Camus said the only freedom is suicide. (The Myth of Sisyphus)
You can, of course, choose suicide. But then it's lights-out and so there's not much to discuss in that case. I don't think either Sartre or Camus saw suicide as cowardly, but maybe I'm wrong about that. As far as I see it, perceiving suicide as cowardly is sort of at odds with existentialist claim. If suicide is cowardly then suicide isn't much of a choice at all and then there really isn't any freedom at all.
(Of course, being animals with an intrinsic evolutionary predisposition to avoid death, suicide isn't much of a choice at all. Unless you're mentally ill, it's _really_ difficult to convince yourself to die. The lack of freedom in this world is actually much more grim than even existentialists wish to admit. But I'm happy to adopt the existentialist conceit as I think existentialism says something profound and profoundly concise about how to find meaning in life.)
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?
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.
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?
What I do know is that I'm tired and stressed this afternoon and can't even _think_ about that question... ;)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_suicide#Absurdis...