(Dons his asbestos typing gloves)

I never played Bioshock, but philosophical ideas, distilled down to simple themes, tend to go over well in popular media. The Matrix, for example, was a pretty clear reference to Descartes’s “evil genius” scenario.

I do agree with The Inspector, though. Most people don’t know enough about philosophy, and even people who make it their business tend not to think carefully enough about it (having been a philosophy minor in college, I have a small bit of experience with that). Most people tend not to enjoy breaking out of a certain mode of thinking, so it’s generally easier to keep things in simpler terms and not push various ideas into extended consequences. In other words, most people are okay just keeping it at “X is evil” without ever wondering why anybody would have believed/followed “X” in the first place.

I’m not an Objectivist myself, but I do appreciate the system’s goals as worthy ones. I like that someone else saw this game as something more than “lol, Rand is teh suxzors”, which is the most common response I have seen.
As to the failure of your Google Fu, Objectivism isn’t really considered a legitimate philosophy by modern professional philosophers, so the community tends to stick to itself without much dialog outside of it.
Is Bioshock’s story worth the money? There is a hell of a lot more to it than most of the “1. You are a space marine 2. there are aliens 3. you have a gun, figure out the rest” plots floating around, and I would have bought it if not for the DRM.

Aergoth, that’s like saying that the problem with clothing not fitting isn’t the clothing, it’s that the people are the wrong shape. A system designed FOR people (politics) ought to be based on what people actually ARE, not on what philosophers imagine they ought to be.

I am no fan of Ayn Rand’s work, which colors my perception of Objectivism. But even with an inherent bias, I did not come away from Bioshock thinking the game thought Objectivism was negative. As stated above, the game is more about human nature than any philosophy. The Fontaine is fighting Andrew Ryan over the control of the city in the pursuit of power, not because of Ryan’s ideals. That is a flaw that can bring down any government, regardless of its structure.

That’s quite a collectivist assumption, Magnus. What, exactly, did the villain propose to gain via his acts of destruction?

A major part of Objectivism is that acts of short-range, out of context whim-worship are not motivated by selfishness, but by whim-worship. A truly selfish person is reality-oriented and knows that lying, cheating, and destruction does not benefit them in the long run. It isn’t profit-seeking that is the problem, it’s people acting short-range while trying to evade knowledge of the consequences of their actions.

In terms of the banking crisis, for instance, the problem wasn’t greedy or profit-seeking bankers, but the government putting in place institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that “guaranteed” the high-risk loans. In more personal terms, this is like a trainer telling an injured athelete “I’ll just numb it to take the pain away so you can keep playing”. End result? The athelete plays on a ruptured ACL and rips it entirely, thus causing the ruin of their career. This is especially horrific when they could have taken a break, gotten surgery, had physical therapy, and enjoyed many more years of their beloved career.

You tell me who the bad guy there is.

@Hal: You missed out the inevitable conclusion that the Matrix is more similar to Plato’s cave; the simulated world is the cave, with shadows on the wall that we think are real, and Neo goes through his (painful) climb into reality (the philosophers journey into the real world), then goes back in an attempt to enlighten others.

It’s definitely interesting that philosophical concepts are being expressed through the medium of video games/interpretive dance. Could this be some sort of new rise of the video game as a true art, similar to literature or painting? It could be in a couple of hundred years time Bioshock will be a museum piece similar to Robinson Crusoe today.

Jennifer Snow: The founding fathers of the United States struggled with that very issue when framing our constitution. There were many in the convention who believed that the document should reflect the pie-in-the-sky version of what humanity ought to be, and those who wanted it to reflect the gritty reality of real life. In the end what we ended up with was an elegant (at times) blending of both. It’s reflected over and over again throughout the whole document actually.

The House of Representatives is a body made up from direct representatives of small (at the time) groups of people who represented the real needs and wants of their constituents. The Senate is a smaller and more deliberative body designed to think on a more national level, but ultimately for the good of an entire state.

The entire legislative process is one where we start (hopefully) with a concept of what “should be” and end up with a law that addresses reality, hopefully still retaining a bit of the “should”.

I actually did a whole project on this in an undergrad philosophy class years ago. It was fun trolling through the constitution and breaking it down between the utilitarians and idealists.

@Factoid: You are correct, but I’m not against enjoining people to be what they should be (far from it!), but against basing your ideas of what people should be on something other than facts, which is what most philosophers indulge in orgiastically. This is precisely what results in such dichotomies as “the moral versus the practical” or “the mind versus the body”.

Objectivism rejects these viewpoints utterly. To us, the moral IS the practical, because we don’t form any vision of what is moral without first looking at reality.

what’s wrong with you people, where’s the flames? where’s the degeneration into leet speak? I’m losing faith in forums as the venting place for the degenerates of the internet!..
Maybe the degenerates are the 50% of internet users who don’t scroll down, or won’t read any article more than a page long. hmmm

Jennifer Snow: “To us, the moral IS the practical, because we don’t form any vision of what is moral without first looking at reality.”

Lofty goal but the very antithesis of the basis of moral thought for the majority of individuals on the planet. I was actually a Philisophy major in college AND loathed Ayn Rand (which made for very interesting drunken bull sessions with friends).

I think Hal has said the most interesting thing yet in these comments; “philosophical ideas, distilled down to simple themes, tend to go over well in popular media.”

Simple yet hints at a truth deeper than observed on first glance.

It strikes me that there are at least three problematic assumptions there, Ms. Snow. (Um, in your post #10, which was the last one when I started writing this)
First, there’s a tacit assumption that people are effectively immortal. That is, true selfishness is not necessarily concerned with the long run when “in the long run, we are all dead”.
Second, there’s an assumption that the future holds relatively little uncertainty. That is, the notion that a truly selfish person will plan for the long term over the short (and therefore will in effect play relatively nicely) assumes that truly long-term planning can be effective, or at least more effective than the successive accumulation of short-term gains. This is questionable, and particularly questionable in a “free market” style economy.

Third, getting to the more specific question of the banking crisis, there is an assumption that there is somehow an iron curtain between private sector actors such as “bankers” and government, or if there is interaction it is one primarily of government affecting those private actors and not the other way around–government as “coach”, banks as “athlete”. In fact, most government policies relating to financial institutions in our political economy are almost precisely those policies lobbied for by the financial industry. Indeed, most of the relevant government decision makers were previously decision makers in the financial industry, and most of them expect to rejoin the financial industry after their stint in government is done. Given that, it’s a bit much to say “Oh, it’s all the big bad government’s fault–the financial institutions weren’t responsible for anything they did.” They got the environment they asked, and indeed pressured and bribed and subverted democracy, for.

I might said “They’ve made their bed, now let them lie in it”, except I’ve seen no evidence that any of it could be considered a mistake from the point of view of individual top financiers. The results, while terrible for the economy at large, have had no real negative impacts on the individual top bankers who created the mess. They’re still drawing their salaries and bonuses and tucking away their cuts of the bailouts.

The lesson here in fact is that in an unfettered environment, fraud and venality work. They work very well. They work so well, in fact, that thinking in the long term in ways that reduce cheating ceases to be an effective selfish option. Consider “Prisoner’s dilemma”. Normally, “tit for tat” is the best strategy over a long series of games. But what happens if you’re only going to play 100 games and the payoff for defecting to a sucker who co-operates, rather than 5, is 10,000? And you happen to know there’s a bunch of “tit for tat” players out there? Successfully defect *just once* and your payoff is far better than any of the “tit for tat” players successfully co-operating 99 times out of 100.

Deregulation as driven by the financial industry is the process of jacking up the benefits for cheating, so they can make big payoffs that way instead of working for a living.

@Magnus: Of course, and it’s just a metaphor. The reason why the government is the *ultimate* and *fundamental* cause of the situation (as opposed to the many, many proximate and derivative causes) is that it takes a national organization (i.e. the government) to cause a *national* crisis. One or two or three banks might have tried stupid schemes without the government encouragement, “guarantees” and bailouts, but they would have gone under on their own with no one to prop them up and their apparatus would have been bought out and taken over by their competent competitors. As it is, we’re stuck, *by government decree*, with the same crop of incompetent money-burners as the government *takes money away* from productive citizens to give it to people who are essentially throwing it away.

You didn’t Google hard enough, Shamus.

http://zealfortruth.org/2008/06/game-review-bioshock-welcome-to-rapture-ready-to-post/

http://www.feministgamers.com/?p=296

They’re both quite passionate in their pro- and anti-Objectivism, but put together they make for a fine read.

Any philosophy that is logically constructed based on reality cannot be disproved using logic and reality.

I think there probably are logical flaws in objectivism (though I’m not interested enough in it to go hunting for them), but I have yet to see anyone actually point them out. I hear arguments to emotion, arguments to authority, and ad hominem attacks on Rand and her supporters.

In designing a form of government, it is necessary to make disobeying the social contract cost more than obeying it. Any system that fails to do so will collapse (hence the failure of socialism/communism). Also, any system that requires 100% of it’s citizens to adhere to it’s principles in order to work will collapse (why pacifism will never work).

I think objectivism as a philosophy has less potential as stable form of government than Christianity, but far more stable than nihilism or humanism.

@ Purple Library Guy:

“It strikes me that there are at least three problematic assumptions there, Ms. Snow.”

They would indeed seem problematic to me if I didn’t know the context. That’s why I’m here, to answer questions.

“First, there’s a tacit assumption that people are effectively immortal.”

No–there’s just the assumption that people generally live longer than just a few weeks. The term “long range” applies in the context of the foreseeable length of human life.

“That is, true selfishness is not necessarily concerned with the long run when “in the long run, we are all dead”.

This is true, and a properly selfish person does pay some heed to this fact. It’s just not as important to him as the fact that he’d prefer to hold off that inevitable death for as long as possible–not just for one week or the span of a month-long spree, but for years and years of happy life.

Second, there’s an assumption that the future holds relatively little uncertainty. That is, the notion that a truly selfish person will plan for the long term over the short (and therefore will in effect play relatively nicely) assumes that truly long-term planning can be effective, or at least more effective than the successive accumulation of short-term gains. This is questionable, and particularly questionable in a “free market” style economy.

Is it? Well, this is the sort of question that can only be answered by looking at reality. However, I’ll make a short remark that might help indicate to you the direction to go to answer this for yourself: as Ayn Rand says, anyone who believes that we live in an unpredictable universe where disaster can strike at any moment ought to observe the fortunes made by insurance companies.

The Benevolent Universe premise is a part of Objectivism. Not benevolent in the sense of kindly or well-intentioned, but that the universe is “auspicious to human life” if you take heed of your means of survival (your mind) and use it to your fullest capacity.

And as for your contention that successive short-term gains are more efficacious than planned long-term gains, tell me, do you know any drug dealers richer than Bill Gates? Do you know any bank robbers wealthier than Donald Trump? No. Living short-term is like playing Russian Roulette. You might be able to get away with it for quite a long time, and even “run out the clock” by dying of something else before the consequences of your irresponsibility catch up with you. That’s not a rational way to live, however.

“Third, getting to the more specific question of the banking crisis, there is an assumption that there is somehow an iron curtain between private sector actors such as “bankers” and government, or if there is interaction it is one primarily of government affecting those private actors and not the other way around–government as “coach”, banks as “athlete”. In fact, most government policies relating to financial institutions in our political economy are almost precisely those policies lobbied for by the financial industry. Indeed, most of the relevant government decision makers were previously decision makers in the financial industry, and most of them expect to rejoin the financial industry after their stint in government is done. Given that, it’s a bit much to say “Oh, it’s all the big bad government’s fault–the financial institutions weren’t responsible for anything they did.” They got the environment they asked, and indeed pressured and bribed and subverted democracy, for.”

I know, and it’s quite sad that they’re so stupid, but I didn’t say that the bankers were *necessarily* virtuous just because the government’s behavior in this situation is necessarily NOT virtuous. The *lack* of an iron curtain between economics and politics is precisely what causes this mess–men grow richer not by productive work but by begging political favors from men empowered to deliver them.

True capitalism, the type that Objectivists advocate, *requires* a separation between economy and state identical to the theoretical separation between church and state, and for the same reasons.

“I might said “They’ve made their bed, now let them lie in it”, except I’ve seen no evidence that any of it could be considered a mistake from the point of view of individual top financiers. The results, while terrible for the economy at large, have had no real negative impacts on the individual top bankers who created the mess. They’re still drawing their salaries and bonuses and tucking away their cuts of the bailouts.”

This, also, is a consequence of the nature of the mixed economy–people are insulated from suffering the consequences of their actions. So, of course, their actions are going to be distorted. When proper behavior becomes self-sacrifice, something is indeed wrong in the world.

“The lesson here in fact is that in an unfettered environment, fraud and venality work.”

HAH! Goodness, what a bait and switch. That’s not the lesson here at all. The lesson here is that ANY form of government intrusion into the economy is BAD. We don’t have a truly unfettered economy and we have NEVER had one. It amuses me terribly when people say things like this, because it amounts to saying, literally, “This collusion between business and government is bad. So we should have MORE collusion between business and government.” Sick men asking for more of the poison that is killing them.

Yes, they did talk about it. You just didn’t check the Usenet archives.

It’s worth noting that Objectivism is irrefutably, demonstratably incorrect.

Snorus: I am basically very far opposed to Objectivism, but saying it’s incorrect is still not an argument.

@Magnus:

“I guess the position I take is that just because such guarantees had been made by the US government, I feel it was not necessary for so many banks to jump on it and run with it. These are supposed to be intelligent people, and yet they couldn’t even see what those in their own banks were doing, let alone rival banking groups.”

You’re absolutely right, it wasn’t necessary for so many banks to jump on it and run with it, and many didn’t. John Allison, the CEO of BB&T (he’s an Objectivist, hee) foresaw this and his bank is just dandy. And he was *forced*, by threat of losing his bank’s accredited status, to take bailout money because our so-lovely gov’t didn’t want to “stigmatize” the failing banks. Let’s read that again–THE GOV’T DID NOT WANT CONSUMERS TO HAVE ANY RELIABLE WAY TO KNOW PRECISELY WHICH BANKS WERE FAILING SO THAT THEY COULD INVEST WISELY. Who is bilking whom, here?

And keep in mind that if a financial institution takes a certain course and forgoes investments that many, many financial experts are claiming loudly are “perfectly safe”, they then have to justify that action to their investors and shareholders. This is not always easy to do and many CEO’s aren’t interested in going to war in this fashion when they’ve got so much other work to do.

Oh, and let’s not forget the Community Reinvestment Act, greatly expanded under the Clinton administration to give “community” pressure groups such as ACORN leverage to *demand* loans (again, at the risk of losing accredited status) from banks in the name of preventing “redlining”. A lot of banks expected that they’d have to write off those loans (and they did), they just accepted this with weary resignation as part of “the price of doing business”.

As Ayn Rand said in Atlas Shrugged: “And there arose a situation that no one cared to examine too closely or to discuss.”

@Purple Library Guy in 31:

It is true, because you’re dropping the context. A group, will ye, nil ye, is not a “collective”. A collective, in political terms, is a group established *by force* which enforces its edicts on the members *by force* and which the members are expected to serve above, beyond, and *instead of* their own interests or needs.

Voluntary associations (like an orchestra or a rational country) are a part of individualist society, and the men who partake of them join of their own free will, observe the rules of the association of their own free will, and leave of their own free will. It’s a very significant difference.

Well, I might be the first to point this out which amazes me:

As much as I’m not a fan of those cheap anagram/letter games for getting meaning (and thought that they were bollocks in the Da Vinci Code), Andrew Ryan is kinda fun – yoink the R off Ryan and add it to Andrew, you get the first four letters “Rand”, and the remaining “yan” from Ryan anagrams to Ayn…

:D CONSPIRACY THEORIES AHOY!

@Purple Library Guy:

Mike is just fine. >.>

It’s true, society elevates our own intelligence and heightens further contributions. Consider how much we’ve advanced each as individuals just because of our access to technology and the improvement of the art and culture around us.

I mean, it makes sense. A self-identity is purely a collection of memories. If the memories are based on an advanced society, then we ourselves are advanced. It’s a two-way street and that’s a good thing.

This whole discussion is moot anyway. Decades from now, organic and synthetic intelligence shall subsist upon one another. We will all be brethren of one mind, of one network. Hurray for the future! :P