当代强调个体真实性和独特性的本真性文化的兴起反映了社会文化格局的深刻变革，激发了哲学、道德、社会学、文化和心理学等领域的研究兴趣，我们所处的时代也因此被称为本真时代。本真性观念与自我紧密相关，指的是自我真实性和自我独特性，这一观念已经深刻地渗透到对现代性的理解之中。面对现代性的批判者和拥护者，泰勒转向本真性理想，试图通过捍卫这一理想来重思现代性，即我们需要的不是对现代性标准理解的修正，而是揭示被曲解的有关自我和道德的理念。由此，泰勒对本真性进行了一种解释学的重构，强调本真性在现代社会中作为一种有效的道德理想的重要性。

本文以泰勒的本真性理想为研究主体，探讨了三个核心问题：首先，本真性理想何以会被误识；其次，本真性如何成为道德理想；最后，本真性理想支撑了怎样的政治实践。本文在纵向上考察了本真性如何成为一种道德理想，同时也与以往本真性理论进行了横向比较。通过批判分析泰勒对本真性的解释学重构，展现了一幅集自我发现与自我创造、个性与社会性、主动性与受动性、现代与传统于一身的独特的道德理想图景。

泰勒通过关注现代性隐忧来揭示现代性中确实存在一种自然主义的表达和描述的方式，这种方式为一种被称为“分离性”的视角提供了支持。这种视角强调个体与自然和社会的分离，推崇个体的自足性和独立性，导致了对自我和道德的曲解。同时，本文考察了本真性发展所呈现出的两种主要模式：表现主义模式和创造论模式，这两种模式代表了本真性理念演进的两个方向。然而，这两种模式都有陷入个人主义和自恋主义的可能性。本真性的这两种模式与自然主义也有所关联，这种关联将本真性理念引入了各种形态的“主观主义”困境。此两方面共同解答了“本真性理想何以会被误识”的问题。

为了应对这一困境，泰勒以一种解释学的方式，辅之以承认理论来重构本真性理想，力图恢复本真性的价值维度、自我解释维度以及主体间性维度。这三重维度需要诉诸本真性的三个构成性条件：意义框架、自我解释与语言，这三者之间相辅相成，互相支撑。首先，意义框架是使本真性拥有意义和价值的背景。泰勒给予了意义框架基础性的地位，并肯定了其无可逃避特性，也即先验性，体现在“处身能动性”和“道德实在性”之中。通过这两个方面，泰勒强调自我处身于道德框架中，自我本真性并非优先于道德，它是对道德经验一种独特真实表达。这就涉及到了第二个条件，自我解释。泰勒给予自我解释核心的地位，肯定了自我解释是建构本真性的本质特征。泰勒力证，自我解释勾连了本真性与强评价或“超善”（强评价的来源），本真性依赖于自我解释感知了“超善”，以确定自身在道德框架的定位，并通过实践理性来不断缩小与善的距离。自我解释肯定了本真性是对善的道德反思。自我解释是一种语言行为，可以说，泰勒解释学重构的焦点在于语言，语言是本真性的建构和实现方式。通过对“更微妙的语言”的探讨，泰勒强调语言具有表达-构成性能力，这种能力把语言、意义（强评价）以及本真性关联起来。语言创造意义，构建了意义框架，表现了强评价的客观实在性，创建了人际关系，以此来塑造和构成本真性。并且通过语言的叙事能力，展现本真性的连贯性与创造性。可以说，泰勒的本真性是语言构成性本真性模式。这种模式克服了相对主义和主观主义的困境，具有价值、自我解释和主体间性三重维度。此章回答了“本真性如何成为有效的道德理想”。

本真性不仅仅是道德概念，还包含社会层面的元素。承认理论被泰勒视为是实现个体本真性的关键要素，是本真性理念的社会化和规范化体现。承认的政治展现了本真性理想的政治哲学实践面向，反过来又对其加以支持和维护。本真性的实现是一种与他人进行持续对话和争论的过程，它在关系中逐渐成型。在私人层面，爱的承认提供了选择或判断的参照物，界定了我们与他者共享的价值观、标准，可以说，意义框架是与他者对话活动中意义交换的沉淀。在社会层面，他人的承认涉及到群体和社会，得不到他人的承认于社会的稳定、群体的认同都有所损害，因而，承认的政治将平等的承认与差异承认相结合，本真性理想是社会政治领域的伦理根基。此一章回答了“本真性理想支撑了怎样的政治实践”。

至此，泰勒用一种解释学的方式重构本真性，决定了他在伦理政治问题上的整体个人主义立场，这一立场调和了本真性所内含的自由主义与共同体主义的不同理念。经过泰勒的重构，原本因自然主义侵蚀而模糊和饱受争议的本真性理想图景得以明晰化，重新彰显了其固有的价值。这一理想指引了我们在现代社会的道德和政治实践。本真性理想是自我认同重建的关键，实现本真性的过程，也是克服自我认同危机的过程。不仅如此，它还是处境化自由的伦理基础。建立在一种原子论的权力基础上的自由是一种绝对、形式的自由，基于本真性理想的自由是处境化、实质化的自由。与此同时，本真性理想力图调和多元事实，为多元文化主义开辟新篇章。但泰勒的本真性理想仍受到一定的挑战，包括本真性被预设为美德的质疑以及本真性的规范性质疑。

The rise of the contemporary culture of authenticity, which emphasizes individual authenticity and uniqueness, reflects a profound change in the sociocultural landscape and has stimulated a wide range of research interests in the fields of philosophy, ethics, sociology, culture, and psychology, which has led to the name of the Age of Authenticity for the era in which we live. Authenticity is closely related to the idea of the self, referring to self-authenticity and self-uniqueness, a notion that has deeply permeated the understanding of modernity. In the face of modernity's critics and advocates, Taylor turns to the ideal of authenticity in an attempt to rethink modernity by defending this ideal; namely, what is needed is not a revision of the standard understanding of modernity but a revelation of misinterpreted ideas about the self and morality. In doing so, Taylor offers a hermeneutical reconstruction of authenticity that emphasizes the importance of authenticity as a valid moral ideal in modern society.

Taking Taylor's ideal of authenticity as the main body of research, this paper explores three central questions: first, how people misrecognized the ideal of authenticity; second, how authenticity can become a moral ideal; and finally, what kind of political practices are underpinned by the ideal of authenticity. This paper examines how authenticity becomes a moral ideal vertically and compares it horizontally with previous theories of authenticity. Critically analyzing Taylor's hermeneutical reconstruction of authenticity presents a unique picture of a moral ideal that combines self-discovery and self-creation, individuality and sociality, initiative and passivity, modernity and tradition.

By focusing on the pitfalls of modernity, Taylor reveals that there is indeed a naturalistic way of expressing and describing modernity that lends support to a perspective known as 'separateness.' This perspective emphasizes the separation of the individual from nature and society and promotes individual self-sufficiency and independence, leading to a misinterpretation of self and morality. At the same time, the paper examines two significant models of the development of authenticity: the expressionist model and the creationist model, which represent two directions in the evolution of the idea of authenticity. However, both models have the potential to fall into individualism and narcissism. These two models of authenticity are also associated with naturalism, which leads the idea of authenticity into various forms of "subjectivist" dilemmas. Together, these two aspects answer the question of "how people misrecognize the ideal of authenticity. "

In order to cope with this dilemma, Taylor reconstructs the ideal picture of authenticity in a hermeneutical way, supplemented by the theory of recognition, which seeks to restore the value dimension, the self-interpretation dimension, and the intersubjectivity dimension of authenticity. This triple dimension requires recourse to the three constitutive conditions of authenticity, the frame of meaning, self-interpretation, and language, which are complementary and mutually supportive. First, the frame of meaning is the context that gives meaning and value to authenticity. Taylor gives a foundational status to the frame of meaning and affirms its inescapable character, namely, its a priori character, embodied in "situated agency" and "moral positivity." Through these two aspects, Taylor emphasizes that the self is situated within a moral framework and that the self's authenticity is not prioritized over morality but is a uniquely authentic expression of moral experience, which brings us to the second condition, self-interpretation. By giving self-interpretation a central place, Taylor affirms that self-interpretation is an essential feature of the construction of authenticity. Taylor argues that self-interpretation connects authenticity with the strong evaluation or "super-good" (the source of strong evaluation) and that authenticity relies on self-interpretation to perceive the "super-good" in order to position itself within the moral framework and to close the distance to the good through practical reason continually. Self-interpretation affirms authenticity as a moral reflection of the Good. Self-interpretation is an act of language, and Taylor's hermeneutical reconstruction focuses on language, which is the way of constructing and realizing authenticity. By exploring the "subtler language," Taylor emphasizes the expressive-constitutive capacity of language, which links language, meaning (strong evaluation), and authenticity. Language creates meaning, constructs frameworks of meaning, expresses the objective reality of strong evaluation and creates interpersonal relationships that shape and constitute authenticity.Moreover, through the narrative power of language, it demonstrates the coherence and creativity of authenticity. Taylor's authenticity is a model of linguistic constitutive authenticity. This model overcomes the dilemma of relativism and subjectivism and has the triple dimensions of value, self-interpretation, and intersubjectivity. This chapter answers, "How is authenticity a valid moral ideal?".

Authenticity is not only a moral concept, but also contains elements of a social dimension. Recognition is seen by Taylor as a key element in the realization of an individual's authenticity, as the social and normative embodiment of the idea of authenticity, and the politics of recognition demonstrates the practical orientation of the political philosophy of the ideal of authenticity, which in turn supports and defends it. The realization of authenticity is a process of ongoing dialogue and contestation with others, which takes shape in relationship. At the private level, the recognition of love provides a frame of reference for choice or judgment, defining the values, standards that we share with the Other, and it can be said that the frame of meaning is the sedimentation of the exchange of meaning in the activity of dialogue with the Other. At the social level, the recognition of the other involves the group and the society, and the lack of recognition of the other is detrimental to the stability of the society and the identity of the group. Therefore, the politics of recognition combines the recognition of equality with the recognition of difference, and it can be said that the ideal of authenticity is the ethical foundation of the socio-political sphere. This chapter answers, "What kind of political practice is supported by the ideal of authenticity?".

Thus, the reconstruction of authenticity in a hermeneutical way determines Taylor's holistic individualistic stance on ethico-political issues, a stance that reconciles the different notions of liberalism and communitarianism inherent in authenticity. As a result of Taylor's reconstruction, the picture of the ideal of authenticity, which was originally blurred and controversial due to the erosion of naturalism, is clarified, and its inherent value is reemerged, guiding our ethical and political practices in modern society. The ideal of authenticity is the key to the reconstruction of self-identity, and the process of realizing authenticity is also the process of overcoming the self-identity crisis. More than that, it is the ethical foundation of situated freedom. Freedom based on an atomistic power is an absolute, formal freedom; freedom based on the ideal of authenticity is situated, substantial freedom. At the same time, the ideal of authenticity seeks to reconcile the fact of plurality and to open a new chapter in multiculturalism. However, Taylor's ideal of authenticity is still subject to certain challenges, including questioning authenticity as presupposed as a virtue and the normative questioning of authenticity.