Popular Philosphy Among Poker Players....

[dhende3]

After reading these forums for about six months I have seen numerous philosophical debates come up though out the different forums. I just wanted to ask everyone which philosophies they view in high esteem and which they deem as worthless. I do believe it is stupid to follow one philosophy solely but I think that some are definitely more worthwhile in regards to self improvement. Here are my opinions and their relations to poker…

The ideas of Ayn Rand and other objectivist/capitalists are personally very important to me. Atlas Shrugged is my favorite book, it makes so many good points about the negative aspects of society and how man should live according to logic and reason. The idea that humans are free and rational is very important but it is her perspective on competition and the need to excel that really strike me. That is the reason why I am predicting that many poker players will agree with me. The game of poker is a microcosm of Ayn Rand’s ideal world in my opinion. The people who are the best and most talented WILL be more successful in the long run. Those who lack talent and do not put effort toward learning WILL fail and there is no way for them to get ahead through politics or “looting” etc… This is why I don’t see how it is possible for any successful poker player to believe in any form of collectivism.

I have personally always been very competitive in sports and games like chess (not so much school heh) and love doing something incentive based where I can compete. This is why I can never get a government position or some office job in a cubicle because everything seems to be more based on seniority and less on ability. I play poker because I want to be the best and respected by my peers (the money is a nice bonus though). Call me selfish, but this gives me far more satisfaction than doing something like teaching where I am “benefiting society.”

Rand does show how the talented actually benefit society while the “looters” destroy it. Talented poker players, however, do not benefit society like say Dagny Taggert or Hank Rearden. I knew that people would bring this up and I will just say right now that I realize it is contradictory to my argument/comparison (although I will say that poker players are merely non-contributors, not looters).

Anyway, my main point is that I derive more satisfaction from competing and striving to be the best than I do from knowing that I am helping others in society. I was wondering if anyone else felt this way. I am a senior economics major and I am going to get into real estate development following college. Hopefully I can start up my own LLC somewhere down the road, make sound decisions, and get rich while “benefiting society” at the same time.

[MChuzzlewit]

It is a somewhat entertaining read, though John Galts speech at the end reminded me of reading case law. I didnt really want to finish it.

Nothing in excess dhende3, the most basic lesson from the Greeks.

[RedManPlus]

[ QUOTE ]

Rand does show how the talented actually benefit society while the “looters” destroy it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to rain on your little parade...
But the entire, vertically integrated casino industry is a "looter".
As Meyer Lansky explained Las Vegas in Bugsy...
"It's a good place to trap them and take their money."

[ QUOTE ]
to my argument/comparison (although I will say that poker players are merely non-contributors, not looters).


[/ QUOTE ]

The pro poker players and wannabe pros here...
Are ** integral cogs ** of the online casino industry.
They take bonuses, rakebacks, shill pay.
They sell web sites, books, software.
And are in NO WAY independent...
Constantly promoting and acting as Apologists for online gaming.

Poker pros are therefore "looters"...
But either lack any moral compass...
Or are in partial or total denial.

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, my main point is that I derive more satisfaction from competing and striving to be the best than I do from knowing that I am helping others in society.


[/ QUOTE ]

Such a classic narcissistic mindset of a "looter"...
Is not legitimized by references to "competitive drive"...
Or "I wanna be the best at taking pension money from little old ladies".

Sorry to shine a little light.

I'm not saying you guys are evil or criminal...
Just "looters" of society versus "contributors" to society.

I'm struggling with this issue myself.

I have a small successful hedge fund...
And make a good living...
But poker is so mathematically SEDUCTIVE.

But reality is...
Stock trader is "contributor" to capital markets with high social status...
Poker pro is "looter" and viewed as "gambler".

People are not stupid...
And have GUT understanding of this.
But if I was 25... I wouldn't care.

Like in Rounders the whiny "nice" girlfriend leaves Matt Damon.
He's thinking, "But poker is a game of skill..."
Girlfriend's thinking, "That's not the issue... you're a looter... not a contributor".

But don't worry poker guy...
Every stripper and escort and barracuda and easy skank is looking to "loot" you.
The whores are at the top of the poker food chain.

rm+

/images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[poker-penguin]

Red man plus...
Makes some excellent points....
Although his layout..
Is somewhat non-standard.


Is it a haiku?
The cherry blossoms know.
I like tacos

[TomCollins]

Prepare to get flamed in 3...2...1...

[TomCollins]

Also remember Ragnar, the pirate who looted everything back. Perhaps Poker Players are the Ragnar's of the world.

[Warren Whitmore]

I agree compleatly Ayn Rand is both my favorite author and philosphy teacher. I strongly recomend that you give "Capitalism: the unknown ideal" a good read through.


Also please consider joing the Libetarian party. Its the way to go.

[gulebjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
I just wanted to ask everyone which philosophies they view in high esteem

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.edwarddebono.com

For those of you who are to lazy to go over there, here are the quotes of the day:

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Perception is real even when it is not reality.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif If you do not design the future someone or something else will design it for you.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif We may need to solve problems not by removing the cause but by designing the way forward even if the cause remains in place.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Traditional thinking is all about "what is;" Future thinking will also need to be about what can be.

/images/graemlins/diamond.gif Effectiveness without values is a tool without a purpose.

[Jordan Olsommer]

Ayn Rand made a cottage industry (and some would say a mini-cult) out of a complete tautology. Here are her four main points of objectivism as listed on the Ayn Rand Institute's web site, which I will address point by point:

[ QUOTE ]
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

[/ QUOTE ]

Charming, but nothing new here - science has held to this maxim long before Ms. Rand's appalingly bad writing was published. (sorry, it might work for people who get hard for ideology, but as far as Fine Literature is concerned, her books are terrible)

[ QUOTE ]
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here I'm going to agree with her in a certain sense, but nitpick on the semantics because she's dead and I can't ask her what she meant exactly. If she means that reason is the ideal way man should go about the world and make decisions, then I certainly agree, and this point also falls under the category of "science was there long ago". However, if her words are taken completely technically, and she truly does mean that reason is man's only guide to action, then she's just wrong. Emotion is far more influential in terms of what motivates human beings than reason - like the famed Iowa University neurologist Antonio Damasio said, "We are not thinking machines. We are feeling machines that can think." Or, if you still don't believe this (despite all the scientific evidence and, ahem, reason /images/graemlins/smile.gif), then consider this: AYN RAND FRICKIN SMOKED CIGARETTES! How dedicated to reason could she possibly be?

[ QUOTE ]
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most defining aspect of objectivism, and it has gotten popular and controversial only because the people who popularized it and the people who created controversy around it simply misunderstood it. She's saying that man should live according to his values. Well that's all well and good, but every human being on the planet does this already! In fact, "your own values" are the only impetus for every single action you take in your life! You brush your teeth because you value good hygeine, or because you value not disgusting the girl at the office whom you want to date. You donate to charity because you value helping people in need, or even simply because you value the warm feeling you get inside when you send off your check. (but of course to the hardcore objectivists, volunteering is absolute blasphemy - those same hardcore objectivists don't bother to think that someone may volunteer because of his own values, which would make the volunteer technically a much more true-to-form objectivist than they themselves are!)

So "live according to your values" is a complete tautology. Human beings have never done anything but live according to their values.

[ QUOTE ]
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

[/ QUOTE ]

This time the scientists weren't here first, but the economists were here long before Atlas ever decided to shrug. Sorry, Ayn.

So as you can see, the one point of Ayn Rand's "philosophy" that everyone thinks of as original is anything but, and the other three were never original in the first place.

[dhende3]

I have read a lot of economic philosphy and the like. I realize Rand wasn't the first but I do believe that she explains it the best... without all of the jargon associated with economic philosphers. As far as her personal philosophy, I am not a member of the Rand "cult" but I do think that her ideas are very consistent with my personal views. That is why I was so taken back this last semester when I finally read Atlas.

I like the Ragnar analogy.

Finally, I do not think that the casinos are the biggest looters. Here's why: people have a CHOICE to blow their money there (same with poker sites). The government, on the other hand, does not give anyone a choice. You cannot be "looting" someone if they choose to give you their money.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker pros are therefore "looters"...
But either lack any moral compass...
Or are in partial or total denial.


[/ QUOTE ]

This may be true, but you sir, are completely ignorant. If you think that trading stock is any different than playing poker, and that you are any better than a "degenerate gambler" you are sadly mistaken.

Where do you think money comes from? Whether it's poker, stocks, or even life itself, it is all one big zero-sum game. Someones' gain is ALWAYS someone elses' loss. It's just that some things are cleverly disguised so that people like yourself can remain on your high horses and go on believing that you are somehow "contributing" to society. But what society? The same society that murders, tortures, and "loots" other societies? I hate to be the one to break it to you, but your pathetic view of how the world works will eventually come crashing down on you.

The only morals that exist, are the ones designed to keep you in place and under control. To keep you living for the most part, in peace within your own society for the embetterment of society as a whole, so that it will be more powerful and dominating than other societies.

So, although you believe you are contributing, in a sense you are, but ironically to the "looting" of other societies on a much larger scale. There is nothing wrong with this however. This is how the world works. From the smallest scale (micro-organisms), to the largest (governments and corporation). It's a dog-eat-dog world. Everything else is conversation.

Here's the part where you go from complete ignorance to "partial or total denial".

[Triumph36]

We've had our battles so far, Jordan.. but I agree with this post completely.

Objectivism strikes me as a very emotional philosophy, despite its claims to the contrary.

[kreaglin]

Jordan I will memorize your Ayn Rand retort as it is perfect and I thought I was the only other one on this site not caught up in the Ayn Rand worshipping craze. You said it way better than I could have!

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thus making objectivism irrelevant to mans search for the meaning to our existence. Existing is a subjective function not an objective one.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thus making objectivism irrelevant to mans search for the meaning to our existence. Existing is a subjective function not an objective one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thus it is only subjective truths have any meaning.

[SNOWBALL138]

Nothing in the OP has anything to do with philosophy.

[IcarusFalling]

you've been brainwashed by society .. go hug bush.. and while your at is join the army.. cause we all know that sure helps out society..

people need to do what is best for them.. make mistakes and learn from them... or become insanely successful and never look back

[IcarusFalling]

i feel the same way.. i strive to become the best i can be at any given disipline or skill.. but i also believe there are other skills in this world worth learning.. poker is a temp thing for me .. i want to master it and move on .. this is the sort of thing i live for

[Nikanoru]

I have personally always been very competitive in sports and games like chess (not so much school heh) and love doing something incentive based where I can compete. This is why I can never get a government position or some office job in a cubicle because everything seems to be more based on seniority and less on ability. I play poker because I want to be the best and respected by my peers (the money is a nice bonus though). Call me selfish, but this gives me far more satisfaction than doing something like teaching where I am “benefiting society.”


Same here. I live for a challenge. I doubt this could really be a bad thing... who knows what great things we'll accomplish someday!

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]
After reading these forums for about six months I have seen numerous philosophical debates come up though out the different forums. I just wanted to ask everyone which philosophies they view in high esteem and which they deem as worthless. I do believe it is stupid to follow one philosophy solely but I think that some are definitely more worthwhile in regards to self improvement. Here are my opinions and their relations to poker…



[/ QUOTE ]

First off, I know where this is headed. I also read Ayn Rand while I was in college, and was really blown away by her approach to "philosophy". One statement was that we all live by a philosophy whether it is explicit or implicit. I swallowed everything whole when I first read her books, probably because I really loved "The Fountainhead" and thought Roark was some bad-ass dude that I wanted to be like. Since then, I've grown up a lot. I quickly realized that "philosophy" really isn't what she says it is. Most people have to find their own way in life. There isn't a magical "philosophy" written on a stone tablet somewhere for you to stumble across and follow religiously. Be wary of becoming an Objectivist. Free your mind, and become YOU, whatever that may be. So the answer is that nobody on here is gonna quote a whole lot of philosophers or philosophies as a fundamental approach to life, as Rand ardently suggests.

[ QUOTE ]
... This is why I don’t see how it is possible for any successful poker player to believe in any form of collectivism.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like some thick Objectivist rhetoric all right. True, at the poker table, "collectivism", if explicit, is overt collusion as defined by the game of poker. You just defined your own answer.

Is it impossible that poker players may study together, exchange ideas towards a greater mutual understanding of poker? Is this "collectivist"? I never really understood Rands "collectivism". It essentially feels to me like a Christian talking about "satanism". I have yet to meet an actual "satanist" or an actual "collectivist". But, I guess they exist...

[ QUOTE ]
... Call me selfish, but this gives me far more satisfaction than doing something like teaching where I am “benefiting society.”

[/ QUOTE ]

I think people by nature are selfish, basically meaning that they are more inerested in matters involving the self rather than matters involving others. During human development, we learn to share, work well with others, and work within a social structure on various levels. This is just being human. I think we are constantly fighting this tug of war between our selfish best interests and those of society. Personally, I think the world should just elect me king, and I'd set things right! /images/graemlins/wink.gif


Rand, in my opinion, had her personality shaped in the couldren of the shadow of the Bolshevik revolution. She saw the lies and bloody corruption first hand in what would eventually become the Soviet Communist Regime. Somehow it struck her so deeply that she vowed to fight to her death fighting against "collectivism" as a philosophy, which was somewhat misplace, IMO. She was really fighting the treachery of corruption and bloody tyranny, which is a difficult battle to wage. I really don't know if communism is such a bad thing, but it was just the zeitgeist of the times when her writings went to press, and is the anti-red movement that really sold her books. Now she is really just a footnote in history, with the oddity of Objectivism as her legacy.

[Tommy Angelo]

"I don’t see how it is possible for any successful poker player to believe in any form of collectivism."

I worshipped Rand and Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead for several years in my early 20's. Now, pushing 50, the lable "collectivist" is as good as any to describe me now.

I see Rand as a useful landmark, like a big tree. Something to walk by, and look back on, but not a smart place to stop and make home.

Tommy

[Exsubmariner]

I'm sorry, Sir,
Your prose has inspired me to use my ultimate retort for philosophy discussions of.....Who Cares?
Is your inspired view of the world going to stop anyone from playing poker? No.
Is your view of the world possibly born of your own poor self image and low self esteem? I would say probably yes given your demonstrated need here to view yourself and "poker pros" in the worst light possible, possibly inspired your feelings of guilt for having it better than most.
My 2cents, not that it means anything, is get a new light bulb. Thank you for sharing your misery.
edit: BTW leeches like yourself are the reason why I don't invest anymore. Perhaps your self image is justified.
X

[dhende3]

Good responses by Tommy Angelo and LargeCents. As I said in the first paragraph and in one of my responses, I am against a dogmatic approach to life and philosophy (oxymoron?). I just thought the comparison between objectivism and poker was worth mentioning and I do think that Rand's views are very consistent with my own (even before I knew who she was).

The main point of the original post was to point out the competitive nature of poker as a microcosm of Rand's ideal world... not to pick apart and debate objectivism. This is partly in response to all of the "poker players do nothing for society." I am doing something for myself because I like to compete and strive to be the best etc... and I don't see a problem in that regardless of what society thinks. In fact I don't see anything intelligent that ever came out from society. Everything worthwhile has come from individuals. Ideas that are irrational, illogical, and unreasonable like religion and racism are social manifestations. Individuals thinking for themselves have come up with all of the great intellectual/scientific breakthroughs etc...

[LargeCents]

First off, I'm sorry for even responding to this guy, but hey, I'm bored.

[ QUOTE ]
Like in Rounders the whiny "nice" girlfriend leaves Matt Damon.
He's thinking, "But poker is a game of skill..."
Girlfriend's thinking, "That's not the issue... you're a looter... not a contributor".



[/ QUOTE ]
She left him because he lied to her.

[ QUOTE ]
But reality is...
Stock trader is "contributor" to capital markets with high social status...


[/ QUOTE ]

Must be some alternate reality. Commodities exchange is an ever inflating spiral, which creates its own profit and benefits by feeding on itself. Basically a pyramid scheme. Just stay off the bottom of the pyramid. Stock trader is a glorified salesman. Please don't tell me that sales people are integral to human survival.

I'm not really defending poker professionals either. Gambling is entertainment. You might as well rail against movie stars or sports professionals who make money on their trade. Maybe the real problem is that our society has become so much of a consumer society of excess. The roots of the problem run much much deeper than attacking a few college kids trying to make a few bucks to pay for school by playing online poker.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact I don't see anything intelligent that ever came out from society. Everything worthwhile has come from individuals. Ideas that are irrational, illogical, and unreasonable like religion and racism are social manifestations. Individuals thinking for themselves have come up with all of the great intellectual/scientific breakthroughs etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is naively simplistic, and just wrong in my opinion. Almost all academic work is based on the idea of collectivism -- people collaborate to achieve more than what each could achieve on his own. It was Isaac Newton who said, "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."

Similarly, individuals such as Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot, were able to carry out programs of ethnic cleansing and mass murder.

It's really hard to distinguish between what is the result of "individuals" and "society," because all individuals are, in fact, a part of a society.

I would consider myself a collectivist, insofar as I believe that society has a moral responsibility to help out those who are in genuine need. I don't believe it as an absolute; some people just refuse to take advantage of the help offered to them, sometimes people have their own problems and can't help others, and people should enjoy a certain amount of leisure time and pleasure.

Poker's a fun game I enjoy playing, and I enjoy it for many of the "objectivist" aspects that are in it. But life would be pretty unsatisfying if that is all there is to it.

I guess you could look at someone who lives his entire life retarded a couple of ways. Maybe the "objectivist" approach is to consider him a worthless piece of **** since he has very little reasoning capabilities. Personally, I tend to see such a person as having the basic dignity that all humans have and who had the misfortune of receiving a bad starting hand in the poker game of life, if you will. I think it is morally incumbant that such a person be given support so that he can live a reasonably satifsying life, given his inherant limitations. That's a responsibility that belongs to individuals and society as a whole. Obviously, there are tough decisions to be made: how much help and support is enough; how much should government pay for him with taxpayer money (e.g. sending him to special education classes); how do the limitations affect the emotional well-being of his family members and other loved ones; etc.

Just some thoughts. Also, if you're interested in the merits of competition and cooperation, there's a lot of cool aspects of game theory that deals with this. If you've never heard of the "prisoner's dilemma," that's definitely something worth reading about. It'll definitely make you stop and think whether everyone pursuing their own self-interest always leads to the best possible outcome.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, my main point is that I derive more satisfaction from competing and striving to be the best than I do from knowing that I am helping others in society.

[/ QUOTE ]

The main problem I have with the individuals who think like this is they only want to compete voluntarily in areas they think they excel in, for example you cited chess and poker. You claim yourself in favour of competition, however I suggest that you and many like you would shy away from competition where you suspected the outcome would not be to your liking, whilst this is perfectly natural it does rather pull holes in the validity of your view of yourself. You say you value your sucesses as an individual more than your contributions to society as a whole, however you then rely on the institutions set up by society to avoid the competitions you choose not to take part in, for example being mugged or robbed.

Mack

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
You say you value your sucesses as an individual more than your contributions to society as a whole, however you then rely on the institutions set up by society to avoid the competitions you choose not to take part in, for example being mugged or robbed.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a significant difference between the 'fairweather capitalist' who is in favor of free-market competition only so long as it is he who has the best of it and someone who 'doesn't want to compete' with a fellow putting a gun to his head.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You say you value your sucesses as an individual more than your contributions to society as a whole, however you then rely on the institutions set up by society to avoid the competitions you choose not to take part in, for example being mugged or robbed.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There is a significant difference between the 'fairweather capitalist' who is in favor of free-market competition only so long as it is he who has the best of it and someone who 'doesn't want to compete' with a fellow putting a gun to his head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Other than it being against the law there is no difference at all. The importance of this is a matter of opinion. I was merely raising a ligitimate although admittedly stretched counter argument to the 'competitive' people who want to use their intelligence to outwit and out-earn less academic people, but then refuse them the opportunity to use the limited skills they have to do the same.

Regards Mack

[Ed Miller]

[ QUOTE ]
The game of poker is a microcosm of Ayn Rand’s ideal world in my opinion. The people who are the best and most talented WILL be more successful in the long run. Those who lack talent and do not put effort toward learning WILL fail and there is no way for them to get ahead through politics or “looting” etc… This is why I don’t see how it is possible for any successful poker player to believe in any form of collectivism.

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone who claims to prize logic so highly, you puzzle me by generalizing your "microcosm" so quickly, absolutely, and universally.

[wontons]

"Anyway, my main point is that I derive more satisfaction from competing and striving to be the best than I do from knowing that I am helping others in society."

I agree 110%.....its like they say in natural born killers...its in your nature....its also in mine and thats the reason most people LOVE it.....its not the money..at least not for me..that is the reward..but the true reason i love it is to be better them many many opponents or to compete with the best...I would say thats even more "fun"..nothing like making it to the final table in a major event and seeing everyone at the table a solid player..nothing like it in the world.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Other than it being against the law there is no difference at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, in other words, other than the significant difference that I mentioned, there is no difference at all? Sounds like we agree on this.

[ QUOTE ]
I was merely raising a ligitimate although admittedly stretched counter argument to the 'competitive' people who want to use their intelligence to outwit and out-earn less academic people, but then refuse them the opportunity to use the limited skills they have to do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those would be the 'fairweather capitalists' I mentioned; the people who are all in favor of competition when it means they pay lower prices for something at Wal-Mart, but come whining to the government whenever someone competes with them.

Competition in business is part of the game of capitalism. 'Competition' in mugging or robbing someone takes place outside the structure of capitalism, which is why it's against the law in the first place (notice how when you go to wal-mart and buy something, you and wal-mart agree to the transaction, whereas when you get mugged, it's a bit more one-sided).

[Dr. Strangelove]

"Competition is a sin." -John D. Rockefeller

I think it's really rich that so many of the class of people she most admired would and do consider the bulk of her "philosophy" utter garbage.

Ayn Rand=teh suck, "in the parlance of our time"

[purnell]

RedManPlus:
[ QUOTE ]
But don't worry poker guy...
Every stripper and escort and barracuda and easy skank is looking to "loot" you.
The whores are at the top of the poker food chain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm..

I just spent a week in Vegas, alone, and didn't hire any prostitutes or strippers. I don't have a problem with it, I just think sex is kinda boring when it becomes a commodity.

I think your "food chain" has more links than you are aware of, RMP.


[ QUOTE ]
People are not stupid...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, [we] are.

[warlockjd]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a somewhat entertaining read, though John Galts speech at the end reminded me of reading case law. I didnt really want to finish it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely only skimmed the last 5 pages of Galt's speech.

You may find it interesting, however, that I am a hardcore liberal and count Rand's book in my favorites.

The Democrats are far too right wing for me.

[dhende3]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The game of poker is a microcosm of Ayn Rand’s ideal world in my opinion. The people who are the best and most talented WILL be more successful in the long run. Those who lack talent and do not put effort toward learning WILL fail and there is no way for them to get ahead through politics or “looting” etc… This is why I don’t see how it is possible for any successful poker player to believe in any form of collectivism.

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone who claims to prize logic so highly, you puzzle me by generalizing your "microcosm" so quickly, absolutely, and universally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not trying to write a book here. I could nit pick over all of the the MINOR inconsistencies with the "microcosm" but then people would get bored and stop reading. Obviously there are parts of this comparison that don't make sense, in fact, I mentioned that there are contradictions. I am just stating that the core aspects of Poker are LARGELY consistent with Rand's ideals in Atlas Shrugged.

[dhende3]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact I don't see anything intelligent that ever came out from society. Everything worthwhile has come from individuals. Ideas that are irrational, illogical, and unreasonable like religion and racism are social manifestations. Individuals thinking for themselves have come up with all of the great intellectual/scientific breakthroughs etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is naively simplistic, and just wrong in my opinion. Almost all academic work is based on the idea of collectivism -- people collaborate to achieve more than what each could achieve on his own. It was Isaac Newton who said, "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."

Similarly, individuals such as Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot, were able to carry out programs of ethnic cleansing and mass murder.

It's really hard to distinguish between what is the result of "individuals" and "society," because all individuals are, in fact, a part of a society.

I would consider myself a collectivist, insofar as I believe that society has a moral responsibility to help out those who are in genuine need. I don't believe it as an absolute; some people just refuse to take advantage of the help offered to them, sometimes people have their own problems and can't help others, and people should enjoy a certain amount of leisure time and pleasure.

Poker's a fun game I enjoy playing, and I enjoy it for many of the "objectivist" aspects that are in it. But life would be pretty unsatisfying if that is all there is to it.

I guess you could look at someone who lives his entire life retarded a couple of ways. Maybe the "objectivist" approach is to consider him a worthless piece of **** since he has very little reasoning capabilities. Personally, I tend to see such a person as having the basic dignity that all humans have and who had the misfortune of receiving a bad starting hand in the poker game of life, if you will. I think it is morally incumbant that such a person be given support so that he can live a reasonably satifsying life, given his inherant limitations. That's a responsibility that belongs to individuals and society as a whole. Obviously, there are tough decisions to be made: how much help and support is enough; how much should government pay for him with taxpayer money (e.g. sending him to special education classes); how do the limitations affect the emotional well-being of his family members and other loved ones; etc.

Just some thoughts. Also, if you're interested in the merits of competition and cooperation, there's a lot of cool aspects of game theory that deals with this. If you've never heard of the "prisoner's dilemma," that's definitely something worth reading about. It'll definitely make you stop and think whether everyone pursuing their own self-interest always leads to the best possible outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be a minor grey area for me. Newton's achievements were based on his and others' work as individuals in my opinion. This has nothing to do with society.

As for Hitler and Pol Pot... I think you are proving my point just by mentioning them. For one, I never said that the work of individuals is always good (for lack of a better word). These individuals base their ideologies on a sort of "mob mentality" and not on reason. Without society, these atrocities would not be possible. By succumbing to society, one abandons the search for the truth through reason in exchange for a steadfast mode of thinking. Read the works of any existentialist for a more elaborate explaination. Specifically, Jean Paul Sartre's "The Anti-Semite and the Jew" for his explanation on Hilter and racism.

[lgas]

[ QUOTE ]
I just think sex is kinda boring when it becomes a commodity.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not doing it right.

[jkkkk]

[ QUOTE ]
I think people by nature are selfish, basically meaning that they are more inerested in matters involving the self rather than matters involving others. During human development, we learn to share, work well with others, and work within a social structure on various levels. This is just being human. I think we are constantly fighting this tug of war between our selfish best interests and those of society. Personally, I think the world should just elect me king, and I'd set things right!

Ayn Rand=teh suck, "in the parlance of our time"

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, although i wouldn't quite define human nature as selfish.

When i first considered the idea of humans being inherently selfish, i thought it to be more or less true but really i see the definition of the adjective 'selfish' as differentiating between normal and selfish behaviour.

Human beings have a lot of needs and wants, it is simply more efficient for us as individuals to act upon our desires. The world would be a horribly inefficient place if people had most of the things they wanted to do, done for them.

A human trait that contradicts the term selfish is the want to save anothers life. Most sane people, if they saw another in danger, would instinctively act to preserve life and i don't think the motivation behind this is for a reward of some such, i believe there is an inherent will in humans to save other humans.

This said, i am not saying one would willingly risk their life for a strangers, just that i believe selfish behaviour can be defined as people that are overly concerned with one self.

There is most definitely a different set of people in my mind when i think between selfish and non-selfish.

[Bodhi]

I didn't think I would reply to this post, but seeing that so many have contributed...

There is no connection at all for me between philosophy and poker.

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
The game of poker is a microcosm of Ayn Rand’s ideal world in my opinion. The people who are the best and most talented WILL be more successful in the long run. Those who lack talent and do not put effort toward learning WILL fail and there is no way for them to get ahead through politics or “looting” etc… This is why I don’t see how it is possible for any successful poker player to believe in any form of collectivism.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you and I sit down together at the poker table is it reason or government that ensures I follow the rules?

I don't know much about Rand or objectivism but the image I get of tall, broad shouldered men competing in the market place on an even playing field, negotiating fairly, etc. doesn't look like any market or economy or human instituion I've ever seen. Nobody wants a truly free market--fair rules are good, any rules are better than none and my rules are the best.

Adam Smith saw "free" markets as well-regulated markets. But the establishment of regulations is another sphere in which people will compete. Rand's "ideal world" as you put seems only to be able to exist in an impossible bubble.

Read Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Now that guy was sharp. Don't know if he smoked though.

[Triumph36]

This has nothing to do with society? Scientific discoveries have nothing to do with society?

Objectivism is such a blinding philosophy. Do you really think Isaac Newton comes up with the Calculus if he's foraging for his own food? Scientific discoveries have everything to do with society: only the best societies will produce great scientific minds, because they allow for the leisure necessary to think of these things. While a society is composed of individuals, Ayn Rand seems to think it's about six great people and a million of the unwashed.

The 'individual' as you would have it is completely valueless and purposeless: he or she needs a society in which to function.

[LargeCents]

[ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with society? Scientific discoveries have nothing to do with society?

Objectivism is such a blinding philosophy. Do you really think Isaac Newton comes up with the Calculus if he's foraging for his own food? Scientific discoveries have everything to do with society: only the best societies will produce great scientific minds, because they allow for the leisure necessary to think of these things. While a society is composed of individuals, Ayn Rand seems to think it's about six great people and a million of the unwashed.

The 'individual' as you would have it is completely valueless and purposeless: he or she needs a society in which to function.



[/ QUOTE ]

Objectivism is for the naive. Objectivism is for those who don't want to figure it out for themselves. Objectivism is for those who want to put the individual (themself) above the rest of the world (the mob). It's baby logic. As a baby we are helpless and must have everything done for us. Eventually we learn to crawl, walk, nurture, support, and help others in ways that we ourselves have been helped. No man is an island, unless you are an Objectivist.

Anyone care to compare Objectivism to Scientology? I almost think that Rand simply copycatted LRH and hijacked a generation of would be Scientologists. lol