You are still not getting it and it is pretty profound considering I guided you to the most basic literature on the subject. Authenticity is not a standard. — TimeLine

I'm a smart guy. I have good reading comprehension. I sincerely tried to understand. So.... I doubt that my failure was "profound." It's not primarily that I don't get it intellectually. The description does not match my experience of human behavior. How people are good. How people are real.

You judge people by whether or not they are authentic - whether or not they live their lives based on what others expect. You apply authenticity as a standard.

These considerations seem to indicate that both tendencies are present in human beings; the one, to have - to possess - that owes its strength in the last analysis to the biological factor of the desire for survival; the other, to be - to share, to give, to sacrifice - that owes its strength to the specific conditions of human existence and the inherent need to overcome one's isolation by oneness with others. —

In the final analysis I believe the need to overcome one’s isolation by oneness with others is also biological and owes its strength to the desire for survival, or rather the drive for gene propagation. In the vast majority of human evolution long term isolation severely decreased the odds for survival, and obviously gene propagation.

Really? Me civilly and respectfully objecting to something you've written is a claim of moral superiority on my part? Sorry. That's pretty silly. There is no "quest for moral superiority." I'm just trying to be a good person. — T Clark

Perhaps you took me in the wrong spirit. I wasn't complaining of being treated badly. I was trying to make a point that moral judgments imply a hierarchy. If it is bad to think that one is better than others, then we will think we are better than others because we don't think we are better than others.

Of course I realize you're just trying to be a good person. Me too. What's the alternative? Being a bad or a less good person. Now why be a good person as opposed to a bad person if being a good person is not to be morally superior? (This is almost tautologous. I think 'moral superiority' just has a bad ring which I did not intend.)

I think that's only (potentially) true if I agree that book larnin' is the only path to moral behavior, which is the whole point I've been arguing against in this discussion. — T Clark

OK, but books were just an example. Here's the simple question: is there individual moral progess? In my view, of course there is. And progress is (seems to me) the move from an inferior to a superior state.

Just to clarify, I intended 'sophisticated' as having-progressed or having-evolved along some continuum. That word may have bad ring for some, but I associate it with virtue. I tend to like those who have become gentle and measured in their interactions. Books are not necessary here, though I do think they can help.

And progress is (seems to me) the move from an inferior to a superior state. — foo

That would be in relation to something. The judgement of inferior and superior would be a judgement in relation to some objective, as progress is toward that objective, the goal, the desired end. Without that standard for judgement, there is no superior or inferior, nor is there progress, there is just change.

I started a thread to explore being/having some time ago, but my mind got stuck. While I felt like I had the gist of the distinction, where I was stuck was with notions of character orientation, modes of being, and so forth. I'm still stuck there now, else I would have replied to my own thread by now :D. — Moliere

There is this 'white Australia' culture that I have been attempting to sociologically penetrate and dissect, although my personal ethnography has not been successful to say the least. This cohort convey kindness at the most superficial level; what that means is that kindness is merely a tool to further advance their image that they portray and thus morality is a functional property or an object (and thus dead). They celebrate alcohol and anti-intellectual pursuits and by following this established mode of existence, they epitomise the so-called highest order in this human chain, therein giving them this sense of entitlement, so much so that they think they are entitled or justified to be vicious, to bully, to harass, to gossip and slander, to ostracise all underpinned by this archetype that appropriates a vision of superiority. They are not doing wrong or evil, they are allowed to because morality, to them, is exclusive and only for a select few and identity is merely power relations, objectifying imagined concepts like masculinity and where values become hegemonic.

So a beast or this large, monstrous animal comes to life only by this network, where this individual is dead and only comes to life when meaning is formed by this interconnection with the dynamic whole, which is merely an indestructible illusion. People identify meaning only through this symbolic whole and the practitioners of this mode of existence contrast and compare to everyone else. Underlying this is a need to belong, to unify and thus overcome the sense of alienation and aloneness that our selfhood projects through anxiety and depression (so we escape into our imagination) and the better we preform in this human order, the more meaningful our existence becomes.

So, to Fromm, he believes that there is a dichotomy to this mode of existence, where we paradoxically identify with two types of experiences namely that of Being and that of Having and emerge from two need; the need to belong and the need for freedom. We possess the need for freedom the moment we become conscious of our selfhood (perhaps that moment where our brains possess the capacity to rationalise concepts like death) and this produces an anxiety within us because we become aware of our separateness or that we are alone.To escape from that freedom, several possibilities emerge; Authoritarianism and Automaton Conformity - domination/control or sado-masochism, ultimately between those that cease to be by adopting the personality most appreciated by their environment and those that attempt to control others because they are out of control; it is hierarchical. This is blanketed by destructiveness, something you find in the justified violence of political regimes.

"The destruction of the world is the last, almost desperate attempts to save myself from being crushed by it."

He had several types of unproductive character orientations that develop from this Mode of Having; the Receptive (needy, passive, unable to make decisions), Exploitative (willing to lie, cheat, manipulate), Hoarding (possessive, unable to let go) and Marketing (shallow, dependent on social status, opportunistic). This character types seeks to possess or to have, which renders values, ideas, perceptions to be something that can be owned; love, for instance, is about possession and ownership, that the said person is 'mine' or about being loved. The energy is channelled in an unhealthy or toxic way, because they assume that to possess or own objects - such as by having a trophy wife - that he would be congratulated by this symbolic or imagined whole and thus give his life meaning.

The problem here is that we cannot escape this determinism, that the language we form that enables this experience with the external world to be articulated is established socially, through this dynamic interaction and communication and knowledge is formed by comparing and contrasting, but that we can transcend it to what Fromm calls the Mode of Being. We accept that we are alone, separate and channel the negative feelings associated by that isolating experience into productive and creative expression, to form a healthy understanding of our place in the social world. In a way, it takes a psychoanalytic approach to existentialism, where although we desire the delusion of immortality, come to accept that we are going to die and that we are responsible for our choices.

We feel lonely and isolated because we have become separated from nature and from other human beings. But once we fully accept this, we begin to articulate and express ourselves authentically, a type of solidarity with ourselves, an inherent respect that projects outwards into our mode of being, where we love and relate to all people, the environment and nature as a whole (not to just objects). It is a productive orientation that responds with care, respect, and knowledge.

So, when you think of the analogy of the rose at the OP, think of Goethe' poem that reflects the point so eloquently.

I walked in the woods
All by myself,
To seek nothing,
That was on my mind.

I saw in the shade
A little flower stand
Bright like the stars
Like beautiful eyes.

I wanted to pluck it,
But it said sweetly:
Is it to wilt
That I must be broken?

I took it out
With all its roots,
Carried it to the garden
At the pretty house

And planted it again
In a quiet place;
Now it ever spreads
And blossoms forth — Goethe

You judge people by whether or not they are authentic - whether or not they live their lives based on what others expect. You apply authenticity as a standard. — T Clark

Actually, you know you are right here. I am going to touch on this when I get home in about half an hour.

That would be in relation to something. The judgement of inferior and superior would be a judgement in relation to some objective, as progress is toward that objective, the goal, the desired end. Without that standard for judgement, there is no superior or inferior, nor is there progress, there is just change. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree. So when societies or individuals are diagnosed or accused, this seems to imply at least some blurry notion of a preferred state.

I think we have these blurry notions of virtue before we think to justify them. Indeed, thinking we need to justify/clarify our blurry notions was presumably motivated or in pursuit of another such blurry notion --one that tends toward its own clarification.

OK, but books were just an example. Here's the simple question: is there individual moral progess? In my view, of course there is. And progress is (seems to me) the move from an inferior to a superior state. — foo

I was using "book larnin'" as smart ass shorthand for formal application of reason and will.

I think there can be progress toward authenticity and that may lead to improvement in moral behavior. That's been something I've experienced personally. As I've discussed, I see autonomy and morality as separate. No, I don't believe there is individual moral progress. For me, morality is not a state of being, it is behavior.

Of course I realize you're just trying to be a good person. Me too. What's the alternative? Being a bad or a less good person. Now why be a good person as opposed to a bad person if being a good person is not to be morally superior? (This is almost tautologous. I think 'moral superiority' just has a bad ring which I did not intend.) — foo

The alternative is not trying.

Perhaps you took me in the wrong spirit. I wasn't complaining of being treated badly. I was trying to make a point that moral judgments imply a hierarchy. If it is bad to think that one is better than others, then we will think we are better than others because we don't think we are better than others. — foo

I don't see why "moral judgments imply a hierarchy." I can't think of a time I'm not ashamed of when I thought I was better than someone else. To me, belief in personal superiority is the root of, a prerequisite for, immoral behavior.

You judge people by whether or not they are authentic - whether or not they live their lives based on what others expect. You apply authenticity as a standard. — T Clark

Someone asked me once, "Have you forgiven your father?" I responded with, "Of course. Forgiveness is not about my father overcoming his mistakes but about me understanding why he made them. It is not about him." You see, philosophy to me is about defining concepts, mapping and articulating them, but how I apply this with my interactions with others is one of many ways in my attempt to translate their interpretation of the external world. I do not apply authenticity as a standard for or against others, but I practice authenticity as a way to understand others.

So, when you say:

The description does not match my experience of human behavior. How people are good. How people are real. — T Clark

Why is it that your interpretation of others is somehow justified since people are good and real, and yet I am being judgemental? You are placing yourself central to this standard and projecting it outward, not me.

Now, the reason why you are correct is not for the reasons you think; you are wrong vis-a-vis Kant and my expression of confusion was for why you are having trouble understanding the relevance of morality in Kantian philosophy. The reason why you are correct is because - like how Fromm speaks of love - we need to avoid defining authenticity because it is not an explicit or inherent thing, but rather something that we cultivate rationally, that we can learn to be 'true to our nature" as Kant said. If we avoid defining morality - like how we avoid defining love - but rather see it as a characteristic that we rationally attempt to cultivate consciously (why I always say that love is moral consciousness), then it is not an inherent thing but rather a practice and that there is a sincerity in this practice, the motivation or intent relies on our ideal commitment to good.

What underpins our humanity, what makes us transcend the biological or instinctual is empathy and our capacity to become self-aware; love and therefore morality is what makes us human, but it is ultimately a decision and not an inherent thing. It is something that we cultivate through learning and experience. It is grounding morality in a priori principles. The distinction between authentic and inauthentic as a mode is not suggestive of something "moral" but rather a dynamic that I am attempting to explain.

the one, to have - to possess - that owes its strength in the last analysis to the biological factor of the desire for survival; the other, to be - to share, to give, to sacrifice - that owes its strength to the specific conditions of human existence and the inherent need to overcome one's isolation by oneness with others." — TimeLine

This is exactly the kind of gross misrepresentation of nature that justifies the continued destruction of our ecosystems and presides over what is becoming the next mass extinction event. "It's OK to kill as many animals as we like because they're all brutal savages who deserve it, not like the angelic humans with their desire to share, give and sacrifice".

Remind me, which species is it that wiping the others out, the sharing, giving, sacrificing one, or the ones driven by nothing but the desire for survival?

You see, philosophy to me is about defining concepts, mapping and articulating them, but how I apply this with my interactions with others is one of many ways in my attempt to translate their interpretation of the external world. — TimeLine

I think it's clear this is not the way I use philosophy or interact with people and the world. I've only met a few people who, like you, use reason as a tool to guide their lives and make themselves better people. Although it's not my way, I find it very moving. Meeting people like you has changed the way I feel about western philosophy.

Why is it that your interpretation of others is somehow justified since people are good and real, and yet I am being judgemental? You are placing yourself central to this standard and projecting it outward, not me. — TimeLine

I try to observe, experience, understand, and feel empathy for how people behave. There is no interpretation involved. I am not making any moral judgments. I'm trying to describe what I see. You said authenticity is not a standard. In response I said you apply it as a standard. I have specifically said I don't see any moral dimension to authenticity.

...we need to avoid defining authenticity because it is not an explicit or inherent thing, but rather something that we cultivate rationally.... — TimeLine

And, as should be clear by now, I disagree. I don't believe authenticity is fundamentally rational or moral. I can see that you and others apply reason and will to achieve it. I can see that it works for you and others and I respect that. It opened my eyes when I first realized that philosophy could be used in that way. But it's not the only path to autonomy. It's not mine.

What underpins our humanity, what makes us transcend the biological or instinctual is empathy and our capacity to become self-aware; love and therefore morality is what makes us human, but it is ultimately a decision and not an inherent thing. It is something that we cultivate through learning and experience. It is grounding morality in a priori principles. — TimeLine

Again, I strongly disagree, although I don't think the word "inherent" is really correct. It is certainly not instinctual like a bird's mating dance or salmon spawning. In my experience, it grows naturally out of who we are, what we are. It is a natural human impulse. It comes from the heart, not the mind. It can be beaten out of us, as evidenced by the conforming behavior you criticize. To me, truly authentic, autonomous behavior is not intentional at all in the sense we normally use that word. It is what eastern philosophers call "action without action."

I was using "book larnin'" as smart ass shorthand for formal application of reason and will.

I think there can be progress toward authenticity and that may lead to improvement in moral behavior. That's been something I've experienced personally. As I've discussed, I see autonomy and morality as separate. No, I don't believe there is individual moral progress. For me, morality is not a state of being, it is behavior. — T Clark

All I mean by individual moral progress is some individual becoming a better person. In the ordinary sense of all the words. Nothing fancy. And, yeah, in their actions especially. In their state of being the kind of person who does or does not do X.

Ideally, I may agree. But I can't follow this downplaying of the body. We are just such social, sensual creatures that a healthy brain in body that is considered ugly will likely lead to a very different formative childhood than a healthy brain in a body that is considered beautiful. I think we are like plants that develop in the direction of recognition. — foo

Your body is regulated by the brain as much as your sensual impressions are formed through experience and maintained by the health of both the physical and the psychological; think of those individuals who have perversions or fetishes. Our sensual impressions is ordered by our understanding, which is why we are evolutionary and that there is a historical direction, but it does not give us knowledge.

Language is very dynamical and we have the cognitive capacity to calculate, contrast, and communicate that means that we are enabled or wired with the capacity to transcend conformity and start using our own autonomous, rational thoughts to understand and apply virtue aside from what we have learned. That is why I said that I am a compatibilist; free will is only possible through determinism and our brain is the tool that carries the capacity for rational thought while our mind through our social interactions gives us the structure to develop understanding. The paradox of our individuality is through the interconnectedness of all things, which is why God stands as the ideal in stark contrast to our autonomy because he is the Form of Good, the immortal, the virtuous, the righteous, all the moral concepts we seek to perfect in ourselves.

Second point: Is there not a tension between autonomy and 'moral' actions? If I am incarnate autonomous reason, I may decide that my culture at large is wrong about some issue. I may decide that some kind of prohibited violence is actually good and even a duty. Those who proscribe such actions while celebrating autonomy will presumably do so in the name of 'reason.' But this is to deny autonomy or to identity it with the incarnation of reason. But then who gets to speak in the name of reason? We are back to the same situation. Autonomy with any bite is dangerous. An autonomous person is not easily persuaded by the claims of those who identify either with God's will or universal reason (variants of the basic idea of authority.) — foo

I think what has been misunderstood is that being moral somehow implies something innate or explicit, when it is a rational process that requires cultivation. I think it has been suggested that morality - just like love - is something given to us or at least that for there to be any purity in the concept it must be beyond you - and to a degree with you think of platonic Forms that makes some sense - but love and morality is actually a system that we apply and improve rationally and autonomy is a process of cultivating this rational process that gives authenticity to this experience because it is grounded by our will. There is a multidimensional aspect to this dynamic that moves between ordinary or customary to visionary and wonderment, between determinism and free will, between learned and autonomous and in-authenticity is as much a part of our authenticity as we attempt to measure and describe ethical modes.

This is exactly the kind of gross misrepresentation of nature that justifies the continued destruction of our ecosystems and presides over what is becoming the next mass extinction event. "It's OK to kill as many animals as we like because they're all brutal savages who deserve it, not like the angelic humans with their desire to share, give and sacrifice". — Pseudonym

Ok. :groan:

Ok. :groan: — TimeLine

Oh, devastating philosophical argument, I'm sunk, I don't know how I could ever have been so foolish as to not agree with you entirely from the start.

I think what has been misunderstood is that being moral somehow implies something innate or explicit, when it is a rational process that requires cultivation — TimeLine

What I have in mind is the attempt to impose a particular vision of the moral (like yours) on an autonomous person. I don't disagree with what you say about morality, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make. For you it is at least the attempt at a universal truth. But other thinkers have other visions. The autonomous person feels a certain distance from the claims of others. They may, of course, be persuaded.

Language is very dynamical and we have the cognitive capacity to calculate, contrast, and communicate that means that we are enabled or wired with the capacity to transcend conformity and start using our own autonomous, rational thoughts to understand and apply virtue aside from what we have learned. — TimeLine

Yes, I roughly agree. New personalities are possible that have never existed before. We can and do transcend and extend our cultural influences. For me there's a tension, though, between 'rational' and 'explicit.' It's hard not to read 'rational' here as partaking of something 'innate or explicit.'

Your body is regulated by the brain as much as your sensual impressions are formed through experience and maintained by the health of both the physical and the psychological; think of those individuals who have perversions or fetishes. — TimeLine

I agree that the body is regulated by the brain, and surely you'll agree that the brain is largely programmed by the environment, especially the social-linguistic environment. That's why I mentioned looks and physical strength. We learn who and what we are largely by how we are treated. Ideally we can reason ourselves through negative influence, but there are limits to this. And even here we are borrowing positive influences to work against the negative.

I don't know what you consider perversions and fetishes. Does that not change? Trans has exploded as a valid identity. I don't mind. It's not a big issue to me, and I don't like judging adult sexual behavior. But it's a good example of how something considered perverse can quickly be mainstreamed. Now those opposed to trans rights are themselves diagnosed with some kind of moral perversion. An autonomous trans person might feel secure in this identity before it was mainstreamed and an autonomous conservative, for instance, might shrug off 'political correctness ' (the intolerance by others of their own intolerance or at least objections.) Really I just associate autonomy with a strong personality that can act without or against the approval/disapproval of others respectively.

I don't know how I could ever have been so foolish as to not agree with you entirely from the start. — Pseudonym

Well, it happens. No need to be too hard on yourself.

In the final analysis I believe the need to overcome one’s isolation by oneness with others is also biological and owes its strength to the desire for survival, or rather the drive for gene propagation. In the vast majority of human evolution long term isolation severely decreased the odds for survival, and obviously gene propagation. — praxis

The problem is not isolating oneself physically or socially, but it is about becoming aware of and accepting the isolation that forms from becoming self-aware and separate from others, because our conformity gives us a false sense of unity. If, on the other hand, you are saying that our survival is dependent on this blind conformism in a Huxley sort of way and that maybe this small cohort of philosophers should just go and live on an island somewhere, then perhaps.

What I have in mind is the attempt to impose a particular vision of the moral (like yours) on an autonomous person. I don't disagree with what you say about morality, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make. For you it is at least the attempt at a universal truth. But other thinkers have other visions. The autonomous person feels a certain distance from the claims of others. They may, of course, be persuaded. — foo

Isn't this somewhere in the vicinity of what I was saying about autonomy being separate from moral considerations?

I agree. So when societies or individuals are diagnosed or accused, this seems to imply at least some blurry notion of a preferred state.

I think we have these blurry notions of virtue before we think to justify them. Indeed, thinking we need to justify/clarify our blurry notions was presumably motivated or in pursuit of another such blurry notion --one that tends toward its own clarification. — foo

Doesn't intention itself derive from such a "blurry notion". Suppose your particular, definite intent, at a specific time is to drop into the fast food joint and grab a burger. That intent may have developed from the more general intent of wanting to get something quick to eat, which may have developed from being hungry. So the original source of the intent is just a blurry feeling inside, which develops into the less blurry notion of hunger, and this develops into the more particular intent.

So we can look at all virtuous intent in this way. It develops from a blurry notion, a feeling that we need to be good and cooperate. Then it develops into different particular intentions. So, you refer to a "blurry notion of a preferred state". Let's compare this to hunger. There is something lacking which produces this weird feeling which we identify as hunger, the need for food. Likewise, if a person is diagnosed or accused, we could say that there is something lacking which produces the weird feeling within that person which we identify as the need for a preferred state. But this notion of a preferred state, unlike hunger which is satiated with a burger, is far too blurry, so the person has much difficulty in proceeding toward a particular intention. How could we ever bring this blurry notion out from its condition of being too blurry, so that we can develop clear virtuous intentions?

I was basically saying that in the final analysis both Having and Being owe their strength to the same thing: survival or gene propagation. At least that's one way of looking at it. I don't see any reason why a person of the 'authentic' persuasion would object to this interpretation, being that they are interested in knowing themselves. We can realize and accept that we may be driven to cooperative behavior because it's an evolutionarily successful strategy to pass on our genes. This doesn't diminish the value of sharing, giving, or sacrifice. Knowing all the science behind a rose doesn't diminish its beauty and in fact may deepen our appreciation of it.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that our survival is dependent on this blind conformism... — TimeLine

I tend to think that blind conformism will lead to our extinction. Blind conformists are easily manipulated by people with selfish and shortsighted goals, like wealth and power.