[lbo-talk] "The Authentic"? was ....Grappling....

[andie nachgeborenen]

Miles's comments reveal in glaring detail the
conservative limitations of a certain kind of
Wittgensteinianism. Why use "authenticity" in some
bizarre humpty dumpty sense instead of jes talkin the
way reg'lar folk talk? Well, why use "fetishism." or
"exploitation" or "alienation" in some bizarre humpty
dumpty sense instead of jes talkin the way reg'lar
folk talk? The fact is, creative thinkers think new
thoughts and sometimes need either new words (and
Heidegger made up enough of those) or new senses for
old words to express their ideas. And it's  very good
thing that this should be one of the "language games"
we play, making up new words and new senses, or we
would be stuck inside the fly bottle, not of
philosophical pseudo-problems, but of ordinary common
sense language. And to use some technical words of an
old German, the ruling ideas of the age are the ideas
of the ruling class." Now, whether a proposed new word
or sense is good for something has to be looked at on
a case by case basis. I make no brief for or against
H's "authenticity." But I do say that if philosophy
that, as W once said, leaves everything the same, then
we have to say with the other old German, "The
philosophers have only interpreted the world, in
various ways; the point is to change it."

--- Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:


> ravi wrote:
> > At around 16/5/06 3:24 pm, Carrol Cox wrote:
> > 
> 
> >>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
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com