Below is an essay I wrote for my Contemporary Civilizations class about how psychedelic drugs fit into various models of philosophy. The paper mostly focuses on the works of the philosophers, but this is the type of academic analysis of drug experience I hope to be able to develop later in my studies!
Philosophers have long
obsessed over the correct methods of reaching the ultimate state of human
existence, enlightenment. Although thinkers have developed unique ideas about
the definition of enlightenment, the general concept concerns a higher level of
human experience, a state where one can reach an understanding of the true
nature of reality. The Islamic philosopher Al-Ghazali and the ancient Greek
philosopher Plato have both devised very distinct models of the path to
enlightenment. Although both philosophies involve a higher level of perception
and consciousness, the methods involved in attaining this state differ greatly.
Psychedelic drugs add an interesting aspect to the theory of enlightenment. The
psychedelic experience has often been lauded as a profound path towards
enlightenment, but many are skeptical about the legitimacy of this altered
sense of reality. Al-Ghazali’s emphasis on experiencing the mystical state
would accept psychedelics as a valid method of enlightenment, but Plato’s
strict, developmental path towards enlightenment leaves no room for alternate
methods. By evaluating how psychedelic drugs could be incorporated into these
models of enlightenment, comparing these two philosophies will reveal deeper
particulars about the authors’ concepts and contexts.
In order to fully gauge the role of drugs in these philosophies, a general
working definition of the psychedelic experience must be established. The
experience is difficult to define because of its abstract and subjective
nature; however, several key aspects of psychedelics can be generalized in
order to understand the altered mind-state. Psychedelic drugs induce a level of
consciousness and perception that lies outside of the senses. Hallucinations,
disassociation from the physical world and the self, and new patterns of
cognitive thoughts all contribute to this new sense of reality. Despite the
profundity of the experience, a deeper evaluation must be made before
concluding that this altered state represents the true form of reality that is
sought after in enlightenment. The significance of this experience can be
understood by examining the method involved in inducing the psychedelic state.
One important property of psychedelics is their temporality. The altered
mind-state can be immediately induced by ingesting the drug, and the drug
effect will then wear off after a certain amount of time. Another important
aspect of the psychedelic experience is its universality. Hypothetically, any
person who ingests the drug will induce a psychedelic trip, bringing them to
this altered mind-state. With these general principles in mind, the drugs can
then be assessed in light of Al-Ghazali’s and Plato’s models of enlightenment.
Al-Ghazali focuses on the experience of the mystical state as the pinnacle of
enlightenment. In his essay, “The Rescuer from Error,” Ghazali reflects on his
journey of seeking enlightenment through various schools of thought. He
rejected the paths of theology and philosophy before finally finding the true
means of enlightenment through mysticism. Al-Ghazali renounced his previous
life of notoriety, pleasure, and family comfort in order to sever his
attachments to the physical world. Without distraction from the physical world,
he focused his complete efforts into seeking the mystical experience and
attaining enlightenment. The practice of asceticism and isolation allowed
him to induce the mystical experience, which he believed revealed the true
nature of reality. He completely immersed himself in the mystical experience,
disassociating from the self and the physical world through “complete
obliteration in God” (81). The height of the mystical experience is what
Al-Ghazali calls “prophecy,” which is the “stage in which he acquires an eye
that sheds light upon the supernatural things, the future, and other matters
from which the intellect is isolated” (84). This prophecy reveals the true
nature of reality that lies beyond our sensory perception and intellectual
capacities, through voices, hallucinations, and insights (81). One becomes
enlightened simply by “tasting” this heightened experience (82). Since the true
nature of reality cannot be grasped through logic or communicated through
language, enlightenment is found through experience.
Al-Ghazali’s model of enlightenment based on the experience of a mystical state
would recognize the use of psychedelics as a method of enlightenment. Despite
being distinct methods of practice, psychedelic drugs and asceticism both
achieve the same end of establishing a heightened state of awareness and
perception. The physical detachment from the world, and the consequent
hallucinations, euphoria, and altered sense of perception, make the psychedelic
experience akin to the mystical experience. According to al-Ghazali’s
philosophy, simply experiencing this state is all that is needed for
enlightenment. An understanding of the truth is achieved “from the very first
step of the mystic way,” making Al-Ghazali’s path to enlightenment one of
unlocking this heightened sense of reality (82). This eliminates concern about
the temporality of the psychedelic experience; although the drug effect passes
away after a set period of time, one has already “tasted” the true form of
reality. The experience itself reveals the truth, and “verification by means of
demonstration is knowledge” (82). However, would Al-Ghazali respect such
distinct alternatives to asceticism, such as drug use? Al-Ghazali’s personal
history of seeking for the truth on various paths strongly suggests that he
would accept other methods of reaching the enlightened state. Although the goal
of his essay is to outline his personal path towards enlightenment, Al-Ghazali
does not prescribe his own method to his readers. In fact, his rejection of
theology stems from his distaste of orthodoxy, where teachers simply defend
their own faction while disproving others. Rather than sinking into the “depths
of conformity” (59), he advocates for personalized paths towards the truth, as
illustrated through the analogy, “Medications differ depending on the disease,
and there are many medications that benefit one patient and harm another” (66).
Thus, Al-Ghazali encourages people to tap into the mystical state using
whatever means is best suited to them, establishing psychedelic drugs as a
valid tool of enlightenment.
Plato establishes a model of enlightenment that starkly contrasts with
Al-Ghazali’s sudden mystical experience, instead proposing a strenuous and
selective path towards knowledge of the truth. In The Republic, Plato composes a
dialogue that seeks to define the truth and enlightenment. In order to do this,
he constructs a theoretical model of an ideal city. The theory rests on the
idea of using reason and philosophy to understand the true nature of reality,
which is accessed in the realization of the Forms. These perfect Forms
represent the pure nature of things of which we only see a distorted fragment
in our unenlightened state. To comprehend the Forms is to live the ultimately
fulfilling life of philosophy and understanding of the “Good.” The famous
Allegory of the Cave is useful in understanding the concept of the Forms and
the method by which enlightenment can be achieved. Plato presents a scenario in
which humans are trapped in a dark cave, where they can only see shadows of
puppets cast on the wall by a large fire. The prisoners only understand their
reality as these shadows, and they are ignorant of the true reality that exists
outside of this cave. A person may be able to break free from these chains,
undertake the long and arduous crawl out of the cave, and then finally realize
the true nature of the world. The metaphor of this escape represents the long
and arduous path towards enlightenment, which consists of “the study of things
above as the upward journey of the soul to the intelligible realm” (189).
Enlightenment is “reached only with difficulty,” and Plato outlines this
process in his description of the philosophers in the theoretical republic. The
philosophers of the city are identified and developed through a strictly guided
process, which involves a lifetime of education and experience (194-200).
The key point is that the path of a philosopher focuses on rigorous
development, where each stage of education teaches bits of “stepping stones”
that contribute towards the ultimate realization of the truth (185). Only after
this development would one have the facilities to understand the true nature of
reality.
Psychedelics would have no place in Plato’s long journey towards enlightenment,
due to the immediate nature of a drug trip and its universal availability. Like
the psychedelic experience, Plato’s enlightenment entails that one sees past
the “world of visible” and into a world beyond the senses (183). However, Plato
believes that the true reality can be accessed by understanding the
“intelligible,” meaning that through deep contemplation using reason and logic,
we can eventually reach an understanding of the Forms. This concept conflicts
with the basic ideology of the psychedelic experience, which does not involve
logic but rather a focus on the experience. Contrary to Plato’s proposed
lifetime of philosophical development, psychedelic drugs induce an altered
state of mind soon after taking the drug. Plato believes that someone arriving
at this state immediately after taking the drug would react similarly to
someone who is forced out of the metaphorical cave:
And if someone dragged him
away from there by force, up the rough, steep path, and didn’t let him go until
he had dragged him into the sunlight, wouldn’t he be pained and irritated at
being treated that way? And when he came into the light, with the sun filling
his eyes, wouldn’t he be unable to see a single one of the things now said to
be true? (188)
The altered state of perception would have no significance
to the person who has not been trained to receive and understand its deeper
meaning about reality. Additionally, Plato’s philosophy further devalues the
psychedelic state through his believe in the exclusivity of enlightenment. In
his city, Plato believed that those who can reach enlightenment belong to a
small and select group of citizens that make up the philosopher class. These
philosophers are selected and developed throughout a lifetime of education and
training. The notion that any citizen would be able to reach a meaningful
altered state by simply ingesting a drug would highly devalue Plato’s
enlightenment, whose worth is partially established through its limited
availability.
The differences between the two philosophers’ view of the role of psychedelic
drugs stems not only from their different conceptions of enlightenment, but
also from the different purposes that their writing serves. One aspect of
Al-Ghazali’s acceptance of drugs concerns the belief that enlightenment is a
universal opportunity. His journey had shown him how dependence on teachers and
dogma causes a corrupt view of spiritual knowledge, where the truth is
sacrificed for doctrinal acceptance. Thus, he abandons the restrictive world of
theology and philosophy for the more individualized path of mysticism, which
emphasizes knowledge that “could not be attained through teaching but rather
through ‘tasting,’ the ‘state’” (77). The focus on experience rather than any
exclusive sort of education makes his method much more accessible and
universal, since anyone who experiences will have reached enlightenment.
Furthermore, Al-Ghazali emphasizes that his “The Rescuer from Error” is simply
the story of his own journey, rather than a prescription of how one should
live. After he finishes explaining his rejection of theology, he states, “my
purpose now is to set out my own case, not to deny that others have been cured
by theology” (66). His openness to different methods is important when
understanding his philosophy in the context of Islam. With the rapid spread of
Islam around the turn of the first millennium, Al-Ghazali expresses concern
about the many divisive factions that arise (60). His accessible approach to
Islamic spiritualism reflects a desire to avoid alienating the layperson and to
unify those who divide the religion through dogma.
On the other hand, Plato’s approach to understanding enlightenment is less
accessible to the layperson, as he presents the search for the truth as a
difficult and selective endeavor. As examined, Plato’s enlightenment is the
culmination of a lifelong development and education. Few people are able to
endure the long struggle and have the capacity to become enlightened. These
conditions reject the psychedelic experience; the immediate and accessible
nature of the taking psychedelic drugs suggests that the experience does not
reveal the true reality. This reaction is understandable in the context of the
philosophical aims of the book. The
Republic is less focused on
providing pragmatic advice to the Greeks, contrasting Al-Ghazali’s goal of
inspiring the Muslims. Instead, the book acts as a platform to develop an
abstract philosophical theory of the Good. The ideal city is simply a tool to
help communicate these ideas, and thus, Plato is not interested in giving his
audience practical guidance on how to become a philosopher-king. Furthermore,
his basic attitude towards drugs is much less accepting for several reasons.
First, Plato presents enlightenment as the ultimate realization of the Forms,
which is the pure, and almost divine, nature of reality. In order to
communicate this perfect and almost untouchable concept, Plato frames
enlightenment as almost impossible tasks, restricting it to only the greatest
humans. By rejecting the use of psychedelic drugs and emphasizing the
exclusivity of enlightenment, Plato is simply reinforcing the pure nature of
what he believes is the truth. Second, the model of enlightenment must be
strict and inflexible in order to avoid interfering with his complicated philosophical
framework that leads to a concrete definition of the truth. Again, the text is
a theoretical treatise about abstract ideas, and in order to understand his
specific thought process regarding the true nature of reality, we must follow
his specific path towards enlightenment.
Judging how both of these philosophers would interpret the psychedelic
experience reveals much about their individual ideologies and the purpose of
their text. Al-Ghazali’s acceptance of these drugs emphasizes the unifying
purpose of his text, as he sought to break down the barriers of different
dogmas and methods in Islam. On the other hand, Plato put up strong boundaries
around access to enlightenment, rejecting the use of psychedelic drugs on the
grounds that drug use does not entail the development that is necessary for one
to gain an understanding of the true nature of reality. Although this seems to
starkly contrast with Al-Ghazali’s unifying methods, we must also understand
that these differences stem from the distinct goals of the two texts. The
context of Al-Ghazali’s work suggests that his ideology is based on practical
goals for the Islamic community. On the other hand, Plato wishes to simply
reach a concrete philosophical understanding of large concepts, which makes it
understandable why the concepts in his philosophy are not open to alternate
methods. Although it is questionable if Al-Ghazali would enjoy an afternoon of
LSD (or if Plato would decline a sip of ayahuasca), evaluating how drugs alter
the model of these two philosophies bring us to greater depths of understanding
the content and context of these great works.
No comments:
Post a Comment