Popular Philosphy Among Poker Players....

[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! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]


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.