Well, that’s kind of the immature way of putting it. I’d rather say: if I don’t find your arguments convincing, then I remain unmoved (or something like that). “I am right” is too strong a stance for me (the epistemic skeptic that I am).
But there’s a reason this is mainstream: it’s the way the brain works. The brain will defend its current knowledge, beliefs, and values against others trying to make their way in like anti-virus software fending off foreign threats. We usually hold to one or another position with a bit of tenacity, not so much because we have argued some good rational reason why we should do this, but because the brain quite naturally puts up defenses against external influences to change ideas and values–if it didn’t, we’d be extremely vulnerable to manipulation and confusion, like a computer to viruses.
It’s even more extreme than you’ve put it, in a sense, for not only do we hold other positions to a higher standard than our own, but we often have forgotten our own standards. Once an idea is in–whether that be from the words of a trusted authority or by one’s own inner contemplations–the brain is way more likely to throw out the reasons and justifications for the idea (how you got there) than it is the idea itself (no sense in wasting precious neural space for that which has already served its purpose), and so we often hold to certain position without even remembering why we hold them. Oh, we’ll confabulate all right, but as for the standards by which we hold to our positions, there often aren’t any. Still, however, we hold those positions with a sense of certainty because we maintain this sense that if they got there, they must have gotten there for a good reason, that they must have passed the tests and such, so we are far less inclined to reject those ideas than we are new ideas that conflict with them, whether from outside or inside.
I don’t think it would be a good idea to work against this system too rashly–it does serve a purpose I think (for example, if it weren’t for this system, you’d be an intellectual whore to anyone who wanted to have their way with your mind–cult leaders, for example). So I think I’ll stick with it for a while. Doesn’t mean I’m not open minded to other views, but I will allow my mind to put them through the usual battery of tests and filters before submitting to them wholeheartedly.
We could debate that, but there is a hint of rationalism and moralism in that statement.
I’ve gotten the impression by now that you think I’m trying to defend drug use, as if all this philosophy I’m presenting has the sole purpose of excusing the continuance of my drug use. I think I’ve said before that this isn’t the case (or at best, a severely distorted picture of the case). If I’m defending anything, it’s myself. The points I bring to the table in defense of drug use (like it’s OK to drink at the business Christmas party) come from the standard modus operandi with which I do philosophy here: I pick apart arguments and point out holes where I see them–just for their own sake. I don’t like pretending not to see them just so as to get along with the other person.
What I’ve been trying to do is to express what it’s like to be the drug user I am, and if I get defensive, it’s because I think you’re getting it wrong. I feel like I do have to defend something, but it’s not my drug use (which I’d like to be free of given that there are better alternatives), it’s this “invasion of privacy” for lack of a better word. It really does feel like a Junior surgeon who has no idea how to handle a scalpel trying to fix my mind–it feels threatening. And yes, you’re right that the drugs can be seen as mini-surgeon I’m allowing to have free reign over my brain–but it doesn’t feel like it (most likely because they’ve already done their damage, convincing at least part of my brain that they do no harm).
We’re walking a thin line between rational philosophy and what it’s like to be me–when we enter the latter realm, all rationality flies out the window. I can’t help if I want the drugs even though I know they do damage to me. And there are certain measures I’m not willing to take even though I know they may be for the best.
This all depends on what “epistemology” you’re talking about. This whole line of argument started when I doubted your claim that one can meet God just as readily, if not more, without the drugs than with. This may happen to you all the time, but don’t tell me you’re confused why the rest of us unenlightened plebs hold some doubts. ← On this particular point, I think I’ve got quite a valid position. Claiming that you’ve met God is an extraordinary one, and you know what they say about extraordinary claims. (note, I’m not following this up here with: therefore, I’m justified in continuing drugs).
Moreno, if you keep on this burden of proof thing, this discussion is going to funnel down into one of those petty “well, you need to convince me”, “no you convince me!” back and forths. I’ve been trying to say to you that doubt in the face of extraordinary claims (extraordinary because what you claim just does not fit my experience) is natural, and the brain will typically resist buying such claims wholesale, at least at first. I’m not going to fight my own brain just to make you happy. There is ample opportunity here for you to try to explain to me these godly experiences of yours (I don’t need proof per se)–anecdotal stories, something inspiring, something that might hint at a way out, anything. But don’t just sit there and whine that I won’t believe you just because you can’t prove it to me and won’t even try.
Do you have something better in mind? Myself is all I have. And don’t you think it would prove something if the results I got were actually positive? I mean, like: on this occasion or on that, the results were actually quite encouraging: maybe I can be happier off the drugs. How would that count as me trying to conjure up the results I want to see (that is, if we’re assuming I don’t want a reason to get off the drugs)? I’ve been through three two month stints so far, and the results were: mildly good, mildly good, quite good.
I think that’s just you perceiving things from your radically anti-drug stance. I’ll agree we live in a drug tolerant society (and then it depends on the drug), but we are definitely not pro-drug (I have to remember you live in the US and I live in Canada–don’t know if that makes a difference).
Oh, you’re talking about Big Pharma. Missed that.
I mention a couple of examples involving pleasure seeking and you think I’m a hedonist.
Thanks Freud.
Should we be going back to the other thread?
Moreno, I don’t care about mainstream or not mainstream. I’m not trying to be a big ass rebel: Oh, look at me, big bad drug user–I’m such a non-conformist. Like I said above, I’m trying to express what it’s like to be a drug user the best I can (and no, I don’t always get it right). You talk as if I’m unfairly pushing my views against you. At best, what I’m trying to convey is the challenges both you and I must overcome if I am to cross over into your subjective world. I’m trying to say: look, this is the problem I’m having with your view. I want to believe you, but I can’t just jump over with the limited criteria you gave me. I don’t know why you get frustrated with that, and I think it’s rather unfair of you to expect anything more.
And both are fine, and I’ve done both in this discussion. As for what I want out of the drugs, I want to keep them limited for now. Now is not the time for me to go cold turkey, but I don’t want to be a stumbling drunk each and every day either. That’s why I give myself a release every Friday. That’s the frequency I want to stay at for now.
I think you are saying that though.
Thanks Moreno. Yes, once a week is good enough for me.
Ok, sure.
And I know I bark a lot. It’s a defense mechanism that I allow to happen (if for no other reason than to watch it happen). I still consider you a good friend.