Yatzhee Mentions Objectivism a Lot

[Spartan Bannana]

Can someone explain Objectivism to me please?

No. But many, many, many people will happily charge you for books purporting to do so.

It's basically justifying your own selfishness.
I have been called an Objectivist by some of my friends because I have diffictuly caring about things that are not my problem and don't affect me. For Example: I have trouble caring about the starving kids in Africa, because I don't know them personally, and have never met them.

 

[Burld]

Burld - simply saying what a game is about and what happens in it is a report, not a review.

You can evaluate something without expressing an opinion, for example by saying what might be thought of certain parts of it. Yes, it's not pure objectivism, but then you'd need something inhuman and without emotions etc. for that.
A review should be about informing the reader on whether they would like the subject of the review. I care less about some stranger's opinion than I do about the thing in question.
As for Ayn Rand objectivism, well I find that morally wrong. There's my opinion.

 

[ChristmasChild]

I see it like this: Part of his "gimmick" is to be extremely rude and opinionated. He will also evaluate the game without any "Donations" from a gaming company to the magazine he writes for swaying his opinion. I mean, look at his EVE review!

 

[DirkGently]

I don't have hard figures, but if I had to guess I'd say Yahtzee mentions Branston Pickle a lot more than Objectivism.

-- Steve

Yeah. He's mentioned Objectivism far less frequently than Branston Pickle.

 

[JMeganSnow]

He mentioned it in his Fallout 3 review. That's the only example I can come up with.

He also mentioned it in the Halo 3 review--very briefly. I just find it interesting, because Objectivism is an unpopular philosophy, so hearing it mentioned in a video game review AT ALL is WEIRD.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Can someone explain Objectivism to me please?

Actually, yes, because I'm a hardcore Objectivist and I've been administrating a forum for discussing Objectivism for 3 years. I was thinking of starting an "ask an Objectivist" thread, but, well, LAME. Not sure this one is any better.

Here's the short intro for laymen [http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro] (it's a single page).

 

[JMeganSnow]

More of a throw-away dig at a major element in Rand's Objectivist fiction (like Anthem, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged). Her work is rather big on what I would call "philosopher kings" -- in reference to Dostoevsky rather than Plato. Rand's was self-professed individualist and definitely a fan of "great man" theories of history. She fancied that great men who drive history with their big ideas are more important than their often petty and small-minded societies -- "man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress". For example, in The Fountainhead, a brilliant architect blows up a project of his after it is perverted by small-minded "altruists"; in Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, probably her most famous character, leads a kind of strike by inventors and businessmen, who remove themselves from the world and start a hidden quasi-utopia based on "rational self-interest", and everybody else is left mewling for them to come back. Powerful people who don't act like Objectivists are depicted as manipulators and demagogues.

This would be a misrepresentation, but not nearly as bad as many I've encountered--it just needs a little clarification.

Ayn Rand was not a fan of the "great man" theory of history, in fact the Objectivist theory of history she created is based on the fact that individuals will *ultimately* act based on their philosophical beliefs and thus that the trends of history can be traced back to the prevailing ideology of the time.

Although Rand's fiction portrays men on a heroic scale, this doesn't mean that Objectivist philosophy despises ordinary or even below-average people. That would be Nietzsche or the numerous variations of Social Darwinism. Objectivism simply states that because each individual exists *for his own sake*, being ordinary or below average doesn't *entitle* you to anything *from other people*. You can ask, but you cannot demand with a gun as your argument.

It is the *only* philosophy that repudiates the principle that ANYONE exists as fodder for ANYONE else under ANY circumstances.

Talking about it in terms of stealing things is pretty weird because Rand was rather obsessed with property rights, though. An Objectivist would likely say that stealing everything in sight is an indication that the hero is not, in fact, acting out of "rational self-interest".

This part is accurate.

 

[Ken Korda]

May I asl a couple of questions on objectivism? I read Atlas shrugged and the Fountain head and from the descriprion of objectivism It made me wonder...

If objectivism says everyone is entitiled to the product of their labour what if I spend my time labouring on something usually condemned by society? Am I still entitled to the profits of it? If I spend years becoming an expert thief am I entitled to the fruits of this labour, ie what I ahve stolen?

Secondly, at the end of Atlas Shrugged *SPOILER* when Eddie Willers is in the broken train and is dying in the desert, what had he done to justify his fate. Had he not worked thoughout his life and supported the capitalist cause, yet Rand sees fit to allow him to die on his own? Why is this, shouldn't he have gone to Galt's Gulch with the others?

I have other questions but these will be enough to be going on with

 

[The_Prophet]

Only noticed it in Fallout 3 review

 

[Ken Korda]

Hey! I asked a question here! Does nobody want to further my understanding of objectivism?

 

[nmmoore13]

May I asl a couple of questions on objectivism? I read Atlas shrugged and the Fountain head and from the descriprion of objectivism It made me wonder...

If objectivism says everyone is entitiled to the product of their labour what if I spend my time labouring on something usually condemned by society? Am I still entitled to the profits of it? If I spend years becoming an expert thief am I entitled to the fruits of this labour, ie what I ahve stolen?

Secondly, at the end of Atlas Shrugged *SPOILER* when Eddie Willers is in the broken train and is dying in the desert, what had he done to justify his fate. Had he not worked thoughout his life and supported the capitalist cause, yet Rand sees fit to allow him to die on his own? Why is this, shouldn't he have gone to Galt's Gulch with the others?

I have other questions but these will be enough to be going on with

You are entitled to the fruits of your labor if you produce those fruits. Stealing is simply taking the fruits of someone else's labor. So no, stealing = bad.

Don't think of it as if Rand thought "Hey, I don't like this Willers guy, I'm gonna kill him." It is a novel and whats a novel without drama? Eddie died because he didn't have the courage to leave Taggart Transcontinental with Dagny. He allowed the others to feed off of his labor and paid the consequences.

 

[Avatar Roku]

As good as Yahtzee's reviews are, I'd never thought about them in a philosophical way. Just as well.

It should be pointed out that he hasn't necessarily showed any real understanding of Randian objectivism - the mention in Fallout 3 (that is, 50% of the times he mentioned it) is rather strange. I don't recall her ever approving of theft...

She didn't, but Yahtzee's quote was something along the lines of "Being the hero of the land overrides personal property laws...kind of an objectivist philosophy on reflection." In other words, since he's the hero, his needs outweigh others, which is quite like objectivism.

 

[nmmoore13]

May I asl a couple of questions on objectivism? I read Atlas shrugged and the Fountain head and from the descriprion of objectivism It made me wonder...

If objectivism says everyone is entitiled to the product of their labour what if I spend my time labouring on something usually condemned by society? Am I still entitled to the profits of it? If I spend years becoming an expert thief am I entitled to the fruits of this labour, ie what I ahve stolen?

Secondly, at the end of Atlas Shrugged *SPOILER* when Eddie Willers is in the broken train and is dying in the desert, what had he done to justify his fate. Had he not worked thoughout his life and supported the capitalist cause, yet Rand sees fit to allow him to die on his own? Why is this, shouldn't he have gone to Galt's Gulch with the others?

I have other questions but these will be enough to be going on with

You are entitled to the fruits of your labor if you produce those fruits. Stealing is simply taking the fruits of someone else's labor. So no, stealing = bad.

Don't think of it as if Rand thought "Hey, I don't like this Willers guy, I'm gonna kill him." It is a novel and whats a novel without drama? Eddie died because he didn't have the courage to leave Taggart Transcontinental with Dagny. He allowed the others to feed off of his labor and paid the consequences.

Thieving is a talent and a skill (redundant?) so according to Rand, it is a valid method of acquiring "fruits". her books (very very badly written books) emphasis that mooching off someone else's talent is what she detests. since thievery is a valid skill, she'd aprove

No, thieving is mooching. You didn't earn anything and you violated someone's rights. That is very immoral. Just because you're skilled at something, it doesn't mean you should earn anything from it. Ex: Just because someone's a good murderer doesn't mean they should get the money off of their victim's bodies.

I doubt you've read a lot of Rand because that is so obviously said in everything she writes.

 

[Chilango2]

Randian Objectivism is full free-market no government regulations capitalism as a religion, more or less. Greed is good. Helping other people is bad. The rich are more moral than the poor because their being rich demonstrates they are useful and productive members of society.

In addition, it has this cult of the self-intersted perfectly rational individual, who should be (and in his heroic form is)free to the 'users' of society.

It's a philosophy that basically argues that economic inequality is perfectly just and the results of the actual merits of the individuals.

It's very popular among certain classes of teenage boys, especially online, and people who mentally never grew up from being teenage boys.

Invariably, they think of themselves as John Galt, genius individualist supermen who achieved their place in life on their own merit and with their own skills.

They, of course, ignore the things that life gives to them through virtue of their race and class.

 

[Marbas]

They, of course, ignore the things that life gives to them through virtue of their race and class.

And that's the kicker. Assuming people exist in a vacuum is going to DESTROY the merit of any philosophy you purport.

 

[SimuLord]

Hey! I asked a question here! Does nobody want to further my understanding of objectivism?

Objectivism: An insidious, amoral belief system that subverts the soul, the metaphysical, and all that is beautiful in the world as adherents have their minds twisted by "reason" into something approximating Lieutenant Commander Data before he got his emotion chip. Celebration of the unknown, mankind's inborn spirituality, the lively debate of that which cannot be proven, all are subverted to the practice of atheism as a dogmatic religion as insidious as any other form of fundamentalism upon this earth, with similarly totalitarian and terroristic end results. For all its celebration of individual freedom, Objectivism sure does rely an awful lot on demolition of the spirit as all must conform to the new order lest they be ridiculed and ostracized.

Just a disgusting, cultish belief set, really. They've corrupted the word "libertarian" into something nihilistic and evil.

 

[Alex_P]

Thieving is a talent and a skill (redundant?) so according to Rand, it is a valid method of acquiring "fruits". her books (very very badly written books) emphasis that mooching off someone else's talent is what she detests. since thievery is a valid skill, she'd aprove

You're missing that whole thing about "productive labor". Also the bit about fundamental rights to liberty, property, speech. &c.

Randian Objectivism is full free-market no government regulations capitalism as a religion, more or less. Greed is good. Helping other people is bad. The rich are more moral than the poor because their being rich demonstrates they are useful and productive members of society.

I'm not an Objectivist but I imagine there's a simple retort that would go something like this: "Respect for others' fundamental rights (in the Objectivist sense) is a balancing force that makes greed a form of productive ego-assertion. It's only when you throw that out that out and become a 'looter' that greed actually hurts others." Then you get stuck in a big argument about what "rational" greed would look like.

Invariably, they think of themselves as John Galt, genius individualist supermen who achieved their place in life on their own merit and with their own skills.

They, of course, ignore the things that life gives to them through virtue of their race and class.

There's definitely something profoundly unrealistic about many of the "self-made" men in Rand's fiction.

-- Alex

 

[EzraPound]

Actually, yes, because I'm a hardcore Objectivist and I've been administrating a forum for discussing Objectivism for 3 years. I was thinking of starting an "ask an Objectivist" thread, but, well, LAME. Not sure this one is any better.

You do realize the sweeping majority of philosophic scholars and political scientists laugh at Ayn Rand's potboilers, right? Objectivists are like communists, except possibly more inept insofar as Marxist scholars have actually ocassionally influenced successful societal change - one group believes society should be defined wholly on the basis of individual rights; the other, collective.

Oh, did I mention that Ayn Rand quotes Kant constantly without having any clue what she's talking about? I wasn't surprised, later, to hear someone commenting that she never demonstrated evidence of actually having read - oh, let's see, the foremost philosopher of the past three centuries? And The Anti-Industrial Revolution is a piece of crap. Moronic.

It is the *only* philosophy that repudiates the principle that ANYONE exists as fodder for ANYONE else under ANY circumstances.

Haha, too funny.

 

[SimuLord]

Actually, yes, because I'm a hardcore Objectivist and I've been administrating a forum for discussing Objectivism for 3 years. I was thinking of starting an "ask an Objectivist" thread, but, well, LAME. Not sure this one is any better.

You do realize the sweeping majority of philosophic scholars and political scientists laugh at Ayn Rand's potboilers, right? Objectivists are like communists, except possibly more inept insofar as Marxist scholars have actually ocassionally influenced successful societal change - one group believes society should be defined wholly on the basis of individual rights; the other, collective.

Oh, did I mention that Ayn Rand quotes Kant constantly without having any clue what she's talking about? I wasn't surprised, later, to hear someone commenting that she never demonstrated evidence of actually having read - oh, let's see, the foremost philosopher of the past three centuries? And The Anti-Industrial Revolution is a piece of crap. Moronic.

Not to mention Rand's attempts at prose are stiffer than Al Gore and about as credible.