Be yourself....be good

[randall patrick]

Kids hear it all the time: "go out and find yourself!"

And then when they do it is confirmed; "Okay, now just be yourself!"

But suppose in searching for yourself you come to find out that you are a fascist or a racist or a sexist? Suppose Osama bin Laden went searching for himself and what he is now was the result?

That's the rub. It is okay to go out and find yourself but then those who advise this are almost always convinced there are right things and wrong things to be.

Few people, in fact, really give all that much thought to how we become the people we end up thinking we are. How is one's "sense of self" created, anyway? Is there a "true self" to be found once you peel away all the existential layers? Or is "who" "I" "am" just the existential layers themselves?

How, for example, does childhood acculturation unfold such that who we think we are as adults is really just a manifestation of the prefabricated framework into which we were form fitted by mom and dad...and by our community and culture and historical era?

In my view, human identity is merely an existentially persuasive by essentially meaningless and absurd delusion. There is no right or wrong way to be...there is no authentic "I". There is only the manner in which we ceaselessly construct, deconstruct and reconstruct our world from the cradle to the grave. And then we die and for eternity are nothing at all.

Randall Patrick

[Gorgo]

Have to agree. However, it's good to know what we like and what we're talented at and what we're not. It's good to know our limits and find out how to expand our limits.

It's good to know that we're not how we feel, we're not what we do.

There are lots of things we can know when we stop trying to be something we're not, and accept our emotions instead of trying to blame others for them (he makes me mad)

Is there an authentic "I?" No. Can we be inauthentic? Yes. Can we just "be ourselves?" Sort of.

[sigmonic]

I don't like to say it because I want to feel unique but I think ones self sense is developed through our culture.

we pick and choose what we like and it becomes a part of us. I shouldn't say 'like' as tragic things you may experience will also help develope the kind of person you are- any experience for that matter.

now personally the 'kind of person' I am,. was developed around 8 years old. not to say that I have the mentality of an 8 year old haha- but thats when I started to question everything, its when I was exposed to punk, when I was exposed to computers, when I started started to understand theres different 'kinds' of people- no I don't mean black/white people. how my parents treated me, and the freedom they gave me. what kind of friends,. good or bad I've had.

its a little of everything.. you can also be born with some of your self sense. ie. some people are born homosexuals, some are born rapist, serial killers, etc...

as for if your true self if something you should go with... well I'm the kind of person- haha. that would say go with it, I'm also not the kind of person that will define right and wrong. I can't say whats good or bad so if you were born one of the above then good luck with it.

[randall patrick]

Originally posted by Gorgo, Have to agree. However, it's good to know what we like and what we're talented at and what we're not. It's good to know our limits and find out how to expand our limits. It's good to know that we're not how we feel, we're not what we do. There are lots of things we can know when we stop trying to be something we're not, and accept our emotions instead of trying to blame others for them (he makes me mad) Is there an authentic "I?" No. Can we be inauthentic? Yes. Can we just "be ourselves?" Sort of.

RP:

If there is no God then there is no objective vantage point from which to differentiate right from wrong, good from bad, authentic from inauthentic behavior. How then can we really be inauthentic other then by convincing ourselves we are because of our own particular existential vantage point? My point is there is no way to really demonstrate an inauthentic lifestyle or behavior or moral or political or aesthetic belief in an objective or essential or universal manner. If, for example, you are sitting in a room debating the morality of killing a human fetus you will have lots of different people in lots of different circumstantial contexts coming to lots of different conflicting and contradictory moral judgments. How would one be "inauthentic" here?

Randall Patrick

[Suburbanite]

Mr Patrick, thank god for some good philosophy up in here. I am currently recovering from a similar dilemma. I have been working out, looking good, working hard in school, and everything else has been going well. However, I find myself plagued constantly by my mind, which is extremely over-active. I happen to be a Genius, and I say that with a huge amount of sincerity. But it is not really a "good" thing, it just is. In "finding" myself, or what I believed to be me, I unleashed something so perverse that to explain it would make this reply take me far too long.


"In my view, human identity is merely an existentially persuasive by essentially meaningless and absurd delusion. There is no right or wrong way to be...there is no authentic "I". There is only the manner in which we ceaselessly construct, deconstruct and reconstruct our world from the cradle to the grave. And then we die and for eternity are nothing at all. "

While that is unquestionably one hundred percent true, I can't find myself in agreement with it. My pursuit, as frivolous as it is turning out to be, for happiness cannot undergo the expense of such glaringly obvious realities. I don't like it, so it isn't true.

For quite some time I have been friends with two geniuses other than myself. One of them has been consumed by what I have come to call "sickness" (just my post-modern joke) while the other and myself have spent the last weeks in particular diligently removing the entire thought process from our minds. However, it has been relatively futile, because we know it is there, and it always will be, we just have to forget about it a little bit and enjoy the few moments of happiness (or rather tranquility) whenever we get them.


If I am being too vague, just ask me to clarify what didn’t make sense.

[Gorgo]

The benchmark that I use is emotions. I can tell when I'm doing something to get or protect my self-worth. If I'm angry, it's because I think I can't be at peace, that I don't have worth as I am, unless something changes. I think I have to put on a mantle of anger in order to be "enough." That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with being angry, it just means that that is what anger is. Self-worth itself is an illusion, unless you think you don't have it. By the same token, "Authentic Self" or "enlightenment" is an illusion, unless you think you're not there. You're already there, or better yet, there is no there to get to. You can't pursue happiness, you have to decide to be happy.

No, there is no morality written in stone, but there are things that those who decide to live another moment can agree on. If you wish to live, then it's a good idea to take another breath. It's a good idea to eat breakfast. There is an objective "good" in that certain things are just a good idea, if you want to be healthy. If you don't care about health, that's okay too, sure, but if you love yourself and love life, then health is something that you do, or at least try to learn. That doesn't mean that you need to choose not to be happy if you don't attain someone else's idea of where you should be. You are where you are and you are who you are. Where else is there to be?

Originally posted by randall patrick, [RP: If there is no God then there is no objective vantage point from which to differentiate right from wrong,

[randall patrick]

RP:

"In my view, human identity is merely an existentially persuasive by essentially meaningless and absurd delusion. There is no right or wrong way to be...there is no authentic "I". There is only the manner in which we ceaselessly construct, deconstruct and reconstruct our world from the cradle to the grave. And then we die and for eternity are nothing at all. "

Suburbanite:

While that is unquestionably one hundred percent true, I can't find myself in agreement with it. My pursuit, as frivolous as it is turning out to be, for happiness cannot undergo the expense of such glaringly obvious realities. I don't like it, so it isn't true.

For quite some time I have been friends with two geniuses other than myself. One of them has been consumed by what I have come to call "sickness" (just my post-modern joke) while the other and myself have spent the last weeks in particular diligently removing the entire thought process from our minds. However, it has been relatively futile, because we know it is there, and it always will be, we just have to forget about it a little bit and enjoy the few moments of happiness (or rather tranquility) whenever we get them.


RP:


Not sure what your point is. Your pursuit of happiness can be anything you happen to think it is---now, today. Tomorrow? Who knows. And sooner or later you will be dead and it will [for you] all be moot, anyway. A time will come when for all intents and purposes it will be as though you were never even born.

In other words, it has an existential value only. Yours. My point, however, is that all existential values respecting any and all pursuits of any and all happiness are essentially interchangable in a godless universe. There is no way to differentiate one point of view [or one perspective on happiness] from any other one---not essentially, or objectively or universally. And there is certainly no way to distinguish or articulate a right from a wrong [or authentic from inauthentic] pursuit of happiness. At least not in a philsophy venue.

Randall Patrick

[randall patrick]

Gorgo:

The benchmark that I use is emotions. I can tell when I'm doing something to get or protect my self-worth. If I'm angry, it's because I think I can't be at peace, that I don't have worth as I am, unless something changes. I think I have to put on a mantle of anger in order to be "enough." That doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with being angry, it just means that that is what anger is. Self-worth itself is an illusion, unless you think you don't have it. By the same token, "Authentic Self" or "enlightenment" is an illusion, unless you think you're not there. You're already there, or better yet, there is no there to get to. You can't pursue happiness, you have to decide to be happy.


RP:

What you are describing here is a scaffolding, a framework that can accommodate any emotional and psychological reaction to any existential interaction. That we are biologically, geneticaly predisposed to think and feel does not mean we can make an objective distinction between what we do think and feel and what we ought to think and feel. That will depend on the existential trajectory our particular identity was/is/will be on from the cradle to the grave.


Gorgo:


No, there is no morality written in stone, but there are things that those who decide to live another moment can agree on. If you wish to live, then it's a good idea to take another breath. It's a good idea to eat breakfast. There is an objective "good" in that certain things are just a good idea, if you want to be healthy. If you don't care about health, that's okay too, sure, but if you love yourself and love life, then health is something that you do, or at least try to learn. That doesn't mean that you need to choose not to be happy if you don't attain someone else's idea of where you should be. You are where you are and you are who you are. Where else is there to be?


RP:

That we have to sustain our biological existence in order to sustain our moral and political and aesthetic convictions is inherently true. But that is merely a mechanical reality embedded in evolution. Once, however, we have choosen to continue to live we are no closer to bridging the gap between how we do choose to live and how we ought to choose live. That is inherently problematic in a Godless universe.

Randall Patrick

[Gorgo]

I'm not sure what you mean by what we "ought to think and feel" and live, or is that your point?

Originally posted by randall patrick, RP: That we are biologically, geneticaly predisposed to think and feel does not mean we can make an objective distinction between what we do think and feel and what we ought to think and feel. Once, however, we have choosen to continue to live we are no closer to bridging the gap between how we do choose to live and how we ought to choose live. That is inherently problematic in a Godless universe. Randall Patrick

[castille]

I was told to be myself, so I punched him in the face.

[Samildanach]

Nice one Castille, that one made me laugh. : )
As for the rest of thepeople posting inherently obvious posts above, find something worth debating.

[samsara15]

Originally posted by Samildanach, Nice one Castille, that one made me laugh. : ) As for the rest of thepeople posting inherently obvious posts above, find something worth debating.

I thought this was an interesting thread. I want to see where it goes.

[randall patrick]

Originally posted by Gorgo,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Gorgo,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm not sure what you mean by what we "ought to think and feel" and live, or is that your point? <!--QuoteBegin-randall patrick, RP: That we are biologically, geneticaly predisposed to think and feel does not mean we can make an objective distinction between what we do think and feel and what we ought to think and feel. Once, however, we have choosen to continue to live we are no closer to bridging the gap between how we do choose to live and how we ought to choose live. That is inherently problematic in a Godless universe. Randall Patrick

[/b][/quote]


RP:

Why do moral agendas exist at all? Because they have to. They have to whenever we interact with others. Why? Because whenever we interact with others there is always the possibility that our behaviors will come into conflict. If, for example, you lived alone on an island there would be no need for ethics. But let another castaway wash up on shore and the potential for disputes presents itself. If, say, you are used to walking around the island buck naked and your new acquaintence finds that morally offensive, what are you going to do? How ought you to resolve it? Is there an objective [ratioanl, logical] way to do so? No, there is not. Not in a Godless universe.

Randall Patrick

[Gorgo]

Well, no, but yes. I mean, if you want to survive and have people respect you, then it's a good idea to respect them, if not agree with them. How that manifests itself is of course not based on anything that's written in stone anywhere. Of course, there is nothing that is written in stone that says that survival is a good idea, either. Even if humans have an instinct for survival, instincts are not hard and fast rules for the most part either.

[Phil Free]

Interestingly enough, I tried to "explain" my views on the subject of "whys" and "why nots" in the "what is your religion" thread.

Randall, you're correct, of course, assuming there is no good or evil, God or Satan (or whatever).

I personally exist in such a reality, I don't believe in Good or Evil, but I don't think stopping there and saying everything is pointless is "The Answer."

Of course all that I do is pretty much pointless - I take none of it with me, no fame, no glory, nothing. But I choose not to dwell on the "end", and rather live in the now. Why? Well, "why not?" is no less a valid question.

As for "living in the now" - I accept that there is no "one way", that all ways are the same and lead to the same thing (be it to nothingness in the big black, or for some kind of cosmic purpose that transends mere human experience) but that does not stop me from being "me" (just being!) I react as I wish to react, I think when I want to think, I cry when I want to cry, I sh*t when I have to, I eat when I'm hungry, and sleep when I'm tired.

I go to the movies, I wash my clothes, I debate - I philosophise. All for nothing? Maybe, but I do because doing comes natural to me.

That is being Authentic. Yes, I believe one can be Authentic, but only when they have realized what you have realised, and many before and after you have and will have realised - that all worth and value is subjective.

Subjectivity is really the key - Authenticity IS subjective. When I think of what it means to be Authentic, I always come down to honesty - sincerity. Being true to yourself. You are the vantage point - you know when you are lying to yourself, when you are being inauthentic.

Now what's the point in being Authentic? Again, there is no universal value to authenticity, but I'm not gonna stop being authentic. Again, wanting to be authentic, then being authentic, it's all natural to me.

Who am I to argue with myself?

[Suburbanite]

Not sure what your point is. Your pursuit of happiness can be anything you happen to think it is---now, today. Tomorrow? Who knows. And sooner or later you will be dead and it will [for you] all be moot, anyway. A time will come when for all intents and purposes it will be as though you were never even born. In other words, it has an existential value only. Yours. My point, however, is that all existential values respecting any and all pursuits of any and all happiness are essentially interchangable in a godless universe. There is no way to differentiate one point of view [or one perspective on happiness] from any other one---not essentially, or objectively or universally. And there is certainly no way to distinguish or articulate a right from a wrong [or authentic from inauthentic] pursuit of happiness. At least not in a philsophy venue.

I think that relativist mentality would be too disingenuous of me to agree with. I feel far too empowered in my own life to take the possibility of others being correct as well into account with my practices. As far as happiness is concerned, I firmly believed it is a dead-end, but a worthwhile one. I still peruse it, and I live for the evanescent moments where I smile and enjoy myself. If anything my lethargy has granted me the apathetic chance of seeing myself holistically, to see myself as other’s see me, and it creates a stain in your mind that does a good job of preventing true happiness. True happiness being the not-so-temporal form of happiness that we call go through more regularly.

[randall patrick]

Phil Free:

Interestingly enough, I tried to "explain" my views on the subject of "whys" and "why nots" in the "what is your religion" thread.

Randall, you're correct, of course, assuming there is no good or evil, God or Satan (or whatever).

I personally exist in such a reality, I don't believe in Good or Evil, but I don't think stopping there and saying everything is pointless is "The Answer."


RP:


My point is that everything is essentially pointless. But unless we succumb to that in despair and commit suicide human social interaction is hardly existentially pointless. It's just that points made respecting human moral and political and aesthetic interaction are always situated and subjective and relative. There are no absolute moral perspectives sans God.


Phil Free:

Of course all that I do is pretty much pointless - I take none of it with me, no fame, no glory, nothing. But I choose not to dwell on the "end", and rather live in the now. Why? Well, "why not?" is no less a valid question.


RP:

I agree. Life is far more about living it than just thinking incessantly about what it means to live it. But the manner in which we come to grasp the relationship between being and nothingness will go a long way toward motivating us to live it this way rather than that. If you are convinced, say, there is a God and that Salvation is awaiting you if you do God's will chances are that will greatly impact the choices you make in the interim. And if you don't that has ramifications, as well. But it will always be situated differently for different people in different existential contexts. And there is no way objectively to calibrate an authentic from and inauthentic life.


Phil Free:


As for "living in the now" - I accept that there is no "one way", that all ways are the same and lead to the same thing (be it to nothingness in the big black, or for some kind of cosmic purpose that transends mere human experience) but that does not stop me from being "me" (just being!) I react as I wish to react, I think when I want to think, I cry when I want to cry, I sh*t when I have to, I eat when I'm hungry, and sleep when I'm tired.

I go to the movies, I wash my clothes, I debate - I philosophise. All for nothing? Maybe, but I do because doing comes natural to me.

That is being Authentic. Yes, I believe one can be Authentic, but only when they have realized what you have realised, and many before and after you have and will have realised - that all worth and value is subjective.


RP:

If you wish to call this Authentic so be it. I think it is just a particular self-delusion that you embrace now, today. So many conflicting and contradictory existential variables come together to create any particular persona at any particular existential junture "I" is always a work in progress that, given a particularly jolting circumstanital landslide, can utterly reconfigure the way you understand yourself and the world around you. If the man I was before going over to Vietnam met the man I was after coming back home they would not even recognize each other if they collided on the street. You can be "honest" and "sincere" about the role subjectivity plays in all this but it doesn't really change how precarious and problematic human identity always is. And the value of that "authentic" approach to life is no more or less relevant when the Grim Reaper comes around. Death and oblivion don't give a crap about things like that at all.

Randall Patrick

[Phil Free]

Originally posted by randall patrick, If you wish to call this Authentic so be it. I think it is just a particular self-delusion that you embrace now, today. So many conflicting and contradictory existential variables come together to create any particular persona at any particular existential junture "I" is always a work in progress that, given a particularly jolting circumstanital landslide, can utterly reconfigure the way you understand yourself and the world around you. If the man I was before going over to Vietnam met the man I was after coming back home they would not even recognize each other if they collided on the street. You can be "honest" and "sincere" about the role subjectivity plays in all this but it doesn't really change how precarious and problematic human identity always is. And the value of that "authentic" approach to life is no more or less relevant when the Grim Reaper comes around. Death and oblivion don't give a crap about things like that at all.

I think the only thing we dissagree on is what we consider "Authentic." Like I said, authenticity doesn't matter much when you die. But it matters to me. And again, like I said, only I can decide what "authenticity" entails... there are no absolutes here, unless I want there to be.

This all reminds me of Sartre...

The problem with existentialism IMO is that, really, it solves little. It's like "hunting for a fugitive while banging on a drum." It creates more questions, and more questions, and more questions - without ever really answering much. It's really, (again IMO) simply very intelligent but go-nowhere fluff - if taken into a constant cycle of over-intellectualizing. Seems to me the more we know the less we understand - Truth is always one step ahead of us, and to chase the infinite with the finite (the limited human mind) is recklessness.

One more little story fragment comes to mind: a very intelligent philosopher and mathematician was taking a ferry across a large river, all the while expounding on his many theories and the theories of others to the ferryman, when the ferry sprung a leak. Both the ferryman and the philosopher panicked, and the ferryman, just before leaping into the river said, "I hope for all your studying you didn't forget to learn how to swim..."

Nature doesn't "think" about what it's trying to accomplish, it simply experiments and what works works, what doesn't dies out (evolution). Go with the flow (as in follow your own inner Way - don't stop and question yourself at every turn.)

Good thread, none the less!

[Gorgo]

Not every turn, but a life unquestioned.....

Originally posted by Phil Free, Nature doesn't "think" about what it's trying to accomplish, it simply experiments and what works works, what doesn't dies out (evolution). Go with the flow (as in follow your own inner Way - don't stop and question yourself at every turn.) Good thread, none the less!

[Phil Free]

Originally posted by Gorgo, Not every turn, but a life unquestioned.....

If questioning life is of value to you, question it. If not, why (or, again, why not?) bother - you (most likely - no certainty here either) lose nothing in not doing what you consider value-less.

I personally am with you here... like I said, I do think and philosophise (otherwise how would I have come to these conclusions?) - but that is only because I want to. I do what I do simply because at the times I am doing so, doing is preferable to doing nothing.

I don't buy into absolutes easily - a life unquestions is a life unquestioned, nothing more, nothing less. It is neither objectively better or worse than well thought out life. It's all subjective, is the point.