Bioshock and Philosophy *Spoilers*
The one aspect of Bioshock that hasn't been dissected ad nauseam is its philosophy. I'm hoping this generates enough interest to warrant a new thread"”I'm new here myself so I'm not really sure what's considered worthwhile and what isn't, but here goes"…
If you're familiar with Ayn Rand, you probably recognize several elements from Atlas Shrugged in the game already. Superficial similarities include character names, the art deco world that captures the fashion of her day, and the various platitudes and propaganda one encounters while exploring Rapture. But the connections go far deeper than that.
Atlas Shrugged tells the story of society's most productive members (basically its intellectual elite) going on strike against everyone else, which Rand divided into two main categories, Looters and Moochers. Looters are those who, in Rand's view, extort wealth from the productive through forceful, although not necessarily criminal, endeavors. One of Rand's favorite targets, for instance, was Big Government. Moochers, on the other hand, are the freeloaders, beggars, and indigent of the world. Your no good brother-in-law is a moocher. The crucial realization for the producers of the world is that they can only be victimized by the looters and moochers to the extent they themselves allow. If they refuse to produce, the stupid and lazy falter and die (and let me tell you, that holds no small appeal for me.)
Granted, Rand's teachings had their ugly side. More on that in a moment.
First, though, consider Rapture as the ultimate extension of her philosophy. The productive, useful citizens of the world retreating to found their ideal society. The "smugglers" and "parasites" discussed in the game world form obvious allusions to Rand's looters and moochers, so we see first and foremost that, in the view of the game's creators, at least, the need to sponge off of the world's industrious few is a fundamental truth of the human condition, something that can't be escaped no matter how deep you try to hide your world away.
Secondly, in the view of the game's creators, even among those industrious few, there will always be trouble in paradise. If I'm following the story of the game correctly so far (spoiler ahead) the basic tension that tore the world of rapture apart had to do with the dependence upon, and subsequent scarcity of, the resource that made their idyllic new lives possible. The game calls it Adam, but you and I might as well call it oil.
Rand's view of humanity was very high"”once you do away with all the human debris, that is. Ryan's utopian visions, Rand may well have believed, were and are attainable. The game itself seems to serve as a warning to that belief.
Which brings us to the ugly side of Ayn Rand's belief: altruism. There was no room in her philosophical system for it. She believed that it was ultimately crippling, both to individuals and to society as a whole. The best possible state for man was the freedom to apply his talents and abilities to the pursuit of his own well being, something Rand thought of as rational self-interest, a sort of license to be selfish. Except it wasn't a mere license, it was a moral imperative. What we might define as charity or generosity was, to her, at best futile and at worst a way of promoting indigence and thus perpetuating a cycle of dependence that would inevitably lead to the stagnation of mankind. I don't deny that there's a big dose of truth mixed into that harsh medicine (I'm no fan of high taxes or the welfare state), but, put it this way, if Rand were playing the game herself, she'd probably always vote to kill the little sisters.
Some questions for you all: Do you think that a world like Rapture could ever succeed, or are there pitfalls inherent in human nature that would always lead to its downfall as the game seems to posit? And to what extent, if any, do you think the lessons of Bioshock are applicable to public policy?
For my money, utopias never work. People are just too damned ugly. I agree with a lot of what Rand says. Any of you who've ever worked a single day in your life, gone to a single meeting, been assigned to a single team, etc., could probably attest to the truth of the notion that there are a very few really solid dudes out there and a great heaping metric sh*t ton of moochers and looters. But even the best of us will go awry if pushed far enough, and while there are no shortage of thriftless layabouts and thugs, not everyone who needs an occasional helping hand is worthless.
Ken Levine wrote:
I could be at the office making BioShock, or I could be at the office making Pet the Pony 3 on the Wii or something, and I'd rather be making BioShock.
rabbit, Lobo? I think the batsignal has been raised.
"Today's Tom Sawyer, he gets high on you, Kat. You." - Haakon7
My Website v. 3.0
I read rabbit's excellent post, but although it did reveal that Rand's worked served as a basis for the game, it included virtually no analysis of how this was so, or why this was significant--nor could it as it was written before the game's release and based on an interview.
I did not see Lobo's post.
Ken Levine wrote:
I think she means in general.
That particular kind of utopia is flawed, sure. Someone has to take out the garbage. Are we to believe that Ryan built an underwater city with his own two hands? The grunts that do the labor are invisible while useful, and parasites after they're done. Together they're a force far greater than the most brilliant of individuals.
Danjo Olivaw Lives
Agreed, maybe it's the builders that he tossed out like garbage, when they're use was expired. As sometimes happens in the real world. But in the real world there are alot that are not builders, trash collectors, or anything that slightly resembles a job. Which is a mooch! The whole "charity is futile" idea really is a great debate topic. On one hand you have empathy and some may say, feelings like this is what makes us human. On the other hand, is charity really helping all or even some people that get it? Or is it making the rely on the kindness of others to survive? Does empathy get in the way of true logic, much like other emotions?
Should we all be Robot Clean? Will that make the world better/work? We are 138!!!!!
You just opened a can of worms my friend, I expect this thread to reach a high page count.
High-minded philosophical musings relating to games? Buddy, you've hit on well from which all goodjer-enthusiasm springs.
I was fascinated by the game's focus on hands. I don't think this is a spoiler: the ending (or at least, the ending I got,) was almost exclusively focused on hands, conveying emotion and plot through their looks and actions. The entire game is spent looking at crazy plasmid-hands. The game is littered with gloves and hand-paraphernalia. The many wall-mounted statues looking over Rapture are just an enormous head, with two huge hands reaching out to envelop the onlooker. Plus, there is the iconic big daddy-little sister hand holding relationship. I don't know what it means, if anything, but it stuck out at me.
I think Bioshock actually failed to convincingly indict Ryan's ideals, so much so that I doubt that that was the intention. From a purely practical point of view, who spends three years making a game based on ideas they don't like? People are motivated more by a desire to say "this is right" than "this is wrong." Whenever some wrong-turn in the story of Rapture was revealed through the diaries, it was always a STRAYING from Ryan's original ideas that got to them. SPOILERS FOR THE REST OF THIS PARAGRAPH! Ehem. Anyway, the pheromones used to control their minds - not only does that go against Ryan's idea of freedom, but there's a diary in which is expresses absolute disgust for the idea, but goes ahead with it out of necessity. Or, for another example, is his eventual decision to move against Fontaine. Earlier, he was actually defending Fontaine, saying that if others had a problem with him, they should lean how to better compete on the open market. It was a betrayal of his ideals to try to take Fontaine down.
If the game is a criticism of Rand's ideals, it might be more in the vein of calling them unobtainable, or at least unsustainable, rather than intrinsically flawed.
If anything, the game seems to be a criticism of authoritarian politics, of the totalitarian regime. I remember, specifically, the scene with a horribly burned man crucified to a pillar, the words "smuggler, parasite!" scrawled beside him, and an open briefcase filled with Bibles and a crucifix at his feet. The implied story being that Ryan had taken to policing not just actions, but thoughts, beliefs and opinions as well. Again, this seems to run contrary to the central theme of Ryan's philosophy. I remember Ryan having praised the workers who kept Rapture running, for being hard working and diligent; the game's opening words seem to allude to that. "Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?" Ryan's problem didn't seem to be with the lower classes, only with those individuals who couldn't make themselves better, and so decided to make it the task of others to do it for them. Whether that be through crime, or begging, or simply incompetence, it's all the same to him.
SPOILER PARAGRAPH!!!
Fontaine's involvement with the downfall of Rapture is a bit more interesting. If we're thinking that Rapture's story is indicative of the developers' opinions, then Fontaine might simply be the inevitability of the perversion of the ideals. If you start out with Rapture's basic premise, it becomes even more lucrative than usual to work outside the rules. As Fontaine says at one point: "Give me a smart mark over a dumb one, any day."
Also, a sure sign you've been playing too many games: I just walked in, sat down, picked up my 360 controller, and tried to navigate Firefox with it.
I even spent a second annoyed that it wasn't working.
"PEACE ON EARTH. GOOD WILL TO MEN. PUBLIC SHELTER. ADMISSION 50¢"
I'm going to need to actually pick up this game and comment here. I've got lots to say and I haven't even played it yet.
I will say that the "tragic flaws" of Objectivism are really in the interpretation and implementation. Fountainhead made it pretty clear that you could be an Objectivist and still love and value things that did not have a material, market-based worth. to the contrary, it more pointed out that even in your works of art and charity, you have to be doing it because of your own values, and not through the coercion of others, either by threat or by guilt. Ultimately, you have to take responsibility for your own values, and you can't pass the intellectual buck. Rand herself wasn't perfect at it, and her followers haven't been either. It doesn't make the underlying principles wrong (though she was a big fan of commanding people to "check your premises" when the results were off).
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
I think we've progressed to a point where we have to help the moochers and leechers. Why? Because if left alone or ignored they don't die like social darwinism dictates. The case in point is obvious to anyone with exposure to the homeless on a regular basis.
But that is also making a huge assumption that the entire homeless population is a moocher or leecher. In fact, the homeless problem has been around for so long that it is developing its own social structure.
Developing their own social structure is more apparent in another undesirable segment of society, the elderly. My mom, who has spent decades in the retirement home and assisted living communities, would categorize them as the go-go's and the no-go's. (i.e. the mobile, the walker users, and the wheelchair bound) This would often clash since most of the elderly no also grew up in times of blue collar and white collar class distinction and anti-immigrant and pre-civil rights racism. You can imagine the myriad of combinations that splinter into social sects.
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
I'm not sure the idea is that moochers die if we leave them alone. The question is whether they constitute a detriment if they're completely ignored. I'm not entirely sure how having a social structure enters into it. The fact that so much of the homeless population survives by the good graces of others makes them "moochers," doesn't it?
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
The social structure was to emphasize the point that not only do they not go away if ignored, but that they "thrive" enough to differentiate themselves and hence develop "cliques" to discriminate against each other.
Homeless, at least the ones I come in contact with daily, do not survive do by the good graces of others. Good graces are a fraction of a drop in the bucket. Unless you consider throwing out garbage to be good graces. The homeless survive by scavenging.
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
There's all this great conversation going about society and human nature and all my pop culture smothered tiny little brain can do when I read stuff like this is squeal and think "OOOOH Now I want to watch Fight Club."
I suck.
XBLive: Thin J
PSN: Thin_J
I don't imagine master craftsmen leaping away from completed projects and shouting "Done, motherf*ckers! - 1Dgaf
I'm not sure whether Bioshock is an indictment of Objectivism, or just an illustration of its "un-stustainability" (not a real word). Either way, Bioshock is saying that it is not feasible. Ryan started Rapture with high ideals and good intentions. Citizens could perform to their zenith, no one would deny them what they earned. A free market was one of the corner stones of this place.
Enter Fontaine, a guy who absolutely thrives in this environment. He takes every advantage and every short cut. This is made even easier by the laissez faire policies of Rapture's government. At first, Ryan does defend Fontaine, but then Tannenbaum discovers Adam, and I believe Ryan dismisses her findings (correct me if I'm wrong). Fontaine sees the potential, and runs with it.
Once Fontaine becomes a threat to Ryan, Ryan starts breaking his own rules. This is where Rapture really starts breaking down. Either Ryan realizes Fontaine beat him to the punch and steps aside, presumably leading to the downfall of Rapture, or he starts his war with Fontaine, which leads to the downfall of Rapture.
You have an environment where the best and brightest are encouraged to do everything in their power to "better themselves" in any way they can. To me, this just screams "inevitable tyranny".
Now the most interesting implication of all of this is that "we" need some kind of government to regulate the activities of individuals to prevent them from infringing on others' rights. Do you believe that those Big Daddies and Little Sisters were "volunteers"? In today's political climate, I find such a pro-government sentiment note-worthy.
I could go on and on, but I don't want to bore anyone too much. I have a friend earning his philosophy doctorate, and we've already have a few alcohol induced go-arounds over this. It's one of the reasons this game is head and shoulders above the competition.
Fast Fact: If the number of zombie hunters world-wide were to decrease just 1.3% in the next year, the world would see a 50% rate of zombification by 2015.
Don't forget the bronze arms pulling the great chain that are all over the place.
Ken Levine has already stated that big influences for Rapture have been all the stories he loved the most, dystopias and utopias that fall apart. I can't find the particular interview; he's only done a ten a day for six months.
I found Ryan to be a perfect example of where this free for all philosophy is inherently flawed. At some point an individual's goals and visions clash with the very philosophy. To maintain his vision of Rapture he must oppose Fontaine's operation no matter the cost, even going so far as to bend the will its citizens to do so. At that point the dream is lost; the free choice that pulls the great chain is broken. The fault is summed up in those bronze hands' similiarity to Baron von Munchausen's bootstraps.
Danjo Olivaw Lives
Here's an interesting email exchange between someone from an Objectivist website and Ken Levine, on these very topics... about halfway down the page:
http://objectivistcenter.org/cs/forums/318/ShowPost.aspx
I found it by searching for "ayn rand andrew ryan" in google.
Lucky Ghost: Network Stars
I'm going to back out of here before I spoil too much for myself.
I leave you with this: Hands are usually a symbol of work and volition.
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
I just followed Slumberland's link to the Objectivist forum. Levine directly comments on his view of government and philosophy (he describes himself as a Libertarian). It all kind of fits together for me now.
Fast Fact: If the number of zombie hunters world-wide were to decrease just 1.3% in the next year, the world would see a 50% rate of zombification by 2015.
BTW I think the podcast crew are going to have a field day trying to decide between this and Word's "Signal to Noise Ratio" for thread of the week.
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
I know what my reaction will be if they focus on the wrong one, or filter out the correct one.
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
The problem with fictionalized philosophy is the illusion of certainty. Ayn Rand could arrange Altas Shugged such that Objectivism was "divinely correct," and Levine set up Bioshock in such a way that the same philosophy couldn't help but fail. Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra had much the same weakness. I can't help but feel the approach avoids a fundamental requirement of philosophy, that one's ideas are laid bare and examined, not shrouded in human drama and circumstance. Instead these works come across as orchestrated propaganda - even Bioshock.
A friend of mine described Atlas Shrugged as a "guide to understand the mind of a Young Republican." Rand did write a book titled "The Virtue of Selfishness." However, I'm sure JohnnyMoJo would have some problems with the conclusions in the game...
This is why I felt Atlas was a good choice as the player's first ally. In essence, Atlas = Ryan, Ryan = Atlas. As ideas in Rand's world, they are the same. Altas's true identity was a nice twist. Clearly Fontaine is a "parasite" as per the philosophy of the game. He's a con man, he has no ideals for himself, he just serves to leech off others' work. Yet is he so different than Ryan? Bioshock used surgeons and artists as examples of other professions which can aspire to the same ideals as Ryan's industrialist ethos. Organized crime can be a profession, it has "rules" and codes of honor. I originally assumed that Fontaine was a mobster, he was way too organized to be a simple con. After all, he did create the first plasmids business, and later created Altas' underground revolution. Thus I really see Fontaine as the same personality type as Ryan - another man who plays by his own rules. In a world like Rapture, ultimately someone would rise to challenge the king. I feel its a necessary consequence of Objectivism.
We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all.
Randians hate the appellation, but Atlas Shrugged is often referred to as "the Libertarian Bible."
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
You know i just realised that Andrew Ryan is derived from the name Ayn Rand... "with rew" thrown in for the name make sense...
Logic would dictate that large-scale charity only hinders the application of that charity. Local or small-scale charity works because it directly benefits the system (even if you are not in that system) that it is within. I don't think some of my views (though purely theorectical) would be very popular without people actually knowing me
No purely idealistic society can exist without evolving into the smorgasbord of ideals that we all have. It is impossible for more than one person to believe or behave in exactly the same way.... thus any ideal is just that, an ideal. No more concrete from one mind to the next.
I actually subscribe to this idea.... always have. Without government, who is there to fear? Who stops all that undesirable form of action or reaction within society without it devolving into an anarchists nightmare (and believe me, there are no true anarchists in the world - they wouldn't be able to co-ordinate a rally or anything
). Good catch, i completely missed this....
A blog: by me!
I'm definitely not a philosopher. I took two philosophy classes in college, and I have some philosopher drinking buddies, but I think I understand why Randians would hate that.
The core of Libertarianism is that the government exists to redress grievances. It keeps people from taking matters into their own hands and society from devolving into a free-for-all. Otherwise, it should leave the citizens alone.
Objectivism, as I understand it, believes that if everyone acts with rational self interest, respecting others, society will move along wonderfully with no governmental interference.
I think both sound okay, but Objectivism is not practical. Normal people don't act that way. There are gifted, greedy, selfish people out there that will use an Objectivist society to get ahead at a great cost to others. That is the message I get from Bioshock. Also, that's pretty much what Levine said in the interview he gave in June .
Fast Fact: If the number of zombie hunters world-wide were to decrease just 1.3% in the next year, the world would see a 50% rate of zombification by 2015.
The title of this thread should have a spoilers tag. That is all.
XboxLive: georobGWJ
Wow, after reading that link, I am going to have to pick up some Rand in the near future.
Should I start with Atlas Shrugged?
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
*cracks knuckles*
Actually, I don't have time to get into this now nearly as much as I'd like, and since I am only about halfway through, I can't comment on the end (and had to skip a few paragraphs here that looked like stuff I didn't want to know yet). I'll echo my thoughts from talking with Levine on this -- he's a hater of extremism, pure and simple. This is where Bioshock can get a little overwhelming honestly. It's not a treatise on anything, it's a flat out indictment of belief. At its most abstract, this should be a Randian's wet dream. She, if nothing else, argued for basing *everything* on your own rationality, thought, observation. She, if nothing else, argued against accepting the status quo because someone told you it was the truth.
Bioshock's story is one of unrelenting belief. The story could have been told as a criticism of Communism, with Ryan carrying a little red book, and I think the tone might have been largely the same. Someone still has to clean the toilets and nobody wants it to be them. If you are a deep believer in pretty much anything, Bioshock will hit you. The stacks of bibles, the implied alcoholism of the whole place, the singularity in art and design. It's all things that went TOO FAR.
But there's another layer I'm surprised we haven't hit on more. Rapture isn't oblivion. There's no sense you could ride into the woods and never come back. It's the opposite. It's survivor. When you lock a group into a confined space and cut off all outside avenues of expression, and remove the possibility of true privacy, you drive people insane. In grad school I took a class called "groups," in which we did nothing for 3 hours once a week but sit in a room, talking about nothing. The professors would only repeat the phrase "you're sitting in this circle to learn about group dynamics by focusing on the hear and now." Each week you would either be in the fishbowl, or observing it. And while it would seem silly occasionally, or devolve into Quaker meeting silence, 13 weeks later I had a deep respect for how incredibly screwed up closed human systems can become in short order.
To me, thats the madness of rapture. It's not Rand, and it's not even Ryan. It's the walls. It's the madness of confinement.
Gamertag: GWJ Rabbit | Last.fm | Twitter
"In other news, Miyamoto pissed on my head, and gave me a forecast of rain." - *Le
Once again I wish Illum was still around. Ain't nobody waxes philosophical quite like he could.
Speaking of "smugglers" -- who are those? I am not a spoiler pansie, so you can lay it on to me. I haven't reached them in the game yet. Only saw one who appeared to be crussified early in the beginning of the Fisheries level.
Xbox Live tag Gorilla800lbs
Glass houses, Rabbit?
Elysium: The democratization of the web ... has installed an illusion of a digital first amendment that protects speech no matter how poorly spelled or stupid.
XBL: E Munnie
elementsofmeaning.blogspot.com
iirc, objectivist don't think that shouldn't donate to charity if you want to. If you want to donate to charity... go for it, but you shouldn't feel morally obligated to it. You shouldn't have to live for others becaue it is the "right thing to do". To an objectivist, the "right thing to do" is to live for yourself because you are the forefront of your life, not anyone else. If you want to help and assist others, do so because you want to, not because you feel you have to.
Bah, I got a phone call mid post so now I lost my train of thought.
Oh yeah, everyone talks about rational self interest and I see a lot of meanings thrown around for it, but as far as I can remember, it basically was spelt out to "You have the individual rights to pursue your own goals to the best of your abilities so long as they do not interfere with the individual rights of others."
I'm not really a girl. I just play one in video games.
My WotLK Beta Blog
Elysium wrote:
Start with The Fountainhead and then move on to Atlas Shrugged
The Fountainhead is about the world's influence on the individual and Atlas Shrugged is about the individual's influence in the world.
I'm not really a girl. I just play one in video games.
My WotLK Beta Blog
Elysium wrote:
I can leave my basement anytime I want. Really. Just today I saw sunlight.
Gamertag: GWJ Rabbit | Last.fm | Twitter
"In other news, Miyamoto pissed on my head, and gave me a forecast of rain." - *Le
Rabbit, do you find the philosophy of the characters more compelling than Levine's philosophy about the game, or the other way around? From your interviews with Ken I really grew to like the fellow, and I can see why you enjoyed your time at Irrational. However, when I play Bioshock, all I can think about is Ryan.
We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all.