It seems you have change position somewhat since
"interpersonal freedom requires the recognition of sovererign boundaries between people." — Banno
interpersonal freedom requires the recognition of sovererign boundaries between people. — Garrett Travers
It seems you have change position somewhat since — Banno
so you expect me to show how your apparent change of opinion makes sense...? — Banno
Again, I accept the historical context of this definition. But 'state' is not restricted itself to the state that is government. I'm talking from an individual perspective. Just as the above definitions terms can be applied to the state of governance, so too can they be applied to the individual person, as in, authority over my life, rule of my life, independence from other people. That's the usage I employ. I'm wondering who these people are that restrict the usage of the word sovereignty that much, so as to skew the definition to the point where the term freedom is incompatible with it. And don't tell me to re-read Arendt, I already get that. I'm talking now, and who among us in the world. — Garrett Travers
interpersonal freedom requires the recognition of sovererign boundaries between people. — Garrett Travers
I haven't read the web site article, just glanced at it, and I'm working my way through Arendt's paper. I'm interested as to what part of the essay you think has been used dishonestly. — Janus
Since life is self-perpetuating in accordance with its genetic code, by extension the brain, provided through evolution by natural selection, that would be wise of you if you had preconceived notions that included the brain not be self-perpetuating, because that would contradict reality. It only stops when it is dead. — Garrett Travers
Where does this chemical change come from if not the brain; which is a closed system of chemcials, bound by a semi-permeable membrane that only allows passage of said exclusive, highly specific chemicals? — Garrett Travers
Got it. You cannot recall any specific instances in the text that supports your claim of Plato's intention.
Seeing as how my challenge is pointless, I will not darken your door again. May the road rise up gently to meet you. — Paine
You are allowed to change your mind. Indeed, it is a good thing. — Banno
Garrett, my brain is not your brain. And both of our brains have come into existence and will pass out of existence. "The brain" is not self-perpetuating. — Metaphysician Undercover
Where did you learn biology? There is a constant flow of blood into and out of the brain. By no stretch of the imagination is it a "closed system of chemicals". Have you ever had an alcoholic beverage? I mean no offence to the children amongst us, but your argumentation appears like you have not yet obtained to the drinking age. — Metaphysician Undercover
t only stops when it is dead, never before. Yes, it is self-perpetuating. Read what I am saying to you. — Garrett Travers
The brain, through natural processes, only allows in what it allows in. I recommend you do some research on this. Alcohol is passed through the blood stream, which is what the brain allows to pass. You placing alcohol in that system, by using the system as it's designed, changes nothing about the nature of the system itself. Again, what chemical process happens in the brain are you referring to? qualify your original assertion you made. And keep your goddamn insults to yourself. If you can't generate an argument without them, you've no place presenting one. — Garrett Travers
That's... not what I read.The word sovereignty covers both the state perspective of the word, which Arendt accurately criticized, and the individual perspective, which she did not make room for in her assessment of freedom. — Garrett Travers
Self-perpetuating is to continue in existence indefinitely. If it dies it is not self-perpetuating. — Metaphysician Undercover
Obviously it's not a closed system. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, that's not what it means. Here's the definition: the continuation of something by itself without external agency or intervention. Now stop being stupid. — Garrett Travers
That's... not what I read. — Banno
So you think the Arendt article is solely about politics? Why? As in, what about the article led you to restrict it in that way? — Banno
Now you seem to be catching on. Each depends on the other, so we cannot say that one controls the other. If the brain existed first, and created the heart to serve its purposes, then we might be able to say that the brain controls the heart. But that's not the case. So we cannot truthfully say that. — Metaphysician Undercover
And we haven't even gotten to the issue you intentionally avoided, the relation between the brain and the senses. — Metaphysician Undercover
But, do we not know enough about the laws of nature to conclude that the world is naturalistically determined? — Garrett Travers
I would say that what is important (from the POV of the individual) is the experience or feeling of freedom. And since the question cannot be answered then it doesn't matter. If it could be answered and the answer was that freedom (in the full libertarian sense) is completely illusory, then that might matter to individuals, since such a realization might demotivate or demoralize people. It would more definitely matter for the idea of moral responsibility, praise and blame. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.