Authenticity - reply to previous post

That's interesting, I've been thinking a lot about authenticity again lately. I understand the problems philosophers like Blanchot, Levinas and Derrida have with this notion, and I agree with them to an extent. After all, we can't assume that there's some unified 'self' to Dasein, hidden under the veil of the they-self, and which offers Dasein the possibility of being present to itself. I remember that for the Heidegger essay I tried to write against the elitism that can be interpreted from this notion of authenticity after a few people on the course started saying that some people are just 'inauthentic' (in the Heideggerian sense that they're not in control of their own thoughts and decisions). How can we fight such a claim? It seems to me that the very nature of inauthenticity requires that one not be aware of his own inauthenticity. I mean, how can I ever know whether I'm inauthentic or not? No one ever thinks they're inauthentic, because to recognise oneself as inauthentic is the very moment of "breaking free" from inauthenticity and into authenticity. Yet, at the same time, it appears that in order for one to be authentic, he must be aware of his own inauthenticity. The moment he's no longer aware of a trace of inauthenticity still present in him, he can no longer know whether he's authentic or not. Therefore it seems that we have a Derridean aporia here: one must be inauthentic in order to be authentic! Authenticity is impossible without the coexistence - in the same Dasein - of inauthenticity. Perhaps we can say that inauthenticity is the impossible limit of authenticity? There can be no clear cut distinction between authenticity and inauthenticity. So perhaps there's still room for thinking about authenticity? Maybe we shouldn't discard it so disdainfully. I still do think Heidegger was on to something there, and though he may have taken it in the wrong direction it's up to us to reappropriate it. Let's give authenticity some more thought.