BioShock's critique of Ayn Rand & Objectivism
This topic is locked from further discussion.
"Well f***, you just know a dude f***ed her and never called her back...well,except the last part.
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:"
- Reality exists as an objectiveabsolute —facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
- 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.
- 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 moralpurpose of his life.
- 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.
Good read.
" @Ubik said:Among other things, Ayn Rand suffered from a wicked case of bitter bush."Well f***, you just know a dude f***ed her and never called her back...well,except the last part. "
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:"
- Reality exists as an objectiveabsolute —facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
- 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.
- 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 moralpurpose of his life.
- 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.
Wasn't Rapture a peaceful place until Fontaine, the con man, slowly caused trouble? Bioshock is my favorite game, and I always thought that you assume Rapture fell apart on its own until you slowly uncover the secrets of "Fontaine's home for the poor" and "Who is Atlas?" Maybe I'm wrong, but that was my take on it.
" Wasn't Rapture a peaceful place until Fontaine, the con man, slowly caused trouble? Bioshock is my favorite game, and I always thought that you assume Rapture fell apart on its own until you slowly uncover the secrets of "Fontaine's home for the poor" and "Who is Atlas?" Maybe I'm wrong, but that was my take on it. "I personally haven't played Bioshock (FPSs give me a severe case of motion sickness), but it seems a bit weird to blame the downfall of a society which celebrates "selfishness" on someone who is the epitome of selfishness.
But it's selfishness that infringes on other people's way of life, which was totally the point of leaving to build Rapture. Ayn Rand's selfishness is not the same definition as it does not step over and take from other people. Fontaine always presented himself as not who he actually was. He was a con man, but then again, maybe he is like Sofia Lamb, and is in the business of "conquest in the human realm." By buying people through how he acts towards the poor and destitute, maybe he is acting fairly. But Fontaine did want something he could not earn: Rapture, and by wanting it he does infringe on Ayn Rand's ethics of human existence.
I need to get this book . I have spoken to a few heroin addicts and weirdly GTA has a great pull for some of them. I was speaking to a guy who was in rehab and he said it was the one thing which stopped him from going out to buy drugs (this was San Andreas). It makes me wonder what this guy has to say about the relation, if any, between the two." @Enigma777: Have you ever read Extra Lives: Why Video Games Matter by Tom Bissell? If you're interested at all in reading some in-depth analyses of popular games (GTAIV, Far Cry 2, BioShock, among others) it's definitely worth picking up. The author kinda goes off on a tear about his heroine addiction late into the book (around the time he gets really into GTAIV, ironically), but that's my only real criticism of this book. I wish there was more written on the subject. "
I actually managed to write a 10 page essay on Bioshock for my senior paper in high school. However, rather than taking it as a critique of Objectivism I used it as an example of a critique on Communist Revolution Theory. I know the main argument of the game is that Objectivism is bad and a society built of selfishness cannot function; but, the nice thing about a work with a strong narrative is that it can be used to achieve entirely different conclusions.
The crux of my argument was that Fontain's uprising took the guise of a Communist revolution against the capitalist oppressors; but, in violently revolting Fontain's followers did not create a new Communist or Socialist government. Instead they only brought about the destruction of the society as a whole.
I'd argue that if we actually want to maximize individual freedom then objectivism would be the worst philosophy to engage in. If we accept that your reliance on bio necessities (food, shelter, etc...) are inherently limiting on your freedom. Then a society that helps perpetuate these failures of adequate apportionment of bio necessities (like objectivism) would be harming freedom. As such the best political philosophy to achieve freedom is collectivist. A collectivist system ensures that we all have adequate access to the basics of survival, and can therefore truly engage in self actualization.
Hell that kind of freedom sounds infinitely better than the money grubbing selfish hording of Rands philosophy.
I don't think bioshock really was a saying objectivism was wrong... and I also think that it is blatantly obvious if you play through the game. BLATANTLY. In the end the final boss wasn't ryan it was fontaine. Not to be rude, but it makes me wonder if you played the game at all or read the novel. Andrew Ryan's world was functioning and it was doing it at extremely fast rates if you consider we don't even have gene therapy now and the game was set in 50's ish time period. I don't have time to write a huge response bc i have class soon but ill briefly say why I disagree. First like i said rapture was working very well as a center for art, science, and business. Fontaine however represented the jim taggart style character who was more interested in virtue's of helping the poor and things like that. The fact that your enemy in the game is Big Daddy and Fontaine tells you something right away about where the writer stands. Big daddy is allusion to Big Daddy Government which is the idea that the government should be taking care of you. That idea is continued with fontaine who was actually controlling you the whole game, the character was just to stupid to realize he was being controlled. The allegory here is that people have no idea they are tools of the government. I havn't played the game in forever so i dont remember the details of the story. but the plot itself cleary represents what i described. Objectivism does say that selfishness is the highest virtue. But it isn't like DONT SHARE YOUR ICECREAM. the idea is go out and do waht you want. By doing this it allowed Rearden and dagny and Danconia to go out and get freakin rich. But the consequence wasn't that they were selfish the end. In the process they made products such as rearden metal that not only helped themselves but allowed every other industry to flourish as well. When industry was flourishing more jobs were created. In other words Andrew ryan did not destroy rapture fontaine destroyed rapture. Andrew ryan was the good guy because by creating the society he wanted he made a place for everyone to llive and work. Fontaine came and started acting like the poor should be taken care of by the rich and started teh downward spiral. I'm late should g2g this is not organized, neat , or clear but it will do for now.
Hey guys! keep an eye on my blog, im working on a few.
1. 1984- I'll write about how the book critiques freedom as causing chaos
2. The God Delusion- Dawkins marvelous critique of atheism and how the book shows us that there is a god out there after all
3. Pinheads and Patriots- Bill O'reilly critiques conservative ideas and shows how liberals can save america
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."Ok that's really good."
BioShock is not a damning critique of Objectivism, it's a damning critique of what some people think Objectivism is. It seems to be a very common tactic by Ayn Rand's detractors to attack her on things she didn't even believe.
"…and that every man and woman should be allowed to pursue their own happiness and economic interests without regard to anyone else."
"… without regard to anyone else."
That comment shows your misunderstanding of Objectivism.
"If [a Machiavellian type] decides to follow his own self-interest but to respect nobody else's, he is no longer on an objective moral base, but on a hedonistic, whim-worshipping base. If so, he has disqualified himself; he is claiming a contradiction. If he wants to maintain rationally his own self-interest, and claim he has a case for his right to self-interest, then he must concede that the ground on which he claims his right to self-interest also applies to every other human being."
-- Ayn Rand Answers, pg 110
"The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others."
-- Ayn Rand
One of the foundational views of Objectivism is that the initiation of force is ALWAYS wrong, no matter who does it and no matter what the reason, it is always wrong.
Andrew Ryan has some similar beliefs to Objectivism, but he has no qualms with the use of force (the enslavement of the little sisters, the banning of bibles, limiting free speech, killing people who disagreed with him, not letting people leave, unrestrained science and art that steps on peoples' rights, etc.). He is no Objectivist.
Also, Objectivism is NOT against charity (where Andrew Ryan was). Helping someone out when you have the means and the desire is a personal choice. Freedom of choice is another basic tenet of Objectivism. In fact, helping others achieve their potential could be seen as a virtue to Objectivists. What it does oppose is compulsion - being forced to help others. This is something most people do not understand about Objectivism (I think even some Objectivist miss this point) - Objectivism does not reject government programs that help people out on the grounds that helping others is wrong; they reject it on the grounds that the initiation of FORCE is used to seize the funds for those programs. Charity is not a sin to Objectivists.
Ayn Rand and Objectivism stand for:
- The importance of recognizing facts.
- The principle that reason is man’s means of knowledge.
- The principle that initiation of force or committing fraud is always wrong; whoever does it, for whatever reason.
- The principle that freedom is a requirement of a proper human life.
- The principle that one should think for oneself.
- The principle that whatever promotes human life is good, and that which harms or destroys human life is evil.
- The principle that men should deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.
- Love of mankind and the accomplishments we have achieved.
These reasons, among others, make Objectivism, in my opinion, the most humane philosophy there is.
In all honesty taking the fictional story-line of BioShock as 'proof' of a failure in the philosophy of Objectivism is like taking Harry Potter as proof that wizards exist.
I love when objectivists get uppity over Bioshock criticizing the philosophy by claiming "it's just a stupid work of fiction!" when the objectivist "movement," as it were, was inspired by a work of fiction.
"dropping the player into a world where Ayn Rand’s ideas have been allowed to take hold and endure until their logical—and, some might argue, inevitable—conclusion"
Yeah, I don't agree with that. Seems like the creators of the game focused first on making the perfect setting for a shooter (ie a dystopian, violent universe with sci-fi content), and then tried to somehow tie it into Rand's views on objectivism. Most of the Andrew Ryan's actions don't square with objectivism, though, nor do the actions of almost every other inhabitant of Rapture. In the end, I thought Bioshocks story proved to be amusing enough, but its attempts as a serious social/moral critique fell flat, much like modern day hollywood productions. One of the big principles of Objectivism, as you outlined at the beginning, as it that your rights to self interest end when it comes to the compelling of others by force. Yet Rapture exists almost solely on the principles of compelling others by force.
@marokai: It was inspired by an ideal - and those never die!
Objectivism is a fun philosophy that has a lot of merit but sadly it is one only really suited for a utopian society.
Other works of fiction try to do the same thing. Harry Potter tries to show the problems with class based discrimination but I would suggest one go read something else for the real discussion on the topic.
Objectivism has its roots in existentialism but the issue has always been that Objectivism itself does not even try to explain the many facets of reality that are non-objective let alone the ones that are subjective. That has always been a pretty severe weakness of the Objectivist stance where all too often proponents also take the equally incorrect stance of "You just don't get it because if you did you'd see how correct I am".
The reason why Bioshock is seen as a critique of Objectivism is that there were multiple points in the fiction where any number of characters are shown trying to be objectivist while caving their passions but still using Objectivism as their moral crutch to justify doing horrible things. If nothing else, how easy it is to abuse Objectivism like this is a valid criticism All of the major characters in the story are screaming at each other "You just don't get it because if you did you'd see how correct I am" and took down Rapture in the chaos.
Rand explicitly stated many times that abstaining from use of force was an integral part of her philosophy. The characters that break this fundamental rule, namely Ryan, Fontaine, these are not Objectivists by its definition and the game does not strictly guide the player to any conclusion on this theme. Personally I find any political analysis by this game to be a mere caricature at best and what I'd give credit for is its take on corruption. If I were inclined to ordain it a certain view, I'd say it's criticising utopian ideals as a whole.
I have to shake my head at some of the comments here. Disagree with Ayn Rand all you want, but at least disagree with her on the things she actually believed.
Korolev's comments read like some adolescent rant against again what he thinks Objectivism says, but what it really doesn't. Anyone who thinks that is a good critique of Objectivism betrays their lack of knowledge. I would be embarrassed if I was Korolev.
Most of the other negative comments here are nothing more than mud-slinging, containing no valid argument against Objectivism. Ad hominem attacks only show a weakness in your position and in your arguments.
@marokai: You are misinformed, yes Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are works of fiction, but the philosophy that inspired those books is very real. The philosophy can be found in many works of non-fiction as well.
Originally I couldn't understand all the hate towards Objectivism, it's a very common sense, human-rights positive philosophy, but after years of reading articles, blog posts, and threads like this one, all filled with misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and just plain false statements it is no wonder. I hope some people will think for themselves, rather than listen to all the BS in this thread.
"Volumes can be and have been written about the issue of freedom versus dictatorship, but, in essence, it comes down to a single question: do you consider it moral to treat men as sacrificial animals and to rule them by physical force?"
-- Ayn Rand
@Iodine
I could care less if you think Dave_S is me (he's not), it's irrelevant to the content of our comments.
The only reason I am "bringing this discussion back" as it were, is because I just finished playing BioShock, and I just read the BioShock: Rapture novel. I did a google search for "bioshock objectivism", and this thread was the second listing that came up. That's how I came here, and why I signed up to comment.
I know I'm two years too late on this, but I just have to say it... There's a key difference in Ayn Rand's gulch and Bioshock's "Eureka" where geniuses and industry giants culminate. Not everyone can be a superstar in the real world. There are run of the mill people in Atlas Shrugged, too. Do you recall the man who worked for Ellis Wyatt? Nothing special, but he gained a lot from working for Wyatt.
The saying "There are no small jobs, only small minds." especially comes to mind here. The people in this game were not rational men and therefore are not 'logical' extensions of the Objectivist philosophy. ("Reality exists as an objective absolute —facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.") Let's just say that they are Steve Jobs, plural, too off-balance to fight their own cancers. To prove my point, almost everyone mentioned directly in Galt's Gulch built their own homes and had two businesses (food or retail and industry). They weren't hedonists... they were producers. They cleaned up after themselves and recognized that they weren't too great to ignore reality. Dagny was the first and only servant in the Gulch (and that was because she was playing the role of a wife). If you aren't irrational, you can clean your own toilet. That was the logical conclusion of the irrational hedonism of Rapture, not the rational egoism of Midas Mulligan's 'Gulch'.
I find that those who claim to hate the philosophy of Ayn Rand are partially excused because they often don't fully understand it. I think they miss casual connections, like this article has unfortunately done.
Without reading the dates, I could tell LucasF's post was the one that bumped the thread. A post so heavily opposed to the other opinions expressed in this thread could only come from someone scouring the web for long-forgotten forum threads to broadcast their opinions in.
Without reading the dates, I could tell LucasF's post was the one that bumped the thread. A post so heavily opposed to the other opinions expressed in this thread could only come from someone scouring the web for long-forgotten forum threads to broadcast their opinions in.
Holy shit, Andrew, you really are a Lord.
Yay necro. Bioshock's critique of objectivism isn't particularly effective and objectivism is a really easy thing to pick apart. That said, Rand Paul 2016.
Note: Isn't it bizarre that a guy named after Ayn Rand and his father are both advertised as extremely family centric?
@fredchuckdave:
Rand Paul wasn't named after Ayn Rand. His father confirmed it. Still, was the problem with them being 'family centric'? I don't see a contradiction there.
@macro: Who the hell is named Rand? Objectivism does not entail nepotism in any way; in fact it is almost explicitly anti-nepotism.
@fredchuckdave: His name is Randal. His wife shortened it to 'Rand', if I'm not mistaken.
Objectivism is against nepotism? I'm not sure. If the relative is competent enough for the job, I don't see a problem. Rand was brought up around pro-capitalism ideals since he was a kid, also. He's probably more suitable for the position than most politicians.
Libertarian politicians are quite rare, unfortunately.
Bioshock does not offer a damning philosophical critique of Ayn Rand's philosophy because it employs a "straw man" argument in its attempt to undercut Objectivism. According to Wikipedia: "A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument."
According to the author of this post: "The downfall of Rapture was a direct result of Ryan’s attempts to forbid contact with the surface..."
If you've thoroughly read Rand's books, fiction and non-fiction, you know that, from a political perspective, she repudiates the initiation of force in all human relationships. She was a radical proponent of lassez-faire capitalism. Therefore, a man such as Ryan, who "attempts to forbid contact with the surface" - i.e. to use coercive power to force his wishes on other human beings - is rejecting one of the fundamental premises of Rand's philosophy: That each individual is an end in him/herself and has the right to live free from force of other individuals. There's your straw man. In fact, if you've read Atlas Shrugged, then you know that the inhabitants of Galt's Gulch were free to leave when they pleased.
The writer goes on to say: "...which was itself a result of Ryan’s effort to install pride as the chief virtue of his city."
Objectivism (Rand's philosophy) holds pride as a chief virtue of the individual. You can't install pride into a city. There's no such thing as a "city's pride." Only an individual man and woman can have pride. As such, an Objectivist would never concern himself with the anti-concept of "city pride." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pride.html as Ryan does.
Ryan was not a follower of Objectivism.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment