Considering that I am an anarchist and an atheist its interesting that my most controversial subjects that I deal with are drugs and animal rights (I am opposed to both). Many of my friends have decided to regularly use drugs or alcohol and I suppose its time to further clarity my position.
If the point of philosophy is to develop a healthy relationship with the truth, then what is its opposite? Self induced insanity
Man is a rational being that achieves happiness by means of reason, creativity, productivity, and friendship, in short happiness is achieved by using your brain and sharing your time with those that do that same. Drugs achieve the exact opposite of all these things. The faculty of reason is destroyed, creativity is reduced to mindless (for those of you that claim drugs increase creativity, I would suggest writing something as beautiful as The Fountainhead while on acid), friendship is reduced to incoherent ramblings (as for those that claim that alcohol as a social lubricant, I am only forced to ask why your friendships require lubrication). As a result: a brainless pleasure that comes form a complete evasion of reality. A self induced insanity.
Happiness is not suddenly achieved as soon as pleasure reaches a certain standard. Happiness is not a simple sensation. It is a long term state of mind. It is non-contradictory joy as a result of livings ones values consistently.
Never mind the healthy issues, that not the point, the point is that drugs are the exact opposite of everything that makes life beautiful, honesty, and authentic. Surely I could have a drink or two from time to time and live with my self in the same way I could steal from time to time and live with my self. But “living with yourself” is not the point to life now is it? Life is not the evasion of pain, life is not a giant hospital hiding from the facts of reality. No we are meant to achieve something, we are meant to make something beautiful. We are meant to become our own hero by embracing everything that makes life beautiful and rejecting everything that takes it away. And that is why I am opposed to drugs.
Posts
17 comments:
i see what you are saying and i understand, but what your idea of happiness could be completely different from another person's definition. however, i don't agree in drug use either.
i see what you are saying and i understand, but your idea of happiness could be completely different from another person's definition. however, i don't agree in drug use either.
I would have to disagree. While some aspects of what it takes to achieve happiness are probably subjective (for example one person might need to be doctor while the other a teacher)but I think the basic principles are the same.
Self respect (which I think is a vital part of happiness) can't be equally achieved by watching TV all day or by going out and being productive and using your mind to create something.
In short every house might be different but the basic principles of what it takes for a house to stand are consistent form person.
i don't think comparing mild alcohol consumption and the evasion of property rights to be a great comparison...
Rand herself had quite the nicotine addiction while writing The Fountainhead and she seemed to pull through things alright!
I don't want too hear one more thing, til you've tried a glorious cheesing session, and traveled to the breastiary with kyle's dad
ah I can always count on Jesse's "anonymous" comment.
I am not sure if you were being sarcastic with the property rights comparison but in case not, I didn't mean to compare them morally, but both psychologically are equally an evasion of reality and a revolt against man's proper existence.
A person may steal a single jelly bean from a store and the issue is not so much if they are a moral human being or if they can live with themselves, the point is why bother even stealing a single jelly bean?
You do realize, don't you, that many classics such as Alice and Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz were created on drugs?
Don't knock it until you try it, Christopher. Either you've never done any "drugs", or you haven't done the right kind. I know plenty of people that smoke weed to meditate, to be in the right state of mind to be enlightened. The same with mushrooms. Some people abuse it, yes, and some people do it just to get fucked up.
But don't you dare assume that everyone in the world needs the same things to be happy. Some need love, some don't. Some need structure, some don't.
Stop being a closeminded asshole. Maybe you'll learn something.
For one thing, I personally could care less about those movies but also considering that not all great master pieces have been done under the influence drugs, its clear that its not required. And certainly the art I enjoy is not drug related.
Don't knock it until I have tried it? I am curious... have you tried gay sex? Or how about sex with animals? How about hitting yourself in the head repeatedly with a baseball bat? hey don't knock it until you have tried it! Thats just close minded!
There are general requirements for happiness in the same way that there is general requirements for building a bridge or a house. They don't have to be the same but if you build a bridge while evading the law of gravity then a bridge cannot stand. Rationality is the proper existence of man, self induced insanity is its opposite. If you disagree with that, then thats fine, but calling me "close minded" isn't too persuasive.
No I am not "open minded" in the sense you are using it. I am not "open minded" to the possibility that 2+2=5. Its wrong. However I do consider my self HONEST. If I am wrong I am happy to admit it. But "open mindedness" has nothing to do with whether or not I am correct. Its a lack of an argument and an attempt to intimidate rather then reason.
I never said drugs were required to create something amazing, because they're not. But creativity is NOT necessarily "reduced to mindless" as you said. Unless you've actually tried creating something while you're on drugs, you cannot have a real opinion on whether or not it increases or decreases your ability to make something "worthwhile". And I don't care if you care less about those movies; I really could care less about The Fountainhead. I'm not saying that you have to like them, but they are works of art reguardless.
I thought anarchists believed in chaos, not order?
Mind altering drugs impair rationality and consciousness and by definition would have to reduce anything that they produce to mindlessness.
I have no problems with drugs such as caffeine that has no effect on rationality and consciousness. However the only point of being drunk or high is mindlessness or insanity.
Though something aesthetically pleasing may come as a result of mindlessness certainly not a work of art.
I don't believe in chaos, just that the government shouldn't exist. In other words, that order can be achieved with out government.
"Unless you've actually tried creating something while you're on drugs, you cannot have a real opinion on whether or not it increases or decreases your ability to make something 'worthwhile'"
I know what drugs do, and I know what art is. those are the only things required to make my judgement. But here is my suggestion, don't knock jumping off a cliff until you have tried it.
And what exactly is your definition of art, Chris? I was under the impression that art is something you create, whether you're stone cold sober or not. But perhaps I'm wrong, being the little cliffjumper that I am.
Well, I guess I am curious if I glued two Popsicle stick together would you call that art? I created it didn't I?
Or what if I created a pipeline from my house to the water main? It seems to me that art as something that you create isn't exactly sufficient.
I asked you to tell me what you think art is, not what it isn't. So let's say I smoked three bowls, got a bunch of markers and created the best picture I've ever done. Would it not be considered art because I was high?
I am aware of that, I was just trying to see if that was really your position.
I believe art is the re-creation of reality to express something of value to you. I think to do this in its purest form requires a sober mind and the ability to reason.
But there are of course other things that are aesthetically pleasing such as photography that some might call art, but I would not, or at least not art in its purest form.
Of course it's really my position. I'm not just trying to be an ass to you. These are really truly my beliefs and I'm curious about yours, what you think and why you think them. I like talking to people who think differently than I do because it gives me another perspective. Everything is perspective.
Why isn't photography considered art in it's purest form?
I think we can all agree that the argument from art is rather silly. Drugs and art is hardly causational. When you abuse a drug, you are merely inhibiting or exciting certain neurons. Therefore, you are not creating anything you could not have created sober. It's a classic confusion of correlation and causation.
Some people think that marijuana is enlightening. Well, when you show me consistent evidence that incredible scientific theories come from smoking marijuana, then maybe I will entertain looking into it, but until then...
What is actually going on, is you are inhibiting the function of your frontal cortex, which evaluates whether things are intelligent or not. Same thing with alcohol. Some people think they are a better person drunk, but usually don't get a sober persons perspective of their behavior.
OK. You know what my opinion happens to be, I've told you. I also know that it is useless to claim that you are wrong/right, since both of those ideas are subjective. I do however believe that you are not capable of fully grasping the idea that you truly cannot understand the nature of "drugs" without having tried them.
Let me clarify several key points about my position which people assume once I start this conversation. I do not believe people should be doing "drugs." That term seems to imply that the person doing them is only wanting to "get fucked up." Which is the exact type of ignorance that I denounce. Also, I find drugs to be loathsome. There are however several medicines (yes, medicines) which under the proper circumstances, can be good things. It's not black and white like the mainstream anti-drug movement would have you believe.
So back to the idea that you cannot understand without having tried it. Your (not Amos') point concerning, "don't knock it until you've tried it," I find valid. However, you are not looking into that concept a little bit further. The next logical idea is that under the proper circumstances you can try anything. I would jump off of a cliff, with a parachute. I would have sex with a guy, if I was gay. I would hit myself in the head with a baseball bat, if I had a helmet. There are multiple facets to all things, your looking at the back and I see the front.
I find that responsible and sensible "drug" use is the same as the other examples I gave. I eat LSD, under the proper set and setting. Set being my current mind state and the state of affairs in my life. Setting being my actual location on the planet. Those two subjective concepts are what determines the effects of LSD, mescaline, psylocibin and THC. Upon examination, don't those concepts have to do with everything?
I don't really know what I am trying to get at anymore, but if you want to argue anything send it straight to my myspace and I will gladly expand on my position.
Here are a few references for you to check out to better understand my views on psychedelics, which you would probably just call "drugs."
First and probably foremost i would recommend you read, The Joyous Cosmology by Alan Watts.
DMT - The Spirit Molecule, Dr Rick Strassman
Psychedelic Experience, Dr Timothy Leary, Dr Richard Alpert, and Dr Ralph Metzner
LSD, My Problem Child, Dr. Albert Hoffmann
Alice in Woderland, Lewis Carroll. Read books, don't pass judgement based on a disney movie. Same goes for the Wizard of Oz.
There are also several individuals whom you should look into. Jack Krouac, Allen Ginsberg, Aldous Huxley, R. Gordon Wasson, Terence and Dennis McKenna, Richard Evans Schultes.
The arguement about art didn't make sense either, haven't you ever heard of Alex Grey?
A great place for you to start on your quest for understanding, if that is something you remotely have an interest in, would be to go to erowid.org and look into their library of information. I am going to send you a copy of Joyous Cosmology along with this. If the attachment doesn't work you can get on to erowid and they have it on their site, along with several others.
Remember also that I am not trying to convince you of anything. Just take a little time and research the things you denounce. Know both sides to a story.
Great post, Chris. I completely agree with what you are saying. People do drugs when they want to avoid something - be it bad environment, bad friends, etc. Prevention is always the better option, but sometimes circumstances get in the way, and that's when I would justify the temporary use of short-term solutions.
It seems to me completely insane to put drugs and alcohol on a pedestal, and the people who do that are usually afraid to dig deeper in their issues, find the root cause, and take care of it. So instead they come up with all these stupid excuses, that drugs expand one's mind and increase creativity. Ah, the cognitive dissonance.
Post a Comment