>>Could you explain why (independently of what any particular philosopher
>>has to say) "authenticity" is a useful concept. I've seen it invoked
>>many times, and I've never really seen what was gained by invoking it.
>
> But it is exactly the idea that "authenticity is a useful concept" that
> is the matter of philosophical tomes. I doubt I will do any better
> justice to it, in an email message, than what many have taken great
> trouble to do.
>
> However, in the above usage of the term by me, it suffices to fall back
> the general meaning/usage of the term, to mean: that which is not
> shallow, and that which adheres to or is aimed at achieving the defined
> agenda/goal/programme. The contrast in my example being David
> Attenborough's style of respectful engagement with nature as opposed to
> the clinical analysis of theorists. However, I do not intend to go as
> far as "There is more things in heaven and earth...".
I can't resist interjecting a comment here: ravi, this use of the term "authenticity" has nothing to do with the meaning of the term in the kind of useful, everyday life contexts that C. refers to. To use Wittgenstein's terms (and I'd nominate him for most important 20th century philosopher if he was not so contemptuous of the vast majority of philosophy), the everyday language game we play with the term "authenticity" refers to comparing some object to the real thing. --Viz, following Carrol, "That is an authentic coin from 5 B.C." Granted, sometimes terms can be applied formally in ways that differ from everyday language games, but I'll reiterate Carrol's question: what is the point of using the term "authenticity" in the strange way that H. does? To be a little frivolous, why should we play the Humpty-Dumpty game of letting him define a word however he sees fit, without relating it to the actual praxis of language use?
Miles