Customer Reviews

The Ethics of Authenticity

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a short and powerful book. The frequent references to Taylor's "Sources of the Self" may indicate that it is a mere introduction to the longer work, but I feel that it stands well alone.

Taylor, a Canadian, observes the conservative-liberal debate in America from an outsider's position. He is able to distance himself from the rhetoric, vocabulary, and narrow categories of this debate. I found his insights well worth consideration.

In essence, Taylor attempts to redefine the debate. His concerns are threefold. First, radical individualism has disavowed most moral absolutes, eroded the meaningfulness of life, and resulted in a centripetal self-orientation that denigrates relational connectiveness. Secondly, Taylor is concerned that modern thought has become dominated by a reason that finds the highest good in the economic maximizing of ends. This "instrumental reason" demeans others as mere means to an end, disregards important perspectives that are not integral to the cost/benefit equation, and creates a technological supremacy that may cost us our humanity. Thirdly, Taylor is concerned that institutions have embraced instrumental reason as supreme and creating a power-base that may stand in the way of reform.

Most of this book deals exclusively with Taylor's thoughts on the first of these concerns. Conservatives will be upset that Taylor does not call for a return to older values and older worldviews. Instead, he accepts the modern emphasis on individualism and the corollaries of self-fulfillment and self-actualization. He parts with these liberal ideals by arguing that the centripetal self-focus can only find meaning outside of the self. Discovery of my originality and uniqueness is a dialogical process (with others, values, or deity) that demands an objective "horizon."

Hence, my definition of Taylor's authenticity is the dialogical discovery of my "being." Others are not used to complete my project, but are collaborators and partners. Together we work to throw off the shackles of psychological, institutional, and familial pressures to conform. Freedom from these shackles is not license to abuse, but becomes ground to assume responsibility for self without excuse. Radical individualism escapes meaninglessness only in dialogic connectedness and assumption of personal responsibility.

In my view, the ethics of authenticity are much needed. I hope this book finds many receptive readers.

Lately I'd been reading various critiques of modernity- Leo Strauss and Alan Bloom, the "neoconservatives", and conservatives in general, who see nothing but a great moral and intellectual decay in modern society, beset by postmodern relativism and an intellectual trap that can't be escaped short of "noble" (read: blatant) lies. While I found many of their arguments quite convincing, something just didn't quite sit right with me.

Taylor explained exactly what's wrong with such critiques- they ignore the fact that "relativism" is merely a perversion of a powerful moral standard that these conservatives ignore- the ethic of authenticity, of being true to one's self and to the rights of others, a liberal standard of the enlightenment that conservatives threaten to destroy along with the excesses of postmodern nihilism. Taylor then goes on a quest to take down both the "boosters" and "knockers" of modernity- and points out where they're right and wrong.

For anyone wrestling with the liberal and conservative debates in this country today, I recommend this little volume heartily, along with Taylor's (much larger) "Sources of the Self" and Ken Wilber's "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution", which takes on the same issues from multiple perspectives.

Charles Taylor focuses on three malaises of modernity in this short book. The first is individualism, which comprises a set of liberties and beliefs having to do with the privilege of the individual to determine his or her course of life. Taylor thinks individualism has removed us from concerns originating outside the self; the result is a narrowing and flattening of our lives. The second malaise is the primacy of instrumental reason. Cost-benefit analyses and means-to-an-end rationality have cost us our genuine respect and concern for human beings. In effect, humanity takes a back seat to the bottom line. Morality is pushed out of ethics, since what we should do depends on what we can get and what we need to get it, and not on what is right or good, praiseworthy or blameworthy, virtuous or vicious. Finally, the third malaise of the modern era has to do with the implications of individualism and instrumental reason for political, social, and economic institutions. Here Taylor's analysis is brief and weak. He basically laments what he sees as a lack of a sense of civic duty among the inhabitants of politically developed nations. The progress of technology and the organizational structure of bureaucracies have weakened our democratic initiative. We are in danger of becoming willing victims of a "soft" despotic government. The only way out of our current situation is to develop and adhere to an ethic of authenticity that makes concerns beyond the self a necessary precondition of self-concern. Furthermore, if we are to fly out of the "iron cage" of modernity, we must acknowledge various modes of reasoning and chose those that preserve our moral integrity. Although Taylor does not offer us detailed solutions to the proposed malaises, he at least turns our heads toward some of the possible paths we may take.

Charles Taylor's efforts are admirable, and he writes compellingly, despite a very strange writing style that seems to encompass a number of grammatical mistakes. His initial arguments, on a general level, are convincing, especially his work on the three malaises.

Unfortunately, his work falls short when he tries to prove what authenticity is, and why authenticity should entail any kind of service to concepts other than oneself. Taylor has said that, oddly, it is an ethical requirement to be authentic. But how can this be the case, when it is impossible to judge when any person is acting in a way that 'is true to himself?' And, moreover, what guarantee does Taylor have that when every person acts authentically, there will be the political cohesion that he strives for? Taylor has expressively stated in correspondences with critic Quentin Skinner that God will cause us to come to the same ethical and political code of beliefs when we all act authentically. I simply think that this is a very ambitious claim, and due to the very nature of religion to cause individuals to act in grossly differing ways, one that is simply irrational. In this sense, I find the very nature of authenticity to be irrational.

I am not moved by his depiction of why are society is actually in an ethical crisis. Taylor seems to idolize the sets of values that 'held societies together' in a pre-modern era. It is questionable why any of us should do this. In terms of our political freedom we are outrageously better off having been freed from the very concepts that Taylor wants to impose on us once again, such as national religion.

Moreover, Taylor thinks that a 'continuing struggle' can be resolved with his views on authenticity. Perhaps this is personal bias, but I do not feel that Taylor has effectively clarified the phrases that he has invented to suggest that any struggle would be resolved with this book. Phrases such as 'human existence is dialogical in nature' are examples of such vagueness. Fittingly, Taylor is forced to make the conditions for dialogical existence so easy to fulfill that it does not seem possible to act in a way that does not entail having a dialogue with either art, other intangible issues, or in the case of the hermit, God. The raises the question 'what is dialogical existence at all, and why does stating the existence of human dialogues lead to any sort of conclusion about our ethical responsibility to argue with others to form our beliefs?'

Taylor seems to want to show how artists have illustrated the decline of 'issues that transcend the self.' In doing so, he quotes the first line of Rilke's Duino elegies, and the first act of Shakepeare's 'Macbeth'. His points in this section are long-winded, and betray a profound misunderstanding of the texts he is quoting. Taylor actually states that modern art does not reflect the period or social context in which it was written, unlike all pre-modern art. This seems to highlight Taylor's lack of comprehension for the ways in which modern art can reflect the modern world.

I would also like for him to define and justify more of the words he uses. "Scientistic' and 'Grammaticality' each appear but Taylor makes no effort to convey how they are different from 'Scientific' and 'Grammar.' These are a very small selection of the vast array of philosophical words that he does not explain at all.

Ultimately, it is Taylor's idea of authenticity that I most disagree with. It presumes too much: that authenticity will lead to union at all, that it is an ethical imperative to be authentic, that people acted more authentically in the past when they had less political freedom, and that authenticity can be measured at all.

While I was initially captivated by this compelling work, Taylor's presumptuousness and conversational tone began to eventually cause me to grow antagonistic against 'The Ethics of Authenticity.' While I salute him for his scope, and for his creativity, I could not help but finish this book utterly disillusioned.

This short book concerns what has been called "authenticity," namely the idea that values are only important to the extent that they are chosen by the individual. Particularly in America, there is a heavy emphasis on self-fulfilment. We are told that you have to be happy, have self-esteem, and be fulfilled as a person. As Taylor writes, "In adopting the ideal, people in the culture of authenticity, as I want to call it, give support to a certain kind of liberalism, which has been espoused by others as well. . . . The good life is what each individual seeks, in his or her own way, and government would be lacking for all citizens, if it took sides on this question." [pp. 17-8.] Taylor diagnoses this tendency from a variety of perspectives, neither dismissing it out of hand nor giving it unconditional praise. This a serious, but easy to read, book.

Those seeking a lengthier discussion of these issues might profitably consult the author's larger, Sources of the Self, which deals with these matters from a historical perspective.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities.
Charles Taylor, in his book The Ethics of Authenticity shows himself to be a philosopher of modernity who observes and comments on modernity's greatness and despair. Taylor argues that traditional liberal theory's perception of individual identity is too abstract and one-dimensional. Taylor believes postmodernists such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Jacques Derrida or, Michael Foucault have disregarded the individual's connections and responsibilities to community. Taylor argues a better understanding of the authentic self, takes into account the important background of social and dialogical discourse with others, against which life choices gain importance and meaning. Taylor believes that without this dialog, life choices are vulnerable to a Nietzschean postmodern philosophy where all life choices are equal in value, and, in some sense, meaningless.

Taylor's critique on modernity comes down to three phenomena that he classifies as "malaises." The first malaise is that of "individualism," which describes one's desire to pursue living their life as they see fit without interference from society. Taylor comments that when individualism is allowed to evolve to an extreme, people lose touch with ideals bigger than themselves. The second malaise is that of "instrumental reason," which determines that ultimate success is quantified in terms of efficiency without regard to the greater good for society. The third malaise is "loss of freedom." Politically speaking, it is a condition where people disengage from active participation in government. In the nineteenth-century, Alexis De Tocqueville predicted that people would give up freedoms to a paternalistic government that provides societies needs but is extremely centralized and bureaucratic in nature, and is controlled by an elite few. This is a government that De Tocqueville called "soft despotism." Taylor points out that there are good and bad in all three of the aforementioned phenomena, thus modernity has its boosters who Taylor describes as "soft relativists. Boosters essentially adhere to John Stuart Mill's "harm principle," which gives a person the liberty to choose to live their life in any way they see fit so long as they do not harm other people. Modernity's knockers abhor the culture of self-fulfillment and "soft relativism" espoused by the boosters because relativism is too self-indulgent. As people go out of their way not to become conformists they wind up assuming new models of conformity which promise to deliver the self to them. Taylor believes that both boosters and knockers are right to a certain extent. Neither boosters nor knockers have been able to provide all the answers to remedy the malaises. Taylor argues that people must investigate and rediscover the moral force of the ideal of authenticity. Taylor stipulates that in order to embark on the rediscovery of authenticity people have to believe three controversial premises. "(1) That authenticity is a valid ideal; (2) that you can argue in reason about ideals and about the conformity of practices to these ideals; (3) that these arguments can make a difference."

How to articulate an idea of the "authentic self" is a work of reasoned judgment that Taylor makes against the prevailing relativism that is so characteristic of modernity. Taylor wisely points out that the "authentic self" is an invention of modernity and was unknown before the French philosopher Rene Descartes uttered his famous hypothesis "Cogito ergo sum, I think, therefore I am." Thus, Taylor argues the one thing that modernity requires for the "authentic self" to exist is an acute awareness of personal identity--a self-consciousness. Taylor agrees with the social psychologist George Herbert Mead, that the effort of self-examination is always dialogic. "Language is at the heart of the constitution of the self." People learn how to understand themselves and develop their "authentic selves" through conversation with others, through their social and cultural interactions, and most importantly, through the perceptions and judgments by others. The important characteristic of the self that surfaces from what Taylor and his critics decry, is that the multitude of stimuli that one receives from dialog with other humans, society, and culture is conducive to the creation of an "authentic self" and not an impediment. People are capable of assimilating all the sensory perceptions that they receive, interpret them, and use what they deem necessary to fashion their own "authentic self."

Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, psychology, and history.

This battery is a good replacement for an original battery. Will find out if it will last as long as my original one, 14 years.

For non-native English speaker, the language is rather complex. Thus providing a learning experience in that too. Excellent book, assumes the reader has at least some basic understanding of philosphical phenomena and theories. For a business executives: Do not take it for speed-reading, the more time you spend with the book the more you get out of it.
Very good and concise presentation of the topic, I also found several thinking patterns and models that are labelled differently in managemen/leadership books. Taylor gives great points for the future leaders, leaders of generation Y (or generation C, "C" standing for communities like the numerous virtual networks in internet).
This book helps You think, it doesn't give specific answers or "think it for You"!
Thinking doesn't hurt. :-)

being a political science major I have been required to read A LOT of books about ethics. I was never impressed or impacted with any of thoes the way I was with this. Charles Taylor simplifies what is wrong with society today. He makes his readers open their eyes to the moral declines that are associated with individualism. I throughly enjoyed the book, and would recommend it to ANYONE!!!!

Product was exactly as I expected and arrived ahead of schedule. Seller did a great job on this sale.