Re: 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.

I recently sent the following to Irrational's Ken Levine (Creative Director of BioShock), asking for how he is portraying individualism in the game:

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?).

I will be posting Mr Levine's reply, assuming I get one. In the meantime, all comments here please!

Re: BioShock: Ayn Rand influences computer gaming

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.

Re: BioShock: Ayn Rand influences computer gaming

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?

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:

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.

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!

Re: BioShock: Ayn Rand influences computer gaming

General Discussion

BioShock: Ayn Rand influences computer gaming