Philosophy and Drugs

Playboy

Just wondering what people’s opinions were on the use of drugs (of any sort) to further their own personal development in a philosophical sense. Do you think that they have the potential to help someone understand the world in a better way? Personally I’m not aware of any famous philosophers who were drug users but I’m sure there were many. What has made me ask this question is an article I came across a couple of years ago that I found fascinating, it concerned the drug ketamine and the experience of going through the k-hole. From other articles I have read on the drug it seems to have a strange history. It has been commonly known as an 'intellectual' drug used by people to try and gain a greater understanding of the reality we live in. The drug supposedly brings you to a point of where you feel like you are just about to figure out the true nature of the universe. But this is where the danger lies, and this is why the drug can become addictive, you keep taking it because you feel like you are getting closer to ultimate 'truth' every time but the drug cant possibly get you to that point. It’s like chasing an impossible dream that is being dangled in front of your nose. But another strange thing is that a lot of the fatalities involving the drug have no explanation. People seem to die under the influence of the drug but there is no obvious cause of death, it seems like they just decided to die and they did. This has led to a lot of speculation on what has happened to these people, with many people believing that people under the influence of the drug might have figured out the meaning of our existence and decided to leave this life voluntarily.

One of the more interesting experiences can be found here

StonedParadoX

i believe you should be able to try any drug you want and not have to worry about the law ****ing you up for the ass for it
its your own fault if you get addicted though

Do you think that they have the potential to help someone understand the worlds in a better way or those users are doomed to a life of misery?

yep i believe that VERY strongly it the potentional is there..weather u decide to abuse that is your descion
smoking pot i believe made me realise how amazing some stuff is
i havent a clue how to put that into propler understanding but if u have smoked some good **** you will know what im on about

Dont believe the bull**** u see on TV , radio or in the news .. like the **** they you see in the papers now about cocaine "getting its tentacles into every town in ireland"

uh i hate that wording ..sure its bad for you but only in excess amounts

most people have **** all will power

Wasnt Frued(sp) plato and some other lad in the drugs scene? ( my moms been studying frued and so on for years and its apparent he took cocaine)

have you taken drugs? cuz it would APPEAR to me you havent because of what you say Drugs DO

in all honestly to get where u get in the drug state u can go through OTHER channels to get there and it aint hard
most people believe to get back to that state u need to keep taking that drug but u dont and thats how people get caught out

Playboy

StonedParadoX wrote:

i believe you should be able to try any drug you want and not have to worry about the law ****ing you up for the ass for it
its your own fault if you get addicted though

That is an extremely simplistic attitude towards the drug problems our society is faced with.

StonedParadoX wrote:

yep i believe that VERY strongly it the potentional is there..weather u decide to abuse that is your descion
smoking pot i believe made me realise how amazing some stuff is
i havent a clue how to put that into propler understanding but if u have smoked some good **** you will know what im on about

This thread is about whether or not some drugs when used responsibly can be a positive influence on a persons personal deelopment, not about how food tastes better and cartoons are funnier when you are stoned.

StonedParadoX wrote:

Dont believe the bull**** u see on TV , radio or in the news .. like the **** they you see in the papers now about cocaine "getting its tentacles into every town in ireland"

The media's propaganda concerning the harmful effects of drugs on people and society is a topic for a different thread in a different forum.

StonedParadoX wrote:

uh i hate that wording ..sure its bad for you but only in excess amounts

People have very different ideas as to what excess is

StonedParadoX wrote:

most people have **** all will power

Speak for yourself

StonedParadoX wrote:

have you taken drugs? cuz it would APPEAR to me you havent because of what you say Drugs DO

That is a personal question. It is suffice for me to say that I know what I am talking about.

StonedParadoX wrote:

in all honestly to get where u get in the drug state u can go through OTHER channels to get there and it aint hard
most people believe to get back to that state u need to keep taking that drug but u dont and thats how people get caught out

Listen Im not talking here about marijuana or amphetamines, Im talking about a specific type of drug called a Disassociative. If you had ever taken Ketamine or PCP you would understand that it would be practically impossible to recreate through other channels the effects these types of drugs have on a person.

SkepticOne

I think the problem is whether the drug simply enhances the feeling of profundity of thoughs. From reading the stuff from that link, I don't think there's much that is particulary profound, tbh, but then I'm not on the drug. Right now, it just sounds like banal hippy stuff.

Playboy

The most interesting thing about the article imo is the deliberate use of a drug by a person who is using it for an intellectual end. Most people dont take drugs for this reason.

nesf

Hmmm. Ok this is just my own perspective.


First off, stop thinking of drugs as being illegal ones. Open your mind a bit and include any kind of drug. There are plenty of legal drugs with similar effects to illegal ones, they just happen to be legal and do other stuff too (a trait shared with illegal drugs btw ).

Does philosophical thought benifit from any kind of mind altering chemical?

Yes and no. And a bit of maybe in there as well.

It all depends on what you are taking, why are you taking it and who you are.

For instance, due to a medical reason, I have suffered from concentration difficulties in the past. Medication I'm on alieviates this to some degree (we'll ignore the other benificial actions taken for now). This drug basically helps me think clearer and more logically. Thus it improved my ability to reason correctly and obviously any philosophical thought would naturally benifit.

Is this a good example? Yes and no. In my case there was a medically diagnosed problem that needed rectifying.

But one could extend this example generally and ask the question: Is there some limitations to reasoning and the ability to think inherent in humans that needs to be alieviated by chemical means?

Or. Is this limitation something that can be removed by years of dedicated training, study and practice?

Is the limitation the same in both cases?


An untrained mind will not (generally) handle deep philosophical thought very well. Mostly because it hasn't been exposed to the concepts it needs to know in order to think about and isolate problems. Also logical reasoning is not something people are born with but is something that needs informal or formal training in order to develop to good levels.

Can drugs circumvent these limitations?

(Here is where it descends into my personal opinion and answers to the above)

Personally I don't think so. I think that drugs provide a "false" view of reality and there can be a percieved increase in depth of thought that actually isn't real. There is extensive evidence for drugs changing thought patterns in users. The most disturbing for me is the evidence that LSD can induce psychotic episodes in regular users. Why someone would voluntarily go through that I do not know. Psychotic episodes are not nice, they are not deep and they are nothing to aspire too. Yes you are "thinking outside the box" but you cannot trust a single thing you think. It's a constant battle between reality outside your mind and the one inside it. Not good.

My own extensive experiences with both legal and illegal drugs have taught me that there is no substitute for training and experience. Drugs do not provide a short cut to good concentration, deep thinking or incisive reasoning. Even the medically prescribed ones for my concentrations problems only helped a little. I still had to train my mind back up from scratch. I could barely read a trash fiction novel 2 years ago. Now I'm back to reading philosophical texts like I could in my younger years. The drugs helped a bit yes, but it was my own hard work that got my mind to a point where it could properly access and process this information.

Maybe I'm overly biased on this issue though. I hope the stuff other than my opinion is of interest to people.

SkepticOne

My problem is what to make of the results. What is the validity of the insights when the instrument used has been altered? I mean, however abstract philosophy might get, it should still have some connection with the ordinary world.

Stuff about the world being an illusion, all things being connected in some way, and so forth are interesting, but what if the drug is causing them to be percieved as deeply profound?

I don't think the idea of using drugs to gain insight into intellectual things is particularly new. Consider Aldous Huxley. I think the reason you don't get philosophers doing it much is because the stuff generated is too specific to the experience itself, too subjective.

I'm not talking specifically about ketamine but about mind altering substances in general as per your original post. Ketamine (from what I can gather) seems to cut you off from ordinary reality so I don't see it as being fundamentally different even if all drugs will give you a unique subjective experience.

Playboy

nesf wrote:

But one could extend this example generally and ask the question: Is there some limitations to reasoning and the ability to think inherent in humans that needs to be alieviated by chemical means?

Or. Is this limitation something that can be removed by years of dedicated training, study and practice?

Is the limitation the same in both cases?

This is the key issue. Are there drugs out there that can help us get closer to 'truth'? If you hold that the realizations people come to and the conclusions they make about themselves and the world are as a result of the experiences they have had and how they have applied their reasoning and logic to those experiences then how can years of study and training bring you any closer to the same conclusions when you are still missing the base experience. The fact is that people have intensely profound and spiritual experiences under the influence of certain drugs. People will tell you that these experiences have changed their life, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. I cant but wonder what realizations a trained philosophical mind would come to when under the influence of say ketamine. Is there possibly some fundamental truth hidden in the experiences that the drug has induced.

Playboy

SkepticOne wrote:

Stuff about the world being an illusion, all things being connected in some way, and so forth are interesting, but what if the drug is causing them to be percieved as deeply profound?

What I find interesting is the similarity of the experiences people have on these drugs even when they have not necessarily been exposed to the ideas b4. It reminds me of the near death experiences where people always seem to perceive a white light beckoning them. There seems to be recurring themes of reality being an illusion and the interconnectedness of everything. Also what I find interesting is the fact that these people take literally trance like journeys into their own minds where they actually perceive themselves as existing in an alternate reality or universe. A term ‘psychonaut’ has arisen to describe these people and their journeys.

SkepticOne

On a more mundane level, a hypothetical philosopher who, for whatever reason, is extremely nervous or agitated over something won't be able to philosophise properly. A mild tranquiliser may help to create a degree of detachment necessary for the job to be done. This would hold true even if the philosopher has a normally nervous disposition. His/her work may well benefit from drugs. I don't think there can be any objection to chemicals working on the brain in general.

Does philosophy lead to 'truth'? Personally, from the little I've read, I think the value lies in the realisation that there are many ways of thinking and talking about something that can be perfectly rational. If drugs leads you to some insight then great, but the important thing is how you this insight is communicated to people who are not on that particular drug. Will they find it interesting or relevant? Will the person be able to use the insight for life generally?

There is something a little sad about someone who travels universes in their own head. To me it is a bit like someone who plays computer games all day. They may have the feeling of leading armies into battle but they haven't in reality.

SkepticOne

I think what I'm trying to say is that it's about being able to participate in a community of ideas. A mathatician might take some drug and imagine amazing constructions, but he needs then to be able to communicate it to other mathematicians. It is not all about the feeling he gets when he ponders various mathematical ideas.

simu

SkepticOne wrote:

I think what I'm trying to say is that it's about being able to participate in a community of ideas. A mathatician might take some drug and imagine amazing constructions, but he needs then to be able to communicate it to other mathematicians. It is not all about the feeling he gets when he ponders various mathematical ideas.

Yeah - communication is important. Leaving banal experiences like "the interconnectedness of everything" aside, I think it's possible for people to come up with useful concepts, images and so forth whilst under the influence of drugs. I don't see this as being very different from people finding answers to problems and insights (whether philosophical or otherwise) in their dreams or during periods of great hardship or so on, though. However, it is certainly quite difficult (but not impossible) to keep track of thoughts that enter one's head whilst on drugs and any results would certainly have to be looked over once more in the cold light of day and would have to be intelligible to other people.

This thread reminds me of an anecdote B. Russell has in his History of Western Philosophy:

There is a story of a man who got the experience from laughing gas; whenever he was under its influence, he knew the secret of the universe, but when he came to, he had forgotten it. At last, with immense effort, he wrote down the secret before the vision had faded. When completely recovered, he rushed to see what he had written. It was "A smell of petroleum prevails throughout."

Feownah

I think that drugs provide a "false" view of reality and there can be a percieved increase in depth of thought that actually isn't real.

This is true.

aldous_huxley

I am delighted to see an enlightened thread such as this one on boards.


The book I have just read ( Pihkal ) and the one that I am currently reading ( Tihkal ) - both authored by Alexander/Ann Shulgin. Within these pages lie a summary of years of investigation into the use of psycho-active plants and psychedelic chemicals as tools in the pursuit of further enlightenment with regard to the human spirit.

If you are interested in this topic, these books are a must. As a matter of curiousity, anyone read them?

phantom_lord

As far as i know socrates only took one drug and it didn't do much for him. Although a huge amount of writers and philosophers have used cannabis, it's well documented in the book a "history of cannabis".

RedPlanet

In my own opinion i would be skeptical of a philosopher that hasn't tried psycho-reactive chemicals.
I have found LSD in particular very spiritual and have experienced ephiphanies while using this chemical. After which i have always felt a wiser and older being. This is true for a lot of people.
I wouldn't put PCP in the same catagory, never tried ketamin.
Insofar as
"Drugs do not provide a short cut to good concentration, deep thinking or incisive reasoning."
Consider that while some of these may be virtues in your present state of mind, they may consequently prevent you from opening other doors of perception. And that is what psycho-reactive substances do, without parellel or substitute.
I don't really buy the "dangerous side-effects" argument because you probably engage in daily activities that statistically carry a great risk of injury to yourself.
I'm not a philosopher nor study it but if i were, i'd put a drugs experiment at the top of my to-do list.

Edit: good article about LSD here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD

iregk

Well you have to ask yourself something. Why are all mind altering drugs illegal?

My belief is that (and this seems to be shared by many of you) there a multiple levels of consciousness and reality. At the moment 99% of the worlds population are stuck in the 5 sense reality that we call the every day earth/life/existence etc... There are other levels where we can see what is really out there, we can feel other emotions and where things that happen in this reality don’t effect others. For the 99% of the population we listen to the news, we watch tv we read papers and get confined to believing that this is all that exists this is life end of story.

A lot of people know this is not true and know of other existences but these are broken into two groups. People that experience it and those that don’t want the others to experience the same. i.e. those in control and power of the world. Mind altering drugs simply free your mind and let you experience what else is out there. But while your out there you are not trapped in the 5 sense world where you are controlled, monitored and basically a slave to the monetary system.

If we all were able to access other levels of reality at will we would no longer be controllable. Could this be why anything that helps you to access these other levels is illegal?

p.s. im not advocating the use of mind altering drugs...

aldous_huxley

Well you have to ask yourself something. Why are all mind altering drugs illegal?

Because a more open minded view of them would lead to the disintegration of a current set of beliefs and values -> which in turn, would lead to the disintegration on the position taken by many people in authority.

jman0

aldous_huxley wrote:

Because a more open minded view of them would lead to the disintegration of a current set of beliefs and values -> which in turn, would lead to the disintegration on the position taken by many people in authority.

Thats one way of looking at it. However the prevalence of alcohol in our society aptly demonstrates i think, the hypocrisy. I believe it has more to do with things like: the Vinters Federation's (capitalist industry) ability to exert political and proganda pressure on people in places of power.
You know, like how the cotton industry was able to make hemp illegal in america despite people like George Washington who were commericial farmers of it.

But these matters are another debate. Drugs like LSD, which can be considered entheogens have been in our society for millenia.
The very fact that LSD actually activates or engages areas of the human brain that normally are not engaged speaks volumes doesn't it?

simu

jman0 wrote:

Thats one way of looking at it. However the prevalence of alcohol in our society aptly demonstrates i think, the hypocrisy. I believe it has more to do with things like: the Vinters Federation's (capitalist industry) ability to exert political and proganda pressure on people in places of power.
You know, like how the cotton industry was able to make hemp illegal in america despite people like George Washington who were commericial farmers of it.

But these matters are another debate.

Yes and such a discussion would be more suited to politics or humanities. Lets stick to discussing drugs and philosophy in this thread!

iregk

aldous_huxley wrote:

Because a more open minded view of them would lead to the disintegration of a current set of beliefs and values -> which in turn, would lead to the disintegration on the position taken by many people in authority.

Exactly as i said. Religion is one of the biggest forms of control in the world, next to the monetary system. Open minded people would bring about a downfall for those in positions of power hence why everyday we are kept in the 5sence reality.

As a great man once said: "I'd rather have a mind opened by wonder, than one closed by belief"

Son Goku

I'll be very brief.

How many of our great thinkers were actually under the influence of drugs when they came up with their insights?
I doubt very many were. In my opinion the sober human mind is the greatest tool for probing reality.

Most insights into the world came from hard work and shear mental effort, not a high.

I know that isn't the best of arguments but it's a summary of my opinion.

iregk

Goku, thats fair enough thats what we are all here for, to experss our opinions.

A fair amount of great thinkings were "off their heads" on mind expanding drugs as were the majority or great artists when they created master pieces. The sober human mind only uses a fraction of its potential power. There is so much room for expansion its unreal.

Son Goku

iregk wrote:

Goku, thats fair enough thats what we are all here for, to experss our opinions.
The sober human mind only uses a fraction of its potential power. There is so much room for expansion its unreal.

Do you know there is large room for expansion?
For all we know, we could be at our limit.

A fair amount of great thinkings were "off their heads" on mind expanding drugs

I wouldn't be sure of that.
Most philosophers and scientists, for instance, didn't really gain their insights from mind-altering subsatnces.

You're probably correct about artists and poets, but how many of the great sociologists, historians, psychologists, philologists, chemists and marine biologists, to choose random subjects, advanced our perception of the world by using drugs?

I'd really doubt the majority did. I think the only area you would find a significant amount who do are in the arts.*

*arts in the sense of poetry, e.t.c, rather than the broader definition which includes history, e.t.c.

SkepticOne

Perhaps we need drugs (or at least some people taking drugs) to appreciate how finely tuned the mind is in its normal evolved state?

At the end of the day it is what you make of yourself in life according to one's own criteria that is important, imo. Drugs are something you experiment with at some stage in life but then you move on. I think the reason people move on is similar to the reason they don't play computer games all day all their life. While these things are fun, they don't have sufficient reality to satisfy people for a sustained period. The urge to get out into the real world eventually takes over.

aldous_huxley

Drugs are something you experiment with at some stage in life but then you move on. I think the reason people move on is similar to the reason they don't play computer games all day all their life. While these things are fun, they don't have sufficient reality to satisfy people for a sustained period. The urge to get out into the real world eventually takes over.

Your refering to the recreational use of substances - I think the original inference to drugs in this thread related to their use as a tool which may (/may not) facilitate self-discovery, etc.

perhaps we need drugs (or at least some people taking drugs) to appreciate how finely tuned the mind is in its normal evolved state? At the end of the day it is what you make of yourself in life according to one's own criteria that is important, imo.

As regards what we 'make of ourselves', for the most part thats something that our peers/society set the parameters on. However, my take on that is that its all a state of mind. ie. I can set my own parameters for what I want to 'make of myself' - and if that incorporates experimentation with drugs (inclusive of recreational use) post 30/40,etc. then thats fine.
Alex Shulgin (as i refered to in my original post) is the wrong side of 80 and whilst he is responsible for the synethesis of in excess of 200 mind altering substances, he only experimented with these drugs in the latter half of his life....and he definitely wouldnt class himself as a 'recreational' drug user - as theres a purpose to his pursuit.

pwd

Psychotropic drugs cause you to view things form a different mindset, therefore they may broaden your perspective somewhat.
Not wishing to wax expertise on the subject that I do not possess, mushrooms (for one) also have an effect of sort of removing the ego, and may allow the user to consider and discuss, in a dispassionate manner, subjects and ideas that they would be very inhibited from thinking about while sober.
I think the anecdote that simu referred to makes a good point - drugs can make you feel like you are gaining insights when you are actually thinking complete nonsense.
Certainly most people who attribute too much usefulness to drugs, or who use them too frequently, tend to be rather delusional and full of rubbish. An altered mindset is not a superior mindset to a sober one, it is just a different one.
There is a tendency for a lot of drug users to feel arrogant and more clued in than non-users. This is particularly prevalent among youngish users of cannibis. This very arrogance can blinker their thinking to a great extent.

SkepticOne

aldous_huxley wrote:

As regards what we 'make of ourselves', for the most part thats something that our peers/society set the parameters on. However, my take on that is that its all a state of mind. ie. I can set my own parameters for what I want to 'make of myself' - and if that incorporates experimentation with drugs (inclusive of recreational use) post 30/40,etc. then thats fine.

So long as it is in moderation it is fine, imo.

18AD

Check out Timothy Leary, Terrence McKenna, Alan Watts (more eastern religious stuff) and Carlos Castaneda. All modern philosophers of a sort, all did quite an extensive amount of hallucinogenic drugs, for insight into the human mind. I'm quite the fan of Tim Leary's "eight circuit model of human consciousness".

Basic reading for most of these can be found at http://deoxy.org/yippie.htm .

zinc

Well I have many thoughts on this topic, mainly because I am a drug user and because I just finished a degree in Philosophy in UCD and am now pursuing a Masters next year.

Although I used many drugs, the usual suspects I waited until I finished my degree to use LSD and Mushrooms. By the way many philosophers used drugs, Derrida said taking LSD was possibly the best day of his life etc.

Philosophy is entirely seperate from personal development once you start to study it, for personal insights philosophy has steadied my head, it has thought me the tools for development but I learned nothing about the meaning of life itself, I learned that like everybody else, from experience which my conclusion lays in, life is nothing more than the sum of experiences.

Now if you want to confront your emotions head on, if you want to experience fear, intense paranoia, intense joy, free association of ideas, to look at nature as beautiful and in the process cleanse your mind of the filth of this reality then do LSD and by god do magic mushrooms.

I equate them with therapy, ritual cleansing of the mind. Forcing yourself to think simple as, you cant stop thinking on these drugs. MDMA/Cociane/whatever are not the same, they are party, fun drugs of which I no longer have an interest in thought I have felt intense joy on MDMA.

Ketamine is very hard to get in Dublin, surprised people get it but Im getting closer to a source on it. I cant wait to try a dissociative.

Son Goku

zinc wrote:

Now if you want to confront your emotions head on, if you want to experience fear, intense paranoia, intense joy, free association of ideas, to look at nature as beautiful and in the process cleanse your mind of the filth of this reality then do LSD and by god do magic mushrooms.

Why don't you just look at nature as beautiful without the drugs?
None of the men who discovered nature's secrets did it through a "hit"
If these drugs really are the key to a higher plateau of thought then why don't you just train your mind so that you don't need the drugs to do it.

Another thing is, why would our hominid brain which evolved as a tool to increase our chance of survival actually be enhanced by a chemical from some plant/other source.

Isn't it much more likely that the brain is just being affected by the drugs and interpreting input incorrectly, rather than being improved.

nesf

As I said earlier, I do not believe that drugs can offer a short cut to "hightened awareness" or insight into the world. That's complete bull**** spouted by idiots.

Such insight and awareness (for the vast majority of us who are not born gifted/cursed with such) require much mental training and experience (note: I did not say education) before they can be realised.

Drugs cannot provide a short cut to this.


However, if one takes a suitably trained mind then perhaps drugs may help such a person find some new perspective on a topic. May. But, as I'm sure most people (like myself) who've tried drugs on here will tell you, the vast majority of what you come up with "under the influence" is complete garbage or totally banal.

This is where all that training comes in. It helps you "sort the wheat from the chaff" so to speak. Otherwise, a drug user is no more enlightened than a sober person.

I'm still highly dubious about a person needing drugs to make such realisations. I doubt there is anything that couldn't be come up with sober. Yes you might make new realisations while under the influence, but that doesn't mean that you could only make them that way.

Anyone who's worked with their mind could describe to you a day where for some random reason everything just "clicked". Suddenly some problem that they had never really grasped became clear. It made sense now etc.

Whether drugs can help a person achieve such is a vague question. But I sincerly doubt any intelligent person with an open mind could only achieve such under their influence.

Imho.

Playboy

nesf wrote:

As I said earlier, I do not believe that drugs can offer a short cut to "hightened awareness" or insight into the world. That's complete bull**** spouted by idiots.

Drugs may be able to offer somebody a new perspective on life, the world or themselves. I don’t think it’s fair to say that other people's experiences under the influence drugs are bull**** and that they are idiots. Just because you haven’t had the experiences that other people have had doesn’t give you the right to dismiss those experiences. The fact is that experimentation with drugs for intellectual purposes is a relatively new phenomenon and we don’t know an awful lot about it. I don’t think any of us are expert in this field enough to be able to dismiss it as casually as you are doing.

zinc

Son Goku wrote:

Why don't you just look at nature as beautiful without the drugs?
None of the men who discovered nature's secrets did it through a "hit"
If these drugs really are the key to a higher plateau of thought then why don't you just train your mind so that you don't need the drugs to do it.

Another thing is, why would our hominid brain which evolved as a tool to increase our chance of survival actually be enhanced by a chemical from some plant/other source.

Isn't it much more likely that the brain is just being affected by the drugs and interpreting input incorrectly, rather than being improved.

It ehances your senses, makes you more open to sensory perception, I cant just get back to nature, it dosent suit my personality. I enjoy teh chaos and the mania, the experience and facing your inner fears.

zinc

Who is talking about shortcuts, drugs provide like anything else that heightens the sense a new way to look at the world, there are no higher planes of insights, philosophy thought me that at least, drugs are quite simply, interesting and people who talk them rarely care about achieving some kind of meaning or goal, its simply interesting and psychs fit a philosophical mind like a glove.

nesf

Playboy wrote:

Drugs may be able to offer somebody a new perspective on life, the world or themselves. I don’t think it’s fair to say that other people's experiences under the influence drugs are bull**** and that they are idiots. Just because you haven’t had the experiences that other people have had doesn’t give you the right to dismiss those experiences. The fact is that experimentation with drugs for intellectual purposes is a relatively new phenomenon and we don’t know an awful lot about it. I don’t think any of us are expert in this field enough to be able to dismiss it as casually as you are doing.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I don't think so.

I dismissed it as a shortcut around training, understanding, knowledge and experience. I didn't dismiss the validity of people's experiences on drugs. How can a person have a unique revelation if they don't know what they are talking about?

It's not a new phenomenom, it's just that people think it's modern. It isn't. Drug use was widespread amoungst intellectuals prior to the criminalisation of drugs in western culture and the use of drugs in eastern cultures for this purpose is long established.

nesf

zinc wrote:

Who is talking about shortcuts, drugs provide like anything else that heightens the sense a new way to look at the world, there are no higher planes of insights, philosophy thought me that at least, drugs are quite simply, interesting and people who talk them rarely care about achieving some kind of meaning or goal, its simply interesting and psychs fit a philosophical mind like a glove.

I agree completely. I'm objecting to the misguided belief that some drug users maintain (admittedly here, not the bright ones) that drug use essentially gives a person a shortcut to understanding.

I completely agree that drugs might prove very interesting when combined with a trained mind. Maybe even productive. But I'd maintain that the training and understanding need to be there first in order for this to happen.

On the plus side of all this serious investigation is that you get to have some fun doing it

Son Goku

zinc wrote:

Who is talking about shortcuts, drugs provide like anything else that heightens the sense a new way to look at the world, there are no higher planes of insights, philosophy thought me that at least, drugs are quite simply, interesting and people who talk them rarely care about achieving some kind of meaning or goal, its simply interesting and psychs fit a philosophical mind like a glove.

I do understand what you're saying, I'm only disagreeing with the attitude of "drugs = comprehension of world" or "understanding of the world without drugs = incomplete", which some people seem to think.

I can understand why a competent philosopher, artist or poet can find use in them, but in most "methods" of understanding of the world, I'd imagine they are useless.

For instance I'd doubt drugs would develop physical or chemical intuition.

Playboy

nesf wrote:

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I don't think so.

I dismissed it as a shortcut around training, understanding, knowledge and experience. I didn't dismiss the validity of people's experiences on drugs. How can a person have a unique revelation if they don't know what they are talking about?

Listen we can get into a debate about what the real world is and why one reality is more valid than another but I don’t think we have to. Life is a subjective experience and any revelation that a person has in the waking world, the dream world or when they are out of their minds on drugs is equally valid if that experience has an affect on that person. Who says drugs cant be a shortcut to some kind of understanding .. you? You say "how can a person have a unique revelation if they don’t know what they are talking about" .. bulls*** .. Does anybody know what they are talking about? .. We cant even begin to comprehend the true nature of our existence .. we use philosophy and its methods as a better way of understanding who we are and how to live a good life but we are no nearer to any real answers as Plato was 2000 years ago. This elitist crap that you have to have a trained mind in order to make any sense of your experiences doesn’t cut it. Phenomenology, Existentialism, Postmodernism, Quantum theory or whatever you want to use to train your mind isn’t going to mean crap when you take a dose of ketamine and go sailing through the k-hole.What about the "training, knowledge and experience" that people who experiment with drugs constantly get that a person who doesnt do drugs doesnt get? Are you saying that one type of knowledge is more valid than another?
People have incredibly deep and meaningful experiences on drugs and I believe they do gain insights into themselves and the world that they live in that they wouldn’t get without the use of drugs no matter how much they trained their mind. The experiences might be difficult to express coherently but then so are most things in life. For instance try and express exactly how u feel when you see a beautiful sunset or how you feel when your child smiles at you .. try and define exactly what love is .. everybody finds it difficult because language is usually an insufficient tool of expression .. ask any philosopher.

nesf wrote:

It's not a new phenomenom, it's just that people think it's modern. It isn't. Drug use was widespread amoungst intellectuals prior to the criminalisation of drugs in western culture and the use of drugs in eastern cultures for this purpose is long established.

Yes it is a new phenomenom. Im not talking about Keats writing poetry while he is out of his mind on opium or tribal shamans smoking grass or doing natural lsd. Im talking about people manufacturing and experimenting with drugs that were impossible to make 30 years.

nesf

Playboy wrote:

Listen we can get into a debate about what the real world is and why one reality is more valid than another but I don’t think we have to.

Agreed this isn't the time or place

Life is a subjective experience and any revelation that a person has in the waking world, the dream world or when they are out of their minds on drugs is equally valid if that experience has an affect on that person.

See. That kind of thinking (while valid in some senses) does make science and other fields completely pointless. If theren't no such thing as an objective experiment then what point is there to science? (as an example)

A "revelation while on drugs" was not something I dismissed. I didn't. What I dismissed was the idea that they suddenly became much truer because the person was on drugs. I don't think there is any inherent superiority in either sober or drug related revelations. Both are limited by the person having them and that person's experience and mind.

Who says drugs cant be a shortcut to some kind of understanding .. you?

Did I quote anyone else in my posts? Sure yeah I could try and back it up, but I'm only offering an opinion here after all.

You say "how can a person have a unique revelation if they don’t know what they are talking about" .. bulls*** .. Does anybody know what they are talking about?

Yes, they do. Unless you discount knowledge and experience as being meaningless then yes they can. Yes much of past thought and accepted conventions are close-minded ways of looking at things (you see this in physics far too often unfortunately).

That doesn't discount everything though. For instance, are you telling me that logic is meaningless? That (across all relevant fields, not just philosophy here) logical thought and the training people do with their minds doesn't mean anything?

Just to pick an example, I'm sure there are plenty others, but it's early and I don't feel like making a huge effort here.

We cant even begin to comprehend the true nature of our existence .. we use philosophy and its methods as a better way of understanding who we are and how to live a good life but we are no nearer to any real answers as Plato was 2000 years ago.

Arguable in philosophy perhaps. Arguable across all fields of human thought and study? No.

Are you trying to argue that relativity is less accurate than newtonian physics? Are you saying that genetics is no where closer to the truth than creationism was?

We're discussing more than philosophy here. Yes it's a philosophy board, but there isn't a distinct line between philosophy and other disciplines. Physics and philosophy are very blurred for instance.

This elitist crap that you have to have a trained mind in order to make any sense of your experiences doesn’t cut it.

Why is it elitist? It would be elitist if I said you needed to be educated. I didn't though. I just said trained. Huge difference.

Are you arguing that the mind of a fresh 14 year old making their first forays into philosophy is equivilant to that of a 30 year old who's had the time to think, comprehend and study the subject?

Phenomenology, Existentialism, Postmodernism, Quantum theory or whatever you want to use to train your mind isn’t going to mean crap when you take a dose of ketamine and go sailing through the k-hole.

That doesn't make any sense. You're trying to mysterise ketamine use as being something "beyond the understanding" of those who haven't used it. Make points not crap.

Have you ever seen Quantum? I sincerely doubt you have if you think you don't need to have seen it in order to have revelations about it.

What about the "training, knowledge and experience" that people who experiment with drugs constantly get that a person who doesnt do drugs doesnt get? Are you saying that one type of knowledge is more valid than another?

No I'm saying that the person who is behind the experience is what matters more. Not the manner in which the experience was gained.

People have incredibly deep and meaningful experiences on drugs and I believe they do gain insights into themselves and the world that they live in that they wouldn’t get without the use of drugs no matter how much they trained their mind. The experiences might be difficult to express coherently but then so are most things in life. For instance try and express exactly how u feel when you see a beautiful sunset or how you feel when your child smiles at you .. try and define exactly what love is ..

:rolleyes:

At least try and make a point. What do you mean as deep? What do you mean as meaningful? What is it about a drug state that causes this? Or is it down to the person in said drug state?

everybody finds it difficult because language is usually an insufficient tool of expression .. ask any philosopher.

Language is one aspect/mode of communication. It's clear enough, although tbh, maths is clearer. Philosophical logical notitation too for that matter. Yes we are limited to an extent by the mode of communication we have to express ourselves in. But to call it insufficient? No. Just cumbersome. But not everything is expressed in written or verbal language.

Plus, the only limit on your ability to express yourself in a particular language is one's vocabulary. That isn't something that there's a shortcut around. It's not nice, but essentially what's happening is this:

We have an understanding in our heads. This is all well and good for us but noone else can see/benifit or use it. We want to share it with people for whatever reason.

That's where language and communication come in. We need to find a way of clearly expressing the concepts in our minds onto a mode of communication so that others can read it and grasp it. Different modes for different jobs. Expressing Quantum (for instance) as a painting won't help someone get their mind around it but using maths might. Conversly trying to express an emotion in the form of maths is more than a little pointless, but a very valid subject for a painting. etc.

Yes it is a new phenomenom. Im not talking about Keats writing poetry while he is out of his mind on opium or tribal shamans smoking grass or doing natural lsd. Im talking about people manufacturing and experimenting with drugs that were impossible to make 30 years.

Yes they were, but mind altering drugs, which is what we're discussing here, have been used and experimented with, for centuries.

What makes these drugs fundamentally different to older ones? Just because they were made in a lab doesn't mean they behave any differently on a basic level. Disassociatives, hallucinogens etc existed before we could make them in a lab.

Sapien

This debate would have a place on a philosophy forum if people made the effort to discuss it in philosophical terms.

Playboy, I have read only your first and last post in this thread, but you seem to be arguing somewhere between a kind of drug-related trancendentalism and, somewhat more tenably, a philosopical scepticism that amounts to epistemological nihilism.

Given this, it is eminently possible to recommend the perceptual paradigm of the "waking world", of shared reality, logic and science, by way of its sophisticated internal consistency, over that of drug induced states, with their chaotic and self-stultifying tendencies of thought.

Ultimately, your opponents in this discussion believe that when one uses drugs one's mind doesn't work properly. Again, you can tackle this by way of fundamental relativism, but it is very difficult to do sensibly, and you will inevitably argue yourself to the point where you deny the very validity of reasoned argument, by which point you will have lost.

Sapien

... or will you!? :eek:

nesf

In my opinion:

The subject of this thread wasn't a philosophical argument about drugs but one on the effects of drugs on philosophical argument.

There is a large difference in those questions, imo. The former should definitely be argued from a philosophical perspective, but the latter need not be. The latter encompases more than just a philosophical perspective on the issue. This is not purely a philosophical question and will tend to touch on other areas within an argument on it.

Plus, this board is not for only for discussing matters in philosophical terms. It also covers discussions related to philosophy but not necessarily philisophical in nature. Such as the case is here.

Edit: Apologies for the mess of a post that preceeded this one. My posts combined with mornings can result in some quite unclear crap tbh.

zinc

nesf wrote:

I agree completely. I'm objecting to the misguided belief that some drug users maintain (admittedly here, not the bright ones) that drug use essentially gives a person a shortcut to understanding.

I completely agree that drugs might prove very interesting when combined with a trained mind. Maybe even productive. But I'd maintain that the training and understanding need to be there first in order for this to happen.

On the plus side of all this serious investigation is that you get to have some fun doing it

Yeah well I think were on the same wavelength here, Im certainly not going to advocate drugs as the key to well anything other than fun or at the most as in my case, interesting effects on the sense.

zinc

Son Goku wrote:

I do understand what you're saying, I'm only disagreeing with the attitude of "drugs = comprehension of world" or "understanding of the world without drugs = incomplete", which some people seem to think.

I can understand why a competent philosopher, artist or poet can find use in them, but in most "methods" of understanding of the world, I'd imagine they are useless.

For instance I'd doubt drugs would develop physical or chemical intuition.

Its cool, Im just putting forward my own thoughts, not well laid either so for argumentation sake I may commit some fallacies along the way, just my quick fire ideas on the topic.

Playboy

nesf wrote:

See. That kind of thinking (while valid in some senses) does make science and other fields completely pointless. If theren't no such thing as an objective experiment then what point is there to science? (as an example)

It doesn’t make science and other fields pointless. Self-actualisation and growth is an experience that occurs in every part of your life. Dreams have long been seen as a window to a persons sub conscious. Ever had a dream that you felt had some personal significance to you? Experiences that occur under the influence of drugs can have an impact on your perspective and can possibly reveal some personal hidden truth. I don’t necessarily think that having a trained mind (whatever that is?) is essential for self-discovery. I really don’t understand why you think an experience in one realm or aspect of your life is going to invalidate an experience in another.

nesf wrote:

Did I quote anyone else in my posts? Sure yeah I could try and back it up, but I'm only offering an opinion here after all.

In a previous post you made quite an arrogant assumption that people could not gain some sort of shortcut to understanding through the use of drugs and that if they thought they could then they were dumb. I don’t know if we are on the same page but in my opinion a person can learn a lot about themselves with the use of drugs that they maybe would be unable to when sober. Even drugs like MDMA were used by psychiatrists to help couples get along better because they could talk more freely and openly and try and answer questions about themselves and their realtionship which they were unable to do when sober. Please back up your statement that drugs cant be used as a shortcut because in my experience that is exactly what drugs are - shortcuts

nesf wrote:

Yes, they do. Unless you discount knowledge and experience as being meaningless then yes they can. Yes much of past thought and accepted conventions are close-minded ways of looking at things (you see this in physics far too often unfortunately).

That doesn't discount everything though. For instance, are you telling me that logic is meaningless? That (across all relevant fields, not just philosophy here) logical thought and the training people do with their minds doesn't mean anything?

Just to pick an example, I'm sure there are plenty others, but it's early and I don't feel like making a huge effort here.

What I am suggesting here is that people who use drugs to further their own personal development and understanding of the world and reality around them are perfectly capable of making their own conclusions about things without having to subscribe to some kind of training. A philosopher’s opinion about the world around him is just that – an opinion – an opinion that is no more or less valid than mine. As I said before, life is a subjective experience and we all have to find our own way.

nesf wrote:

Arguable in philosophy perhaps. Arguable across all fields of human thought and study? No.

Are you trying to argue that relativity is less accurate than newtonian physics? Are you saying that genetics is no where closer to the truth than creationism was?

We're discussing more than philosophy here. Yes it's a philosophy board, but there isn't a distinct line between philosophy and other disciplines. Physics and philosophy are very blurred for instance.

Before we get into a philosophical debate about truth then you would probably want to be familiar with all aspects of ‘truth’. See here. One of the more interesting bits is:

Is The Goal of Scientific Research to Achieve Truth?
Except in special cases, most scientific researchers would agree that their results are only approximately true. Nevertheless, to make sense of this, philosophers need adopt no special concept such as "approximate truth." Instead, it suffices to say that the researchers' goal is to achieve truth, but they achieve this goal only approximately, or only to some approximation.

Other philosophers believe it's a mistake to say the researchers' goal is to achieve truth. These 'scientific anti-realists' recommend saying that research in, for example, physics, economics, and meteorology, aims only for usefulness. When they aren't overtly identifying truth with usefulness, the instrumentalists Peirce, James and Schlick take this anti-realist route, as does Kuhn. They would say atomic theory isn't true or false but rather is useful for predicting outcomes of experiments and for explaining current data. Giere recommends saying science aims for the best available 'representation', in the same sense that maps are representations of the landscape. Maps aren't true; rather, they fit to a better or worse degree. Similarly, scientific theories are designed to fit the world. Scientists should not aim to create true theories; they should aim to construct theories whose models are representations of the world.

nesf wrote:

Why is it elitist? It would be elitist if I said you needed to be educated. I didn't though. I just said trained. Huge difference.

What is the difference between trained and educated? Maybe one is done in a school and the other outside? I dont see your point.

nesf wrote:

Are you arguing that the mind of a fresh 14 year old making their first forays into philosophy is equivilant to that of a 30 year old who's had the time to think, comprehend and study the subject?

Is nice to see you judge people so easily and why you think one persons opinion is more valid that another’s before you have even heard the opinions. Age or education does not mean smarter or more insightful.

nesf wrote:

No I'm saying that the person who is behind the experience is what matters more. Not the manner in which the experience was gained.

Again - Is nice to see you judge people so easily and why you think one persons opinion is more valid that another’s before you have even heard the opinions. Age or education does not mean smarter or more insightful.

nesf wrote:

At least try and make a point. What do you mean as deep? What do you mean as meaningful? What is it about a drug state that causes this? Or is it down to the person in said drug state?

I’m referring to experiences that people have recounted as been extremely important in the shaping of their perspective.

nesf wrote:

Language is one aspect/mode of communication. It's clear enough, although tbh, maths is clearer. Philosophical logical notitation too for that matter. Yes we are limited to an extent by the mode of communication we have to express ourselves in. But to call it insufficient? No. Just cumbersome. But not everything is expressed in written or verbal language.

Plus, the only limit on your ability to express yourself in a particular language is one's vocabulary. That isn't something that there's a shortcut around. It's not nice, but essentially what's happening is this:

We have an understanding in our heads. This is all well and good for us but noone else can see/benifit or use it. We want to share it with people for whatever reason.

That's where language and communication come in. We need to find a way of clearly expressing the concepts in our minds onto a mode of communication so that others can read it and grasp it. Different modes for different jobs. Expressing Quantum (for instance) as a painting won't help someone get their mind around it but using maths might. Conversly trying to express an emotion in the form of maths is more than a little pointless, but a very valid subject for a painting. etc.

If you think that the only problem a person has when been unable to express themselves is a limited vocabulary then you are quite mistaken. Language will probably never function as a sufficient method of expression. Why do you think that books such a ‘the phenomenology of perception’ are so difficult to understand? A philosopher is always fighting a battle with language to express his or her thoughts coherently.

Playboy

Sapien wrote:

This debate would have a place on a philosophy forum if people made the effort to discuss it in philosophical terms.

Playboy, I have read only your first and last post in this thread, but you seem to be arguing somewhere between a kind of drug-related trancendentalism and, somewhat more tenably, a philosopical scepticism that amounts to epistemological nihilism.

Given this, it is eminently possible to recommend the perceptual paradigm of the "waking world", of shared reality, logic and science, by way of its sophisticated internal consistency, over that of drug induced states, with their chaotic and self-stultifying tendencies of thought.

Ultimately, your opponents in this discussion believe that when one uses drugs one's mind doesn't work properly. Again, you can tackle this by way of fundamental relativism, but it is very difficult to do sensibly, and you will inevitably argue yourself to the point where you deny the very validity of reasoned argument, by which point you will have lost.

Thats not what Im trying to do at all

Sapien

Playboy wrote:

Thats not what Im trying to do at all

Oh. Well then you've no hope whatsoever. Carry on.

Playboy

Sapien wrote:

Oh. Well then you've no hope whatsoever. Carry on.

please explain why?

Playboy

Tbh after reading back over the thread I think nesf (and especially Sapien) and I are crossing wires. I am not trying to say that if you take drugs of some sort then you are going to figure out the meaning of life and then be able to recount this experience to everybody else. What I am trying to say is that drugs when used sensibly may be able to help a person gain a greater understanding of themselves and help them grow as a person. It is possible that an intense experience on drugs may have the ability to change your perspective on life. If we look at most recreational drug users then we can see this as true. We have the stereotypical marijuana user, cocaine user, lsd user and xtc user. Repeated exposure to these drugs can usually have a negative impact on the users worldview. The point of this thread when I started it was to ask people if they think that drugs when used sensibly can have a positive effect on a persons mental state instead of the usual negative stereotypes we come across every day. There seems to be a new breed of drug user emerging in society who takes drugs for the sole purpose of gaining a greater understanding of themselves and their world. My main question to people was - do they think that people are fooling themselves when believe that drugs are having a positive impact on their lives or can they really have a positive effect?

I hope this clears things up a bit.

nesf

I apologise if I came across a bit harsh. Also, my posts on this thread were quite rushed and under sleep deprived conditions.


I'm just sick of people looking for shortcuts to understanding. The world doesn't work that way, unfortunately. You can't understand life until you experience it from a few different angles and all that. You need the highs and the lows not just the interesting stuff.

That's why I argue age so much. Young people tend not to have seen and experienced enough to have a well developed world-view. There are of course exceptions to this, but I think it's pretty obvious for the general case tbh.


Personally, while I've enjoyed my experiences on them, I just do not see them as a path to understanding. A part of the path for some sure. But I don't think experiences on drugs, by themselves, really do much for a person. They need to be part of something larger.

I don't think they replace, or offer an alternative to, experience, training and essentially the long slog towards understanding. They can compliment them though.

I think we're all arguing different sides of the same question. Which is nice for a change. These kinds of discussions can devolve into very two sided affairs most of the time, and that's just boring!