In a previous post about Jews and Poker I wondered whether there was a link between Judaism and the disproportionate number of Jews who are quite good professional poker players. I just read that the Torah prohibits gambling if it’s done as a profession or out of greed. This would count against the fact that there are so many good Jewish poker players.

However, gambling has been part of Jewish tradition for centuries. Dreidel Dreidel Dreidel. According to the newsletter “Beyond the Odds”, “early Jews” (I’m not sure what period ‘early’ refers to) would use dice to try figure out God’s will when serious decisions could not be made.  I’d love to know the thinking behind this.  I also wonder if one could use this as evidence to convince the religious anti-poker crowd in Congress that even  traditional games of luck, such as craps, may not be entirely games of luck.  That is, perhaps, pace Einstein, God does play dice.

Anyway, some conservative rabbi has embraced this Jewish poker tradition by having a Hold’em tournament in his synagogue (no it’s not called Temple Bet Hold’em), and he thinks he gets around the Torah and its strictures because the poker tournament is for fun and fellowship, even though it is being used to raise money and rewards winners with non-cash prizes.  Is this kosher? I think so. But what do I know? I’m no expert on Jewish law. So WWSD? What Would Schneerson Do?

One of the essays in the book is by Philip Lindholm entitled “Jewish Philosophy Wins the Pot: How Stu Ungar and Emmanuel Levinas Corralled the Texans”.  I found the essay to be interesting, in large part because it attempts to shows a connection between gamblers and Jews, and since I had written a post on Jews and poker, I thought it would be a good piece to start with in my discussion/review of the book.

The first thing that struck me about Lindholdm’s piece was the title, specificaly that it mentions Jewish philosophy.  Certainly there have been Jews who have been philosophers, e.g. Spinoza, Saul Kripke, and Emmanuel Levinas (1906-1995), the philosopher that Lindolhm discusses in the essay.  There are many (perhaps too many) non-philospher Jews who like to philosophize.  For proof just come to a Seder at my mom’s house.  And there are many similarities and connections between Judaism and philosophy.  For example, in philosophy of religion there is the question of God’s existence and the conception of God that philosophers use is one that comes out of the Old Testament.  But I am not sure what a Jewish philosophy is. As Kenneth Seeskin points out in his introduction to “Jewish Philosophy in a Secular Age,”

“The notion of an inquiry that is both Jewish and philosophical has long been problematic.  Philosophy is not indigenous to Judaism.  With the exception of Philo, whose direct influence lay mainly with Christianity, Judaism did not produce a genuine work of philosophy until the tenth century.  Even then, Jewish philosophy was largely a response to an external source: Islamic influence.  Many regarded this response as suspect.  But the thirteenth century, a controversy arose on whether Maimonides’rationalistic version of Judaism was heretical.  The controversy is still with us.  For some, Judaism demands surrender to the will of God, so that any attempt to devise a philosophic justification is misguided.  For others, Judaism is a culture and does not need philosophic argument to claim legitimacy.  Not surprisingly, one can still pick up a book on Jewish philosophy and find the author replying to the charge that the investigation is somehow un-Jewish.  The reason this charge still has force is that philosophy is by nature a secular enterprise.”

So what does Lindolm have in mind when he talks about Jewish philosophy?  He has in mind the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas, specifically his commentary on Exodus 19:17 entitled “The Temptation of Temptation”.  Lindohlm believes that Levinas is criticizing a certain philosophical view about when it is correct to act, and offers what he believes to be the correct view on this issue, which Lindolm believes is the view taken by the gambler. Lindholm tells a story about the 1980 WSOP, where Stu Ungar, one of the greatest poker players to have ever lived, in order to illustrate the gambler’s approach to action.  

According to Lindohlm, Levinas’ view is that the philosopher believes that you should never act unless you have certainty, and if you do you’re being naieve. Does Levinas believe that you can ever obtain certainty?  Here Lindholm is equivocal.  He says on the one hand that “The philosopher refuses to act until all the results are in, and therefore, because all the results are never in, he or she never gets around to doing anything.” But on the other hand he quotes Levinas who says “Only philosophy takes away naivete,” which seems to suggest that through philosophy one can obtain certainty.  So which is it?  Perhaps we can reconcile the apparent inconsistency in the following way:  One who does not do philosophy should not act, because his actions will be done with uncertainty and therefore will be naive. I shall assume that this is what Lindholm has in mind when he talks about the “philosophical” approach to action.

Lindohlm then contrasts this philosophical approach to the approach taken by the gambler, who, according to Lindholm, embraces uncertainty. It is naive to think one can know with certainty before one acts in an an honest game of poker, as there is uncertainty in every hand you play.  This uncertainty existed when the Jews had to decide on whether to accept the Torah, the essence of Judaism. This act of decision in the face of uncertainty is what the gambler accepts, but according to Levinas, as interpreted by Lindholm, it is what the philosopher tends to reject. Lindholm writes, “For Levinas, the willingness of Jews like Ungar…to decide, to take action before knowing the result, is a distinguishing mark of the Jewish character.  This is the Jewish way of “being in truth,” which contrasts with the philosophical endeavor to first “know truth”.”

In a previous post I wondered about why there are so many Jews who are good at poker. Perhaps Levinas’ view offers some insight into the answer to this question.

The essay is interesting, but it leaves me with many questions.  For one, what philosophers does Levinas have in mind when he says that we need certainty before we can act?  The only person that came to mind was possibly Descartes, who in the Meditations was searching for an indubitable foundation for scientific knowledge.  But did even he say that you should never act without certainty?  Did he say that you should never act?

I have a suspicion that Levinas, or more likely Lindholm, is creating a straw man in an attempt to represent the “philosophical” approach to action.  Philosophers think that you should generally have support for beliefs that you hold. However, I think similar things can be said about poker players, at least the good ones.  They believe that when you make a decision about how to play a hand it should be as well supported as possible. So, assuming that Lindholm’s interpretation of Levinas is correct, and, as indicated above, I’m not sure what his interpretation precisely is, then it’s not clear whether there is an important difference between the way the philosopher thinks about action and the way the gambler/Jew does.

 

Poker is many things. It can be big business, a raging addiction, the making of a millionaire, or the breaking of a family to name a few. Poker is one way to gamble. Other ways include starting a new business, having children, living a dream or even moving to a new location. How is poker percieved in the eyes of one who practices yoga meditation for spiritual growth?

From the point of view of yoga a person has four goals to achieve in life. In Sanskrit these are dharma, artha, kama and moksha. In English these translate to moral value, economic value, vital value and eternal value. To live fully each of these need addressed on some level. If poker contributes to these then it would be ok. If it doesn’t then it would be not ok. So what is the determining factor? The person involved in playing poker is the factor.

Let’s say I live a good life. My morals provide me with a strong foundation for a happy existence. I make enough money to support myself and not be a burden on anyone. I contribute positively to society in a way that enriches others lives without harm. I meditate daily and my spiritual understanding of my true nature as an eternal spiritual being temporarily relating to a human condition becomes clearer. Now let’s say I want to get together with my friends and they offer two options. Option 1) let’s go to the movies! Option 2), let’s all get five dollars in quarters and play some poker! Let’s assume that the movies cost five dollars a ticket. So spending some time with friends will cost about the same no matter what I choose to do. I’m also not draining my bank account or making enemies by cheating, because I play by the rules, just as if I were playing checkers.

On the other hand let us say that I play poker every night, pawn my wedding ring to get money to play cards and get a bit touchy when a friend or relative mentions I might have a problem. Or let’s say that I don’t even gamble money, but instead I sit in front of a computer 6 nights a week for hours at a time while my son really wanted to spend some time with me or my wife becomes less and less satisfied with our marriage because she only sees me when I’m asleep. I think you get the picture.

The aim of yoga is Self Realization. A Self-realized person acts appropriately in a given situation. Anything that interferes with this ability to act appropriately is considered a hindrance to one’s spiritual development. Yoga is also based on being completely honest with others and with ourselves. Poker can be played honestly, and it can be played without interfering with our main objectives in life. Poker is ultimately no different than any other activity a human being performs. Although, of course, poker isn’t really necessary for anything.

Be sure to check out Ryan’s insightful commentary on Yoga and self-realization at his blog www.yogawisdom.org

Since I believe I’ve tried all the poker rooms that give free money with no deposit, I’ve decided to take the Quaker approach to poker and stop playing, at least for a little while. This will no doubt make my wife happy, as she is both a Quaker and someone who thinks that I may have a problem with my constant poker playing. 

Trying to please my wife is a good reason to stop playing poker, at least for a little while.  However, when I think about the Quaker reasons for not playing poker, or more specifically the Quaker reasons that my wife has given, I don’t immediately see any clear-cut justification for such an action.

It can’t be because poker is gambling that Quakers are opposed to it.  After all, it is impossible, to go through life without gambling.  As the philosopher Tom Morris once wrote,”We are always wagering our time and energy on one strategy or another in pursuit of our own hopes and dreams.” If what Morris says is true, and I certainly believe it is, then we are also constantly wagering money, as time/energy = money.

If you are a rational person, then when you make a decision about something, whether it is calling a hand in poker, placing a bet on a horse at the races, choosing a new car, or changing your line of work, you take into consideration three things: the payoff, the chance of success, and the cost of making it.  If this isn’t gambling, then I don’t know what is.

You may even apply this decision making process in the realm of religion, as the French Philosopher Blaise Pascal famously did.  He thought that the evidence for God’s existence was not at all compelling, but he argued that you should try to become a believer in God because it is more in your self-interest to believe that God exists than not to believe.  This prudential argument has come to be known as Pascal’s Wager.

Poker is not like the lottery, where, as my wife put it, the idea is to get something for nothing.  In no-limit Hold’em, for example, players frequently go all-in, which means that they risk all their money to win the pot, and they do this often in an attempt to win less than the amount of money they are wagering.  Perhaps trying to get something for nothing is a principle that one should not adopt, and perhaps this is a good reason not to play the lottery.  But I don’t see how this principle has any relevance to poker.

My wife is obviously correct that players use deception in poker to try to win others’ money.  In fact, that’s in large part what makes the game so much fun.  But obviously the problem can’t be with the deception by itself.  Not all deception is bad. There is, as QuietStorm has pointed out, nothing morally problematic with deception in sports, when, for example, a player tries to fake another player out.  And if a person has to lie to another person to protect that person’s feeling (No, honey, you’re not playing too much Free Cell), then, arguably that person should do so.  Sorry Kant.

I know that my wife’s reply to this would be that it is not the deception by itself that makes poker morally problematic, but rather it is the fact that when you play poker you may try to deceive someone in order to win their money.  Of course, if I were to deceive some unsuspecting person in order to get his or her moeny, then I would be a morally unscrupulous person.  However, in poker there are no unsuspecting people.  If you play poker you implicitly accept the fact that all the players may try to deceive you to get your money.  So I think that there is a relevant disanalogy between poker and the real world, and thus a further argument is needed to show why the “combo of being deceptive while trying to separate your opponents from their $$” is not kosher.

The final point that my wife made concerning the problems with gambling is, in my opinion, the best.  My wife points out that gambling is “thought to take focus away from the spiritual life”. While I do believe that there is something to this objection, I think I need some more clafirification about the meaning of “spiritual life” before I can give a final ruling on its merits.  As I said above, I think that what in large part makes poker fun is the deception aspect, and I think that fun and spirituality are closely connected.  Now, this is probably not what my wife has in mind when she talks about the spiritual life.  But if it is not, then why not?  

I’ll admit that if you want to live a good life there are probably more worthwhile activities than playing poker, or tennis, or chess, or reading most novels, although I doubt that praying is one of them.  If this is the main reason why Quakers believe that one should not play poker, then I feel the force of their reasoning.  It is after all the wisdom given to us by Aristotle.  And so in the spirit of eudaimonea I commit to stop playing poker, at least for a little while.