Being on a quite liberal campus such as the beautiful University of Michigan, weed isn't exactly brushed under the rug. As I randomly roam the streets, whether in between classes or various night life activities, that "good-good" aroma catches the nostrils at least four times a week. If I were to ask some of my MSU "friends" what they were to think about the AA, they may reply (this is actually a quote), "you're all a bunch of stuck-up hippie stoners." What I replied, however, may not be blogger-friendly but let's just say we better win this Saturday or I am going to be in quite the predicament. Ignoring the week of Hash Bash, where the laws are even more relaxed for the sake of celebrating the fight on cannabis restrictions and to remember the cultural activist John Sinclair, Ann Arbor isn't all too out of place in the grand scheme of things.
Starting to slowly connect this to Locke, however, I bring up the mary j to state the general observation: We all know "that guy" who smokes some kush and instantly becomes modern day Socrates, or Sigmund Freud, or Tupac. After a few hits of the J, this weed user simply gets it. They instantly land in someone else's shoes. They know the pain of the oppressed (and all the solutions to stop it). This plant enables the now-philosopher to not only eat incredible amounts of junk food, but also to see through the clutter towards the final path of what it means to be "freeeee man" and to have "world peace bro"(reread in your best stoner voice). |
| PsYcHeDeLiC mAn! or Mr. John Locke? |
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying the guy isn't right on some of these matters. There is a reason he is being discussed in the first place in basically all political science classes ever. What I am saying, however, is why does this guy know anything about the state of nature? He is an upperclass rich dude, not some peasant who has to struggle for life on a day to day basis. Nowadays, we blast people of the top class trying to connect to those of lower socio-economic status (Romney anyone?). Do it a few centuries ago, however, and we have a philosophical genius on our hands. And no, I am not saying Romney is trying to redefine some theory of the status of life through his policies (come on now, really?). Anyway, what I am getting at is modern times is all about experts in the field saying things about, well, their field. We wouldn't trust a doctor of medicine projecting the stock market, and we wouldn't have random peeps diagnosing hospital patients.
How does this all tie in, you may be wondering? Well, "that guy" is a dude smoking pot who pretends to know everything about anything, even if he hasn't the slightest bit of experience in his subjected field, and Locke is a rich guy holed up in Amsterdam (liberal in more ways than freedom of press, mind you) writing about, essentially speaking, a life he never has to worry about living. If I really wanted to know about life in a state of nature, wouldn't I consult some guy from war torn, government broken Somalia? I mean, look at the place:
 |
| a loving state of nature, eh? |
My final point is this: I like people to preach from a podium of experience. If they haven't lived in a scenario, how can they tell us the infrastructure of the damn thing? Locke, in the bluntest of ways, stumbled upon a theory that fits. Who knows how many other countless old white dudes tried to write about the same topic and aren't given a second thought today. Locke just happened to be that one-in-a-ton "guy" who's blabbering mouth landed them somewhere. For all we know, the next Locke could be at our very own Hash Bash this coming year, lighting up right under our noses.
