We will be convening here at the ZigZag café, Suisse, on Thursdays for conversation and dialogue. I invite you to stop by every Thursday for the question of the day. Your thoughts and participation are most welcome. Pull up a stool, avec un café, un thé, ou un chocolat chaud, et un croissant, and join in here on Thursday at the ZZ café.
For today:
Since Renea and I had a little conversation about last week’s question on ZigZag – How should we come to our conclusions about what is fake? let’s try to formulate -
What is authentic ?
READ THE BOOK - FIND THE RHYTHM
10 comments:
Not fake... ;)
Considering things:
- Fake things are not lasting very long.
- Fake things do not have as much features as real ones.
- "Everybody" notices that fake things are fake. At least if you look at it very closely.
So living an authentic faith means IMHO to live your faith through temptations, sin, errors and struggles.
(First try. *g*)
Lukas,
Thanks. Ok. I always wonder when we say someone or something is fake, what is our criteria for doing so.
For example, don't some fake things last long? And they might be loaded with features? Could fool an expert.
Ok. Authentic faith. To live through our imperfections, including the things you mention. Good. But what's our criteria for saying - he or she is authentic or this is authentic?
to be genuine, real, not fake/hypocritical, sincere, to be "true to oneself", free from restraint by externalities like God, morality, society (I'm pretty sure that Richard did not like that definition),
Joshua,
Thanks. Sounds a bit like the American Constitution in some way - inalienable rights? And, any ideas how one might be "true to oneself?"
Welp, if I remember correctly, Richard was saying that Taylor was saying that the pitting of freedom from externals was similarly from the Enlightenment, and that being true to oneself, being authentic, entailed recognizing the claims that those externals have upon one's life. Indeed as a prerequisite for allowing them to inform so that one may most fully be oneself.
If you're questions were designed to get me to think for myself, maybe latter. ;)
Basically, what stuck with me most from that lecture was the lunch afterwards, where he expressed the wish that there was more focus one being a "person of integrity" than authentic. I remember my mood was angry, and that I agreed with him. Albeit the two are not unrelated.
Joshua,
Well, maybe "person of responsibility" is more fitting and then responsibility could be clarified. Integrity is a still more opaque.
But "true to oneself" seems to me to be a matter of knowing, being, and living. The collective self. That is, one still needs to come to terms with who oneself is.
Thanks.
Post a Comment