Skip to content

Conclusion

Chris Letheby

Philosophy of Psychedelics August 1, 2021 DOI: 10.1093/med/9780198843122.003.0010

Summary

AI-generated from the abstract

A book's concluding chapter recaps its main arguments and proposes future research directions. It provides a chapter-by-chapter summary of the book's arguments and lists testable predictions derived from them. It suggests further research in philosophy of science, philosophy of psychiatry, ethics, epistemology, and the philosophy of transformative experience. The chapter reflects on two central theses: that the Comforting Delusion Objection to psychedelic therapy fails, and that an 'Entheogenic Conception' of psychedelics as agents of epistemic benefit and spiritual experience is both consistent with naturalism and plausible given current evidence.

Study at a glance

Characteristics Philosophical paper Peer reviewed
Key finding The Comforting Delusion Objection to psychedelic therapy fails, and an Entheogenic Conception of psychedelics as agents of epistemic benefit and spiritual experience is consistent with naturalism and plausible given current evidence.

Abstract

The ‘Conclusion’ summarises the main ideas of Philosophy of Psychedelics and makes some suggestions for future research. The first part of the chapter provides a chapter-by-chapter summary of the arguments of the book, and lists the various testable predictions that follow from these arguments. The second part suggests some other directions for future research, pointing to outstanding questions about psychedelics in various fields of inquiry, including philosophy of science, philosophy of psychiatry, ethics, epistemology, and the philosophy of transformative experience. The third part reflects on the significance of the book’s two central theses: that the Comforting Delusion Objection to psychedelic therapy fails, and that an ‘Entheogenic Conception’ of psychedelics as agents of epistemic benefit and spiritual experience is both consistent with naturalism and plausible in light of our best current evidence.

Comments

No comments yet.

Log in to comment