This was fascinating and substantive reading. There are 5 paragraphs, and paragraphs 2-5 each could have been their own article, which was exciting.

First, Jaspers’ connection of phenomenology and psychiatry. Some years back, I was in psychoanalysis with a professor emeritus at an ivy league university. It was, as you describe, driven by personal history instead of clinical textbooks. It became clear over time that much greater understanding came from the former rather than the latter. That understanding illuminated the existential experience of existence and freedom and their challenges. In turn, that illumination seemed to work as a foundation for developing authenticity, in the sense of abandoning defensive worldviews, false certainty, etc.

However, I’m not entirely clear on the definition of authenticity in your article, with Jaspers and existentialism generally. I think of it as seeing, accepting and acting upon the self and the world as it is.

In any event, Jaspers says our existence is formed by our active self-reflection. It seems more meaningful to me to say our authenticity is formed by our active self-reflection. And while I understand self-reflection benefits from dialogue with others, in the scope of this discussion, I don’t see dialogue with others as having any other existential benefit. In other words, from a selfish perspective, how could other people’s chatter form my existence?

Thank you very much for stirring so much thought!