It seems to go hand-in-hand. I mean, Descartes was clearly a drunk. I don’t know how Berkeley found LSD at his time and place, but he did. Nietche was clearly spending most of his adult life trying to find a never ending sourse of blow. And for some reason Wittgenstein seems like the kind of guy that got really trashed before he beat kids.
But seriously, it has seemed to me (both from real life and here) that those interested in philosophy are more often than not interested in liver faliure and acid flashbacks. I myself tend to overindulge in the necessities of reality alteration (and only stop when my pants come off and people lock me in things), and I don’t think I am alone in this. From what I have seen it seems philosophers (and more importantly philosophy students) are simply addicts en mass. Can anyone try to put a finger on why, because it does not seem to match (at least from my perceptions) the number of addicts in society to the number of people buying philosophy books.
Or have I completely fallen off my rocker and are philosophers these days good little boys and girls who only have a glass of wine with dinner instead of a bottle of gin as an eye opener?
I think there are all sorts of people interested in philosophy, but it does seem to find favor amond the users. It isn’t so surprising, though. In a lot of ways, both philosophy and drugs are mind-fucks, and people looking for one are apt to find the other as well.
Only sophism is a mindfuck.
Philosophy was originally and classically the persuit of wisdom.
Wisdom is the opposite of a mindfuck.
Most loaded, hammered, idle, self-proclaimed “philosophers” are probably somewhere between a sophist and a mass-media hack.
Regardless of whether one´s attitude is predominantly Sophist or optimistic, I think the philosophically inclined typically have the urge to widen their perspective of existence and reality. Both philosophy and drugs can aid this, with the former supplying ideas and the latter states of mind, thus varying experience.
Reading St. Augustine, then Sartre, gives two very different takes on existence. Whether I like or agree with them or not, I appreciate their perspectives. Smoking a spliff could be said to similarly alter one´s perception of the world, so why not have a blast while you´re here? Just beware that clinging too wrecklessly to a drug or theory can be destructive!
Having had my pipe, my answer to ths one is that i think it’s more about people that are interested in philosophy and drugs feel as if there’s an answer to a question missing and they need to think about as many questions as possible in case they find the answer that will make them feel whole…heh
If by “whole” you mean simply to maximise one´s stock of ideas and states of mind (which share a strange reciprocity), then I agree entirely. Perhaps hardcore druggies should do a little philosophy, and hardcore philosophers should do a little drugs! I think I´ve met a fair compromise.
So, I ask the room, to what degrees are your minds dabbling in drugs and philosophy? Anyone know of a good recipe for a healthy (or at least enjoyable) state of mind? A little weed and a some aesthetics? A little Hegel and a couple of ecstasies? I´d recommend a spliff with some Nietzsche.
I’ll give you an interesting exception: my older brother (by three years) hates drugs. He doesn’t smoke and never has more than one or two drinks. And he’s doing a PhD on Deleuze.
LOL Well I have never met a stoner who doesn’t think they are brilliant. Who wouldn’t agree as they ponder the meaning behind the turning of the ceiling fan compared to the cycles of life. Makes sense at the time.
So does getting drunk and banging your head on the toilet someone just pissed in. Now how truly deep is that. To fill the void in your soul and mind you hang that same mind over where people crap every day.
It doesn’t enhance your mind or thinking. It numbs it.
I think you´ve misread some of our points. Philosophy, arguably more than any other subject, produces ideas which alter one´s view of existence, the way they view the world. It´s not about trying to stay at the high end only of some sort of hierarchy of profundity. It´s about maximising one´s tools for thinking, one´s ideas, and thus one´s mental experiences. I might decide to “take” some Aquinas and find it anything but profound; this doesn´t matter - I´ve experienced it. What I and I think others are getting at is that this typical desire of philosophers could explain a higher predilection for drug-taking. Like ideas, drugs can offer different stances/outlooks/views/mental states. Regardless of normative judgements, both ideas and drugs stimulate a wider range of experience than say, a tee-total zombie.
But would it also numb inhibitions? That shouldn’t be rhetorical… it does. On this though it doesn’t only act on what you would do but also what you would think. When you are high you may actually see the Flying Spaghetti Monster; when you are sober this represents an obvious absurdity but when you are high logical inhibitions are lowered and the realm of ‘logically impossible’ becomes ‘can I have some noodles… I’m hungry’. In the same way you can accept logically implausable things when high, you can develop them simply because the contraints of logic have less, if any, sway on you.
Thank you for your responses. Don’t get me wrong, I have seen my share of the ‘high road’. Did it change my way of thinking? Of course. I have wondered at the complexity of bubbles in a Pepsi bottle. Studied them for a length of time.
I have seen rainbows in the middle of the nite. Believed them to be real.
Did it change my outlook? Well yeah. I also ran through a dayum briar patch with no shoes on and didn’t know I had thorns stuck in me.
I also banged my head on the throne…once.
I have also lost people who could never find it was they were searching for through these things. Myself, I prefer to have that much control of my thoughts and mind. Nothing changed in my way of thinking after these things except that I knew my way of thinking then was a tad out there.
