Redpill me on Terrence McKenna I've started listening to

yes, definetly listen to him. also go watch "true hallutinations" on youtube.

Pros:
Encourages 'Socratic Questioning', promotes freethought

Cons:
Encourages the use of Sophism, promotes superstition

Only worth your time if you're looking for someone that encourages Socratic Questioning via interesting humanistic appeals.

You'd be better off reading the French Collective (Post Modern French Philosophers - They differ from American Post Modernists by questioning presumption and particular constructs instead of everything).

>>19197958
>But I also find him a whiny, pretentious hippie
But, he's the absolute creme of the whiny, pretentious, hippy crop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sI8ohPTzIE
(before you try to say he has a facile grasp of neuromechanics in the first like seven minutes try to remember that when he was speaking we'd no idea about the complex ligand peptide systems in the brain)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dzj0QrJIYvY

>>19197984

Not into post-modernism, their ideas are completely ruining society

>>19198000
9/10 people that dislike postmodernism cant even define it. well? what is it?

>>19198008

Thats part of the problem, everything is apparently subjective with infinite possible meaning so lets just subvert the whole fucking planet with degeneracy

>>19198000
Not all of post modernism is the same.

French post modernism questions whether language promotes reification or identification.

American post modernism equates identification with reificaiton.

There is a difference.

Some things, such as stereotypes built out of fear, are completely made up.

In fact, anything that isn't empirical or rational is made up.

However, American Post Modernists go beyond that and also state Empiricism and Rationalism are also wrong. That itself is a self-defeating argument (how can you use language and logic to criticize if language and logic have no validity?).

French Post Modernism is rational.
American Post Modernism is irrational.

>>19198011
so youre one of those 9/10. i bet you think cultural marxism is real too. back to /pol/

File: omg1.jpg (15KB, 490x441px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 490x441px

>>19198018
>>19198012
>>19198011
>>19198008
>>19198000
Y'know what's funny?

This vid
>>19197989
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sI8ohPTzIE [Embed]

Is literally about this very fucking argument.

>>19198018

Oh fuck off, I'm not here to debate post-modern leftist idea. I'm interested in learning more about psychedelics, archetypes and such

>>19198020
You've just proved my point.
TK very clearly is against skepticism and evidence but still claims to be for freethought.


The audio clearly shows him bait and switching the history of epistemology in order to promote American Post Modernism when in reality the foundation of Epistemology is Socratic Questioning and Empiricism, not anti-skepticism.

>>19198047
>>19198020

Fuck it, I'll just listen to Alan Watts

>>19198052
Alan Watts is more academically minded, but he also promotes Western Woo like Sam Harris.
Just stick to Carl Popper and Jean Baudrillard.

>>19198078
I meant Eastern Woo.
Sorry.

He is a CIA shill, like fucker Leary

>>19198018
cultural marxism is absolutely "real". saying it's not is like saying catholicism isn't real because you don't believe in jesus. Whether or not you accept it, many people do and it exists as a concept in the intellectual and academic space.

People have different definitions of it depending on their reading and extrapolation of marx, but in general it's the concept of moral and cultural relativism combined with the organizational and hierarchical philosophy of marxism.

>>19198047
>TK very clearly is against skepticism and evidence
I dunno where you got that mate.
"To abandon the scientific method is to be cast without rudder into a sea of strident claims."
Then TK admits he's not statistician and lets RS and RA take the wheel in which they provide strong defenses of not only the method but contemporary practices, and I'll be damned but I'd like to see a "consumer reports" of woo with a bit of numerical data on test claims in light of the last Bem meta-analysis (which admittedly was some time ago).

>>19197958
I found Food of the Gods to be an interesting book. I've listened to several of his lectures which were all listenable but it is pretty nonsensical. Look up the podcast series Psychedelic Saloon. That dude puts out a ton of Terrance McKenna's recorded lectures. Including some that where sent to him on tape and had to be digitized.

File: 1496810440229.png (56KB, 557x605px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 557x605px

I love watching people who've never read so much as a wikipedia article on the subject, let alone an actual book, attempt to argue about postmodernism

Guess where you are on the curve plotting imagined knowledge of subject versus actual knowledge of subject

Here's a clue, fringe political clichés are not a good guide to the content of a broad and diverse field of philosophical literature.

Protip, don't eat rawmushrooms or you can get cancer and die. Magic or otherwise. For reals,

>>19198078
Watts understood and respected Christian orthodoxy although he was not a Christian.

>stick to so and so

Where do you hear fascinating lectures by those guys on youtube?

>>19198012
>However, American Post Modernists go beyond that and also state Empiricism and Rationalism are also wrong. That itself is a self-defeating argument (how can you use language and logic to criticize if language and logic have no validity?)
Honestly, that doesn't even make any sense. i mean, what you're saying. You don't have to be a "rationalist" to believe in rationality. Rationalism is a theoretical guideline, or philosophy, that hasn't anything to do with the notion of "belief in rationality"; nor "belief in language and logic", or the lack thereof, because the premise isn't found in the notion/concept of "Rationalism". Same difference with "Empiricism"; which has nothing to do, again, with logic or language, but a philosophy about the use of sense experience to denote what is real, ie, being able to rationalize by way of experiencing, as opposed to dialectic. None of what you said references anything of the notion/concept, of these two philosophies. Meaning you are just parroting this shit, aren't you?

>>19198413
neither were

mckenna was probably interesting. he did some cool business moves. some of his ideas are too far fetched though.

>>19198008
>well? what is it?
Is that a jewish trick?

>>19199517
Holy fuck. How many comma splices and semi-colon misuses can one have in a single sentence? Overusing punctuation doesn't not make you look intelligent.

>>19197958
pretentious fag who uses big words no one knows to spew his retarded psychedelic based ideas. he's hard to listen to and extremely boring, almost as boring as Alan watts.

>>19198078
>Carl Popper
Popper's principles can be dismissed because they're unfalsifiable, the Verification Principle is neither tautological verifiable by the senses and thus meaningless and Carl Sagan's claim, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an extraordinary claim and the entirety of Baudillard's work can be dismissed as a meta-simulacrum.

>>19198413
This. He worked for the CIA. His son explained it when he passed away.
Everyone ITT who believes he isn't fell for the psy op

>>19198018
Thanks for the cringe.