After writing recently on the relation between gender and biological sex, I wanted to revisit a reflection I originally wrote in 2021 on what constitutes authentic action. It blended a philosophical and psychological perspective into a singular account. While these ideas still hold, I have now refined them to reflect a deeper understanding of what it means to act authentically.

Thus, an authentic action is one motivated by genuine inner conviction. While this definition sounds comically vague, I shall clarify what these terms mean: 

To act authentically, then, is not to act impulsively or follow internalised social norms without question. Authentic action cannot consist of doing what one is told without reflecting upon it first. It requires some reflective endorsement of one’s motives alongside a conscious awareness that one always has the freedom to choose otherwise (cp. Sartre’s ‘radical freedom’). 

Yet this definition, although clear, faces some difficulties. It suggests that harmful or deluded actions may count as ‘authentic’. As such, it requires a further caveat. As with Sartre’s notion of “respecting others’ freedom”, I too believe that a definitive account of authenticity must also have some normative dimension that excludes some types of self-directed acts. As such, authenticity cannot be morally neutral.

To elaborate on this normative requirement, I draw on my possible solution to the shortcomings of Hume’s view of diachronic identity which I wrote some years ago, terming it ‘mirrors of sympathy’. Hume argues that the self cannot be discovered through introspection alone, necessitating some other source to supplement the subjective. The shortcoming I mentioned lies in the fact that Hume did not suggest what this source may be. I argued that we come to know ourselves through social interaction, where others reflect aspects of us back to ourselves such as our moods, values, and peculiarities. This was based on Hume's account of 'sympathy' (or affective empathy as we may know it now). These reflections shape how we understand who we are by linking our subjectivity to a sense of third person agency (that is, our social identity). 

Thus, a well-formed self does not emerge through introspection alone but rather requires ongoing interaction with others. Authenticity, in turn, requires this well-formed self, being an historically situated and socially responsive subject who has integrated their convictions into their social identity through experience.

Authentic action, then, is not only inwardly motivated. It also aligns with the self we have come to understand through others. A self that has been tested, refined, but ultimately accepted and owned as constituting our identity. 

Frankfurt’s model of desire offers a useful framework in translating this broad description into understanding real-world action. He distinguishes between:

To act authentically, we must understand how these desires constitute authentic action. First-order desires require self-awareness. This is the ability to tune into what we’re feeling and why. Second-order desires require self-knowledge, which is knowing what we stand for and what values motivate us.

Authenticity arises when these two levels are in a state of equilibrium (balance). That is, when our immediate impulses and deeper values support the same course of action. First-order desires that omit second-order reflection are impulsive. Second-order convictions that lack first-order motivations foster inertia, being a desire without any accompanying motivation to enact them.

It is a sense of contentment, the confidence of knowing (without any form of self-deception) that one has done the right thing, or at least the most honest thing that could be done in the moment.

Although I am aware that this is not always a comfortable sensation. Authenticity demands ownership of one’s actions. We must accept responsibility for the choices we make and, importantly, the consequences that stem from them. This can be frightening. However, the alternative to facing and owning our choices involves self-deception, inertia, cognitive dissonance, and bad faith. These are worse than the discomfort of making a difficult choice.

Inner conflict is not a sign of inauthenticity (bad faith). Indeed, it is often part of the process of deciding which course of action is authentic. Rather, the problem is when we allow this conflict to paralyse us or lead us into self-deception. However, conflict resolution is made possible in light of our distinction between types of desires. One must first identify where the conflict lies by reflecting and questioning where the tension lies – what are the competing drives or values in play? If you crave cheesecake (as I frequently do) but also want to reduce your fat intake, the conflict is between immediate pleasure and long-term health. Once these desires are clear, look for compromises, such as a lower-fat alternative in this instance, or by weighing the likely consequences of each option to see if this makes any desire more or less salient.

If the grip of indecision refuses to yield, return to the earlier test: which choice would you regret less in the long run (in light of everything you know in the present)? 

Oftentimes, our second-order desires (values) fail to produce motivation. This may indicate that the desire is not genuine. Instead, ask: 

If reflection fails to ignite a motivating passion, the issue may be psychological such as burnout, depression, or mere exhaustion. In which case, revisiting the desire or postponing any action may be wiser than forcing yourself to take action. 

Can selflessness or selfishness be authentic? Yes, but with several caveats. 

Authentic selflessness but be freely chosen, not coerced nor performed for social acceptance or approval. Recall Sartre’s waiter for an apt illustration of the bad faith associated with the latter. If someone devotes themselves to others but feel they must do so, as in they have no freedom to stop, this is not authentic. This is passivity or at the very least, bad faith.

Authentic selfishness is hypothetically possible, but not sustainable. We are social animals. To deny this is to deny part of our innate nature. Barring rare exceptions (such as psychopathy), complete self-interest often masks some rejection or suppression of ourselves as social creatures, which undermines authenticity. 

To act authentically is to act in a way that feels right and just makes sense, both to the self that feels and the self that knows. It requires that we own our desires, reflect on our inner convictions, and act in a social world without being wholly defined by it. 

Authenticity is not perfection. Nor is it always comfortable or clear. But it is always honest.