from Wikipedia
Of course: our objective and scientific existence. Still, however problematic even that might be, how can it ever possibly compare to the bewildering and conflicting assessments of what it means to live an authentic existence?For Karl Jaspers, the term Dasein meant existence in its most minimal sense, the realm of objectivity and science, in opposition to what Jaspers called "Existenz", the realm of authentic being.
And, of course, for me, authenticity becomes spectacularly problematic when attempts are made to ascribe it to moral and political value judgments. Existenz then?
Perhaps. Let's choose a set of behaviors, a "conflicting good" of note, a set of circumstances and discuss it.
Shades of Wittgenstein. Or of Richard Rorty and "ironism":In Philosophy, Jaspers gave his view of the history of philosophy and introduced his major themes. Beginning with modern science and empiricism, Jaspers points out that as we question reality, we confront borders that an empirical (or scientific) method can simply not transcend.
With respect to moral and political value judgments.* She has radical and continuing doubts about the final vocabulary she currently uses, because she has been impressed by other vocabularies, vocabularies taken as final by people or books she has encountered;
*She realizes that argument phrased in her present vocabulary can neither underwrite nor dissolve these doubts;
*Insofar as she philosophizes about her situation, she does not think that her vocabulary is closer to reality than others, that it is in touch with a power not herself.
Kierkegaard. Only No God.At this point, the individual faces a choice: sink into despair and resignation, or take a leap of faith toward what Jaspers calls "Transcendence". In making this leap, individuals confront their own limitless freedom, which Jaspers calls Existenz, and can finally experience authentic existence.
But, come on, limitless freedom?!!!
Authentic existence outside a Planned Parenthood clinic? In the voting booth? In Ukraine? In grappling with the Second Amendment? With respect to human sexuality?