I also enjoyed your analysis of Bioshock as it critiques the society as a whole. I am curious how many times you have played through the game, because you analyzed various themes quite thoroughly. I also agree that Tenenbaum is the only worthwhile person simply because she sees how horrible things have become and does what she can to change it. In fact, she is one of the few people who does not appear to be spliced (I might be wrong about that...I know Mr Ryan was not spliced up) which could explain her reluctance to take any active role herself (as she would be considerably less powerful than her opposition).

In all seriousness, that's the actual explanation for a lot of Objectards. Even I perceived such strong agreement with the axioms that I thought they required no explanation (and even Aristotle said we should be careful of asking for demonstrations of all things). What it took me a while to learn - and I actually learned it by being yelled at by a philosophy professor advocating the opposite position - is that there is no such thing as being "rational, full stop." Rationality requires context, and though all belief systems are ultimately circular, some are prettier and happier circles than others and they all touch on at least a couple key points.

@ XPK: Ooh! Can we play ambiguous interpretation? I love this game!

TL;DR version: Your binary heteronormative paradigm bores The Letter D! But it's OK, you're still groovy. Behold as I show that symbols may mean a great many things, painting BioShock as a metaphorical "trial by fire" instruction book for social cohesion!

OK, so Adam is this profoundly dangerous substance when unregulated, much like testosterone - and it also gives a drive to do things, which when focused on constructive ends, is actually good. Fortunately, it can only be used by expending Eve, which while plentiful, is not infinite and puts an upper limit on how much Adamancy one may engage in (not to mention making it more expensive as you indulge your Adamantic impulses). This interaction is where the flashy, exciting powers come from: it's like sex - it's fun, it's an outlet for Adam (or testosterone), and while Eve (or females) are willing participants in quite a bit of what goes on, Adam (or males) is always hungry for more and never satisfied on its own.

Enter the little sisters, innocent children who know nothing of the temptations that testosterone, I mean "Adam," engenders in its parasitized hosts. These children, ironically, are best-equipped to deal with the parasite-like Adam because of a separate parasite (the slug), which could be seen as causing CAIS in its hosts. They're female-typical children only for the simple reason that all children, whether XX or XY, start out female-typical until testosterone changes them - being children prevents them from developing secondary sex characteristics and confusing the audience even further. So the little sisters are best prepared to handle Adam because they simply have no use for it. It can't corrupt them, but they must be broken in what are perhaps even more tragic ways in order to be inoculated against its harmful effects.

This incites the Adam-&-Eve-crazed populace, male and female, to be jealous over the fact that this "Adam" stuff, which is so tied up in all of their senses of self-worth and personal efficacy, is more or less squandered by the sexless little ingrates who know not the wonder they hold in their hands. And so they must be guarded by the equally sexless but horribly mutilated Rosies and Mr. Bs of the world, who have eschewed all human contact for the sole purpose of protecting the little sisters from the mindless sex-crazed masses. And so the little sisters and big daddies serve as the noble self-sacrificing conscience of society, making Adam-&-Eve-based research (and thus the benefits that brings) possible by abstaining from indulging in it (unlike the general populace who lack all self-control). They are the true engine of progress, the faceless collective giant on whose shoulders the small individual innovators may stand. They do not lift a finger against those who leave them be - but should you raise a hand against them, they will come at you with everything they have to protect the society they've made possible for everyone else.

Tenenbaum stands at the head of this endeavor, walled off from the world and relatively powerless over it, but for one important thing: the innovations she makes go a long way towards shaping the society in which the unwashed masses live. She is for her part a paragon of all that it is to be human. Humans are sexed - and so, by arbitrary happenstance, she is female - and they are messy and have a messy history and occasionally treat each other in messy ways. She embodies all of this, and more: at some level, she is a good person, and she also embodies the good that it is in all of us to do, no matter how messy we each individually may be. Remember that she cures Jack of the "Would you kindly" conditioning that has been so weaponized against him throughout the story, and makes her case to him for why he should go along with her plan, but ultimately leaves the decision for how to live his own life in his own hands. She is, in all these ways, supremely human.

Ryan is the absolutist par excellence, the man who sees the world in black and white and, most ironic of all, recognizes that the world only makes sense when you force it to (I'd like to thank Frank Miller...). What he cannot see is that the world does not fit black-and-white sense, it can only be made to fit color-and-nuance sense. And so, despite his best efforts, his most ingenious machinations, his most manipulative schemes and his most paranoid precautions, it all comes tumbling down around him. It must, for within him are the seeds of his own destruction (personified in Jack, the player), as his efforts to force the world to fit his absolutist paradigm cause the world itself to bite back at him, ruining him completely. Ever the fearless man, he accepts his fate and at least embraces it gracefully, no matter the trauma it causes others to see him stubbornly cling to his poise. ("Would you kindly... beat me to death?") And so, for doing his damnedest to at least stay principled to the end, he is the true tragic figure.

Fontaine, the villain, is our animal impulses in fancy dress; acting like he helps us get things done, he manipulates the player from behind the scenes for his own ends which are ultimately alien from ours. As a gangster and an Adam-&-Eve junkie, he is fueled by all that ruined the society in which he had thrived, and similarly we are all guilty of abusing and enabling each other throughout our histories for no better reason than that we could not rise above our base instincts. Seeking for either side to dominate the other is bound to result in this sort of tragic conflict; we see it again and again in every conflict in the game, no matter who the opponents are. It is ultimately only those who work together instead of against each other, i.e. Jack and Tenenbaum, forgiving their flaws and continuously striving to make the partnership work in spite of their messiness, who survive to see a brighter future. (I can't remember if Tenenbaum dies - if she does, then Jack works with the little sisters [or not] and the moral of the story depends on the player's choice - "cooperation is the best," or "people are all filthy jerks.")

Put that in your pope and smike it! Ooh, and then lemme know what you think! I honestly came up with this off the top of my head at work just now, and wanted to see if I could pull off something like The Myth of Penetrative Sex over at Anti-Misandry (I'm not pulling that up at work, not even to link it, so Google it - it's a great quick read!).

(Side Note: You're right about Tenenbaum - I hadn't been regarding the player as a person and forgot about her WWII stuff. Still - most worthwhile character in the game.)

You stated: "I also like how the only worthwhile character in the game is the one who tries to help other people out of the goodness of her heart - she's the only one to never initiate or threaten force against another."

Dr. Tennenbaum (I believe that is the name of the character in Bioshock you are referring to) does threaten violence when your character encounters the first Little Sister. This character also worked in german prison camps doing genetic experiments during WWII before coming to Rapture. I just got done reading the post about including more diversity in the atheist movement, so I'm going to hijack a little and go off on a tangent about sexism in Bioshock.

Little Sisters collect Adam (which is the most important item in all of Rapture) but Eve is scattered everywhere and can be purchased from vending machines. Ultimately, women (Little Sisters) hold the maleness (Adam) for all of Rapture, and the only way to get it is to defeat the ultimate Male (Big Daddies). Then it is the males decision regarding what to do with the disposable female (Little Sisters) to get at the maleness (Adam). Even at the end of the game, the male protagonist BECOMES the ultimate Male (Big Daddy) where he is charged with protecting the females (Little Sisters). But if the first Little Sister you get dies, you can just get another one to crawl out of the wall for you.

Where is this going? Well, ultimately my point is that because Dr. Tennebaum is female, she is powerless in Rapture. Therefore she can only influence Rapture by appealing to you as the male protagonist to take down the ultra-mega male nemesis, Fontaine. Sexist rant about Bioshock over.

Back to the actual topic in the OP...not all atheists argue against the existence of god, but more that the lack of evidence for god makes his existence highly suspect. That line of reasoning is a very difficult stance for people with black & white thinking to grasp, and something I have had a very difficult time trying to explain to my liberal, Christian friends.

Marx's system failed for the same reason. Some of the moral tenets in communism are theoretically great, but when you implement it on human beings who were designed for the ancient world, it falls apart.

As for Rand's fiction, I can take it or leave it. It has some pedagogical purposes, but overall, it's not enduring like Orwell's. As for her philosophy, she seems to claim that certain axioms are metaphysically true. Why? Well... they just are. I've pressed Objectivists on this point and the response is frequently cryptic (eg: read more of her writing, you just don't understand, etc).

barnetto,

You're right that some Objectivists have revised her philosophy, but when it comes to moral issues, where Objectivism is claimed to excell, it falls short. For example, what rights do children have in an Objectivist society? I've read numerous blogs and debates about this issue, and it seems that Objectivism fails to be objective! Another absolute moral system bites the dust, imo.

As for my own contribution to the dick-waving contest, I think Rand's main problem was her exaltation of the ego; she had a pathological inability to get over her bad self. Everybody's a mixed bag, but Ayn seems to have put herself into her own god-spot, and... well, that'll drive you a little nuts, I think.

Also, @ Dark Jaguar, I loved BioShock and I'm looking forward to the sequel (the System Shock games established a good pedigree). I played that game into the wee hours with friends from the philosophy department - we felt dirty, but gleeful. I also like how the only worthwhile character in the game is the one who tries to help other people out of the goodness of her heart - she's the only one to never initiate or threaten force against another.

Bioshock. It's a game rather than a movie, but it makes the point rather clearly. It's a dystopian take on a man who thinks exactly like Rand, but it all goes completely wrong for extremely obvious reasons. Instead of the mountains, they take up residence in an underwater city called "Rapture".

Just to give you an idea, the very first boss you fight is a crazed plastic surgeon who believes beauty is a moral necessity (also, he's a fan of picasso).

Rand was at least as smart as Marx. I'd say both of them don't hold a candle to Kant, but it's at least something.

Oh, I don't think it's fair to say Rand's work is boring. I mean, have you ever read Kant? Aristotle?

Kant and Aristotle were smart.

You know, I would pay good money to see a movie version of that. One that wasn't a screed, but where the characters were realistic and found out that it's fucking hard work doing something other than watching numbers roll by on a ticker-tape.

Yes, PLEASE Republican fuckwits, Go GALT! Then I can take your job.

If you read her books as novels, they're not exactly thrilling. But if you read them as a philosophical screed, they're pretty good. I don't think I've found more engrossing philosophy outside of Plato's dialogues, and perhaps some of Nietzsche's more enraged monologues.

I mean, who can't enjoy a tale where a bunch of robber barons get so angry about paying taxes that they all quit their jobs and take up field labor in the mountains? Oh the schadenfreud! If only republicans would do the same...