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

[Miles Jackson]

andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> 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. 

I gotta rap the barrister on the knuckles for the egregiously sloppy 
reading of my post.  Let me repeat:

"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?"

I agree completely that terms may be usefully developed and applied in 
ways that differ from everyday language games; Justin's just responding 
to a goofy straw man argument, not the content of my post.  I'm 
genuinely interested: what's the use of the (german equivalent) of the 
term of authenticity here that so drastically differs from everyday 
usage?  Handwaving about Heidegger's "creativity" doesn't help me much. 

  Innovation for the sake of innovation doesn't impress me; why is it 
practically useful, to use W's terms, as part of our way of life? 
Please tell me it's more than just a way for Heidegger scholars to 
obtain a job at a university and impress undergraduates!

Miles