Something went wrong. Try again later

Ubik

This user has not updated recently.

133 61 3 6
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

BioShock's critique of Ayn Rand & Objectivism

BioShock is not only inspired by the theory of Objectivism that Ayn Rand developed and championed in her written works--and famously fictionalized in her novel Atlas Shrugged--but the game's narrative also functions chiefly as a frightening critique of a society shaped in the image of her political and economic beliefs.  Andrew Ryan’s underwater city of Rapture (the name itself used as a double-entendre for both the height of pleasure and the biblical apocalypse) offers the player a visceral demonstration of the pitfalls of what Rand called “rational self-interest” merged with a dystopian alternate history science fiction epic.  

According to Rand:


My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

  1. Reality exists as an objective absolute —facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 moral purpose of his life.
  4. 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.

  (Source: The Ayn Rand Institute, from a short description of Objectivism given in 1962.  All preceding hyperlinks link back to the Ayn Rand Institute’s site.)

In a nutshell, Rand believed that no human being “owed” any other human being in the world anything, save to be free from the threat of violence from each other, and that every man and woman should be allowed to pursue their own happiness and economic interests without regard to anyone else.   Her theories hold many diverse implications for politics and economics, as well as religion, but the creators of BioShock primarily use the game to explore a single question that Rand takes for granted in her fiction and in her philosophy: “What would a society look like if everyone were really only in it for themselves and owed no allegiance to anyone but themselves?”

The Downside of Hands-Off Capitalism: Rand’s Blindside and Ryan’s All- Too-Human Lust for Power

BioShock succeeds as a serious social critique, rather than just an extremely well-designed video game, largely because of its willingness to tackle the main tenets of Objectivism head-on; not by lengthy diatribes delivered through main characters (even if Andrew Ryan’s famous mid-game speech provides a griping visual reminder that arguments over free will still loom large in our modern cultural consciousness), but by 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.

[B]y filling a city with ambitious experts, trained geniuses, and breakthrough artists, Ryan set up a top-heavy class system with most Rapture citizens feeling that essential jobs such as food processing, cleaning, simple maintenance, etc. were beneath them, and thus were often ignored (as Frank Fontaine put it: "Someone had to scrub the toilets."). This led to widespread dissatisfaction when these jobs were neglected and an eventual economic collapse throughout Rapture. The social conditions resulting from the economic collapse allowed Frank Fontaine to establish the influential but undermining Fontaine's Home for the Poor and also allowed Atlas to rise to political power and openly challenge Andrew Ryan's leadership...Furthermore, in order to keep Rapture safely hidden from the parasites, Ryan strictly forbade contact with the surface, inadvertently creating a market for smuggled goods, which in turn led to the rise of Frank Fontaine's criminal enterprises. At Rapture's outset, Ryan intended this law to be Rapture's only one, but in the end, it proved to lay the groundwork for Rapture's decline and then divisive civil war."

  (Source: BioShock Wikia article on Andrew Ryan . All hyperlinks in the preceding paragraph link back to BioShock WIkia pages.) 

The city of Rapture, itself the most damning condemnation of Ayn Rand’s ideas, also functions as the ironic twist of the entire tragedy. By establishing a colony outside the confines of “normal” society and rejecting any principles but his own, Ryan laid the groundwork for his, and Rapture’s, eventual doom. The major flaw in Rand’s theory of Objectivism—and the one which the creators of BioShock seize upon most effectively in their narrative—is that it attempts to deny in ourselves a desire to nurture and empathize with other human beings by placing ourselves at the center of our own interests, to the exclusion of everyone else in our larger society.   The downfall of Rapture was a direct result of Ryan’s attempts to forbid contact with the surface, which was itself a result of Ryan’s effort to install pride as the chief virtue of his city, and deny the corrosive effect of vice and corruption that flourish in the absence of the concept of the collective good.   When the player is dramatically thrust into the heart of this dying city and gradually sees the truth of his, and Rapture’s, situation unfold around him, it’s a potent, immersive reminder that the one trait shared by all dreams of a perfect society is their habit of ignoring the insurmountable flaws in our human nature, often at their own peril.

91 Comments

92 Comments

Avatar image for justin258
Justin258

16683

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 8

Edited By Justin258

Infinite was a fucking good game. I think I'll go play Infinite again.

It's not installed.

Fuck.

Well, the original is, for some reason, so I'll just play that.

Avatar image for fredchuckdave
Fredchuckdave

10824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

The bumps of this thread are getting increasingly amusing.

Avatar image for jmd2479
jmd2479

2

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

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.

Avatar image for macro
Macro

4

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@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.


Avatar image for fredchuckdave
Fredchuckdave

10824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

@macro: Who the hell is named Rand? Objectivism does not entail nepotism in any way; in fact it is almost explicitly anti-nepotism.

Avatar image for macro
Macro

4

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Macro

@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.

Avatar image for fredchuckdave
Fredchuckdave

10824

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By Fredchuckdave

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?

Avatar image for deactivated-5e49e9175da37
deactivated-5e49e9175da37

10812

Forum Posts

782

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

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.

@macro said:

@lucas_f:

It's nice to know that thinking men still exist.

Great comments, Lucas!

Holy shit, Andrew, you really are a Lord.

Avatar image for macro
Macro

4

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Macro

@lucas_f:

It's nice to know that thinking men still exist.

Great comments, Lucas!

Avatar image for menliveto
Menliveto

2

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Menliveto

This article doesn't say which side you're on. You're implying "the society" (either hers or the one shes against) is the problem. Its subjective. The writer is an objectivist. He's of the opinion everyone in a bar (utopia) can be killed. metaphorically.

Avatar image for lordandrew
LordAndrew

14609

Forum Posts

98305

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 36

Edited By LordAndrew

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.

Avatar image for teeterharris
teeterharris

2

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

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.

Avatar image for lucas_f
Lucas_F

4

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Lucas_F

@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.

Avatar image for iodine
Iodine

691

Forum Posts

436

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Iodine

I guess the two duders who are trying to really bring this discussion back have their forum names in the same format and have sub 5 posts are coincidences right?

Avatar image for saethir
saethir

377

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By saethir

@humanity said:

@marokai: It was inspired by an ideal - and those never die!

Much like this 2 year old thread!

Avatar image for lucas_f
Lucas_F

4

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Lucas_F

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

Avatar image for endurancefun
EnduranceFun

1116

Forum Posts

223

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By EnduranceFun

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.

Avatar image for extomar
EXTomar

5047

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By EXTomar

@humanity said:

@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.

Avatar image for dave_s
Dave_S

2

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

"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.

Avatar image for humanity
Humanity

21858

Forum Posts

5738

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 16

Edited By Humanity

@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.

Avatar image for deactivated-6050ef4074a17
deactivated-6050ef4074a17

3686

Forum Posts

15

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

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.

Avatar image for lucas_f
Lucas_F

4

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Lucas_F

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.

Avatar image for beej
beej

1675

Forum Posts

417

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By beej
@Ubik said:
"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.
Avatar image for ubik
Ubik

133

Forum Posts

61

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By Ubik
@hard: I won't try to change your mind about Rand's ideas, however, while I was intrigued by your interpretation of the game, I think your analysis shares the same flaws as Objectivism: purely rational self interest, much like Marx's ultimate form of communism, is a myth.  Rand presented a utopian ideal in Atlas Shrugged that requires either a great deal of denial about human nature or an even greater amount of hubris to think that any one person, theory, or government could ever overcome our inherent flaws.  

As for your take on the game, I would say that you're overlooking the tragic arc of BioShock's narrative, which the writers over at 2K/Irrational Games cleverly exploited in order to clearly communicate their anti-Randian message without coming straight out and bludgeoning you over the head with it.  

First, Andrew Ryan--not your character, Jack--is actually the tragic hero of the story.  Like other tragic heroes in literature, his downfall (and likewise, the downfall of Rapture itself) is rooted in a specific flaw, which in this case is his stubborn adherence to his (i.e., Rand's) idea of a perfect society "where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small!" In other words, Ryan's tragic flaw is his refusal to accept that the problems of 20th century society are not due to the constraints placed upon people by others--be they government, religious, or other social figures--but that the problems of greed, violence, laziness, etc., are fundamental defects in all human beings that can't be mitigated or erased by free market ideals and a change of scenery.  

Ryan himself functions as an ironic Christ figure in the story.  Too proud to admit his defeat (and, by extension, the defeat of his utopian ideals), he sacrifices himself midway through the game because he's fulfilled his role in the story; his inadvertent creations, Jack (biological) and Fontaine (political), have come back to exact revenge upon him for his sin of blind devotion to a flawed ideology.  He is totally defeated, in spirit and in body, at this, the climax of the story, and so the rest of the game becomes little more than a wrapping up exercise as the final problem (Fontaine) is resolved.

As for Fontaine, I think he represents both the most subtle and the most compelling denunciation of Randian philosophy in the entire game.  As Atlas, he was literally the key figure in your life as the protagonist of the game, the pillar upon which your world rested.  His objectives became yours, his hopes of survival--and later revenge--so intertwined with your own that it was impossible to say where the one started and the other ended.  The fact that he was manipulating you the entire time doesn't invalidate BioShock's critique of Objectivism, it strengthens it.  For what does Atlas, on the surface, represent to us except the benign figure who is only looking out for the interests of himself and his family? A man who, like Rand's ideas (in her conception of them at least), is seeking to escape from a world gone mad, but he needs help, a vessel, a supporter, an initiate who will bring him out from the depths and up to the surface. The game invites you to take Atlas at face value--after all, what other option do you have if you want to progress through the story?--never questioning his motives or the foundation upon which his ideas rest, much like Rand's theories, which seem entirely feasible if only you overlook a few millenia of the problems inherent to human societies.  And when the mask of Atlas is finally torn away, Fontaine is revealed to be ultimately less a character than a characterization of vice and wickedness; the shrouded nature of his personality perfectly symbolizing the fatal defect that lies at the heart of Rand's egoistic principles, but which lies beneath a seemingly reasonable exterior of "rational self-interest".

The conflict at the heart of Rapture was not that " Fontaine came and started acting like the poor should be taken care of by the rich and started [the] downward spiral", but that Andrew Ryan never anticipated the economic and social problems that lead to such poverty and desperation in the first place, which an enterprising criminal like Fontaine could then use as leverage to make a bid for power.

Don't take this as a personal attack on your ideas, hard.  I'm glad that your interpretation of the game differs from mine.  By reading your post, I was forced to think more deeply about my own position and carefully reconsider my own ideas about the narrative.  Thank you.


Special shout-outs to:
@thatpinguino:  & @beej:  Thank you both for your insightful commentaries and responses in this thread.  You took the words right out of my mouth, and, in all cases, said them better than I could have. 

Finally, since this is an appropriate place to share this, I'll end with what has to be my favorite quote about Atlas Shrugged, posted--if not penned--by Paul Krugman in the New York Times:

"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."
   


Avatar image for thatpinguino
thatpinguino

2988

Forum Posts

602

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By thatpinguino  Staff
@DrMadHatten:  I can agree that some of their madness was a result of the warping effects of Adam but Tenenbaum was damaged before she invented Adam and she wasn't using it when she decided that it was okay to implant a slug into the stomach of a host to produce more.  Also, Cohen's critiques all had a level of self obsession and egomania that act as a warning sign, pointing out what he would later become.  Would these people have gone as crazy without the influence of Adam? I think not.  But i feel that even without this super material the society would have collapsed; the clashing of these egos would have happened in one way or another.
Avatar image for drmadhatten
drmadhatten

139

Forum Posts

15

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

Edited By drmadhatten
@thatpinguino:  I think that makes for interesting set pieces in Bioshock, but I don't think it relates to Ayn Rand's philosophy. She agreed to a minimalist form of police protection as a means to protect people's rights, much like early America. I think with people going insane it just shows a lack of oversight into the protection of the rights people left for Rapture to obtain. Or it was from bad parenting, or just a stereotype of all geniuses being crazy. In any case, I would have to say all these people lost their minds when the tools they had were technologically so far advanced, but the social structure of Rapture was falling apart, so to me it was late in the time line. There are audio recordings of Cohen critiquing other composers and artists normally and their are recordings of Steinman discussing Adam as a tool for plastic surgery in a sense. I mean I totally agree they went way out of line later, but to me it was later.
Avatar image for penguindust
penguindust

13129

Forum Posts

22

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By penguindust

That was pretty cool.  I learned a few new things and saw the game in a clearer light.  Thanks.

Avatar image for cirdain
Cirdain

3796

Forum Posts

1645

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 6

Edited By Cirdain

I <3 Giant Bomb

Avatar image for hard
hard

4

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By hard


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

 

 

Avatar image for thatpinguino
thatpinguino

2988

Forum Posts

602

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By thatpinguino  Staff
@hard:  The problem with your analysis of the story of Bioshock is that it does not take into account the cracks that Rapture was showing without Fontaine's meddling.  Several of Ryan's associates were ego maniacal madmen who would have destroyed Rapture if Fontaine hadn't.  Cohen, Tenenbaum, and Steiman are all examples of geniuses whose freedom allowed them to cause horrible atrocities.  Tenenbaum experimented on human beings.  Steinman buchered his patients in the name of his own idea of beauty.  Cohen was an artist who worked in the medium of arranged corpses.  I mean even without Fontain those loonies were going to destroy Rapture.  Fontaine is just one of the symptoms of Rapture's decay that Bioshock presents.
Avatar image for hard
hard

4

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By hard

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.
Avatar image for beej
beej

1675

Forum Posts

417

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By beej
@DrMadHatten:  To return to the critiques that have been adequately presented already let's talk about why you can't have a purely self motivated view and insist that you aren't infringing on others (this is outside of the fact that rands view doesn't work in society). The fact remains that we live in a world where historical inequities still exist, and they routinely determine someones lot in life. These are the lower class or the minorities of the world or the "parasites" as Rand might like to call them. We allow for an oppressive past circumstance to continue to oppress people and help reify it when we engage in self motivated profit maximizing activity. Infringement on others is inherent to the objectivist view because you can't proclaim that your actions ever really exist outside of their repercussions upon other people.

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.
Avatar image for thatpinguino
thatpinguino

2988

Forum Posts

602

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By thatpinguino  Staff

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. 

Avatar image for leebmx
leebmx

2346

Forum Posts

61

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By leebmx
@Ubik said:

" @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 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.
Avatar image for drmadhatten
drmadhatten

139

Forum Posts

15

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

Edited By drmadhatten

 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.

Avatar image for gaff
Gaff

2768

Forum Posts

120

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By Gaff
@DrMadHatten said:
" 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.
Avatar image for drmadhatten
drmadhatten

139

Forum Posts

15

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

Edited By drmadhatten

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.

Avatar image for ubik
Ubik

133

Forum Posts

61

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By Ubik
@TheDudeOfGaming said:
" @Ubik said:


My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

  1. Reality exists as an objectiveabsolute —facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
"
Well f***, you just know a dude f***ed her and never called her back...well,except the last part. "
Among other things, Ayn Rand suffered from a wicked case of bitter bush.
Avatar image for synaptic
Synaptic

313

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Synaptic

Good thoughts.

Avatar image for privateirontfu
PrivateIronTFU

3858

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By PrivateIronTFU

Good read.


That movie looks boring as all hell, though. I think I'll trust the critics and stay away.
Avatar image for thedudeofgaming
TheDudeOfGaming

6115

Forum Posts

47173

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 1

Edited By TheDudeOfGaming
@Ubik said:


My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

  1. Reality exists as an objectiveabsolute —facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
"
Well f***, you just know a dude f***ed her and never called her back...well,except the last part.
Avatar image for ubik
Ubik

133

Forum Posts

61

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By Ubik
@Korolev: Wow, great post.  You just did a better  and more thorough job commenting on my blog than I did in writing it.  
Avatar image for beej
beej

1675

Forum Posts

417

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By beej
@Korolev: Don't forget that many of the "small government" advocates are pulling in a bunch of money from farming subsidies.
Avatar image for korolev
korolev

1800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 8

Edited By korolev

The main problem with Objectivism is due to the fact that it does not take into account human nature (which is exactly the same problem they communists made). Humans are selfish. But we are not entirely selfish. Co-operation does create strength and society is necessary for the advancement of humanity.
If you read Rand's books, you'll find that the heroes super-human industrialists who do everything by themselves, who need no help, and who barely behave like human beings, while the Villains are ludicrous straw-men who also don't act like real human beings. It's not much of a surprise that she chose to highlight her philosophy primarily with fictional works, because it doesn't stack up in the real world. 

Look, here are some reasons that her philosophy, while nobly intentioned, falls apart:

1) Humans need each other. Yes, yes, we've all heard of the "lone genius" inventor or scientist, but even they had help. Newton might have developed Calculus, but he first had to be educated and fed in order to do so. He himself said that he stood on the shoulders of giants. If you live in a modern day society, I'm sorry, but you COULDN'T  honestly say that your achievements are yours and yours alone. I don't care how successful you are, you only got here on the merits of those who came before. We ALL did. You owe society, whether you like it or not. Unless you march yourself out into the forest at the age of 18 and ONLY use tech YOU MADE YOURSELF, then you aren't a "self-made" man or woman. And I don't know if you work in science, but it's a communal process. VERY few discoveries are made by one man or woman working "against the odds". The vast, vast, vast, vast, VAST majority of scientific papers are published BY GROUPS of people working TOGETHER, SHARING equipment and resources and knowledge and time. Don't believe me? Read some papers on PubMed, why don't you?
2) Business people can also be jerks. In Rand's books, her inventors aren't just ludicrously intelligent super-beings who invent everything literally by themselves (which is so stupid I can't begin to tell you what's wrong with that picture. Even Einstein collaborated with others), but they are also incredibly noble, "never-do-anything-bad, never-break-the-laws" sorts of people, and I've got to tell you if YOU think that's an accurate reflection on the morals of a business person you're stupid. Business people would eat you alive if they stood to gain a profit from it. Yes, the government can be bad - but SO CAN BUSINESS FOLKS! In Australia, there was this court case in which an American company told its Australian workers to continue using Asbestos despite the fact that they KNEW (and it was proven in court that they knew) it was extremely dangerous. Lo, and behold: Many of them died and many still suffer from crippling illness. The workers fought like HELL to get compensation from the company, whose justification was "it helped us save money!". Realize, please, that companies can be jerks. Companies can be evil - just look at BAE systems who managed to get a government corruption investigation stopped because of its clout! Or what about lovable, wholesome Enron? Companies NEED to be regulated. You're a fool if you put your trust in government. But you're a bigger fool if you put your trust in businessmen who openly admit that they don't give a shit about you, and who don't answer to you.
3) At some level we ALL work for our own self-interest. Rand just didn't recognize any other kind of self-interest above obtaining power. She couldn't visualize that there could be other kinds of drives and goals. For example, as a scientist, MY interest lies in discovery and exploration and the development of technology that benefits all of humanity. I couldn't give two-hoots about collecting money and power. Rand probably couldn't understand me - my emotions and goals were probably foreign to her in the extreme. Or what about a family man who wants what's best for his children? Or what about a doctor who genuinely likes helping people for little pay? Rand saw self-interest has purely a selfish thing, when in fact, there are many forms of interest and many different types of goals. 
4) You need government. Business folk are always screaming on and on about how it's wrong and it's awful to give assistance to the poor, yet they quickly shut up when the government gives assistance to them. Many conservatives cry out for "Small government!" and "Starve the beast!" and "No to Socialism!", yet you try to cut a dollar from the immensely bloated defence budget, and they'll scream bloody murder. You try to take away money from weapons development research that goes on in government labs and they'll cry that you're cutting necessary jobs! You try to dismantle the MIND-BOGGLINGLY HUGE and INEFFICIENT Government departments which manage the military and they'll accuse you of being a yellow-bellied dove-loving coward! On one hand you cry out for small government, yet on the other, you'll fight to death to stop any reduction in government. You say "Socialized medicine is POISON!", yet have no trouble at all with Socialized Schools (i.e public schools), socialized fire brigades (i.e public fire service) or "socialized libraries" (i.e public libraries). Maybe that's the trick - just call the health care act the "Public health care act" and suddenly all opposition will disappear! The Government of the US takes care of so many things and believe me, you'd miss it if it suddenly did go away as you say you want it to.
5) You know what? You don't want to pay taxes and put up with the "Moochers?" Well, folks, it's called the woods. Go live there. Go live in the jungle. Go live off by yourself on an island. You live in society. You depend on society just as much as everyone else. What's that? You say you don't? You say you don't owe anything to anyone? Okay then! Then the rest of us can say we owe nothing to you! So, if you call yourself an objectivist, I want you to put up a sign on your door, saying "No Public Fire Brigade for me thanks! No Ambulance for me, thanks!". We'll make a deal - you don't have to pay taxes, and the rest of us can drop you like a sack of potatoes!

EDIT: And you know what? I'm going to list the achievements of government sponsored research:

1) Modern Radar
2) Nuclear Power
3) GPS
4) Satellite technology
5) Pretty much all modern rocket technology
6) The Human Genome Project (I am aware that Venter had a parallel project running alongside the sponsored one, but it used government techology and info)
7) The first computers

And countless, COUNTLESS research projects funded by the government. As anyone who is even remotely connected to science will tell you, most of the big discoveries come out of universities with GOVERNMENT FUNDING. Corporations make discoveries too, but mostly they just refine technology. Companies still don't truly understand research - they are unwilling to put money into what they call "Pie-in-the-sky" research or research that doesn't yield any immediate monetary reward, yet it is precisely that "pie-in-the-sky" research that generates the most advanced technology!  Many of the biggest discoveries were made by accident or as a side-benefit of research that many business people dismissed as worthless and wouldn't fund! 

Ayn Rand wasn't a scientist, and it shows. She knew nothing about genuine science and research. 

Avatar image for sethphotopoulos
SethPhotopoulos

5777

Forum Posts

3465

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 8

Edited By SethPhotopoulos

I didn't know Atlas Shrugged Part One was popular enough to be noticed.

Avatar image for beej
beej

1675

Forum Posts

417

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By beej
@HandsomeDead: Perhaps Rands philosophy about people being parasites unless they contributed to society in a meaningful way places and unwarranted ad hominem attack upon most people, and it completely glosses over the ties of mutuality that we all enjoy as members of society. The society she enjoys is founded upon all of us being willing to cooperate, any philosophy that allows for the continued oppression of groups based off of circumstances out of their control (In Rands terms is Africa a shithole because it is made up of parasites? Or perhaps its the absolute buttfucking it received, and continues to receive at the hands of the western world). People suffer based on arbitrary past injustices, Rand spouts a philosophy that would not only further magnify them but also justify and encourage the exploitation of these injustices. In short she's being a fucking bitch.
Or maybe it's the blatant hypocrisy involved in her using a government funded socialistic health program to pay for her lung cancer surgery.
I could go on and on about how stupid objectivism is. But I feel as though I've given you a taste
Avatar image for ubik
Ubik

133

Forum Posts

61

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By Ubik
@ArbitraryWater said:
" While there are certainly philosophies that I find to be distasteful, I just kind of laugh at Ayn Rand's stuff. She's so nuts in so many ways, as are the people who are way into her philosophy. Bioshock does a great job of acting as a criticism of Objectivism and it's a pity the shooting isn't better. "
True, on both counts.
Avatar image for ubik
Ubik

133

Forum Posts

61

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By Ubik
@DetectiveSpecial said:
" Very well written, man. I have always been amazed that Rand has been able to get a foot in the door of the philosophy community (according to some), considering that the essence of her philosophical method comes from egoism. She focused her rhetoric to include a specific economic system and didn't dwell on the contractual aspects of it, but it is essentially a modern reworking of a fairly well known philosophical and moral theory.

I don't mean to offend anyone who loves Rand, but I find that people who attach themselves to her philosophy don't seem to have a lot of knowledge of previous (and some might argue real) philosophers. 
Thomas Hobbes was an ethical egoist, and once could argue that Andrew Ryan provided the role of the Leviathan in Rapture.

Sorry. I really don't like Ayn Rand. 

"
Nice pull!  It's not every day you see a Leviathan reference around here.  I feel like Ayn Rand must have directly commented on social contract theory somewhere in her long-winded diatribes, but I'll be damned if I can find any mention of it from her.  I've either overlooking something very obvious or she certainly was.

 Boy, this got pretty heady real fast.  Now I feel like I should throw a raunchy boob joke in this thread just to keep our noses from pointing sharply skyward.  Instead, I thought you might appreciate this:

No Caption Provided
Avatar image for arbitrarywater
ArbitraryWater

16103

Forum Posts

5585

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 66

Edited By ArbitraryWater

While there are certainly philosophies that I find to be distasteful, I just kind of laugh at Ayn Rand's stuff. She's so nuts in so many ways, as are the people who are way into her philosophy. Bioshock does a great job of acting as a criticism of Objectivism and it's a pity the shooting isn't better.

Avatar image for detectivespecial
DetectiveSpecial

472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By DetectiveSpecial

Very well written, man. I have always been amazed that Rand has been able to get a foot in the door of the philosophy community (according to some), considering that the essence of her philosophical method comes from egoism. She focused her rhetoric to include a specific economic system and didn't dwell on the contractual aspects of it, but it is essentially a modern reworking of a fairly well known philosophical and moral theory.


I don't mean to offend anyone who loves Rand, but I find that people who attach themselves to her philosophy don't seem to have a lot of knowledge of previous (and some might argue real) philosophers. 
Thomas Hobbes was an ethical egoist, and once could argue that Andrew Ryan provided the role of the Leviathan in Rapture.

Sorry. I really don't like Ayn Rand.