Authentic - which is what authenticity means. Be always in the mood

What is Authenticity? The meaning of the word "Authenticity" in popular dictionaries and encyclopedias, examples of the use of the term in everyday life.

Meaning of “Authenticity” in Dictionaries

Authenticity - Business dictionary

Authenticity - Sociological Dictionary

Authenticity - Philosophical Dictionary

The concept of existentialist philosophy associated with the problems of self-determination and self-constitution of a person, the nature of the conditionality of the choices made by him, and the ability to be an author of his own life, to have his own being, received the most detailed study in the works of M. Heidegger and J.P. Sartre. Given Heidegger's later distancing from the philosophy of existentialism and the debate on the extent to which it can be considered an existentialist, it is important to bear in mind that it is Heidegger's description of the man’s tendency to prefer the anonymity of his authenticity, his description of anxiety in the face of death and feelings of “abandonment” into existence and allow many historians of philosophy to qualify Heidegger as an existentialist. Heidegger distinguishes between A. and inauthenticity from his consideration of everyday awn and everyday human existence. Most people spend a significant part of their time in the world of work and society, not realizing in the daily behavior of the unique possibilities of their individual being. Conformity and orientation towards others reign in everyday behavior. With sp. Heidegger, a person’s preoccupation with his place in the social hierarchy and interest in his social status determine his subordination to others. For in order to establish itself in society as the holder of a certain status, a person must do what they approve and demand (aas Man). In the course of this, a person is exposed to the subtle and often imperceptible impact of social norms and conventions and neglects his ability to independent activity and thinking. These subordination and dependence on social norms are manifested in everyday life, primarily in the averaging of social behavior to the level of homogeneity and identity. A person is thereby freed from the need for individual existence and responsibility for his individual existence and adapts to society, rewarded for conformity. Meanwhile, Heidegger writes, “existing in the mentioned modes, the self of its presence and the self of the presence of others has not yet found itself, respectively, has lost. People exist by way of non-self-control and non-property” (Genesis and time, p. 128). Heidegger’s characterization as an inauthentic way of people’s behavior that prevails in their daily existence, in his opinion, had a “purely ontological significance” and was very far from moralizing criticism of everyday presence and from “cultural philosophical aspirations” (Genesis and time, p. 167). Despite the fact that Heidegger was convinced that his qualifications belonged to the field of “pure ontology”, the context of Heidegger's reasoning about unauthentic behavior brings him closer to the common philosophy of late XIX-first half of XX century. negative assessments of social forms of everyday behavior. This raises the central question for interpreting Heidegger's thoughts on authenticity and non-authenticity: do they represent purely descriptive or evaluative categories. Although a number of Heidegger's interpreters are inclined towards the evaluative neutrality and indifference of these reasonings of the thinker, others (in particular, D. Kellner) doubt that the distinction introduced by Heidegger is completely devoid of evaluative points. First, these concepts have evaluative connotations both in their everyday use and in the philosophical texts of Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Simmel, Scheler, to which the dichotomy considered by Heidegger dates back. Secondly, Heidegger’s description in "Being and time" of "falling" from the "I" into unauthentic ways of being contains certain negative connotations, in particular, he describes his unauthentic existence as an absorption in everyday routine, "dispersion" in such unauthentic ways of being as "rumors about the public interpretation enclosed in them", the constant search for entertainment and the external, fake fuss of trying to do something and change, without actually changing anything, in other words, in the phenomena of "seduction, calm, alienation and self-confusion" ( ytie and time, with 167 -. 180). So, chatter, empty talk is characterized as a perversion of the act of communication, leading to a false understanding. “Troublesome curiosity” and “ambiguity” are described as alienated forms of “everyday presence in which it constantly uproots itself”. The whole process of falling into an unauthentic existence as a whole is described as a "breakdown" in the "baselessness and insignificance of an improper everyday life" (Genesis and time, p. 178). Thirdly, referring to the concept of A., he emphasizes that the basis of his interpretation is the ideal of human existence, the “actual ideal of presence” (p. 310), which, in the opinion of D. Kellner, allows us to talk about axiological dualism between authentic and non-authentic ways of being. At the same time, of course, Heidegger's reasoning also has a cognitive, descriptive meaning. However, other people with whom the individual is neighbors in everyday life are not only a threat to his individual existence. It is possible to live authentically in being-with-others, if a person manages to look at them just like others, that is, to perceive them as having their own being in the same way as he has his own human being (Dasein). At the same time, our perception of others too often slides toward treating them as anonymous beings. In this case, we no longer perceive them as Dasein, but only as distant from us and from us. Our sympathy for them is replaced by the attitude towards them as rivals or as those on whom we depend. Whether we experience our superiority to them or our lag behind them, it is important that in this case, when other people in our perception turn into the faceless “they”, they, and not ourselves, set the standards by which we appreciate yourself. When others turn into “they,” the communication act is violated, that is, the dialogue turns into idle chatter, the participants of which never ask what they are actually talking about, they only exchange some generally accepted verbal cliches, everything in this case is understood only superficially and approximately, freeing the individual from the efforts of genuine understanding. In this case, a person’s life is becoming thinner, as his experiences are entirely oriented towards “their” expectations, which are close to the expectations of public opinion. In this case, a person does not perceive the world as such, in all its diversity and mystery, beauty and horror. In this way of being, a person seeks refuge from “them” just because they promise him the opportunity to avoid being in the world with his inherent horror and beauty. Then the question of how and what to be replaced in his mind with a set of questions about what to do, which, in turn, is very easy to find the answer, it is enough to turn to "them." What we must do is determined by the norms of the class, the ethnic group to which we belong, the profession we have mastered, and the level of our income. Heidegger describes this way of life as the "fall" of Dasein. Since they are self-confident and all-knowing, a person does not need an authentic understanding of what is happening and of himself, he, in fact, is supplemented by the illusion that he understands everything, since he has acquired a very external and superficial look at what is happening, while in reality he does not know doesn't understand anything. In fact, the “fall” is precisely that mood that, according to Heidegger, has been glorified by European thought for four centuries as a “scientific” attitude to reality. The rootedness of evaluative moments in his doctrine of ontology is connected with the thinker's belief in the possibility of transformation of unauthentic ways of being, in particular, in the position that in order to be authentic, a person must change his life: “The self-being of the self does not rest on the parted from people with the exceptional status of the subject, but there is an existential modification of people as an essential existential "(Genesis and time, p. 130) A breakthrough to authentic existence is possible, according to Heidegger, based on the process of release and indie Visions, during which a person experiences anxiety resulting from the inability to realize his own authentic possibilities, from leading a meaningless existence, § 40, experiences the inevitability of his own death, which makes him realize his own uniqueness and the fact that he has only a very limited time ( § 46 - 53) and feels a voice of conscience telling him of his guilt in an unauthentic life, in flight from himself, which encourages a person to become authentic, to take responsibility with responsibility for eligible \u003d -svoboda-vybora-6366.html "\u003e elections (§ 54-60). A. There is life in anxiety and anxiety, it is life with a full understanding of our uncertainty, our freedom. It is an acceptance, not an attempt to avoid being like Dasein, as being in the world. Knowing, or understanding that we will die, frees us from falling, awakens us. For it is this knowledge, and only it, that allows us to fully understand our being, to grasp it as a whole and in its totality. To be authentic, a person must prefer a commitment to authentic opportunities, must accept his freedom, uniqueness, finiteness, failure and with determination to join an authentic project, through which he has the opportunity to create his authentic "I". The key to this project is, according to Heidegger, determination. To be authentic, to exist authentically, a person must resolve to choose in favor of his own liberation from social conventions and unauthentic ways of being, to free himself for his own processes and self-determination. An inauthentic person does not define himself, because he either blindly follows social conventions, avoids conscious decisions, living absent-mindedly and conformistly, or only fusses without any benefit. Heidegger calls this deviation from self-determination unsolvability. A person incapable of decisiveness is, as it were, besieged by generally accepted methods of interpreting the world, and leads a life that is prescribed and approved by society. At the same time, an authentic person resolutely rejects the authority and dominance of society and other people and prefers freedom and responsibility for the constitution of his own situation. “A situation is always that which is open in decisiveness, as the existential being is present” (p. 299), that is, only by carrying out a project or choosing a set of authentic possibilities does a person create his own situation. "Situation" therefore means a decisive individual choice by a person of his own abilities, attachments, lifestyle, that is, a specific way of being in the world that is peculiar only to a given person. The authentic self creates its own situation on the basis of projects and decisions. Authentic self is a project implemented by man himself. Heidegger argues that creating a person’s own authentic self is a process and result, possible only on the basis of the project to be yourself, while most people do not make themselves because they are “made” by their social environment. The assertion that A. consists of a project of self-transformation is connected with Heidegger's general views on the “project”, in the concept of which Heidegger was paramount thinking of possibilities, choosing projects and weighing alternatives, considering what is possible to do, thinking about how best to perform their decisions. All this should be the primary function of human understanding. From this, A.'s connection with autonomy is clear, suggesting the ability to choose between alternative possibilities and the ability to choose. Only an authentic person possesses the essential characteristics of a self (individuality, self-identity, unity, substantiality). The authentic “I” is the creation of a decisive individual who has made the choice in favor of A. and authentic possibilities. To be “I” means to achieve determination, autonomy, individuality, responsibility, loyalty and affection and to remain committed to our authentic projects, to remain true to ourselves to the end. Heidegger left open the question of what, in fact, are the authentic possibilities of the individual. Most interpreters of his work are convinced that A. is exclusively death-bulls. What is meant here is not the fact that all people are mortal, but the significance that death has for life. For an individual life, death is a final and irrevocable closure. As Heidegger says, the extreme possibility of my being is non-being. This is the closure of all human projects. Although neither the fact nor the time of its onset has been determined, death is an inevitability consisting in problematic relationships with all human projects. Although this background of non-existence always flickers at the edge of our consciousness, according to Heidegger, we resist what it reveals in us. Immersed in our everyday worries, we carry out one project after another, we miss, if we are too late for something, even looking for something new and exciting, we are too busy to care about the comprehensive meaning of what we are doing. We proceed from the fact that time goes on and that each object will find its foundation and justification in another project. All this, according to Heidegger, is equivalent to the desire to take refuge in das Man, impersonal and anonymous everyone-and-nobody, in which each individual is interchangeable with each other. On the contrary, the encounter with death reveals the radical “washing” of human existence. Death is what expresses or isolates individuals. Just as no one can die for me, so no one will live my life for you. Death pulls me out of das Man's anonymity. We can say that the most authentic possibility of man is his being to death. But only this person can know how to authentically answer this fact of his radical limb, since this limb is the property of his being, and no one else. Death is man’s only own opportunity, since only in death is he indispensable, no one can die for him. Recognizing his fate in death, a person is freed from the illusions of anonymous existence that hid his "I" from him. This implies the perniciousness of the common tendency of people to escape from this alarming circumstance in the worries of the usual everyday world. For Heidegger, the concept of A. was a way to access the concept of being. A person’s determination to confirm that his true existence is being-death, reveals the meaning of what constitutes his being for himself and for one who is trying to know it. Therefore, the term "authenticity" is used both in the ontological and in the epistemological sense. At the same time, Heidegger points to another possibility - an authentic choice based on human heritage. At the end of Genesis and Time, where Heidegger interprets the concept of historicity, he touches on topics such as the historical past, relations between an individual and his generation. Linking these topics with the problem of an individual caught up in the problem of authentic existence, Heidegger shows that human being, Dasein, can inherit and continue the tradition, strive to surpass the heroes of the past, be faithful to them, be truthful towards them, even act by virtue of "fate" , denoted by someone’s historical position, and to do all this authentically, which is ensured by his consciousness, as if all this was chosen by himself and freely chosen. In other words, there is a difference between a blind and non-reflective conformist and a proud and conscious carrier of tradition. Authentic repetition of a past possibility of existence, the choice of your hero based on maturing determination. "Choosing your hero" from the cultural heritage as a model that can guide you in the execution of your projects is close to choosing a vocation. Because of this, loyalty, loyalty to a person once he has made his choice of both his own project and, possibly, his “hero” (for example, the choice of engaging in philosophy as a project involves such heroes as Aristotle or Nietzsche, and the choice as a Christian project implies the possibility of Jesus Christ as a hero) contrasts with the inability to resolve a person of everyday life, who rushes from opportunity to opportunity, not dwelling on anything, not devoting himself to anything significant in the end, and only drowns his empty words in empty conversations bnost. Thus, Heidegger offers a way of transforming an alienated diffused existence into existence, which is a way of repeating authentic possibilities, which implies a person’s struggle for what he is committed to, loyalty to the perfect choice in spite of possible social pressure. J.P. Sartre believed that both for Heidegger and for him A. is a moral concept. Sartre’s promise in Being and Nothing to create an “ethics of liberation through authenticity” was embodied primarily in his proof of the inevitability of a person’s inauthentic existence (see Bad Faith.) The most complete definition of A. is contained in Reflexions sur la question juive ", also known as" Anti-Semite and Jew "(1946): A., according to Sartre, consists in having a true and clear consciousness of the situation, in taking on the responsibility and risk assumed by her, in accepting this with pride or with humiliation, sometimes in horror and hatred. From the views of Heidegger, Sartre's position is distinguished by the moment that for him A. is not so much a category of being, but a category of action and formation. Since the thinker was convinced that the "I" can only be social, for the so-called "I" the possibility of gaining A. was excluded. Only by revealing the fact that a person in principle does not have any "nature", only by releasing the social self from the straitjacket, is it possible to be liberated in order to become what we prefer. However, what could be the basis for the preference of one another over the world, in its essence absurd? Why then not do and think the first thing that comes to mind, if only these thoughts and actions do not stem from the social role of man? For example, Sartre, the hero of Nausea, decides not to stick a dinner knife into the eyes of another eater, simply because, in this case, he decides, he would only play a different social role. All the same, he would not have reached A. in this way, or, having reached it for a moment, he would have instantly lost it. The glorification of the uniqueness of an existentialist anti-hero acting in the hope of finding A. and assuming himself free from any conditional expectations regarding what is called “human nature” is also contained in A. Camus’s novels “Outsider” and “Plague”. In this context, A. contains connotations of "originality", "uniqueness", primarily the uniqueness of action, feeling and vision. More precisely, in a constant reflection of internal sensations, the individual is guided by a unique model of sensuality. What he sees around him becomes unimportant in comparison with his thirst for a unique vision, to see things in a unique way, in his only proper way. This results in the subordination of all actions of the individual to the assertion of the uniqueness of her perception, while the order of perceptions becomes purely arbitrary. The horror of choice overwhelms such a unique individual: he begins to consider himself an inventor of his own principles, an inventor without a goal, direction or form. But, since this choice is not based on anything, the individual’s own attempts to immerse themselves in the choice necessarily represent an act of bad faith. The positive context of A.'s ethics proclaimed by Sartre makes it possible to reconstruct one of Sartre's later works, Ethics Notebooks (1983). It consists of such concepts as good faith, generosity, "positive hypocrisy." Being authentic implies accepting our human project both as a gift and as a consciously assimilated one. Arguing that "man is what he makes of himself," Sartre admits that making himself a man is the result of a natural and spontaneous process. That is, in contrast to Heidegger, according to whose views the project is always a plan that excludes spontaneity. A., according to Sartre, suggests a certain duality: on the one hand, the disclosure of secrets (its radical randomness), and on the other hand, creativity (a reflexive reaction to this randomness). With sp. T. Flynn, "Notebooks ..." make Sartre’s doctrine about A. more voluminous, allowing clarifying the widespread view of him as a singer of inevitable inauthenticity, since this work outlines a historical and socio-economic context, which includes the most pessimistic assessments Sartra. Being authentic involves accepting your human project as being both a gift and reflectively comprehended. A. consists of the duality of disclosure and creation. At the same time, A. has a social dimension, since a person devotes himself to changing the situations of other people so that they can act in an authentic way. A. implies an experience of tension arising from the acceptance of the truth of the destiny of the human, consisting in the fact that the latter is a finite and unfolding stream of changes in time and that its fluidity implies the fundamental responsibility of each of the people for those constant islands that they create in the midst of this total change. What is common to the views of Heidegger and Sartre is that two alternatives are opened before the individual: he either creates himself or acts in accordance with the anonymous prescriptions of society. A person is responsible for his life, only if he is its author, or, more precisely: he is responsible, he understands it or not. The question is whether he accepts responsibility or evades it. For Heidegger and Sartre, the ideal of A. as authorship in relation to his own life is common, but Sartre with tragic pathos considers this ideal to be unattainable. Although the term “authenticity” is often used to mean “authenticity”, “fidelity to oneself”, and “self-realization”, in existentialism these terms are not applicable on the grounds that the key thesis “Existence precedes essence” assumes that there are no no devotees of "I", essence, type, which could be realized in the course of creative choice. The more accurate equivalent of A. will be the phrase "fidelity to one's inheritance", taking into account the connotations of chance, unfolding in time and internal distance inherent in the last word. We point out two lines of criticism of the idea of \u200b\u200bA. The first, radical, is being developed by J. Derrida. Rejecting the very idea of \u200b\u200bpresence, including being as presence, Derrida opposes the modernist belief that the self is described in terms of the center or essence of personality. Such a view suggests that when we talk about a person’s own thoughts, his honest intentions or an authentic choice, we at the same time assume the principle of unity that holds life together as his life, and not as the life of someone else. The principle "One in many" reflects, according to Derrida, the psychological version of the classical idea of \u200b\u200bthe unity of the logo, which, as it were, collects particles of the human soul under the head of the general description. Principle A. It is considered in Derrida as follows: A. is completely subject to the connection between sound and meaning, what is said and what is implied, since truth in a privileged way (and illegally) is tied to the world of sound, to the talking world. Derrida's expression "sentendre porler" indicates an intimate relationship between intention and meaning: it means hearing yourself speaking and grasping the meaning of what is said in a simple act. Since this is what characterizes authentic speech, we can call this moment the “principle of authenticity”. Deconstruction is a criticism of both principles (one in many ways, A.): it is a criticism of logocentrism as the idea of \u200b\u200ba centered mind ordering our universe; criticism of phonocentrism, rooted in the belief that truth is inherent in the spoken word heard by others in the dialogue. In other words, this is a criticism of the enlightened political mind with its faith in the universal principles of freedom, equality, solidarity (fragments or fractals of the mind are put forward in their place). And on the other hand, it is a criticism of the enlightening idea of \u200b\u200ban autonomous individual (the Hegelian idea of \u200b\u200ba single historical reason and the idea of \u200b\u200ban authentic subject going back to Kierkegaard), which is replaced by an anonymous individual, subordinate to the game of structure, power or storytelling. The second line of criticism is connected with the emphasis made by existentialism on the authorship of man in relation to his own life. This point is disputed in the later development of philosophical thought, for example, by researchers such as H. Arendt, A. Schapp, and A. MacIntyre. Their common pathos lies in the fact that, since the general existence of people consists in interweaving stories of their lives, which seem to constantly “rub” against each other (expression by H. Arendt), this hardly allows us to talk about “making” a person’s life for himself , about his radical authorship in relation to his own life. Or, in the words of A. MacIntyre, "We are no more (and sometimes less) than the co-authors of our narratives." Similar remarks are directed against the existentialist ideal of A., although they are addressed more to the version of Sartre than Heidegger. Critics of A.'s idea are convinced that it represents one of the illusions of individualism and the "I" -centricity of the period of modernity. The modernist vision of self-understanding (“good faith”) is associated with the identification of three aspects of the “I”: (1) the historical and modern conditions for the formation and establishment of an individual’s identity; (2) an actual, real self; (3) her ideal of ego. As illusions produced by modernist thinking, these critics regard, firstly, the confidence that the first, second and third are separate moments of the "I", and secondly, the assumption that the path to A. lies in not to allow the true, actual "I" to obscure the alienated, false "I", that is (1) and (3). This kind of consideration of the true “I” suggests that it is human nature to see his “I” directly, outside and in addition to the restrictions imposed by any conceptual scheme. Thus, the problem of the possibility of authentic being is linked with the general criticism of the modernity of the project’s modernity of the desire to consider the person’s “I” as discursively unmediated and the belief that a person can find his actual “I” without reflecting on the conditions for its formation and establishment. Meanwhile, his social role, his history, his ideals "are not characteristics that accidentally belong to a person in order to be ripped off with the aim of discovering the" real self "" (A. MacIntyre). The information necessary to know who someone is is not something that the individual alone can access or see it with full clarity, since the conditions that enter into its formation, constitution and establishment are too complex , historically rooted and layered to reveal to any individual consciousness. Overcoming this ambiguity is a collective, at least non-individualistic project, since the achievement of deep self-understanding and social understanding requires a public reserve of concepts and public participation in the development of these concepts. Of course, the social world consists of predefined social roles and predefined options for a person’s development, so to speak, stories not written by him. Human existence should be understood as the problem of accepting and fulfilling the roles defined by their already existing repertoire, of finding oneself caught up in already developing stories, including their own history. And there is nothing for which a person should justify or perceive as an alienation from his true self. Staying in a chaotically changing society, the individual is confronted with a multitude of social roles, as standardized as the objects of mass production, and if he denies these roles, he denies himself to some extent. There is no self outside these roles and life stories. It can be said that the individual’s authorship in relation to his own life is limited by the simple fact that his life and its history originated in the ears and bodies of his parents before he was born and included the circumstances of his early childhood as decisive elements long before he became aware of himself as a separate and independent individual. As he grew up, his life incorporated many roles that he played and continues to play, various stories in which he was included. Under the influence of other people on his own life, the person and the story of his life themselves influenced the stories of other people. A. MacIntyre calls this process "co-authorship." But to assume that an individual could ever completely determine the course of his existence or, on the contrary, tragically regret the impossibility of this, is to cultivate the illusion of being God. At the same time, criticism of this kind contains a true indication that the call to A. or self-authorship, whether a person believes in its realization or not, is a manifestation of the belief that the individual has no one to turn to, except to himself, not to who to lean more. Nevertheless, although these considerations expressed during attempts to consider the problem of A. in the context of the negative trends of modern industrial society are convincing in many respects, they do not solve all the problems raised in the philosophy of existentialism. Problem A. is thereby only relativized, the height of its discussion, set by Heidegger, is significantly reduced. Of course, it is true that the feeling of disorientation of an individual in the face of the diversity and chaos of everyday reality can be partly limited by accepting the role given to him. To do simply what others or society as a whole expect from a person in the role of father, worker, citizen, etc., may indeed be his answer to existential questions, may be his version of understanding his situation. However, according to Heidegger and existentialists, there is no need to accept any such role, nor does it matter how clearly and unproblematically it can be presented to a person, it does not matter that he can be absolutely convinced that its acceptance and execution constitutes his own independent a choice. One of the existentialist paradoxes is well known, according to which not to choose also means to make a choice. Going into your role and getting along with it gradually also means making an actual choice among possible alternatives, even if they are not recognized by us. The moment of "unnecessity" of any given course of action or any life path, according to existentialist teaching, is indicated in our being

Hello dear readers of the blog site. The word "authentic" has become a fashion chip.

It sounds from television screens, appears in the speeches of lawyers, art historians, psychologists, and is found on social networks.

This word is used in different contexts, therefore its true meaning is not always clear. In order not to get into trouble, it is worth “digging deeper” and find out all about this mysterious term.

Authenticity - the meaning of a word in the general sense

The concept, bearing a light fleur of mystery and mystery, came from the Greek language. Translated into Russian αὐθεντικός means " authentic"," Real ". offers additional "strokes to the portrait" to facilitate the understanding of this word:

true;
authentic;
equivalent;
valid;
reliable.

Authentic is a characteristic meaning that the object in question is genuine, genuine, not fake.

Concepts opposite in meaning - false, not real, fake, not the original, but a copy. In a word, another buzzword translated from English as “fake”.

In the context of the widespread prevalence of cheap fakes (competitions for the title of the most authentic copy of branded companies have already become commonplace) to get a real, genuine thing is a great success.

Therefore, in the modern interpretation of “authentic” - it also means “quality”.

Sometimes you can hear the pronunciation of “authentic” or “authentic”. Such designations are equivalent. But the concept of “autistic”, similar in sounding, is taken from “another opera”, it is connected with developmental disruption.

But do not rush to draw conclusions, that authenticity is very simple. In fact, this term is used in dozens of areas from psychology to jurisprudence and each time its meanings will be interpreted in its own way.

For example, the authenticity of a person’s behavior is how different his behavior is “in public” and when no one is looking at him. Also, this word denotes the authenticity of the manufactured products. Website authentication means verifying your identity. And so on.

But don’t worry, now we’ll quickly figure it out.

What can be authentic

So they say about any genuine, original product. For example, an African amulet, Rostov enamel, Chanel No. 5 perfume, Russian buckwheat, Uzbek carpet, Nike sneakers can be authentic.

Travel lovers know the expression “ authentic kitchen". This refers to national dishes that embody the culinary preferences of the country's inhabitants (Spanish paella, Israeli falafel, Mexican tortilla).

The word authenticity is often used, when it comes to documents. This term is common in international law for treaties in two or more languages.

The text can initially be composed on one of them, but all other options are considered authentic, have equal power, in other words, authentic.

From the lips of musicians you can hear the phrase " authentic performance". That’s what they say when ancient works are reproduced on the instruments of the corresponding era in a special way in order to convey to us the music in the form in which it was created by Bach or Beethoven.

The pioneer in this direction was the British Arnold Dolmech, who reconstructed ancient musical instruments and created work on the principles of performing ancient music.

In the literature, the term authenticity is applied to copyright texts that were not amended. Most often we are talking about personal correspondence, diaries, manuscripts.

There are cases when authenticity is not equivalent to authenticity - for example, in contemporary art. Here, such quality can be attributed to a copy that completely conveys the author's style and idea - everything is as in the original source.

Authentication is a check for authenticity.

As a personal characteristic, authenticity is the ability to be yourself in different situations, guided by their ideas about life and being responsible for this choice. This is the opposite of.

Alone with itself, when there is no one to impress and conquer, people, as a rule, behave authentically. In the presence of others, behavior can vary greatly. Authenticity is inherent in young children - until adults teach them how to behave differently.

The smaller the difference between a person’s behavior in solitude and “in public”, the more authentic he is.

Signs of an Authentic Person:

realistic perception of oneself and others;
open expression of their emotions and opinions, even those that differ from the majority opinion.
lack of statements and actions contrary to life guidelines;
self-sufficiency, lack of discomfort when alone ();
indifference to gossip and unfounded rumors, lack of resentment for criticism from other people and a tendency to condemn the actions of others.

From the point of view of psychology, words that are close in meaning to the word "authentic" are concepts “Sincere”, “open”, “honest”. These qualities are manifested not only in relation to other people, but also to oneself.

Brief Summary

In a world crowded with copies (fakes of branded clothes, shoes and smartphones, relationships with face masks, fake accounts), authenticity has gained particular value. And it doesn’t matter that often there are no external goods behind it: pleasure, wealth or glory.

Good luck to you! See you soon on the blog pages site

you can watch more videos by going to

");">

Dictionary Interpretation

The meaning of "authenticity" in the dictionary is explained as follows. This term is characterized as book and denoting the property of the subject in accordance with the adjective “authentic” - authenticity (the authenticity of the films presented by the journalists was confirmed by the prosecutor's office).

The adjective “authentic” is also a book and is interpreted as “corresponding to the authentic, valid, genuine, original, uncopyable” (The mesmerizing dance was accompanied by an authentic Mexican melody performed by musicians in colorful folk costumes).

Synonyms and Origin

Synonyms for “authenticity” are authenticity, authenticity. Synonyms for the corresponding adjective are real, real, genuine, and the antonyms are fake, fake.

The word "authenticity" comes from the adjective "authentic", which came into Russian from French - authentique. And there it appeared from the ancient Greek αὐθεντικός, meaning "main, genuine," which came from αὐθέντης - "autocratic sovereign, autocratic." From the Greek adjective came the English authenticity - "correspondence to the original source, authenticity."

Variety of meanings

Based on the dictionary interpretation, we can conclude that authenticity is in simple words: a property of objects or phenomena that characterizes their authenticity, reality, reliability. You can talk about the authenticity of the product, document, feelings, views, intentions. Consider some shades of the meanings of this word in more detail.

The concept of authenticity is also present:

In psychology, where it is considered as congruence and expresses self-consistency, the integrity of the personality.
In jurisprudence, where it means the coincidence of multilingual texts of international treaties on logic and content.
In art, where it is interpreted as the authenticity of the sample, the reliability of transmission is contrasted with the concept of “plagiarism”.
In technology, where it is understood as the authenticity of the manufactured products, that is, confirmation that it is not counterfeit.
In philosophy, where it is formulated as a person’s ability to refuse to communicate from different social roles and to show thoughts and emotions that are characteristic only of this person.
In the information where it is possible to avoid such defects as a lack of completeness and accuracy when it changes in an unauthorized way.

In jurisprudence

To better understand that this is authenticity, consider one of its legal aspects.

Lawyers often use a term such as "authentic text." By it is meant the text of an official document, within the meaning of the text set out in any other language. It has the same legal force with it, since texts written in foreign languages, in meaning and logic, must fully correspond to each other.

In a field of law such as international law, the term “authentic text” is used when the text of the agreement has been developed, agreed and approved in one of the languages, but for the convenience of use its contents are presented in two or more languages.

In this case, in accordance with generally accepted rules, the text of the contract is considered equally authentic and having equal force in each of the languages. That is, it is equally authentic. Its authenticity is established in two or more languages.

There is one caveat. The text of the agreement may include a clause about in which language (s) it will have legal advantages if disagreements arise in the interpretation of this document.

In art

In this area, authenticity is a concept that speaks of the reliability of the transmission, the authenticity of the submitted sample. In some cases, it is used to determine the originality of the work. Its opposite in this context is plagiarism.

In the literature, authentic means author's texts, which were not affected by edits and editorial changes. Often this concept is applied to diaries, personal correspondence, manuscripts of specific authors. In painting, this is an author's style, a special presentation and technique. In music, we mean a special manner of performance and the use of certain instruments.

Authentication

Concluding the consideration of the fact that this is authenticity, it would be advisable to familiarize ourselves with such a concept as authentication. This word refers to the procedure by which authentication is performed. It takes place when, for example:

the user’s authenticity is verified by comparing the password for the designated login that he entered with that stored in the database of logins;
the authenticity of the email is verified by verifying the digital signature contained in it using the sender’s public key;
the checksum of the file is checked for its compliance with the amount declared by the author of this file.

In Russian, the term "authentication" is usually used in the field of information technology. The checks carried out can be either mutual or one-sided. They are usually implemented using cryptographic methods. In this case, do not confuse:

authentication, which is essentially a procedure for granting certain rights to an entity;
identification, which is the process of recognizing the subject by the corresponding identifier.

Sim-Sim, open up!

One of the difficult tasks that people have faced since ancient times was the task of verifying the reliability of the messages received. To do this, they came up with voice passwords, intricate seals. When certain authentication methods using various mechanical devices appeared, this greatly simplified the matter.

An example of this is the usual lock and key, which were invented a very long time ago. Another example, dating back to earlier times and taken from the eastern tale of Ali Baba and the forty robbers, is the narrative of treasures hidden in a cave.

To move the stone that blocked the entrance to the cave, you had to say the password: “Sim-Sim, open!” In our century of rapid development of network technologies, automatic authentication is widely used.

AUTHENTICITY
(Greek. authentikys - genuine). A concept developed in humanistic psychology and psychotherapy and reflecting one of the most important integrative characteristics of a person. According to Rogers (Rogers S. R.), who actively used this term, A. is the person’s ability in communication to abandon various social roles (psychotherapist, professional, teacher, leader, etc.), allowing the manifestation of genuine, characteristic only given personality to thoughts, emotions and behavior. Along with the ability to unconditional acceptance and empathy A. is an essential component of effective human communication.
The boundaries of the concept of A. fuzzy. Often synonyms for the term A. are used such definitions as a fully functioning personality (Rogers (Rogers C. R.)), freedom (Allport (Allport F.N.)), self-actualization (Maslow (Maslow AH)), self, holistic personality (Perls (Perls FS)), congruence (Grinder (Grinder J.), Bandler (Bandler R.)).
The psychological meaning of A. can be defined as a coordinated, holistic, interconnected manifestation of the basic psychological processes and mechanisms that determine personal functioning. Manifestation or non-manifestation of A. from this point of view is observed in the collision of personal motives and interests with social norms, the dominant tendencies of public consciousness. In such a situation, authentic behavior implies a holistic experience of direct experience that is not distorted by psychological defense mechanisms. A person is involved in what is happening and then directly manifests his emotional attitude towards him. His thoughts and actions are aligned with emotions. In modern areas of psychology, developing a formal structure of communication, the behavior of such a person is assessed as congruent (i.e., from the point of view of an outside observer, the information received from him through verbal and nonverbal channels is consistent).
In the traditions of humanistic psychology, A. also characterizes a certain ideal personality, as opposed to a neurotic personality. On the way to A., personal growth is carried out. In gestalt therapy of A., the self is preceded by stages of awareness of the relativity of social norms, inefficiency of behavioral patterns, affirmation of one’s own value with the discovery of the possibility of manifestation of any, even negative emotions, while taking responsibility for authentic behavior in society. In this context, A. is not a role model for, say, a hero, but the freedom suffered in the struggle against oneself in accepting one's own unique characteristics and unique strategy of building one’s own life. An example of authentic behavior is the behavior of a training group participant, who, fearing the upcoming group discussion of the question “How are you feeling now?”, Honestly admits that he is afraid.

Psychotherapeutic Encyclopedia. - S.-Pb .: Peter. B. D. Karvasarsky. 2000.

Authenticity is:

Authenticity

Authenticity (other Greek. αὐθεντικός - genuine) refers to the correctness of the beginnings, properties, attitudes, feelings, intentions; sincerity, devotion.

Authenticity may also mean:

Authenticity in Art - this is the reliability of the transfer, the authenticity of the sample. In some cases, it is used to determine the originality of the work and contrasted with the concept of plagiarism. In the literature - copyright texts without revisions or editorial changes. Often the concept applies to diaries, personal correspondence, manuscripts, etc. of specific authors. In painting - the author's style, a special technique or presentation. In music - a special manner of performance, the use of certain instruments.

Authenticity in Traditional Art

Authenticity is attributed to folk art in the event that this art comes from the bearer of a particular culture. Also, the characteristic of authenticity can be attributed to the art that accurately reproduces folklore patterns. For example, the performance of music on folk instruments, the use of traditional methods of creating paints and other materials for painting and painting in arts and crafts, and the preservation of original phonetics in folk songs.

Authenticity and Contemporary Art

In contemporary art, the concept of authenticity is more often applied to the author's style, author's technique, and the original idea. Moreover, often authenticity can be attributed not only to the original work, but also to its copies. This approach is especially characteristic of easily reproducible contemporary art forms, where the copy is indistinguishable from the original. In this case, authenticity does not mean the authenticity of the sample, but the originality of the idea of \u200b\u200ba work of art.

Musical Instrument Authenticity

Main article is Autism

Performance Authenticity - Full or Partial Copying of style the performance of a musical work of the time when it was written. For example: the performer plays an essay written in the 18th century, and performs it in the 21st century, the style of play has changed for so many years, and to convey the atmosphere, the performer uses those techniques of playing an instrument that were used at the time the composition was written.

References

Authenticity in contemporary art - the brink of meaning
Where to look for authenticity
V. Benyamin “A work of art in the era of its technical reproducibility”

They called me authentic. What does it mean?

Elena Kazakova

AUTHENTICITY - (Greek authentikys - authentic). A concept developed in humanistic psychology and psychotherapy and reflecting one of the most important integrative characteristics of a person. According to Rogers (Rogers S. R.), who actively used this term, A. is the person’s ability in communication to refuse various social roles (psychotherapist, professional, educator, leader, etc.), allowing the manifestation of genuine, characteristic only given personality to thoughts, emotions and behavior. Along with the ability to unconditional acceptance and empathy A. is an essential component of effective human communication. The boundaries of the concept of A. fuzzy. Often synonyms for the term A. are used such definitions as a fully functioning personality (Rogers (Rogers C. R.)), freedom (Allport (Allport F.N.)), self-actualization (Maslow (Maslow AH)), self, holistic personality (Perls FS), congruence (Grinder J., Bandler R.). Psychological meaning of A. can be defined as a coordinated, holistic, interconnected manifestation of the basic psychological processes and mechanisms that determine personality functioning. Manifestation or non-manifestation of A. from this point of view is observed in the collision of personal motives and interests with social norms, the dominant tendencies of public consciousness. In such a situation, authentic behavior implies a holistic experience of direct experience that is not distorted by psychological defense mechanisms. A person is involved in what is happening and then directly manifests his emotional attitude towards him. His thoughts and actions are aligned with emotions. In modern areas of psychology, developing a formal structure of communication, the behavior of such a person is assessed as congruent (i.e., from the point of view of an outside observer, the information received from him through verbal and nonverbal channels is consistent). In the traditions of humanistic psychology, A. also characterizes a certain ideal personality, as opposed to a neurotic personality. On the way to A., personal growth is carried out. In gestalt therapy of A., the self is preceded by stages of awareness of the relativity of social norms, inefficiency of behavioral patterns, affirmation of one’s own value with the discovery of the possibility of manifestation of any, even negative emotions, while taking responsibility for authentic behavior in society. In this context, A. - This is not a role model for, say, a hero, but the freedom suffered in the struggle against oneself in accepting one's own unique characteristics and a unique strategy for building one’s own life. An example of authentic behavior is the behavior of a participant in a training group, who, fearing the upcoming group discussion of the question “How are you feeling now?”, Honestly admits that he is afraid.
AUTHENTIC AND UNAUTHENTIC - (Authentic and inauthentic; authentisch und inauthentisch) - existentialist terms used in depth psychology to distinguish between human actions that turn out to be true or false in relation to oneself, to the self. Practical psychoanalysts are able to distinguish between these concepts, interpreting unauthentic behavior as defensive. The meaning of these terms is that the "real" feelings and motives of human behavior are different from those that he himself feels, his "insincerity" is dictated by the desire to avoid a collision with certain aspects of the situation or himself.