Reading this: hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?is — and while I find Taylor's dissection of modern authenticity interesting (and potentially useful) my eyes glaze over a bit when he starts exhuming the past to emphasize how different things are now. On the basis of what evidence? And how can we be sure we're not arguing from absence?

Follow

For example: "In premodern times, people didn't speak of 'identity' and 'recognition' not because people didn't have (what we call) identities or because those didn't depend on recognition, but rather because these were then too unproblematic to be the thematized as such." (p. 48) Oh, word? You sure? Or is it possible that it did, in fact, surface in speech, but that it didn't often make it into print because writing was largely the province of a class that preferred to see it as unproblematic?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Merveilles

Revel in the marvels of the universe. We are a collective of forward-thinking individuals who strive to better ourselves and our surroundings through constant creation. We express ourselves through music, art, games, and writing. We also put great value in play. A warm welcome to any like-minded people who feel these ideals resonate with them.