authentic life.

Posted by nathan on 07 Mar 2007 | Tagged as: my life., thoughts on life.

it hit me yesterday. a lot of people have a skewed idea of what it means to be authentic in our life.

-being authentic does NOT mean telling everybody everything
-being authentic more closely means being consistent
-if you claim to be authentic, you most likely aren’t.
-authenticity should be something we strive for, and never fully attain (since we suck and are sinners)

My parents taught me a lot about being authentic. Who they were while at church and/or preaching/teaching, they were at home and on weekends. My dad actually practiced what he preached. literally. he was consistent.

May we all strive to be more consistent, more authentic in our lives. I strive to be just half as consistent of my parents. I’m certainly not perfect, and i strive to be consistent in saying that. i mess up, i’m a sinner. i mess up a lot. telling you all the juicy details of my messing up isn’t necessary and sufficient for authenticity.

And, btw, if you do relate being authentic to telling everyone everything, please, feel free to leave your credit card info, bank account number and routing info and your social security number here in the comments. I’m sure no one would abuse the info, since you’re just being ‘authentic.’ (and, for the record, i do formally request you not leave that info here–there, now i’m legally not responsible for your impending identity theft.)

what are your thoughts on this?

31 Comments »

31 Responses to “authentic life.”

on 07 Mar 2007 at 2:12 pm 1.arzell said …

Why can’t authenticity be attained? I assume this post is about Christian authenticity. God never expects us to be perfect in a world that is under the curse of sin. But he does expect us to indulge in the opportunity to be free which was opened by the death of Jesus. So while we can’t achieve perfection, we can achieve authenticity as one who follows in Jesus foot steps. The authentic Christian is probably the only Christian. Anyone else certainly wouldn’t be “Christ-like”. With this in mind, I find it perfectly reasonable for one to claim authenticity. I mean, come on, that’s what every martyr has ever claimed.
on 07 Mar 2007 at 2:30 pm 2.arzell said …

ammendment

If you were speaking of an authentic lifestyle and was completely off the topic of Christianity, then I have even more opinions.

1. Christianity should be our lifestyle, so what I said before should cover any Christian. (Which means that if you weren’t talking about Christianity, you must have been telling non-Christians how to live an authentic lifestyle.)

2. Authentic to our beliefs? So you might mean consistency. People with religions and philosophies without a defineable form of God would already be consistent to what they believe. By mere definition!
on 07 Mar 2007 at 2:39 pm 3.nathan said …

true.
i was actually speaking about authenticity in our life in a more general sense. sorry if that wasn’t clear.
on 07 Mar 2007 at 5:31 pm 4.arzell said …

In that case, I’m sorry for the rampage.
on 08 Mar 2007 at 6:01 am 5.Adam said …

I like, “if you claim to be authentic, you probably aren’t.” I think there’s truth in that - a lot of truth. I don’t think its ALWAYS ALWAYS true — but for some reason that one makes me laugh.

My bank number is 94405 i3u 40403 288 40032 and it goes through the National Federal Civic Domestic Imperial Bank of Shut the Heck Up. My social security number is 123-39er84-39445 (yes, you DID catch a 9er in there!)
on 08 Mar 2007 at 8:41 am 6.Carma said …

I see people who aren’t authentic every day, heck I’m one of them. I’m trying to change, and while I know that I will never be 100% authentic, I have noticed a difference. I stopped playing different roles of “Carma” thoughout my day. I’m striving to be the same Carma all day long. It’s tough, but I think it’s a lot easier than trying to go between roles depending on who’s around.
on 08 Mar 2007 at 11:19 am 7.joe said …

Nathan,

As Christians we are not sinners. We are saints. We may not be perfect, but we are still saints. When God looks at us, He doesn’t see a sinner. He sees a saint purchased with Jesus’ life. Pastor Chet has actually written about this very thing over the last two days. I would encourage you to check it out!

I think I would see authenticity more as being honest about who you are. This results in consistency. For instance, I could consistently steal something from every single place I ever go. I’m consistent, but I’m not authentic, at least, not an authentic Christian.

I don’t think we should expect authenticity out of a sinner. They don’t have a reason to be authentic, or to even worry about it. They aren’t trying to become more like Christ. They aren’t called to a high standard. But, Christianity, anyone who is a saint, should strive for authenticity. As a matter of fact, it should flow out of them without their even trying, as they pursue God, and let Him change them.

That’s my $.02.
on 08 Mar 2007 at 11:55 am 8.nathan said …

perhaps again i wasn’t clear, so i will restate:
“i was actually speaking about authenticity in our life in a more general sense. sorry if that wasn�t clear.”
on 08 Mar 2007 at 12:39 pm 9.arzell said …

I’m sorry, but if you are talking about a general sense of the word authenticity, I must admit complete confusion as to what you are saying. Some of what I see in these comments brings these thoughts to my mind.

Do we have to act the same around everyone? If so, then why? God interacts with each of us in different ways. He has personalized relationships with us. We definitely see a difference in his relationship with B.C. Israel from today’s Christian church.

Authenticate. Jean-Paul Sartre thought that making a choice was all that the human needed to authenticate himself. Sartre wasn’t a Christian. According to him and his existential following, he was living and authentic lifestyle simply by choosing.

The primary definition of authentic is “not false or copied; genuine, real”.

Is authenticity as general as Sartre’s, or is it about consistency? If it is consistency, then what side of the line are we talking about? Everyday communication with our neighbor, or our choices between right and wrong based on our publicly stated personal beliefs?
on 08 Mar 2007 at 12:56 pm 10.joe said …

I guess I’m a little confused as well. You asked us for our thoughts, but it seems as though they may not have been the thoughts you might have been looking for.

When I consider authenticity it is automatically filtered through the world-view I have as a follower of Christ. It is who I am, therefore my understanding of authenticity is directly related to who I am. And that is in the most general sense.
on 08 Mar 2007 at 1:07 pm 11.nathan said …

Joe,
i completely apologize if i have seemed to offended you by restating i wasn’t exclusively talking about Christian authenticity. It was not my intent to offend nor to seem as though i don’t appreciate your thoughts.
on 08 Mar 2007 at 1:12 pm 12.joe said …

I’m not offended, just confused.

I’m not exactly sure what authenticity in a general sense is, I guess.
on 08 Mar 2007 at 2:04 pm 13.Emily Diehl said …

To me, authentic is real, or like the original. “Authentic Mexican” means just like they make it in Mexico, real Mexican food…not Taco Bell. So, to me, an authentic person is real and original. Whether you are Christian or not, if you’re authentic, you’re real. You’re not fake. If you have authentic Mexican food, it’s the same in Mexico or the U.S. If you’re an authentic person, you’re the same with your friends as you are with your family. This applies to non-Christians as well…if you act like a jerk at work and you act like a jerk at home, you’re an authentic jerk. I may be off the original point…I read that a few days ago…but that’s just what I think.
on 09 Mar 2007 at 2:12 pm 14.arzell said …

What if I treat everyone around me very kind and lovingly. I would be authentically kind? Ok, so then, my wife dies or I lose a child and somehow begin coping by showing cruelty to the world around me for not being so fair. Am I no longer authentic because I’m not being kind like I was before? I would more accurately be honest. Honest with my emotions. If that is the case, then my emotions are my own and can only be judged by me. So I guess I would be the only one who could ever claim authenticity for myself.
on 09 Mar 2007 at 3:12 pm 15.Todd Helmkamp said …

Interesting point, Chet. However, if acting in a kind and loving manner is indicative of your authentic self, reacting to the death of your wife or other personal tragedy by being cruel is not a new authenticity, it’s a coping mechanism, and coping mechanisms by definition are not authentic. See what I mean?
on 24 May 2007 at 1:58 am 16.Paj said …

Hello peoples!
I randomly came upon this discussion because I am researching an essay for a philosophy unit I’m doing and the question, funnily enough is ‘what is an authentic life.’ It is attached to exploring Existentialism so I am giving a narrow perspective here but it might be useful to consider?

It is necessary to establish that Existentialism promotes the belief that “our existence preceeds our essence” which basically means that we don’t have a purpose or meaning to us that underlies our existence, we exist and as a result we define our own essence. Humans therefore can construct their own reality (we make up our own ‘meaning’) and therefore God is ruled out of the equation. Man is wholly what he does.

Sartre proposed the theory of radical freedom: that one is free because we always have choices. An authentic person is one who recognises this radical freedom and understands that everything that happens to them (their reality) is a result of their choices. They take full responsibility for the reality of their existence. One can argue, well how do things beyond one’s control fit into the agenda (ie. poverty, war and such) but Sarte says, well you always have the choice to kill yourself so you are still fundamentally responsible for your reality.

Also, on authenticity and consistency…
we do not have a fixed identity because we always have the ability to make different choices. Authenticity therefore does not necessarily mean remaining ‘consistent.’ If consistency means continuing to make choices that fit with who we percieve ourselves to be then authenticity certainly does not mean this. For example, I believe myself to be an intrinsically responsible person with a characteristic sense of duty and responsibility, therefore I have always showed up for my uni lectures. Today however, if i wake up and think, i will go to my lecture because i am responsible then i am not being authentic. I am attributing my choice to a part of my personality or who i percieve myself to be. Instead of thinking I am responsible and therefore i will go to my lectures, i should be thinking I will go to my lectures, therefore I am responsible: my choices define who I am. Consistency as being making choices that suit my supposed personality or sense of ’self’ is invalid when regarding existentialism and authenticity. By supposedly ‘remaining true to myself’ by going to a lecture because I percieve myself to be intrinsically a responsible ind of person means that I am actually being inauthentic-I am not realising the possibility that I could just as easily choose not to go to my lecture and nothing is preventing me from making this choice (i.e. my ‘personality’ or supposed intrinsic self is not a limiting factor on my choice). I am recognising my radical freedom and how it defines who I am and my reality.

An authentic life therefore is one where you realise that you always have the freedom of choice to define who you are and your choices are not constrained by any limiting factor beyond your control. You are responsible for the choice and its outcome. One should therefore be authentic by accepting this responsibility.

hope that made sense
on 24 May 2007 at 2:11 am 17.Paj said …

AMENDMENT to my previous argument
“Instead of thinking I am responsible and therefore i will go to my lectures, i should be thinking I will go to my lectures, therefore I am responsible: my choices define who I am. ”

I should not have said that choices define who we are because we have no definition other than that which says we all have the ability to make choices. I cannot say that I am anything because the possibility of choice means that I can just as easily contradict this tomorrow.

this doesn’t affect the argument that authenticity = accepting responsibility for your reality (through choice) and recognising your radical freedom (the ability to create your reality through choice)
on 24 May 2007 at 7:58 am 18.nathan said …

Paj,
existentialism is fundamentally flawed, because if everything is subjective, there is nothing.

I cannot accept that there is nothing. I would challenge you to explore that more, and find out that without some objective truth, there is nothing left to build anything upon.
Therefore, there must be at least some truth that has nothing to do with my experience.
on 04 Jun 2007 at 12:58 am 19.Paj said …

“if everything is subjective, there is nothing…without some objective truth there us nothing left to build on”
this is kind of the whole point of the existentialism argument though, there is no fundamental meaning behind human life therefore there is ‘nothing’ so we are free to attach our own meaning to our lives and it doesn’t matter if these meanings differentiate from each other because there is no truthful prototype if you will to which they have to adhere. How is this a flaw in the argument then? Objectively, there is no meaning to life which leaves room for every individual to approach their lives and meanings subjectively. There is objective truth in the existentialism argument therefore. Nothing is not a subjective element, it does leave room for subjectivity to be attached to it though. Nothing therefore is the objective truth you claim is absent. This objective truth that can sometimes be misunderstood as an absence of objective truth means that there is EVERYTHING left to build on, as you start out with nothing…

“I cannot accept there is nothing”
existentialism addresses this by saying that our radical freedom (our ability to make choices that shape our entire existence due to the absence of any pre-determined meaning placed on our being) makes us anxious. we experience anguish as a result of entertaining the notion that our choices determine who we are and no other intervening force (i.e. God) has a part in our reality. the responsibility of choice makes us want to believe that there is something more governing our existence than ourselves.

“There must be at least some truth that has nothing to do with my experience”
There is truth that has nothing to do with your experience: this is the fact there is nothing. Nothing can be a truth in itself can it not? If not, why not?

if by the above statement you mean that there have to be other forces existing in the world that are independant of you(i.e. objective truths as you might call them like the existence of things independent of you such as gravity, the world, the universe etc) then existentialism doesn’t deny the existence of these things. existentialism professes that things exist because they exist, they are real and truthful IN their existence, they just dont have a reason or meaning behind what they are. for example, Existentialism proclaims that the sun exists for no reason whatsoever, it just does. I suppose u could say existentialism supports notions of circumstance and chance-things happen through mechanics that are independant of any will or influence with a plan.

I hope u realise this is purely for the point of philosophical debate, i dont mean any of this nastily or to attack ur beliefs i just want to discuss these things coz it’s pretty fun haha thanks
on 04 Jun 2007 at 7:56 am 20.nathan said …

Paj,
No, i didn’t take any offense.

But i still consider it a fundamental flaw that at root of everything, there is nothing.

If there is nothing, then i can say, Paj does not exist, and is therefore nonexistent. Can that be true? Of course not, so it is fundamentally true that Paj exists.
If it is fundamentally true that Paj exists, there must be some truth in this world, unless you would argue that you do not exist, which in itself would be contradictory, because if you argue, you exist, and therefore, he who argues must also exist.

I fully agree that the modern thought of absolute truth is fundamentally flawed, but I think it unwise to throw the baby out with the bathwater and believe there is no such thing as any truth.
on 05 Jun 2007 at 1:29 am 21.Paj said …

I took your argument into account but…

saying that there is no meaning behind everything’s existence doesn’t deny the fact that things exist. I think we are confusing the issues of meaning and nothingness a little, existentialism means ‘nothing’ as a lack of meaning behind existence not a lack of existence itself. Just because something doesn’t have an underlying meaning does this mean it can’t exist? what are your thoughts on this concept?

when you say there must be some truth in this world, well the existentialism argument is in itself presenting us with the possible truth that at the core of everything there is no underlying meaning or pre-determined scheme to the universe, this is being presented as ‘the truth’ or a truth in itself. It is not saying that there is no such thing as any truth, it is merely saying that the truth is not as prescriptive or involved as we would like to believe.

what is the modern thought of absolute truth? I’m not familiar with this, could u briefly explain it?

thanks for discussing with me! Bit of philosophical debate = goodo I say haha sorry if i’m annoying you :p cheers
on 05 Jun 2007 at 7:51 am 22.nathan said …

modern thought says everything is explainable by science.

That has been the main thrust of the world’s thinking for several centuries.

Interesting concept. So if i determine my meaning in life is to kill a certain type of person, is that okay and approved by an existentialist?

you aren’t annoying. Keep ‘em coming.
on 18 Jun 2007 at 6:04 am 23.Paj said …

well, an existentialist would say that that would be fine only if you asessed every time you went to kill a person whether it was the choice with the most value to it. Like, an existentialist would say that that is ok only if you clearly recognise that every time you kill a person you are making a new choice that is in no way influenced by your old choices or those that you might make in the future. An existentialist approves of any choice an individual makes ONLY if the individual takes full responsibility for their choice.

Existentialism doesn’t really have a set of attached morals or ethics therefore, i think that was what ur previous comment really pointed out. some existentialist philosophers (like sarte) have tried to attach moral codes and theories to their main arguments but they weren’t really successful in doing so.

humans will be drawn to make certain choices because of social pressure (i.e. don’t kill people because it is not socially accepted). An existentialist would say well, an individual should not make choices as a consequence of social pressure but they should asess for themselves which choice outcome holds the most value in their own opinion. If killing someone holds more value for an individual and if they take full responsibility for their choice then it is ok.
on 18 Jun 2007 at 7:57 am 24.nathan said …

huh. that is very interesting.

So an existentialist would support Hitler’s view that all Jews should be killed? And therefore, give approval to the Holocaust?

What if someone believes they are truly supposed to kill a certain existentialist, would the former existentialist support a fellow existentialist’s views that they (the former) should die? And the former wouldn’t fight it?

That seems like it carries way too much baggage for me. Too much faith to believe in something like that for me. Too much faith founded in nothing…I just have a problem with my meaning in life being founded upon nothingness…That requires way too much faith for me. I don’t have that much faith. I need some real truth to build my faith upon, i guess.
on 19 Jun 2007 at 5:22 am 25.Paj said …

Just because an existentialist believes in the ability for individuals to make choices based on their own attachment of values to choices doesn’t mean they suppport the specific choices of others. When it boils down to it, existentialism does not support anything in particular, it basically says well there is no meaning in life to which we should adhere so it doesn’t really matter what we do in life. No doubt an existentialist (like most people) would find the holocaust appalling, and if they had have been hitler, would probably not have made the choices he did because they would have attached value to different things (like not killing millions of innocent people lol)

so existentialism does not support the holocaust haha what a horrid thought, the lack of moral code attached to the philosophy doesn’t mean oh well do whatever u like and nothing is wrong, it just exposes morals as a man-made and variable structure instead of an objective eternal truthful structure (as say christianity promotes)

ur argument about the two existentialists (one a murderer of the other): well the former (the one who’s going to be killed) would certainly fight it! haha I’m sure they wouldn’t want to be dead lol I don’t understand what ur point was with that example, could u explain it more? The former ext. would not support the latter’s views that killing the former is cool, but he would respect the right of the individual to have any view they want (repecting this right doesn’t mean one can’t fight against it if they believe something different)

The meaning of life being founded upon nothingness requires too much faith? If nothing is all we know about the meaning of life it seems that faith is not a question attached to this, the existentialist theory is built upon what we know about the meaning of life -nothing, so to have faith in what you know, isn’t that pretty straightforward and more simplistic than having faith in something you don’t know about?
on 19 Jun 2007 at 7:41 am 26.nathan said …

Paj,
So you’re basically saying existentialism is founded in one unwavering, uncompromising truth: Whatever feels good, do it?

So if that is an unwavering, uncompromising truth, existentialism has a fundamental problem: The basic premise of relativism is based on one truth which cannot be relative?

Isn’t that like a double negative or something?
on 24 Jun 2007 at 10:39 am 27.Paj said …

no, that is not the underlying truth of existentialism! haha if you attach MORE value to what feels good then u should do it, yes. It’s all about making choices depending on what you attach value to. So if I attach value to not taking drugs even though I know it would feel good, then i wouldn’t do it. if i attach value to taking drugs because i think it’s no big deal then existentialism would say that’s cool too (it doesn’t matter what choice you make so long as you take responsibility for it and how it shapes your existence and it has to be the choice that YOU personally attach the most value to)

I don’t quite understand your second point, sorry, is there another way to explain it? Are you saying that the one truth that cannot be relative is the ‘whatever feels good, do it?’
on 24 Jun 2007 at 11:19 am 28.auntpol said …

Hey there Nathan,

I don’t think that existentialism is hedonistic: the main problem with the modern (mis)conception of existentialism is that it is hedonistic. I have a huge problem with this. Existentialists offer (for the most part, I refer mainly to Sartre) no particular guide on what kind of things we should use to guide our decisions. In fact, they kind of can’t offer a moral or ethical guide. However, they do offer a guide on how we should make our decisions: ie that we shouldn’t be deluded into doing things just because someone else (be it society (good ol’ Heidegger’s “Das Man”), your best friend, or some God/church figure) tells you that you should. Even more so, you shouldn’t do things because you feel that you “should”. You should recognise that you are a human being, liberated and in constant anguish because you have to make decisions which you will always be responsible for.

On an earlier point, you really shouldn’t discount the possibility of nothingness because it scares you or you can’t accept it. It’s simply not rigorous. (Though, I guess if you don’t believe in existentialism and radical freedom, you probably wouldn’t be so compelled to confront your fears of nothingness as those who are somewhat resigned to the fact that we are constantly in a state of existential angst).

I wouldn’t say most existentialism is relativism, simply because it provides no moral guide at all (as I said, it can’t without contradicting itself), so it can’t subscribe to relativism. It doesn’t believe that any course of action is right or wrong. It simply doesn’t believe in right or wrong, including right-for-you and wrong-for-you.

I think you might find the musings of Kierkegaard,(arguably) the first existentialist. He was a Christian, and believed that we can never know that God exists, that we can never actually know if we do things which he approves of, but we have to do them anyway. It’s his “leap of faith” kind of thing: that the only way to live an authentic life is to constantly doubt whether what we are doing is right by God, in the full knowledge that we will never know if we’re doing the right thing. Kierkegaard is kind of depressing, come to think of it. But he has the same basic point as Sartre: if you’re doing things just because you think that they’re “right” (That is, you’ve been indoctrinated), you’ve been lead astray. His justification for this (I can’t remember the metaphysics behind it) is that God can never contact us in any way we could understand, so all workings of the Church were just workings of men who were falsely using God for their own agenda. (I find that bit totally relevant!)

The existential tradition started with Heidegger, in many people’s eyes. He’s a difficult bugger to summarise, but he was still using the basic premise that you can’t do things just because someone else tells you to. The reasons are complex, and H is difficult to read (oh my goodness, Germans, when will you learn to write more clearly!!). But he basically talks about the fact that when we realise that we might as well not be as much as we might be (That is, we realise our true being-towards-death: that we are always death), we realise that nothing has the meaning which we thought it did in the first place. Then he talks confusingly about pressing into the situation at hand, and being able to see the true possibilities for what they are. I guess, what he’s trying to say (in a rather embarrassingly over condensed way)is that we shouldn’t let what we think we want colour what we think is actually possible. Which I think is what all the existentialists are trying to say: we have all these hidden agendas, some our own, some forced upon us by society/the church/whomever, and we shouldn’t let that affect us seeing what is really laid before us, and what is really the best course of action. We should see clearly what is really there, and realise that us and us alone can make that decision, and to do anything else is inauthentic. This is heavy stuff, when we consider how many decisions we make everyday.

If you don’t like everything being based upon nothing, then I guess you don’t like postmodernism. Derrida’s thoughts on meaning would probably scare your cotton socks off.

If you’re getting all tied up in how this works, it’s probably more Paj’s (and my!) fault: speaking for myself, I’m only an undergrad philosophy student. You can study these guys for years and years and years. Also, their continental philosophers: they don’t really follow the analytic tradition in terms of justifying their arguments (I don’t think). So, it’s probably not them, it’s probably our over-simplifications that cause the trouble.
on 25 Jun 2007 at 7:44 am 29.nathan said …

Since you are both existentialists, hopefully you will respect what I hold true in my life: 1. you are both wrong, and 2. there is absolutely no reason worth continuing this discussion.

And, according to your reasoning, you should respect what i have found true for me, right? (rhetorical question.)
on 25 Jun 2007 at 9:27 am 30.Paj said …

whaa auntpol way to throw like a million philosophers in our direction lolcakes, it’s good u know heaps on the subject and thanks for the contribution but u didn’t have to throw EVERYTHING about every single existentialist that’s ever lived at us lolburgers haha

Nathan, sorry man i didn’t mean to offend u! I respect ur beliefs man of course! I didn’t mean to shut down ur beliefs, i was just arguing purely for the point of philosophical debate, sorry. Nah mate, I’m not an existentialist, actually a christian like you I just find philosophy fascinating and i believe one should always question what they believe in and take all arguments into consideration if they mean to truly become strong about their faith, tis my belief in any case.

sorry if i offended u thanks for having discussion
on 25 Jun 2007 at 10:01 am 31.nathan said …

as i’ve mentioned i think twice prior, you never offended me. I’m just not interested in having an endless discussion about something which i find to be a huge stretch of faith. I consider that a waste of my time.
If someone is truly searching, it isn’t a waste of their time, but for someone who isn’t (like me), this kind of discussion is really a waste of my time. Hope that makes sense.
God bless you Paj.