CxD #257: RFK Jr; Studying Oneself; ⭐️⭐️⭐️½ The Ethics of Authenticity
I suspect there are still outstanding CxD readers who would be interested in some Fire Philosophy 🔥 who have not yet subscribed. If that’s you, check it out and listen to this short conversation about the non-obvious move of studying yourself. It might end up making all the difference.
📚'23 #27: ⭐️⭐️⭐️½ The Ethics of Authenticity
Charles Taylor's book "The Ethics of Authenticity" (originally published under the title "The Malaise of Modernity") is a philosophical exploration of individualism, identity, and the notion of authenticity in contemporary society.
Taylor begins by diagnosing what he sees as a widespread malaise in modern societies, which he associates with the rise of individualism and instrumental reason, leading to a loss of shared moral frameworks and a sense of purposelessness.
One of the key arguments in the book is Taylor's defense of the ideal of authenticity. The ideal of authenticity emerges with the disembedding of individuals from traditional roles and identities, where individuals are encouraged to define their own identities and to be true to themselves. Critics argue that this emphasis on individualism and self-fulfillment can lead to narcissism, self-indulgence, and a lack of concern for others or for the common good.
However, Taylor argues that the ideal of authenticity, when properly understood, does not entail a disregard for others. He insists that being authentic does not mean focusing only on oneself, but also understanding one's identity in relation to others and to broader moral, social, and political contexts. It involves recognizing and respecting the inherent dignity of all people and our interconnectedness with others.
Taylor further argues against the dominance of instrumental reason in modern societies – the tendency to see everything, including human beings and nature, primarily as resources to be used for our own ends. He maintains that this attitude can lead to a loss of richer modes of understanding and experiencing the world and to a sense of disorientation and meaninglessness.
In response to this, Taylor advocates for a balance between individual autonomy and communal responsibility, and he calls for a reinvigoration of moral and political discourse that recognizes the complexity and depth of human life, and that can provide a shared framework for understanding and pursuing the good.
Taylor’s analysis rests on two observations. The first is that identity-formation happens in dialogue. We define ourselves through our relationships with others. The second is that self-definition rests on shared horizons of significance. In the absence of such a framework of evaluations and interpretations, it is impossible to form an identity by our choices. According to Taylor, therefore, authenticity properly understood precludes both narcissism and relativism: it requires that we foster meaningful relationships and acknowledge a shared reservoir of meanings that transcends us as individuals.
Taylor's The Ethics of Authenticity is a nuanced exploration of modern individualism and a defense of the ideal of authenticity, understood not as self-centeredness, but as a way of being that acknowledges our interconnectedness with others and our embeddedness in moral and social contexts.
On the political front, I’m less than enthused at the probable ‘24 election being a choice between Biden and Trump. So in the spirit of opening up my mind to alternatives, I’ve listened to a few interviews with RFK Jr. Below is one I found insightful:
But RFK Jr. is not without a slew of problems himself, which I thought were concisely articulated here:
These two comments are worth considering:
"I started this video an RFK Jr supporter but Sam challenged my beliefs. However, until Sam or others are willing to debate, I personally tend to trust the side that is willing. If Sam were to present a more compelling case, I would be more than happy to change my mind, but I need to hear them challenging one another in real time. I hope Sam takes me as an example that there are people who are willing to change but are turned off by people turning down a debate."
“I went into his podcast with Lex wanting to disagree with him about vaccine hesitancy and ended it wanting to vote for him because he is anti-war and pro-regulation and refused to badmouth the left. It was actually stunning.”
From a character x design perspective, the issue seems to revolve around having the capacity to first try to understand an alternative position in good faith; to listen with an “as-if” mind; to not lead with reactivity and a predetermined biased mind. And then, once the views expressed and heard had a chance to marinate, to begin applying analytical and critical thinking. In other words, to listen with patience and a motive to find a path that does the least harm, rather than privileging being right, or right from a limited point of view, above all else.
Regarding RFK Jr., I remain conflicted and undecided; choosing from a least-worst political candidate does not inspire much hope in me. What else ought I consider in this moment?