NIETZCHE NEET DYLAN

I think there are no necessary and sufficient conditions for being authentic or that being authentic is a thing unless I define it as a thing.  I think authenticity is whatever I define it as.  I think the true self is whatever I define myself as insofar as I am an I rather than a multiplicity of warring forces.  I think society tries to define me and applies its forms to me but I do not accept these forms.  Rather, I define Authenticity as whatever I feel it to be in the moment.  I agree with the idea of getting away from the idea that identity is static or fixed.  I view myself as dead and reborn every moment, and the idea of underpinning myself with any historical/biological/societal grounds of which are not my choosing in so far as I am a chooser, is just to apply a logical form to myself that doesn’t exist.  I view history as a mess of conflicting forces, society as well, I negate the linear causality of biology, not that there is no form to start with, but that my thoughts interact with biology in a way that in turn biology is affected by my way of thinking as well as biology originally affected my way of thinking.  I view myself as a chaos and apply forms to myself where I see fit depending on factors, not by some logical form.  I think going beyond these is how one becomes authentic, by my own definition. I guess I would sum my view up as in not defining myself I am authentic.  I think Garcia on pg. 8 concurs that this randomness of human nature is a possibility, but fails to realize that this randomness would be without logical form so to apply logical form to it would itself be inauthentic.  His definition of existential authenticity includes 3 conditions I disagree with.  First, that to be your true self you have to have knowledge of yourself, I define knowledge as abstract awareness of chaos that is formed through the faculties of will to power.  I think one does not know themselves but rather applies forms to their random experiences that thus becomes what they perceive as their known self, rather one cannot know themselves, they can only define themselves in so far as they can.  I think one does not have to live in conformity with themselves to be authentic, because it presupposes that one will act in consistent ways over time and that this comes from external forces that condition the individual into form but one may seek to become the opposite of themselves just to become themselves.  I think complete self-concern regards all of the self as good but rather than accepting all of oneself, one may find parts of oneself that are disagreeable and choose to expel, weaken, or mask those parts of themselves.  I’m against the Sartre idea of taking responsibility for past actions, I think because I am dead and reborn every moment and I am trying new ways of living that therefore I should not feel the need to form myself by my past actions but recreate myself anew every moment.  I disagree with the merits of Existential authenticity being that it negates the ego, because I believe as Max Stiner says, one should hold one’s ego above one’s silly little heart.


I think everything is random chaos, I think the consistency of the self is a product of society and of others holding one responsibility for their past actions, this begins in the creditor-debtor relationships of human beings and evolves into its present form.  I think my beliefs are completely natural, healthy, and moral, I think your ideas are tantamount to going up to a lion and yelling at a lion for being a lion.