Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Bioshock's Plot from a Historical/Philosophical Perspective

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cocktail Lounge, Fort Frolic
    Posts
    139

    Bioshock's Plot from a Historical/Philosophical Perspective

    WARNING: This thread contains spoilers, and I apologize for the massive length in advance...

    As many of you know, Bioshock is famous for its entralling and beautifully written story. The dynamics of every character from Andrew Ryan to Peachy bring the game to life in ways that can be called unprecedented in the gaming world. Levine made it his goal to create something fresh, unique, and narrative in an unparalleled way. In my opinion, he succeeded far beyond his initial goals. Not only is Bioshock all of those things, but it is also an allegory which represents the ideological trends which were dominant during the period. As many of you may recall, Rapture was completed(according to the little models of the city in the Rapture Metro Areas) on November 4th, 1946, just barely a year after the end of World War II, and at the outset of the Cold War.

    Now if we look at the construction of Rapture as if it actually happened, we will see that Ryan and his followers submerged under the sea just as the battle between the US and Russia began to heat up. The threat of the atomic bomb was always present...people never knew when a bomb may fall from the sky and destroy civilization just as it had done in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This clearly gives the people of Rapture motivation to seek safety underneath the Atlantic Ocean. But it is more than that. It is an ideological escape as well. During our visit to Rapture, we constantly hear the propaganda announcements stating that "parasites" feed off of a Man's hard labor. Indeed as Ryan pointed out in the very first video,
    "Is a man not entitled to the sweat on his brow?
    No! Says the man in Washington-it belongs to the poor.
    No! Says the man in the Vatican-it belongs to God.
    No! Says the man in Moscow-it belongs to the poor."

    What Ryan is declaring here is that his vision is that all men are entitled to what they earned-they should pay little taxes or no taxes, follow few laws, and receive little government help. This ideology is an extremely right wing ideology...If you look at the political spectrum you have-

    LEFT WING....................CENTER.................... RIGHT WING
    Now if you look at the parties he mentioned(excluding the Vatican since it is not technically a government) you have...
    LEFT WING=Soviet Union and it's Communist Block(Eastern Europe, China, South America and some parts of southern Asia). These Governments have complete and total control of their people. Government evenly distributes all goods to all people, regardless of how hard they work. Ideally, this is to prevent inequality, however the ruling party enjoys more luxuries than any of its people.

    CENTER=United States, Western Europe, Japan, parts of Central America and Asia). These governments allow some freedoms to their people, but still tax and enact programs which help the poor. Using tax money from the middle and upper class, the governments do things like build roads, armies, public buildings, and public services.

    RIGHT WING=Rapture. People are hardly taxed, and are basically left to fend for themselves. There is no government distribution of wealth. This is essentially a Darwin-esque "Survival of the fittest" system in which if you work hard, you are rewarded, and if you don't, you are a "parasite" and deserve nothing. In Ryan's mind, the poor are poor because they are lazy, weak, and expect to be taken care of by the government with tax money from the rich. He rejects that, believing that "the sweat of a man's brow" is his, and should never be taken away from by any government.

    Now, by understanding all of these different types of ideologies, it may be difficult to make a decision. Ryan certainly makes a convincing case that his ideology is the best ideology...after all, if the poor are lazy and weak, why should they "suck" the resources from the hard workers? In the end, Ryan obviously brings up some good points, however, when we arrive in Rapture, nothing is as wonderful as it should be.

    Overall, Levine is criticizing Ryan's(or far right wing) ideology by showing how it will eventually destroy itself. By creating a right wing system like Ryan did, he allowed for people to compete with one another for wealth and power without government regulation. This is very similar to George W. Bush's "Neo-Liberal" policy of free markets, which essentially says that Big Business competition should be free to move as it pleases-government should not step in to regulate it for it will naturally regulate itself. This is where the idea of the "Great Chain" comes in. As Ryan says, "The Great Chain is too powerful and too mysterious for any one man to comprehend or control." The idea of the Great Chain basically means an invisible force which is present in an economy which maintains a balance between rival business interests. By maintaining this balance, the economy as a whole will benefit. As we are all whitnessing in the United States however, the Great Chain is broken, as these big corporations have corrupted themselves by becoming too large for their own good, and spending far more money than they actually posess. This is a result George Bush's failure to use the government to regulate this impulsive and uncontrolled corporate behavior.

    The same situation can be seen in Bioshock. Over the years, the big businesses in Rapture got out of hand, especially Fontaine's Futuristics, which soon came to rival Ryan's own business interests. This is where Ryan begins to betray his own ideology. As part of his own system, the biggest, and hardest working entity should reap all the benefits. Ryan, on the other hand, does not want to fall behind his rival. He therefore uses his government to "kill" Fontaine and Nationalize Fontaine Futuristics. By doing so, he has strictly betrayed his own beliefs, as the practice of Nationalizing(government control of a business) is a strictly LEFT WING practice. With control over Fontaine Futuristics, Ryan unleashes a massive add campaign which convinces people to buy and use his plasmids. Without any regulation on the plasmid business, it gets far too big, and people use them far too much. Eventually people get addicted to the plasmids, and lose their minds. This is a criticism of massive over-consumption in capitalistic societies like the United States. When people begin to shop, they overspend with credit cards and the like, eventually forcing them into a state of extreme debt and destitution. When the "Splicers" begin to splice, they oversplice forcing them into a state of physical dispair and destitution.

    When Atlas arrives, matters are made even worse as Ryan struggles to maintain his own position of power. Suddenly he is forcing people to splice and controlling his actions. At this point, he has nearly abandoned his original ideas simply because he has become so power hungry. No longer is he the benevolent leader who seeks to "save" the best in society-no, he has come to believe that he is the best in society, and should be the one, and only ruler of Rapture. So in essence, he has transformed himself into a dictator, and fights tooth and nail to keep Jack from de-throning him.

    What Ryan fails to understand, even in the end, is that he is the victim of his own system. By allowing big business to rise up and become all-powerful, he has allowed these businesses to challenge his very own position of power. He becomes so disillusioned, that he doesn't even realize that he has betrayed himself, and the people who trusted him. This is why we discover all of his followers planning to kill him, McDaunagh included. In the end, there is a massive breakdown in the entire system, and the end result is the destruction of Rapture as we see it when we descend in the blathysphere.

    Phew, that was a lot of typing, but I felt I had to get that out there. Believe it or not, but that is just the very tip of the ice berg...i could go on and on about the various other aspects of the game, but I want to hear what everyone else has to say. Do you think I made a mistake? Do you have anything else to add? I'd love to get a great conversation going...
    Last edited by Forsaken Lament 04; 01-23-2009 at 06:26 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Scatman's world
    Posts
    973
    very nice

    you know, Alan Greenspan (i i spelled that right) denounced Ayn Rand's neo-conservative philosophies.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    "I Never Sleep Cuz Sleep Is The Cousin Of Death"-Nas
    Posts
    1,709
    thats awesome! that must of took a long time of typeing!
    go ahead and cool down your fingers!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Apollo Square, Hestia 4th floor (UK)
    Posts
    2,519
    Very interesting post, well explained

    Dont know too much about that kind of stuff myself so nothing really that i can add. Was a very informative and also educational read

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cocktail Lounge, Fort Frolic
    Posts
    139
    thanks a lot, it's nice to know all that typing served a purpose...lol trust me, I could go on and on...

    And it's true that Ayn Rand's philosophy has been deeply criticized...but it has also been praised by many hard-core conservatives.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Scatman's world
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by Forsaken Lament 04 View Post
    thanks a lot, it's nice to know all that typing served a purpose...lol trust me, I could go on and on...

    And it's true that Ayn Rand's philosophy has been deeply criticized...but it has also been praised by many hard-core conservatives.
    in my opinion, Rand's ideals are a "Brigde to Nowhere"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    (see name)
    Posts
    508
    very insightful I must say. its interesting to consider that Ryan's idealisms were very much another form of Facism.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by LookBehindU View Post
    very insightful I must say. its interesting to consider that Ryan's idealisms were very much another form of Facism.
    No no no no!

    Rand's idealisms weren't and aren't related to any form of fascism. Rand defined fascism as forcing ideals onto people by physical force, a practice her ideas didn't go by. She hated physical force. It was Ryan's fear that drove him into those dreadfull acts, that made him betray his own ideas.

    The system wasn't flawed, it never is, but the people were.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I am the Nard Dog!!
    Posts
    603
    Quote Originally Posted by mueske View Post
    No no no no!

    Rand's idealisms weren't and aren't related to any form of fascism. Rand defined fascism as forcing ideals onto people by physical force, a practice her ideas didn't go by. She hated physical force. It was Ryan's fear that drove him into those dreadfull acts, that made him betray his own ideas.

    The system wasn't flawed, it never is, but the people were.
    exactly what i was going to say

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cocktail Lounge, Fort Frolic
    Posts
    139
    Interesting you should say that. As I mentioned, Ryan didn't start off as a dictator(and being a dictator doesn't make you a fascist)...he gradually became one as fear and panic set in...which I think is rather normal for a leader who has to take action...after all, there were concerns over Bush's abuse of power following 9/11, but again, that was a period of turmoil. So it really does make you wonder...what would you have done if you were in his shoes? As Ryan said in one of his own tapes regarding mind controls(I'm paraphrasing) "mind control is a direct contradiction to free will in our society...but we are facing drastic times...and drastic times call for drastic measures." I think this is an aspect of leadership which is not linked to any one ideology, but is linked to the position itself...therefore, it's difficult to place blame...

    As for the Rand's ideology, I don't know the specifics of it, for I haven't read her books, although I've researched them...either way, the problem with the system is that unlimited competition and complete freedom have their consequences...mass marketing, exploitation, over consumption, etc etc. But perhaps the thing that was most startling to Ryan was that somehow the "parasites" managed to find their way down to Rapture, despite the fact that only the best people were invited to go down. How is this possible? Well again, separate from any one ideology, this is a group dynamic. Whenever you have a large group, no matter how skilled or affluent they are, an upper class and a lower class begin to form. So in Rapture's case, despite the skill of all of its residents, the weaker of the group were pushed into the poor houses, and the stronger of them rose to positions which allowed them to exploit those below them...
    Last edited by Forsaken Lament 04; 01-24-2009 at 05:40 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    310
    Quote Originally Posted by Forsaken Lament 04 View Post
    Interesting you should say that. As I mentioned, Ryan didn't start off as a dictator(and being a dictator doesn't make you a fascist)...he gradually became one as fear and panic set in...which I think is rather normal for a leader who has to take action...after all, there were concerns over Bush's abuse of power following 9/11, but again, that was a period of turmoil. So it really does make you wonder...what would you have done if you were in his shoes? As Ryan said in one of his own tapes regarding mind controls(I'm paraphrasing) "mind control is a direct contradiction to free will in our society...but we are facing drastic times...and drastic times call for drastic measures." I think this is an aspect of leadership which is not linked to any one ideology, but is linked to the position itself...therefore, it's difficult to place blame...
    Exactly, Rapture was Ryan's child, he didn't, wouldn't want to lose it to the bad man. I think every leader, creator of something as Rapture would do the same.

    As for the Rand's ideology, I don't know the specifics of it, for I haven't read her books, although I've researched them...either way, the problem with the system is that unlimited competition and complete freedom have their consequences...mass marketing, exploitation, over consumption, etc etc. But perhaps the thing that was most startling to Ryan was that somehow the "parasites" managed to find their way down to Rapture, despite the fact that only the best people were invited to go down. How is this possible? Well again, separate from any one ideology, this is a group dynamic. Whenever you have a large group, no matter how skilled or affluent they are, an upper class and a lower class begin to form. So in Rapture's case, despite the skill of all of its residents, the weaker of the group were pushed into the poor houses, and the stronger of them rose to positions which allowed them to exploit those below them...
    My knowledge of objectivism isn't great enough to judge it on an economical scale yet. But, I do live by the principles of objectivism on a social scale. I live by a rational self-intrest, described and executed by Rand in her books and essays.

    Of course, social classes are inevitable, it isn't the aim of Objectivism nor Rapture to destroy this, if anything, it is to encourage is. Man has free will, and becasue of that the power to rise out of the lower classes, into the higher classes. But there we encounter another human flaw, why put an effort into something if we can just take what another does and exploit that?

    The same goes for the upper class, they repress the lower classes, out of fear that one day they might lose their power.

    The problem with objectivism on a large scale is that it is a rational belief, emotions stand below rationality. Most people, when faced with danger or fear, tend to lose their rationality and judge solely on their emotions. Mankind isn't 100 % rational, objectivism is, that is where the problems come from.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    310
    Sorry for the double post, but please people, don't let this thread die!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by mueske View Post
    Mankind isn't 100 % rational, objectivism is, that is where the problems come from.

    I think that's the main problem with objectivism: It demands that people be perfect. If carried out flawlessly, objectivism is, to the extent of my knowledge, pretty much perfect. However, I don't think that it will ever actually happen because people can't be 100% rational, as you said, and without perfection in this way, there can be no objectivism.

    Bioshock isn't really bashing objectivism, as a lot of people are saying, but rather demonstrating that it can never be achieved. Even if someone gathers up the most intelligent, rational people in the world and brings them together, they will still not be perfect. That's why Rapture ended up the way it did.

    One point that Bioshock does bring up is summarized in a quote from one of Fontaines audio diaries, where he says, "They all come down here expecting to be captains of the industry, but they all forget that someone's gotta scrub the toilets." The point being that objectivism is also impossible because any society depends on lower class citizens to do jobs that don't require high intellect.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cocktail Lounge, Fort Frolic
    Posts
    139
    I'm sorry I've taken so long to respond, I've been reading Rand's essay entitled "Objectionist Ethics: The Virtue of Selfishness" in preparation for a meaningful analysis. And after reading most of the essay, I believe my belief that complete objectivity is impossible.

    You see, in this particular essay, Rand describes a "true" man as one who is fully concious of his actions and of his life, and strives to live constructively, working tirelessly to achieve his own "values". This is where the problem comes in. Rand differenciates animalistic "values"(the need to survive) from human values(the need be successful in a rational and self-fulfilling manor). We must pursue our own goals, and do our own work. This is the only way true happiness can be obtained. If we fail to meet this challenge, we are not concious humans, but instead non-concious sub-humans-wondering about not caring about one's own life, but instead wondering aimlessly towards one's own distruction. She also goes on to state that a true man must not succumb lazily to the norms and restrictions of society, but must instead strive to create himself in his own personalized image. Those who imitate this image are "trained animals" whose life is sustained by 'those who did choose to think and to discover motions they are repeating. The survival of such mental parasites depends on blind chance." So in the end, we work to succeed in pursuit of our own goals, or we are non-humans stumbling clumsily towards our own destruction.

    Now I feel there are some truths to this, but I have my qualms at the same time, and since it is 1:45 AM, I'll hold off for the time being...analyze that for a bit, and I'll be back to put in my two cents...and don't worry, this topic isn't dying while I'm around!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    The Fighting McDonagh's, Room 5
    Posts
    767
    I think there's lots to learn from her philosophy. But obviously it doesn't work in practice, not down to the letter.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    (see name)
    Posts
    508
    Quote Originally Posted by mueske View Post
    No no no no!

    Rand's idealisms weren't and aren't related to any form of fascism. Rand defined fascism as forcing ideals onto people by physical force, a practice her ideas didn't go by. She hated physical force. It was Ryan's fear that drove him into those dreadfull acts, that made him betray his own ideas.

    The system wasn't flawed, it never is, but the people were.
    I'm not saying anything about Rand's ideals. I'm talking about the ideals of a fictional man named Andrew Ryan. Like many of his time Andrew Ryan looked at the Communist revolution in Russia as a sign that all left wing ideals were dangerous. A large reason fascism became so wide spread in the time of the great depression was because governments were running around in a panic trying to prevent communist revolutions in their own countries and paying no attention to the dangerous thinkings of the growing Nazi party. Maybe Ryan's ideals were not quite fascist at the time that the city was in prosperity but definetly he was always an extreme conservative. When the civil war started maybe Ryan saw Atlas's army as the communists he had sought to escape. It makes sense that he would think this because the situation fits the description of a typical revolution: lower classes rebeling against the upper classes because of the poor lives that they are forced to live. Seeing his city slip away Ryan slipped into pure fascism because it was what he saw as the best course of action (counter extrem left with an extreme right).

    political spectrum

    Left Wing...................................Center..... ............................Right wing
    and in more definition
    Communist.......Socialist..............Liberal.... ....Conservative..............Fascist

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Scatman's world
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by mueske View Post
    No no no no!

    Rand's idealisms weren't and aren't related to any form of fascism. Rand defined fascism as forcing ideals onto people by physical force, a practice her ideas didn't go by. She hated physical force. It was Ryan's fear that drove him into those dreadfull acts, that made him betray his own ideas.

    The system wasn't flawed, it never is, but the people were.
    I think that the system should accommodate the people. Meaning, if the people made the system collapse, then it was a failing in the system's part.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cocktail Lounge, Fort Frolic
    Posts
    139
    But you see, that's just the problem. Ryan's system wasn't meant to accomodate the people...that's what hard-core capitalism is all about! only the strong survive, if you fall behind, it is your own fault and you belong in the gutter. Here's an example: For the past 8 years we have been living in a free market state, i.e. a country where government does little to regulate business...in the neo-conservative view, government SHOULD NOT get involved in business because businesses regulate themselves(the idea of the "great chain"). When the entire system went awry last fall, and banks began to collapse, it was clear that Bush's free market principles were failing, mainly due to the fact that big business went out of control with spending, producing, lending, etc. In order to deal with this, the democratic majority in congress passed the $800 billion bailout, which was meant to save these corporations(GOVERNMENT REGULATION)...when the vote was passed, the majority of republicans were against giving money to the companies, in their RIGHT WING view(similar to Ryan's), the weak corporations should have been left alone to die out, leaving only the strongest and most deserving to survive. But at the very same time, if you allow the corporations to fail, then you have millions of lost jobs, a financial disaster, and economic downturn...so which is better? Regulation or free-market?

    This is the situation Ryan faced when things fell apart in Rapture. Free market principles tend to isolate the lower classes and push them further into the dirt. Of course, the side effect of this-which Ryan should have seen coming-is that when people are pushed down too much, they are going to fight back. We've seen this with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, Labor Movements in the US at the turn of the century, and other left-wing movements in Asia and South America. But the working class is not always the most educated class, leaving them open for exploitation. As Fontaine put it so nicely "all you have to do is make them feel like they're worth a nickel" to get them to do what you want. As history has shown us, time and time again, the un-educated working class is tricked and used by those who rose to power like Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, or Frank Fontaine.

    So when you look at all of this, it's easy to get confused, mainly because BOTH right wing, and left wing ideologies seem to have their flaws...and this is true. EXTREMES are bad either way you look at them...notice LookBehindU's political spectrum-
    -Fascist...conserative...center....liberal....commu nist
    -Right Wing................center.................Left Wing

    But notice one thing about the two extremes-when you have either of these systems in place, whether they are Fascist or Communist, you always have a TOTALITARIAN government...and with a totlitarian government comes a DICTATOR.
    So in a historical sense you have-
    Adolf Hitler........................................Jose ph Stalin
    In a Bioshock sense you have-
    Andrew Ryan.....................................Frank Fontaine

    Does that mean that Ryan would kill 6 million people in concentration camps? Or that Fontaine would kill millions and millions of people in labor camps and gulags? Of course not...but the principle is the same. In the end, Bioshock is not a game about good vs evil, (as someone said in a different forum) it's a game about evil vs evil.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Here, there, everywhere
    Posts
    315
    I ultimately must civilly disagree on the notion that the game is 'evil vs. evil' (though technically, you're right in that both men were evil in their own way due to the lengths they'd go to protect what they thought was right). I doubt that Fontaine was actually that much of left-winger, simply due to the fact that he seems to believe in no human made system other than what works for him at the time. He isn't interested about economics at all unless it can bring him power, which it managed to. Our mobster-turned-businessman was simply being a habitable creature who was attempting to apply his old thuggish principles to a new profession. And technically, it worked, mostly because of how smart he was in the end.

    I would also take 'Fascist' off of the political spectrum and make it look more like...this:

    Objectivist <--- Libertarian <--- Conservative <--- Central ---> Liberal ---> Socialist ---> Communist

    This would be a more accurate world view for BioShock, at least to me.

    Ultimately, no belief system is 'evil.' Why? Because every idea believes it has the best intentions for all. Despite how much slack is given to Communism and Socialism, neither is interested in ruining prosperity: they are simply interested in giving it their own way and if you don't like it, tough. Despite this, no one knocks on Objectivism, merely because it's capitalism-oriented. We in the west have a subconcious bias because we think that anything with capitalism is instantly better and will be more 'successful' than either Socialism or Communism. Neither has failed the people, but the people failed the ideologies. So in this sense, the analysis of Objectivism this far is correct: the ideology did not fail, but its practitioners did.

    In the end, Objectivism is just as idealistic as either Communism or Socialism. Communism says that ultimately, the 'dictatorship of the proleteriat' is technically an anarchy wherein people share mutual cooperation to get things done for the betterment of the community. Objectivism tells us that utlimately everyone will be in their own self-interest and won't need to worry about one another. But the same criticisms of either 'Red' ideologies may be applied to his 'Blue' one: what happens if an individual's self-interest is stealing for himself or herself? By Objectivism, shouldn't we technically respect this decision and not interfere? It is easy to find just as many holes to poke in Rand's baby as it is Marx's. But, again, we're just biased not too because Rand is 'good,' mostly because of the stigma of either Red 'failures' (I use this loosely because neither have been technically executed as they originally call for; though Socialism comes close) because we've never had an Objectivist government from which to base off of our doubts on. In my mind, this is Mr. Levine showing that Objectivism is just a fanciful notion as arguably the other too are. It's fine if you're an ideological whatever it is you may be, but ultimately, people are people. And this we cannot change.

    Ryan's gradual transformation into a monster isn't that surprising, honestly. He was a man so blinded by his hatred of the 'nanny state' that he obviously disregarded any of the evidence before him that Fontaine needed to be 'spanked' and put into his place. For Ryan's own personal good (this should surprise no one, after all, Ryan didn't stop Fontaine merely because he was the leader and in Objectivism, he had to care for no one other than himself), Fontaine was not stopped and he didn't violate his laissez-faire policies. Could Ryan have actually stopped Fontaine if he'd taken action? I personally doubt it, considering the growing need for ADAM; but could he have 'controlled' him, to an extent? Arguably, yes. Altogether? No, not really, but I think he could have made it a heck of a lot worse had he not been so obsessed with keeping power.

    In other words, I think Ryan the perfect Randian archetype: he's charismatic, sure-footed, wealthy, handsome, and not afraid to tell people what he thinks. Fontaine? I think Fontaine is meant to be a 'real' criminal (i.e., one who we might find in our own world), not some sort of fantasy novel. This is a metaphorical reason why I don't think Ryan won. Reality, in the end, beats out what we want. Fontaine may have been political and economically apathetic to everyone, but that certainly didn't stop him from taking advantage of the masses with his own charisma and oratory as 'Atlas.' Ironically, by not staying true to whatever his own beliefs were, he conformed to what others around him wanted him to be. Mobster-to-businessman-to-politician? I think there's something in that notion too.

    Also, I may have said an ignorant thing here or there about Objectivism in my analysis, so I apologize mueske. I myself would consider myself, I think, an ideological Socialist. So feel free to trample over me if you feel I've done the same to you.
    Last edited by Who_is_Atlas?; 01-30-2009 at 04:14 PM.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cocktail Lounge, Fort Frolic
    Posts
    139
    Please, you certainly haven't trampled all over my explanation, in fact, you've brought your own analysis to the table...this was the point of the topic to begin with! Only by hearing other's opinions can we free ourselves from our own narrow worldviews and biased opinions...anyway, I'm going to adress each of your points. I think you'll find that the two of us share more in common than you think...

    First and foremost, when I deemed Fontaine as left wing, and even went so far as to compare him to Joseph Stalin, I meant to compare the extremes of the ideologies between one entity and the other(Ryan and Fontaine, Hitler and Stalin), but of course, Fontaine himself doesn't have any blatant ideology(althought "Atlas" does, but I'll get to that)...in a sense, he might actually be even more of an objectivist than Ryan is, namely because he pursues the most rational means of self enhancement. Where Ryan seeks to create a haven for those who share his beliefs, Fontaine could care less about others, as long as he meets his own personal goals. In this sense, he is the only truly concious one of them all, and is therefore a true "man". But as "Atlas" he uses left wing ideology to his advantage...by understanding the history of left wing communist movements, he could exploit the situation for his own objectivist goals. In this sense, Fontaine is Left Wing...he recreates himself as a pseudo Vladimir Lenin and uses his personal charisma to entice the poor into following him in his endeavors. If you believe in Rand's ideology, how can you fault him for that? It is the most rational way to achieve success in the very first place.

    Now in terms of the game being "evil vs. evil", you bring up a good point...after all, what is the definition of evil in the first place? Well, in essence, evil is nothing more than an opinion based upon one's own experience. If I have 10 apples I worked hard to obtain, I think it's evil when Tom steals 2 of them. If Tom has no apples, he thinks it's evil when I 10 of them all to myself. To Americans, radical Islam is evil because it employs ruthless tactics for the purpose of destroying the American way of life. To Radical Islam, Americanism is evil as it threatens a very orthodox way of life with western control and culture. The definition of "good" and "evil" is relative to one's own situation. This is the predicament our characters face. Ryan would argue he is good because he worked hard to achieve his goals-he sweat, shed blood, and toiled to create...all in the service of his own ideals. Fontaine would argue Ryan is evil because he is blinded by his own dogmatic visions, and enforces totalitarian rule all because he worked hard enough to earn his right to be at the top. As you can see, there are two sides to the argument, but in the end, your opinion on the matter depends on your own personal experience. now the same can be said about Fontaine...no one tends to sympathize with him, but if you are a true objectivist, how can't you? Again, he employs rational selfishness, exactly what Rand endorses. He appears evil, mainly due to his history as a mobster, and the fact that he uses people-but according to Rand, Fontaine is a man with vision, and therefore deserves to surpass those who lacked it.

    Now in terms of political ideologies, you bring up some good points who is Atlas. But ultimately, I am against extremes on either end...largely because when one is beholden to radical dogma, as Ryan is, vision is blurred and the ability to compromise is destroyed. Now personally i tend to favor a slightly left-of-center policy. I agree that Americans tend to have a general fear of words like "socialism" and "communism". This is largely due to the fact that many simply don't know much about them...they just know the vague definition our capitalistic government has fed to them, which is that they are "bad". But as you said, the ideologies themselves haven't failed, the people have failed them. But again, humanity is subjective, and it is far from perfect. Communism and Objectivism, the two extremes of political dogmatism, are highly idealistic. They favor some, and exclude the rest. What I mean by this is that they are so narrowly focused that their aspects cannot possibly find common ground with every citizen of a given society. Take Objectivism for example. It is true that no purely Objectivist society has ever existed, but the United States has come extremely close on a few occassions, especially during the late 19th century.

    Known as the "Gilded Age", the late 19th century is known for the massive industrial boom which occurred in the United States during the time period. It was an age of new machinery, and with new machinery comes the advent of mass production, or true capital. With the victory of the North and right wing ideology following the Civil War, laissez-faire capitalism became the dominant un-checked force in the country. Government officials were controlled and financed by big business, and largely kept out of business affairs, allowing businesses to conduct themselves as they pleased. This meant cheap labor, mass production, and intense competition. The poor(immigrants, trade workers, peasants) were forced to the bottom of the economic food chain. Where they may have made a decent living based upon their trade skills prior to the rise of big business, they were forced out of business by massive corporations, and forced to work for dismal wages in huge, dirty, dangerous factories. In time, these people were no longer considered people, but mere replaceable commodities by business people. And the logic behind it: business leaders deserved their rank at the top, making millions, because they had worked hard for it, while the poor belonged at the bottom because they were too dirty, stupid, and lazy to achieve success.

    So what's wrong with this picture? Well, as a centrist, this objectivist picture is wrong in that it favors a select few over society as a whole. Of course, the flip side to this is a socialist/communist approach which dictates that all people have a more equal shot at things, despite the fact that government plays a large, or even an omnipresent role in all actions. Again, I repeat that both sides are flawed in that their goals are inherently idealistic and dogmatic in their approach. Both approaches, historically, have failed...and this is the reason. While Ryan fled the United States due to the fact that it was departing away from its Laissez-Faire system, it is important to remember that the US, as a more centrist nation, is going to go through Left Wing/Right Wing cycles. We have had periods where we have teetered on the brink of being a socialist nation, and we have tasted the greed and corruption of the Liassez-Faire system. Still, the US has never gone so far to one extreme that it has completely isolated large swaths of the public, and this is why it has succeeded for so long. In the end, i have come to the conclusion that any extreme, whether right or left wing, is doomed to fail...not because the ideas are necessarily flawed, but because people themselves are flawed. These ideas fail to take this point into account, and that is their weakness. Perhaps if Ryan had taken this truth into account, and had been more flexible in his ideals, Rapture would have survived.

    Naturally, this is all just my opinion, based on my own experience...and as I am myself a human, this analysis itself is flawed...so please, I can't wait to hear what people have to say, and feel free to disagree and to add to this...as I stated in the beginning, the only way to truly learn and to succeed, is to take ideas from all sorts of perspectives, as to prevent yourself from being overtaken by your own dogmatism.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    The Fighting McDonagh's, Room 5
    Posts
    767
    Geez. I'd like to read this but it would take a few hours at this point.

    Just skimming, the whole left-right liberal-conservative free marker-regulation thing... the answer is neither extreme works. They have qualities that balance eachother out and an inbetween is ideal.

    Times change. Conservative thinking works in certain situations, liberal in others. I wish people could understand that.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Here, there, everywhere
    Posts
    315
    Eh...well, I think I'll try to be avoiding any sort of discussion on economics and/or politics from this point onward, unless absolutely necessary. I've found that once this sort of stuff begins to enter the conversation, people can get a bit ugly when defending these things. I'll try to answer your responses the best I can without getting too heavy into it, eh?

    I actually never thought that deeply about Fontaine in the sense of him being the 'ultimate Objectivist.' But I must say I think you're probably correct in this assumption: how can one, if this is the ideology they choose, not 'cheer' for him? He does everything that is required of him by the ideology itself. In another way, he is arguably this way because of, in my opinion, the rather obvious Biblical connections BioShock has (now pardon, I'm not totally familiar with the Bible itself, but I think I have a basic outline at least). Perhaps Fontaine is meant to be 'the Devil'? He constantly fulfills the role as his dupe, Atlas, by literally being the 'devil on your shoulder' the entire time while you're in Rapture. He's arguably the archetype of 'the great deceiver' and he holds a near mythic boogeyman status within Rapture itself (arguably how the Devil is viewed in all of the major Abrahamic religions). If this analysis is correct, this also explains why he would try, at least from a story standpoint, to associate himself with 'left wing' sort of stuff: it's 'godless,' as the 1950s American propaganda went, wasn't it?

    This perhaps explains the choice for 'just girls' with the Little Sister program endorsed by himself that Tenenbaum does (representing Eve, the fallen woman archetype?). Master of chaos in this world, on a small scale of course, or whatever you'd say, he also fulfills the slick, wheeling and dealing businessman kind of thing. While Rand loved the idea of that 'virtuous selfishness,' we must also keep in mind that since Ryan espouses basically verbatim her concepts, Fontaine fails to do one simple thing: he fails to play 'nicely.' Ironic then, isn't it? Rather than dueling peacefully and without violence, a thing Rand detested, the man who fulfills Objectivism the most is a criminal who can make the decision to sacrifice an entire populace and its future (in the form of the Little Sisters) to his own ends without batting an eye. If Rand could see the game, I'm actually sure she would probably abhor Fontaine's character (to an extent)...make of that whatever you want though.

    You're correct about the Gilded Age (a bit of a term I had to dig up from personal memory myself), as it's an era I'd unfortunately forgotten about when typing up my post earlier. Thanks for the history lesson there. Considering that Fontaine (and even Ryan) are probably loosely based on such giants as Andrew Carnegie, it does reflect Rapturian society very well, in a sense. The U.S., during this time however, did at least manage to get a partial vote for its Socialist Party, which I think is rather an indictment of the notion of that oppression again. People, inclined to rebel, will scramble to any sort of radical shift in government if any seem like a viable alternative to what they've got at the moment (hence explaining why they fell so easily into Fontaine's hands as Atlas), even if they're just jumping off a cliff, essentially. We can also clearly see this in the real world due to all the dictatorships that arose in fear to 'prevent' Communist uprisings...creating just as much violent bloodshed had the other group taken power.

    I personally view Ryan, despite being that 'perfect' (yet incredibly flawed man), a bit of a tragic character. As you noted before, all he wanted was for the best of his city that he'd gone so far for. It's hard to give up such things after you've done so much to achieve them. His methods were completely abhorrent, but one must ask themselves how many times our own freedoms have been subverted for the 'greater good' and will continue to try to be controlled in the future.

    And since I presume that this is a thread where we can discuss other ideas, what does everyone make of the notion that the Little Sisters and Big Daddies are literally meant to represent 'the poor' (you can aid them by saving them, or take advantage of them by harvesting them...) and the Big Daddies are probably 'big government'? Just a thought.

    Another is...perhaps the Big Daddies are where all of Rapture's ethnic minorities went to? After all, in Fontaine's House for the Poor, you can clearly see pictures of non-Caucasian individuals (African, Hispanic, Asian...) and the only one we encounter who isn't like that is Dr. Suchong, who seems to have led a relatively luxurious life. The same photos may be seen in Olympus Heights all around the metro areas. We see white people all the time in Rapture, the splicers, Tenenbaum, Fontaine, Ryan, etc. but the minorities to Rapture are strangely absent. Ryan, I think, would be an unlikely candidate for racism (after all, considering the Red Scare of the 1920s, I'm sure he was looked down upon in the US because of his Russian background), but that certainly doesn't mean he'd feel like helping them in any way get up from where they're from. After all, racism is clearly prevalent in Rapture by common, throwaway references to Tenenbaum as a kraut (an ethnic slur against Germans) and while there aren't many more, we can assume that it was strong, especially since this was a generation probably mostly born in the 1920s.

  23. #23
    First of all: Hi to everybody (I forgot to write that in my first post)

    Now, about the topic: it's hard to add something to what has been written before - it took me quite a time to read everything and there's so much information... whew... And I can't really say that I know enough about objectivism or communism to take part in that discussion.

    But in my opinion, Rapture was doomed to fail from the beginning for two reasons: Ryan's complete misunderstanding of human nature and his fascistic tendencies. I don't think he intended that Rapture's population should gain power or wealth by exploiting the next man but by working honestly and for your own - without harming another. Industry, art and science are normally not known for rewarding those acting brutally but those highly skilled. I think his general idea was that anyone in Rapture should achieve their position by working hard for that they're best at, without any limits within this field. Ryan wouldn't have hurt another to achieve more than the fruits of his own work, it just wouldn't fit his ideology, and surely he assumed that the others shared this point of view. And this is where he failed to see the flaw of any society: there are always different kinds of people, nobody acts the same or has the same goals or the same moral standard - sooner or later there is always gonna be disagreement. To what extent - given the Ryan's "no limits"-proclamation - the game shows...
    Well, and about the fascism... Ryan himself chooses those worthy to live in Rapture. As a consequence he divides the world in two: those "good enough" to be with him and the rest, the "parasites". This means he creats two classes of man - and this is the basic for any fascist thought or behaviour. Now given that the people in Rapture must have seen themselves as the better ones (or else they wouldn't have been here) it must have been quite a shock to learn that they were still not equal (even in Rapture are to classes, as mentioned before in the other posts). On top he's acting fascistically himself already when choosing those to come with him and denying the "parasites" the benefits of Rapture as they were intended. And he displays himself in a patriarchic way, as the one who invented it all, who everybody should be grateful for, etc. Take a look at this society - one man on top, best of the best, with him the best of mankind, and the rest... this is how any fascist system begins. Even rebellions and wars are an outcome of those structures when people realize that they have been betrayed and still as far from equality and real justice as ever.

    K, now this was quite a lot - sorry. I hope I haven't made too many mistakes and of course feel free to comment and disagree.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Scatman's world
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by Who_is_Atlas? View Post
    I actually never thought that deeply about Fontaine in the sense of him being the 'ultimate Objectivist.' But I must say I think you're probably correct in this assumption: how can one, if this is the ideology they choose, not 'cheer' for him? He does everything that is required of him by the ideology itself. In another way, he is arguably this way because of, in my opinion, the rather obvious Biblical connections BioShock has (now pardon, I'm not totally familiar with the Bible itself, but I think I have a basic outline at least). Perhaps Fontaine is meant to be 'the Devil'? He constantly fulfills the role as his dupe, Atlas, by literally being the 'devil on your shoulder' the entire time while you're in Rapture. He's arguably the archetype of 'the great deceiver' and he holds a near mythic boogeyman status within Rapture itself (arguably how the Devil is viewed in all of the major Abrahamic religions). If this analysis is correct, this also explains why he would try, at least from a story standpoint, to associate himself with 'left wing' sort of stuff: it's 'godless,' as the 1950s American propaganda went, wasn't it?
    I very much agree with Fontaine representing 'the devil'. he was a master of deception, as 'the devil' is described to be. Also in his form at the end of the game, he looks extremely demonic

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Cocktail Lounge, Fort Frolic
    Posts
    139
    I can see where you get the idea of Fontaine being the Devil...he schemes, deceives, and represents greed in its purest form...the "devil on your shoulder" anology also seems to work well, especially as Tenenbaum could very easily play the angel on your shoulder, always offering a more positive path, or scolding you if you conduct yourself selfishly...as for other biblical references, I'm certainly not an expert, so I'll leave those comparisons to you guys...

    As for the little sisters representing the poor, it's entirely plausible. In today's society, both the poor and the weakening middle class are being led around helplessly by big business interests. Constantly, large corporations use slick subliminal, or otherwise psychological messages to convince people to spend money, but it goes beyond that...these subliminal messages have not only emptied people's wallets, but they have altered the American way of life, and the psyche of the general public. For those of you in high school, I'm sure you're familiar with "social cliques" within your school, such as "punk" kids, "preppy" kids, "ghetto" kids, etc etc. While many in high school take these sub-cultures to be a completely natural part of the school experience, please keep in mind that historically, these sub groups have only existed since the advent of mass media. How is this possible? Because these particular sub cultures have arisen from corporate advertising which seeks to exploit the insecurities of children...and why not? Kids are one of the most profitable age demographics. All that needs to be done to exploit today's youth is to convince them that they cannot fit in or be cool unless they buy a certain product. "Cool" kids look a certain way...they wear certain clothes, much like the "Punk" or "ghetto" kids...in time, kids feel as though they truly need to convey this image(an image concocted by business executives) to keep themselves from being rejected in school culture. In the end, this is brainwash-these subliminal messages have made it seem to be the norm for people to dress and act a certain way, even when this norm was non-existant a few decades ago. Of course, this does not only apply to kids, but to the entire populace...if it's not clothes, it's the newest ipod, cell phone, or plasma screen television...this is a nation of intense consumerism, and materialism, and we have our big business friends to thank for it.

    What does this have to do with Bioshock you ask? Well, it works on many levels...first off, in regards to WIA's Little Sister/poor analogy, if you haven't realized it already, much like the little sisters, the American Public is being duped into believing this "false reality" they have dreamed up is inherent to American Society, and moreover, like the LS system, the American Populace must collect and "give back" their resources(money) to the much larger and more powerful interests(corporations) without realizing it. Corporations have also created a system in which we depend on their services, much like Fontaine and Ryan made the Rapturian populace dependent on ADAM. What would you do without your cell phone service Verizon Wireless provides you? Or the internet you pay monthly for Comcast? Or maybe even the premium cable you get from DishNetwork? The prospect is frightening...and I assure you a large portion of the population would be unwilling to give up these luxuries, many of them fearing live would be unlivable without them. Again, this is a farse! People lived for thousands of years up until this point fine without these "luxuries", and yet, the mainstream idea is that these things are necessary to life. This, of course, is a criticism of our capitalistic society...while modern corporations had power since they started to pop up in the mid 19th century, the advent of mass media has revolutionized their tactics, as their ads can literally be almost everywhere, from a pop-up ad, to a logo on a Hollister T-shirt...much like the ever-present ads which you constantly heard as you roamed through Rapture, this corporate message is innescapable in the United States...constantly pushing people to conform, and to be absorbed into a detestable system.

    Alright, I have a ton more to say, but I'll give it a rest for tonight...it is 2AM after all...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •