|
|
General Discussion
Started by Andy_X69 at 08-15-2006 1:29 PM. Topic has 8 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 08-15-2006, 1:29 PM
|
Andy_X69
Joined on 12-15-2005
Posts 75
|
BioShock: Ayn Rand influences computer gaming
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ironically-named Irrational Games is currently producing a game called BioShock, inspired by Objectivist philosophy. The plot is essentially about a genetic arms race that preciptates a civil war within a Galt's Gulch like community set at the bottom of the sea. Given that Irrational Games made my favorite game of all time, System Shock 2, Im looking foward to BioShock.
See details at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioshock
I recently sent the following to Irrational's Ken Levine (Creative Director of BioShock), asking for how he is portraying individualism in the game:
Mr Levine,
I would like to ask you about some of the deeper themes contained in the story for your studio's upcoming game Bioshock. Before I begin, allow me to state that I have been most impressed with your studio's previous work, indeed I am a very enthusiastic player of System Shock 2. However, I have been reading the information about Bioshock's storyline. The information I have was acquired from the IGN interview as well as the Bioshock Wikipedia page.
First, the influence of Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand, to which I generally subscribe) is quite apparrent (and applauded). However, Bioshock is not the only game of Irrational's to explore the theme of individualism versus collectivism. System Shock 2 did that as well (The Many representing collectivism). However, I must ask, I sincerely hope you are not presenting a strawman 'individualism'? Will you be treating individualism and Objectivism with more than just a scoff and dismissal? In many analyses of System Shock 2, it is claimed that SHODAN represents 'individualism', however I consider equating SHODAN with individualism to be a grave mistake. If The Many represent the sacrifice of self to the group (altruism), then SHODAN represents the sacrifice of the group to the self (predatory, Neitzschean 'selfishness'). Individualism, especially of the Randian variety, explicity opposes both alternatives. Allow me to quote Ayn Rand's introduction to "The Virtue of Selfishness,"
"In popular usage, the word 'selfishness' is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment"
"The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute... in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: a) that concern with one's own interests is evil, regardless of what these interests might be, and b) that the brutes activities are in fact to one's own interest."
In other words, the choice is not between The Many and SHODAN (i.e. the moral masochism of altruism or the moral sadism of the popular meaning of 'selfishness'). There is a third alternative, which is the self-supporting, independent person that neither sacrifices himself to others nor others to himself. Randian individualism supports this no-sacrifice proposition, on the grounds that the rational interests of people are in harmony. For example, its in no ones rational interests to have a massive civil war that kills almost everybody. Another example: being a lousy businessperson will destroy your reputation so over the long run, no one will trade with you. Therefore, being honest is in ones overall self-interest.
What I am hoping is that BioShock treats the theory of individualism with proper respect. It would be very disheartening if BioShock were to equate individualism with an endless desire to prove oneself superior to others (this being a form of conformist parasitism Rand referred to as Second-Handing), free-market capitalism with making profit as an end-in-itself, or advocate the fallacious notion that laissez-faire is a zero-sum game. As you are obviously aware, Objectivism is often assumed to be wrong, evil, or an engine of societal collapse and disintegration, regardless of the historical evidence in favor of many Objectivist-approved principles.
A glance of the plot summary on Wikipedia seems to indicate two possible angles: 1) The genetic arms race is a product of genuine individualism being changed into second-handing 'beat the other guy' (this being the more pro-individualist angle) or 2) the genetic arms race is an EXTENSION of genuine individualism (this being a strawman individualism as outlined above. If ones prime motive is to beat others, you arent being very individualist are you?).
My question to you is, which angle are you going to take?
Your answer is much appreciated,
Sincerely,
Andrew Russell
I will be posting Mr Levine's reply, assuming I get one. In the meantime, all comments here please!
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2006, 2:17 PM
|
Clarence Hardy
Joined on 01-09-2006
Posts 18
|
Re: BioShock: Ayn Rand influences computer gaming
|
|
|
|
|
|
I hope this comes out for the PC, I quit playing
console games since they canceled the Dreamcast. The premise certainly does sound interesting, I was never a fan
of the System Shock series but this looks interesting. As for the philosophical background, from
the Wikipedia article I’m not sure we should bother with it. The game looks based on an individualistic
society that fails so to me that seems to negate any serious Rand influence.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
08-18-2006, 6:44 PM
|
Andy_X69
Joined on 12-15-2005
Posts 75
|
Re: BioShock: Ayn Rand influences computer gaming
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-22-2006, 10:03 AM
|
Andy_X69
Joined on 12-15-2005
Posts 75
|
Re: BioShock: Ayn Rand influences computer gaming
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Levine's Response!
Andy, I saw your mail a while back and have not ignored it, just been trying to find the time to answer it. I've avoided getting too deep into Rand in interviews, because PC Gamer isn't exactly the best forum for an Objectivist discussion...
But here at TTLG, well that's a horse of a different color.
Let me say this first:
I'm no scholar of Rand. (or much for that matter).
I've read a bunch of her writing, and I find her to be a powerful and fearless thinker.
My own leanings trend libertarian, though for some reason (perhaps you can explain this to me), Rand had nothing but contempt for libertarians. Perhaps it's akin to the way I feel about people who like Genesis after Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett left the band. If I had to choose between SHODAN and the Many, I'd take SHODAN any day. I think the most appealing part of Rand to me is the celebration of the self and her daring challenge to altruism. Talk about swimming upstream in a Judeo-Christian society. But SHODAN (and perhaps Ryan, but I'm not gonna talk too much about BioShock story just yet) doesn't honor or respect greatness in others. And she needs others to recognize her glory. These seem to be two pretty large sins in Rand land. SHODAN also believes in violence in cases where she is not threatened with violence. Rand would hand this a thumbs down too. Lastly, SHODAN views herself as a God. Not a God of her own work, of her own realm, but a God because others should grant her fealty. Not something you'd expect to hear from Roark. You mention that: "she was, in the strictest sense of the word, an empiricist". It is where Rand is not an empiricist is where she starts to lose me. In the book of interviews with Rand ( http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Answe...e=UTF8&s=books) , when any facts contradict her philosophy (the treatment by western expansionist of native americans, for example) she dismisses some pretty empirical facts as "leftist propaganda". It's when she abandons logic for slavish and unquestioning adherence to ideology is when I remember why Galt was a fictional character and Ayn Rand was flesh and blood. But as I witness the rise of the state and in the last five years in my country, and the burgeoning of fundamentalism both here and abroad, I become more and more of an objectivist: invidual liberties, govt. staying out of business and religion, and non-interventionist. Which, quite perversely, has become much more of the position of the left. These changes have given me the impression that it's not any philosophy that's the danger. It's the extremes. The Stalins, the Bin Ladens, the neocons, the theocons, the Leninites, the Maoists. What have they ever really offered anyone of value? Is there a Galt among there number? Is there even an Andrew Ryan?
My Reply To Mr Levine
Mr Levine,
Sincerest thanks for your reply. Indeed, your reply gives me much more confidence that the material will be respected. I completely understand the fact you are extremely busy working on the new game and indeed Im delighted that you replied.
Quote:
My own leanings trend libertarian, though for some reason (perhaps you can explain this to me), Rand had nothing but contempt for libertarians.
Rand's own dislike of the libertarian movement was due to the fact she considered libertarians to be indifferent to philosophy. They want their liberty but they refuse to acknowlege the fact that you have to justify liberty. Rand also despised the anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard that were instrumental in the founding of modern libertarianism (or more correctly, the revival of Classical Liberalism (which Im sure you know was the original name of Libertarianism before the American Left hijacked it)). I think Rand was awfully judgmental in this instance, and the fact is that liberty can be justified by many different philosophies. Robert Nozick uses Kantianism (Kant being, according to Rand, the "most evil man in history"(!)), the Classical Liberals used Empiricism and Utilitarianism, some use Christianity, indeed libertarianism is a broad Church. Rand just was not fond of people that disagreed with her, even on the slightest details.
This is not a good attitude obviously, and The Objectivist Center goes a long way towards ending the stifling intellectual isolationism Rand and the orthodox Objectivists practice.
Quote:
If I had to choose between SHODAN and the Many, I'd take SHODAN any day. I think the most appealing part of Rand to me is the celebration of the self and her daring challenge to altruism. Talk about swimming upstream in a Judeo-Christian society.
I agree. Rand's ethics are without precedent in their explicit and total rejection of altruism and they are incredibly thrilling to read. I credit her philosophy with ressurrecting my self-esteem, but that is another story.
Quote:
But SHODAN (and perhaps Ryan, but I'm not gonna talk too much about BioShock story just yet) doesn't honor or respect greatness in others. And she needs others to recognize her glory. These seem to be two pretty large sins in Rand land. SHODAN also believes in violence in cases where she is not threatened with violence. Rand would hand this a thumbs down too.
Completely correct on all three counts Mr Levine. The first; a refusal to honor the good in others, is to lack the virtue of justice. The second; a need for the grovelling and subordination of others, is a form of psychological vampirism referred to as 'second-handing' (which is the opposite of the virtue of Independence). And the third is the classic initiation of force that all libertarians including Rand despise.
Quote:
Lastly, SHODAN views herself as a God. Not a God of her own work, of her own realm, but a God because others should grant her fealty. Not something you'd expect to hear from Roark.
Exactly. That would be second-hander psychological dependence on others; predatorial vampirism; something that Roark would never lower himself to.
Quote:
You mention that: "she was, in the strictest sense of the word, an empiricist". It is where Rand is not an empiricist is where she starts to lose me. In the book of interviews with Rand (
http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Answe...e=UTF8&s=books
) , when any facts contradict her philosophy (the treatment by western expansionist of native americans, for example) she dismisses some pretty empirical facts as "leftist propaganda". It's when she abandons logic for slavish and unquestioning adherence to ideology is when I remember why Galt was a fictional character and Ayn Rand was flesh and blood.
Ayn Rand was fallible, I do not deny that. Again, the open-system Objectivist scholarship is something that is much more rational and totally devoid of the dogmatism that Rand unfortunately fell in to.
Quote:
But as I witness the rise of the state and in the last five years in my country, and the burgeoning of fundamentalism both here and abroad, I become more and more of an objectivist: invidual liberties, govt. staying out of business and religion, and non-interventionist.
Which, quite perversely, has become much more of the position of the left.
These changes have given me the impression that it's not any philosophy that's the danger. It's the extremes. The Stalins, the Bin Ladens, the neocons, the theocons, the Leninites, the Maoists. What have they ever really offered anyone of value? Is there a Galt among there number? Is there even an Andrew Ryan?
All the ideologies you name are truly disgusting and are horrid dangers to the rights of humanity. Among their number, you will find SHODANS and Many's constantly; power-crazed vampires and collectivist brutes. The two go together very well. They are certainly extremes of sorts, in the sense that they are extremely consistent in holding to their ideas. However, it is not that they are consistent practicioners of their philosophy that is where their evil comes from, their evil stems from the fact that their philosophies are wrong.
If one is consistently correct (i.e. extremely correct) then that is not evil. Rand is not flawless, but certainly I find no other philosopher whose basic, fundamental ideas are as robust and consistent as hers.
If I were to do an Objectivist analysis of System Shock 2, I would explain the conflict of The Many versus SHODAN in terms of Rand's moral trichotomy: the standard false dichotomy of morality sees one having to choose to sacrifice yourself to others (The Many) versus having to sacrifice others to yourself (SHODAN). In System Shock 2, you reject both. Unfortunately, many people, especially those demanding more power to the state, cannot comprehend a third alternative, and declare SHODAN to embody 'individualism.' Hence, individualism is declared to be the sacrifice of others to self.
I am sure the fallacies of this are easily apparent to you. You may not be a Rand scholar but you certainly have an understanding of Rand that indicates you will not be strawmanning individualism. So as a result, I am most relieved and will be reporting the good news to The Objectivist Center. And of course I will be queing up on the release date to purchase the game.
Sincerest gratitude and best of luck with BioShock!
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
12-07-2008, 10:59 AM
|
Harod
Joined on 12-07-2008
Posts 1
|
Re: BioShock: Ayn Rand influences computer gaming
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the game does honor Atlas Shrugged wether it entended too or not....
Rapture was a incredible, private industry creation that was said could not be done and it was corrupted by beurocratic mafia types. The final boss (Fontiane) was poseing as Atlas and seized power by opening homeless shelters and arming them with weapons, creating his own domestic army...
This lead to the chaotic break down that makes society vulnerable to the Fontiane's of the world. So its the looters that brought down Rapture not free market capitalism. Even in fiction Rapture could not fail without Fontaine's plot to subvert it. And they did it with the same old tactics of creating crises to help the poor...
Its the same tactics that are bringing down America. The people poseing as public servants, who cant get the power they want honestly do so by wrecking the economy in the name of helping the poor and create a enviroment where Americans are turning to socialism and giving up liberty...
And now Obama wants a civilian security force equal to the US military but without the constitutional limitations. This will accomplish what 100 patriot acts could never accompish. For example during hurrucane Gustov Bush still could not deploy the military in Louisianna without the invitation of the governor. A civilain force will not have these limitations...
All we need now is fire breathing plasmids for the homeless..
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
07-26-2009, 3:01 AM
|
AndrosBlaze
Joined on 07-26-2009
Posts 5
|
Re: BioShock: Ayn Rand influences computer gaming
|
|
|
|
|
|
"To build a city at the bottom of the sea! Insanity. But where else could we be free of the clutching hand of the parasites? Where else could we build an economy they would not try to control, a society they would not try to destroy? It was not impossible to build Rapture at the bottom of the ocean: it was impossible to build it anywhere else."
What made BioShock the work of art that it is, for me, was the depth of story they included with the city itself. I was one of those gamers who went around to collect every audio diary, and read every bit of graffiti on the walls, but the way Andrew Ryan's character was treated as such a magnetic and powerful figure more than complemented the city. After all, Rapture was Ryan's creation, and in the face of that civilian army, and the ruthlessness of Fontaine, he resorted to some pretty brutal tactics himself to protect it.
There are marked differences, though, between the city of Rapture and a community built along the lines of Galt's Gulch: the primary difference being that Rapture allowed people such as Fontaine to exist and act as an agent of Rapture's fall, something that would never have happened in Galt's Gulch (because the population of Galt's Gulch was more carefully selected). Secondly, Rapture's philosophy, and the philosophy of Andrew Ryan, is built on the premise of individualism and capitalism, which culminates in the idea of the Great Chain of Industry; however, Andrew Ryan makes a point not to fetter his city with any laws except one, which simply prohibits association with the parasites on the surface (rather than the parasites that slipped into the city). As such, Rapture can be described politically as an anarcho-capitalist entity, rather than the republican/democratic entity that most objectivists (that I've seen) think best provides the mechanisms to protect their rights. There were no such protections in Rapture, and that, coupled with the strength of Fontaine's character, led to Rapture's fall to bloody civil war. The uniting vow that Galt's Gulch adhered to provides for the independence Ryan desired, as well as the punitive mechanism he needed, without resorting to prison camps, public executions, and mind-control.
That's my little commentary on BioShock's plot.
Before you make the comparison between Rapture and America, remember the fundamental differences between them: Rapture is (nearly) lawless, whereas America has laws, and institutes that ensure the enforcement of those laws. Rapture, once it began to degenerate into chaos, could not help but continue its fall without fundamentally altering its political structure (as happened). There is no such danger of reform in the American system (although, to be sure, we could do with significantly fewer laws). In Rapture, the people who pretended to champion the poor in order to gain power could do so with impunity. In America, the power is distributed and limited, though considerable.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
02-12-2010, 9:30 PM
|
cybrwurm
Joined on 02-13-2010
Posts 1
|
![Wink [;)]](/cs/emoticons/emotion-5.gif)
The 13th Muse Tavern
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
I know exactly how you feel, StreetBob570. I used to own a couple of Rand's books many years ago, but don't recall reading more than tiny bits and pieces from them. This is
because I was confused by the way she teaches philosophy. Philosophy via novels is quite different from philosophy via straight-up prose. Now I have no problem with 'rational self-interest' as such; how this is interpreted is another matter. But this Objectivism business IS a bit odd, as it seems to be something lifted whole from the ancient Greeks, polished off a bit, and then granted a fancy new and modern title. What the heck is that? ... Indeed the bulk of Ayn Rand's philosophy seems to be derived more or less straight from Epicurus. Now it's true that the Great Master may need some polishing for post-modern times, but I suspect that Ayn missed the mark on that ...
] cy previously say: well done, Sammael93. And what then is the significance of the 13th Muse Tavern?
.
Well, perhaps sam is busy with X-mas, or maybe he supposes the question irrelevant or otherwise unworthy; but is it so in fact?
.
"According to Greek mythology there are nine muse, goddesses who inspire artists, musicians, writers and poets ..." (A.O. Kime). The names of these nine muse are: Calliope (Epic Poetry) , Clio (History) , Erato (Love Poetry) , Euterpe (Music) , Melpomene (Tragedy) , Polyhymnia (Hymns) , Terpsichore (Dance) , Thaleia (Comedy) , Urania (Astronomy) .
.
"The Muses were brought to life to make the world disremember the evil and relieve the sorrows and to praise the gods ... Apollo was the main teacher of the Muses. They were usually accompanying him and the Graces on their strolls and loved singing and dancing on soft feet on laurel leaves, while Apollo was playing the lyre." -- from www.greek-gods.info
.
Party-babes, in other words. Now of these immortal daughters of heaven and earth, the true source of all art and science, it seems to me that Clio is the most important, Thaleia the most necessary, and Euterpe by far the most powerful. Would the good miss Rand agree with this assessment, eh? I'm thinking maybe not. If there were only *nine* muse, maybe 13 points toward two of them, #1 Calliope (Epic Poetry), and #3 Erato (Love Poetry). We all know of Ayn's love for huge massive novels full of drama and passion. So perhaps Epic-Love is the real driving force of her philosophy, it's true and eternal meaning ... What do you think? Are the muse somewhat relevant now perhaps?
.
You, my good cyber-friends, as excellent gamers, and as citizens of Rapture, wander about the place wasting people left, right, and center (they are warped and twisted people true, but still). Hey, did you know that there's at least one splicer that won't attack you on sight? (I think he's on the Fort Frolic map). All he does is mumble nonsense, and follow you around, and just be *really* annoying. So will you kill someone just for being annoying? Yes? And is there anything at all *rational* about such behavior? Anyway, you explore Rapture, and you impose your will as you go along from one misguided situation to the next ...
.
Is it a good will that drives you? Or an evil one? If you are saving the little-sisters instead of harvesting them, are you not empowered by Epic-Love? Does not your love for them, in and of itself, *justify* the war against Ryan and Fontaine? It certainly works for me. Rational self-interest, you say? Would it not be "more rational" to just harvest the little-sisters? You could even justify this by saying that you are simply putting them out of their misery; a form of enlightened euthanasia. Yes, but this could work only *IF* rational self-interest were your sole and chief motivation! So what exactly does 'rational self-interest' even mean when it is perfectly obvious that the only things worth fighting for, and dying for, are things that are necessarily *larger* than the individual self.
.
The problem with the so-called "great men" (such as Ryan and Fontaine) is not that they are ambitious, but rather that they are not ambitious enough. Why? Because they love the little things; the tiny things smaller than themselves that unduly magnify the size of the great man's ego. If they thus love themselves above all things, then they are truly small indeed. So it is only the big things in life by which we can get an accurate measure of our real size and worth as human beings. The individual, no matter how noble or well-intentioned, no matter how BIG, can never outweigh the value and meaning of others.
.
Lofty goals motivate individuals, yes. Lofty goals such as freedom, art, science, health, wealth, and power ... "Aren't peace and security worth fighting for? Worlds without
violence! Worlds in which reason rules!" (Doctor Amadiro, from 'Robots and Empire', Asimov, p.278) But these values are only important to the individual *insofar* as they can be *applied* to those around said person. Yes, it is very true that we are what we make ourselves into; but without friends, says the Good Guru Epicurus, we are nothing, and life is NOT worth living! Here then is the very essence of all criminal thinking: "I am bigger than all those around me."
.
Or perhaps it is the case that Ayn Rand is herself the 13th Muse
. . . The Muse of Philosophy as Art! The philosophical-muse, as it were ... :D
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Re: BioShock: Ayn Rand influences computer gaming
|
|
|
|