Like in that essay, I don’t believe in “authenticity.” INauthenticity—duplicity—is a thing for sure. Opposite is not “authenticity” tho
Conversation
Replying to
Absence of rabbits is not a thing—we don’t need a word “rabbitlessness.” Absence of inauthenticity is not a thing either. Just an absence.
1
2
Replying to
Realized recently that I care much less about this than most because I never watch TV, surf with AdBlock+, etc.; so never see advertising.
1
2
Replying to
Maybe if I got a normal contemporary dose of advertising, I would believe in “authenticity” too.
1
3
Replying to
I think ’s attempt at steelmanning went wrong, tho. He’s entirely missed the point of the thing he’s critiquing (if I’ve identified it).
2
1
Replying to
And that point of the thing is? (I assume you mean whatever X I've reified as 'cultural ether')
1
Replying to
Well, I don’t think there’s a thing that corresponds to that, exactly… However,
1
Replying to
2
4
Replying to
. From an individualist point of view, it’s difficult not to hear that as “mental fluid slopping out of brains” which isn’t the point…
1
2
Replying to
I see it more as a hypothetical cloud enveloping a cuddle puddle or something.
Replying to
Yeah… not that… I think no one has actually done a good job of reconciling the scientific and social worldviews. Pretty sure I can, so.

