The Randianesque Quasi-Nihilism of Penn Jillette

[Jonathan]

What I've seen of Penn - albeit, only two episodes - convinces me that he is a cheap-shot merchant, with little integrity, and humor. He's just not in the same class as the best comedians of the US I've heard.

What happened to considering people's lives and work in toto rather than using a few brief negative things to serve as "representative of their complete life"? Why the double standard? Why is Penn expected to balance out his negative comments on Rand by praising her for all of her accomplishments, but it's perfectly fine for you to judge Penn based on a fraction of his creative output?

J

[Jonathan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF2iX2VG6e4

[rodney203]

So why did he make the stupid commercial for the game company? A mystery to me.

[Selene]

So why did he make the stupid commercial for the game company? A mystery to me.

money

[BaalChatzaf]

So why did he make the stupid commercial for the game company? A mystery to me.

money

Simplest answers are the best answers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF2iX2VG6e4

J,

Now I remember this clip, which I back then didn't connect to Mr Jillette.

A powerful piece, and very moving. So he does have talent, and some values, - libertarian perhaps?

Then why the gratuitously snide N.Branden and Rand shows?

An enigma.

He talks about appreciating "ambiguity", which could provide a clue to his inconsistency.

I'll concede my lack of knowledge about him, but still feel he likes to play it both ways,(sneering and admiring) and enjoys being hard to pin down, so his honesty is questionable.

Tony

[Jonathan]

J,

Now I remember this clip, which I back then didn't connect to Mr Jillette.

A powerful piece, and very moving. So he does have talent, and some values, - libertarian perhaps?

Then why the gratuitously snide N.Branden and Rand shows?

An enigma.

I think "gratuitously snide" is quite a subjective evaluation. I think that most people who learn about the details of Rand's life, attitudes and behaviors conclude that she was a bit of a whackjob (and especially if they've read PARC). Personally, I wouldn't quite characterize her as such, but I understand where others are coming from, and I see no reason to be upset by their take on Rand.

As for Penn & Teller's treatment of Branden, I agree that it appears to be unfair, but I wonder if there's more to the story, like lots of miscommunication. Perhaps Branden wasn't on his game, and P&T and their crew interpreted him as non-responsive and/or pompous? To me he looked a little lost or distracted, and didn't seem to be focused on concisely explaining how his notion of self-esteem is different from others', or discovering P&T's views on the self-esteem movement and whether or not he agreed with them, or what type of ammunition he night have to offer them. When asked about the best way to learn about self-esteem, he didn't take the opportunity to pound the relevant talking points and set himself apart, but instead plugged the titles of his own books while referring to himself in the third person. Maybe that was supposed to be hip or cute or something, but it suggests that Branden wasn't familiar with Bullshit!, where getting to the point and informing the audience is what the experts and "experts" are there to do.

So, long story short, I don't know. I didn't like what P&T did to Branden in the episode, but it's not enough for me to conclude that they're nihilists and supremely evil. I would suggest that people who are upset about it should write Penn a note and ask him about it. Maybe leave out the nutty, Objecti-fever judgments about him being a nihilist who has no values, honor or integrity, and just mention that his views on self-esteem are probably much closer to Branden's than he realizes.

He talks about appreciating "ambiguity", which could provide a clue to his inconsistency.

So, the appreciation of ambiguity is bad? And it's so bad that it can be used as a sort of Objectivist Rorschach test to help determine others' ideological and psychological deficiencies? (Note to self: compile and publish a collection of all of the Objectivist Rorschach tests that you've seen used by Objectivists over the years.)

I'll concede my lack of knowledge about him, but still feel he likes to play it both ways,(sneering and admiring) and enjoys being hard to pin down, so his honesty is questionable.

I don't see Penn as "playing it both ways." He's not sneering at admirable qualities, but at vices. And, again, it sounds to me as if you have double standards. Rand appears to be the only person whom people aren't allowed to criticize or make fun of.

J

[rodney203]

I think I found out a little more about the computer game with Objectivism in it (Bio Shock). Apparently part of the thing is to disparage Objectivism.

[kiaer.ts]

The Year 2008 saw an innovation in video gaming that, to the best of my knowledge, was a first. That was the year that the famous novelist, screenwriter and philosopher Ayn Rand made the jump into this immensely popular form of entertainment. . . .

Bioshock and Ayn Rand

[anthony]

So, the appreciation of ambiguity is bad? And it's so bad that it can be used as a sort of Objectivist Rorschach test to help determine others' ideological and psychological deficiencies? (Note to self: compile and publish a collection of all of the Objectivist Rorschach tests that you've seen used by Objectivists over the years.)

J

Jonathan,

What does one say to a quantum Physicist, a politician, or an artist, or any observer of life, when told by them that "Life is ambiguous - get used to it."??

(Penn, I suppose could at a stretch, be considered an artist, if a performance artist/satirist qualifies. Sure, he is a life -observer.)

Would you answer> Yes, I know ambiguity exists ... for now. Ambiguity is only that which hasn't been discovered yet - but if not now, and not by me, I am certain that somewhere and sometime, somebody will find the answers.<?

Not Penn, who on the other hand seems to thrive on ambiguity.

I'm picking on him simply (and maybe, unfairly) for the reason that he reminds me of many intellectuals and artists I've known or been involved with. Ever so erudite, ever so clever and well-educated, so self-effacing and fashionably p.c., but also so smugly superior: the ultimate Post-Modernist.

They don't hold any position that requires an independent morality - and are quick to deride the idea that perhaps one should.

So, I believe Penn has the intellect to recognize value, but lacks the courage to make a stand, and therefore, integrity.

BTW, I think that as the raw clay for creativity, ambiguity and uncertainty are the basis of much excellent art and literature; a reflection of the world and the human condition. But hardly inspiring and sustaining.

Tony

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think I found out a little more about the computer game with Objectivism in it (Bio Shock). Apparently part of the thing is to disparage Objectivism.

Rodney,

From what I've seen, not really.

I think the idea was to make a first person shooter game and Ken Levine liked the images and ideas in Objectivism. So he used them as a background, along with some other stuff from some other sources.

But, to Levine, the needs of his own creation took precedence over adhering to any philosophy or preaching a point of view. I think he wanted to make a kickass game that was addictively entertaining for his target market and everything else was everything else.

In my way of thinking, that's exactly how it should be for top creators.

Love it or hate it, Levine made one hell of a game and he sold it well.

Michael

[Jonathan]

What does one say to a quantum Physicist, a politician, or an artist, or any observer of life, when told by them that "Life is ambiguous - get used to it."??

(Penn, I suppose could at a stretch, be considered an artist, if a performance artist/satirist qualifies. Sure, he is a life -observer.)

Would you answer> Yes, I know ambiguity exists ... for now. Ambiguity is only that which hasn't been discovered yet - but if not now, and not by me, I am certain that somewhere and sometime, somebody will find the answers.<?

No, I don't pretend to be able to predict the future, so I don't go around claiming certainty that people will discover answers to every question. Some problems may never be resolved.

Nor do I pretend that there is a single right way to interpret everything. Many things (not all, but many) are open to interpretation and can be understood in more than one way, and people can find richness and value in multiple meanings. The fact that Ayn Rand didn't like ambiguity, or that you don't, doesn't make it bad, and doesn't mean that we should try to wish it away.

Not Penn, who on the other hand seems to thrive on ambiguity.

I'm picking on him simply (and maybe, unfairly) for the reason that he reminds me of many intellectuals and artists I've known or been involved with. Ever so erudite, ever so clever and well-educated, so self-effacing and fashionably p.c., but also so smugly superior: the ultimate Post-Modernist.

Other than the "self-effacing and fashionably p.c." part, the above sounds like a description of the typical Objectivist, not the ultimate Postmodernist. Especially the "smugly superior" part.

BTW, I think that as the raw clay for creativity, ambiguity and uncertainty are the basis of much excellent art and literature; a reflection of the world and the human condition. But hardly inspiring and sustaining.

Ambiguity may not be inspiring and sustaining to you, but, fortunately, everyone else isn't limited to your tastes, experiences and contexts.

J

[rodney203]

Michael wrote:

"In my way of thinking, that's exactly how it should be for top creators.

Love it or hate it, Levine made one hell of a game and he sold it well."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does he go beyond borrowing images and ideas, and actually say "Objectivism" anywhere in the game, literature, or advertisments, and then misrepresent Objectivism?

If so, then shit on him.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Does he go beyond borrowing images and ideas, and actually say "Objectivism" anywhere in the game, literature, or advertisments, and then misrepresent Objectivism?

If so, then shit on him.

Rodney,

I don't discuss things in spiteful terms like this at the outset.

If you are seeking a scapegoat to bash and hatred to nurture in your soul, you will have to carry this discussion on with someone else.

Michael

[rodney203]

I don't discuss things in spiteful terms like this at the outset.

If you are seeking a scapegoat to bash and hatred to nurture in your soul, you will have to carry this discussion on with someone else.

Michael

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know about how the issue of Objectivism is handled in his game. I was indeed speculating on that. If he does abuse the Objectivist way in his material I would defend his legal right to do so, but neutrality about it on our part would not really be right.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't know about how the issue of Objectivism is handled in his game. I was indeed speculating on that. If he does abuse the Objectivist way in his material I would defend his legal right to do so, but neutrality about it on our part would not really be right.

Rodney,

Why not use Ken Levine's own words? A simple Google search turned this up: Ken Levine on BioShock: The Spoiler Interview by Chris Remo at Shack News.

Shack: Do you think you gave Objectivism short shrift at all? I'm not an Objectivist, I'm just curious as to how you'd respond to that.

Ken Levine: I'm fascinated by Objectivism. I think I gave it--I think the problem with any philosophy is that it's up to people to carry it out. It could have been Objectivism, it could have been anything. It's about what happens when ideals meet reality. If you had to sum up BioShock's story, that's what it is.

When philosophers write books, when they write fictional works like Atlas Shrugged, they put paragons in the books to carry out their ideals. I always wanted to tell a story of, what if a guy wasn't a paragon? What if his intentions were really good, but at the end of the day he was human? I think that's where the problem is.

It's not an attack on Objectivism, it's a fair look at humanity. We screw things up. We're very, very fallible. You have this beautiful, beautiful city, and then what happens when reality meets the ideals? The visual look of the city is the ideals, and the water coming in is reality. It could have been Objectivism, it could have been anything.

That doesn't sound to me like an attack on Objectivism from an enemy or whatever. It sounds like a guy using Objectivist ideas in a metaphorical way for a background to another story he wants to tell.

Michael

[rodney203]

Michael,

Till now I was only doing an "if-then" regarding the game, and Levin. The abuse and attacks on the Objectivist way are too numerous to have been worth my effort to research this particular case. But now you've gone and given me some facts. And you'all are learning what I do with facts.

A certain number of young people have relatively recently picked up on Objectivism. Levine knows this. Other philosophies and systems are too wrong, nebulous, or passe' to have been used for his purpose. I am charging Levine with dishonesty. I am asserting that ONLY Objectivism was available to him to achieve his idea. Young people are in desperate need of a model that they see can work. Levine takes the only philosophy available to him, the only one that could work, and gives them just the opposite. Levine gives them the opposite of Atlas Shrugged, the Opposite of The Fountainhead, a watering down of the message of We The Living, etc., etc. A repudiation of the principle goal of Objectivism and of philosophy itself.

(Mr. Hardin, here is your case for nihilism perhaps.)

Levine has the legal right to do whatever he wants, but you want me to be neutral or something, about it without your giving the matter more thought?

Edited October 29, 2010 by rodney203

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Levine has the legal right to do whatever he wants, but you want me to be neutral or something, about it without your giving the matter more thought?

Rodney,

I don't care what you do. Levine is not an Objectivist preacher and you apparently think he should be.

I think that's a very odd perspective.

I also find it odd that you say "Levine takes the only philosophy available to him, the only one that could work..."

Why? Are you a game developer? How do you know that?

I see nothing to back this up other than your opinion. And since Levine said the polar contrary ("It could have been Objectivism, it could have been anything"--twice in the same response), I see no reason to doubt his word over your opinion.

So I stand by what I wrote. You are free to disagree.

btw - I am not an Objectivist preacher and I dislike those who are in general. I mention this so there is no misunderstanding of what I stand for. If you are into preaching (and I am not saying you are--yet), you will not find a flock here. I'm not saying don't post. But if you are into preaching, you will get frustrated by the many intelligent people who do not follow party lines. I've seen this happen several times.

Michael