What is luck? Is it a valid concept?

Luck is the relation between random occurrences and one's values.

Random occurrences in favor of one's values are "good luck" and random occurrences against one's values are "bad luck". The less probable the event the higher the "luck" is. When the event is fully predictable in under one's control the term "luck" no longer applies to the situation.

For example: If you walk in the street and an envelope full of money lands on your head - that is good luck. It is a random occurrence that you happened to be at that place at that specific time and the relation to your values is positive since money is a value.

If you win every single game you play in a gambling place that is an extremely good luck - but again, it is all random (putting aside whatever brain was required to win the games). What makes it "extremely good luck" is the relative rarity of the events (the length of the winning streak).


I think that people see "luck" as an actual spiritual entity, as some form of liquid running in one man's body at some time. Evaluations like "This man is lucky" tend to mean that the man himself actually has some quality about him that affects events around him. In fact, no man can be lucky in that sense. Such a concept is mystical.

The reality is that some people have more random occurrences in their favor than their disfavor and this changes nothing of the fact that random occurrences are random occurrences.


Wishing someone "good luck" is no more than letting them know that you wish them success, that you wish the conditions they would encounter outside their control would be in their favor.

So if you are feeling lucky, punk, better check your premises. A feeling of "luck" is not reality based, one cannot "feel" future occurrences outside one's control. :)

In the Dawn’s Early Light: Patrick Henry—Beacon for America

Link to watch the lecture

A fascinating and, to me, a very inspiring and emotional video lecture - by John Ridpath from the Ayn Rand Institute.

The lecture describes how one brave man passionate about the human spirit and the freedom it requires - inspired the creation of the United States of America.

Is there such a thing as too much money? Not for me.

If had earned a lot of money, practically unlimited amount to spend, here is what I would buy:

1. An ice skating rink, all to myself.
   
   
2. A beautiful house with a huge garden which I would design myself, with a lake, small river, lots of flowers, statues and hidden gardens where I could just sit by myself and think, read a book or have an interesting conversation. The house would have huge windows compromising no privacy since the house would be relatively secluded.
   
   
3. Then, I would have an airplane. Why? Because it's darn nice to be able to fly to anywhere in the world, to visit a great restaurant, or shop for clothes at a great designer store abroad. Which brings me to number 4:
   
   
4. Lots of clothes. I love shopping, I love clothes that emphasize the figure, can't get enough till I get enough. So shopping would be a great side activity, whenever the mood strikes.
   
   
5. A good studio for my art.
   
   
6. An art gallery where I would put up all my favorite works of art which I would collect.
   
   
7. Restaurants and food. I can admire a good meal, and would gladly admire more of them.
   
   
8. Some cool personal flying machine, whatever exists.
   
   
9. A very powerful computer or two.
   
   
10. It's hard to believe but I am running out of things. I would contribute to research that I think would come up with cool new technologies or medical products. I would also contribute to the Ayn Rand institute.
    
    
11. Buy great presents for my family and friends. I would get my little brother a decent private tutor who would educate him correctly, unlike the crap he has to go through at school.
    
    
12. All the music I want, and my private dance studio.
    
    
13. A huge room full of small lamps and elegant decorations for ball dancing parties which I would throw sometimes.
    
    
14. OK, I guess I would also require a car, with a driver. I don't think I will have a servant though, I like getting my own stuff and not having a stranger in my house.

OK, I can't think of more things, but given more time I'm sure I'd come up with them. Point is, money can provide a lot of pleasure, a lot of ways to enjoy yourself and express yourself.

Money also has to be earned to be enjoyed - earned by productive work (unlike just a boring job or just getting the money without doing anything to earn it).

Thinking in principles

Some people only look at short term actions without relation to the ideas behind them to decide if they should trust somebody or not and if such action is good or not - and they get screwed.

One example is government financing. People think that because the government offers them free money - to finance their house, mortgage, education, healthcare (coming up - let's hope not) that the government is good and trustworthy. However, this is what the pig thinks too about the farmer that feeds it - and will continue to think it until the day it gets slaughtered. "I wake up today, he brings me food. I wake up tomorrow he brings me food - what could be wrong?".

Without long term vision, without thinking in principle and seeing what such actions mean in principle (in case of government financing: loss of freedom and individual rights) we are all like a pig led to the slaughter, led by the blindness of pigs who can see nothing beyond the immediate free cash they are getting at somebody else's expense.

My thoughts about organic food

Well, I've been thinking about it a little bit since I started shopping at an organic food store conveniently located nearby.

For centuries, farmers have struggled to find ways to improve their product and production. From new irrigation systems to new manures, chemicals that protect the plants to chemicals that make them grow bigger and tastier - one generation building on top of the knowledge of the previous generation. Genetic engineers, chemical engineers, all joined the task of making produce better; And here comes the organic food farmer with one thing to say to these people: "You guys screwed it up. It's better without any of the improvements you guys have been adding".

Huh? This sounds bit bizarre to me. After thinking about it for a while, I see two options: One is that organic food provides better tasting products but in lower volumes.
In this option, it is filling the hole of a needed, yet otherwise unavailable product since by this hypothesis it cannot be found in traditional farming.
According to this idea, traditional farmers focus on volume at the expense of quality, and the many improvements over the years add little to the taste but more to the longevity, size and volume of the produce.

The second option is that organic food is a result of philosophical ideas, the philosophy that views man as a parasite on earth, as an animal with one too many ambitions, an animals that thinks it knows better than nature what is good for it. According to this view, modern medicine does not heal, it destroys, technology does not improve man's life but makes man miserable and destroys the earth. Science, especially genetic engineering is a sin because it attempts to change the way nature is.
Organic food by this option is just another instance of this view: "Respect nature and be humble", "man can never and should never improve upon nature", which means to live like our ancestors did, in a cave, and never try to rise above that level.


Which one is it? If you have an opinion with some facts to back it up, please leave it in a comment.

Wishing you a happy holiday...

Why justifying Capitalism on religious grounds fails - Part C

This is part of a great article by Ayn Rand: “Conservatism: An Obituary,” from the book: "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".

---

There are three interrelated arguments used by today’s “conservatives” to justify capitalism, which can best be designated as: the argument from faith—the argument from tradition—the argument from depravity.

Sensing their need of a moral base, many “conservatives” decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues.

Intellectually, to rest one’s case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one’s enemies—that one has no rational arguments to offer. The “conservatives’” claim that their case rests on faith, means that there are no rational arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice, property, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted only on faith—that in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior to reason.

Consider the implications of that theory. While the communists claim that they are the representatives of reason and science, the “conservatives” concede it and retreat into the realm of mysticism, of faith, of the supernatural, into another world, surrendering this world to communism. It is the kind of victory that the communists’ irrational ideology could never have won on its own merits . . . .

Now consider the second argument: the attempt to justify capitalism on the ground of tradition. Certain groups are trying to switch the word “conservative” into the exact opposite of its modern American usage, to switch it back to its nineteenth-century meaning, and to put this over on the public. These groups declare that to be a “conservative” means to uphold the status quo, the given, the established, regardless of what it might be, regardless of whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, defensible or indefensible. They declare that we must defend the American political system not because it is right, but because our ancestors chose it, not because it is good, but because it is old . . . .

The argument that we must respect “tradition” as such, respect it merely because it is a “tradition,” means that we must accept the values other men have chosen, merely because other men have chosen them—with the necessary implication of: who are we to change them? The affront to a man’s self-esteem, in such an argument, and the profound contempt for man’s nature are obvious.

This leads us to the third—and the worst—argument, used by some “conservatives”: the attempt to defend capitalism on the ground of man’s depravity.

This argument runs as follows: since men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient and innately depraved, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility of being a dictator and of ruling everybody else; therefore, a free society is the proper way of life for imperfect creatures. Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.

Dictatorship—this theory asserts—believe it or not, is the result of faith in man and in man’s goodness; if people believed that man is depraved by nature, they would not entrust a dictator with power. This means that a belief in human depravity protects human freedom—that it is wrong to enslave the depraved, but would be right to enslave the virtuous. And more: dictatorships—this theory declares—and all the other disasters of the modern world are man’s punishment for the sin of relying on his intellect and of attempting to improve his life on earth by seeking to devise a perfect political system and to establish a rational society. This means that humility, passivity, lethargic resignation and a belief in Original Sin are the bulwarks of capitalism. One could not go farther than this in historical, political, and psychological ignorance or subversion. This is truly the voice of the Dark Ages rising again—in the midst of our industrial civilization.

The cynical, man-hating advocates of this theory sneer at all ideals, scoff at all human aspirations and deride all attempts to improve men’s existence. “You can’t change human nature,” is their stock answer to the socialists. Thus they concede that socialism is the ideal, but human nature is unworthy of it; after which, they invite men to crusade for capitalism—a crusade one would have to start by spitting in one’s own face. Who will fight and die to defend his status as a miserable sinner? If, as a result of such theories, people become contemptuous of “conservatism,” do not wonder and do not ascribe it to the cleverness of the socialists.

(Taken from The Ayn Rand Lexicon)

Why justifying Capitalism on religious grounds fails - Addition

This is a video by Yaron Brook, answering the question: "If Altruism and Christian ethics of altruism undercut the defense of Capitalism, how is it possible that the founding fathers, which were responsible for the birth of Capitalism, came up with the declaration of independence?"



To hear the rest of the questions following this lecture, start from Question 1 and follow the links to the follow-up videos.

So called: "Pro-life"

I don't know when I heard a bigger piece of crap wrapped in such a nice envelope.

There is nothing "pro-life" about those who seek to prohibit abortion. There is nothing pro-life about destroying the life and liberty of women for the sake of a collection of some cells.

"Destroying life? what is life-destroying about being forced to have a baby?"

Being forced into anything is life-destroying in varying degrees. But having a baby is a life changing decision. It has implications for the parent's entire life. A baby takes resources to raise: time-wise, emotional and financial. It DOES change the whole course of life for a woman or a couple. The so called "pro-life" do not seem to care about that. To them life means; the metabolism of a few cells, not something insignificant like an individual's actual life, happiness and goals.

Life is holy, and what does that mean? That women be treated as breeding cows. The sanctity of life is wonderful... which is why we need to load women on wagons, chain them to a metal bar at a factory and bring males to impregnate them. Done with one? Off to the second one!
Why not? "Pro-life" people think they have a right to dictate to a woman what she should do with her body and life. Why not take the sanctity of life to the next stage?


I have no words to describe how disgusted I am with the use of the words "pro-life" for such deep a disrespect for human beings.


Anti-abortionists often use the image of an embryo put into a blender. "What a horrible thing to do to an innocent baby" they say. "You're a murderer!".
How do you like the image of women brought in the herds to breed new humans?


One who does not value and respect the life of an adult cannot claim to value the life of a potential human being.

Call your irrational, conformity-minded, religious-dogma, feeling-driven ideas of yours by what they are. Don't call it "pro-life".

Some useful tiny tips

These are some tricks I've discovered to get some things to work better:

1. When you want to get the content of a bottle (like a Ketchup bottle), don't shake it up and down. First, place it horizontally and shake it up and down: this will make the sauce fall on one side of the bottle, and then place it vertically and shake it up and down. The sauce will slide down better and you will get out more of it and faster.
   
   
2. Don't you hate it when the end part of the belt sticks out in the air, with nothing to pin it down to the pants (or the belt)? Many times those loops in the belt or pants are not located in the right place to catch that end of the belt. It is even worse with a dress which has no belt-loops at all.
   So here is my solution: Take a rubber band women use to tie their hair (a small thin one, in the same color as the belt; not red and bulky). Make a double loop of it if necessary to make it wrap tightly around the belt, and slide it onto the belt. You can easily move it anywhere on the belt and use it to pin down the edge of the belt. Flawless finish. :D
   
   
3. Vacuum cleaner? Forget it. Get an iRobot vacuum cleaner. They perform better than a normal vacuum cleaner and vacuum on their own.
   
   
4. This one is probably well known, but it is useful so I'll write it just in case.
   Opening a jar: The problem with those jars is that they are closed with vacuum. This creates a force that pulls the top onto the jar. It gets worse when the jar is cooled down since the air pressure inside the bottle drops even more, making the vacuum effect stronger.
   Solution: Create an opening for air to go into the jar. Slide a thin yet strong knife (or metal object) under the side of the lid, and slightly push the knife into the jar (or push the edge of the top to the side, away from the jar) to create an opening. This will let air in, cancel the vacuum and allow you to open the jar without any effort.

That is all. I'd be happy to get a feedback from you if you've tried it, or if you have similar useful tips.

Atheism and skepticism - Are the two connected?

No. Not for one who uses a correct thinking method.

Skepticism is the approach of doubting every single thing available to one's mind and senses.

Using it leads not to knowledge but to the destruction of knowledge. It leads one to become helpless in having certainty even in the existence of something as concrete a wall.

If a full skeptic does not believe in god, it is not the grace of any rational thought, but simply one more instance of doubting. A full skeptic equally doubts the existence of god and the existence of planet earth.

Knowledge is gained by collecting evidence based on observations of reality, forming generalizations, concepts and conclusions based on what one observes. It is a positive process of building one's knowledge, not a negative destruction of it.

You might ask: Isn't it important to be critical in one's thinking? Yes, but using critical thinking and being skeptic are not the same.

Critical thinking is merely a cautious, careful thinking on a topic - to make sure one's conclusions and knowledge are non-contradictory.

It is not the same as skepticism, which means to doubt all the knowledge one has.

If one uses logic and a positive process of collecting evidence, Atheism follows simply because there is no evidence pointing at the existence of god. There is nothing to doubt or reject since one does not form such a conclusion to begin with.

So in conclusion skepticism is not the proper method on which Atheism is reached. Logic is.