Bioshock, Objectivism, and me

[Escapefromwhatever]

Having just read The Fountainhead (sorry, first post, I don't know how to italicize here,if it is at all possible) for my A.P. Comp class, as well as having read Anthem in my sophomore year, I find Objectivism intriguing. I've never fully agreed with it, though I do find that it get some things right. However, the general coldness and indifference to society that it supports is something that I've never liked about it. I've been struggling to articulate my thoughts on Objectivism lately, until I played Bioshock for a few hours. Craving a critical reaction to Objectivism, I decided to rent Bioshock from my local Blockbuster. After experiencing the heavily immersive world of Rapture, observing the mental instability of the Splicers, and facing my first Big Daddy fight, I finally feel as if I am capable of writing a piece on Objectivism. With that said, here it is:


The most prominent flaw of Objectivism is that it denies the ignorance of humans. It is obvious through Rand's work that she believes that society is filled with plenty of stupid, inane, empty people, and yet she preaches to society that its members should be individuals. She tells these people that they're minds are the highest authority in their lives, and that they should only listen to themselves. Basically, she tells stupid people that they are special. One does not call stupid people special; one must call stupid people out on their own stupidity. Otherwise, the only result can be more of the same unhealthy, imperfect, and inadequate behavior.
She explains this philosophy rationally by starting of with a perfect character. Thought you could slip that past us, eh Ayn? At the beginning of The Fountainhead, Howard Roark already as all of the skills, knowledge, and personality necessary to get him though his life. According to Objectivism's standards, Howard starts off as a perfect man in the novel, and stays constant throughout. However, life does not work that way. Perhaps it is okay for Howard to listen to nobody but himself, but that is not the case for most people. People are born into the world ignorant of many, many things. The only way to fix this ignorance is through learning, either through experiencing something firsthand, or from being taught by others. As the world has far too much content for a single person to experience in one lifetime, much of our learning must come from others. That does not mean that we must automatically obey or blindly copy what we are taught, for we can still filter the facts and opinions we hear through our own minds in order to determine our personal morals and philosophy, but it does mean that we should at least listen to the opinions of others. If we do not do this, then we are doomed to ignorance, which leads to stupidity and imperfection.
Objectivism gets the second step right- encouraging people to follow their own interests and be their own people- but it fails in the rudimentary first step of life. If one encourages people who are ignorant or unlearned to follow their own self-interests, then those unlearned people may have respectable goals, but they have no means of accomplishing those goals. In order to get anywhere in life, people must first be willing to listen to the opinions of others, to understand thoughts that they may or may not disagree with, and to treat the people with which they converse with respect. If they do not do this, then society will be nothing but a gaggle of ignorant stupids- only this time, they will be self-righteous ignorant stupids.



Sorry for the wall of text, especially on my first post, but I'm interested to see what the impressively intelligent Escapist community thinks. Also, if my paragraph indents did not show up, can anybody tell me why? Thanks =D

 

[watchman 2353]

Objectivist since the 8th grade.

I feel that the point of the books is to empower those with the ability to think. In her world, those who do not give a service, don't get a service. It is capitalism. The idea is that it would be a situation of natural selection. It may seem cruel, yet it is no secret that humanity in the western world has eliminated selection, and it creates leaches. An objectivist world eliminates the leaches, so everyone is intelligent. It seems crule, because it is, yet it is necessary to allow us to prosper.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

Objectivist since the 8th grade.

I feel that the point of the books is to empower those with the ability to think. In her world, those who do not give a service, don't get a service. It is capitalism. The idea is that it would be a situation of natural selection. It may seem cruel, yet it is no secret that humanity in the western world has eliminated selection, and it creates leaches. An objectivist world eliminates the leaches, so everyone is intelligent. It seems crule, because it is, yet it is necessary to allow us to prosper.

Thanks for the speedy reply. Out of curiosity, what led you to become an Objectivist? Do you always agree with Rand, or does your opinion ever differ from hers? Do you feel as if you are breaking the tenants of Objectivism by subscribing to a predescribed philosophy made by somebody else?

Don't feel like you have to answer all of those, I'm just a curious person.

EDIT- Accidentaly posted the reply with just a qoute, and nothing written by me.

 

[watchman 2353]

Objectivist since the 8th grade.

Thanks for the speedy reply. Out of curiosity, what led you to become an Objectivist? Do you always agree with Rand, or does your opinion ever differ from hers? Do you feel as if you are breaking the tenants of Objectivism by subscribing to a predescribed philosophy made by somebody else?

I differ from her on some fronts. For one, I disagree with her on the ideas of abortion. She has a string of logic that she thought justified abortion, yet I am pro life. I have a different logic that I won't bore you with. Also, I do not believe I break Objectivism by believing it. The books point out the flaws of the obviously wrong. There isn't shame in believing in a correct idea, even if it is someone's idea other than mine.

Why I became one, I was referred to read The Fountainhead by a girl on my debate team. The team was abolished due to budget cuts, and I don't even remember her name, but the legacy stuck.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

On a side note, I've never liked the names of the different sides of the abortion argument. It seems like both sides picked something most people like in an effort to make themselves sound just and good. I like life, and I like choice, and don't think the names "pro-life" and "pro-choice" accurately reflect the argument. They should really refer to themselves as anti-abortion rights and pro-abortion rights. I'm "pro-choice" by the way, on the grounds that I, if I were a pregnant woman, would never get an abortion, but I think there are some circumstances, such as when giving birth would threaten the mother's life, where abortion would be proper, and just incase a situation like that occurs, abortion should be legal. I might support stricter restrictions on abortion though.

Hehe, did I just derail my own thread?

 

[TsunamiWombat]

The primary problem is objectivism completly ignores morality for self benefit. It is a completly self centered philosophy (sorry). One only need look at Bioshock to see this- little girls pumped full of drugs and sea fungus, everybodys a mutant, and the world is coming apart. When people only look out for number one and base all value on materialism, society crumbles.

Life can't be lived by a single philosphy or mantra, and objectivism is no exception. Human beings tend to take anything they get their hands on and take it to extremes, because MOAR IS BETTAR! In a purely objectivist world we'd be locked in the mentalities of the 50's, or the Cold Warrior era.

I also find it very ironic you use a Rorshach icon when Rorshach was written as an inditement of Objectivism.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

ANDREW RYAN WAS RIGHT

Until he met a golfclub.

 

[Alex_P]

The most prominent flaw of Objectivism is that it denies the ignorance of humans. It is obvious through Rand's work that she believes that society is filled with plenty of stupid, inane, empty people, and yet she preaches to society that its members should be individuals. She tells these people that they're minds are the highest authority in their lives, and that they should only listen to themselves. Basically, she tells stupid people that they are special. One does not call stupid people special; one must call stupid people out on their own stupidity. Otherwise, the only result can be more of the same unhealthy, imperfect, and inadequate behavior.

You left out the part about how "smart" people deceive themselves into thinking they're perfect rationalists who don't have deeply inculcated cultural beliefs influencing their every action.

-- Alex

 

[TsunamiWombat]

The most prominent flaw of Objectivism is that it denies the ignorance of humans. It is obvious through Rand's work that she believes that society is filled with plenty of stupid, inane, empty people, and yet she preaches to society that its members should be individuals. She tells these people that they're minds are the highest authority in their lives, and that they should only listen to themselves. Basically, she tells stupid people that they are special. One does not call stupid people special; one must call stupid people out on their own stupidity. Otherwise, the only result can be more of the same unhealthy, imperfect, and inadequate behavior.

You left out the part about how "smart" people deceive themselves into thinking they're perfect rationalists who don't have deeply inculcated cultural beliefs influencing their every action.

-- Alex

^ This as well.

 

[darthzew]

I believe that objectivism is better than communism (pretty much its opposite); but both are dangerous.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

I think that human's ignorance isn't really a factor to what they create, I'm personally a big fan of Rand's work, I've always felt that individualistic egoism was completely fine, Atlas Shrugged only made that a way better novel then what i could have written.

I was more trying to state that it seems as if she thinks that listening to the opinions and ideas of others, and using those ideas for one's own self-benefit, is immoral and destructive. She criticzizes those who incorporate the thoughts of others into their own personal philosophies as being parasitic "second-handers." In doing this I think she takes Objectivism a bit too far, as one does not have to mindlessly obey others, but should at least give the thoughts of others a fair shot. By doing this, somebody can still be original, by building onto the existing ideas of the world with their own realizations and inner thoughts, but also compensates for their own ignorance by learning from the experiences of others.

TDLR version: Objectivism is just too cold. "...only a fool plays it cool by making his world a little colder..."- The Beatles in "Hey Jude"

 

[jamesworkshop]

well remeber that Ayn rands books were romantic in that she portrayed men as they should be (according to her).
I found Bioshock to be of great interest as a LaVeyan Satanist due to Objectivism's large influence in Satanism however unlike Objectivism it doesn't contain a rigid Social structure/government/liaise faire capitalism but really only centers on personal gratification with political alligence being left as an individual choice.

 

[Alex_P]

Actually, natural selection DID create leeches. Literally!

Don't forget the wide and crazy world of kleptoparasitism.

-- Alex

 

[Rock Avich]

WALL OF TEXT!

...Sorry...

 

[Log Lady]

This is less related to Bioshock. I never bought into objectivism, but I spent a lot of time thinking about this stuff in college. This is something you can look into more at a university, but the problems with objectivism mostly have to do with the fact that it's not a very fleshed out philosophy. For the ontological stuff, it's basically realism (there's a real world that we're observing), but it doesn't deal with any of the major problems of realism (our observations are sometimes off, so observations =/= real world).

The moral stuff has more problems. The argument is basically, "Morality gets used for making choices. One of the reasons we need to make choices is to stay alive. Being selfish can help us stay alive. Therefore all moral choices involve being selfish." That's pretty far off the mark, I think. I mean, the reasoning is pretty suspect, but you can make positive arguments against it, too. First, she'd have to deal with the fact that this means almost all of us are wrong about what we all collectively agree with about morality (which is a problem if she thinks we observe reality directly and which I think you point out above). Second, the bulk of the choices we consider moral have to do with things not directly related to survival. In fact, when survivals on the line, it is sometimes a reason to suspend moral judgement. For example, think about murder in self-defense.

Anyhow, if you're interested in this stuff, read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (which is really hard/boring), and his Grounding for a Metaphysics of Morals (not so hard; it's an alternative moral realism). Also, think about taking a philosophy of science class that deal with recent thinkers. You'll get a lot of the "real world v. observed world" problems. Turns out feminists are the most into believing there's a real world.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

This is less related to Bioshock. I never bought into objectivism, but I spent a lot of time thinking about this stuff in college. This is something you can look into more at a university, but the problems with objectivism mostly have to do with the fact that it's not a very fleshed out philosophy. For the ontological stuff, it's basically realism (there's a real world that we're observing), but it doesn't deal with any of the major problems of realism (our observations are sometimes off, so observations =/= real world).

The moral stuff has more problems. The argument is basically, "Morality gets used for making choices. One of the reasons we need to make choices is to stay alive. Being selfish can help us stay alive. Therefore all moral choices involve being selfish." That's pretty far off the mark, I think. I mean, the reasoning is pretty suspect, but you can make positive arguments against it, too. First, she'd have to deal with the fact that this means almost all of us are wrong about what we all collectively agree with about morality (which is a problem if she thinks we observe reality directly and which I think you point out above). Second, the bulk of the choices we consider moral have to do with things not directly related to survival. In fact, when survivals on the line, it is sometimes a reason to suspend moral judgement. For example, think about murder in self-defense.

Anyhow, if you're interested in this stuff, read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (which is really hard/boring), and his Grounding for a Metaphysics of Morals (not so hard; it's an alternative moral realism). Also, think about taking a philosophy of science class that deal with recent thinkers. You'll get a lot of the "real world v. observed world" problems. Turns out feminists are the most into believing there's a real world.

I did kinda use Bioshock as a reason to put this in the Gaming Discussion section, but I feel justified because Bioshock allowed me to see Objectivism in action (of course it is just fiction and skewed to the maker's viewpoint, but still useful) and inspired me to articulate at least some of my feelings of Objectivism in this post. Anyways, onto your post. Last summer I attended a special exploratory program at what was my prospective college of choice (and now the college I will be attending come this fall), and took a class about history, and how true or false it is. In this class, we explored all of the myth and bias in historical records and traditions, and learned about how our recorded history is not a perfect representation of what actually happened back then. I mention this because it somewhat relates to the observed reality vs. real reality issue, as our true past and what we know of the past are two completely different things. Objectivism may state that "All truth is objective reality: facts are facts," but our knowledge and perception of those facts can often be skewed. Thanks for the info, I'll look into that.


Also, Objectivists, don't be discouraged. I find Objectivism's dislike of tradition and championing of the human spirit to be very redeeming factors, but it seems to take those to an extreme in disregarding historical movements as not even worth learning about and defining the human spirit as primarily being selfishness.

 

[Maet]

I did kinda use Bioshock as a reason to put this in the Gaming Discussion section, but I feel justified because Bioshock allowed me to see Objectivism in action

Rapture is not "pure" objectivism in action, or even largely objectivist in the first place. Had Rapture been objectivist, you'd never even be able to get there (public transit authorities are decidedly unobjectivist, as are EMS' like the Police, Fire Brigade, Ambulance, etc. and especially orphanages and poorhouses which play a big part of the later narrative).

This discussion is best had in Off-Topic, even if you use the game as a jumping off point and nothing more.

Spoiler: Note to self:

Get cracking on that BioShock plot analysis....

Edit: I suppose the real question is this:

Q. Would Ayn Rand live in Rapture (before all the chaos and murder, of course)?
A. No, or at least not for very long.

 

[9of9]

You might be interested in a relatively obscure (but recent) game called Culpa Innata [http://store.steampowered.com/app/12310/]. It's an old-style point-and-click adventure (albeit with 3d-graphics), if you can stand those, I'd encourage you to give it a try.

Unlike Bioshock, which places you in the ruins of an objectivist city-state, left to piece things together from brief snippets of information you find lying around, Culpa Innata is a game I've found to be unique for convincingly immersing you into an entirely fictional society. It's not strictly Randian objectivism which is portrayed, but many of the same ideals are shared. Unlike most adventure games, rather than pursuing a plot of thinly woven-together puzzles, Culpa Innata pretty much lets you 'live' the life of the protagonist for the duration of the game, alternating between the investigation, which is the main plot, and her personal life.

It is a slightly less than brilliant game in many respects, but it is one of the few games I know that trully lets the player experience something genuinely new - a society which is quite alien by our standards - and on so many levels. In some respects, I feel, this is a game which might stand better treated less as a game, but rather a hypothetical study of an objectivism-based future society.

It's actually on Steam [http://store.steampowered.com/app/12310/] quite cheaply now, too.