I Am NOT Alone

ImpeachPAC | Electing a Congress to Impeach Bush and Cheney

Glad to know that this wasn't an original thought, and that I am not the only one thinking this. We'll just have to watch and see.

On Authenticity (Part 2)

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.

Priorities

Should writing (for me) be more important than happiness?

Again, while ruminating, an interesting thought flashed through my mind. In the last few months, I have been re-prioritizing my life and writing has surfaced at the top. For many years, I have said that writing was a priority, but not actually working as if it were. As a result, my history has been filled with easy distractions.

As the list of priorities looks right now, Writing (note the capitol "W") has made it to the top of the list. Now that it is number one, however, I am faced with an interesting dilemma. What happens if writing and happiness become separate elements and require separate energies? Should writing stay at the top of the list--even if I have to sacrifice my happiness in the process?

I guess, in my naivety, I had always assumed that writing and happiness were inextricable bound. I had always assumed that if I were writing, I would be happy. Thinking about it realistically, however, I see how easily this could be a false premise.

At this time in my life, I have no conclusive evidence that my original premise is either true or untrue. Perhaps it is fortunate, and perhaps not. Perhaps I will never know. But, I hope that I never know because my happiness and writing are inextricable related, not because I never tried.