Returning to the subject of this video game, a friend of mine gave me this link to a post on a video game blog by a Rand fan who also noticed the anti-Objectivism.

Fatalism isn't necesssarily pro-collective, but it is necessarily anti-individualist.

It is true that, in the setting (or, to use the term as they do in Marvel comic books, "universe") of Oedipus Rex, Oedipus is punished for evading what the story's author(s) (I am referring not only to Sophocles, but everyone who told and helped shape the story before he made it into a play) and tellers consider to be the metaphysically given. But what is that? That an individual cannot achieve happiness on his own terms -- that he must submit to supernatural forces greater than himself.

The story ceases to be pro-reason when it arbitrarily accepts irrational premises as metaphysically given and then expects those who read, hear, or see the story unfold to taken the irrational premises literally.

For instance, J. K. Rowling doesn't expect her readers to literally believe in witches or wizards. However, Mel Gibson does expect people to take The Passion of the Christ literally.

A better example of this is Soylent Green. The makers of this film, of course, expect the viewers to know that this is fiction, and maybe they don't literally believe there will come a day on which a for-profit corporation will become a multi-billion-dollar powerhouse by selling human remains as food to unwitting customers.

However, what the film's makers do take literally -- and expect their viewers to take literally -- is that the Malthusian environmentalist premise that business is a zero-sum game and that market economics and entrepreneurship cannot solve resource-depletion problems, is ontologically indisputable.

One could argue that Soylent Green is pro-reason in that it says that the penalty for those who don't follow the laws of reality -- "the laws of reality" being that Malthusian environmentalism is necessarily indisputable -- will be penalized by having to live under the horrible conditions portrayed in the film.

That is not validly pro-reason, even though the film tells you to logically induce certain lessons from the metaphysical given that is Malthusian environmentalism's supreme correctness, because what is portrayed as metaphysically true amounts to arbitrarily chosen premises.

Or take, for instance, the Left Behind books. The story itself is not meant to be taken literally, but its theme is. Its theme is:

* What is said in the Bible is metaphysically given.
* If you disobey what is said in the Bible, you are evading ontological reality and will be accordingly punished.

By that same token, Oedipus Rex does punish the main character for evading what the author(s) consider to be metaphysically given, but they expect their readers to take their own arbitrarily-chosen premises as literally true lessons worthy of following in real life. That is ultimately anti-reason.

Oedipus Rex isn't an example of collectivism, but rather of fatalism. Oedipus ignored the pronouncements of the Delphian oracle and the seer Tiresias, despite having every reason to believe that they would come true. The Greeks believed that each individual's fate was measured out and decided at birth and that any attempt to change that fate was futile. For those who didn't know their fates, it didn't wind up mattering, but the myths of the Greeks are rife with stories of those who learn their fate and attempt to defy it.

If you look at the worldview that underpins Oedipus Rex, you can see that in the context of his world, Oedipus is supremely irrational. He received word about his fate from two sources (the oracle and Tiresias), neither of whom had ever been wrong. Instead of accepting what he knows to be true, he chooses to evade reality.

Are their problems with the sense of life of the play? Yes there are; its fatalism is definitely not one of the things that we want to take away from it. But Oedipus's great flaw is that he thinks he can ignore the immutable laws of nature because he doesn't like their results. The great lesson of Oedipus Rex is that we must learn to accept the things we cannot change or we will never have any peace.

Thank you very much, Mr. Vardoulis!

With respect to mythology, I think that many problems arise when a symbol gets hijacked or co-opted. I've come across libertarians who resent what Ragnar Danneskjold said about Robin Hood.

They say that since he was rebelling against an oppressive kleptocracy that heavily taxed the people -- and engaged in civil disobedience by returning the rightful private property to taxpayers -- Robin Hood really stood up for private property against state oppression.

I noticed that libertarians who criticize Ayn Rand on this count actually overlook the fact that Ragnar Danneskjold did mention that this is how the Robin Hood legend originally went. And that is when he explains that, throughout the twentieth century, that is not what he has come to symbolize to many people. He's remembered for being good on account of "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor."

I think it's pretty clear that Ayn Rand is criticizing the latter "Robing Hood" symbol and not the former, and so libertarians who blast her for not taking the original legend into account really ought to give that passage another reading.

Other examples of symbols whom some have tried to hijack and co-opt are Steve Ditko's own Mr. A and Question characters. Because comic-book readers have come to see them as representatives of individualism and black-and-white morality, Alan Moore and Bruce Timm have caricatured these characters in order to disparage both principles.

I agree about the power of mythology and symbols. I think that Nathaniel Branden said that, before he read Atlas Shrugged, the mere mention of the word "businessman" would conjure in his mind Sinclair Lewis's Babbitt, who is the old stereotype about the stuffy, unimaginative, conservative, conformist bourgeois drone stuck in "The System."

That stereotype still seems to have a lot of currency. Once, when I told a college girl that I saw myself as a "rebel" because of my unequivocal support of free enterprise, in defiance of all the college conformists who hate capitalism just because everybody else does, that girl laughed at me. At the time, I didn't understand why. She laughed because she "knew" that a rebel was someone who had a mohawk and rode a motorcycle; not somebody like Galileo who challenges society's prevailing assumptions about morality and the universe.

Thankfully, Atlas Shrugged provided a great alternative to Babbitt's image of business -- showing how creative, innovative, virtuous, and productive entrepreneurs, inventors, and scientists can be. The business world sounded a lot more exciting to me after I read that book. It has created a far more romantic view than Horatio Alger stories have.

Horatio Alger -- now there's a funny symbol that has a life of its own. The funny part is that very, very, very few Horatio Alger books are about a character who goes "from rags to riches." The vast majority of his stories are about some impoverished boy who, by a ridiculous series of coincides, mananages to rise to the middle class. I think only his last few books were about characters who got rich. Furthermore, he usually uses seasoned businessmen as villains, and they are villains on account of their profit motive (i.e., paying little boys low wages).

Yet, somehow, Americans have come to see "Horatio Alger" as the personification of the individualistic notion that, in a free society, one can rise up "by his bootstraps" from poverty to middle class or wealth. Of course, that symbol isn't ultimately about money -- what it really says is that, under freedom, an individual is responsible for his own well-being and happiness in the long run.

So, ironically, The Fountainhead is more of a "Horatio Alger story" than anything the real Horatio Alger wrote.

Due to academic philosophy's rejection of rationality in the 1800s, it's no surprise that the popular media eventually rejected the Horatio Alger story and came out with "the anti-Horatio Alger story": stories about men finding the success they wanted and discovering that it's hollow and they still can't be happy. Examples would be The Great Gatsby and Citizen Kane. Almost every "rise and fall" biopic uses the anti-Horatio-Alger theme.

Of course, the funny part is that I think the anti-Horatio-Alger story actually preceded the Horatio Alger legend. Isn't Oedipus Rex an anti-Horatio-Alger story? Oedipus curses fate and tries to take responsibility for his own life. And that is actually characterized as Oedipus's terrible, hubristic flaw, and it is precisely for trying to take responsibility for himself that he must be punished.

It seems to me that Oedipus Rex was the original Gallant Gallstone. That was the novel that Lois Cook wrote in The Fountainhead. Some gallstone thinks of himself as a rugged individualist who can take control of his own life. But then he gets doused with Alka-Seltzer and dies. Once again, external forces must smite the individualist and his hubris.

That has disturbed me for many years. Many Objectivists praise Ancient Greece in general because of Aristotle, Aristarchus, Thales, etc. But does the popularity of Oedipus Rex not demonstrate that there was still strong collectivist sentiment in Ancient Greece? (I wouldn't know; I'm no expert on that; that's why I'm asking.)

Of course, I admit that people can go too far when looking for symbolism. I once said to a Jungian psychology professor that I liked the archetype of the "Horatio Alger-styled self-made entrepreneur."

He replied, "Ultimately, the self-made entrepreneur is yet another variation of The Benevolent Father."

I said, "Huh?" I still don't get it; not every successful entrepreneur has kids or even necessarily wants kids.

Welcome to SOLO! Based on your postings I get the sense that we could dive into a very deep thread concerning interpretations of modern mythology (for lack of a better term for whatever one would call the whole Incredibles/Super-Hero/Simpsons/Science-Fiction/Gaming/largely-meant-for-kids-but-having-adult-implications world which you are describing) and the paradigms these create or reinforce. Seems to me this kind of fiction, inspired in many cases by ‘legitimate’ literature, has been influencing and inspiring people for many generations to the point where it has become a ‘frame of reference’ for many.

Any philosophical discussion which can use modern mythology as a frame of reference seems to at least enable people who wouldn’t otherwise ‘get your meaning’ to be able to ‘get it’ more easily, and discussions such as the one evolving in this thread you initiated come about more easily, even among those not so prone to philosophical discussion. Modern mythology is a, if you’ll pardon the cliché, ‘fertile ground’ for the imparting of ideas both good (objectivist, individualist, etc.) and bad (socialist, subjectivist, centrist, etc). I see objectivist/libertarian-centered discussions concerning modern mythology and/or creative works within modern mythology, to be a very good way to ‘get the ideas out there’ among people who stand a chance of being receptive to them.

That's my two cents, anyway, I'm going to vist Joe's similarly-themed thread now...

And again, welcome!

...priceless. HAH!

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Thanks, Mr. Mauro- uh; Joe.

I, too, was saddened by those Bird Droppings.

That Lex Luthor speech is cool. I'm going to respond to your thread now.

Thanks, Stuart (and "Joe" is fine . )

I was unaware that Bird had said that, especially sadder knowing that I'm considered one of those "humorless" writers on the subject. Even sadder still to know what he said about compromise.

As for your Lex Luthor comment, check out my followup post on the thread
"What Can Superman Say to the Starving?".
************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Thank you very much, Mr. Maurone.

Diana Hsieh blogged about it here. Brad Birdbrained resented it when critics like A. O. Scott compared The Incredibles with Objectivism.

I don't think Brad Bird consciously intended it, but I see The Incredibles as implicitly eugenicist. The Incredibles' apparent greatness (symbolized by their superpowers) is inborn. Doesn't Elastigirl say something to her son to the effect of, "It's in your blood"?

Meanwhile, Syndrome is the bad guy because, not having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth (or, in this case, super powers), he makes a conscious effort to pull himself up by his own bootstraps and make something of himself.

Syndrome's characterization is a caricature of the "Horatio Alger" attitude that greatness isn't inborn; greatness comes from one's own choices. Like Lex Luthor, he is an autodidact who tries to find ways to make himself stronger as he fights against somebody who had no choice in becoming physically strong. (I dislike that aspect of the Superman legend. Fortunately, Batman is an autodidact as well.)

And then the viewer is supposed to interpret it as some kind of malevolent egalitarianism when Syndrome decides to get super-rich selling super powers to everyone, thereby improving the standard of living for many, many people.

To say that making everybody more "super" by objective means will somehow destroy standards per se is actually consonant with Peter Keating's paradigm about life being a zero-sum game. To concede the film's point is like conceding that Ayn Rand's co-worker in the RKO Wardrobe Department was right to believe that greatness comes from owning one more automobile than most other people.

I mean, really, when we examine it, Syndrome selling everybody super powers makes him a new Henry Ford. Did Henry Ford rob wealthy car-owners of their greatness when he made automobiles affordable to the middle class?

One can say that I'm reading too much into this because it's just silly fluff for kids. But I do wonder if, on some subconscious level, it does reinforce irrational prejudices in people when they're young.

For instance, when I watched The Simpsons (yet another Brad Bird show) at age 9 and saw how Mr. Burns contaminated lakes and created mutant three-eyed fish to cut his plant's operating costs, my conscious mind knew that of course this was silly satire, and not every businessman contaminates rivers with toxic waste. Nevertheless, this cartoon portrayal actually did contribute to strengthening my prejudice at the time about how laissez-faire capitalism encourages businesspeople to poison people's water as they cut their costs.

Even unserious cartoons can strengthen such prejudices because the media contribute to what psychologists call "social proof": if everybody, even cartoonists, "know" that I'm right that private property rights destroy the environment, then doesn't that further vindicate the rightness of my prejudice? It was actually reading Ayn Rand that taught me to question other people's prejudices and my own, even when such prejudices are accepted by practically everyone in society.

The reason why leftists like A. O. Scott get away with equivocating Ayn Rand's free-market economics with eugenics is that both advocate what leftists see as "social inequality."

Free-market economics and the "Horatio Alger" work ethic advance "social inequality" by saying that Steve deserves to earn more money than Richard if, by his own free will, Steve makes choices that result in his being able to sell goods and services that are in higher demand than whatever Richard sells.

Conversely, eugenics justifies "social inequality" by asserting that someone is inherently better than another because of inborn traits that no one can do anything about, which renders free will irrelevant.

That free-market economics rewards individual responsibility, while eugenics denies the importance of individual responsibility, is irrelevant to egalitarians like A. O. Scott. Thus, leftists smear both free-market economics and eugenicism under the umbrella term and package deal of "Social Darwinism" (a term that neither Herbert Spencer, William Graham Sumner, nor any other late-nineteenth-century free-marketer has ever actually been known to use to describe his theories).

That's why A. O. Scott couldn't see a difference between the "elitism" of The Incredibles's eugenicism, and the "elitism" that comes with the individual responsibility that Ayn Rand spoke of.

For somebody like A. O. Scott to assume that Ayn Rand would see Man #1 as better than Man #2 just because Man #1 was born with physical strength that Man #2 could only obtain through effort, is like assuming that Ayn Rand would see Paris Hilton as better than T. J. Rodgers just because Paris Hilton is richer.

Welcome, Stuart. Just curious, what were those remarks by Brad Bird that you referred to?

************************************************

Spaceplayer Sight and Sound

Thank you very much for the comments, Mr. Valliant, Kenny, and Mr. Elliot.

I would think that if Ken Levine consciously intended to derogate Ayn Rand and Objectivism, he would have made critical remarks about her as Brad Bird has. For now, I'm guessing that Levine has a very superficial understanding of Miss Rand's writings and that he thought that his game's allusions to Atlas Shrugged made it more "hip."

I recall that back in 1998 or '99, I saw one of Mark Da Cunha's websites linking to a page about somebody trying to create an Atlas Shrugged computer game. By now I'm supposing that that project has probably gone defunct.

...that you can be talented enough to create a game, but still stupid enough to completely miss the point.

This is nothing more than a pastiche; a secondhand attempt to rip off Atlas Shrugged and use it as the backstory for another pointless & gratuitous shoot 'em up.

Not that creator, Ken Levine, seems to be on a mission against Rand per se. It's just that, as Rand pointed out in Philosophy: Who needs it?, his influences have come to him in random chunks, unintegrated and shadowy. If the game is trying to make any point, it's that ideas of any kind, if taken to extreme, are baaaaad.

At best, it'll make Levine some money. At worst, it's plagiarism. Is Peikoff still in charge of Rand's estate? He should be suing.

It does raise a more important point, though: where *are* the pro-Objectivist programmers who could make a great game out of Atlas Shrugged? Apparently, they don't exist, and into the vacuum steps someone like Levine. Analogous to the general state of affairs, isn't it?

That's an interesting post and I have not seen a reference to this game on other Objectivist sites. It sounds like the influence "Atlas" and Rand are tenuous to say the least.

According to Wikipedia,

"A plot unfolds involving the crumbling city, named Rapture, and the utopian society for which it was built. A man named Andrew Ryan, a former Soviet citizen, built the city in 1946, and the society was envisioned as the ultimate capitalistic and individualist paradise, with the elite achieving for themselves, rather than for the whole."

And, later,

"Levine has stated in an interview with gaming website IGN that the project has drawn on many influences, mostly from utopian and dystopian literature; 'And I have my useless liberal arts degree, so I've read stuff from Ayn Rand and George Orwell, and all the sort of utopian and dystopian writings of the 20th century, which I've found really fascinating.' He also states that he wanted to confront challenges that face the modern world such as, 'stem cell research and the moral issues that go around.' [12] In fact, Levine admitted the chief antagonist, Andrew Ryan, is named after Rand [13]."