Kostya

I must say that I could not disagree with you more on this point. Certainly the subjectivity of perceptual imput seems to be inevitable, and is at least a probably reality. However, I find your assertion that your actions are of importance only to your own reality, (given that you define reality, more or less in terms of the subjective perceptual imput and emotional and intellectual interpretation thereof) fallacious, and in fact ever so slightly dangerous. Let us for the moment, make the presumption, though we have no objective evidence to accept it, but merely as a matter of practical inevitability, that other human beings exist. If this is the case, and I believe that failing an appeal to some kind of metatheory regarding existence such as Buddhist or Hindu concepts, it is at least a conclusion we are conpelled to adopt in the interests of sanity and practicality, then all other people are in fact effected, even in the most negligible and indirect ways by your actions. The issue of responsibility with regard to complex matters of responsibility and culpability in terms of indirect effects is something which need not concern us here. Let us for the moment consider the simple possibility that there are in fact only two actual entities on the planet, you being one and the person you love most in the world being the other. Surely, you must agree, that your actions do ni fact have an effect upon that other person. If you were for instance to amputate their arm, one presumes that this will effect them, if we are to take the devastating effects this would have on you if the reverse were true as adequate indication of importance of that person's actions in your reality. I put it to you that in fact, our actions have deep and profound importance in the world which exists beyond it. In fact it is a necessity that we believe that our actions, emotions and thoughts are extant beyond our own immediate and direct intercourse with them, or else accept a reality in which our existence is self contained, impotent and in which suicide would be the most self indulgent and meaningful action one could perform.

Again, I must disagree slightly. Each individual's lack of power over the world I concur with, if we take George W. Bush to be the man in possession of the largest amount of raw political power, it is still rather small given the amount of events which occur over which he has no control. However, the notion of ultimate individual sovereignty over ones thoughts, emotions and actions I do not quite agree with either. Let us turn aside for the minute, the rather sticky and unpleasant issue of material determinism, (or determinism at large for that matter) and presume that each person does have some measure of power over themselves. Despite this, each of these domains which you have described are conditioned, compelled and in fact controlled by external forces to greater or lesser extents at any given time. Thoughts for instance, are not entirely unfettered, though they are comparatively free owing to the fact that they are less entrammelled by corporeal limits, that is to say, we can think about things which are physically impossible etc. In spite of this, thoughts are still conditioned by external forces: linguistic possibilities, political, economic, social, historical and intellectual schema and simply the vast amounts of manifold imput which compete, or demand attention. One cannot think about abstract concepts if they do not have the necessary linguistic structures to do so. The vast structural components of consciousness which surround each of us influence our modes of thought and conclusion, original thoughts are possible, and necessary in fact, but this does not diminish the fact that each thought we have is within the bounds of these existing mental artifices, or derived directly from them. The unsavoury extreme of this problem is the extent to which totalitarian states directly control and restrict the thoughts of their contituents. Finally, I believe the most obvious phenomenon which restricts the ultimate freedom of thought is the fact that each mind is bombarded with information, sensory imput, ideas, vagary, desires and metacognitive conclusions, each of which enters into a dialogue with the mind and in some ways determines the thoughts we have. If you happen upon a curious advertisement by chance, and find your thoughts turn to it, to what extent were your thoughts on the matter your own, and to what extent were they the result of the chance encounter? Each of us finds their thoughts wander away, keep returning to that we'd rather forget, or simply do not surface when they are needed. Emotions are I think most will agree, somewhat involuntary at times and highly contingent upon imput and context. Actions are subject to physical realities, and as you yourself go on to say, things such as capital can restrict them.

Anyhow, I've digressed a little here, but that's my two cents.