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!
The game will be out on PC as well as XBox 360.
As I stated above, the System Shock series is my favorite of all time, but we are all entitled to our own tastes. However I think you are being too dismissive of the plotline. Yes, it is about an individualistic society that fails, but the question is WHY that society fails. Is the fail portrayed as a consequence of individualism? Or is the failure a result of non-individualistic behaviour (i.e. the selflessness of second-handing in a desire to beat others)? How individualism is PORTRAYED could go either way, and that is what we should be concerned about.
Andy_X69 wrote: In the meantime, all comments here please!
In the meantime, all comments here please!
Mr Levine's Response!
.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