So... I almost got into a fight on Friday night, or really early Saturday morning, depending on how you look at it. Just so you know, this was my first attempt at gambling. I played blackjack with my brother and his girlfriend. Armed with $20 in $1 chips, we sat down at a $3 table. After watching for a bit, I started gambling. The table was mostly full, and everyone was roughly my age or my brother's age. We were all enjoying ourselves, laughing and joking. Even our dealer, Toon, was great.
One of the players won on a $3 bet and said, "Winner winner, chicken dinner." Toon replied, "You can't buy a chicken dinner with $3, maybe a chicken sandwich." And that's how most of the night went. Normally I'm not interested in gambling, but my brother enjoys it and I wanted to see what it was like. It's not something I'd do often, but it can be enjoyable, if you're smart about it. But this isn't a gambling blog, this is a political blog.
Near the end of the night, alright, around 4am, a guy came and sat down at the table. He was drunk, a little older than me, and apparently full of bad luck that night. He sat right next to me, on my right. We were going along fine when he started saying, "What are you guys doing?! You stay on 12! 2 is the best card!" He repeated this several times, much to the table's annoyance. The next hand, I had 12 and the dealer had a 4 showing, which means odds are he has 14. I hit. This drove the guy nuts. He was practically yelling, "You STAY on 12. If you stay on 12, everyone wins."
Unfortunately for him, I don't care if everybody wins. I only care if I win. The other players are not my opponents, at least not directly, but I receive no benefit from them winning if I lose. My playing strategy for the night, and incedently for my life, was to play to win. That strategy has no room for the consideration of other players. With that said, I am not going to try and cheat them, or try to be mean to them, but I certainly will not play with the objective of them winning at my expense. Would I like to see everybody win? I don't measure myself by other people's wins and losses, so I don't really care. We all sat down at that table knowing some might win and some might lose.
This guy just wasn't getting it, so I said, "You play how you want and we'll play how we want."
"Just listen to what I'm telling you..."
"I don't care," I said, cutting him off.
"No, just listen."
"I don't care," I repeated.
"Do you have an issue with me? Are we going to have a problem?" he asked angrily.
"No, it's $3 blackjack, I'm just here to have fun," I said firmly.
I thought he was going to ask me to step outside, but instead he shut up. I later found out that at least two of the other people sitting at the table would have had my back, if things did end up out in the parking lot. The guy kept mumbling, "Every fucking table," so apparently his 'tips' didn't go over so well at other tables either.
If I'm playing, I'm in it to win. I am a good sport, but a fierce competitor. Winning is my objective. Winning is the objective of life. How you measure that could by money, a family, friends, your job, or several other factors. You cannot win at blackjack or life by putting other people first. If I cared about the outcome of the other players, I would not have been able to take my $20 and turn it into $50, but I did. I did it by hitting on 12, and now I can enjoy two chicken dinners, or ten chicken sandwiches.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Showing posts with label common good. Show all posts
Showing posts with label common good. Show all posts
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
A Shade of Grey
The post title might make you think that I will be talking about a Tim Burton film, but alas, that is not the case. That man uses more shades of grey in his films than anyone else I know. Somebody who is a complete stranger to grey, is Ayn Rand.
If there is black and white, which stand for good and evil, and anything between is a shade of grey, then in regard to a specific issue, does Ayn Rand fall within the grey, even though she advocates only the presence of black and white? I was asked, "It seems to me then that either Determinism or Chaos Theory can exist (the black and white). Either everything happens by chance or is pre-determined. Ayn Rand believes in free choice but denounces chance. Do you find that Ayn Rand falls in the gray here?" First, we must define determinism and chaos theory.
Determinism is the belief that every event in life was influenced by past events. So, you turned left one day instead of right and this morning your burnt your toast. Pre-destination is the idea that some higher power has every aspect of our lives mapped out. Chaos theory is that nothing in life is predictable because everything falls on a non-linear graph. For the purposes of this blog, I am going to assume that by determinism, the person who asked the question meant pre-destination.
If the only factors we consider are pre-destination and chaos, then free choice would not even be on the chart. Free choice is not the blending of pre-destination and chaos, free choice is its own entity. Therefore, we must conclude that there are more than two beliefs of how life works. Free choice would mean that our lives are shaped by our choices, which we make by engaging our brains, accumulating data, and making informed decisions. So there are at least three different opinions. How would these three combine to give us a shade of grey?
A shade of grey would be the belief that 1/3 of life is pre-destined, 1/3 of life is chaos, and 1/3 of life is due to our own choices. However, that belief would never hold any water in any rational discussion, because we are merely trying to get the best of all three options. All three options cannot be correct, which means two of the options (assuming of course that there are a maximum number of three options) are wrong. Which one is right? For the purposes of this blog, the rightness or wrongness is not an issue, and bringing that into this assessment would only complicate things.
Ayn Rand's argument about black, white and grey, is that people who generally believe in the grey claim there is no black or white. She writes, in The Virtue of Selfishness, "If there is no black and white, there can be no gray - since gray is merely a mixture of the two." Which only goes to show that Ayn Rand believes there is a black and white. She says, "When a man has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other is evil, he has no justification for choosing a mixture." Meaning, he has no justification for choosing grey. If you know one thing is right and the other is wrong, you have no rationalization for picking something in the middle.
But what about an issue where the good and evil may not be easily discernible? "If, in a complex moral issue, a man struggles to determine what is right, and fails or makes an honest error, he cannot be regarded as 'gray'; morally he is 'white.' Errors of knowledge are not breeches of morality; no proper moral code can demand infallibility or omniscience," writes Rand. This is not to say you won't be held accountable for your mistake, only that you are not violating your moral code if you do make a mistake, an honest mistake. She also says that if you are actively refusing knowledge in such a dilemma, that you would be violating your moral code, and would be evil.
Knowledge is good. Refusing knowledge is evil. We accept the fact that there is good and there is evil. Some people believe there is a mixture in the middle. There are people who fall in the middle. The difference comes into play in defining the middle. Most people would say the middle is grey. Ayn Rand says anything not good, is evil. If you're in the middle, you are not good, so you must be evil. To bring this back to the original question, of Ayn Rand embracing free choice but denouncing chance being a shade of grey does not make any logical sense, because life can't be chaos and free choice at the same time. Ayn Rand embraces what she believes and anything she doesn't believe is considered evil. Ayn Rand falls firmly within the construct of black and white because, based on her knowledge, she believes in free choice, not a variation of different alternatives.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
If there is black and white, which stand for good and evil, and anything between is a shade of grey, then in regard to a specific issue, does Ayn Rand fall within the grey, even though she advocates only the presence of black and white? I was asked, "It seems to me then that either Determinism or Chaos Theory can exist (the black and white). Either everything happens by chance or is pre-determined. Ayn Rand believes in free choice but denounces chance. Do you find that Ayn Rand falls in the gray here?" First, we must define determinism and chaos theory.
Determinism is the belief that every event in life was influenced by past events. So, you turned left one day instead of right and this morning your burnt your toast. Pre-destination is the idea that some higher power has every aspect of our lives mapped out. Chaos theory is that nothing in life is predictable because everything falls on a non-linear graph. For the purposes of this blog, I am going to assume that by determinism, the person who asked the question meant pre-destination.
If the only factors we consider are pre-destination and chaos, then free choice would not even be on the chart. Free choice is not the blending of pre-destination and chaos, free choice is its own entity. Therefore, we must conclude that there are more than two beliefs of how life works. Free choice would mean that our lives are shaped by our choices, which we make by engaging our brains, accumulating data, and making informed decisions. So there are at least three different opinions. How would these three combine to give us a shade of grey?
A shade of grey would be the belief that 1/3 of life is pre-destined, 1/3 of life is chaos, and 1/3 of life is due to our own choices. However, that belief would never hold any water in any rational discussion, because we are merely trying to get the best of all three options. All three options cannot be correct, which means two of the options (assuming of course that there are a maximum number of three options) are wrong. Which one is right? For the purposes of this blog, the rightness or wrongness is not an issue, and bringing that into this assessment would only complicate things.
Ayn Rand's argument about black, white and grey, is that people who generally believe in the grey claim there is no black or white. She writes, in The Virtue of Selfishness, "If there is no black and white, there can be no gray - since gray is merely a mixture of the two." Which only goes to show that Ayn Rand believes there is a black and white. She says, "When a man has ascertained that one alternative is good and the other is evil, he has no justification for choosing a mixture." Meaning, he has no justification for choosing grey. If you know one thing is right and the other is wrong, you have no rationalization for picking something in the middle.
But what about an issue where the good and evil may not be easily discernible? "If, in a complex moral issue, a man struggles to determine what is right, and fails or makes an honest error, he cannot be regarded as 'gray'; morally he is 'white.' Errors of knowledge are not breeches of morality; no proper moral code can demand infallibility or omniscience," writes Rand. This is not to say you won't be held accountable for your mistake, only that you are not violating your moral code if you do make a mistake, an honest mistake. She also says that if you are actively refusing knowledge in such a dilemma, that you would be violating your moral code, and would be evil.
Knowledge is good. Refusing knowledge is evil. We accept the fact that there is good and there is evil. Some people believe there is a mixture in the middle. There are people who fall in the middle. The difference comes into play in defining the middle. Most people would say the middle is grey. Ayn Rand says anything not good, is evil. If you're in the middle, you are not good, so you must be evil. To bring this back to the original question, of Ayn Rand embracing free choice but denouncing chance being a shade of grey does not make any logical sense, because life can't be chaos and free choice at the same time. Ayn Rand embraces what she believes and anything she doesn't believe is considered evil. Ayn Rand falls firmly within the construct of black and white because, based on her knowledge, she believes in free choice, not a variation of different alternatives.
© 2010 Nate Phillipps
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Faith Through Fear: Part 1
The government has instituted a policy, an unofficial policy, of faith through fear. This concept was lifted from the church, but probably works better for the government, because they are experts at exploiting it. How it works for the church, is that you have a supreme, all-knowing entity that has set down rules for your life. The church then tells you that if you do not follow those rules, or if you do not love this higher power with your whole heart, you will be condemned to hell. The government uses the same technique, except they base it in the real world. If you don't trust the government to take care of you, you will be blown up by a terrorist. The government bases it in reality, but very loosely. The government’s goal is to wrap all of its citizens up in a blanket of “Public Safety.”
I use the term blanket, because the concept of public safety is as effective at saving your life as tossing a blanket over your head if a criminal breaks into your home, in hopes they won’t see you. Public safety is a concept for the naïve and uninformed. The only person you can rely on to keep you safe, to protect your life and property, is yourself.
The government wants you to believe that they will take care of you, because if you believe that, then they have control. Is it a coincidence that the H1N1 scare came as the government was struggling to pass a major health care reform, that would give the government unprecedented control over the health care industry? Is it a coincidence that the regulations the government imposed on Wall Street caused a financial collapse? If you think it was, look at what the government is doing now; trying to pass more regualtions and restrictions on Wall Street. I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am merely using some exaggerated examples to show the importance of asking one question, is this for our own ‘good,’ or is this a faith through fear tactic?
The government wants to employ the use of full body imaging devices at airports. These devices have been proven to be ineffective in addition to the government lying about how long the images are stored. These devices have the capability to save images, just like your computer. Do they honestly expect us to believe that some security guard they're paying minimum wage won't save some of the images? With such flawed technology, why would anyone want to institute this? Their response is always, “Public safety.” Does the government and/or airlines have the right to invade our privacy in this manner? Or is this another faith through fear tactic?
It is not my intention to denounce one political party over another; simply, I am denouncing politicians, all politicians, everywhere. All the government should do is maintain a standing army, maintain a police force, and maintain a court system. The government should not do a single thing more that those three core functions. However, through fear, we are tricked and forced, to grant the government sanction.
© Nate Phillipps 2010
I use the term blanket, because the concept of public safety is as effective at saving your life as tossing a blanket over your head if a criminal breaks into your home, in hopes they won’t see you. Public safety is a concept for the naïve and uninformed. The only person you can rely on to keep you safe, to protect your life and property, is yourself.
The government wants you to believe that they will take care of you, because if you believe that, then they have control. Is it a coincidence that the H1N1 scare came as the government was struggling to pass a major health care reform, that would give the government unprecedented control over the health care industry? Is it a coincidence that the regulations the government imposed on Wall Street caused a financial collapse? If you think it was, look at what the government is doing now; trying to pass more regualtions and restrictions on Wall Street. I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am merely using some exaggerated examples to show the importance of asking one question, is this for our own ‘good,’ or is this a faith through fear tactic?
The government wants to employ the use of full body imaging devices at airports. These devices have been proven to be ineffective in addition to the government lying about how long the images are stored. These devices have the capability to save images, just like your computer. Do they honestly expect us to believe that some security guard they're paying minimum wage won't save some of the images? With such flawed technology, why would anyone want to institute this? Their response is always, “Public safety.” Does the government and/or airlines have the right to invade our privacy in this manner? Or is this another faith through fear tactic?
It is not my intention to denounce one political party over another; simply, I am denouncing politicians, all politicians, everywhere. All the government should do is maintain a standing army, maintain a police force, and maintain a court system. The government should not do a single thing more that those three core functions. However, through fear, we are tricked and forced, to grant the government sanction.
© Nate Phillipps 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)