It seems you have change position somewhat since
"interpersonal freedom requires the recognition of sovererign boundaries between people." — Banno

This one here.

That's your statement...?

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

It seems you have change position somewhat since — Banno

And this is yours. This statement doesn't make sense, especially with my statement being used as the premise.

...so you expect me to show how your apparent change of opinion makes sense...?

Obtuse. And uninteresting.

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 and how.

so you expect me to show how your apparent change of opinion makes sense...? — Banno

No, more like I know you can't, because such a thing hasn't happened, and I'm just toying with you because it's fun to watch someone squirm who attempts playing that kind of game with me. It's fun, you see?

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

You are allowed to change your mind. Indeed, it is a good thing.

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

The whole thing, as the last paragraph of the essay illustrates. Arendt isn't making an elaborate argument, she's presenting the history of the concepts of freedom and will throughout the ages, in a celebration of them.

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

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.

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

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.

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

I believe it's pointless because I know that each reference I produce can be met with a counter reference implying something contrary, just like in our exchange on the other thread. Then, in the end it will come down to a question of the intent of the author. So, I think we ought to be able to discuss what we each believe to be the intent of the author, without quoting conflicting references, which turns into an endless process going nowhere.

Do you agree that it was Plato's intention to investigate into the truth of this matter, in his efforts to understand the practice of the sophists who claimed to teach virtue? And do you agree that the truth of the matter is that we can know and understand what is good, yet still proceed to behave in a contrary way, I.e. to do what is bad when we know what is good? If you agree with both of these, then why do you not agree that Plato's intent was to demonstrate the truth of the latter in his effort to show that the sophists were wrong when they claimed that virtue could be taught, as a type of knowledge?

You are allowed to change your mind. Indeed, it is a good thing. — Banno

To be free from interpersonal force is to be recognized in your sovereign boundaries. 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. There is no delineation that has taken place between my two statements, they mean the exact same thing. Now, if you wish, you can elaborate on why you think there is a difference - which again, you won't do what your brain won't let you do, funny that - but as it stands, you've simply put two logically equivalent statements together, and proceeded to call that an argument. Which it isn't.

Got it, thanks. I'll let you know my thoughts on that when I've finished both the essay and the article.

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

It only stops when it is dead, never before. Yes, it is self-perpetuating. Read what I am saying to you.

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

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 that you are 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.

t only stops when it is dead, never before. Yes, it is self-perpetuating. Read what I am saying to you. — Garrett Travers

Self-perpetuating is to continue in existence indefinitely. If it dies it is not self-perpetuating.

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

Obviously it's not a closed system.

The brain is not a closed system neither is it self-perpetuating. Your argument fails, and the position you claim is nonsense.

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

That's... not what I read.

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?

Self-perpetuating is to continue in existence indefinitely. If it dies it is not self-perpetuating. — 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.

Obviously it's not a closed system. — Metaphysician Undercover

It doesn't actually matter what kind of system it is, what you're doing is called a redherring fallcy, open, closed, semi-permeable, doesn't matter. It allows only what it allows to pass into and out of itself. That's all there is to that. Not a single point I've mde to you about the nature of the brain producing all thought and action has been addressed. And you still haven't qualified your chemicals argument.

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

The brain is not "self-perpetuating" by any definition. The heart pumping blood is external agency. Who is being stupid here?

That's... not what I read. — Banno

... What's not? Whad'ya read there in that? You see how you just presented a quote again as if it constituted an argument? Didn't I just call you out on that? QUA-LI-FY yo shit, or stop talking it.

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

No, nor did I say it was. I said her perspective on the term sovereignty is both predicated on the accurately criticized notion of state sovereignty, and pointless to the essay. It didn't need that assessment.

Hmm..... And what keeps the heart pumping.....?


......

Hold on, lemme think on this a bit...............

I give up.

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.

And we haven't even gotten to the issue you intentionally avoided, the relation between the brain and the senses.

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

No, that's not the case, man. The brain literally controls the heart through brain stem: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2015.0181

It also controls everything else.

So you say, but you failed in justifying this claim.

And we haven't even gotten to the issue you intentionally avoided, the relation between the brain and the senses. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, no problem. I actually already addressed this. The relationship is: the brain controls them: https://www.brainandspine.org.uk/information-and-support/anatomy-of-the-brain-and-spine/#:~:text=The%20parietal%20lobe%20gives%20you,part%20of%20the%20outside%20world.

No, I provided you an up-to-date scientific journal on the subject.

I take that back. I provided you numerous up-to-date scientific journals.

Appeal to authority, another failure.

Actually, you are in fact committing this fallacy:

Disregarding Known Science

This fallacy is committed when a person makes a claim that knowingly or unknowingly disregards well known science, science that weighs against the claim. They should know better. This fallacy is a form of the Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence.

https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#DisregardingKnownScience

I, on the other hand, am presenting documented science from researchers within the field of neuroscience. You, really are acting a fool, dude.

I told you, you're brain will not do what it will not do.

I've started reading the Arendt article, — Janus

It's not a straight forward philosophical essay, as was noted earlier by @Ciceronianus and I. But it fits pretty well into Existentialisms approach to such issues. There is some background on SEP.

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

I might well agree with you on that. From a naturalistic metaphysical point of view, free will is difficult to understand to begin with. From the perspective that everything happens in law governed chains of cause and effect, free will is hard to fathom. It would mean that something out there magically escapes that chain and acts as an uncaused causer and lo and behold it resides within our brain... so from a naturalistic standpoint I think free will is very unlikely to begin with and all the sciences based on it, like neurosciences seem to confirm that idea. the naturalistic metaphysics is the metaphysical position of the sciences today and for good reason.

The problem is that that particular brand of metaphysics cannot make sense of the particular experience of freedom of choice. Saying it is an illusion will not help because an illusion tends to disappear when it is punctured. The experience of choice and freedom is irreducible to illusion though. In philosophy the phrase is that the first person is irreducible to the third person perspective. At least that is the take I have on free will. For me it is part of a bigger problem / human condition but those ideas I will hold to myself for now.

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

Sure I think the question has existential importance. Strawson reasons it away and so I do not embrace his approach. In Strawson's view though we need the registers of freedom and of determinism and use them to assess the behavior of others. whether the world is really really determined we cannot know and therefore it would be merely impoverishing if we would do away with the register of freedom and treat everyone as if they were determined. My take on it is different though, though I arrive at more or less the same conclusion.

As for the traffic lights example, sure, traffic lights could also be used to make people less free. We could in theory prevent a whole class of people from going to work by hindering their community with traffic lights, than it would make them less free. What I think you arrive at though is not that teh definition of freedom is contextual, the actual assessment of who is free and who is not is contextual, determined by the facts of the case.

@banno No disagreement with you there. Indeed I am on the same page. I do not really know why that necessarily would lead to virtue ethics though and I like to ask you that question. Why would it lead to virtue ethics? Not to quibble with you because I am quite partial to virtue ethics as well, but to see why you think there is a connection there that first better with virtue ethics than with say utilitarianism or deontology.