Oh, yes. Small steps. Stopping at the red light is a start.

How could it be tested? — Janus

We are in agreement there. It cannot. The only way we can philosophically say something about it is by asking a different question. For instance whether it matters at all whether we really really are determined, Strawson uses this approach. We can also ask what our belief in determinism vs our experience of freedom of choice means for our existential humanity or some such question. But no testing whether the world is determined or not is I would think impossible.

Not if the genetics of the brain are its own, dude. You aren't thinking clearly. The brain has an organic biological nature, derived from the process of evolution, encapsulated in the genetic code used to build the brain in utero, and then develop in accordance with that genetic code postpartum. It is a self-sustaining organ that is responsible for the maintenance of all other functions of the body. This is a fact whether or not you understand it. — Garrett Travers

Since you obviously think that this paragraph supports your claim that the brain is "self-perpetuating without fail", I see no point in discussing this further.

Actually it is an accurate representation of the human and all of its functions in relation to the brain that all those functions are connected to, and controlled by. That's why YOUR examples were stupid, THEY didn't accurately represent anything that was being discussed. I took your example and made one that worked out of it in relation to what we were actually discussing, so that you could understand. Instead, you've misunderstood and decided to critique the example YOU gave, that I modified for your clarity. — Garrett Travers

To comment further on this is obviously pointless as well.

No matter how much you want to fight with neuroscience and believe anything that comes to your brain, nothing is going to change the fact that the brain is the direct control center of all functions of the body, including your thought and expression. — Garrett Travers

You obviously do not take criticism very well, but I'll try once more to help you see how far from reality what you argue actually is. A very slight chemical imbalance in a person's body will drastically alter a person's so-called "control center". But this chemical change which alters and therefore has some degree of control over the so-called control center, does not originate from the brain. So your insistence that the brain is controlling the rest of the body is completely inconsistent with the evidence. You'll never accept this though, you'll just continue spouting irrelevant nonsense.

The fact of having to act is of far more significance than the dubious question of whether what we do is determined or not. That we must act is what is certain. Sartre had that right. So it seems the thing to do is to build the capacity to act well. Hence virtue ethics.

Since you obviously think that this paragraph supports your claim that the brain is "self-perpetuating without fail", I see no point in discussing this further. — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

To comment further on this is obviously pointless as well. — Metaphysician Undercover

Logically consistent argumentation is difficult, feel free to sit it out and rest.

You obviously do not take criticism very well, but I'll try once more to help you see how far from reality what you argue actually is. A very slight chemical imbalance in a person's body will drastically alter a person's so-called "control center". But this chemical change which alters and therefore has some degree of control over the so-called control center, does not originate from the brain. So your insistence that the brain is controlling the rest of the body is completely inconsistent with the evidence. You'll never accept this though, you'll just continue spouting irrelevant nonsense. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, what I don't take well is when I say something, and then what I said is recreated by someone in a way that doesn't even remotely resemble what I said, and then argued against as if I had, there's a name for that by the way.

"But this chemical change which alters and therefore has some degree of control over the so-called control center, does not originate from the brain."

What does this mean? The chemical change takes place within the brain, the change happens to the chemicals made for and used by the brain - highly specific chemicals - and these chemical imbalances are understood to change thought and behavior. What is it that you think you're highlighting here? As clearly the only thing you've done is said that you agree with me in an insulting manner. Seriously, what are you saying with this assertion? 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? Please, provide a single example of what you mean, because I'm quite astonished by this claim.

But no testing whether the world is determined or not is I would think impossible. — Tobias

But, do we not know enough about the laws of nature to conclude that the world is naturalistically determined?

We have worked with a notion of freedom that pits one person against the others by imagining a battle between freedom and sovereignty. — Banno

The funny thing about this is that it just isn't applicable to me, even if I totally get what this is to mean from a historical perspective. Sovereignty as I have always used it is this definition: a self-governing state. Meaning, no outside government. That fundamentally describes what freedom in the recent Western, individualist tradition is all about, what the Constitution outlines. I don't know who or where the people are that actually fit in this category of thinkers.

Sovereignty as I have always used it is this definition: a self-governing state — Garrett Travers

Sovereignty is supreme power. It's not restricted to mere states.

sovereignty (n.)
mid-14c., "pre-eminence," from Anglo-French sovereynete, Old French souverainete, from soverain (see sovereign (adj.)). Meaning "authority, rule, supremacy of power or rank" is recorded from late 14c.; sense of "existence as an independent state" is from 1715.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=sovereign&ref=searchbar_searchhint

It's not an odd usage.

However, that definition leads to absurd consequences because it means traffic lights would make you less free. — Tobias

Actually I misread this. Since I said that the more control the more freedom, I had thought you thought I meant control per se, and I misread this as "would make you more free". But this brings up an interesting question: do traffic lights make you more or less free? Since I see freedom as being always contextual, I think the answer could be either. If there were no traffic lights and little traffic, then you would be more free to drive unimpeded (assuming that is what you desire). On the other hand traffic lights are designed to facilitate the flow of traffic, so if there is a lot of traffic they may afford you greater freedom.

So, as I said previously I think freedom is easy to understand, it is contexts and the will(s) which create them which are more difficult to elucidate.

But until now you may not have been aware that there were alternatives. — Banno

No idea what you're trying to say here.

For instance whether it matters at all whether we really really are determined, Strawson uses this approach. — Tobias

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.

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.

No idea what you're trying to say here. — Janus

I wonder if you have come across this alternate picture of freedom before, is all.

Actually I misread this. Since I said that the more control the more freedom, I had thought you thought I meant control per se, and I misread this as "would make you more free". — Janus

Crazy how much gets lost in individual translation of one's own language, isn't it? It's unfuckin believable...

I don't see your point. Who do what, now?

The point was the definitons.

My curiosity is regarding just who this concept of relinquishing sovereignty is relevant to, considering that it isn't actually clear that people are very often delineating between sovereignty and freedom in their minds. Maybe "world leaders." Most people would say, like me, sovereignty is a description of freedom, as well as a term that has been historically tied to statehood. Which, even if you break that down, what are states meaning, historically speaking, by "sovereignty?" Something like, maybe, freedom of self-governance? Meaning, freedom for the state? It just isn't clear why this topic matters. Arendt's elaboration on the history of freedom and will as concepts alone would have been sufficient for the paper to be a good one.

I wonder if you have come across this alternate picture of freedom before, is all. — Banno

Ah, right. I've started reading the Arendt article, since I have more time on my hands today. So far, I would say 'yes or maybe'. I think I may have actually come across this paper before, when I was an undergraduate at Sydney Uni I took a unit which included Arendt. But memory aint what it used to be!

On the other hand if you mean had I come across the idea of freedom as political freedom, or the freeing possibilities of politics, then yes, I had been aware of that, but I probably haven't given it as much thought as it might deserve.

Yep, none of us are perfect readers to be sure.

My curiosity is regarding just who this concept of relinquishing sovereignty is relevant to, considering that it isn't actually clear that people are very often delineating between sovereignty and freedom in their minds. — Garrett Travers

Whomever? From individual to state.

I haven't the will to engage in this pointless exercise. Plato definitely points to this issue in his attacks on the sophists. — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

I count Nussbaum's capability approach as one of the efforts toward a 'guaranteed public realm"

Sweet. I noted your previous mention of capabilities.

Whomever? From individual to state. — Banno

That doesn't make sense.

That'd be because I still can't make sense of the question. To whom would Ardent's notion of freedom not apply?

Ah, right. I've started reading the Arendt article, since I have more time on my hands today. So far, I would say 'yes or maybe'. I think I may have actually come across this paper before, when I was an undergraduate at Sydney Uni I took a unit which included Arendt. But memory aint what it used to be! — Janus

To be honest about the nature of the article, though, it is actually not quoting Arendt on an asserted position she was positing; she wasn't actually making an argument. The quotes come from this journal of hers, which is nothing more than a celebration of the history of freedom and will (human action), both as concepts, and as embodied principles throughout the ages. And she thoroughly covers the history of its usage. The entire time your read the thing, you're thinking she's about to make some heavy argument on the topic, she doesn't, and it isn't something that becomes clear until the last paragraph when she says:

"Objectively, that is, seen from the outside and without taking
into account that man is a beginning and a beginner, the chances that tomorrow will be like yesterday are always overwhelming. Not quite so overwhelming, to be sure, but very nearly so as the chances were that no earth would ever rise out of cosmic occurrences, that no life would develop out of inorganic processes, and
that no man would emerge out of the evolution of animal life. The decisive difference between the "infinite improbabilities" on which the reality of our earthly life rests and the miraculous character inherent in those events which establish historical reality is that, in the realm of human affairs, we know the author of the "miracles." It is men who perform them men who because they have received
the twofold gift of freedom and action can establish a reality of their own."

This is literally the last paragraph of the essay quoted in the article. It's actually kind of funny because she holds that Man IS free, irrespective of what restaints you put on him. That freedom is a self-evident fact of the nature of human life that cannot be undone, or revoked, or altered. Which is kind of the opposite of what people here have been arguing, and more in line with my view that will is an emergent aspect of the brain that never is in a state of inactivity, even if placed under duress, unless it is dead. Took me a while to get to the end of to notice, however.

Here's the essay: https://grattoncourses.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/hannah-arendt-what-is-freedom.pdf

That'd be because I still can't make sense of the question. To whom would Ardent's notion of freedom not apply? — Banno

Freedom? No, not freedom, Arendt shares my opinion on freedom. It's the concept of sovereignty that doesn't add anything of value, as far as I can tell. To people who aren't using the term sovereignty to mean the recognized and respected dominion of a state of armed thugs who predicate their dominion upon the threat of the use of brute force and murder, such a description doesn't make much sense. Those of us who understand sovereignty is as inherent to the human being as his/her own sense of smell, thought, and health are. Sovereignty describes your natural state over your own self, without any additional context. Which is why I can't taste your food, and you can't know my thoughts. You, by all natural standards, belong to, are resticted to, and are bound to your frame of existence and all elements therein until your last experience, which will be experienced exclusively by you.

Thanks, but is that not the same link to Arendt's essay as was given in the OP?

Which is why I can't taste your food, and you can't know my thoughts. — Garrett Travers

Oh, you are welcome to come over for dinner, if you like. I made a vegetable lasagne yesterday, and have plenty left to share. But yes, as it stands, I cannot understand your thoughts. It seems you have change position somewhat since

interpersonal freedom requires the recognition of sovererign boundaries between people. — Garrett Travers

Oh, you are welcome to come over for dinner, if you like. I made a vegetable lasagne yesterday, and have plenty left to share. But yes, as it stands, i cannot understand your thoughts. It seems you have change position somewhat since
interpersonal freedom requires the recognition of sovererign boundaries between people. — Banno

No, not at all. How would you mean?

Thanks, but is that not the same link to Arendt's essay as was given in the OP? — Janus

Yeah, I just didn't know if you were drawing from the article, or the essay. Because the article is using the essay's content in what I can only conclude is a dishonest manner. The article is asserting something that isn't actually asserted by author in the essay, and doing so on Arendt's behalf.

This present line of conversation seems quite pointless.

This present line of conversation seems quite pointless. — Banno

Had a feeling you'd refrain from qualifying an assertion you knew didn't make sense.

Which assertion?