In our reading from Ethics of Authenticity, Taylor points to the ways in which the moral ideal of authenticity was morphed into a focus on self-fulfillment that focuses only on the self, as if meaning/authenticity/true selfhood can best be "achieved" through a solitary process requiring a kind of retreat from the mundane, the everyday aspects of our lives (think Siddhartha as an aesthete). But, Taylor suggests, that in order to find the meaning we seek, that true self, it is important to understand that "we exist in a horizon of important questions" not just our own. We are embedded in a larger and very significant context. Maybe not all good or ideal but part of who we are and the self-defining choices that we make. He writes, "To shut out demands emanating beyond the self is precisely to suppress the conditions of significance, and hence to court trivialization" (40).
Guignon basically takes up Taylor's argument right there by examining the self-help movement and the formulaic approaches to "finding oneself" (again, think Siddhartha!).
Both of this week's readings deal with the tension between different ideas of selfhood and the striving for meaning/authenticity. Taylor and Porter begin to outline two different and often conflicting conceptions relating to the ideal of "being true to oneself," what it means to be "authentic," to "know oneself" that Taylor circled around. Both are extremes: self-denial/self-emptying/self-loss/self-abnegation/releasement vs self-possession/enownment/author of your own destiny.
Porter writes, "Thus, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, the sense of self needs rethinking" (16). Guignon believes that the "very notion of an intrinsically good, substantial self lying within becomes increasingly problematic in the contemporary world" (xii-xiii).
Use the texts to explore and illustrate the different, if flawed or extreme, ideals of selfhood that the authors describe. Many of you didn't quite catch the nuanced way in which Taylor forms his arguments, he lays out different perspectives but this doesn't mean that he is defending or putting out these ideas himself. You will see that Guignon does this also, he talks about this methodology in the preface. Philosophical writing is complex, so please try to understand what the authors are saying, what their project is, before deciding to argue a point. Critical thinking/reading is about investigation of and interaction with the text to increase your understanding of the concepts, if you disagree then be sure to use quotes to argue your point and make sure that you understand the larger context from which you pluck them. . .
Being true to ourselves is essential in figuring out, who we are and what our purpose in life is. Deepak Chopra says that 'each of us are here to discover our true self and that we each have a unique talent and unique way of expressing it'(5). Once we discover our talents and express them,our lives will be better. Knowing our self will help us know where to place ourselves in the scheme of things.If we don't take the time to find out who we are and what drives us, we will be lost and unhappy. Like Guignon points out there is "belief that authentic people are happy, joyous,and free and that each of us can make the choice for authenticity"(1). Authentic people are happy because they are doing what they love in life and there is no better accomplishment then someone living their life the way they want to. Many of these individuals were confident of their talent and didn't care what people thought of them. For example, a person may be very good at designing clothes and might have been made fun of, but in spite of the constant torment, they remained true to their passion and now are successful fashion designers. They were authentic and did not change in order to blend with others. They stayed true to themselves and therefore were successful.
ReplyDeletePorter as well mentions that the first ideal is "knowing yourself", but he says that it is through bitter experience that we discover the self (3). He comments that "life must be a pilgrimage of self-discovery, bitter perhaps", but not all self-discovery is bitter;and we can't take too long discovering our authenticity because we may discover it too late(10). Individuals need to accept who they are and "maximize their potential"(12). If we take our whole life trying to discover ourselves and our authenticity it is possible we may never find it; so it is important that we accept who we are, use it to our advantage and stop looking for what we want to be, because we will miss our purpose in life.
Thanks Mina for jumping in--but for those of you who follow, please be sure that you are clear about what the tensions are and what, especially Guignon's views of Chopra and others. Is he telling us that this is the view of authenticity that he is putting forward who, as Taylor was, giving us an analysis of the current understanding which he is actually critiquing? Does it seem that he is using these examples to build a different argument?
ReplyDeletep.s. Please also look for the larger context of the quotes you choose--this is why I prompted you to look at the paradigms that both these authors give us. They are not necessarily promoting either view. . . These are philosophical pieces not self-help books so they are not necessarily offering advice or insight, at least not yet, as to the concept of authenticity or selfhood which they would promote.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Flesh in the Age of Reason, Porter tries to figure out where this idea of “individuality” came from. In the past, people lived by society’s standards and thought of themselves as part of the community. Their self-worth was determined by how they contributed to other’s happiness and how they played their role in society. When the Protestant revolution took place, a change in people’s attitudes took place as well. “Protestantism forced believers into soul-searching”. (Porter 6) That quest is never-ending because there are so many ways to ‘find’ oneself, if that is even possible to begin with, like meditation, personal reflection, and religion. However, can one even be found? And if one is, then what do they find? Is that knowledge even necessary to one’s happiness? Sometimes, people find themselves (or rather determine. based on their life experiences thus far, how they want to live their lives in the future) and are able to find contentment. Sure, there might be some purpose as to why we are placed on this Earth and if that purpose can be found than perhaps we will all be happier. You could call it the will of God.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I agree with John Locke’s idea: “the mind is not like a furnished flat, prestocked before occupation with innate ideas, but like a home put together piecemeal from mental acquisitions picked up bit by bit.” (Porter 7) It would be extremely arrogant to believe that humans are so essential to life and so important that we are already have the knowledge of the universe within ourselves, just waiting to be discovered. This is not to say, however, that I do not think that it is not worthwhile to stop and think from time to time about the course of our actions and how to improve our lives- whether it is to add joy to our lives or help the people we love. Through reflection and “being present in our relationships… we can achieve self-realization and self-fulfillment as authentic human beings.” (Giugnon 6) Being authentic does not mean making our lives revolve around ourselves, who very often occurs in today’s society… We tend to get wrapped-up in how can I do this? How can I be better? We become so concerned with ourselves we forget about the big-picture. Being authentic means looking within to find what we believe and what we can improve and realizing we are imperfect, but that is fine. It is not necessary to be perfect or have your life in order before you contribute to the ‘bigger-picture’ or ‘fulfill God’s will’. It is simply trying to bring out the best in you and using what you do have to bring good into the world. In other words, being authentic means looking outside of yourself in order to find at the beauty within.
In order to understand the ideals of selfhood, it is important to know the history and development of individualism. It's long history began in ancient Grease. "It was the Golden Age of Grease...which brought the first stirrings of true individual consciousness..."(4) Authenticity suffered during the Medieval Age. The Catholic Church, a prominent force of the time, promoted self denial and obedience. The Renaissance brought about change as well. During this time, individualism broke the chains of customs and thrived. The Protestant Reformation brought about a new wave of individualism that spurred soul searching, and getting to know one's self. The Seventeenth Century was a great turning point for individualism as a secular idea. The mood of this time period can be summed by Rene Descartes, "Neither God nor nature, but the ego or consciousness is the spring of human self-understanding." During the eighteenth century, individualism became much more important in all areas of thought. "Society was the product of free men coming together to set up a political society to protect fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property.” (9) Through out the Nineteenth Century, the expression of individual authenticity became much more intense, feeding off the Romantic era's drive to self-understanding. Sigmund Freud, for example, snubbed the Augustine idea of forbidden knowledge and pursued knowledge especially pertaining to the self. The twentieth century was characterized by a belief that triumph of the self was a misconception. Identity was given by the bureaucratic and administrative systems. Finally, the twenty-first century has begun to question the idea of self. Few know who they really are, and the idea of "self" needs rethinking. Guignon looked in detail at the varied ways of finding one's selfhood.
ReplyDeleteOne important concept of authenticity that Guignon discussed was that authenticity is about owning oneself. It is about achieving your potential and “be(ing) all that you can be…” (7) A second ideal is about loosing your self, and releasing your life to the unknown. According to this concept, emotion and pleasure is to be shunned.
There are many shortcomings found with each of these ideals. The releasement ideal allows people to be walked over and taken advantage of. You don’t take care of yourself, who will. On the other hand, being all that you can be may encourage you to become self-centered and ruthless.
I believe that both of these ideals are important, in moderation. I believe that it is important to promote yourself. Otherwise, who will? Yet it is also important to consider others. Life is meaningless if you do nothing to help others. Self-giving is one aspect that gives meaning to my life. Both ideals have truth. A combination of the two is a good way to live.
Guignon uses a quote from Dr. Phil that says, "The authentic self is the you that can be found at your absolute core. It is the part of you that is not defined by your job, or your function, or your role. It is the composite of all your unique gifts, skills, abilities, interests, talents, insights, and wisdom. It is all your strengths and values that are uniquely yours and need expression, versus what you have been programmed to believe that you are 'supposed to be and do.' It is the you that flourished, unself-consciously, in those times in your life when you felt happiest and most fulfilled" (2). Guignon ends up classifying this as a newer conception of authenticity because it is saying that your true self is "not something outside yourself; rather it is you yourself" (2).
ReplyDeleteHe then goes on to describe an old conception of an authentic self as one that is unevolved versus one that you could be "if you realize your potential and purpose as a human being" (3). These older conceptions of self describe the ideal condition of self as something that you aspire to reach, yet it is not necessarily a set of characteristics currently within you.
I found both of these ideas really interesting, especially to see how the idea of a potential self evolved into one that is already within you. It is so apparent in the vast amount of self-help literature out there that society has moved to accept the idea that the authentic self is within you, just hidden. Like Porter says in Flesh in the Age of Reason, "few of us mortals these days feel so confident about who or what we are." People are still confused as to where to look. They keep being assured by society that their authentic self isn't the person that they are currently being, but something else. In this case, people become confused and look for guidance. This can result in turning to self-help books that urge them to look within.
In finding self, we decide whether our lives benefit ourselves, others or the greater will of God. Guignon touched on many different views on what finding the self and discovering the self means. From my reading, I gathered that each philosophy dealt with finding who we are inside, our greatest potential, our true purpose and meaning for life. The difference between the philosophies involve the step on what to do next. Either this true meaning benefits yourself leading a more fulfilled life, helps society by using your skills to benefit others, or attends to the purpose that God has intended for you.
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me the most in On Being Authentic is when Guinon stated a metaphor about biology and human nature (physically, not mentally) into the equation. He noted that, "the cosmo is very much like a living organism. It has had a birth, it is unfolding, it has periods of health and sickness, cycles and natural rhythms, and someday it will pass away." He compared humans to organs in a body system: we each have a purpose and a role to play. The body, or the cosmo, will only function properly if each organ is in its right place, doing the right thing.
This view further stresses our need to find our true self and the importance of our lives. But it also brought up the question, to me, on whether we truly have a meaning to our lives or whether we are simply a masses of tissues and organs in a living system. This reminded me of Descartes, who believed that the seat to our soul is in our pineal gland. He examined the human body determined to find where our thoughts, desires, beliefs, etc came from. Though he was wrong, he and many philosophers and people agree that there is something deeper instilled in us rather than just being a living organism. To find ourselves, we must admit that there is more to us, than ourselves. Something higher of power and deeper than reason. We must admit to ourselves that there is a meaning to our lives.
I thought this was important because each of the philosophies agreed with this thought. But each in its own way. Instead of "existing" in life, each of the philosophies ask us to LIVE. Finding selfhood can attribute to a deeper meaning of self, a service to others, or a commitment to God. They all stress that there is something more than existing, there is a soul or reason or true individual inside of you. And being authentic is finding it and living it.
In my opinion, each of the philosophies struck the same chord and held the same view. We all have a deeper meaning, purpose and self. The difference lies in who or what we decide to live for.
In chapter 1, Guignon offers two possible ways to answer the question: "What is the most meaningful and worthwhile life possible for humans? ... The first, the concept of authenticity, is an ideal of owning oneself, of achieving self-possession ... The second ideal emphasizes not enownment, but rather self-loss or releasement" (Guignon 7). These two extremes to being "true to yourself" are argued by Taylor and Porter in the readings.
ReplyDeleteOn Taylor's side of the spectrum, he argues that "[our] moral salvation comes from recovering authentic moral contact with ourselves" (Taylor 27). In relation to the first concept introduced by Guignon, Taylor's view of self-hood requires one to delve in towards themselves to discover the morality from within. This perspective of authenticity advocates the unique-ness and gifts of every individual, engaging them to become the person that they truly are. According to Dr. Phil (as quoted by Sarah): "The authentic self is the you that can be found at your absolute core ... It is all your strengths and values that are uniquely yours" (Guignon 2).
On the other extreme, lies Porter's argument. In analyzing past views of self-hood, Porter reveals to us that at the stem of every awakening step towards individual consciousness lies the understanding that there is a bigger picture out there. While finding oneself initially starts as an individualistic task, the actions that accumulate once you know yourself ultimately affect the society and world that you live in--"Egoism [then becomes] anathema" (Porter 4). This is particularly true when "society [became] the product of free men coming together to set up a political society to protect fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property" (Porter 9).
Although Taylor and Porter's arguments seem to be complete extremes, they are more similar than you would think. Both Taylor and Porter talk about the developing views of self-hood throughout history. From comparing the two readings together, I found that a re-emerging theme from both readings is that the process of self-discovery is constantly developing into something new. Over time, humans have constantly challenged the societal norms while embarking on that quest for self-hood. Throughout this quest, many philosophies or "self-help ideas" have sprung up on how to truly find yourself, that it becomes confusing to know which one to follow. I believe that in order to ultimately find yourself and realize your full potential as a human being, you must follow your own path and be true to yourself. Everyone's path is different, but I think we can all agree that "the self is thus the bit-by-bit product of experience and education: we are what we become" (Porter 7). This is what makes the self authentic.
Guignon writes, "The basic assumption built into the idea of authenticity is that, lying within each individual, there is a deep "true self"... this real, inner self contains the constellation of feelings, needs, desires, capacities, aptitudes, dispositions, and creative abilities that make the person a unique individual."(p. 6)
ReplyDeleteTo understand these parts of the self is to essentially understand and embody the meaning of life. To live the most meaningful life possible, one must be completely in touch with the self. The question, however, is, how does one get in touch with this deep part of the self?
Guignon goes on to describe two very contrasting ways of finding this inner-self: self-possession and self-loss. Self possession is based on the assumption that everything we are made up of is already inside of us. The only source we need is ourselves. Self-loss on the other hand, is the act of emptying the self and abandoning "personal feelings and needs to give your life over to something greater than yourself." (p. 7) The theory behind self-loss is that once the self is abandoned, it makes room for some greater power to come in and be your guide to the meaning of life. It is seeking an outside source.
Upon reading this, I could not decide which theory I believe to be more successful in finding the self. However, I came to the realization that most self-help books come with the message that "the power is within." This led me to thinking, do books use this theory as a guide because it is easier than the utter emptying of the self? Are any of these books going to legitimately help in finding the meaning of life? Ultimately, I think that finding the self cannot be done through a 12-step program or the process of reading a book, it must be done on a completely individual level. It is up to you how you decide to search for inner truth.
Blog post:
ReplyDeleteFrom what I gather, the point of being authentic is to be able to orientate yourself according to an inner moral compass. When left to society, we find ourselves subject to archetypes that are imposed on us by norms. While it seems as if the search for authenticity served as a counter-element to society and the various norms that constrain authenticity, it is mentioned towards the end of the Porter reading that “The much-trumpeted Renaissance is thereby reduced to another yet another stratagem,or at least to a mode of ‘social construction’” (Porter 16). Essentially this idea points out that if the view of a society with norms is juxtaposed to the idea authenticity, it could be discerned that authenticity is a ‘cure’ for the woes of society, namely, the trend setting and following. Or you could view the development in the dynamic between the individual and society as a whole as just another development. Granted, these views are not mutually exclusive. It is just interesting that the idea of authenticity itself might not necessarily be the counterbalance to society, but rather it could just be another phase.
In the Guignon reading, he says “The model of self-loss directs you to turn your back on the self-preoccupation and self-inspection demanded by the culture of authenticity”(Guignon 8). In this Guignon refers to the second component of authenticity, that being the giving of one’s self to “something greater.” Such were the old tendencies of religion and society. If giving yourself to God wasn’t the case, it was dedicating your life to the community, or even just to yourself. In order to do things commit yourself to something of the like, it becomes necessary to abide by certain rules. If it’s religion, then there are certain rules in place for priests and nuns, if it’s to the greater good then you’re governed by a set morals. While the submission to a certain brand of beliefs seems contrary to the idea of authenticity, the important part is that it is chosen by the individual which justifies said submission.
-Daniel
In trying to step back from the article and read for content, not for quotes, I found the two pieces to be quite similar, with Porter’s giving a more detailed history on the evolution of the “me-centric” view point and Guignon’s presenting a more general outline of the shift and a direct examination of the pre-modern and post modern camps.
ReplyDeleteBoth articles admit that, at one time, people were connected, body and soul, to a higher power. There was always some mystical life force compelling people. This system, while considered primitive by modern scholars did hold its place in the hearts and minds of the people. It was easier to lead a fulfilling life in pre-modern times because your being was attached to something greater than yourself. By living the life that you were slotted into, you were fulfilling your destiny. There was no greater satisfaction than that (Guignon 24). That satisfaction is perhaps something missing today.
Porter describes, in detail the gradual shift, mentioning the slow but sure starts of self examination in Greek philosophy and Shakespearean plays (4). He also points to the Renaissance as a step towards individualism. Guignon argues that religion, and thus, an attachment to God still exists during this time period, but the change is nonetheless apparent (Porter 5, Guignon 17). Porter goes on to mention the other forward thinkers who, in their own arenas, pushed society towards this age of self examination in the post modern era.
This is where Guignon goes a step further. He claims that not only have human beings reached a level where knowing oneself is the goal, but that they have reached a time where humans consider themselves able to examine, diagnose and treat their minds. Now, it is not enough to simply know oneself. A complete human must be able to fix their problems. Granted, this conclusion is logical. As curiosity is a definite human trait, it makes sense that a desire to cure inadequacies would emerge. Guignon cautions his readers to tread carefully though, in this maze of self help. “The problem with self-help ideas is not that they are wrong, but that they are one-sided. That is why latching on to them as if they were the answer to your problems cuts you off from a sensitivity to other virtues and ideals that are not only equally good, but are absolutely essential to living a meaningful and fulfilling life” (ix).
In sum, what I gathered from the two is a sense of the progression of the human mind throughout the centuries. There is no determination of superiority, just a history. Guignon does seem to present more of a personal note, with his warnings about self help, but only in response to the problems that have arisen in current society.
In Flesh in the Age of Reason, Roy Porter discusses the consciousness of the individual self and the transformation of this idea throughout the ages. He goes on to provide examples, giving commentary but never truly setting forth an argument until later in the introduction. He discusses “an impassioned quest for the ultimate truth of the self [which] seemed to make a crucial breakthrough with the ‘discovery of the unconscious.’”
ReplyDeleteIn On Being Authentic, Charles Guignon also discusses the ideals surrounding the concept of authenticity. He brings up more modern examples, most notably Dr. Phil. Porter and Guignon both focus around the primary question of what exactly is the meaning of authenticity.
In Guignon’s On Being Authentic, he says, “The conception of the self as inextricably tied to a wider context also makes possible the ancient virtue of reverence, a way of experiencing things that includes an awareness of the intricate interwovenness of all reality, the dependence of each person on something greater than him- or herself, the consequent sense of human limitations that comes from such an awareness, and an experience of awe before the forces that lie outside human control.” (pp. 19)
Why must our “self” be made separate from our self in the world? Guignon gives commentary on the self-help guru Dr. Phil and how he advocates a position towards removing the world from the individual to achieve the “real you.” Dr. Phil projects the idea that we must strip all the external baggage that we carry as a result of our outside influences. Guignon disagrees and instead argues that we must involve ourselves into the greater picture.
I thoroughly agree with Guignon’s view on authenticity. What are we human beings, if not the compilation of our experiences in life? Are we not simply the product of cultural and social influences? Our moral existence has a foundation in the people we have met, the situations we have been in, the impact of governmental policies on our lives. Our “self” cannot be removed from society, from the outside world, because that is what shaped us, what created us.
In Ethics of Authenticity, Charles Taylor shares a similar standpoint with Guignon, saying that individualism has caused people to remove themselves from outside concerns, resulting in a sense that lives are “flattened and narrowed” in connection with “an abnormal and regrettable self-absorption.”
These authors all provide strong arguments and evidence. To me, I believe in the idea that the soul is a collection of all experiences that a person has gone through. I believe that self-realization does not come with self-emptying, but instead realizing that we are all connected—that the self is a piece of a larger picture. Self-realization involves taking these experiences and choosing how they affect how we view ourselves and how we act in relation to others. We must take a more objective view on authenticity, take a step back, and see the world (and ourselves) from a different view.
Though Charles Guignon and Roy Porter describe different ideas and possibilities for the search for authenticity, Roy Porter provides a more of a chronological order of the ideal. Porter introduces ideas from ancient Greece, religion, and modern day opinions of authenticity. Guignon, however, provides a more detailed look at modern ideals and methods of authenticity.
ReplyDeleteCharles Guignon discusses a variety of ideas about authenticity. The ones that struck me as the strongest were Frilz Perls, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Dostoevsky. After Guignon introduces Dr. Phil’s belief that authenticity is an understanding to “his relation to himself,” he provides Perls condition of the opposite nature (2). Perls labels it neurosis when one tries to separate from his or her self. This is described as “‘a feeling of not being alive, of deadness. We feel that we are nothing, we are things’” (4). This is similar to the idea presented by Porter of the church. Porter states that church encouraged “self-denial” claiming it as the “supreme good” (5). However, I am in agreement with Perls and find this concept to be the opposite of authenticity. I find that Perls belief is related and a result of Sartre’s concept that “social pressures pull us toward inauthentic role-playing” (Guignon 5). I believe that these statements act in support of Dr. Phil’s idea of authenticity. Due to what is acted upon us by society and what we are pressured to be and to become, an individual’s authenticity is severely endangered and limited.
In Porter’s first chapter the possibility of authenticity being created by experience is introduced. This concept was introduced by John Locke. Porter states that “the self is thus the bit-by-bit product of experience and education” (7). This is an idea of authenticity that I agree with. The idea that we are who we truly are deep inside the second we are born, and without any outside influence, seems improbable to me. I think, like Locke, that we are truly a result constructed by our experiences. Another idea introduced by Porter is the possibility that authenticity makes us more egotistical. In response to this Porter gives Frued’s opinion that the “pursuit of knowledge about the self did not signal pride, rather it was its antidote” (14). Of all the ideals presented about authenticity, I believe that this is the truest. This is because when the consciousness is entered there are many things that one probably would not want to know, as well as many faults. These individual faults would end many prideful thoughts. This follows some of the questions posed by Guignon about the inner self. These multiple layered questions included whether there really is an inner self and, largely, what if we do not like our inner selves of our inner self makes life difficult. These seem to be unanswerable questions that will vary with each individual.
In "Flesh in The Age of Reason" the author, Roy Porter, begins with an idea that the fulfillment of the cherished ideals begins first by "Knowing yourself" and then by "Being yourself" (Porter 3). In order for us to be our self, first we have to know who we are as an individual. We have to understand the things and traits that shape our persona. Through our everyday experiences we discover those traits that make up who we are. As a result we learn how to be our self and therefore feel comfortable sharing our character with others.
ReplyDeletePorter also states that what makes up who we are is our authentic character. He quotes, "The secret to selfhood is located in authenticity and individuality" (Porter 3). That authentic personality is experienced and attained when one is not afraid to express our ideas and expose our different character. In order to be authentic we have "To thineself be true" (Porter 3). We cannot imitate some one else's persona because we would be lying to our self. By being true to our identity we will learn the things that we feel passionate about and enjoy doing.
In "On Being Authentic" the author, Charles Guignon, also speaks about this idea of authenticity and mentions that, "Even though being who are is our proper task in life, it is not an easy task" (Guignon 4). Our main goal in our life is showing who we really are through our traits and values. In many cases something so simple such as being yourself can be a hard task to accomplish. It is hard because if we do not know who we are and understand who we want to be then we cannot complete the task of being our authentic self. Guignon explains that, "What is needed then is a project of self-transformation aimed at recovering this lost you, and reinstating it to its proper place at the center of your life" (Guignon 3). In order to find our self we need to go through a transformation, changes in our life and experiences. This will help us gain back our identity which makes us authentic. Then we can begin to live our life, the life we know we want to live and that we will enjoy living.
Through my service learning I experienced this same idea of selfhood and authenticity. After going to MYC two times, I had the chance to introduce myself to the students I tutored. I told them my name and that I went to Dominican. The third time I went most students did not remember my name. Therefore I decided to share with them things about myself. I shared with them the person I am. As a result by being myself, and not just the tutor, I developed a closer relationship with them. The last time I went most students greeted me by my name, and that made feel content. I then realized I mattered in their lives because I portrayed to be no one else but me.
I believe that Siddhartha provides an excellent example to examine the process or state of self-authenticity. I found it extremely interesting after reading Chapter 2 “The Enchanted Garden” in On Being Authentic that Hermann Hesse uses pre-modern Buddhist philosophy and thought and embraces it with a modern interpretation. Specifically, I mean that the Buddhist philosophy used to structure Siddhartha was based on humanity finding authenticity by fulfilling their role or place within a larger society or cosmos, while the philosophy was presented in a modern lens that offered the idea that Siddhartha was on a quest for finding his true inner-self or “authentic” self. Hesse assumes the modern “idea that becoming authentic is our highest goal in life” (Guignon 6).
ReplyDeleteAs Katie Lake mentions, Guignon presents two routes for self-authenticity that fall within the modern worldview. That is “self-possession” and “self-loss.” While examining Siddhartha’s journey as an example of a modern quest for self-authenticity, I drew the parallel that Siddhartha’s time with the Samanas explores the route of self-loss and Siddhartha’s time with Kamala exploiting the senses explores the route of self-possession. Furthermore, I find it interesting that within Siddhartha’s journey and Hesse’s ideas of modern self-authenticity both paths that Guignon presents failed. This example confirms my belief that it is in balancing these two radical ideas that the pathway to self-authenticity lies. With my interpretation of “self-loss” and “self-possession” I see two archetypes. The first being the religious zealot that lives by the authority of self-loss and ends up falling away from authenticity by denying himself of human experience necessary to find authenticity “within.” This person views the idea that Porter discusses, “self-denial” as the “supreme good,” which leads to “annihilation of the self” (Porter 5). The second archetype would be the person that lives for the secular experience, denies the body of no pleasure, and follows a generic path to what culture has defined would make a person happy. This archetype loses its connection with the journey to self-authenticity because it denies the body of nothing that would grant the person an instant happiness.
Within my service learning at the MYC I have realized that I should take a balanced approach to my understanding of these two ideas. I believe that it is important for me to present myself as authentic since I assume a teaching role in the dance class. The students are naturally more open and receptive of what I am trying to share with them if I do it in an authentic manner. I balance Guignon’s approaches to authenticity by being able to deny myself and serve the students, as well as finding my personal enjoyment within the dancing that I am sharing with them.