Let’s start with a working definition of Authenticity. The most succinct definition that I could develop upon first reflection is:

An external morality applied to truth and the truthful telling of facts.

While this is a problematic definition, it is an adequate place to start. It is improper to start a definition with the term itself, and I am not satisfied with describing the subject by describing what it is not. And, the term “Authenticity” must address the situation of the slippery and deliberate misusage of meaning through the process of misappropriating components of the truth (or truthful facts).

While fact-finding for this definition, I came accross some other discussions of Truth (and perhaps Authenticity). Plato addressed Truth in his Theory of Forms, while Descartes indirectly addressed “Authenticity” in his Evil Genius argument. The phenomenologists tackled it in an off-handed way, but argued that the “authenticity” of an experience was derived from your tangible experience of it. While they are interesting arguments, I am addressing something else. More specifically, I want to address the deliberate misuse of the truth for political or personal gain. The most prolific philosophical discussion of Authenticity can perhaps be found in Albert Camus. His concept of “double-speak” directly addresses the political and slippery usage of language for deliberately misleading aims.

While I am continuing to think through these ideas, I will continue to post them. I am not prepared to tackle this tiny dilemma between Absolute and Relative Truths tonight. Although it must be addressed before we go any further, we must save that discussion for another day.