Heideggerian
“authenticity” describes one’s personal and individual orientation within a sea
of ‘others’. Heidegger claims that the
da sein (the human experience of there-being) is inescapably defined by the mit
da sein (the ‘they’ of society, or the ‘others’) around it. No human being is
capable of separating her individual self from the general society she lives
in. The ever-present relation to, and
opinions of others ensures eternal entanglement of human individuality in an
over arching society. Not only is every
human recognized and defined by the opinions of others, but every individual
becomes an ‘other’ when they recognize and define another individual. Heidegger argues that these conditions of our
human ‘there-being’ prevent us from ever separating ourselves from the ‘they’
fully.
However, the
philosopher offers an upshot with the introduction of his authenticity.
Authenticity is the struggle for individuality despite the omnipresent forces
that prevent such. Heidegger continues that being authentic is to make choices
for ones self, while surrounded by the ‘they’ who want to make them for
you. He states, “'…‘they' have quietly relieved us of the 'burden' of making choices for
ourselves. It remains a complete mystery who has really done the choosing. We
are carried along by the 'nobody'”[1].
Here Heidegger explains the dangers of remaining in inauthenticity: namely, the danger of becoming lost an
irresponsible public, and having our radical freedoms stripped from us in the
process. The philosopher continues, “…this process can be reversed only if we
explicitly bring ourselves back from our lostness in the 'they'.”[2] But how does one go about wrestling control
of one’s life, back from the grips of society? How does one de-tangle
themselves from those around them?
Heidegger explains the process as a one-two punch system
Firstly, the individual who seeks
authenticity must become aware of his inauthenticity. If we pay attention to
our conformity to, and lost-ness in, society, we grant ourselves the
possibility of escaping from such. We must first acknowledge our cultural conditioning,
if we have any chance of rescuing our authentic beings from their communal
‘prison’. Like ‘they’ say, The first step, is admitting you have a
problem.
Secondly, the individual must cultivate,
encourage, and maintain a healthy sense of existential anxiety within them selves.
That is to say, the individual must accept her radical freedom and responsibility for such. To do this,
one must accept her death as her own most possibility- in other words, she must
accept death as HERS and hers alone. No one will die for her, and no one will
die with her; in the end she will be completely separate from the ‘they’.
Upon reflection of how absolutely ALONE we
will be when we die, we are able remember how radically free we truly are. We may then realize the limitless choices
before us, and understand our responsibility to make them for ourselves. Only
this will allow the individual to separate from the ‘they’ during life and
begin making her own authentic choices.
Although this process is difficult, whoever
endeavors to become ‘authentic’, will be offered a two-birds-one-stone kind of
deal, because whoever achieves Heideggerian authenticity, will be unlikely to
fall into what Sartre refers to as ‘bad faith’.
Sartre defines bad faith as a condition in
which individuals convince themselves that they do not have a choice in one
matter or another, because they so deeply fear the consequences of making said
choice. These individuals allow themselves to believe that the obstacles and/or
the unwanted effects of a situation, remove the possibility of choice from
them. Such individuals refuse to acknowledge the vast array of choices before
them, because it is so much easier to have their tough choices made by an outside
force. Sartre says an individual participating in bad faith is “…neither
consenting nor resisting” to a specific choice, and is thereby rendered “—a
thing”. [3] By this he means that individuals
participating in bad faith are at the mercy of those circumstances around them;
their refusal to choose puts them at the mercy of whatever choices the ‘they’
makes for them. They become nothing more than an object carried by the
crowd.
Luckily, a pursuit of Heideggerian
authenticity can prevent all this. Firstly, the awareness of human finitude/radical
freedom necessary to achieve authenticity, guarantees the individual will have
to look around and acknowledge the choices before them. If one is able to
perceive himself as being moved by the inauthentic choices of the ‘they’, he
must also admit the existence of said choices.
Secondly, because authenticity requires and
active struggle to maintain individuality, bad faith has no foothold. The
attainment of authenticity would not be possible without the employment of personal
life choices based on radical freedom. By making these choices, the individual
successfully guards himself from bad faith.
And finally, because she who endeavors to be
authentic is fully concerned with reclaiming her life from the society around
her, she would never allow herself to be at the mercy of the ‘they’s choices
for her. She will never fall into bad faith because her Heideggerian pursuits
will not allow her to. Authenticity and bad faith exist as polar opposites.
While bad faith is the refusal to acknowledge individual choices (for whatever
reason), authenticity is the active search for individuality through radically
free choices.
[2]
from the same sentence as footnote #1
No comments:
Post a Comment