No doubt there are many philosophers using cannabis, not that most would admit to it. It’s no surprise that no-one admits to cannabis use more than the unemployed - they have little to lose.
Perhaps some people here know the bumpf on famous academic use?
Cannabis in high doses can elicit a psychedelic response which may involve contact with non-material agencies, out of body experiences, death-rebirth experiences, etc. This would be revelatory rather than discursive.
Ordinary fag-strength cannabis can stimulate discourse and ideas without the depth of physical/spiritual involvement that comes from having too much. Observers to their own use will, no doubt, agree with me in saying that the ideas may seem more entertaining, and one may be more easily put in the mood to consider them, but the ideas themselves, even when they are good, are no better than can be got without cannabis use.
how would you know? i mean, if you come up with an idea while you’re high then you can not go back and see if you would have come up with it when you were sober…therefore i would still highly doubt possibilities concerning ideas are unaffected by drugs as your statements seem to imply…this in no way permits use of marijuana nor shows any approval of drug-use by me.
I think when we indulge in gossip and socializing under the title of “philosophy” we truly lower it to where we are left wondering, as many of you do: What use is philosophy, anyhow?
I would suggest another title for a thread for this place entitled Philosophy:
How many philosophers were homosexuals?..or…How many philosophers had children?
What he’s saying is that cannabis, or not, ideas are out there. There are no ideas that can only be had while high. Cannabis can be said to change the route, and propulsion towards those ideas, but it’s not a catalyst in the strict sense of the word.
This is where Satyr shows his weak-willed addiction to attention. Here it’s obvious he has nothing to offer. Still he is forced to post something – anything. Of course he’ll respond that, of course, his comments are inherently relevant. Of course we all know that when only one person holds that belief, which is the obvious case here, it’s called delusion.
ummm yea this sounds kinda like what he said…which i responded to…how would you know? as i said- if you come up with an idea while you’re high you can not go back and see if you would have come up with that same idea had you been sober…you simply can not do this and therefore there is no way for you to truly know whether or not your statement is valid…so what point did i miss?
Food tastes better, but the quality is no different.
Music sounds better, but it’s still the same selection.
If you are having a great day, but someone negatively affects your mood, the day hasn’t changed [it’s probably the same as most others] – your perspective of the day probably has, though.
As cannabis and other drugs are mind altering and thus change how we think, it is bound to induce idea that we may never have come across through our ‘normal’ patterns of thinking. But JJ is right in saying that it doesn’t mean those ideas aren’t out there.
I’d also like to know this.
And this.
I know that many philosophers (prior to the last century anyhow) did not get married.
What are ideas that are out there? Is there a collection of all knowledge or something?
Can a non-cannabis smoker know what it is like to smoke cannabis?
How about lsd, apparently its chemical makeup is ideal to form a layer between the subject and its perceived reality [or the connections], hence would give knowledge that those connected cannot know?
I have used both btw, you wouldn’t have guessed eh!
Personally I’m a Platonist, insomuch as I could sum up myself in one word. I think knowledge is out there, to be remembered/thought.
Look at mathematics. Many, many mathematicians feel that the sublime elegance of the equations we have are discovered, not created. I should say, though, that if most of them had the chance to learn Locke there might not be as much of a disparity.
With something like math and certain principles yes, but we create metaphors about discovered things don’t we? Or imagined things purely of our own creation.
Though perhaps even the imagination draws from a limited pool, though I would think the very fluidity of it would create anew.
Some philosophers think we cannot know anything, thus absolutely everything is created.
For example the Platonic solids can be used to create everything in existence. They are the fundamental building blocks of all known matter. They’re still taught today in engineering and Plato introduced them over 2300 years ago. It seems to me that everything conceivable in the known universe is apprehended in some sort of coding: physics, chemistry, psychology – there may be a finite nature to this coding, and it seems to me that which lies beyond is the code creator.
More like; there is a blob, it moves and in doing so there is the dimension of time, it has amorphous shape hence there are 3 dimensions, etc etc. the laws and principles arise from the ‘hyperfluid reality map’ [as I call it] taking shape [in a continuum, ncessarily]. It is not that there are rules and laws ‘out there’ but more that the object acts in a given way to wit we may ascribe laws and principles.
)