This was beautiful. Like Vaihinger met Agnes Callard in a post-capitalist dojo. I'm all in on the “as if” path as path, not a lie we tell ourselves to escape, but a portal we walk through knowing the exit doesn’t exist yet.
But here's the kicker. Most people think authenticity is found by excavating some buried "real self." What if it's the opposite? What if becoming is what makes the self real in the first place? In that case, acting as if isn’t faking. It’s midwifery.
Thanks for offering a frame that holds both magic and accountability. Much to chew on and embody.
Well articulated. As for the "Acting As If" ethic, this harmonizes with the "Believing Game", as described by Peter Elbow in his book "Writing Without Teachers": "I can define the believing game most easily and clearly by contrasting it with the doubting game. Indeed, the believing game derives from the doubting game. The doubting game represents the kind of thinking most widely honored and taught in our culture. It’s sometimes called “critical thinking.” It's the disciplined practice of trying to be as skeptical and analytic as possible with every idea we encounter. By trying hard to doubt ideas, we can discover hidden contradictions, bad reasoning, or other weaknesses in them--especially in the case of ideas that seem true or attractive. We are using doubting as a tool in order to scrutinize and test.
"In contrast, the believing game is the disciplined practice of trying to be as welcoming or accepting as possible to every idea we encounter: not just listening to views different from our own and holding back from arguing with them; not just trying to restate them without bias; but actually trying to believe them. We are using believing as a tool to scrutinize and test. But instead of scrutinizing fashionable or widely accepted ideas for hidden flaws, the believing game asks us to scrutinize unfashionable or even repellent ideas for hidden virtues. Often we cannot see what's good in someone else's idea (or in our own!) till we work at believing it. When an idea goes against current assumptions and beliefs--or if it seems alien, dangerous, or poorly formulated---we often cannot see any merit in it."
----------
In a similar vein: "For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe — that unless I believe, I should not understand."
— St. Anselm
Acting "as if" is the practical application of the believing game. It's going beyond a thought experiment to an action experiment.
I remember saying to my mother-in-law the first year I moved back to Thailand was that, it’s so much harder being a good person in Bangkok society. There’s a strong norm to keep social harmony and “face” at all costs as well as being extremely hierarchical (very Confucius “know where you belong”).
I also believe that majority of human beings are intrinsically good. If we live in “ideal” conditions where most of us aren’t leading life fear-based, and self reflection becomes norm, good behaviours and doing right by others would come to us naturally. Even with the existence of human dark desires, we would be sufficiently equipped to explore and “regulate” them.
Scientifically, when we do good, good hormones are released and we also feel good. In an ideal situation, good deeds for others would be acknowledged and encouraged. In one way, we already have the perfect reinforcement system to keep us “doing good”.
But in the “real” world (aka capitalistic), good behaviours (like kindness, empathy, consistency) aren’t prioritised and rewarded as much as other traits (competition, aggression, individualism). I watched the first episode of Netflix’s Mark Manson and he shared at the beginning of his own journey how he used to be completely dazzled by people with super cars and expensive brands, thinking that these people know what “success” in life means.
And that shocked me immensely. But I’m also glad that he was able to share this aspect of his journey. I was just stunned at how common it is.
But in saying all of this, I also think that when we act bad or chase the wrong things, there is this nagging feeling inside in all of us. And that’s why there’s such concept as repressed emotions. It’s always going to be there whether you choose to listen to it or not.
That’s why I’m so intrigued by emotions and feelings. We know what’s right and wrong for a very young age. Almost as if it’s imprinted on our DNA. Our moral compass is more intrinsic than we thought.
I was born in Thailand, and went to study in the UK from the ago of 10. I was living and working there for over 25 years before relocating back post-COVID.
In a way, it’s also because I’m now living in much closer proximity to my family and my husband’s family. We’ve become more “enmeshed” with family dramas by default. So the experience has been an eye opener for me to discover in my late 30s! I’m a late adopter of philosophy!
I appreciate this framing of acting-as-if not as pretense, but as a sincere attempt at transformation. It acknowledges something deeply human: that we are always becoming. That the self is not a fixed entity but a construction—shaped, yes, by our actions and interactions.
But we also have to ask: toward what end? And within what structures of meaning?
I grew up in a church that ran on performance. We called it faith, devotion, holiness. But much of it was acting-as-if—as if we weren’t angry, afraid, broken, doubting, desperate. As if our roles in the sanctuary were more real than the lives we were quietly unraveling outside of it.
The church, I’ve come to see, isn’t separate from the world—it is the world, just with layers of sanctioned performance. We call it holy not because it’s different, but because we’ve designated it as the space where holiness belongs. The tragedy is that this often exiles the sacred from daily life. The temple becomes a profanity—not because it’s irreverent, but because it contains what should have been freely lived.
And yet, from a psychoanalytic standpoint, this performance reveals something vital: our alienation from ourselves.
The church doesn’t just fail to reconcile that split; it often depends on it. It externalizes our ideals so we can worship what we’re afraid to become. It stages holiness so we don’t have to embody it. In this way, it becomes a kind of sacred screen—where sincerity may be present in the performance, but the form itself reinforces the fragmentation.
So yes, acting-as-if can be a sincere attempt to grow.
But it can also be a sincere attempt to survive a system that punishes honesty.
The distinction isn’t just psychological—it’s relational. Existential.
It’s not just whether we act with sincerity, but whether the performance is moving us closer to integration—or further into disconnection.
For me, I’m no longer interested in holiness that only exists in performance.
I’m not asking God to disappear. I’m just redefining the terms.
I want a life where acting-as-if eventually gives way to being.
Where love, faith, and presence are not role-played on a stage,
but lived in the unresolved, imperfect, sacred mess of daily life.
This was beautiful. Like Vaihinger met Agnes Callard in a post-capitalist dojo. I'm all in on the “as if” path as path, not a lie we tell ourselves to escape, but a portal we walk through knowing the exit doesn’t exist yet.
But here's the kicker. Most people think authenticity is found by excavating some buried "real self." What if it's the opposite? What if becoming is what makes the self real in the first place? In that case, acting as if isn’t faking. It’s midwifery.
Thanks for offering a frame that holds both magic and accountability. Much to chew on and embody.
Well articulated. As for the "Acting As If" ethic, this harmonizes with the "Believing Game", as described by Peter Elbow in his book "Writing Without Teachers": "I can define the believing game most easily and clearly by contrasting it with the doubting game. Indeed, the believing game derives from the doubting game. The doubting game represents the kind of thinking most widely honored and taught in our culture. It’s sometimes called “critical thinking.” It's the disciplined practice of trying to be as skeptical and analytic as possible with every idea we encounter. By trying hard to doubt ideas, we can discover hidden contradictions, bad reasoning, or other weaknesses in them--especially in the case of ideas that seem true or attractive. We are using doubting as a tool in order to scrutinize and test.
"In contrast, the believing game is the disciplined practice of trying to be as welcoming or accepting as possible to every idea we encounter: not just listening to views different from our own and holding back from arguing with them; not just trying to restate them without bias; but actually trying to believe them. We are using believing as a tool to scrutinize and test. But instead of scrutinizing fashionable or widely accepted ideas for hidden flaws, the believing game asks us to scrutinize unfashionable or even repellent ideas for hidden virtues. Often we cannot see what's good in someone else's idea (or in our own!) till we work at believing it. When an idea goes against current assumptions and beliefs--or if it seems alien, dangerous, or poorly formulated---we often cannot see any merit in it."
----------
In a similar vein: "For I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe — that unless I believe, I should not understand."
— St. Anselm
Acting "as if" is the practical application of the believing game. It's going beyond a thought experiment to an action experiment.
Thanks for that tip. I haven’t heard of Peter Elbow before and will make sure to check him out.
I remember saying to my mother-in-law the first year I moved back to Thailand was that, it’s so much harder being a good person in Bangkok society. There’s a strong norm to keep social harmony and “face” at all costs as well as being extremely hierarchical (very Confucius “know where you belong”).
I also believe that majority of human beings are intrinsically good. If we live in “ideal” conditions where most of us aren’t leading life fear-based, and self reflection becomes norm, good behaviours and doing right by others would come to us naturally. Even with the existence of human dark desires, we would be sufficiently equipped to explore and “regulate” them.
Scientifically, when we do good, good hormones are released and we also feel good. In an ideal situation, good deeds for others would be acknowledged and encouraged. In one way, we already have the perfect reinforcement system to keep us “doing good”.
But in the “real” world (aka capitalistic), good behaviours (like kindness, empathy, consistency) aren’t prioritised and rewarded as much as other traits (competition, aggression, individualism). I watched the first episode of Netflix’s Mark Manson and he shared at the beginning of his own journey how he used to be completely dazzled by people with super cars and expensive brands, thinking that these people know what “success” in life means.
And that shocked me immensely. But I’m also glad that he was able to share this aspect of his journey. I was just stunned at how common it is.
But in saying all of this, I also think that when we act bad or chase the wrong things, there is this nagging feeling inside in all of us. And that’s why there’s such concept as repressed emotions. It’s always going to be there whether you choose to listen to it or not.
That’s why I’m so intrigued by emotions and feelings. We know what’s right and wrong for a very young age. Almost as if it’s imprinted on our DNA. Our moral compass is more intrinsic than we thought.
What an interesting observation. Where did you move from?
And I agree with the sense of a strong inner moral compass…
I was born in Thailand, and went to study in the UK from the ago of 10. I was living and working there for over 25 years before relocating back post-COVID.
In a way, it’s also because I’m now living in much closer proximity to my family and my husband’s family. We’ve become more “enmeshed” with family dramas by default. So the experience has been an eye opener for me to discover in my late 30s! I’m a late adopter of philosophy!
Same :)
I appreciate this framing of acting-as-if not as pretense, but as a sincere attempt at transformation. It acknowledges something deeply human: that we are always becoming. That the self is not a fixed entity but a construction—shaped, yes, by our actions and interactions.
But we also have to ask: toward what end? And within what structures of meaning?
I grew up in a church that ran on performance. We called it faith, devotion, holiness. But much of it was acting-as-if—as if we weren’t angry, afraid, broken, doubting, desperate. As if our roles in the sanctuary were more real than the lives we were quietly unraveling outside of it.
The church, I’ve come to see, isn’t separate from the world—it is the world, just with layers of sanctioned performance. We call it holy not because it’s different, but because we’ve designated it as the space where holiness belongs. The tragedy is that this often exiles the sacred from daily life. The temple becomes a profanity—not because it’s irreverent, but because it contains what should have been freely lived.
And yet, from a psychoanalytic standpoint, this performance reveals something vital: our alienation from ourselves.
The church doesn’t just fail to reconcile that split; it often depends on it. It externalizes our ideals so we can worship what we’re afraid to become. It stages holiness so we don’t have to embody it. In this way, it becomes a kind of sacred screen—where sincerity may be present in the performance, but the form itself reinforces the fragmentation.
So yes, acting-as-if can be a sincere attempt to grow.
But it can also be a sincere attempt to survive a system that punishes honesty.
The distinction isn’t just psychological—it’s relational. Existential.
It’s not just whether we act with sincerity, but whether the performance is moving us closer to integration—or further into disconnection.
For me, I’m no longer interested in holiness that only exists in performance.
I’m not asking God to disappear. I’m just redefining the terms.
I want a life where acting-as-if eventually gives way to being.
Where love, faith, and presence are not role-played on a stage,
but lived in the unresolved, imperfect, sacred mess of daily life.
Beautiful. Yes yes yes!
Tremendous.
Thank you 🙏