(i) Psychedelic Heaven: Psychedelic Hell
Rather than reposting stuff, see the original introduction to my series of reposts from X here.
Psychedelic Heaven: Psychedelic Hell
People seem to be divided into two extremes on this subject: (1) Those who believe that if everyone started taking psychedelics, then a universal Utopia would follow within a week or so. (2) Those who believe that psychedelics create eternal hell for all those who take these drugs, and hell in the larger society too…
Sure, these are (slight) exaggerations.
In most of the debates I’ve read and seen, the two tribes talked passed each other. I’m quite boring and unsexy on this. It depends on lots of factors, and on individuals. Personally, I’ve experienced both heaven and hell on psychedelics. That said, even some fans of psychedelics admit that hell is one route that people can go down.
Roger Penrose
I have a hell of a lot of respect for the English mathematician, mathematical physicist, and Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose. He tries his hardest to make his ideas “as simple as possible, but not simpler”. Yet many academics do the exact opposite of this. That is, they make their often banal or simple ideas seem complex and Deep.
All that said, there’s much I disagree with when it comes to Penrose’s ideas and theories. But at least Penrose’s prose makes it possible for me to disagree with him… Not that I understand all the maths!
Peer-Review My Tweets!
I want my tweets (or posts) on X to be peer-reviewed.
So here’s my plan.
I’m gonna get four of my mates (all of whom share most of my beliefs and values), and get them to peer-review them…
That should do the trick!
Shorter
I’m a pluralist, and no one should ever ever ever be allowed to express views which aren’t in support of pluralism.
“Does God Exist?” “Shut up!”
I must confess that I grew bored with arguments both for the existence and for the non-existence of God roundabout the age of 20. This isn’t to claim that I, personally, had “proved” that God exists or that he doesn’t exist. Instead, after hundreds of years or even longer, I simply couldn’t be bothered carrying on being part of that grinding debate.
That may sound smug…
Perhaps it is.
All that said, I suppose that each new generation has to be introduced to very-old debates. And I’m also sure that American analytic philosopher, Christian apologist, and Wesleyan theologian William Lane Craig would crucify me on this subject anyway. (How does Mr Craig fair on non-religious subjects?)
Reductionism!
Most so-called “reductionists” don’t “break the world apart”. In specific cases of scientific theory and experiment, and more generally, scientists break things apart because that’s been fantastically productive in science. However, that’s not “breaking the world apart” in John Gregg’s poetic and rhetorical sense.
Is Panpsychism an Affront to Science?
Samuel posts a few critical words about panpsychism being deemed to be an “afront to science”. Yet he’s affronted by that very “idea” that panpsychism should be an afront to science.
All scientists certainly do not believe that all philosophical positions are an affront to science. Sure, they believe that some philosophical positions are. And panpsychism, at least for some scientists, is indeed such an affront.
Basically, it’s not enough, then, to simply say “philosophy isn’t science”. That’s because scientists already know that. It’s true that some scientists don’t like any philosophy at all! But that’s not the issue here.
So read what scientists actually have to say on panpsychism. What they say be philosophically, scientifically and argumentatively convincing… or it may be crap.
What’s more, panpsychism may (or may not) also be an affront to philosophy itself, and to much else. It depends.
Memorising Poems
Yes, it was the case in England too. I’ve met many people who were forced (or asked?) to memorise poems. I wasn’t. Perhaps that is one reason why I came to write poetry at various points in my life.
I suppose the teachers believed that memorising poems was a sure way of getting their students to get to know and understand poetry. That said, acts of memorisation can often be — literally! - mindless.
Shorter
Oh my God!
This meme has been posted yet again. Richard Feynman’s words, in the form of such Teen Memes, are posted (on X) six times before each breakfast.
Epistemology Is…
I’m not sure that epistemology “has to” do any single specific thing. (Not even “explain errors”.)
One philosopher may see x as being of vital and singular importance in epistemology. But another philosopher may see y (i.e., something very different) as being of vital and singular importance too.
Of course, if epistemology deviates too far from — what? -, then it can’t be epistemology at all… surely.
No comments:
Post a Comment