July 26th, 2024

Beyond Authenticity: Hannah Arendt's final unfinished work

Hannah Arendt critiques the concept of authenticity in "The Life of the Mind," arguing that personal responsibility and choice shape identity, contrasting with existentialist views of a pre-existing true self.

Read original articleLink Icon
Beyond Authenticity: Hannah Arendt's final unfinished work

Hannah Arendt, in her unfinished work "The Life of the Mind," critiques the philosophical concept of authenticity, which suggests that individuals can uncover a true self within. Influenced by existentialist thinkers like Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers, Arendt diverges from their views by rejecting the notion of a pre-existing authentic self. Heidegger posits that authenticity arises from stepping away from everyday life to discover a deeper self, while Jaspers emphasizes the importance of existing in relation to others. In contrast, Arendt focuses on the concept of the will as a means of decision-making and action in the world. She argues that personal responsibility and choice shape who we become, rather than an inherent true self. For Arendt, thinking is rooted in worldly experiences, not in a transcendent Being. This perspective positions the will as an active process, contrasting with the comforting idea of authenticity, which implies certainty. Arendt's approach highlights the importance of individual choices in shaping both personal identity and the broader world, suggesting that authenticity may lead to an abdication of responsibility. Ultimately, she presents the will as a more dynamic and uncertain alternative to the static notion of authenticity, emphasizing the role of human agency in navigating life's complexities.

Link Icon 6 comments
By @nonrandomstring - 4 months
Th idea of "will", especially from the German side, got a bad rap for obvious reasons. But I like Arendt's picture of it as an uncomfortable inner tension when we simultaneously see what what we want to be (or should morally do), and an alternative path set out by habit and company.

To me, will is a very important component in security, it's that tense feeling you get just before you;

  - decide the video conference with your boss urging you to transfer
    $1m into a Swiss account might not be as it seems, and pull the
    plug (risking being fired)

  - walk out of the shop that stubbornly refused to take cash (risking
    social embarrassment)

  - refuse a significant discount in exchange for giving personal
    information (taking financial loss on principle)

  - tell someone in a more authoritative position, no you won't be
    joining them via Teams/Zoom because of its security risks (risking
    unpopularity)
What we find in cybersecurity incident autopsies is that people say "I knew X wasn't right. All my spidery feelings and heckles were on red alert, but I didn't act, and I don't know why."

So in another piece I wrote;

    Our culture is now about to split into two camps; the normative
    and the secure. Instead of "the haves and have-nots", there will
    be "the will, and the will-nots". Those who will compromise and
    those who will not compromise security. Those who choose security
    over convenience. Those who choose security against the nagging
    "advice" of corporations and governments to adopt a weaker
    position favourable to "markets".
By @lo_zamoyski - 4 months
The problem with incorrect emphasis on "will" in our culture is that it takes you to voluntarism. The will is the appetite of the intellect, oriented toward the good (real or apparent), and so one cannot just will anything, but rather, only of the things that the intellect first apprehends. (Of course, the will can also turn the intellect away from things we'd rather not know or have due awareness of, and this is the essence of the evil act; an act of self-blinding in order to move the will toward what we know we should not choose.) So freedom is in choosing or willing the good, what one ought, and for that, as the article notes by way of Augustine, we need the right habits, and this is what we call virtue. Here, the virtue of being able to choose the good is prudence. And since freedom classically understood is found in the ability to will the good, only a virtuous person is free. Compare this with the liberal (as in Hobbes, Locke, Mill) notion of freedom as the absence of external limitation. It becomes apparent what lunacy that is, as choosing anything but the good is, again to draw from Augustine, nothing short of the worst kind of slavery, a slavery to passions and vice. Thus, this modern notion of "authenticity" is, frankly, total bullshit, and a completely destructive notion at that.
By @bbor - 4 months
Just to save people some time, since it’s halfway through: the article is about The Life of the Mind. It’s an incredible work - cannot recommend it enough! The completion of Kant’s project, in her own way.
By @lysecret - 4 months
Everyone who even vaguely cares about psychology should read Eichmann in Jerusaelm from her.
By @slowhadoken - 4 months
Yeah she was a genius.
By @39896880 - 4 months
Arendt makes a compelling case, but unfortunately one that does not stand up to our advances in neuroscience. The will as described here does not exist. There is nothing beyond conditioning.