What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Napster(R) Gift Cards view!
bestbuygiftadvice.com - Best Buy Twelpforce(TM) Carolers wax ecstatic about the awesomeness of a pre-paid MP3 Napster gift card.
214 Comments
- whatthefu, on 02/16/2008, -4/+88I'm no fan of Objectivism, and I am fact very critical of it, but the fact that this article exists is alone a huge step for gaming. Bioshock is an example of gaming as an art form. Whether or not you take Ayn Rand, video games, or Bioshock itself seriously, the fact that a mainstream game is tackling ideas like this is huge.
- Sugoi, on 02/16/2008, -2/+51I didn't think it was really anti-objectivist. As both Levine himself and Brook state, the game is more about the dangers of absolute faith in any ideal, creed, or religion. When you stop questioning yourself, you stop thinking. Only when you think about something can you make a decision.
"A man chooses. A slave obeys."
The game encourages us to be curious. To seek out knowledge so that we can make informed decisions and be free in the truest sense of the word - free to make our own decisions and not be slaves to people or ideals. It is ultimately as much a criticism of fundamentalism or any other form of blind faith as it is one of Objectivism. - inactive, on 02/16/2008, -3/+46Would you kindly...
- jferraro, on 02/16/2008, -3/+32Yaron Brook the Ayn Rand Institute's president argues that there is such a think as a perfect man and in her books that may have been true, but Andrew Ryan is far from perfect in Bioshock. The city he built may have existed until an objectivist idea but the failure that was brought to it was because he was a faulted human.
- micro506, on 02/16/2008, -3/+26It's interesting (and a little surprising) that the game's "criticism" of objectivism is really based in Ryan's blind acceptance of the philosophy as a faith, and not the "easy target" of objectivist ethic (an altruistic life is inherently evil).
- Pewpewpew, on 02/16/2008, -7/+29Great read!
- Professr, on 02/16/2008, -1/+22Paperwork.
- Menchi, on 02/16/2008, -3/+23Objectivism goes far beyond just basic tenants of existence and the objective black/white-ness of morality. The greatest achievement of Rand's writing is the exaltation of humans' ability, and the freedom, to choose and reason.
Through this logic, I must disagree with any notion that Andrew Ryan is an objectivist, either in pretension or imitation. It's ridiculous to claim "oh he failed because he's not perfect." Objectivism does not demand perfection, it asks human beings to reason, to think and reflect using the best of his/her rationality. Andrew Ryan was fully aware of his actions and consequences, he simply chose to ignore their moral implications (quite obvious if you ask me). By throwing away his humanity [by choice] he has already violated the basic principles of rationality (and his ideals).
For those who have read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged, see the most glaring difference between Andrew Ryan and Howard Roark/Dagny Taggart. Roark and Taggart both had their work contaminated and abused by others, and their final choice was to "give up rather than give in," to destroy/abandon their work (Cortlandt and Taggart Trans.) rather than let it be used by immoral men. Andrew Ryan, by tolerating the clearly irrational and immoral motives in his own experiments and the actions of others, had basically granted sanction to the evil that was ultimated used to kill him. - h4mx0r, on 02/16/2008, -0/+20A man chooses... A slave obeys...
- oblivionatm, on 02/16/2008, -4/+22Yeah, John Galt's plans were almost completely destroyed because of a basic human emotion, love. So Rand didn't expect her characters to be perfect. Not to mention that Eddie Willers, a fundamentally good character (what Rand would call a Man of the Mind) was left to destruction because he hesitated to accept the moral righteousness of Galt. Something which the main character did the entire book and she managed to escape Scot-free. So Rand had a very complex ideal of what man was supposed to do in society. She didn't believe in the clear-cut black and white circumstances that the article references.
- SpykerSpeed, on 02/16/2008, -1/+18It's definitely better than the article a while back saying Portal was a feminist masterstroke.
- dualityim, on 02/16/2008, -5/+21Any moral philosophy that starts with an idealistic standpoint (i.e. the notion that some men are perfect) rather than with a pragmatist standpoint are doomed to failure when tested with reality.
Sometimes it's funny to observe the sincerity with which people hold onto ridiculous notions. - DFENS, on 02/16/2008, -1/+16That's my thoughts as well, Sugo. I actually think the game os ambivalent towards Objectivism, instead pushing the story down a path where the direct cause of a the cities downfall can't be simply found. Was it Ryan or 'Atlas' who destroyed the city? A good argument can be made for either. And I think that's the point. Making you debate that. Then again, most gamers are solipsists who care not for anyone elses opinions. So I expect to be dugg down.
Still - Bioshock was powerful as hell. - whalt, on 02/16/2008, -1/+14By your definition many people who agree with very little of Ayn Rand's philosophy, myself included, would be considered objectivists.
- jdconn01, on 02/16/2008, -0/+12...pick up a crowbar or something.
- Rfriaz, on 02/16/2008, -2/+13I vigorously agree; this is the first time in at least the last twenty years that a philosophical idea (I'm not counting every time a film critic spots 'existential threads' in a movie) has been put forth so appealingly. My hope is that this pushes the door open a bit more for the examination of different ideas apart of Rand and the Existentialists.
Maybe Duke Nukem Forever will deal with Deconstructionist themes‽ - MaTT2011, on 02/16/2008, -2/+13While i do agree that its a great idea to combine philosophy and gaming I just don't think that Bioshock REALLY gets into any kind of philosophy in a remotely philosophical sense. As the article points out at one point that the game itself portrays the philosophies its saying as, "bad" without really understanding them, summarizing them or applying them correctly. Theres a shell, a basic facade, of some very basic philosophical concepts , mainly Ayn Rands, but its just too basic and unrepresentative of the works its derived from. But hey, its a video game and we shouldnt really expect it to do anything much more than that. But this talk of how "philosophical" BioShock is is just, in my view, incorrect.
Its like they looked up the cliff notes of Ayn Rands philosophy, got the basic one line summary, and then went about building a completely inaccurate representation of it in the game world in order to attack it, a straw man argument if you will. But it is a step in the right direction, at least its SOMETHING more than space marines and explosions. But after the first level it just kind of fizzles and fades away almost entirely. Ayn Rands big thing was being a self sufficient individual that was able to fulfill oneself and maximize ones own potential doing what one loves without the need to manipulate outside elements to make oneself "happy", but that gets translated into building a friggin-underwater city and bio-chemical drug like artificial evolution? Huh? - Menchi, on 02/16/2008, -4/+14Please spell their names correctly (Taggart and Rearden) :). Please keep in mind that Ayn Rand grew up in Soviet Russia, where the extreme anti-capitalistic propaganda likely made her reactionary writing a bit (well...a lot actually) of a radical edge. I do not believe that Ayn Rand was very well versed in environmental studies, so I have no doubt that she made some judgmental errors about how to use environmental resources. Case in point - Rand liked smoking, but back then smoking was very much acceptable and the negative effects were not well-publicized, so she'll probably take a different stance today with our more substantial research.
She's not anti-science at all. She's very pro-science, but only science funded by those who voluntarily gave their money. Do you think it's proper that our tax money goes to research for deadly gases and weapons of mass destruction? Wouldn't you rather have the choice of giving those money to AIDS research institutes? As for diversity - what is diversity today? We emphasize the need to understand minorities and respect everyone's ideas (as long as they are not clearly immoral/detrimental), culture, etc. But remember "everyone" is literally made up of "every one" i.e. every individual. How can we hold respect for everyone if you cannot respect the rights and mind of one single individual (the basic tenant of individualism)?
Rand is also extremely pro-education. She wants people to be informed, she would never advocate the destruction of all books/media/writing that's not objectivist since an uninformed person is precisely what she rejects. Rand is just telling you "see everything around you, examine them with your mind, and judge for yourself - and prepare to be judged by others." - Roguecop, on 02/16/2008, -9/+19I'm about 300 pages into Atlas Shrugged. Though I see the value of individualism, as in separation from the hive mentality. I despise the anti-altruistic aspects of Rand's ideology. It isn't just anti-altruism its just purely neo-conservative like, myopic selfishness. At one point Hank Reardon and Dagny Tagert drive off for a holiday down a country road and instead of enjoying the pristine nature around them they complain that there aren't any billboards on the road they are driving on. Dagny comments: 'Some people think that billboards are a terrible thing, that they disrupt the landscape. I hate these people the worst!' What the hell is Ayn Rand selling here? I was really believing in Tagert and Reardon and their struggles against a communistic threat. Then you realize that they are 50's versions of neo-con *****. The whole anti-socialist dogma is overt and lacking is subtlety much like modern neo-conservative propaganda .
Some Objectivities say that Ayn Rand would be anti-fascist, as well, if she lived today. I doubt that. I believe she would be an anti-science, anti-environment, anti-diversity and culture, anti-education gas bag not unlike Ann Coulter and her ilk albeit a lot smarter. As a proper Centrist I reject Objectivism out right as an excuse for bad behavior. - Evolutuon, on 02/16/2008, -10/+19Andrew Ryan ~ Ayn Rand heh clever
- Menchi, on 02/16/2008, -1/+10It does not demand perfection. No moral code can demand perfection. Objectivism exalts freedom and men's right to exist, neither of which requires perfection to achieve. It is completely possible to live a rational, objectivist life in a irrational world (for more information please check out "How does one lead a rational life in an irrational society" from the book "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand). Ayn Rand had no illusions about a perfect society, that's why she specifically indicated that there must be a governmental institution to protect people from criminals (i.e. government may use force only in retaliation against those who initiate the use of force). Rand is a huge critic of powerful central governments (but just as strong critic of anarchy) and extremely anticommunist - in fact her entire philosophy strongly opposes any sort of collectivist approach.
- Menchi, on 02/16/2008, -1/+10Once you finish the book you will realize that in fact carbon emission is one of the concerns amongst the characters (it will be covered by John Galt's invention). Also, I'd like to reiterate that Rand does not promote just "self-interest" but "rational self-interest." Is funding counter global warming efforts rational? I'm sure those multibillionaires have access to Google and can check out the facts for themselves. Please don't say "Oh but it's rational because it saves them more money" - that's the definition of "selfishness" as provided the altruists. You cannot have any claim on rationality when you shut your eyes to the real world.
"Do as thy will" is not objective. It is subjective. A subjectivist says "morality is subjective, it is completely up to the person." Yes, in a literal sense it is up to the person to proclaim what is moral or acceptable, but simply saying it to yourself (and others) does not make it true. However, if you use reason and apply it correctly to your current situation, you will likely arrive at the rational decision - it may be different from someone else's, but unless you can read minds or see the future it's pretty much the best that you can do.
Rand does not oppose cultural growth, she has no problem if people want to study and preserve history and tradition - as knowledge and facts, not as some sort of arbitrary rule that people must cling to. Rand's argument is precisely that pure capitalist pursuits (it must be pure in intention as well, destroying competition using frivolous lawsuits or blackmail can hardly count as "pure") can in fact coexist with pursuit of knowledge and understanding - but understanding does not imply acceptance. You can understand why someone would rob a store (he may be desperately hungry) but that does not mean you should condone it. Again, using just normal logic: there is no conflict between education and rational self-interest - precisely because you cannot pursue rational self-interest without being educated - case in point: you cannot setup a successful business without understanding the laws and environment of the business world and the people involved in it (good and bad).
I have no idea where the "fully 2/3rds of the worlds population would not exist at all" comes from or what kind of logic would lead you to believe that.
Rational balance seems to be a rather contradictory term. Rational balance of...what? Good and evil? (must we have 1 criminal for every innocent) hunger and satisfaction? Tyranny and freedom? See that the word "balance" without context is meaningless. Ayn Rand does ask people to disengage from their beliefs - the belief that people are born good or bad, the belief that there's a heaven that will justify whatever your actions take, the belief that you can have your cake and eat it too. But you cannot, absolutely cannot disengage from your mental processes - this is precisely the kind of action that allowed atrocities to be committed. When people stopped asking "why does my government do this" and "why should I feel x way about y" - that's when the world has fallen to the clutches of the unscrupulous.
Ayn Rand was indeed very much influenced by her past, but that's mostly just shaping her style. Her philosophy is deeply rooted in pure rationalism and individualism, two ideals founded long before communism came to being. - totorototoro, on 02/16/2008, -0/+9Eddie also didn't have the body Dagny did :p
- Zarokima, on 02/16/2008, -0/+8Not only that, but it makes you question yourself as well. After Ryan goes down and you learn "something" it, for me, brought up the question of whether I'm really going about things as I want and see fit, or if I'm letting myself be influenced too much and lacking in goals and ideas that are truly my own.
Once again, it goes back to those powerful words: "A man chooses. A slave obeys." - homesickalien, on 02/16/2008, -9/+17I spend more time playing video games than reading books, so I wasn't familiar with the term "Objectivism." Here's a definition for all my knuckle dragging comrades.
Objectivism - One of several doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events.
Turns out I'm an objectivist myself and didn't even know it. A very well written article BTW. I'd love to read more video game articles written like this. Bravo Brian Crecente! - Menchi, on 02/16/2008, -3/+11The only word I see that someone with basic middle school education may not know is "myopic."
- justpickone9990, on 02/16/2008, -5/+13A very petty and common misconception, the real quarrels an individual should have with the philosophy would require a much greater understanding of it, which your superficial reaction against it most certainly indicates that you have not.
- thirdeyeopen, on 02/16/2008, -2/+9Care to elaborate? Or just lash out with assertions like a moron
- GawtMilk, on 02/16/2008, -1/+8So because a piece of work doesn't follow all laws defined by a genre, it's not acceptable? It's influenced by Objectivism. Obviously BioShock is an example of a "fallen city". It's not supposed to be a textbook example of Objectivism.
- DFENS, on 02/16/2008, -2/+9Hey look - someone else who's read her books and took what I did out of them! Want to bet everyone else here who's rallying on about objectivism got their info from wikipedia? :)
Good call on the Eddie Willers. I found him to be a very ideal showing of how normal men should behave in Soeciety, and it certainly wasn't black and white. - justpickone9990, on 02/16/2008, -0/+7No, he couldn't. In no fashion whatsoever.
- tightscrummy, on 02/16/2008, -1/+8You've got the wrong definition. You want the Ayn Rand flim-flam one. From wikipedia:
Objectivism holds that there is mind-independent reality; that individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings gain objective knowledge from perception by measurement, and form valid concepts by measurement omission; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or "rational self-interest"; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure, consensual laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform abstract knowledge, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and respond to with the whole of one's consciousness.[4] - Menchi, on 02/16/2008, -3/+10Well. If you rely on a website to dictate to you what Objectivism really supports and rejects, I'm afraid you won't even come close to touching the real concepts. Rand presented her ideas, and there's no doubt that there are many people who misinterpret them, or at least do not put enough thought before marching in under the self-proclaimed Objectivist banner.
I do not understand what you mean by "undeserved selfishness." What is deserved selfishness? And Rand never rejected compassion for others, she simply rejected undeserved compassion for others (e.g. the often heard claim that "We should all just love each other" without thinking what the consequence is if we "love" pedophiles, thugs, and unscrupulous politicians.)
I think way too many people have interpret Objectivism as something that Rand tries to shove down everyone's throat. Rand presented her ideals in the best, most clear way she could and it's up to you as an individual to take it or leave it. Furthermore, there's no particular "set" of Objective morals. Objective morals are what you, as an individual, judge based on your own knowledge and values. If you don't value, say, punk music and do not wish to support it in any shape or form - fine. But that's not saying that it's immoral for someone else to enjoy it. - PeppermintPig, on 02/16/2008, -3/+9Is this the poopy head mud-slinging that you were railing against just a moment ago? It seems that you create the "Objectivist" debate that suits your method of arguing and use that as a reference in future posts to justify why you hate it. Why is an individual's particular 'class' an inhibitor to appreciating freedom of choice? You're creating stereotypes, insulting others, and ignoring the ACTUAL merits of debate.
- Menchi, on 02/16/2008, -2/+8Hmmm, well I thought John Galt's 3 hours speech did a good job of explaining it. Human civilization has been subjugated for so long under those who hate individualism. Just look at almost any religion.
But if you're asking for why our current society rejects Objectivism so vehemently, that's probably because of Ayn Rand's extremely scathing writing and the whole "take it or leave it" attitude. Most people don't like it when you tell them that there's black and white in morality, that it is in fact NOT okay to compromise with evil sometimes, (and here's a biggie) that laissez-faire capitalism is the only way to go =) - SharkyTech, on 02/16/2008, -1/+7Limits != Flaws
- loki49152, on 02/16/2008, -0/+6"Ayn Rand is a plight on intellectualism."
Way to start off a rant by completely misusing a word. - cptshamrock, on 02/16/2008, -0/+6I think its not really anti-objectivist but more along the lines of what simple thing can destroy a seemingly perfect place. In this case it was the black market created by the law forbidding contact with the surface. I think the game did a great job of show casing the positive aspects of the philosophy such as rapid advancement in nearly every science , art, and industry.
- appleseed1234, on 02/16/2008, -2/+8Thank you.
- justpickone9990, on 02/16/2008, -1/+6What a loaded question. State your premises, or rather, ask a sensible question if you wish to receive a sensible answer.
- Menchi, on 02/16/2008, -0/+5But it DOES take in account of other people - by choice. It doesn't say that you MUST behave a certain way toward a certain group of people, it just wants you to evaluate using your best judgment. For example: we can't automatically assume that every poor person deserves a blanket, that every scientist is truthful, that every religious man is pure. However, it's completely moral to help a poor person that you care about, to support a scientist, to love your husband/wife - even to the point of giving up your own life for that person.
Let me just close by reiterate that it does not give some sort of magic formula or "enlightenment." Reason and logic have been there since the start of humanity and they are just tools for humans to form values, to judge, and to take action. There's no condolence of social degeneracy or selfish actions that infringe the rights of others (Objectivism is VERY different from Nietzsche's philosophy). - Menchi, on 02/16/2008, -1/+6"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." - Ayn Rand
I would recommend reading Atlas Shrugged for a better explanation. It's unlikely to find a good answer to such a complicated philosophical question if you're relying on Digg comments. - Rikushix, on 02/16/2008, -2/+7I support Objectivism. Yes, it has flaws. Yes, Ayn Rand can be dogmatic.
But good god, the stereotyping comments here are driving me crazy. "Because you support objectivism, you have no sense of charity for any fellow human being and you are a heartless soul!" Christ. That's not what Objectivism's about. I wholeheartedly support people reading an Ayn Rand book even if they disagree with it, but coming on here just to toot your own horn about how you think Objectivists are without any moral character whatsoever and you "***** hate them" just makes you look immature and unlearned. - R0ck3t33r, on 02/16/2008, -3/+8BioShock is easily the best videogame ever made for reasons too numerous to go into right now. I'm not ashamed to say it. And it's amazing how much more you get out of it after you've read The Fountainhead. I've yet to read Atlas Shrugged, but it's next on my list.
- thirdeyeopen, on 02/16/2008, -3/+8After reading Atlas Shrugged, I'm pretty sure I'm an Objectivist, I would like someone to tell me, why is this not a widely agreed with philosophy?
Please no 'because its retarded' or ' Objectivists are *****' - h4mx0r, on 02/16/2008, -1/+6It just so happens that we just began Ayn Rand's Anthem in English class a couple days ago. Interesting topic, now that I can begin to understand it.
- ReadItAndWeep, on 02/16/2008, -2/+7Because most philosophy and humanities departments are run by socialists and post modernists. I'm not kidding or exaggerating either. Socialism may be passe in the real world, but it is still a dominant philosophy inside the ivory tower.
- Murrabbit, on 02/16/2008, -3/+8No Gods or Kings, Fox only, Final Destination!
- pinkSocks, on 02/16/2008, -0/+5Maybe that's the part that Levine liked.
"I find a lot of positive in it. I find her notion of selfishness is very interesting, not living for the abrogation of others, believing in the individual man as the central powerful force in the world rather than a government or a supreme being..." - Menchi, on 02/16/2008, -1/+6So...let's all strive to be small and imperfect? There's no "special" group of people that Objectivism claims to be great and perfect, only specific individuals. It's your choice to be a coward or a hero, and that's completely independent of social, economic, cultural, racial, sexual, etc. status. Objectivism does NOT asks for perfection, nor does it expect it. It only expects the use of reason and one's best knowledge.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 214 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is