Having created this thread late last night, I have been thinking that one might wonder why the philosophers might be any different from any other group of people with regard to personal experimentation.

In this respect I would say that in many ways the philosopher might be the one who can detach from the senses, and may be able to come to a knowledge of the world through the process of thought. Nevertheless, I would ask whether the philosopher might need to quest further and take the shamanic journey to the underworld and to reach alternate states of consciousness, in order to arrive at certain truths?

We know pleasure feels good instinctively at birth. Good food, becoming pleasantly dizzy, etc. There's nothing really philosophical about that with the exception of "life is about pleasure" which again, is hardly anything that requires any thought as by all definition it doesn't. More of an anti-philosophy really. Sure you could come up with greater ways and means to achieve selfish pleasure but that's hardly philosophy.

I would say the quest of the philosopher is to move towards understanding the whole, everything, to uncover connections that were previously unseen. And in that process I find it essential to experience as much as possible. If the philosophers limit themselves to a small subset of possible experiences, then their point of view and the understanding they can reach will be necessarily limited as well. I would say we're all explorers in a sense. But not just philosophers, everyone. In their own way.

I was not intending to imply that experimentation should be for mere selfish ends. Perhaps a lot of people do.

If anything there is so much pain to experience and pleasure can be a pathway to healing. I would not necessarily suggest that many do not stop at that point, but that is where my question has to be seen in the context of the quest of philosophy.

I guess that my own slant on this comes from my own reading about the lead singer of The Doors, Jim Morrison. He explored sex, drugs and rock'n'roll to the extreme, in order to 'Break On Through To The Other Side'. Jim Morrison was extremely interested in philosophy, taking a particular interest in philosophy. Before I ever went to University I found a list of books he had on his bookshelf and went out to read them. These included Keroac's On the Road, Colin Wilson's The Outsider and Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.

Am I confessing to having Jim Morrison as my philosophy mentor? Oh dear, what am I saying but I do find the music of The Doors to be so inspiring. I also have to say that I have found some of the most famous music stars' lyrics as part of my own philosophy journey, including the lyrics of U2, and I am awaiting the release of the first album by Bono's son's group, Inhaler.

I suppose I am just see philosophy as part of the healing, shamanic journey and interrelated to the arts. But of course I am not part of the real academic world of philosophy, perhaps I am just playing around with the jumble of fragments of life.

Should the philosophers be rejecting the convention pleasures in a remote life, detached from the world? Does this lead to a purer and more valid search for truth? Or, does the philosopher need to experiment and engage in the pleasures of the world in order to achieve a greater sense of knowledge and awareness.? — Jack Cummins

False dichotomy. There's no single best way for a "philosopher" to live. It entirely depends on the personality of the individual.

This question arose in my thinking about the answers put forward in a thread about the ethics of masturbation. I was astounded by the puritanical thinking ... — Jack Cummins

I was too, when I first joined the original philosophy forum. It's tempting to dismiss it, as if it's just a problem with incels who glorify aceticism and the life of the mind because they can't enjoy the life of the body. But that won't do, because the attitude seems to be shared by many of the great philosophers, not least Plato. The basic dichotomy is between the rational mind (the soul) and the corrupting and deceiving world around us, the world we sense and enjoy and suffer from. So the roots are deeper than Kant and Christianity. Maybe we can pin the blame on the Buddha and Plato.

There were other Greeks who were less sniffy about pleasure, like Aristotle and Epicurus. For Aristotle, pleasure isn't to be denounced or celebrated: it's necessary for a good life, but everything in moderation. Epicurus thought it was fine to enjoy a nice meal but mainly because when you're satisfied after eating it, you cease to want, and this ease and satisfaction is where the best pleasure lies.

I think there is something of Plato's scorn remaining here:

It is not by an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not by sexual lust, nor the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul. — Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus

Nothing says FUN! like sober reasoning, eh?

It seems doubtful that there can be a philosophy that celebrates physical pleasure, that celebrates an unbroken succession of drinking bouts. After all, philosophy is inherently inclined to favour the life of the mind, because that's what philosophy is. And who would challenge the view that indulging in nothing but drinking and lusting doesn't make for a great life? I'm not sure if any philosophers positively celebrate wild pleasure. The Marquis de Sade, perhaps.

In our somewhat Abrahamic context, we might see Epicurus and Aristotle and especially Plato as moralizers, but this might be an anachronism. It might be better to think of their criticisms of kinds of pleasure as pragmatic, as the criticism of ways of life that impede happiness, or flourishing, or finding the truth. In which case, maybe their similarity to the puritanical people to be found on forums like this is only apparent.

Yes, it is all about balance and moderation and all the states in between. I am certainly not wanting to advocate a path towards self destruction in the pursuit of finding answers to the great questions and mysteries of life.

I do enjoy time sitting down reading and would not want to be out on a 'Walk on the Wild Side'
constantly. In spite of inspiration from Jim Morrison and the other rock stars I spent most of my time at University living a very mundane existence. I only began exploring other limits after life began kicking me down and I began using pleasure as a basic life support, resuscitate technique. To some extent, it worked.

My first experiences of experimentation were taking caffeine tablets, especially for writing essays late at night. I found that they to think clearly. But they were a bit addictive and I used to feel terrible the next day, worse than drinking alcohol.

But as a thinking tool and pleasure I recommend the more controlled dose of caffeine in coffee. And for philosophical conversations or for relaxed reflection a glass of wine or two. But I would not want wine on a daily basis. As for coffee, I need it every single day as the ultimate philosophy tonic.

Maybe this isn’t the direction you’re trying to go, but I don’t think “sex, drugs, and rock’n’roll” is the whole picture. To me, that lifestyle is more a symptom or product of simply having a rebellious nature. And I think that is important for philosophy. Rebelling is just a crude form of questioning, imo. And to me in order to do philosophy, you have to be at least willing to challenge prevailing systems (religious, political, social, moral, etc.). So it isn’t that doing drugs will make yyou a better philosopher, but having that type of personality can definitely help.

Yes, I see what you are saying and I think there is a relationship between rebelling and experimentation . To some extent experimenting can be seen as a form of rebellion unless a person is brought up in an extremely libertarian environment.

However, I am not sure that experimentation is simply about rebellion entirely. Certain types of music such as nu metal, punk and emo are rebellion but not only that. They represent a new way of revisioning the inner world. This is especially true also of the whole psychedelic experiment. Sexual experimentation is not just about rebelling but finding creative pathways.

Also, not all experimentation is wonderful. People can end up with drug addictions. Of course all experiences are learning ones ultimately.

Finally, I will say that the philosophers who have experimented are not necessarily superior to those who have not. Some individuals paths in life seem to be so straight and narrow and yet they go on to develop fantastic philosophical insights.

However, I have to admit that I usually side more with philosophers who have both experimented and rebelled. But the ones who do not need to go down these pathways probably have an easier life.

I'm with you, I am somewhere between Epicurus/Aristotle & Aristippus on the pleasure question, but even the latter taught that the pursuit of physical pleasure should be restrained by moral concerns. Do you think the observation of the impoverished life being widespread and the lack of opportunities to pursue such pleasure for many people may have been a contributing factor? In Ancient China for instance, the reason Mozi argued against Music for instance was that its pursuit was not cost-effective for the benefit for most peasants at a time when famine was common, not that he was intrinsically against music.

I am somewhere between Epicurus/Aristotle & Aristippus on the pleasure question, but even the latter taught that the pursuit of physical pleasure should be restrained by moral concerns. — Saphsin

Thanks, I didn't know that Aristippus and his crew were hedonists to the degree that they were. In what way did he think that there should be a moral restraint?

Do you think the observation of the impoverished life being widespread and the lack of opportunities to pursue such pleasure for many people may have been a contributing factor? — Saphsin

I'll interpret this question in two ways.

(1) Philosophers themselves have lacked those opportunities and have become scornful or suspicious of bodily pleasures and the physical world in general because of that, just like the "incels who glorify aceticism" that I mentioned.

(2) Or philosophers, noticing that most people live impoverished lives in which they have little chance of indulging in bodily pleasure; or little chance of indulging in bodily pleasures in an artful, varied, endlessly stimulating way; or without the danger of great suffering; noticing all that, philosophers put forth propaganda to make the people feel better about it. That is, they want to spread a message of self-abnegation to help people cope with their impoverished lives.

I now think that you mean (2), but I originally thought you meant (1). Maybe I hadn't read it properly. I'll look at both anyway.

(1) Nietzsche is interesting here. He's not a hedonist, because he celebrates pain as much as pleasure, but he does attack the "despisers of the body", and even if he just had Christians in mind, maybe we could add some of the philosophers too. For Nietzsche, a life without a variety of bodily pleasures and pains is an impoverished one.

Your question, then: could this very impoverishment lead philosophers to despise the body?

"Body am I, and soul"—so saith the child. And why should one not speak like children?

But the awakened one, the knowing one, saith: "Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body."

The body is a big sagacity, a plurality with one sense, a war and a peace, a flock and a shepherd.

An instrument of thy body is also thy little sagacity, my brother, which thou callest "spirit"—a little instrument and plaything of thy big sagacity.

"Ego," sayest thou, and art proud of that word. But the greater thing—in which thou art unwilling to believe—is thy body with its big sagacity; it saith not "ego," but doeth it.

What the sense feeleth, what the spirit discerneth, hath never its end in itself. But sense and spirit would fain persuade thee that they are the end of all things: so vain are they.

Instruments and playthings are sense and spirit: behind them there is still the Self. The Self seeketh with the eyes of the senses, it hearkeneth also with the ears of the spirit.

Ever hearkeneth the Self, and seeketh; it compareth, mastereth, conquereth, and destroyeth. It ruleth, and is also the ego's ruler.

Behind thy thoughts and feelings, my brother, there is a mighty lord, an unknown sage—it is called Self; it dwelleth in thy body, it is thy body.

There is more sagacity in thy body than in thy best wisdom. And who then knoweth why thy body requireth just thy best wisdom?

Thy Self laugheth at thine ego, and its proud prancings. "What are these prancings and flights of thought unto me?" it saith to itself. "A by-way to my purpose. I am the leading-string of the ego, and the prompter of its notions."

The Self saith unto the ego: "Feel pain!" And thereupon it suffereth, and thinketh how it may put an end thereto—and for that very purpose it is meant to think.

The Self saith unto the ego: "Feel pleasure!" Thereupon it rejoiceth, and thinketh how it may ofttimes rejoice—and for that very purpose it is meant to think.

To the despisers of the body will I speak a word. That they despise is caused by their esteem. What is it that created esteeming and despising and worth and will?

The creating Self created for itself esteeming and despising, it created for itself joy and woe. The creating body created for itself spirit, as a hand to its will.

Even in your folly and despising ye each serve your Self, ye despisers of the body. I tell you, your very Self wanteth to die, and turneth away from life.

No longer can your Self do that which it desireth most:—create beyond itself. That is what it desireth most; that is all its fervour.

But it is now too late to do so:—so your Self wisheth to succumb, ye despisers of the body.

To succumb—so wisheth your Self; and therefore have ye become despisers of the body. For ye can no longer create beyond yourselves.

And therefore are ye now angry with life and with the earth. And unconscious envy is in the sidelong look of your contempt.

I go not your way, ye despisers of the body! — Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

So according to Nietzsche, the answer is yes. This is a form of ressentiment.

The idea appeals to me, but I don't know if it's true of philosophers, so much as, say, religious fanatics, puritans, Christian moralists, etc. In any case, in response to the OP, it does suggest that Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll indeed ought to be "part of the philosopher's quest".

As for the other interpretation of the question...

(2) On one hand, no: it seems to me that philosophers sometimes almost define the common people as those who go through life indulging themselves in eating, drinking, and sexing too much. Their lives are not impoverished enough when it comes to pleasure or self-indulgence. On the other hand, yes: philosophers have offered ways of dealing with worldly suffering, like the Stoics and others who advocate caution at the very least: enjoy yourself occasionally but don't go crazy cos it'll end in tears. So I think it's a good point, but it very much depends on the historical and social context, and the motivations of the philosophers.

However, I am not sure that experimentation is simply about rebellion entirely. — Jack Cummins

I agree. I think curiosity is a big factor in experimenting. But curiosity is also a necessity for philosophy.

Finally, I will say that the philosophers who have experimented are not necessarily superior to those who have not. Some individuals paths in life seem to be so straight and narrow and yet they go on to develop fantastic philosophical insights. — Jack Cummins

Sure, but I don’t know if you could find a decent philosopher that didn’t at least question/rebel somewhat against some established way of thinking or living. Repeating the status quo isn’t doing philosophy. Also, I’d like to add that rebellion can look vastly different depending on what the predominant view one is rebelling against consists of. Perhaps a person who grew up with hedonistic parents will turn to asceticism as a way to rebel, for example.

Jim Morrison — Jack Cummins

I've been listening to Morrison Hotel and L.A. Woman a whole lot lately, so I'll say this: I don't take Jim all that seriously as a thinker, but now and then he gets onto something interesting. In particular I keep thinking about a simple line in "Roadhouse Blues": "Let it roll, baby, roll". What is he talking about? I think there's a sexual meaning but there's something else too. "The future's uncertain and the end is always near" (same song) and we are "riders on the storm", so... let it roll, baby, roll.

I think some of what's going on here comes from reading about existentialism ("into this world we're thrown"), but "let it roll, baby, roll" doesn't sound like existentialism to me.

What I want to hear is an embrace of the unpredictability of life, the excitement of that unpredictability, and that means thinking of life as a great adventure. That's what I've tried to teach my kids. Life's not a job. There's not a right way to do it. The only attitude worth having is that it's an adventure.

For Jim, some of that adventure was indeed sex, drugs, and rock and roll, but also his books and his writing and god knows what else. I don't think the particulars matter much. The important thing is the attitude, the spirit of adventure, and letting it roll.

I think there is no intrinsic conflict between pleasure and philosophy, especially moral philosophy. That’s parallel to supposing there’s a conflict between empirical experience and philosophy, or between empiricism and reality.

Sure, there is definitely a trend going back at least to Plato that says both that the world of empirical experience is unreal and that hedonism is immoral. But there are plenty since then who disagree vehemently.

For my part, I disagree vehemently, but that doesn’t mean that everyone ought to pursue nothing but their momentary pleasures, any more than it means you should believe things disappear when you’re not looking at them. Past and future experiences matter in both cases, the description of what is real and the prescription of what is moral.

And more than that, OTHER PEOPLE’S experiences matter just as much as your own: both in that their corroboration of your empirical experiences matters for determining what is real, and in that their hedonic experiences matter as much as yours in determining what is moral.

Basically, the reason it’s wrong to hurt someone is because it HURTS them, causes pain, the opposite of pleasure. All sane accounts of morality connect it intimately with hedonism.

At the present time, there seems to be an opposition between the philosopher, boundary-behaving Apollonian type and more experiential boundary-violating sex-drugs-and-rock & roll Dionysian type. For what it is worth, the Greeks contrasted these two types 2500 years ago.

In Greek mythology, Apollo and Dionysus are both sons of Zeus. Apollo is the god of the sun, of rational thinking and order, and appeals to logic, prudence and purity. Dionysus is the god of wine, fertility, ritual madness, and theater, and appeals to emotions and instincts.

We humans can not be one or the other: Too great a focus on the Apollonian mode leads to arid sterility, and immersion in the rites and rituals of the Dionysian mode lead to debauchery and Alcoholics Anonymous. We will inevitably blend the two; the trick is in the best possible employment of logic and rational thinking while also attending to both the pleasures and pains of the body.

Christian theology, at least -- and I suspect not at all alone -- has given much more attention to the mind and spirit and not nearly enough attention to the body--to our embodiedness, in whatever shape it appears. Philosophers follow in the footsteps of the theologians on this front.

The Classical Greek Sex, drugs, and rock and roll scene could be found in various places, among them worship centers around Eleusis, near Athens. The Eleusinian Mystery religion was aided by hallucinogenic drug-taking (as far as we can tell). Sex wasn't a big part of the Eleusinian scene, as far as I know, but arrangements were made for alcohol and sex elsewhere.

Classical Greeks with means liked to attend the mystery rites. It was, as we might say, a safe place to trip out.

One of the things that made the 1960s - 1970s so memorable was the blending of the Apollonian and Dionysian modes, with lots of sex, alcohol, and drugs coupled with heated political discussions, demonstrations, and lots of cultural consumption (reading, film, music, TV, etc.)

Calvinist, Catholic, Capitalist Culture just doesn't relate well to Dionysus. That's why one has to boldly break on through to the other side.

Here's a play you might want to read sometime when you have nothing better to do -- The Bacchae by Euripides. The tragedy features Dionysus and his mortal family.

I see that that there have been quite a few responses to the thread in the last few days, which I am glad about because I do think that the tensions between the life of the body and the head is a real one.

I think I must have been erring on the side of hedonism this afternoon because a boy who just moved into the room next to mine knocked on my door and asked me to turn my music down. This hasn't happened to me in years and it is only 5pm.
He must be of the Appollan tradition with me being more of a Nietzschean.

Seriously though, I do think that the main issue is enjoyment without hurting others. That was my main issue when I started the thread after being a bit perplexed by the comments on the masturbation ethics thread. The comments on this thread have been very open minded. I was half expecting that the comments would be of a condemning nature, but perhaps the more puritanical were put off by my title.

As for Jim Morrison, I do like most of the Doors music but I think the most interesting album is An American Prayer, because it is his existential poetry. And of course there have been so many other shamanic musicians, ranging from Lou Reed, David Bowie and so many others. Of course they were not philosophers as such but have an influence on culture. I don't believe that cultural movements, ranging from art, music and literature can be detached from the world of philosophy.

So, we may wonder what the future will bring. Will the philosophers remain in the academic world of the head, or be engaged in the experimental sensory quest, or be able to combine the two?