The confusion between authenticity and subjectivity keeps exerting a negative influence on philosophy and literature. It is wrong to call an author “authentic” just because he is giving a personal opinion devoid of reasoning and unconnected to facts.
When historians categorize the essays written by Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) as “authentic,” they mean that those essays contain his opinions or anecdotes about his own life. In my view, they are using a wrong logic in their categorization.
Let me explain why I think they are wrong.
“Authentic” is the opposite of “false, deceitful, adulterated, manipulated, untruthful.” The whole point of authentic writing is to present the truth, not to come up with a different version of falsehood, deceit and manipulation.
Take for instance Montaigne’s essay “Of Death,” in which he includes some personal comments about deceased members of his family. The “authenticity” doesn’t reside in the subjective tone of those comments, but in their accuracy and truthfulness.
Are those comments helping readers apprehend the insights that Montaigne wants to convey “Of Death,” or are they giving a false impression, despite their entertainment value?
Montaigne’s subjectivity and authenticity
Subjectivity does not mean authenticity, far from it. I could recount my early life and fill many pages with remembrances, but the authenticity arises from quality, not from quantity.
The important question is whether my remembrances are conveying true messages (insights, advice, enlightenment) or not. If those messages are distorted or inaccurate, we shouldn’t speak about “authenticity.”
Montaigne had understood the difference between authentic and subjective. He committed himself to pursuing the first and avoiding the second, but his attempts led to unequal success.
In his essay titled “Of Experience,” Montaigne recounts that he had adopted the motto “what do I know” (“Que sais-je?” in French) as a starting point of his writings.
Montaigne had committed himself to pursuing the truth, and his approach matched the definition of authenticity. When he did not attain the mark, it’s because he did not manage to find the correct answer to the question he had raised.
Montaigne’s authenticity compared to Rousseau’s
Almost two centuries after Montaigne’s death, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) wrote his autobiography “Confessions,” in which he interpolates subjective comments on every subject under the sun.
Should one then categorize Rousseau’s “Confessions” as far more “authentic” than Montaigne’s essays? I don’t think so due to the highly subjective tone of Rousseau’s comments.
Although I do find Rousseau’s “Confessions” entertaining, I wouldn’t categorize them as truthful and insightful. Subjective comments, no matter how copious, convey little value. I refuse to rate them as “truthful” because they are seldom supported by solid reasoning.
Like Montaigne had done in his essays, Rousseau performs often self-examination in his “Confessions.” Readers learn that Rousseau wanted to be authentic, but his anecdotes and travel recollections fail to draw conclusions of general value.
I hold Montaigne’s literary and philosophical authenticity in higher esteem than Rousseau’s. Why? Because Montaigne did his best to find the truth. He didn’t invent or distort history, and his occasional errors are to blame on his limited library.
In contrast, Rousseau had no qualms re-writing history to fit his arguments. In his essay “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men,” Rousseau wants to give readers the impression that his historical arguments are truthful, but those are stories he made up himself.
It wouldn’t make sense to categorize Rousseau’s literary and philosophical approach as “authentic” because it was precisely the contrary. Instead of portraying the truth, Rousseau was using false, deceitful, adulterated, manipulated stories.
Montaigne’s authenticity compared to Henry Miller’s
I regard Henry Miller (1891-1980) as the best literary heir to the introspective authenticity practised by Montaigne. Miller wrote mostly in the first person, recounting his private life and career struggles.
In contrast to Rousseau’s, Miller’s observations are accurate and thoughtful, often accompanied by conclusions of universal value. He romanticizes some of his adventures to render them more poignant, but his conclusions remain waterproof.
For Montaigne, the most authentic essay is probably the one “On Experience.” For Miller, my choice goes for “Big Sur and the Oranges of Hieronymus Bosch,” published in 1957.
At that moment, Miller had returned to the United States to settle down in California. The book consists of short essays to which I would give a full rating for authenticity and wisdom. They fulfil the philosophical quest that Montaigne had started four centuries earlier.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations, I recommend you my book titled “On becoming unbreakable.”