Speaker 1: We exist. First, we're thrown into the world, and then
Speaker 1: it's up to us to create our essence and authenticity
Speaker 1: through this lens is a process of creating your essence
Speaker 1: in ways that you choose. Hello, and welcome to the
Speaker 1: Psychology Podcast. Today we welcome philosopher Sky Cleary to the show.
Speaker 1: Sky is a lecturer at Columbia University and the City
Speaker 1: College of New York. She's the author of Existentialism and
Speaker 1: Romantic Love and co editor of How to Live a
Speaker 1: Good Life. Her writing has appeared in The Paris Review,
Speaker 1: Business Insider, ted Ed, and the Los Angeles Review of Books,
Speaker 1: among other outlets. In twenty twenty one, she was a
Speaker 1: McDowell Fellow, and in twenty seventeen she won the New
Speaker 1: Philosopher Writers Award. Her latest book, which is the topic
Speaker 1: of our chat today, is called How to Be Authentic.
Speaker 1: In this episode, I talked to Cleary about Simone de
Speaker 1: Beauvoir's life and how it has informed her existentialist philosophy.
Speaker 1: As a feminist during the forties, was passionate about freedom
Speaker 1: of choice. It's not a surprise, then, that her definition
Speaker 1: of authenticity also evolves around self determination. Authenticity is not
Speaker 1: about finding a true self, but rather a process of
Speaker 1: creating who we want to be. Sky and I also
Speaker 1: touch on the topics of gender power, social justice, narcissism,
Speaker 1: and fulfillment. This is a really rich conversation with a
Speaker 1: dear friend of mine. I just think the world of
Speaker 1: Sky and I actually think she's the modern day Simone
Speaker 1: de Beauvoir. So, without further ado, I bring you Sky Cleary,
Speaker 1: Sky Cleary. Wow, so good to see you. So good
Speaker 1: to see you too, Scott. Thanks for having me. It's
Speaker 1: been ages. It has a propera catchup. Can you see
Speaker 1: the bar in the background here? Yes, it's great. Okay, yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: the existentialists loved their cocktails and alcohol. That's in moderation,
Speaker 1: of course. What is it about the French existentialist philosophers
Speaker 1: that grabs you so much? What do you think it
Speaker 1: is with you that resonates? I mean a lot of things,
Speaker 1: and I think one of the big things was their
Speaker 1: emphasis on freedom and responsibility. And I came across the
Speaker 1: existential philosophers back in you know, a long time ago
Speaker 1: in my twenties, when I had a lot of questions
Speaker 1: about life and love and was introduced through some MBA
Speaker 1: classes to Simunda Bouvois and Jean Paul Satra and some
Speaker 1: of the other Nietzchure and Schopenhauer. And I also read
Speaker 1: a book called Teta Tet by Hazel Rowley, which was
Speaker 1: all about the relationship with between Beauvoir and Sartre, and
Speaker 1: I really admired how they pushed back on what was
Speaker 1: expected of them and kind of created a relationship on
Speaker 1: their own terms, but while still acknowledging, you know, other
Speaker 1: people around them to varying extents. But what attracted me
Speaker 1: most about Simond de Beauvoaw was that she was so
Speaker 1: brain in. You know, think about in the nineteen forties
Speaker 1: she was in this open relationship with Jean Paul Sartre
Speaker 1: and they're becoming famous. I mean, that was scandalous that.
Speaker 1: I mean, it still is kind of scandalous to be
Speaker 1: in an open relationship, but especially back then, you know,
Speaker 1: eighty years ago, and Surmoundablevoire. She she was just such
Speaker 1: a brilliant character. You know, she was super intelligent. She
Speaker 1: studied at the Sawbonne. She was one of the few
Speaker 1: women to study there and the youngest person ever to
Speaker 1: graduate from these from her philosophy studies, and she wrote
Speaker 1: The Second Sex in nineteen forty nine, which was groundbreaking
Speaker 1: really and really sparked a second wave of feminism. And
Speaker 1: so it was this this language, I guess, or framework
Speaker 1: that they were using to think about the tension between
Speaker 1: self determination and responsibility and ethics and getting along in
Speaker 1: the world with other people. Yeah, we'll get to all that.
Speaker 1: We'll get to all that. I want to double click
Speaker 1: on the Second Sex for a second before we get
Speaker 1: to her other philosophy. I wonder if she would even
Speaker 1: like the current incarnation of feminism and say that it's
Speaker 1: taking feminists to step back. I don't know, but I
Speaker 1: do know. You know, there's a quote she has, a
Speaker 1: very famous quote from that book, One is not born,
Speaker 1: but rather becomes woman in one sense that seems very
Speaker 1: lined with transgenderism. I'm wondering what your thoughts are where
Speaker 1: she would be today. I mean, that's a really hard
Speaker 1: question to answer, and you know, Beauvoir has been drawn
Speaker 1: upon to I just defend both sides of the argument.
Speaker 1: On the one hand, she says, as you say, one
Speaker 1: isn't born but becomes a woman, suggesting that you know,
Speaker 1: where we're socialized into becoming feminine or masculine, and there
Speaker 1: is you know, there seems to be possibilities for gender
Speaker 1: freedom in what she was doing, and she she was
Speaker 1: against all forms of oppression. So what I think she
Speaker 1: would have been looking at is, okay, well, where are
Speaker 1: people oppressed? Where are people oppressed? And certainly there are
Speaker 1: lots of hard won freedoms of that the feminism movement
Speaker 1: has done. On the other hand, she said, you know
Speaker 1: a couple of things that can be used against in
Speaker 1: the transgender debates, such as, you know that a woman
Speaker 1: is talking about the way a woman is defined, and
Speaker 1: you know if being born a woman has certain implications
Speaker 1: for the history that you, I guess collect along the way,
Speaker 1: and the way that you're treated and the way that
Speaker 1: you grow up, and so that kind of history of
Speaker 1: being a woman that matters. So I am erring towards
Speaker 1: the opinion that she, if I had to hypothesize, which
Speaker 1: is really hard, that she would have been definitely supportive
Speaker 1: of people expressing themselves in ways that they choose and
Speaker 1: society being supportive of those different gender expressions. Yeah, you
Speaker 1: could see a really nuanced essay that she would write
Speaker 1: on the topic, though, because there's a lot of one hands.
Speaker 1: On the other hands, you know, there is definitely she
Speaker 1: you could you could almost reconstruct an essay she'd write,
Speaker 1: because you know her so well at this point. In fact,
Speaker 1: I call you a modern day some de Bauvois. So
Speaker 1: on the you know, the one hand, absolutely, and the
Speaker 1: idea of rebellion is a great concept. The idea of
Speaker 1: we should fight against oppression any form is a real
Speaker 1: message of hers. But I also think that the other hand,
Speaker 1: is this idea of existence preceding essence does assume that
Speaker 1: there does begin some sort of existence. And I almost
Speaker 1: get the sense that she's saying biological women become women
Speaker 1: through socialization, but she's not saying any human becomes a woman,
Speaker 1: like the turtles become women. Actually, this is one of
Speaker 1: the big questions that she that inspired her to write
Speaker 1: the Second Sex, which is really you know what is
Speaker 1: a woman? What does it mean to be a woman?
Speaker 1: And a thousand pages exactly, And she says like in
Speaker 1: the introduction, you know what what makes a woman? Is
Speaker 1: it her ovaries? Is it having a uterus? Is it
Speaker 1: wearing a skirt? And she's like, well no, because there
Speaker 1: are lots of women who you know, don't wear skirts
Speaker 1: or don't necessarily have ovaries. And she's also saying that
Speaker 1: not only that, but often people with ovaries and a
Speaker 1: uterus are criticized for not being a woman or not
Speaker 1: being feminine enough, and so there's this socialization, as you say,
Speaker 1: that occurs, and you know, Bauvoir saw this as sort
Speaker 1: of these opinions that people are imposing on people with
Speaker 1: certain organs as limiting our freedom and those you know,
Speaker 1: our sex organs shouldn't define how we behave or what
Speaker 1: kind of career we have, Like she was saying that
Speaker 1: being a woman with a uterus doesn't mean that you
Speaker 1: you know, destined to become a mother. She's like, no,
Speaker 1: let's embrace our transcendence and our freedom. We should be
Speaker 1: able to make those choices about about who we become
Speaker 1: and how we create our lives. Yeah, I thought that
Speaker 1: was so interesting when you wrote about that. How long
Speaker 1: it took her to answer that question, especially in the
Speaker 1: light of Matt Walsh's documentary What is a Woman? I
Speaker 1: just had that cheeky thought of, like, I wonder if
Speaker 1: she was in that documentary how she would answer that question.
Speaker 1: She would say, read my one thousand page damn book,
Speaker 1: because it's a lot more complicated than you're making it.
Speaker 1: Matt Walsh, Yeah, and it's I mean, it's interesting to
Speaker 1: think about her opinions in today's world, which is what
Speaker 1: I tried to do with my book. But of course
Speaker 1: there are limitations on that. You know, we don't know
Speaker 1: exactly what she would have said, and you know, you
Speaker 1: think about back then in the nineteen forties, you know,
Speaker 1: trans identities were like, there were trans people around, and
Speaker 1: she actually talked really sympathetically about an intersex person who
Speaker 1: was I guess one of her neighbors lived in the
Speaker 1: same hotel as she did for a time, and she was.
Speaker 1: She didn't write extensively about it, but in the part
Speaker 1: she does write in her memoirs and in her novel
Speaker 1: She Came to Stay, she writes about in a really
Speaker 1: sympathetic way, saying like, okay, so acknowledging like that the
Speaker 1: torment that in the discrimination that that people can face
Speaker 1: when they don't fit into the sex binary, well, that's
Speaker 1: just it. Then I think if anything at its base,
Speaker 1: we can assume that whatever she would write on the
Speaker 1: modern day issues would come from a place of justice
Speaker 1: and compassion. So that's probably the one thing we can assume. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I would, I would hope, so I would think that,
Speaker 1: you know, certainly made make mistakes in her time, but yeah,
Speaker 1: I think she really tried to be compassionate. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: oh boy. The idea of authenticity is something we both
Speaker 1: are absolutely kind of almost obsessed with understanding, like what
Speaker 1: is authenticity? And I've argued there really is no such
Speaker 1: thing as a real self from a psychological perspective, And
Speaker 1: it looks like someone really would agree with that. You know,
Speaker 1: that there is no true self. You see that a
Speaker 1: lot in the in the literature or in the self
Speaker 1: help world as well. Just all you got to do
Speaker 1: to be authentic is tap into your true self. It's like, okay,
Speaker 1: what is that? Yeah, exactly and yeah and so yes,
Speaker 1: I've read your excellent article on authenticity and Scientific American
Speaker 1: and you know, I was also struck by there are
Speaker 1: you know, a lot of overlaps and for a why Yeah,
Speaker 1: And it comes back to what you said before about
Speaker 1: existence preceding essence. So we exist first, we're thrown into
Speaker 1: the world, and then it's up to us to create
Speaker 1: our essence and authenticity through this lens is a process
Speaker 1: of creating your essence in ways that you choose. It's
Speaker 1: about embracing your freedom to shape your life. And this
Speaker 1: is one of the questions that really got me into
Speaker 1: researching authenticity was all this talk about oh, yeah, just
Speaker 1: be yourself, just be your true self. And I'm like, yeah,
Speaker 1: well what is that? How do I even find my
Speaker 1: true self? Like? Where where is it? You know? How
Speaker 1: do I look for it? How do I know when
Speaker 1: I find it? And what if I don't like it?
Speaker 1: You know? So all these different questions, and what I
Speaker 1: appreciated about Bouvoir's understanding was that, you know, shape knowledges
Speaker 1: where we're fragmentary beings, that we're always growing and becoming
Speaker 1: more than we are, and certainly we are a synthesis
Speaker 1: of our past, you know, where the past some of
Speaker 1: our past actions were also our present selves who are choosing.
Speaker 1: But we're also our goals and intentions. So for a
Speaker 1: boof what, Yeah, it's important to introspect and reflect on
Speaker 1: the choices we're making, all the choices we have made.
Speaker 1: But what's super important in with authenticity is how we
Speaker 1: orient ourselves into the future and how we set goals
Speaker 1: and pursue them. You mean, transcendent, transcending. Yes. Yes, when
Speaker 1: I was reading your book, I was just and by
Speaker 1: the way, I got the privilege of reading your book
Speaker 1: very early in the process, so this is I've had
Speaker 1: to keep it to my chest. I can't. I wanted
Speaker 1: to just tell everyone all about your book and how
Speaker 1: awesome it was, but that was way before. Yeah. Yes,
Speaker 1: but I was struck by a lot of things ring
Speaker 1: your book. One I already kind of mentioned that I
Speaker 1: was struck by the congruence between her thinking about authenticity
Speaker 1: and sort of psychologists and the way they are thinking
Speaker 1: about authenticity these days, especially humanistic psychologists. But that's no
Speaker 1: coincidence because humanistic psychologists really were deeply inspired by the
Speaker 1: French existentialists, including us well especially rolld. May He tried
Speaker 1: to take existentialism and put it firmly into the field
Speaker 1: of psychology, So that's no coincidence. But I was also
Speaker 1: deeply struck by this notion of transcendence and this notion
Speaker 1: of authenticity being and getting outside of yourself in some ways.
Speaker 1: To me, that's I love that. I couldn't love that more,
Speaker 1: that notion of authentic So that really struck me as well.
Speaker 1: And I think that it's not the we person's thinking
Speaker 1: of what authenticity is. When I think authenticity, they think, well,
Speaker 1: just doing whatever impulses they feel, or saying whatever they want,
Speaker 1: And that's not quite right, right, right, Well, what I
Speaker 1: would say, fine, that's existing. If we're just responding to
Speaker 1: our animal nature and our impulses, that's part of the
Speaker 1: facts of our existence. But we're not only the facts
Speaker 1: of our existence. We're also freedom, which and we exercise
Speaker 1: our freedom by transcending and by overcoming ourselves. And her
Speaker 1: vision was that she wanted everyone to be what she
Speaker 1: called a pure, transparent freedom, and meaning that she envisioned
Speaker 1: a utopian world where everybody would be able to surpass
Speaker 1: the given, surpass the facts of their existence into an
Speaker 1: open future of their choosing. And so part of authenticity,
Speaker 1: becoming authentic, is like taking on this process, because authenticity
Speaker 1: isn't like a static thing that you can achieve and
Speaker 1: then you're done. Authenticity is in the intention, it's the action,
Speaker 1: it's the behavior, it's orienting yourself in authentic ways. But
Speaker 1: also she acknowledged that, yeah, sure, there are facts of
Speaker 1: our existence that we can't overcome. We can't choose that
Speaker 1: we were born, we can't choose our parents. But what's
Speaker 1: important from an existential perspective is that we figure out
Speaker 1: like where that window of freedom is and stretch ourselves
Speaker 1: towards it and think about how we can choose our
Speaker 1: freedom and choose who we become. Wow. The trauma, loss,
Speaker 1: and uncertainty of our world have led many of us
Speaker 1: to ask life's biggest questions, such as who are we?
Speaker 1: What is our highest purpose? And how do we not
Speaker 1: only live through but thrive in the wake of tragedy, division,
Speaker 1: and challenge to a fundamental way of living. To help
Speaker 1: us all address these questions, process what this unique time
Speaker 1: in human history has meant for us personally and collectively
Speaker 1: an emerge whole. I've collaborated with my colleague and dear friend,
Speaker 1: doctor Jordan Feingeld, MD to bring you our forthcoming book.
Speaker 1: It's called Choose Growth, a Workbook for transcending trauma, fear,
Speaker 1: and self doubt. It's a workbook design to guide you
Speaker 1: in a journey of committing to growth and the pursuit
Speaker 1: of self actualization every day. It's chock full of research
Speaker 1: from humanistic psychology, positive psychology, developmental psychology, personality psychology, cognitive science,
Speaker 1: and neuropsychology, So lots of themes that you hear about
Speaker 1: on this podcast, and it's aimed to help us all
Speaker 1: integrate the many facets of ourselves and co crete our
Speaker 1: new normal with a renewed sense of strength, vitality, and hope.
Speaker 1: Whether you're healing from loss, adapting to the new normal,
Speaker 1: or simply looking ahead to life's next chapter, Choose Growth
Speaker 1: will help steer you there too, deeper connection to your values,
Speaker 1: your life vision, and ultimately your most authentic self. Choose
Speaker 1: Growth will officially hit the shelf September thirteenth, and you
Speaker 1: can pre order your copy or the audiobook in the
Speaker 1: US now on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Indie Bound, and
Speaker 1: all major retailers. If you're in the UK and Commonwealth,
Speaker 1: you can pre order now at bookshop dot org dot UK.
Speaker 1: We truly hope this book helps you grow and thrive
Speaker 1: and become your best self. Okay, now back to the show.
Speaker 1: So it's almost like authenticity is living up to our
Speaker 1: ideals of who we want to be. Well, that's one
Speaker 1: way to put it, and I think ideal Okay, So
Speaker 1: that's kind of a term. You know, there is a
Speaker 1: problem with setting up an ideal of ourself and subordinating
Speaker 1: ourself to it and treating it like this ideal self
Speaker 1: as a god that we have to obey. So, but
Speaker 1: what she was saying is that we need to let's
Speaker 1: set up goals of our choosing and strive towards them
Speaker 1: while acknowledging our evolving and acknowledging that failure is a
Speaker 1: fact of life and that there are no mistakes that
Speaker 1: we can't move beyond and keep transcending toward towards those goals.
Speaker 1: It doesn't even have to be an ideal self. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I just meant our values, our ideals. Yeah. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: how I kind of conceptualized values in a way. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I know that's how that. Thanks you, Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for that clarification. So the idea of the vital
Speaker 1: thing they're being creating ourselves, well, obviously I love that
Speaker 1: as a creativity researcher, and this idea of creative rebellion,
Speaker 1: I mean, what a great phrase. Are there that many
Speaker 1: phrases in the life that are better than that one? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I like it too. I like it too. Be rebellion
Speaker 1: and yeah, I mean rebellion was really implicit in in
Speaker 1: Beauvoirre's idea of authenticity because I mean, ideally, it wouldn't
Speaker 1: be Ideally we would be all pure, transparent, freedoms, able
Speaker 1: to stretch ourselves, you know, in ways that we choose
Speaker 1: in the world, and other people would be obstacles, but
Speaker 1: you know, they wouldn't be oppressors. And because of course,
Speaker 1: as we kind of go about our activities, we're always
Speaker 1: bumping up against other people who are trying to do
Speaker 1: their thing too. But you know, as Beavoire says, as
Speaker 1: long as oppression exists, we're going to need to rebel
Speaker 1: against it. We're going to need to push back because
Speaker 1: you know, we can't truly be authentic until everyone can
Speaker 1: be authentic. We can't truly be free until everybody is
Speaker 1: free because we coexist with others. And if we were
Speaker 1: trying to be free and authentic and you know, amidst
Speaker 1: exploitation and oppression, then that's that's a problem because our
Speaker 1: authenticity comes at the expense of other people's authenticity. And
Speaker 1: this is why she is also quite different to a
Speaker 1: lot of the other existentialists, because she focused on this
Speaker 1: dimension of ethics and really tried to find it. I mean,
Speaker 1: you've probably heard of Dostoyevski saying if God is dead,
Speaker 1: then anything is permitted. I mean, she really tried to
Speaker 1: push back against against that and saying, well, no, not
Speaker 1: that it doesn't mean that this is how she founded
Speaker 1: her ethics in our relationships with other people. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: so interesting. You know a lot of people associate the
Speaker 1: right with the idea of taking responsibility, you know, and
Speaker 1: a big part of her message is, you know, we
Speaker 1: act by taking responsibility for who we become. And she
Speaker 1: also deeply, deeply cares about what a lot of the
Speaker 1: left cares about, which is vulnerable populations and oppression. So
Speaker 1: I love like not thinking about life in either or terms,
Speaker 1: And I really love the idea that we can really
Speaker 1: extol the merits of taking responsibility for existence while also
Speaker 1: really caring for those who are legitimately oppressed, you know,
Speaker 1: in our society through lots of system wide things that
Speaker 1: we have set up. And so I just love that nuance.
Speaker 1: It's not one or the or the other. And I
Speaker 1: just feel like in our political disco these days, it's
Speaker 1: like just everyone takes a polarize aside. Either you're like,
Speaker 1: oh I care about responsibility, or you're like everyone's helpless
Speaker 1: and we just need to take care of them. And
Speaker 1: I don't know, I just think there's a middle ground here,
Speaker 1: and it was. It's so it's so refreshing to kind
Speaker 1: of see that middle ground in her philosophy. Does that
Speaker 1: make sense at all? I agree, I found it refreshing too. Initially,
Speaker 1: when before started writing The Second Sex, she she kind
Speaker 1: of said she wasn't really concerned about oppression so much,
Speaker 1: she wasn't concerned about political issues so much. But then,
Speaker 1: you know, we had World War two and then and
Speaker 1: she also started thinking about about her privilege. And when
Speaker 1: she started writing The Second Sex and thinking about women's
Speaker 1: situation and realized that, you know, she wasn't wealthy, her
Speaker 1: family wasn't wealthy. She had to go and get a
Speaker 1: job because she didn't have a dowry, and so but
Speaker 1: she realized, I mean, she was smart and she was
Speaker 1: able to get a great eduction, and she recognized that
Speaker 1: that privilege and used her her privilege and her fame
Speaker 1: in order to support other women and to fight against oppression.
Speaker 1: And she was one of the key instigators of it
Speaker 1: was called the Manifesto of the Three four Three, which
Speaker 1: was a petition signed by three hundred and forty three
Speaker 1: women who had claimed to have an abortion, and that
Speaker 1: was sort of part of the process of legalizing abortion
Speaker 1: and allowing greater access to contraception in the nineteen seventies
Speaker 1: in France. Wonderful, What would you say was one of
Speaker 1: her biggest weaknesses if you had, you know, to say,
Speaker 1: because no one's perfect, right, so if you gave her
Speaker 1: a full balanced review, what would you say is one
Speaker 1: thing that maybe she even struggled with in her life. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I mean she struggled with a lot of things, you know.
Speaker 1: One of the things that frustrates me was Okay, So
Speaker 1: she was in this relationship with John Paulsatre. It was
Speaker 1: a lifelong relaylationship, and she prioritized that relationship above all others,
Speaker 1: and that had a lot of ramifications for other people.
Speaker 1: And other people were very because they had an open relationship, right, so,
Speaker 1: and other people, you know, were very hurt. And she
Speaker 1: had this agreement with Sartre to that they would be
Speaker 1: primary lovers and would allow themselves contingent lovers, and so
Speaker 1: that was all fine and well for them, but it
Speaker 1: was extremely hurtful for these contingent lovers. And one of
Speaker 1: them committed suicide, and you know, so you know, it
Speaker 1: had really serious implications. And I mean, to her credit,
Speaker 1: she did recognize this later in her life and sort
Speaker 1: of said, you know, I think it's our fault and
Speaker 1: said that she may have been a little overly obsessed
Speaker 1: with freedom, especially when it came to other people. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's my greatest heartache, I think when it
Speaker 1: comes to her, because it seems also in contradiction with
Speaker 1: her philosophy, which is about being loving and compassionate and
Speaker 1: respectful of other people. Yeah. Yeah, well, I appreciate you
Speaker 1: you pointing that out. You know, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: tensions of being human in a lot of ways you're saying.
Speaker 1: You're saying she had human conflicts, and this is an
Speaker 1: interesting sort of attention at tension between how we create ourselves,
Speaker 1: how other people influence, how we create ourselves, how we
Speaker 1: influence other people creating themselves, and how we might collectively
Speaker 1: recreate the world to orient ourselves towards authenticity. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's not easy being human? Can we can we admit that? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's not at all easy and becoming authentic, it's
Speaker 1: it's challenging, but it's also incredibly rewarding and exhilarating. It's
Speaker 1: part of being human. And she said she's not saying
Speaker 1: that happiness will definitely come from authenticity, but orienting herself
Speaker 1: in authentic ways, you know, happiness tends to be a
Speaker 1: side effect of that. And the other thing is that,
Speaker 1: you know, not transcending, not stretching ourselves in authentic ways
Speaker 1: is kind of like a metaphysical malnutrition, because you know, otherwise,
Speaker 1: going back to existence precedes essence. So if we're not
Speaker 1: creating our essence, then we're just existing and our essence
Speaker 1: becomes someone else's creation. And so what's important for why
Speaker 1: is to really try and become agents of our own lives.
Speaker 1: And that can be incredibly rewarding. Yeah, it's rewarding. Let's
Speaker 1: double click and why that's rewarding? Why is it potentially
Speaker 1: feel more rewarding than just enacting all your impulses non
Speaker 1: reflectively and just being kind of the whims of your
Speaker 1: desires as opposed to intentionally creating yourself. Why is that
Speaker 1: more rewarding? Yeah, this is a good question. She definitely thinks.
Speaker 1: You know, if I mean, your life is yours and
Speaker 1: it's up to you, and I think I can give
Speaker 1: an example of she wrote a story in when Things
Speaker 1: of the Spirit Come First. Well, there's a there're a
Speaker 1: collection of short stories and a male character in there.
Speaker 1: His name's Dennis. And yeah, he is just at the
Speaker 1: whim of his impulses. He's just going with the flow.
Speaker 1: He believes that nothing really matters, and that he makes
Speaker 1: promises but they mean nothing to him. And he's a
Speaker 1: very nihilistic character. And I mean he's not happy. He's
Speaker 1: not finding life to be rewarding. He's just just at
Speaker 1: the whim of serendipity, or not even serendipity, just at
Speaker 1: the whim of whatever comes his way. And so he's
Speaker 1: not happy. And he also creates a lot of chaos
Speaker 1: around him and creates a lot of heartache. You know,
Speaker 1: he is awful to his wife and runs off with
Speaker 1: his wife's sister and breaks her heart. And authenticity from
Speaker 1: Bova's perspective, is about acknowledging our situation and acknowledging that
Speaker 1: we do have freedom, or not only that we have freedom,
Speaker 1: that we are freedom and you know, not free to
Speaker 1: do anything, as I said before, and acknowledging that we
Speaker 1: have a responsibility, because freedom without responsibility is meaningless, it
Speaker 1: just evolves into hedonism or nihilism or it's something else.
Speaker 1: But existential philosophy is very much about accepting responsibility for
Speaker 1: our actions and for the world we're creating around us,
Speaker 1: and acknowledging our coexistence with other people. You mentioned in
Speaker 1: your book how a lot of people confuse power and freedom,
Speaker 1: and I'd love for you to unpack that all more
Speaker 1: because that really, when I got to that sentence in
Speaker 1: your book, I was like, Oh, I really I want
Speaker 1: sky to unpack that more. Yeah. Sure. So, I mean
Speaker 1: when we talk about freedom from an existential sense, and actually,
Speaker 1: you know, from a psychological sense too. You know, Eric
Speaker 1: from talked about this. You know, freedom gets gets thrown
Speaker 1: around a lot. But you know, when we're talking about freedom,
Speaker 1: there's there's at least two dimensions of the term. There's
Speaker 1: freedom from which is what we mean by liberty, you know,
Speaker 1: freedom from oppression. But there's also the dimension of freedom too,
Speaker 1: which is about power. It's about our actions, you know,
Speaker 1: what are we free to do? So, you know, power
Speaker 1: is a certain kind of aspect of freedom. So we
Speaker 1: might be free from oppression, but if unless we're you know,
Speaker 1: free to act on our on our choices, then that
Speaker 1: sort of freedom becomes meaningless. So you know, we might
Speaker 1: be free to fly, but unless we have you know,
Speaker 1: the power to fly, unless we have wings, or unless
Speaker 1: we can get on an aeroplane, then then that freedom
Speaker 1: does That makes sense, And this is particularly relevant, and
Speaker 1: I think it's actually also a Diggots. Jean Paul Satra,
Speaker 1: who is her lifelong partner that you know, he says
Speaker 1: things like, oh, we're never so free as when we're
Speaker 1: in chains. And Bouva's point was like, okay, fine, fine,
Speaker 1: you're free to think as you choose, and sure, that's important,
Speaker 1: but what's even more important is to be free to
Speaker 1: transcend those chains and to be free to make choices
Speaker 1: about your life, which you can't do if you're in chains.
Speaker 1: So she sort of takes it, takes it one step further.
Speaker 1: And that's also where the rebellion element of her philosophy
Speaker 1: comes in. It must have had so many interesting debates
Speaker 1: and discussions and disagreements. You know, they didn't have exactly
Speaker 1: the same philosophy about the good life, so that must
Speaker 1: have been interesting, right, And that was what Bouvoir I
Speaker 1: think she said she loved most about such was that
Speaker 1: you know, he they talked about all their ideas together
Speaker 1: and she, I mean, she says, you know, he was
Speaker 1: as smart as I was, although I kind of think
Speaker 1: she was probably smart. But you know, beside the point.
Speaker 1: But the point is that, yeah, they were. They really
Speaker 1: inspired each other. They were catalytic muses for one another,
Speaker 1: and they read all one of another's work and gave
Speaker 1: feedback on it. And it was really that sort of
Speaker 1: intellectual friendship that you know Bouvoir loves so much. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it was such an interesting relationship. And I'm so glad
Speaker 1: you wrote your book the book you did, because I
Speaker 1: think Jean Paul gets more written about him, and Simone
Speaker 1: has written about her, and you know, in terms of
Speaker 1: biographies and stuff. You know, she used to say, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not the philosopher. You know, Jean Paul Sartre is
Speaker 1: the philosopher. I'm I'm just a novelist. I write essays,
Speaker 1: and which is you know, one of the big mysteries
Speaker 1: about Bauvoir, and you know, one of the theories is
Speaker 1: that well she I mean think about it. Back in
Speaker 1: the nineteen thirties and forties, the Sorbonne Philosophy Department you know,
Speaker 1: there were you know, people who were you know, kind
Speaker 1: of career philosophers, and you know, she didn't see herself
Speaker 1: as kind of part of that system of wanting to
Speaker 1: you know, philosophize academically or you know, she didn't care
Speaker 1: about writing journal articles. She cared about philosophy and its
Speaker 1: application to everyday life. And even in she was even
Speaker 1: thinking about this way before she met Jump Pulsart, you know,
Speaker 1: in her student diary she said, my philosophy must be
Speaker 1: from life. So she was thinking about you know, she'd
Speaker 1: already studied Hegel and Can't and people like that, and
Speaker 1: she was like, you know, I don't want to do
Speaker 1: abstract armchair philosophizing like them. I want to know, you know,
Speaker 1: how philosophy can can help me live my life in
Speaker 1: ritual ways. Yes, yes, and a little more about you, skuy,
Speaker 1: I should have done that in that of started out
Speaker 1: out the whole episode with this, because your whole body
Speaker 1: of work in philosophy is broader than just focusing on simone, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, you've you've done books like How to Live
Speaker 1: a Good Life, You've done a lot on female leadership,
Speaker 1: you know, and uh yeah, like so tell people about
Speaker 1: how awesome you are, thanks Scott. Yeah, so well, yes,
Speaker 1: you're right. I co edited How to Live a Good
Speaker 1: Life with some friends and that was a collection of
Speaker 1: essays like looking at different different philosophies of life. My
Speaker 1: first book was called Existentialism and Romantic Love, which came
Speaker 1: out of my my PhD. And yeah, I teach at
Speaker 1: Columbia University and I have had taught I did teach
Speaker 1: it at Barnard College, but I finished up there now
Speaker 1: and I teach at the City College of New York
Speaker 1: as well. And one of my favorite subjects out there
Speaker 1: is the philosophy of love and sex. Yeah, that's to
Speaker 1: such a fascinating topic. Maybe we can get you back
Speaker 1: on the podcast someday just to discuss that. One returning
Speaker 1: to this notion of authenticity and the idea that the
Speaker 1: kind of authenticity that someone was talking about is intertwined
Speaker 1: with intersubjectivity, can you unpack a little bit what that
Speaker 1: word means in this context intersubjectivity. So intersubjectivity is the
Speaker 1: foundation of ethical relations but between people, and really what
Speaker 1: it means is mutual respect for one another's freedom and facticity.
Speaker 1: And it's acknowledging that I'm a subject, You're an object,
Speaker 1: but also you're You're a subject to you, and I'm
Speaker 1: an object to you, to you, And but really what
Speaker 1: it means is acknowledging that other people's lives are as
Speaker 1: rich and deep as our own, that pain and suffering
Speaker 1: is as real as my own as well. And this
Speaker 1: is where she gets to friendship. And she's like, why
Speaker 1: why is our world based on you know, domination and
Speaker 1: you know power, And why why aren't human relationships based
Speaker 1: on freedom and into subjectivity? Was the key to that
Speaker 1: if we can acknowledge other people's situations, that other people
Speaker 1: have their own goals and desires, and that can be
Speaker 1: a relationship, even if we don't call people friends. But
Speaker 1: that sort of friendly relationship is the path forward to
Speaker 1: a better world. Wow, I wish I wish she was
Speaker 1: here today to weigh in on some of this. But
Speaker 1: we have you, We have you in this generation. The
Speaker 1: idea of authenticity, it raises the question what is inauthenticity?
Speaker 1: I was wondering your thoughts on whether you think social
Speaker 1: media is making us inauthentic by the by the kind
Speaker 1: of definition that Simone had, because it certainly seems so
Speaker 1: to me. I think so too, and just to put
Speaker 1: it in content, I mean, back in Beuva's time, you know,
Speaker 1: there was no social media, but there were you know,
Speaker 1: she started up a journal and so there were plenty
Speaker 1: of magazines, you know. And Beauvoir talked about narcissism as
Speaker 1: you know, a manifestation of bad faith. And often we
Speaker 1: think about narcissism as someone's feeling worthless and they're seeking validation.
Speaker 1: But Bauvoir saw narcissism as an existential response, as an
Speaker 1: escape from facing up to our lives and facing up
Speaker 1: to the reality of our lives, and an escape from
Speaker 1: creating our own values and seeking worth for ourself. And
Speaker 1: you know, she talks about how narcissism is, you know,
Speaker 1: kind of I mentioned this before, you know, setting up
Speaker 1: an ideal image of yourself and pretending that you know,
Speaker 1: think about Instagram profiles or whatever, you the setting up
Speaker 1: these cohesive, kind of static images of ourselves and making
Speaker 1: that kind of image like that mask, you know, a
Speaker 1: central meaning in our life. And I mean the problem
Speaker 1: with that is that it's not only misrepresenting ourselves to
Speaker 1: other people, but it's also risking alienation when we become
Speaker 1: so obsessed with our worth being defined by other people
Speaker 1: and forget that where you know, we're complex, fragmented beings.
Speaker 1: And so for Beauvoir, this kind of narcissism is a
Speaker 1: crisis of character and it sucks meaning out of our lives.
Speaker 1: And although there wasn't social media in Bouvoir's time, she
Speaker 1: often saw it in She had a lot of friends
Speaker 1: who were actors and actresses who were kind of seeking
Speaker 1: this validation on the stage, and she was very critical
Speaker 1: of that, and she saw it was very superficial. Not
Speaker 1: not all actors are narcissistic, but what she saw is
Speaker 1: that when people aren't creating themselves through their art form
Speaker 1: and treating their vocation of acting as a true art
Speaker 1: form and rather than just doing it for the fame,
Speaker 1: that's when it becomes really problematic. So, well, how do
Speaker 1: you overcome that? You know? But while we was suggesting
Speaker 1: that try and release ourselves from being so dependent on
Speaker 1: other people for our worth and value. And certainly we
Speaker 1: need other people in our lives. You know, other people
Speaker 1: are important in that they reflect aspects of our being
Speaker 1: back to us, and we can learn about ourselves in
Speaker 1: and through other people. But she sort of thought, let's
Speaker 1: try and release ourselves from creating the static image of
Speaker 1: ourselves and hold ourselves in question. Yes, yes, a thought
Speaker 1: enter in my head that I was like, oh, that'd
Speaker 1: make a good tweet, and that's that. Yes, it's true.
Speaker 1: Not all actors are narcissists, but all narcissists are actors.
Speaker 1: What do you think of that or do you think
Speaker 1: of that from axential philosophy perspective? Yeah, I mean, I
Speaker 1: guess maybe actors in the broader sense of the term. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean that's part of what narcissism is, you know,
Speaker 1: putting on this mask for other hiding ourselves, misrepresenting ourselves. Yeah,
Speaker 1: highly misrepresenting themselves. Yeah. I love I love all this
Speaker 1: and I really I really resonated with this philosophy, this
Speaker 1: idea of the role of genes, though, and what we
Speaker 1: know about behavioral genetics, modern behable genetics. I wonder what
Speaker 1: she would say about creating yourself because we can't complete,
Speaker 1: we can't create ourselves out of whole cloth, I guess
Speaker 1: is what I would say. And I don't think I
Speaker 1: don't think she would say that either, right, Like, surely
Speaker 1: biological constraints, Yeah, absolutely, I mean that our genes would
Speaker 1: be what Bouvoirs calls part of our facticity, the facts
Speaker 1: of our lives. But what she was most concerned with was, Okay,
Speaker 1: we're not only the facts of our lives, where we're
Speaker 1: a lot more than that. And so she's like, where's that?
Speaker 1: What's that window of freedom? And even neuroscientists are finding
Speaker 1: that we do seem to have some you know, we
Speaker 1: are able to say, control our impulses and you know,
Speaker 1: there are windows of freedom that we can work with.
Speaker 1: So yeah, there's been a lot of development in neuroscience.
Speaker 1: But I think what we're finding is, okay, more about
Speaker 1: what constitutes the facts of our lives, and that's really important,
Speaker 1: so we can be more lucid about what sort of
Speaker 1: freedom we do have and where we can choose. And
Speaker 1: you talk about how all that is relevant to the
Speaker 1: various ages of life and different kinds of relationships. You
Speaker 1: cover our formative years, our friendships, our romantic love, our marriage, motherhood,
Speaker 1: not fatherhood, motherhood, aging and death. Why do you focus
Speaker 1: only on motherhood there by the way, Well, I do
Speaker 1: focus a little bit on parenthood and the role of fathers,
Speaker 1: and I think I okay, partly because okay, Bouvoir herself
Speaker 1: was focusing on women's situation, and in the second sex,
Speaker 1: you know, she talks about about the mother, and also
Speaker 1: because I'm a mother myself, and that's an experience I
Speaker 1: can speak to. And you know, I do talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about about my partner who is a father,
Speaker 1: and you know a little bit about his experience. And
Speaker 1: you know, that's that's a good criticism of bouvoirs that
Speaker 1: she she did focus on women. But you know, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure how far that criticism can go, because you know,
Speaker 1: she was a woman and she was speaking from her
Speaker 1: experience and looking at other people's experience, and you know,
Speaker 1: you can't write about everything, kind of like the all
Speaker 1: lives matter argument. Yeah, And because this book is a
Speaker 1: combination of philosophy and also Bouhoa's biography and my own experience,
Speaker 1: the emphasis is on motherhood. But also, you know, I
Speaker 1: have tried to acknowledge, you know, the fatherhood perspective or
Speaker 1: you know, there's a philosopher, her name's I think it's
Speaker 1: Naomi Statelen who says that, you know, anyone who takes
Speaker 1: care of a child is really, you know, taking on
Speaker 1: the role of a mother. So I don't know if
Speaker 1: I agree with that or you agree with that, but yeah,
Speaker 1: focusing on caregiving. Yeah, that's so interesting. You cover all
Speaker 1: these different stages of fulfillment, and I'm trying to understand
Speaker 1: as well how you could septualize fulfillment, because i want
Speaker 1: to see how that could be similar different than how
Speaker 1: psychologists think about fulfillment. You know, for the existential philosophers,
Speaker 1: including Bouvoir. You know, it's not as if fulfillment is
Speaker 1: a point that can be achieved. It's like it's a
Speaker 1: receding goal, or maybe fulfillment only comes at the moment
Speaker 1: of death, when there is no more becoming. When that's
Speaker 1: you know, our life at least on this earth is finished.
Speaker 1: It it's fulfilled. But authenticity is a process of orienting
Speaker 1: ourselves toward that. I mean, I'm using fulfillment in kind
Speaker 1: of the broader sense of the term, not in terms
Speaker 1: of the notion that where like this empty vessel and
Speaker 1: we need to fulfill it with oh no, a partner,
Speaker 1: maybe a kid, maybe some friends and you know, some
Speaker 1: you know, a house and you know. So it's not
Speaker 1: like where we're these empty vessels that can be filled
Speaker 1: and suddenly will be happy. Rather, it's an orientation towards death,
Speaker 1: and in fact, I'm getting towards Heidiger's notion that we're
Speaker 1: being towards death. But Beauvoir said, no, for sure, death
Speaker 1: forms this kind of natural limitation of our lives. But
Speaker 1: the authentic project is being towards life. So yeah, it's
Speaker 1: thinking about how can how can we live? How can
Speaker 1: we live fully and embrace all of life, all that
Speaker 1: life has to offer us? Yes, I imagine writing this
Speaker 1: book for you was an important step on your quest
Speaker 1: for fulfillment. Yeah, well I think so. Yes. It had
Speaker 1: a lot of I mean I had a lot of questions,
Speaker 1: and no, I still have questions. But I think that
Speaker 1: it helped me to understand the notion of authenticity better,
Speaker 1: and it gave me a framework and a language to
Speaker 1: reflect on the choices I'm making and how I'm creating myself.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, I hope you feel good about it.
Speaker 1: I hope you feel proud. Now he's ring and berk,
Speaker 1: but it's so listening to this episode, are inspired to
Speaker 1: go out and buy It's called How to Be Authentic?
Speaker 1: Simon bar and the Quest for Fulfillment, existentialism and romantic
Speaker 1: love and honored you came on The Psychology Podcast and
Speaker 1: I wish you all the best with the rest of
Speaker 1: your book tour. Thank you so much, Scott, Thanks for
Speaker 1: having me. It was lovely to chat with you. Likewise,
Speaker 1: thanks for listening to this episode of The Psychology Podcast.
Speaker 1: If you'd like to react in some way to something
Speaker 1: you heard, I encourage you to join in the discussion
Speaker 1: at thus psychology podcast dot com. We're on our YouTube page,
Speaker 1: The Psychology Podcast. We also put up some videos of
Speaker 1: some episodes on our YouTube page as well, so you'll
Speaker 1: want to check that out. Thanks for being such a
Speaker 1: great supporter of the show, and tune in next time
Speaker 1: for more on the mind, brain, behavior, and creativity.