4 ms·

>"If suicide is cowardly then suicide isn't much of a choice at all and then there really isn't any freedom at all." A cowardly choice is still a choice, it's

>"If suicide is cowardly then suicide isn't much of a choice at all and then there really isn't any freedom at all." A cowardly choice is still a choice, it's still a possibility. Freedom is freedom to choose, it imposes no limits on what motivates you. Aside from this, cowardly doesn't seem to fit suicide, if we're going for negative connotations then self-absorbed seems more appropriate IMO. >"The lack of freedom in this world is actually much more grim than even existentialists wish to admit." What do you mean by this? What freedom do you feel you lack?

wahern 10y ago
One freedom I lack is the freedom from the limitations of my brain, limitations which I can barely even fathom. But the limitation I was specifically referring too was that suicide isn't like other personal choices because your body and mind act in concert against self-agency. And thank goodness that they do, but the point is that like infants we're trapped in an environment that is constitutionally hostile to any capacity for killing ourselves. I do agree that a cowardly choice is still a choice, and that existentialism doesn't preclude seeing suicide as cowardly. But what does cowardly mean? Why might it be relevant to questions of freedom? And if relevant, how? Those are big question that hint at 1) another aspect to our rationality and self-agency, namely how they're culturally informed and intertwined with considerations of others' opinions, desires, and needs; and more generally 2) that a definition of freedom implicates other questions about the source and function of morality wrt rationality and agency. I don't think existentialism is particularly concerned with those questions. They're not really within it's ambit. Camus and Sartre had different, even contradictory, moral philosophies even though both were authentically existentialist.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  >"One freedom I lack is the freedom from the limitations of my brain, limitations which I can barely even fathom." Okay, let's play along with this. If you feel your brain is holding you back, you must have an idea of what it's holding you back from, otherwise you wouldn't see it as limiting. In other words, it's only limiting in comparison with another way of being. With this in mind, if your consciousness could expand beyond your brain, what would you hope to experience? What knowledge or experience would you hope to gain?
  - wahern 10y ago
    I don't know. Perhaps it's not a relevant limitation, or perhaps it's not a limitation relevant to the notion or my experience of freedom. Or perhaps it's a limitation that channels choice and thus enhances or even defines freedom. What I do know is that I'm tired and stressed this afternoon and can't even _think_ about that question... ;)

wahern 10y ago

One freedom I lack is the freedom from the limitations of my brain, limitations which I can barely even fathom. But the limitation I was specifically referring too was that suicide isn't like other personal choices because your body and mind act in concert against self-agency. And thank goodness that they do, but the point is that like infants we're trapped in an environment that is constitutionally hostile to any capacity for killing ourselves. I do agree that a cowardly choice is still a choice, and that existentialism doesn't preclude seeing suicide as cowardly. But what does cowardly mean? Why might it be relevant to questions of freedom? And if relevant, how? Those are big question that hint at 1) another aspect to our rationality and self-agency, namely how they're culturally informed and intertwined with considerations of others' opinions, desires, and needs; and more generally 2) that a definition of freedom implicates other questions about the source and function of morality wrt rationality and agency. I don't think existentialism is particularly concerned with those questions. They're not really within it's ambit. Camus and Sartre had different, even contradictory, moral philosophies even though both were authentically existentialist.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
>"One freedom I lack is the freedom from the limitations of my brain, limitations which I can barely even fathom." Okay, let's play along with this. If you feel your brain is holding you back, you must have an idea of what it's holding you back from, otherwise you wouldn't see it as limiting. In other words, it's only limiting in comparison with another way of being. With this in mind, if your consciousness could expand beyond your brain, what would you hope to experience? What knowledge or experience would you hope to gain?
- wahern 10y ago
  I don't know. Perhaps it's not a relevant limitation, or perhaps it's not a limitation relevant to the notion or my experience of freedom. Or perhaps it's a limitation that channels choice and thus enhances or even defines freedom. What I do know is that I'm tired and stressed this afternoon and can't even _think_ about that question... ;)