The paradox of the mythomaniac sincerity 2020..

Francis Picabia: The open mask

The word “sincere” comes from the Latin sin cirus meaning without beeswax as referred to pure honey. Later, this word was used for a person who speaks their mind, who doesn’t fool others.

One can be sincere without telling the truth only if they are unconsciously wrong at the start. In comparison, a liar doesn’t believe their own lie, unless repeated all the time, a perversion called mythomania.

Generally speaking, orators are not sincere: they speak to provoke a certain reaction and not to communicate their thoughts. Therefore, sincerity’s requirements are mostly transparency and sometimes authenticity. For sociability causes, one tends to wear a mask for protection or for manipulation; society often tells us to be less sincere to fit in.

Are we all mythomania?

Mythomania is an abnormal or pathological tendency to exaggerate or tell lies.

If we take this classical definition, can it be adapted to our virtual social behavior on social media? Is an airbrushed photo or a well enhanced profile considered as mythomania? Let’s face it, most people won’t admit they used Photoshop for their photos, not they would admit that they lied about their profiles. Obviously, there is a worse example like identity theft. Is the thief a mythomaniac or aren’t we all?

The paradox is we have all been raised for higher moral values such as sincerity and authenticity. We all went on retouching innocently our photos and marketing ourselves on a larger identity. Maybe the question worse asking here is: are we all, not mythomaniac, but schizophrenic? What if the latters are both social disorders? Are certain types of societies the creator of those disorders, better known as psychological issues?

The easiest way to answer would be to say they are psychosocial. Let’s go further and say they are epigenetic, genetically wired by our culture to be mythomaniac. Epigenetic studies the impact of culture (social behavior and nutrition) on our genes. Would it be an option to explain collective disorders?


8 thoughts on “The paradox of the mythomaniac sincerity 2020..”

  1. Wow tough questions. Perhaps we have always had this pathological tendency to exaggerate or tell lies and its not abnormal at all. Or maybe, evolutionary speaking, we acquired this trait or it grew simultaneously once our small hunter gather groups expanded socially into clans, tribes and later nations. Learning from each other the benefits of deception?

    Since the day we’re born we are bombarded with examples of lies and exaggerations from advertising, mass media and even words spoken by our leaders. The message being — not only is this acceptable — but its how the world works. Is it any wonder we have acquired and now use this trait, unabashedly?

    One thing is for sure, the ability to hide behind our social devices today and exaggerate or even lie about who we are; has sadly brought this self-serving trait in us to the forefront. Another great thought-provoking topic maylynno! Oh! And if you deem my comments too Long? Just say so! I’m aware of this tendency and will truly not be offended.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Your comments are so interesting to me so plz don’t make them shorter!
      Thank you for your kind words. I am in this phase of contemplating the world and not understanding anything lol. I am glad you liked my post!

      Liked by 1 person

    2. I wonder about the day we were born.
      Thought experiment: What would occur if we were not bombarded with lies and exaggerations? What person would I be able to become if indeed there were no obstacles? If there were no lies but only people being sincere and authentic and honest?

      I wonder if we would not make up our own lies about the truth that was given us.

      For, was there a time before advertising, say, when we had a different model?

      I am wondering if the psyche itself is a problem making machine. That this machine functions to produce identity by the contrasts and polemics inherent to itself. That if it wasn’t oppression from the forces of nature, that is, that random element of whether crops will grow, or then from the king and aristocracy, then maybe it would be oppression of the system. Then many oppression by media.

      What would we be as people without the myths? Maybe the lies themselves, that indeed they are lies, Is another lie within a lie for the purpose of giving us a world of meaning in which I am able to understand myself. ?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You made me think a bit more:

        The question then becomes whether or not the psyche is a ubiquitous human trait, that is, in the sense that we just posed ?

        And then: Is there a manner of being which is not based in problem, but neither reifies problem by positing itself as solution?

        Then: can this state be communicated to the problematic psyche?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. …yet further: such a non-problematic being yet still coming upon the same objects, the same situations upon which problems were once viewed and acted upon as such, this other orientation upon things nevertheless might understand problem arises but without the compounded hypothetical imperative of ‘only problem or solution’.

        It might then amount to a being which exists only as or through a categorical imperative, choice then becoming merely a way to attempt to communicate or speak to the being which finds itself through the practical orientation which views objects as merely as conceptual occasions to choose as an essential or fundamental constant of all thinking humans.

        Yet, such being which exists in-itself along lines where choice is only made for the benefit of what is hypothetical or practical reason and not obtaining any action of itself through choice — we might no longer be able to call this being a subject of discourse in the phenomenological sense and still be honest.

        We might then call it a universal object which exists as a suspension of the ethical world, that ethical-universal manner of being-world which is understood through the imperative of contingency, or essential decisions of agency, which is likewise unable to ‘make real’ the being which is in-itself determined by an imperative , and thus pronounces such determined being in-itself as false or a kind of fantasy.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s