Time for the DEA to Push Hope and Trust, Not Drugs and Fear

​

Primum non nocere (L. for “first, do no harm”)

--foundation of modern medicine

Punire dolorem suum (L. for “punish their pain”)

--bedrock principle of Joe Biden’s Drug Enforcement Administration

One great  way to get high (without drugs) is to trip at the recent  borderline psychedelic history of the  Drug Enforcement Administration, the agency Richard Nixon created in 1973 to “associate hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin,” as the President’s top aide, John Ehrlichman, later admitted.

Since then, the DEA has vigorously expanded its  Schedule 1 of drugs with “no currently accepted medical use” to provide ever more reasons to throw people in prison,  even though the chemicals the DEA most abhors (without bothering to explain why) happen to be the very ones, from cannabis to Abyssinian tea, that healers have used since homo sapiens emerged from homo neanderthalensis  over 200,000 years ago.

The agency’s Schedule 1 roster  remains relatively unknown to the public to this day. With one very public exception: The agency’s ridiculous disregard for both  medicine and common sense prompted at least one community—marijuana proponents—to lobby states to openly defy its Moses-like commandments against cannabis.

As the first editorial writer in the nation to support California Proposition 215, the nation’s first medical pot law, which passed in 1996, I was careful to point out that cannabis had only been proven effective at easing nausea and pain in end-stage cancer patients. But my and others’ caution has been since been thrown to the wind in the last two decades, as states have legalized the sometimes dangerous drug for just about everything. Savvily, the DEA has stayed on the down-lo, ducking any pot debates.

Hungry to keep busting people even if its reasons lack scientific credibility, however,  the DEA continues full speed ahead.

Consider, for example, how Washington D.C. has reacted to “Empire of Pain” (Doubleday), a book published two weeks ago in which Patrick Radden Keefe details how the Sackler pharmaceutical dynasty got rich selling Oxycontin as a non addictive drug, then pulled the drug from the market when people addicted to it began to commit suicide class action lawsuits that might have threatened the company’s livelihood.

That left those still addicted with only two options: find the one chemical on the black market
that could ameliorate their pain, fentanyl, or risk death.

Given the fear-based culture that seems to dominate D.C. these days, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that House GOP legislators are now debating two bills, both of which would do precisely the wrong thing at the wrong time by putting fentanyl to Schedule 1 and greatly enhance federal powers to bust anyone found using it.

That said, it’s not clear who’ll get the last laugh, for big money investors now looking at ways to monetize psilocybin (aka “magic mushrooms”), another drug the DEA has trashed as Schedule I, remains unproven, because its drug trials require several months of study. Psilocybin, by contrast, has only been empirically studied for 6,000 years.   

Hopefully, psilocybin’s fate will be determined by doctors, researchers and patients. But if Big Pharma sees real bucks to be made, the industry may be in the best position to kick the DEA’s petard into the present.

5← PreviousNext →

On the Middle East

📷Alex RaksinMay 1211

• Edit post
• Weapons these days—like the ones now murdering hundreds every day in the Middle East--are so scary that we forget something simple: wars themselves are almost always stupid.

And the skirmish that escalated into mayhem on Sunday, after Israeli troops prohibited Palestinians from approaching the Al-Aqsa mosque to commemorate Ramadan, deserves the biggest dunce cap of all. That’s saying something because I’ve been collecting such chapeaux since I began writing about Israeli/Palestinian violence 43 years ago this May. 

“Palestinians will always rise up against those they view as their oppressors,” I wrote back then, and I’ll bet you, not to mention any other morally conscious human, would have said the same thing were you in my shoes.

True, they were just little red Converse sneakers and they dangled almost alarmingly above the blue linoleum floor of my 5th-grade classroom, where I was sitting on a stool behind my teacher’s lectern, the main perk of being named “editor of the month.” 

In fairness, the  Israeli soldiers may have been caught off guard by the pilgrims, who’ve only been commemorating Ramadan at the mosque for 15 centuries, scant notice for Israel, a backwards place lacking the sort of sophisticated early warning threat technologies that more modern nations enjoy.

Still, as you know (perhaps because the kids you’re now babysitting are quarreling when they should be Zoom schooling), the question of “who started it” isn’t central to anything. What matters is how to stop it. 

As Barack Obama told The New Yorker in 2016, usually Presidential powers are as circumscribed as those of the captain “who decides to steer the ocean liner two degrees north or south so that, ten years from now, suddenly we’re in a very different place than we were.”

Like most Obama aphorisms that’s generally rue, but not right here. Not right now. Because, all malarkey aside, only one person on Earth can stop the carnage with a single word, and he knows it.

His name is Joe Biden.

So why isn’t this President—who promised to make our country a moral leaders once again—forcing both sides to stand down immediately? You know he can because the U.S. gives more money to Israel than it does to any other country. 

I don’t know the answer, but I do have a theory: You see, I may have blocked the man’s vision in 2002, when I put a giant dunce cap on his head after he helped lead the U.S. into a war with Iraq that historians (who disagree upon almost everything else) rank as one of the most culturally, morally and economically destructive wars ever. 

Wait—NEWS FLASH! From late Wednesday—I’m told President Biden has decided that enough is enough and it’s time to speak out! Let’s tune in as he passes the mic to Secretary of State Anthony Blinken:

“….we urge…a de-escalation of violence…”

Wow, that’s so …not … meaningful.

Editorials that take a stand against war (such courage, those writers have!) yada yada on too long, so it’s time to end this one now by drawing upon something I learned at the commencement of my vast military training: “Fear is the mind killer.” Actually I read that on the first page of “Dune,” a science fiction book I began reading in class on that fifth grade day in May.

And so, OK, I admit I was playing hooky that by hiding the Frank Herbert book under my biology workbook. But does that make the quote any less true?

More Dives Beneath the News Shallows: thedailymemes.substack.com (it's free)

I made a video where I go for a walk at night and ramble about this. No need to watch it though to give feedback on the question if you want to

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeDfRcrz3Ia5jbbMGzcsnbg

The annual addendum to my roundup list of The 105 Best Philosophical Novels based on curated lists from The New York Times, Publishers Weekly and more, suggestions from readers on Goodreads, and ratings on Goodreads and Amazon: https://www.greghickeywrites.com/best-philosophical-fiction-books-of-2020/.

It’s a descivingly simple question. But, it has a difficult answer at the least.

To give context, I am asking as a writer who want to write a novel which is a metaphor about happiness. As a writer in the beginning of the book you establish a few questions which then are answered throughout the book. As I was writing the questions I was going to answer I realized that I don’t have answers to these questions.

So really the better question(s) to ask is: What makes you qualified to answer a question? I came to the conclusion that it comes down to experience. Ok now the question is: What type of experiences do you need? Diverse ones I guess? Can someone who is old be inexperienced compared to a teen?

Just a little ramble, if anyone wants to add on that would be great!

What truly defines you as you?is it only your past that dictates what you are or something else changes who you are?

I have been wondering lately about the nature of thinking,why think?it's a good thing to do?if it isn't then why everyone still do it?if it is then why there are things we can't question?if it depends on what to be good or bad then how can anyone know when is good?

I was recently reading about Socrates and why he was not in favor of a citizenship based democracy and I have to say I find his arguments very tempting. I like the idea of an Intellectual democracy where the representatives and voters are rational, independent thinkers.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning a system where only the intellectual elite have the right to vote. I'm talking about a society where the vast majority of the population are rational independent thinkers. I know right now it sounds like a pipe dream, the idea that hundreds of millions of people have skill to form independent opinions but I don't believe the idea is as unrealistic as all that.

Really at the end of the day it boils down to education. More importantly the quality of that education. An education that encourages you to think logically and independently. Barring a few bright corners here and there I don't think the majority of countries have an education system that nurtures these skills at an early age. And even if such a system exists, it is often competing with and overshadowed by an established system that's not open to change. The key to electing competent representatives and protecting our freedoms is having educated masses.

Lately over the last decade I've noticed worldwide there is a trend of anti-intellectualism that's growing. And more worryingly it is fueled and supported by MPs and other elected officials. It seems obvious to me why. The less people you have who can form opinions different from the norm, the more control you have over a population. It's why terms like smartass and wise guy have negative connotations. Being smart or acting smart is seen as a bad thing. God knows I've been told enough times I'm 'acting too smart' for my own good. Really all it takes is someone to form an opinion that is different from the rest to be labelled as such. Pointing out holes in the arguments of others or taking a contrary stance is met with hostility, derision and even violence. The wrong opinion in the wrong place can even be fatal.

The more autocratic a government is, the more likely it is that the population are subdued into mindless lemmings. Independent thinkers are the bane of tyranny. It's far easier to control a population that is told what to think than one that can think for itself. It's all about control. All the propaganda, suppression, censorship, intimidation and terror are tools to force people to think only what those in power want them to think. Freedom of thought is fatal to dictators.

The worrying trend here is it's becoming more prevalent in democratic societies now too. With the consumer driven, Uber-connected world we now live in, it is becoming all to easy to plant ideas in people's heads while they're distracted with obtaining immediate gratification in their material world. It's in the best interests of anyone aspiring to power to keep the population more interested in what the Kardashians are doing or what sale is on today than have them ask the tough questions. Keep them satisfied and focused on the material comforts of the modern world then quietly undermine the education apparatus by underfunding it and underpaying teachers and you have a population that's primed for indoctrination. Make higher education expensive and less accesible and you have a system that heavily favors the few and seeks to keep the rest out. This is how democracies die. When we surrender our freedom of thought we surrender our freedom, period. Intolerance, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, etc are just tools then applied to make a population more divisive and therefore easier to manipulate. It's the modern version of colonial divide and rule but applied to thought itself.

I suppose from this, my bias is super obvious here but I won't back down from that. I detest both anti-intellectualism and autocracy. I detest the idea of someone telling me what I can and cannot think. In times past I would have been labelled a firebrand and persecuted and I cannot believe that we are on the path that's regressing there again. This is why I see the Chinese Communist Party as such a threat. This is why I can't stand Trump and his attacks on the media and free speech. We are living in a world where people are believing 'fake news' and conspiracy theories more than the word of the scientific community. What's worse, elected officials are doing the same and further propagating it.

In the end I think Socrates was right. Democracy is doomed to fail unless it is spearheaded by voters capable of rational, independent thought. We need change if we are to avoid a dystopian future and that change starts with a quality education.

-- Apologies if I've rambled a bit here. I tend to get into an internal monologue while writing but while I've made a point here id love to hear other points of view. It's been A while since I had a good debate and as you can tell this is a topic I'm particularly passionate about :)

Posting to see if anyone reads here at all.

Also wondering if anyone would talk about one of the beliefs I have

Here's the complete list: https://www.greghickeywrites.com/best-philosophical-novels-of-2018. Thanks to everyone who submitted recommendations!

Last year, I published a list of the 105 Best Philosophical Novels, based on curated lists from The Guardian, Flavorwire and more, suggestions from readers on Goodreads, Quora and Reddit, and picks from philosophical fiction authors like Khaled Hosseini, Irvin D. Yalom, Rebecca Goldstein and Daniel Quinn: http://www.greghickeywrites.com/best-philosophical-novels.

I want to keep this list current over time, so I'm looking for the best philosophical novels published in 2018. If you read something you think is worthy of inclusion, please let me know.

I'm adding more books to my reading list.

As a longterm student of Buddhism I'm wellaware of how to control my thoughts and emotions and even my own happiness despite the external situation. However this is balanced by a desire to be effective in dealing with life situations. Armchair philosophers, have you ever found Eastern thought to be altogether too immanent? How do you balance ethics and spirituality with realism and critical thought?

The theme and questions of this opening came from my surprise that the English wiki on philosophy of dialogue is a stub, mentioning only Martin Buber, and that very shortly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_dialogue

Comparing to that, the wiki in my native tongue is much much more extensive: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialoginen_filosofia

This is very suprising, as usually the wiki articles in "Globaleze" tend to be most extensive, compared to smaller and more local languages.

Philosophy of dialogue became familiar to me in my youth through Bohm-Krishnamurti dialogue and practice of Bohmian dialogues. When I was studying Greek language and literature, I learned that Plato's writing was protreptikos, only invitation, hook and bait to what he considered genuine philosophy, the oral praxis of philosophy of dialogue in the grove of Akademos.

Speaking of Plato, one of the philosophical articles that has most impressed me, with it's aesthetically pleasing quality and deep content, is Plato's Pharmacy where Derrida close reads and discusses Plato's views on the art of writing. Writing is said to be pharmakon, both poison and medicine. In my time Internet has revolutionized writing and made it possible that we can now have more lively dialogue (as well as flame wars) also in written language.

I present the question and theme for this dialogue in three-fold form:

1. Are there English-specific linguistic, historical, cultural or other problems in especially practical aspect of philosophy of dialogue?

2. Is there interest to improve the English wiki stub on Philosophy of dialogue in some manner of more cooperative dialogue?

3. The big question and main theme, what is the meaning of Internet for the art of writing, and for language and communication in general, the new possibilities and dangers, the medicine and the poison? Would and could philosophy of dialogue as written praxis be something we could promote as the medicinal, therapeutic aspect?

When introspecting, do we do good by utilizing terms derived by psychologists, or do these terms actually have negative effects on us? If the latter seems to be the case, then what are those negative effects and what is it about the psychological terms that manifested those effects? Furthermore, if the use of psychological terms is to be abdicated from, for the above hypothetical consequences, then what if any terms should we necessarily use? If we advise philosophy, is it the terms we should be using, the methods, or some combo of both?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like that scepticism and more or less frequent reevaluation of your values, including values based on ethical theories, is a virtue for a rational thinker. So you can relatively frequently change your ideas about what things are right, what things are wrong. Sometimes such changes can be big and global, sometimes minor, sometimes drastic, but only under specific circumstances. On contrary, if you stick with your pet theory and refuse to change your mind no matter what arguments you were being presented with, then such dogmatism looks more like religious fundamentalism, rather than rationalism.

Now let's assume that, for example, you're a Kantianist. Also let's suppose that you made some kind of promise. And according to the Absolute Imperative you must keep it no matter what. As your circumstances will become worse your temptation to break the promise will grow. Fortunately, you have willpower for such cases. But if the situation become stressing enough, at some point the Worm of Doubt, your former ally, will awake and whishper to you: "What if all these sufferings and hardships are (will be) just for nothing? What if Kant was wrong?". If you are normally sceptical and know varity of good ethical theories that are just little bit less convincing than Kantianism, then it seems for me, that you'll have harder time to fight the Worm. I do NOT say that you can break your promise because a bright reason "why the Absolute Imperative is a total bullsh*t" can strike you all out of sudden. I'm just saying that considering everything equal, more doubts you have - weaker you'll become against your temptation to disobey the Absolute Imperative.

On contrary, if Kantianism is your pet theory (or you treat it like a religion) and you deeply believe that everybody who doesn't share it is either ignorant or retarded (or mentally ill), then it seems like you will be more likely to keep your promise, because you will be less demotivated by your doubts.

And of course, the Worm will be especially strong when you're faced with life-changing choice A.K.A. "There will be NO way back". Especially if the consequences of kantian choice will be drastically negative for your well-being and/or well-being of your family/friends/SO (like your family will lose all its wealth that it made on blood of innocent people. And face prison time as well.). Under such dramatic circumstances a dogmatist will be, I guess, more likely to do the right thing (from kantian POV).

FINAL FEEDBACK SESSION (before journal-submission): Existential Nihilism: Living in a meaningless universe

Reconciling the only “really serious philosophical problem” with science Since Friedrich Nietzsche, philosophers have grappled with the question of how to respond to nihilism. Nihilism, often seen as a derogative term for a ‘life-denying’, destructive and perhaps most of all depressive philosophy is what drove existentialists to write about the right response to a meaningless universe devoid of purpose. This latter diagnosis is what I shall refer to as existential nihilism, the denial of meaning and purpose, a view that not only existentialists but also a long line of philosophers in the empiricist tradition ascribe to. The absurd stems from the fact that though life is without meaning and the universe devoid of purpose, man still longs for meaning, significance and purpose. Inspired by the adult animated series’ Rick and Morty and Bojack Horseman, this essay explores and analyses the various alternatives that have been offered in how to respond to the absurd, or as Albert Camus puts it; the only “really serious philosophical problem” and conclude that the problem is compatible with a naturalistic world-view, thereby genuine and transcending existentialism. KEYWORDS: existentialism, nihilism, absurdism, Camus, Nietzsche, Sartre, Rosenberg, Nagel https://www.academia.edu/s/65398c370e/existential-nihilism-living-in-a-meaningless-universe-reconciling-the-only-really-serious-philosophical-problem-with-science

Hello. I'm new here and I'm a big fan of the socratic method.

Have you guys heard of this thing called street epistemology? It's an approach of having a conversation that's heavily influenced by the socratic method.

I practice it on my YouTube channel, Cordial Curiosity. There are a few others that do the same.

• Anthony Magnabosco

• Critical Conversation

• Deeper Discussion

Street Epistemology Website

I'd love to know what you guys think about it.

Thought I'd share the youtube channel with you.

I just finished listening to one recording from a lecture for Erich Fromm on "Disobedience: A Moral or Psychological Problem" (1962).

Please see pages 5-6 of my philosophy of life for my presentation and support of negative hedonism.

I look forward to a stimulating and productive discussion.

UPDATE: Reddit is not allowing me to reply to any more posts in this thread. I do not know why. Apologies to Tdbtdb, whose latest questions must go unanswered.

Hey folks,

We’ve pushed our summer read back a few weeks, so before we start Anthony Kenny’s ‘New History of Western Philosophy’, /r/PhilosophyBookClub is going to read Plato’s Euthyphro (for May 2) and Meno (for May 9). Here’s a PDF of both. Here’s a brief summary of the Euthyphro:

Socrates inquires about Euthyphro’s business at court and is told that he is prosecuting his own father for the murder of a laborer who is himself a murderer. His family and friends believe his course of action to be impious, but Euthyphro explains that in this they are mistaken and reveal their ignorance of the nature of piety. This naturally leads Socrates to ask, what is piety?

Besides being an excellent example of the early, so-called Socratic dialogues, Euthyphro contains several passages with important philosophical implications. These include those in which Socrates speaks of the one Form, presented by all the actions that we call pious (5d), as well as the one in which we are told that the gods love what is pious because it is pious; it is not pious because the gods love it (10d). Another passage clarifies the difference between genus and species (11e–12d).

And a summary of the Meno:

Meno wants to know Socrates’ position on the then much-debated question whether virtue can be taught, or whether it comes rather by practice, or else is acquired by one’s birth and nature, or in some other way.

Having determined that Meno does not know what virtue is, and recognizing that he himself does not know either, Socrates has proposed to Meno that they inquire into this together. Meno protests that that is impossible, challenging Socrates with the “paradox” that one logically cannot inquire productively into what one does not already know—nor of course into what one already does! [One he solves this paradox,] Socrates advances and argues for a hypothesis of his own, that virtue is knowledge (in which case it must be teachable). But he also considers weaknesses in his own argument, leading to the alternative possible hypothesis... In the second half of the dialogue we thus see a new Socrates, with new methods of argument and inquiry, not envisioned in such “Socratic” dialogues as Euthyphro.

I hope some of you will join us. Let me know if you have any questions.

Cheers

(Thanks /u/eavc for letting me post here.)

Without getting in to too many specifics - I've noticed a hypocrisy here in america, and it's probably universal: We demand government intervention from things we're afraid of - regardless of the actual threat they present.

We've spent TRILLIONS on the war on terror - and workplace accidents have claimed more lives (often by a factor of ten to one). OSHA (the governmental division that regulates workplace safety here in the US) receives ~$520 million a year.

Remote control aircraft are now regulated by the FAA, having killed zero bystanders (there are a few incidents of operators killing themselves) while peanuts continue to kill a dozen americans a year without facing regulation.

Marijuana, famously having never killed anyone - has sent millions to jail - the cure causing far more demonstrable harm than the problem.

So - Assuming fear and public outcry are a terrible benchmark for determining regulation - what IS a good benchmark?
at what point is someone's behavior or activity dangerous enough to others (or, themselves... that may be a completely different discussion) to warrant legal intervention?

Shooting?
Spray Painting(EDIT: both graffiti, and neighbors using paints upwind of you)?
Eating 'unhealthy foods'?
Driving too fast... driving too slowly?
Texting while driving (while failure to use signals still create far more accidents)?

Where, exactly, do we dray the line between freedom and social responsibility?

Learning is remembering, I think Socrates said.

Now, how to cope with this, being at a point of existence, where you got heavily influenced by parents, authorities, ideas, etc.?

I remember once being a child and felling happy. I thought I knew everything but still got my curiosity running at all of its revolutions. Every day seemed special because everything seemed new to me.

Growing up sucks, we can somehow agree with that. But shouldn't we remember all of that as we grow up? Shouldn't we learn from our own child self? Is it that? Is it being a hedonist like you once were as a child? To have a clear understanding of the past or to have a vision of the future? Everything got so confusing now, I don't know where to go now. Life is mundane and there is not much I can do about it but to add meaning meaning and purpose to it so it doesn't fell like it, but that feels artificial.

How can I get that genuine curiosity back again?

Get back to where you once belonged, said McCartney.

I know someone can relate to this idea here, thats's why I'm writing this post (which is also my first here in reddit). Sorry if I'm being vague, but I had to say this, feel free to discuss any point about this, I know you guys are very good at it. And sorry too if any writing mistake comes through, english is not my first language.

Hey folks,

/r/PhilosophyBookClub is starting our summer read—Anthony Kenny’s ‘New History of Western Philosophy’—and I thought some of you might be interested in joining us. It’s about the most comprehensive history of philosophy you’ll find (except for some much longer ones), and incredibly well-researched and well-written. I’m reading it to get a broader base before I start grad school, and I can’t imagine there’s an undergrad or grad student—or anyone else—who wouldn’t benefit from the book, and from the resulting discussion.

It’s a thousand pages, but not a terribly difficult thousand pages. To make sure everyone can keep up, we’re spreading it over the full summer, so there will be around 60 pages of reading and at least one discussion thread per week.

If you haven’t heard of the book, here’s an excerpt from the publisher’s blurb:

This book is no less than a guide to the whole of Western philosophy … Kenny tells the story of philosophy from ancient Greece through the Middle Ages and the Enlightenment into the modern world. He introduces us to the great thinkers and their ideas, starting with Plato, Aristotle, and the other founders of Western thought. In the second part of the book he takes us through a thousand years of medieval philosophy, and shows us the rich intellectual legacy of Christian thinkers like Augustine, Aquinas, and Ockham. Moving into the early modern period, we explore the great works of Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Leibniz, Spinoza, Hume, and Kant, which remain essential reading today. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Hegel, Mill, Nietzsche, Freud, and Wittgenstein again transform the way we see the world. Running though the book are certain themes which have been constant concerns of philosophy since its early beginnings: the fundamental questions of what exists and how we can know about it; the nature of humanity, the mind, truth, and meaning; the place of God in the universe; how we should live and how society should be ordered. Anthony Kenny traces the development of these themes through the centuries: we see how the questions asked and answers offered by the great philosophers of the past remain vividly alive today. Anyone interested in ideas and their history will find this a fascinating and stimulating read.

And the jacket-quote:

"Not only an authoritative guide to the history of philosophy, but also a compelling introduction to every major area of philosophical enquiry."

—Times Higher Education

I’m also hoping to do some primary-text readings, so if there’s anything you’d like to read or discuss that’s even tangentially related to the subject matter of Kenny’s book, we can make a discussion post for it when it comes up.

We’re reading the first section for May 2, and the full schedule is up at /r/PhilosophyBookClub. I hope some of you will join us, and if you have any questions, let me know.

-Cheers

(Thanks /u/eavc for letting me post here.)

Would you agree to commit mass suicide to save the planet?

What if Adolf was right about Jews? Wat if they ARE the source of all evil?