My view on arts, music and aesthetics in general

In summary: you know... people who use drugs.Banning drugs won't do anything, it'll just create a black market and more people will get addicted. legalize all drugsI firmly believe that art is the only reason to live.
  • #1
SELFMADE
80
0
These are no more than drugs. They work as drugs in people' brains. So why should they be encouraged or even consumed in the first place? In my view, we need to ban them. Or we should legalize all drugs.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
So why the crusade against harmless pleasures?
 
  • #3
If drugs didn't negatively affect people's health and lifestyle, then I don't think anyone would have any problem with them. Art doesn't negatively affect people's health and lifestyle.

I could go on, but I think that is sufficient.
 
  • #4
Lets's ban all pleasurable things, including sex. That should weed out the prudes within a generation or two, assuming they will honor the ban.
 
  • #5
CRAZYreworked700pix.jpg


"CRAZY" by Mr. Z Shoe. Pencil on Bristol Board, 14 x17, 2008
 
  • #6
Maybe you could just poke your eyes out, then we wouldn't have to worry about where to "draw the line" on aesthetics.

Fantastic piece Zooby! The irony makes it all the better.
 
  • #7
SELFMADE said:
They work as drugs in people' brains.
Could you provide some peer reviewed references?








:biggrin::rolleyes:
 
  • #8
bp_psy said:
Could you provide some peer reviewed references?

Yeah, I'm really not sure that art and other aesthetic mediums actually cause a drug like reaction in the brain. If the OP could produce a scientific article discussing this idea that may be helpful.
 
  • #9
TheStatutoryApe said:
Yeah, I'm really not sure that art and other aesthetic mediums actually cause a drug like reaction in the brain. If the OP could produce a scientific article discussing this idea that may be helpful.

Yeah, I wouldn't listen to him. He got a 50% on his first Calc II exam and then didn't read the syllabus and note that it could have been made up.
 
  • #10
I firmly believe that art is the only reason to live.
 
  • #11
zoobyshoe said:
CRAZYreworked700pix.jpg


"CRAZY" by Mr. Z Shoe. Pencil on Bristol Board, 14 x17, 2008
Good heavens are you talented.

As for the OP, I get your point about pleasurable feelings or emotions elicited by art, music, and etc. (again, the 'and etc.' part being the truly important one) are neurotransmitters firing at chemical synapses therefore chemical reactions. Basically. What I don't get is the leap to escalation.
 
  • #12
SELFMADE said:
These are no more than drugs. They work as drugs in people' brains. So why should they be encouraged or even consumed in the first place? In my view, we need to ban them. Or we should legalize all drugs.

It seems that you have never found genuine pleasure in art, foremost from being deluded that substance abuse gives pleasure.

Wearing decorated jeans may make one feel cool, but a crack pipe in their pocket indicates little sensibility.
 
  • #13
I can see his point that it's like a drug though. Not specifically art, but just pleasurable things in general.
For instance, school just ended for us, so I'm probably going to waste the next 2-3 hours playing video games or watching TV instead of doing something useful like studying physics.

I've actually had similar thoughts as the OP, however not nearly as drastic as to "ban" them, but I can never ponder it too long because the thought scares me.

True we could ban all pleasurable things, and we probably would be more productive as a species and our scientific and technological advancements would skyrocket (I would think).

But, then you must ask, if we don't enjoy it then what is the point?
Sure we could all make marvelous contributions to mankind... but by then we would be dead and our own work would be of no use to us would it? But, by that same logic, all the time we spent pleasuring ourselves with art and such, would also be of no use... So I guess it just comes down to do whatever you want with your time here on Earth.

xD
 
  • #14
S_Happens said:
Fantastic piece Zooby! The irony makes it all the better.
GeorginaS said:
Good heavens are you talented.

Zooby's Designer Drugs Inc. thanks you both!
 
  • #15
SELFMADE said:
These are no more than drugs. They work as drugs in people' brains. So why should they be encouraged or even consumed in the first place? In my view, we need to ban them. Or we should legalize all drugs.
My thoughts on your thoughts: What makes you think anyone cares and what makes you think your opinions are worth publishing?
 
  • #16
I sense flames building.
 
  • #17
FredGarvin said:
My thoughts on your thoughts: What makes you think anyone cares and what makes you think your opinions are worth publishing?

I could not have said it better myself.
 
  • #18
Oddbio said:
True we could ban all pleasurable things, and we probably would be more productive as a species and our scientific and technological advancements would skyrocket (I would think).

How can you say that when basically all of what historical society considers the most advanced civilizations that have ever lived (i.e. - the egyptians, mayans, greeks, etc..) were heavy drug users, with most of it being marijuana and cocaine.

Most of the greatest advancements mankind has made in just about every field has been made by "druggies" and "psychos" to use the terms liberally (which really makes me wonder sometimes lol).
 
  • #19
bp_psy said:
Could you provide some peer reviewed references?


Agreed 100%. Provide some evidence for your claims, instead of making (seemingly) wild assumptions.
 
  • #20
Kronos5253 said:
Most of the greatest advancements mankind has made in just about every field has been made by "druggies" and "psychos" to use the terms liberally (which really makes me wonder sometimes lol).

The difference being that "psychos" treated not to hallucinate, etc. are proving themselves much more productive. Physical and mental self-destruction came and comes from self-medicating.
 
  • #21
Loren Booda said:
The difference being that "psychos" treated not to hallucinate, etc. are proving themselves much more productive. Physical and mental self-destruction came and comes from self-medicating.

To the latter part, of course of course, that's psychology 101. But that's also kind of a circular statement, because most self-medicating is a form of self-destruction anyway.

But I don't know that I understand what you mean by the first part... Can you elaborate more, or explain it in a different way?
 
  • #22
I could be wrong, but I think the OP's point was more so that banning drugs on the basis that enducing pleasure through neurochemical alteration of the brain is somehow intrinsically immoral is an inconsistent position, illusrated by his hyperbolic example.
 
  • #23
It sounded to me like the rant of someone who was just busted.
 
  • #24
Kronos5253 said:
Most of the greatest advancements mankind has made in just about every field has been made by "druggies" and "psychos" to use the terms liberally (which really makes me wonder sometimes lol).

If by "liberally" you mean completely inaccurately, then yes.
 
  • #25
zoobyshoe said:
If by "liberally" you mean completely inaccurately, then yes.

I don't know about the druggies part, but most of the revolutionary advances were probably considered "crazy" before they were successfully completed.

In terms of the arts, there is a fairly high correlation between creativity and mental abnormailty.
 
  • #26
Chi Meson said:
It sounded to me like the rant of someone who was just busted.

Hahahahahah! Yeah, a clumsy variation on the old "Alcohol's way worse for people than pot, and it's legal."
 
  • #27
Galteeth said:
I don't know about the druggies part, but most of the revolutionary advances were probably considered "crazy" before they were successfully completed.

This is a meme you run into a lot, but if you read the history it turns out very few great innovators were considered "crazy", much less "psycho" in their time. Most of the opposition they encountered could be boiled down to the mere belief they were absolutely wrong.
 
  • #28
Kronos5253 said:
To the latter part, of course of course, that's psychology 101. But that's also kind of a circular statement, because most self-medicating is a form of self-destruction anyway.

But I don't know that I understand what you mean by the first part... Can you elaborate more, or explain it in a different way?

It's ironic that for ages 13-24 I was self-medicating anxiety, depression and later psychosis with some alcohol, pot and more serious drugs. Once I accepted a medical regimen and quit the drugs, however, I ceased social withdrawal, acting out and hallucinations, and found an appropriate pharmacology to fight the very habits I had formerly indulged.

As you can see, I am a believer in the healing powers of medicine. The brain has great ability to explore safely mental phenomena without drug abuse. I used to take substances to risk what I must now ingest pills against - self-destruction.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Let me put it this way, what if you made addicts out of a group of bright young people and told them to make discoveries, accomplish great things for mankind or else they can't get their doses of heroin?

Harmful? I don't see any, they are working for the benefit of all.
 
  • #30
So in your opinion, Beethoven, Bach, etc...were dealers?
 
  • #31
SELFMADE said:
Let me put it this way, what if you made addicts out of a group of bright young people and told them to make discoveries, accomplish great things for mankind or else they can't get their doses of heroin?
If you'd ever personally known any heroin addicts, and I mean real addicts, the ones that shake, and stutter, and drool, and need two people to inject them because they're shaking too much, you'd understand why they don't accomplish anything.

Do you have any point other than you seem to be angry that mood or mind altering drugs are illegal, (to which you seem to have assigned "pleasure") so anything that "gives pleasure" should be illegal, as if that even remotely makes any sense?
 
  • #32
Loren Booda said:
It's ironic that for ages 13-24 I was self-medicating anxiety, depression and later psychosis with some alcohol, pot and more serious drugs. Once I accepted a medical regimen and quit the drugs, however, I ceased social withdrawal, acting out and hallucinations, and found an appropriate pharmacology to fight the very habits I had formerly indulged.

As you can see, I am a believer in the healing powers of medicine. The brain has great ability to explore safely mental phenomena without drug abuse. I used to take substances to risk what I must now ingest pills against - self-destruction.

That's a great story, and I'm glad that it worked out for you like that :) But from what I've seen/heard, it's not very common. My wife was put in a medical regimen when she was in her teens, to treat depression, PTSD and various other things and she was ridiculously overmedicated, and her mother had her taken off of it. To this day (she's in her mid 20's) the side-effects of the medication that she was on still effect her, which is some 10 years later.

I'm personally a believer in the power of the human mind and the human body. To pull a percentage out of my butt, and as an estimated guess, 95% of the time, what's ailing you doesn't need medication to fix. Your body is perfectly capable of doing it on it's own. There are many cases in which medication is required of course, but I believe that people rely too much on medication nowadays. I think it's absolutely ridiculous. My abnormal psyche teacher, who worked in the Paoli Hospital Psyche ward told me about 5 year old child (no specifics of course, since that's confidential) that came in on 3 different medications for bi-polar... 5 years old!

But I digress...


zoobyshoe said:
If by "liberally" you mean completely inaccurately, then yes.

How so? What about it is completely inaccurate?

Galteeth said:
In terms of the arts, there is a fairly high correlation between creativity and mental abnormailty.

I'm pretty sure that correlation exists in mathematics and science as well...

Best example I can come up with on the spot is John Forbes Nash, Jr, which is who's life "A Beautiful Mind" is loosely based.
 
  • #33
Galteeth said:
I could be wrong, but I think the OP's point was more so that banning drugs on the basis that enducing pleasure through neurochemical alteration of the brain is somehow intrinsically immoral is an inconsistent position, illusrated by his hyperbolic example.

That sounds about right to me... Although how you got that out of what he put, I haven't the faintest.
 
  • #34
zoobyshoe said:
This is a meme you run into a lot, but if you read the history it turns out very few great innovators were considered "crazy", much less "psycho" in their time. Most of the opposition they encountered could be boiled down to the mere belief they were absolutely wrong.

That's what I meant. Not so much crazy in the "dude's talking to himself and wearing tinfoil on his head" sense as "that's a crazy idea! That'll never work!"

Of course, this fact is often trotted out by actual wackos to justify their wackiness. Furthermore, most of the "crazy ideas" that will "never work" are, in fact, crazy ideas that will never work. People only talk about the successful ones!
 
  • #35
Galteeth said:
I could be wrong, but I think the OP's point was more so that banning drugs on the basis that enducing pleasure through neurochemical alteration of the brain is somehow intrinsically immoral is an inconsistent position, illusrated by his hyperbolic example.
I was thinking this was probably the case. It does not detract from the fact (or so I believe it to be fact until otherwise enlightened) that his comparison is rather poor. In any event there is quite a difference between the introduction of foreign chemicals to the body and natural neurochemical reactions to stimuli. Note that I am not making any ethical judgments, only pointing out the difference.

SELFMADE said:
Let me put it this way, what if you made addicts out of a group of bright young people and told them to make discoveries, accomplish great things for mankind or else they can't get their doses of heroin?

Harmful? I don't see any, they are working for the benefit of all.
I think that you would be destroying brilliant young minds. Even accounting for the many great minds of history that were addicts and loons it was most often felt that they burned out or died before their time, that they could have done so much more.

Kronos5253 said:
I'm pretty sure that correlation exists in mathematics and science as well...

Best example I can come up with on the spot is John Forbes Nash, Jr, which is who's life "A Beautiful Mind" is loosely based.
For every clinically insane or drug addled scientist how many perfectly sane and non-drug using scientists were there? And for every brilliant druggie or fruitcake in history how many intelligent people were simply destroyed by drugs and mental illness?

Do you think that all of those intelligent yet unconventional individuals may get so much more attention in history books than their conventionally minded colleagues more for their having been so outlandish than for their allegedly singular brilliance?
 

Similar threads

  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
5
Views
969
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
4
Replies
110
Views
6K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
955
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
134
Back
Top