The
Guardian
journalist,
Stuart Jeffries, opened his piece ('Why
philosophy students do the most drugs')
with these words:
“The
Tab's
[“... a university news network run by students who like being
first”] survey of more than 5,000 students at 21 British
universities reveals that 87% of philosophers polled had taken drugs,
compared with 57% of medical students.”
Isn't
this just a case of philosophy students compared to a single other
group of students – medical students? So what about, say, drama,
politics or sociology students? Who knows, perhaps this journalist
chose medical students precisely because their figure for drug-use is
so low. Nonetheless, the article's sub-heading does state the
following:
“Nearly
90%
of
them [philosophy students] have taken drugs, a higher proportion than
in any other discipline, according to a poll of 21 UK universities.”
However,
these figures aren't actually backed up in the article itself. This
isn't helped by the fact that the Guardian
link
to The
Tab article/survey
is dead. And the only relevant article (from The
Tab) I
could find is called 'Revealed:
Which uni takes the most drugs'.
Take
this jump from the word “philosophers” (presumably he means
philosophy
students)
to the word “students”:
“Perhaps
James's drug experimenting is inspiring today's philosophers: 45% of
students polled claimed to have taken laughing gas. Or perhaps not –
68% had taken cannabis.”
Mr
Jeffries also tells us that an Oxford maths student took MDMA,
ketamine and laughing gas, and said: "I thought I was Godzilla."
So what? That could have been true of any student and indeed of any
young person.
Jeffries
himself says that the research on this is rubbish (not his own word). For
example, he writes:
“Until
a cross-referencing of which types of students favour what kind of
drugs, we are lost in a world of diverting speculation.”
The
writer also comments on the “discrepancy” of the research in that
“The
Tab's
editors, sensibly, say the survey should be taken with a pinch of
salt since respondents are self-selecting”.
Though
he doesn't tell us why he personally chose to compare philosophy
students to medical students. He writes:
“Why
this discrepancy? Is it because philosophy is easier than medicine
and thus offers more recreational downtime? Really? Is grasping the
Kantian noumenon less demanding than dissecting corpses?”
He
does compare students with each other; though not with philosophy
students (with the exception, as I said, of medical students). In addition,
no figures are given. For example, he asks: “Why would a higher
proportion of business administration students than lawyers claim to
be drug users?”
So
why did Jeffries single out philosophy students at all? There's no
clear evidence in this piece why he should have done so. (Other than
the possible fact that he may be vaguely interested in philosophy.)
Being
a journalist, Stuart Jeffries also tries too hard to be hip and
funny. For example, what the hell does the following mean? -
“Another
theory is that philosophy – more than any other intellectual
discipline (with the possible exception of a level three plumbing
NVQ) – requires one to recalibrate the portals of one's
consciousness in order to get one's intellectual freak on.”
Sorry
for being a straight; though I can make neither
head nor tail of that.
This
is bad journalism and even worse philosophy. He also writes:
“Perhaps
James's drug experimenting is inspiring today's philosophers: 45% of
students polled claimed to have taken laughing gas.”
Really?
I never knew that William James took nitrous
oxide1. I doubt that many
students do either – except for William James aficionados. However,
James did report this - according to Stuart Jeffries - in his The
Varieties of Religious Experience.
Indeed this drug helped "stimulate the mystical consciousness to
an extraordinary degree".
And
why would a single philosopher taking drugs inspire any student of
philosophy anyway? If William James had eaten shit, would that
inspire philosophy students to also eat shit? (I have to admit, however, that shit isn't "psychoactive" - at least as far as I know.)
Of
course because Jeffries is talking about philosophy, then he simply
must mention ancient Greece. And, yes, of course, there's a drug link
here. He tells us that the
“Hellenistic
philosopher Epicurus used tetrapharmakos to designate the four-part
means of leading the happiest possible life”.
Perhaps
many other educated (or well-off) Greeks also took tetrapharmakos or
other mind-stimulating drugs. Nonetheless, this writer ties taking
tetrapharmakos with
ataraxia
(initially a largely Epicurean term) - which is “freedom from worry and
distress”.
Again,
Stuart Jeffries can't have been serious when he wrote
“if
you want to understand Hegel or know what it's like to be a bat or
Godzilla, try laughing gas”.
Was
that statement just a joke without philosophical or even
psychological content? If yes, then I may be wrong to get on my high
horse. Perhaps the entire article is a joke. Indeed Stuart Jeffries might have
written it while under the influence of nitrous
oxide.
******************************************
I
myself have taken (psychoactive) drugs. I came to realise that what I produced under the
influence of such drugs seemed to be good – or sometimes even
great/original – at the time; though rarely the morning after!
With
cannabis and LSD/mushrooms, I found I could improvise easily and
write poems and philosophise. However, I couldn't be bothered with
form and construction. It was quite
literally
all “free improvisation” (i.e., not just when it came to music).
Sometimes it was okay. Often it wasn't. Under the influence I didn't
have the discipline to compose a musical piece on paper. I never
wrote a poem or a philosophy piece which was both structured and
detailed either. Nonetheless, I'm still sure - even today - that I
had some insights. Drugs also helped me “look at things in a
different way”. Again, sometimes these insights were exaggerated
while under the influence; though that wasn't always the case.
As
for amphetamines, they proved to be the most constructive or effective for me personally. That was in the simple sense that when I
was under the influence of amphetamines I could indeed be bothered
with form and detail. In other words, I could concentrate on a single
issue (or subject) and analyse it.
In
terms of musical improvisation on LSD/mushrooms and cannabis, you can
achieve a heightened state of both relaxation and concentration on
these drugs which is rare in a sober state. Sometime that resulted in
decent work. Often it didn't. (That concentration is less analytical
than it is under amphetamines and is thus more akin - I suppose! - to a
“spiritual state”.)
As
ever with drug-use, it depends on the person who's taking the drugs
as well as on the kind of drug taken. If the drug-user is already
musically literate, artistic, mathematically inclined or whatever, then he may
well produce good stuff within these domains. If he isn't, then he'll
probably come up with crap.
1 I
found these little gems in Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything:
“In
the early 1800s there arose in England a fashion for inhaling nitrous
oxide, or laughing gas, after it was discovered that its use “was
attended by a highly pleasurable thrilling.” For the next half
century it would be the drug of choice for young people. One learned
body, the Askesian Society, was for a time devoted to little else.
Theaters put on “laughing gas evenings” where volunteers could
refresh themselves with a robust inhalation and then entertain the
audience with their comical staggerings.”
And
later in the same book:
“Humphrey Davy [the professor of chemistry] discovered a dozen elements, a
fifth of the known total of his day. Davy might have done far more,
but unfortunately as a young man he developed an abiding attachments to the buoyant pleasures of nitrous oxide. He grew so attached to the
gas that he drew on it (literally) three of four times a day.
Eventually, in 1829, it is thought to have killed him.”
No comments:
Post a Comment