the will to overcome the obstacles one
faces. There is no firmer definition of it than "intent".
A better modern word might be "lifestance" [0], a word I learned from
hanging around with Rationalist/Humanist thinkers.
And here's what I think is a beautiful lifestance quote;
""" Act as though you are free, you might get lucky. You might be
free, who knows! Act that way it's worth trying! -- Rick
Roderick """
Every age is a technological age. The technology (per se) of a paleolithic human is no less complex and involved that the technology of today.
Technology is about process and supply chain complexity, not knowledge. The paleolithic human was short on knowledge, but their supply chains were as global, complex and fragile as the ones we have today.
I think in 1800 you would have got away with that argument. But for
me, living after 2000, when I say "technological age" I'm speaking of
the Anthropocene [0].
There's a qualitative difference of systematic complexity.
The authentic human escapes this, for s/he does not care one jot what the "plenty" think, feel or do. Not out of callousness, indifference or individual narcissism/solipsism, or even because authenticity exists despite and outside of that frame - but that it flourishes through and in it.
Sartre put is as; "One always has a choice". It's an existential truth that even if you are on your knees in front of a ditch, with a gun to your head and the choice "comply and live, or die on principle", you can always choose to die. That's the essence of choice, not a mere toss up between two picnics.
And once that threshold of understanding is passed -- that _choice_ is the one thing that cannot be taken from you -- it is possible to see further into Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" and "Sickness Unto Death", in which that choice allows one to become not merely a gadfly but "an error, stubbornly and indelibly written into the text of consensual reality... one that refuses to be erased". The harder the system scratches at it the more the itch spreads.
Obviously there's a lot of Christianity at the base of this, and returning to the GP, P. K. Dick is clearly immersed in that. Maybe that says Christianity is still a relevant religion in the technological age? I also find it bizarre that Nietzsche, who saw Christianity as mere bloody-minded resentment, still arrived at the same basic idea of all-too-human authenticity. So it goes deep.