Clarify what you mean by this. — 180 Proof

What I mean is that since a very long time, monotheistic religions and other religious folk have dissuaded the lotus eaters or other drug users from gaining a voice about the aspect that drugs present to any person. Drugs, especially those in charge of their administration (such as shamans), have been in opposition to the clergy and priests narrative of a good life to be found in service of their creator and further salvation from the pains of the material world by worship of their creator and savior.

What more can I say?

Brave New World. — Vera Mont

That book was banned, as is this website, @Wayfarer...

Why is there so much glamouraziation of overpriced cars, film performers, football players and Rocket launchings? People get excited about some really dumb stuff. — Vera Mont

If what you're saying is true, then is there any truth to gleaning into one's inner life through a drug? Based on what I am reading, I think these deeply personal experiences, may have significant meaning if not truth. Is this correct?

AI would not be able to grasp the thoughts, motivations, and circumstances of 10 people, let alone millions. — NOS4A2

I'm not sure if you understand how the marketplace works. The marketplace is based on the relation between supply and demand. Where there is supply, demand is measured by the rise or decline in prices. Computers for the most part already do this kind of assignment of prices to goods.

The only thing a computer cant do at the moment is create supply.

I found out though that psychedelics are not without their dangers. I flew too close to the sun and got burned. And I have had some life struggles that I am not sure aren't partly a result of my use of psychedelics. It's hard to test the counterfactual though. I can't know how my life would have gone without them. — petrichor

Regarding counterfactuals, and the doubt in your mind about these or some of these experiences, why is there so much glamourization of psychedelics? I mentioned this in another comment; but, people think there is some kind of 'truth' to these experiences; but is there really any truth to them?

I agree; but, I am somewhat hesitant to believe that any government will want its population to start taking drugs to remedy boredom.

No matter the skill and sagacity of the central planner, whether human or AI, he is beset by the knowledge problem. It is the problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose importance only these individuals know. — NOS4A2

I beg to differ. AI as a central manager will be able to do this with greater ease than any human manager. Everything in the marketplace is heading towards computerization. With greater complexity in the marketplace, then only AI can do it.

If not AI, then who?

One self medicates because one is in a state of such confinement in one's own mind, and such alienation from reality, that intoxication actually brings one closer to reality for a short while. — unenlightened

This is perplexing to me. I say that because the use of hallucinogens or psychedelics are associated with psychotic states of the mind. Psychosis is by definition a break from reality. How can a break from reality bring one closer to reality?

"Survival" in the context of evolutionary theory is reproductive, not personal. Maybe sex drugs and rock and roll, is a by-product of the resulting euphoria. — Metaphysician Undercover

It didn't result in increased survival; it resulted in increased enjoyment — Vera Mont

It's interesting to note, that nowadays we call the use of drugs as a recreational thing. I suppose this means that the behavior is an outlet...

Marx said "Religion is the opium of the masses". In late global Capitalism, perhaps addictive intoxication (i.e. escape, distraction, self-anaesthetization) is the religion of the masses. — 180 Proof

No, I think the issue is an impoverished spiritual life. But, Marx could have been right about the substitution of drugs for religion...

An interesting question is why humans evolved in a way that enabled alterations of consciousness through chemical substances. That is, what did our earliest ancestors gain by getting drunk that resulted in their increased survival? — Hanover

Very interesting question, indeed.

The correlation between alcohol and sexual behavior is obvious. We limit its use to adults and create specific areas for its consumption, where we gyrate to rhythmic beats around scantily dressed members of the opposite sex.

Sex, drugs, and rock and roll as they say.

If a substance lowers one's inhibitions and that results in reproduction, those best affected by it will do better to spread their genes. — Hanover

I don't think it is a matter of greater survivability. I mean, I don't know if shamans were the norm for every primordial group of humans living together; but, nearly every continent has one or another kind of hallucinogen out there.

We are the descendants of drunk fuckers. Literally. — Hanover

Food for thought, I guess. Thanks for commenting!

@013zen, there's this topic that you may be interested in, just pointing it out for you:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3558/ongoing-tractatus-logico-philosophicus-reading-group/p23

Well, at least with regard to psychedelics, for some they help to catalyze higher states of enlightenment. Here’s Timothy Leary’s account of his acid acid trip: — Joshs

Some people find some kind-of 'truth' to those psychedelic experiences; yet it seems like a shortcut for desired revelations about one's inner-life. An interesting side-note, namely, is there any 'truth' to LSD or psychedelics, in general?

There were all kinds of dire predictions about slippery slopes, a surge of drug use and increase in traffic accidents, etc. You know what actually happened? Nothing. — Vera Mont

What I view this, to-be, is a normalizing in relations between the desire for people to medicate themselves through mood-altering substances. It's a fickle game for the pharmaceutical industry who probably oppose self-medication, so the government is responding by regulating the use of drugs and not simply legalizing drugs like states did.

It brought in a nice revenue from licenses (instead of the money-sink that policing users had been for many years) as well as boosting the legitimate economy. License holders make a decent living as well as paying taxes. Most people take their pot home or to a party and enjoy it in private. — Vera Mont

The US government made $20 billion dollars since marijuana became legalized.

Most commonly, because they are unhappy or anxious. Most of the unhappy people have good reason to escape the reality in which they live. Most anxious people feel more in control when they change perspective. — Vera Mont

Have you heard about the book, Dopamine Nation: Finding Balance in the Age of Indulgence? I mean, I think the mood-alteration is associated, as you say, with anxiety. But, what a strange way to treat anxiety, with dopamine, really?

But more generally speaking, it's basically the only "instant mood change" available to man. Bills too high? Wife got you down? Dog ran away? Wife ran away with your dog and left you with a bill? Don't worry, get high! Heh, something like that. — Outlander

I'm hesitant to consider the listed reasons as rationalizations; but, regarding psychologizing the issue, I would like to know why people seek mood alteration? What's the reason why people want to alter their mood?

I'd like to add to my OP, that I don't quite understand the 1960's that well. I know it was the counterculture movement; but, I don't understand why it became a fascination with drugs... I mean, it was about peace, love, and political activism; but, why the popularity arose to drugs?

Look, there's nothing about shoe salesmen or coal workers which prohibits them from being good managers, but various revolutionary sources assign workers managerial tasks only as they become educated and experienced enough to be effective managers. Motivated shoe and coal workers can acquire managerial skills on the job and in classrooms. I know American workers who, though lacking BAs and MBAs, have the talent and experience to be great managers. The higher in the organization one goes, the more that is expected. We all know professional managers, with Harvard MBAs to boot, who should or will or did get the boot. — BC

Seemingly, as you are the only person who addressed the OP's sentiments about Soviet styled central managers, then I just wanted to say, that the importance of well qualified managers in any society has been something that has concerned the elite of any nation for a long time.

It can be argued that the only reason the Soviet Union failed was due to the clumsiness of the central managers governing economics of Soviet Russia, and ALL the satellite states, which is dumbfounding that they got so little wrong apart from the stark differences with capitalist societies.

Given that you're willing to acknowledge that even democracies are experiments, as such, then I suppose this should appreciate in your mind, the concern of having a well operating socio-economic system. I remember, whilst living in a foreign country, a saying, that if I lay on the ground or if I stand, always 2000 (units of money) are due to me. This goes into the old topic, about how communism was vastly less efficient and productive than other capitalist societies, which is a separate topic, which I think is also true, given the lack of focus on having a good managerial class.

Here's me laughing hard about the right that thinks the Department of Justice is a political toy that the left uses whenever they feel like it.

I mean, just look at what happened to Hunter Biden.

I was thinking more in the context of personal freedom. — Paine

Yes, it seems that the Greek concept of the polis, seemed to prevail over what community Plato had put forward.

But I am also told that there is something about the results that will satisfy the need to violently oppose what is happening. — Paine

Yes, again. I believe that Marx had to, as you say-by force- upend the continuation of exploitation of the proletariat by the few bourgeoisie.

So, where does that differ from the view of community Plato put forward? — Paine

It would not make sense to say that Plato would have agreed with Marx; but, rather the other way around. The dialectics of history are many and cannot be reconciled with the Forms.

Where does one logic begin and the other end? — Paine

In history, according to Hegel's dialectics?

The context or stipulation to the term you provided doesn't seem to be addressed by what was meant by Thrasymachus.

Justice is a concept made-up by not one person; but, a group of people who believe in it, not the individual.

I think it would be along the lines that the fight-to-the-death or submit scenario, that appears during the pursuit of recognition, changes both sides where the 'powerful', as such, confers power to the slave in spite of itself. — Paine

Very interesting. What about Marxism? Seems to follow into Marxist logic?

I wonder what Hegel or Hegelians would say...

To have a fate seems to imply that there is a possibility in one's future to live out. Otherwise, if it were all deterministic, then your fate would always be the same and never change.

It seems that the notion of 'fate' cannot exist without the need for an actual possibility in the future chain of events.

Having looked and searched several topics about philosophers (most notably, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and Heidegger), it seems that it means a lot to a person who or what a philosopher did in their respective lives.

Just my research into the topic...

Could you be more clear? :sweat: I am only somewhat familiar with the mechanist theory as it pertains to folks like Descartes and the revival of early atomism...but you say picture theory of meaning. — 013zen

Yes, if the modeling, which logical positivists were interested in, is about a true state of affairs (facts), then how can they account for complex relationships where differing parts of mechanisms render a theory or scientific discovery as true?

In what sense? — 013zen

I believe, in the sense that if one were to try (like many scientists do) and encompass a theory to be explanatory for the whole frame, then I believe that picturing relations in the atomistic sense is something that can't attempt to do.

Since the whole dilemma is so pretentious, and morally devoid of agency, then I think the twist of sacrificing yourself instead of another person, no matter your wealth or standing in the situation, is morally permissible.

Here's a twist to the dilemma.

Sacrifice yourself to save 5 other people instead of another person.

Thank you for the detailed information, @013zen.

I want to talk about the mechanist, picture theory of meaning. There is nothing wrong with it in my opinion; but, in my opinion, many scientists have moved from it towards not a picture denoting a microscopic view of a state of affairs; but, more towards a unified wholistic view of meaning as comprising many parts working in a system. This is where the picture theory of meaning, simply can't zoom out and broaden its scope to account for new parts of the whole to describe.

Do you agree with this?

@Baden

Just for you...


What do you think?

Call him a genius or call him Satan, but either way, you'll be calling him Mr. President come November. — Hanover

Man, haven't we come a far far far way from what got Nixon and Clinton ousted from the presidency.

Yeah, and people would even call this a "good thing."

There's no such thing as bad publicity. — Hanover

This only reflects your lack on conscience on such matters. If those bible thumpers aren't persuaded by his playboyism, then what does that mean about what they think he is?

These is for some an admiration, but I don't think that he has generally regarded as a philosopher. — Fooloso4

Yes, Thrasymachus was a sophist; but, a very astute one in what he regarded justice to be. It seems to me that Thrasymachus, with respect to what history can tell us, isn't entirely 'wrong.'

His philosophy of might making right has been witnessed-many times over-by what history can tell us.

Are you asking if that is what Plato said, what his view on it was. Or if what Plato said is true in reality, in how things play out? — ChatteringMonkey

Well, I was only asking about your opinion about whether you think Plato was not accounting for the needs of the individual in Plato's Republic.

Thrasymachus or any realist would say that Plato is essentially doing the same thing, i.e. vying for (political) power with his philosphy, he just isn't as aware of it as they are. — ChatteringMonkey

Plato leaves little room for individualism, as this aspect of behavior is determined by the classes governing Plato's Republic. Do you think this is true?

All things considered, I view Thrasymachus' sentiments as a negative. Mostly due to the fact that I don't support his insistence on challenging the powers, pace, Strauss' noble lies.

Thrasymachus realism — ChatteringMonkey

Interesting way to put it. Plato really couldn't fit into his picture Thrasymachus' portrayed psychopathy or sociopathy that pervades humanity instead of being guided by man's intelligence (nous) and strivings for eudaimonia.

That's not the point I am attempting to make. Let me clarify, with the sentiments of Thrasymachus, all the way back to Ancient Greece, which Socrates could not handle and Plato had no answer, then we are still witnessing his thoughts played out in the chain of history. People say we might find salvation in technology; but, just take a look at what the atomic bomb did to end the axis of evil, and even then it was utilized as a demonstration of strength or power against a foe that was on the verge of defeat.

So, I believe that throughout history people have every right to be paranoid or skeptical.

I trust that the bus will tae me home in good order, and at the time on the timetable or thereabouts. — unenlightened

Yes, well certain ideologies of the past have been promising absolute trust in the government by ensuring that the trains run on time. After such bad experiences, (not to be taken in a vacuum), such as Mussolini or Nazi Germany, how can one not be wary of what other people have to say.

One does not notice all the everyday interactions that one relies on to live, but notices the exceptions which are the scammers and cheats. Call them out, call them out, but don't lose your trust in humanity. — unenlightened

Yes well, not so long ago we witnessed such a failure of trust, that only such experiences could make one skeptical if not paranoid, no?