Is drug use necessary to be a great author?

No one considers alcohol a drug for these purposes. If we are going to warp the practical definition for technicalities then every writer ever, whether good or bad used drugs.
>Shakespeare smoked weed
Now you a really stretching. Evidence of pipes dug up containing traces of weed =/= Shakespeare smoking weed. We have no idea of any sort of quantity, if they date to a time Shakespeare was even alive, and if they did it still doesn't give enough information to assume it's related to any consumption of the drug, or even if we assume intentionally minded human hands had played a role for the presence of these traces–which is only an assumption–it does not follow that these people were aware of the properties of the drug, and that the user if there was one happened to be Shakespeare.

of course not
drugs are fun though and a good use of your time when you're not writing if you can maintain discipline to keep writing
coming down off a good shot of heroin is the best place to be writing

Drug use is necessary to be a great artist.

Have you used heroin? I've been thinking to either pick up an opiate addiction a la Coleridge or Burroughs, or to pick up an antihistamine habit, in order to truly live the literary lifestyle. Opiates would give me poetic vision like the Romantics, but speed my motivate me to actually write something for once.

Dude, you need to chill out man. Smoke a blunt or something lol. Maybe then you'll realize the creative genius that drugs can inspire. Drugs allow us to travel into the unconscious, and perhaps bring something back.

Amphetamine not antihistamine. Stay away from benadryl kids

>responding to a post with a reasoned argument makes you angry

Everyone here is on Autism meds so no, drugs don't make a good writer... evidently.

What a credible source spewing that revisionist crap.

No, it is not necessary to take drugs to be a writer. It is not necessary to pursue any other endeavour either.

It's a funny thing how druggies project their own habit on to the outside world. 'Damn, that's a great tune, those guys must have been tripping balls in the studio, maaan.' 'Like, the ancient greeks did ergot and opened up their third eye to DMT hyperspace. That's, like totally, what Plato means by the Forms'.

Keep on justifying your irrational actions through projection. Drugs are ends in themselves.

Maybe man, but like, can they help at all?

>no one considers alcohol a drug for these purposes

Why not? It's as much a drug as Meth or weed. I could go on and on about how many alcoholic writer there are. You don't think that drug use could have been conductive to many an author's work?

Yes alcohol is a drug, but not only is it not what people think of when they think of as drugs but if you look at OP it is obvious alcohol is not one of the drugs in discussion.

>You don't think that drug use could have been conductive to many an author's work?

Yes I think there has been at least one writer where some drug has helped them to write. I also think there will be a writer whose sobriety helps them to write. I also think there must be a writer who has a terrible colon problem and writes better when he manages his bi-weekly shit. Some writers are helped by drinking, others are harmed by it and the vast majority drink in ones which are completely normal and it has no bearing whatsoever on their creative output. So I think some writers may have been helped by drugs, but it is only a trivial truth for there are far, far more who have not. There is nothing in drugs that necessarily aids in writing, nor does the taking of them mean there will be an effect on your writing and it does not even mean if there is an effect it will be good.

ITT: People conflate alcohol with psychedelics to bolster their argument

I think there is something to be said for the benefits psychedelics and their influence on abstract thinking.

However, chalking someone's accomplishments up to "oh he must've took some reaaally pure acid lmao" is foolish.

In addition to this, experimentation with drugs is not required to write something profound.

Oh yeah man. Taking psychedelics is what made me become a writer.

They are so enlightening that you just can't contain what seems like inspiration from a thousand muses descending upon your mind from their place in the clouds. Once I started doing shrooms on a regular basis, the rich, beautiful prose just wouldn't stop pouring out of me.

You guys who conflate psychedelics with alcohol are properly unenlightened and numb your minds from seeing through the veil of illusions. Spooky. Come back when you have decalcified your pineal gland with a hit of DMT, maybe then we'll talk when the hyperelves have shown you the secrets of quantum mechanics and sacred geometry.

Weed's illegal here, and ever since I went to see a gastroenterologist for an unrelated reason and learned that it can have a paradoxical effect and cause hyperemesis, I've lost any interest in it I might have had.

Anyway, I sure hope drug use isn't necessary to be a great author, because the only drugs I'm having on any regular basis is klonopin, and it just brings you down.

Coffee sure helps.

Drugs aren't necessary by any means. It can help you feel inspired, perhaps, or even to find new connections and ways of interacting with literature, but any insights you have can also be had without the drug if you work at it.

I could still recommend it as something worth trying.

I've done acid over a hundred times in doses up to an entire thumbprint. I have grown my own shrooms and eaten more grams than I could ever remember. I have extracted DMT and taken pharmahuasca once, ayahuasca twice, and smoked grams on grams. I have eaten san pedro, peyote, and synthetic mescaline.

AMA

I've done all these things as well, and my only question is, why do you think people care about you?

Why would you lie on the internet?
I struggle to believe anyone who has done a thumbprint would care to boast about it as crassly as you just did.

what's your physical/diet regimine like

I get schizo and depressed from just smoking weed and shrooms has never done anything but send me to the hospital for a bleeding stomach because I fasted 24 hours prior

Drugs are a tool you can use to look deep inside your mind. If there's nothing to look at, drugs won't help. You can also look there without drugs. So the answer to OP's question is no, but they can be useful. In terms of historical drug use, we can't leap to assumptions, but there is archaeological and historical evidence of psychedelics and other drugs being used in the past, ranging from the "soma" describes in ancient Indian texts to cannabis use documented in BC Europe. Discounting alcohol as a drug is not accurate either. Look at the way absinthe was used in the 19th century. It can cause depersonalisation, an effect often desired by psychedelic users.

Look drug use is not necessary. It just so happens that drug experiences, especially those of the psychedelic persuasion, are packed full of interesting musings. Any idiot can trip but to transcribe your trip into meaningful and thoughtful words can only be done, deftly, by a true artist.

Not if you are a natural: i.e. have mental illness

LMAO

Psychedelics offers you insights into the self, if not directly then at least by looking at the contrast between an altered state of consciousness and a baseline state of consciousness. It allows for the possibility of gleaming into the essential nature of the self and coming to terms with the remaining two states of consciousness as phenomena subordinated in the medium of the true self.
So yeah, I mean unless you're intending to make a career out of shallow literature, psychedelics are helpful.
I pray to the almighty Lord that you're not serious. OP obviously didn't think of any logical necessity.

>OP obviously didn't think of any logical necessity
>Is drug use necessary
>necessary
>necessity

>what is reading comprehension

>Is drug use necessary to be a great author?
>If it is true then drug use is necessitated by great authors

>alcohol can't be psychedelic
>what is absinthe

You see, there are two kinds of people in this world. For the sake of this post anyway.
The first one is characterised by the ability to read between the lines, and gauge when it's appropriate to interpret sentences literally or figuratively.
The second one is fondly called an autist by the former group, whose characteristic trait is to interpret literally while doing so would be considered inappropriate.
>:))))

Now to repay you in sincerity, I'll admit your deductions were all legit.

Caffeine is a drug. How many great writers never had tea, coffee, or chocolate?

no

yea people are totes going to space off fucking Budweiser

drunk driving dosent count

>absinthe
Something that doesn't make you hallucinate. Don't fall for memes.

Pls be troll

It makes you hallucinate tho, because the Thujone in it fucks with your GABA receptors. That's why countries regulate the ammount of Thujone in current absinthe.

>the plebs at highexistence.com don't even know Alan Watts
lmao

Take datura or you'll never produce anything worthwhile

fuck datura lad

you'll probably just end up in A&E

just order some magic truffles from amsterdam (eat two packs - about 30g) and listen to Wagner

You can order them overseas to a country where it's illegal?

What are you, fourteen?

Yes. (youtube.com/watch?v=CHPRzuupK9g)

Although I don't think truffles are illegal in most countries. The shrooms are, but the Psylocibe in truffles is different to that in mushrooms.

Well the site I'm on about (Zamnesia) you need to be in EU, I dunno if they ship to UK.

>[We can] assume that the barley grown [in the Rarian plain] was host to an ergot containing … the soluble hallucinogenic alkaloids.

And this is evidence enough to prove drugs caused Plato's genius? gtfo

No.

Plenty of great authors had vices and in turn helped shape their work and even their image. However the work produced was based on experience and intrigued guided by a freed mind that wanted to free other minds (if that makes any sense). But if it were uncovered that Plato liked to gorge himself on cheese, people would not suddenly flood cheese shops hoping for the next philosophic movement.

That being said, in these days people expect some MFA writers to have debilitating habits to produce works of tremendous weight, but they don't because dug use now is for escape and pleasure rather than insight and communication.

>UK

Meant US

Name one great author who has never consumed drugs. Alcohol and medicine are drugs... GO!

If you dont think alcohol is a drug you dont know what drugs are

He didn't imply anything of the sort.

>No one considers alcohol a drug for these purposes.
You sure?

>still falling for the drug meme

I bet you listen to Alan Watts lectures on Youtube too.

You're confusing him with McKenna, Watts thought drugs were simply a means to an end that could be reached otherwise.

no

If seeing spiders under your skin is your thing, go for it.

Not for you, no, you cannot hope to be a great author anyway.

No and it fucking hurts to have to reply to such a stupid discussion.

Plato was not the beginning of philosophy. Right off the bat that article is shit.

Drugs are used by people who need a stimulus in order to reach a passionate level of thoughtfulness. In other words, you have to be a dumb, dull prick to receive benefit from using drugs. And even then, genuine inspiration from within, through our personal connections in the world, will always take a person much farther into creative imagination than a cold, external little plant can do.

There may be some decent authors that used such a stimulus, this in no way confirms that their writing is a result of the stimulus though. Correlation vs causation.

Also, humans were using psychedelics fucking thousands of years before philosophy came about. Millions of humans are using them now, none of which are great in any sense, but are mostly retards that can't even sit still long enough to handle a normal job, much less a philosophy book. This should tell you right off the bat how stupid the whole debate is. Great writing and philosophy did not come about from drugs; they come about from culture.

blark beb barkets my friend

>If you don't think bread is a drug then you don't know what drugs are

you psychedelic fags are worse than the dude weed lmao crowd
you're not partaking in some important spiritual journey it's just leisure

>Scopenhauer says "By wine or opium we can intensify and considerably heighten our mental powers, but as soon as the right measure of stimulus is exceeded, the effect will be exactly the opposite."
>druggies go all "omg hidden psychesophy of philodelics"

This.

But it can be used as a learning experience/for reflection. It won't make you "enlightened" and see through a "third-eye" or whatever.

Spiritual journies occur, the use of psychedelics won't prevent them from occurring, psychedelics create mindsets in which spiritual journies are easier to embark upon, your post is incorrect.

> It won't make you "enlightened" and see through a "third-eye" or whatever.
I suppose it will do that to some people, if it somehow happens to be their first experience that makes them think or the first thought that makes them experience.

I've never used drugs besides alcohol (and nicotine), but its pretty clear from many of my drug-using friends that it can be a pretty important experience. Most of the time the shit they ramble about when I ask them about what drugs did to them, though... well, it is very basic. Easy to think without drugs.

>Spiritual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Spiritual

truth is socially constructed etc, etc. Even the economists accept this nowadays: have you heard of the 'futures market'? the real power of capital is predicated on shared psychedelic fantasy. seriously just read plato, aristotle, descartes, kant, marx, nietzsche, freud, saussure, lacan, hayek, deleuze's atari, wittgenstein and DFW. i remember one time, emerging from a dissociative fugue staring at money on my bedside table wondering why i couldn't just eat it. frustrated that I couldn't peel the coins open for chocolate inside. you're living in a psychedelic dreamscape; pure ideology. you don't need fucking drugs in a world like this, just open your sober eyes a little wider. lastly why would you give a fuck about "necessary" elements in the development of a "great author" you sound like a fucking 20 year old who masturbates to the greeks and lives for glory and immortality desu baka