ABSTRACT
It might be helpful to sum up the train of thought developed so far. We are asking whether the concept of authenticity as we currently use it really makes sense. This question has been sharpened by contrasting premodern and modern ways of thinking. We saw that in premodern societies there is a notion similar in some ways to our notion of authenticity – the idea of realizing the purposes laid out by nature or by God – and we saw that this idea makes sense because of the way it fits into the conceptual net that is characteristic of traditional worldviews. By way of contrast, the last three chapters have shown how the traditional conceptual structure has been dismantled in the modern period, and how this de-structuring undermines the ideal of realizing a purpose given us in the scheme of things. We saw, first of all, that the traditional tripartite constellation – “man-natureGod” – is displaced by the modern anthropocentric picture of humans as being independent of both nature and God. And second, we saw how the valorized binary oppositions that initially provided the scaffolding for the modern idea of authenticity have been de-stabilized and upset by the revisionary trends of the past century or so. As a result of these conceptual shifts, it is no longer possible to assume that getting in touch with and expressing what lies within will ensure that you are living a good, fulfilling and meaningful life.
