Arbitrary individual autonomy is a fallacious concept, as you fastidiously argue. It derives from radical subjective idealism, whereby in society everyone chooses their own reality - thereby negating social interactions. Philosophy recognizes arbitrary individual autonomy as the egocentric predicament, which posits that society disappears and, perhaps, the empirical world. Ralph Barton Perry in 1910 described this “reductio ad absurdum” of George Berkeley’s arguments for subjective idealism. Psychology describes radical “arbitrary individual autonomy” as a radical form of the solipsistic syndrome … which negates the reality of the “world.” That is, psychosis. Arbitrary individual autonomy, in its radical form, wishes the destruction of the world outside the ego. Your argument is a political position against the lunacy of political positions advocating suicide; the corollary could be the destruction of the world outside the ego. What a world that would “not be.” Underneath the surface of suicide, perhaps, lies the will to destroy every thing.
Personal freedom exists only in the alternating current of subjective idealism and empirical reality. Freedom exists only in the interplay of consciousness and empirical reality. Personal freedom brings vitality; radical subjective idealism or materialism - apart from the interplay of consciousness and empirical reality - brings destruction to all and everything, first brings resentment, then hate, then violence, then destruction, then death. You are wrong about what I have said: art brings flowering; radical egoism leaves only power and domination. Egoism is a desert.
Arbitrary autonomy is all around us, Art. Doing art is a classic example, as indeed is most self-expression, such as what you choose to wear, eat, or do in your leisure. Alot does not negate but requires social interactions, such as who you choose to love, or how you choose to comment on social media. Alot involves a high risk of harm, such as sports or cosmetic surgery (including the ubiquitous ear-piercing and tattoos).
Perhaps the greatest arbitrary autonomy is choosing how to vote, aswell as accepting its outcome. And that's why, rather than it being "a fallacious concept", arbitrary autonomy is the bedrock of our liberal society. Kant and Mill titled their books so because of it - Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, and On Liberty.
Artists see what most of us don’t. Henry James suggested that the artist is the one who misses nothing. Artists perceive empirical reality, where most of us have missed it. In doing so, subjective idealism works on the empirical, and allows others to see and feel anew something that was already waiting to be brought into reality. Denial of either empirical reality or subjective ideation is psychosis. As alternating current brings us light, so does the continual refinement of subjective idealism working on the empirical create enlightenment. Radical subjective idealism brings us to the Tower of Babel, where empirical reality disappears into nothingness, all in their own world. In such a world all is hate, destruction, violence, and death - each canceling the other until one cancels oneself.
Perhaps we could bring in Lord Biggar here, because you both use the Slippery Slope Argument.
You, Art, declare "Radical subjective idealism brings us to the Tower of Babel, where empirical reality disappears into nothingness ... until one cancels oneself" and in your first comment "Arbitrary individual autonomy [leads to] psychosis ... [u]nderneath the surface of suicide, perhaps, lies the will to destroy every thing". You go further than Albert Camus, and seem keen to claim that personal freedom ends only in suicide.
The noble Lord asserted "The logic that brought us to assisted suicide will push us toward voluntary euthanasia. Once we decide to breach the absolute prohibition of intentional killing, we might agree upon the need to limit the conditions under which assistance in suicide and euthanasia are permissible, but we will find that there are no very compelling reasons to draw the line in one place rather than another. Given the intrinsic difficulty of deciding where to draw the line, given the propensity of the media to focus on graphic personal stories rather than the larger social context, and given the popularity of the libertarian rhetoric of arbitrary autonomy, there is good reason to fear that any liberalization of the law will tend toward granting death on demand". Assisted suicide slides with a marxian inevitability into death on demand.
PS. I wish I had Henry James with me the other day: if "Artists see what most of us don’t ... the artist is the one who misses nothing", then we would have found my keys that none of us could.
All this talk of death reminds me of the joke:
"When is bread not bread?"
When it's toast!
Of course, artists already know that toasters make both toast AND metaphors.
"Once we decide to breach the absolute prohibition of intentional killing ... ". The State has no absolute breach of intentional killing, in fact, intentional killing is one of its very essences. You've just written a piece supporting the State's right to kill intentionally.
Arbitrary individual autonomy is a fallacious concept, as you fastidiously argue. It derives from radical subjective idealism, whereby in society everyone chooses their own reality - thereby negating social interactions. Philosophy recognizes arbitrary individual autonomy as the egocentric predicament, which posits that society disappears and, perhaps, the empirical world. Ralph Barton Perry in 1910 described this “reductio ad absurdum” of George Berkeley’s arguments for subjective idealism. Psychology describes radical “arbitrary individual autonomy” as a radical form of the solipsistic syndrome … which negates the reality of the “world.” That is, psychosis. Arbitrary individual autonomy, in its radical form, wishes the destruction of the world outside the ego. Your argument is a political position against the lunacy of political positions advocating suicide; the corollary could be the destruction of the world outside the ego. What a world that would “not be.” Underneath the surface of suicide, perhaps, lies the will to destroy every thing.
Personal freedom exists only in the alternating current of subjective idealism and empirical reality. Freedom exists only in the interplay of consciousness and empirical reality. Personal freedom brings vitality; radical subjective idealism or materialism - apart from the interplay of consciousness and empirical reality - brings destruction to all and everything, first brings resentment, then hate, then violence, then destruction, then death. You are wrong about what I have said: art brings flowering; radical egoism leaves only power and domination. Egoism is a desert.
Arbitrary autonomy is all around us, Art. Doing art is a classic example, as indeed is most self-expression, such as what you choose to wear, eat, or do in your leisure. Alot does not negate but requires social interactions, such as who you choose to love, or how you choose to comment on social media. Alot involves a high risk of harm, such as sports or cosmetic surgery (including the ubiquitous ear-piercing and tattoos).
Perhaps the greatest arbitrary autonomy is choosing how to vote, aswell as accepting its outcome. And that's why, rather than it being "a fallacious concept", arbitrary autonomy is the bedrock of our liberal society. Kant and Mill titled their books so because of it - Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, and On Liberty.
Artists see what most of us don’t. Henry James suggested that the artist is the one who misses nothing. Artists perceive empirical reality, where most of us have missed it. In doing so, subjective idealism works on the empirical, and allows others to see and feel anew something that was already waiting to be brought into reality. Denial of either empirical reality or subjective ideation is psychosis. As alternating current brings us light, so does the continual refinement of subjective idealism working on the empirical create enlightenment. Radical subjective idealism brings us to the Tower of Babel, where empirical reality disappears into nothingness, all in their own world. In such a world all is hate, destruction, violence, and death - each canceling the other until one cancels oneself.
Perhaps we could bring in Lord Biggar here, because you both use the Slippery Slope Argument.
You, Art, declare "Radical subjective idealism brings us to the Tower of Babel, where empirical reality disappears into nothingness ... until one cancels oneself" and in your first comment "Arbitrary individual autonomy [leads to] psychosis ... [u]nderneath the surface of suicide, perhaps, lies the will to destroy every thing". You go further than Albert Camus, and seem keen to claim that personal freedom ends only in suicide.
The noble Lord asserted "The logic that brought us to assisted suicide will push us toward voluntary euthanasia. Once we decide to breach the absolute prohibition of intentional killing, we might agree upon the need to limit the conditions under which assistance in suicide and euthanasia are permissible, but we will find that there are no very compelling reasons to draw the line in one place rather than another. Given the intrinsic difficulty of deciding where to draw the line, given the propensity of the media to focus on graphic personal stories rather than the larger social context, and given the popularity of the libertarian rhetoric of arbitrary autonomy, there is good reason to fear that any liberalization of the law will tend toward granting death on demand". Assisted suicide slides with a marxian inevitability into death on demand.
PS. I wish I had Henry James with me the other day: if "Artists see what most of us don’t ... the artist is the one who misses nothing", then we would have found my keys that none of us could.
All this talk of death reminds me of the joke:
"When is bread not bread?"
When it's toast!
Of course, artists already know that toasters make both toast AND metaphors.
"Once we decide to breach the absolute prohibition of intentional killing ... ". The State has no absolute breach of intentional killing, in fact, intentional killing is one of its very essences. You've just written a piece supporting the State's right to kill intentionally.