The Catcher in the Rye and Philosophy

So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Holden is an “untrustworthy narrator” (like

Holden can only lie in the fiction

not J.D. Salinger either. He is just telling a story. While writers of fiction certainly make stuff up, they are not lying, strictly speaking

Indeed, his choice to be a rebellious liar might actually make Holden more authentic and, thus, more virtuous than the phonies that annoy him so much

23). But some degree of authenticity is needed for a person to become “a mature, fully developed moral agent” (p.

the self-aware liar is not acting in bad faith since he is not trying to hide from who he is

the great Existentialist philosophers Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre called inauthenticity

Phonies do not mislead about just anything. They mislead themselves and other people about who they are. They’re not being genuine

It leads to success for the phonies that reinforces the deceptive behavior, even if the phonies are not consciously aware of it

Whenever you make an assertion, you’re asking your audience to trust that what you are saying is true. Holden often makes it quite explicit that he’s offering his assurance by prefacing his remarks with, “If you want to know the truth.” And when you make an assertion that you know to be false, you are violating that trust