So not much interest :sad: , I've changed the title of this thread and I'm still interested

Sincerity and Authenticity — TheVeryIdea

You could be sincere in your attempt to be a philosopher but then that doesn't translate into becoming an authentic philosopher; nevertheless, the former does increase your chances of becoming the latter.

He suggests a historical progression in that first came sincerity and then authenticity, however if people during the time of sincerity were not being authentic then were they being sincere, is it possible to be sincere but not authentic? — TheVeryIdea

In the way he uses those terms, yes, because they are defined as being something different.

I think I understand profilicity but I would really appreciate someone expanding on the Sincerity and Authenticity concepts, in general are these distinct things? — TheVeryIdea

They are different ways of looking at identity i suppose, or maybe more accurately, different ways of building identity.

Sincerity seems to be a more group-orientated way of looking at identity, you define yourself in relation to the role you take up in the group and try to fill in that role as 'sincerly' as possible... adapting your inner subjectivity to that role you take up in the group.

Authenticity then goes the other way, taking your subjectivity, feelings emotions, desires etc... as primary. Identity is build by presenting an image to the world that accurately represents that inner subjectivity.

Inner subjectivity being primary, aligns with individualistic ideologies, while the other more with group-centered ideologies.

Are we not all being both sincere and authentic a lot of time? — TheVeryIdea

No, not in the way he uses the terms I suppose, i.e. as ways of building identity. Maybe things can't be sliced up so neatly, both historically, and on the level of how a person builds up his identity. Things generally are a bit more messy in the real world I'd guess, in the sense that different ways of building identity are probably being used next to eachother all the time... But do they seem to be different ways of building identity that aren't entirely compatible with eachother.

Thanks, that makes sense

Thank you for taking the time, that is a really helpful explanation. I suppose I was getting hung up on the normal meaning of the words sincerity and authenticity and not really appreciating that he was applying them in quite specific ways of interpreting identity

I'm very interested in identity, but I'm not too fond of video philosophy, so I headed off after a few minutes to find some text on Lionel Trilling.
https://medium.com/adams-notebook/lionel-trilling-sincerity-and-authenticity-1972-e0934fa65aab

Thanks

I have chance to read that article now and it is really helpful, thanks again