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
Certainly. My point is, you don't need mysticism to account for how meaning is constructed socially.
Replying to
Absolutely agree! That’s where the Romantic/monist/etc view goes drastically wrong.
1
1
Show replies
Replying to
On the other hand, I think meaning is a social thing *from the start*, not an coordination of individual mind-stuff.
1
Replying to
This is the point that is hardest to get across to (e.g) cognitive scientists. I spent years doing that, in the late 1980s… Some got it
2
Show replies

