My Latest Causality
Quaunaut
The longest seven days in history... Join Date: 2003-03-21 Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
The longest seven days in history... Join Date: 2003-03-21 Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">Or, the book that inspired Bioshock has completely destroyed...</div>...my perception of reality.
So, I read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". This book was the real beginning of the objectivist idea that was Andrew Ryan's vision of Rapture, in Bioshock- a world of the world's best(even if not the smartest) all living together in a world.
Before today, it was simply "pretty neat". 2 days ago I reached an impasse with the book, a point I couldn't read in spurts like I had the rest- it was a continuous monologue from a main character that spanned 80 pages of size 10 font 52 lines deep.
This single monologue has questioned my view of art, charity, government, and most jarringly...<i>religion</i>. I've heard hundreds of arguments by atheists(who while claiming to be so much more intelligent than those they decry) of the "proof" that religion is wrong, when any intelligent person knows that God is unprovable in either fashion.
But I have <i>never</i> heard such an argument against it using nothing at all but logic.
Has anyone else read this book? Did you find anything profound about it? I'm nearly done, and I'm dreading its end. It'll be a sad day that I cannot relive the world of John Galt outside of my mind.
So, I read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". This book was the real beginning of the objectivist idea that was Andrew Ryan's vision of Rapture, in Bioshock- a world of the world's best(even if not the smartest) all living together in a world.
Before today, it was simply "pretty neat". 2 days ago I reached an impasse with the book, a point I couldn't read in spurts like I had the rest- it was a continuous monologue from a main character that spanned 80 pages of size 10 font 52 lines deep.
This single monologue has questioned my view of art, charity, government, and most jarringly...<i>religion</i>. I've heard hundreds of arguments by atheists(who while claiming to be so much more intelligent than those they decry) of the "proof" that religion is wrong, when any intelligent person knows that God is unprovable in either fashion.
But I have <i>never</i> heard such an argument against it using nothing at all but logic.
Has anyone else read this book? Did you find anything profound about it? I'm nearly done, and I'm dreading its end. It'll be a sad day that I cannot relive the world of John Galt outside of my mind.
Comments
Also if the book is that good I will go read it, I've heard people talk about it before.
Im going to bed, why am I posting?
Go read "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dispossessed-Novel-Perennial-Classics/dp/006051275X/" target="_blank">The Dispossessed</a>."
Go read "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dispossessed-Novel-Perennial-Classics/dp/006051275X/" target="_blank">The Dispossessed</a>."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why did it turn you off? Its general assumption that its correct? Or do you disagree with what it says? I find the story lacking quite a bit and the style of writing not very good for a novel- but I think both were more just as a method to explain the idea as simply as possible of objectivism.
I think the thing that really brought this book over the top for me is the fact that it confirmed many different things I've thought in my life:
The world <i>is</i> full of absolutes.
Going to extremes is <i>not</i> a sin- if anything, it is that of the courageous, as long as it is done intelligently. To put it as beautifully as the book did: When one idea is right and one idea is wrong, to compromise <b>only</b> brings benefit to the idea that is wrong.
Loving everyone is simply impractical, if not detrimental- the fact that my own religion preaches this, but it has never really fit in with how I live my life is evidence to this fact. I treat everyone I meet with respect, but I do not love my fellow man- no, only those whom I have deemed worthy. For to love more than those who are worthy is to lessen the value of those whom are worthy, and my love with it.
You are not to be given respect, or compensation, for nothing in return. Both are lessened in value because of this, and furthermore, lessen yourself- show people a base amount of respect, but whether they are young or elderly, a bum or an official of high office, <i>earning</i> respect or compensation should still be required of all mankind.
Some people exist in this world who only wish to be a detriment to it- others may give them the value of being their parent's pride and joy, but I honestly doubt that those same parents, if looking at their children objectively, would find any value in them- the only value they see as parents is that they raised them and they survived years of life at all, and as a sign of love between the parents. These same people are drains on society as such that to hear their cries of charity and the evils of business and corporations should be viewed not as a noble endeavor for those unluckily born into a poor family or a slum neighborhood, but in fact should be viewed as a ridiculous endeavor deserving no more than that of a drunkard spouting curses to those around him.
Or as the Bible puts it, to teach a man to fish is infinitely better than to give him a fish- or hell, a lifetime supply of fish.
I guess it made me happy to know I'm not the only one who believes the above. I realize many disagree with me, but it does make me feel good that I am not alone in my thoughts.
So you've never read Ernst Mayr's logical breakdown of Darwin? I still haven't met a religious person yet who has.
Also, yuck. Ayn Rand is a serious ######.
Loosen up. If you really have got to be so serious in criticizing the people around you, it sounds like you should move to the moon or something(maybe below the sea?). People aren't perfect, and <i>neither are you</i>. How does the Bible put it? Judge not, lest ye be judged?
Also, yuck. Ayn Rand is a serious ######.
Loosen up. If you really have got to be so serious in criticizing the people around you, it sounds like you should move to the moon or something(maybe below the sea?). People aren't perfect, and <i>neither are you</i>. How does the Bible put it? Judge not, lest ye be judged?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't claim to be perfect, and I don't expect others to be. I expect them to not be complete idiots, both by having absolutely no common sense and a complete lack of any kind of education, formal or informal. They have no opinion on anything, have no will to form an opinion, and if they did have no will to express the opinion as they wouldn't put the time in to be able to back up their argument with anything.
I'm a surprisingly easy person to get along with- its more a frustration of not finding people even close to my intellectual level. I'm not claiming to be some genius, but when compared to the completely worthless masses, its hard to not look like one unintentionally.
And note: Judgment in the Bible has been taken incorrectly by every damn person who seems to read it. The judgment value has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING other than that of if they are going to heaven or not. A better way to put it is, "Don't worry about if others are going to heaven- just be sure you are."
And no, I've never read Ernst Mayr anything. Honestly, I haven't even heard of him. I'll look into it- but I hope it tries harder than Dawkins, 'cause if I argued like he did for anything but atheism I'd be called a completely delirious religious fundamentalist ignorant imbecile. After reading "The God Delusion", I remember hearing better arguments from my physics teacher in 10th grade.
Edit: Hell, something he practically spawned, The Flying Spaghetti Monster letter argues better than he does, and it doesn't even attempt to disprove God, formally. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Edit2: So, were you talking about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematics_and_the_Origin_of_Species" target="_blank">Systematics and the Origin of Species</a>?
Looking through his works, it seems to me he already assumed what Darwin said is true- which at a base level, I believe is completely correct, but really, Darwinism doesn't even begin to question my belief in God. Not only can it co-exist, it doesn't begin to try and disprove things either way. I completely understand that evolution is a very logical thing- natural selection only makes sense, and the human race itself has a phrase for what it does, in a sense: Only the winners get the chance to write the history books. Thusly, we all come from "winners", in a sense.
The way that Ayn Rand questioned my belief was a little bit more profound- it actually made me realize that I neither believe, nor support the ideologies of my own religion. Christ speaks many times that the ultimate beauty of the world is when one man gives his life for another- even moreso if he doesn't even know the man. I may be able to sacrifice my life for someone I love, but never, for someone I don't even know. I'd even to a point watch an entire group of people starve to death because of their own qualities- I do not believe that people have the right to be alive, but that the right to be alive must be earned and maintained. While others may help even me keep myself alive(like my parents, for example), I at the same time <i>must</i> posess the ability to completely support myself if forced to- be able to make a living and etcetera. My beliefs do not dictate that there cannot be those who are less than I(and I'll be the first to say that while we are all created equal, we are not equal as time goes on. I am worth more to this world than my Uncle Ron, for example, whom is a meth addict who leeches not only from the welfare system but from his family, friends, coworkers, and furthermore steals to get more. You may disagree with me, and thats your right, but in my mind he is worth less than me, and I doubt there are many in the world who if forced to choose who could live would choose him over me), but that those people should strive to meet the standards of society. This isn't a push for a society where we all work for equal pay or reward, but a push for people to produce enough so that they do not consume more than they produce for an extended period of time. To me, a hardworking idiot is as good and useful a man as a lazy genius- the methods of their work are truly the only difference in output, really(the hardworking idiot is slow but constant, the lazy genius has spurts of completely insane productivity followed by nearly no productivity for quite a while).
Edit3: And why should I(whom for the sake of argument should be assumed to be productive) be the one expelled, instead of those whom are not held to decent standards?
"Fitness" in the sense of natural selection and evolution means the ability to successfully and consistently reproduce within the environment one finds themselves in. Within the enormously complex environment of modern society, fitness becomes immensely hard to judge. We acknowledge our own ability to objectively and reliably judge fitness by granting a seemingly unfit individual the benefit of a doubt - often even many doubts.
My own problem with religion isn't based on logic or anything. My feeling is that, if God is such an egomaniac that he requires me to devote my whole life to him in order to go to heaven, then I don't want to go to his stupid heaven anyway. If god just wants me to be a good person and live a good life, then I can get behind that and I'm doing just fine. and of course if god doesn't exist, it doesn't matter how you act... but if I were God, I personally would think the most highly of people who do good deeds and practice random acts of kindness without believing in me, because I would know that such people are really good people and not being good out of fear of hellfire...
That said, <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> is one of those books everyone on Earth should read, for one reason or another, like <i>1984</i> or <i>Cath-22</i> or something. Ayn Rand is obviously nutso but like you've discovered there's a ton of stuff in that book that ought to really make a person think, no matter where they stand on the variety of stances Rand takes (and by variety I mean communism is bad). It definitely changed me a good deal, as did <i>The Fountainhead</i>. I cringe a little every time someone brings up a famous book like this because invariably people come out of the woodwork with variations of "hmm never read it maybe I'll get around to it" but really there's not much I can do except become inured to that.
Amongst the many realizations, little and big, that I got out of <i>Shrugged</i>, the religion one is one of the biggest. I've been an atheist since before I was old enough to know what that meant, but Rand's argument against religion is not only different enough from the others but I think also more compelling in some ways that it opened up a new line of thinking for me.
Edit: TINY spoilers for Bioshock, not even spoilers really, and yes I know the link shows up:
<span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>You can tell it was based mostly off <i>The Fountainhead</i>: There's a tiny "H. Roark" on <a href="http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/features/adart/apple.jpg" target="_blank">the Eve's Garden poster</a> and "Frank Fontaine" is of course a reference to the title of the book.</span>
Edit the second: Also, the topic title is bugging me. Causality doesn't imply casualties, Quan <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Personally when I played the game, I don't think Andrew Ryan was insane or anything, just naive. My interpretation was he built Rapture with good intentions, invited some brilliant minds to live there, and expected everyone to be happy in paradise. People around him forced him to become more competitive, ie: Fontaine, and as it played out Fontaine was just more resourceful.
Tycho, Ken Levine has said in dozens of interviews that Atlas Shrugged is the one that inspired it. Here is one I immediately found where he references Shrugged and there is no mention of The Fountainhead- <a href="http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=539" target="_blank">http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=539</a> (Note, thats the spoiler interview!)
Furthermore, the entire idea of the utopia set apart from the world is *from* Atlas Shrugged. All Levine did was take Rand's utopia, and combine it with her own world's version of Atlantis. The game was covered in references to characters or ideals in the book.
The Fountainhead began her idea, but it did not spell it out like Atlas Shrugged.
Edit: And elaborating on other things.
Disco Monkey: Because it had never been put before me explained the way she did, and when she did and I thought about it, it clicked into its proper place and felt right. I had always questioned the line between charity and fostering idiocy, but to me, the difference was "well, just be sure they're *really* needy!". It never quite felt right, because it wasn't right for me: Charity itself fosters idiocy. This isn't to say its a bad thing to give to charity, but more like its a bad thing for the aiding of a people(such in the case of charities for the 'starving children of Africa') as they will never learn to be completely autonomous in a modern society.
And furthermore: Wouldn't your view of how I should look at my Uncle obviously make him to be worth less than I? I mean, even in that basic example it is nothing but an argument of "Well of course undamaged goods is worth more than damaged goods."
I was talking about <a href="http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/816/816020p1.html" target="_blank">this interview</a> which is where he says a lot of the philosophy came from <i>Fountainhead</i>, which is more accurate than saying <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> as far as I'm concerned because when you look at the themes it's way closer to <i>Fountainhead</i> than <i>Shrugged</i>. The two books are so similar that you could say Bioshock draws from both equally, but that's really only in terms of the Objectivist stuff. When it comes to themes apart from simply Objectivism, the only similarity to <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> is Rapture's removal from the outside world which is basically incidental compared to the similarities with <i>The Fountainhead</i>, which is a point I already made. It's silly to say "look, city full of smart people!" and say <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> was the source when many of the the ingame references and more importantly all the large themes match up with the other book much more closely. Aside from Atlas' name and <span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>the final boss</span> I didn't see a ton of <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> references in there. Maybe you could point some more out, but for me at least <i>Fountainhead</i> is definitely winning the "what is Bioshock based on" contest.
I was talking about <a href="http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/816/816020p1.html" target="_blank">this interview</a> which is where he says a lot of the philosophy came from <i>Fountainhead</i>, which is more accurate than saying <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> as far as I'm concerned because when you look at the themes it's way closer to <i>Fountainhead</i> than <i>Shrugged</i>. The two books are so similar that you could say Bioshock draws from both equally, but that's really only in terms of the Objectivist stuff. When it comes to themes apart from simply Objectivism, the only similarity to <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> is Rapture's removal from the outside world which is basically incidental compared to the similarities with <i>The Fountainhead</i>, which is a point I already made. It's silly to say "look, city full of smart people!" and say <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> was the source when many of the the ingame references and more importantly all the large themes match up with the other book much more closely. Aside from Atlas' name and <span style='color:#000000;background:#000000'>the final boss</span> I didn't see a ton of <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> references in there. Maybe you could point some more out, but for me at least <i>Fountainhead</i> is definitely winning the "what is Bioshock based on" contest.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll need to read The Fountainhead to be sure that not a good many of my thoughts are based from both. Until I do get around to reading it(I have an obligation to read 3 different books now, Crime and Punishment, Johnny Got his Gun, and the Mass Effect book, since I wanna finish that before I get the game), I'll just settle to 'both'.
<i>you're making my brain bleed</i>
awesome
I stopped reading here.
<img src="http://pulsaris.googlepages.com/matrix-architect.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://pulsaris.googlepages.com/matrix-architect.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its really sad that you make a joke post when everyone else, even people known for being cynical and jaded, managed to have intelligent well thought out posts.
Nice job.
Ironically Quanaut wasn't trying to be smart. He simply misspelled "casualty."
No, I very much meant Causality. If you remember, much of the monologue at the end of Atlas Shrugged was about causality- and thats why I used it. The title just jumped into my head, and I still wasn't trying to be smart, more as a kinda-insider-joke thing.
Your latest causality is your perception of reality? In that case, the picture Pulse posted is entirely apt. It's more apt than I've ever seen before, in fact.
Nice job.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I laughed. A joke is not sad if someone laughs. Especially not if it's me.
I'm going to have to agree with DiscoZombie here. Why did it take some stuffy old novel by a total whackjob to make you realize you wouldn't give your life for a meth-head? The point I was trying to make by mentioning Mayr was a dampened a bit by the fact that you're not a creationist apparently.
If you can let some parts of the Bible slide, why not others?
I should have known the book wasn't for me, considering the reviews I've read of it. Most were about as long-winded as the book, written by people who enjoyed being pointlessly philosophical about even the most mundane of topics. I guess I'm just not that type of "thinker".
You want a copy of the book that hasn't been puked upon, I'm afraid. It makes a world of difference. Trust me, the first time I started rereading it, this time without the stench of dried vomit and the smudged pages that made it impossible to comprehend, it was far less depressing, frustrating, and nauseau inducing. Still long-winded though. Not much you can do about that.
I'm going to have to agree with DiscoZombie here. Why did it take some stuffy old novel by a total whackjob to make you realize you wouldn't give your life for a meth-head? The point I was trying to make by mentioning Mayr was a dampened a bit by the fact that you're not a creationist apparently.
If you can let some parts of the Bible slide, why not others?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, I believe in creation, but I'm not so naive as to think the Bible layed everything out. I don't think anyone who has actually read the Bible does either. Tends to be those people raised up in it and assume what they think is the case.
And where did you get the line about me giving my life for a meth head? Thats completely off of my point, and I don't even see where you could pull that out from it.
And as to my view on the Bible: I really don't know. Right now my beliefs aren't firm by any means, and I'm pretty comfortable saying that. I know Jesus Christ is my savior, but the religion built around him makes me angry, sick, and frustrated to the point that I hate to even be loosely associated with many of them. And despite what many say about "Your religion should be between you and God", I think we all know its never that simple.