The complexity of human life cannot be summarized in a single word, nor can it be experienced in a single moment. From the multi-faceted nature of emotionality to the phenomenological self-exploration of introspection, there are simply too many details about each individual person for someone to ponder the whole of themselves at one time. This fact affirms the depth of the human mind, the broadness of the experiences that can be had, and the fleeting nature of the present moment.
No single moment can capture the entire essence of human existence because the complex nature of that existence--on an existential, spiritual, intellectual, and broad experiential level--can only be experienced over prolonged periods of time. I must exist for many moments in order to experience the fullness of human life, as individual experiences can at most form a portion of a composite whole far greater than each of its constituent parts.
Existence as a rational, emotional consciousness has depth that is difficult, if not impossible, to articulate using verbal language. In an experiential sense, one can only directly understand their experiences, not those of others, but those alone provide people with many layers of individuality to uncover within themselves. The mental world within human consciousness rivals the physical world it perceives in its expansiveness.
Sometimes people might be tempted to assume from a distance that others are not as complex as they are. Instead of assuming this, they must refrain from judging without knowledge, lest they trivialize someone with a personal complexity as great as their own. In doing so, people can come to a more thorough understanding of each other--and even themselves. Human experiences are diverse, but in some regards they share an inescapable commonality. It is this commonality that allows humans to mutually relate in an exchange of experiences.
Monday, October 29, 2018
Memory And The Dream Hypothesis
Upon waking, memories can rush to the forefront of one's consciousness. Some might wonder if this sudden onslaught of memories is proof that one is awake at a given point in time, since various memories can be dormant while dreaming. Whereas dreams can be marked by an absence of extended memories of events, information, or even self-awareness, memory is a crucial aspect of waking life. Yet memory cannot establish that one is awake at a given moment.
There is a reason why the presence of distinct, extensive memories cannot prove that I am awake at a given time: there is nothing logically impossible about reality shifting so that it comes about that I either have no memories of certain events while awake or experience my memories while dreaming. Memory can prove nothing except that one has memories, meaning it cannot establish on its own if one is either dreaming or awake--memories can certainly reinforce a very strong perception that one is awake, but this strong perception falls short of a proof rooted in logic.
Only the laws of logic remain fixed and constant by necessity. Scientific laws and sensory perceptions involving sight or sound can never establish that one is awake. After all, scientific laws could hypothetically shift even in waking life, since there is nothing necessary about them despite there being inherent necessity in logic. My senses of sight or sound do not have to pertain to any external stimuli, since visual or auditory hallucinations--the seeing or hearing of things that are not there--are logically possible.
The experience of physical sensations alone proves that my consciousness is not gazing within itself, in a dream of its own making, at this moment [1]. Physical sensations require the existence of some kind of matter in the same way that perceptions require a perceiver. Without a body, even if that body ultimately amounts to a single miniscule particle, a being cannot experience physical sensations--consciousness, like the laws of logic and the dimension of space, is purely immaterial, meaning it is incapable of either generating or receiving physical sensations on its own. It is these facts and nothing else that grants me absolute certainty that I am awake right now.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blgospot.com/2018/06/distinguishing-dreams-from-waking.html
There is a reason why the presence of distinct, extensive memories cannot prove that I am awake at a given time: there is nothing logically impossible about reality shifting so that it comes about that I either have no memories of certain events while awake or experience my memories while dreaming. Memory can prove nothing except that one has memories, meaning it cannot establish on its own if one is either dreaming or awake--memories can certainly reinforce a very strong perception that one is awake, but this strong perception falls short of a proof rooted in logic.
Only the laws of logic remain fixed and constant by necessity. Scientific laws and sensory perceptions involving sight or sound can never establish that one is awake. After all, scientific laws could hypothetically shift even in waking life, since there is nothing necessary about them despite there being inherent necessity in logic. My senses of sight or sound do not have to pertain to any external stimuli, since visual or auditory hallucinations--the seeing or hearing of things that are not there--are logically possible.
The experience of physical sensations alone proves that my consciousness is not gazing within itself, in a dream of its own making, at this moment [1]. Physical sensations require the existence of some kind of matter in the same way that perceptions require a perceiver. Without a body, even if that body ultimately amounts to a single miniscule particle, a being cannot experience physical sensations--consciousness, like the laws of logic and the dimension of space, is purely immaterial, meaning it is incapable of either generating or receiving physical sensations on its own. It is these facts and nothing else that grants me absolute certainty that I am awake right now.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blgospot.com/2018/06/distinguishing-dreams-from-waking.html
An Erroneous Argument For Abortion
There is a reason why I have never directly written about abortion until now. I prefer to elaborate upon extremely precise or controversial truths that most people either 1) rarely or never bring up or 2) are ignorant of. Abortion is an issue that many people in my society have considered at some point, so there is little to say about the subject that falls into the two aforementioned categories. However, the fact that abortion is a topic of high significance compels me to write about it. As with every other component of reality, there are some asinine claims about the matter!
One argument in favor of abortion that is among these asinine claims posits that abortion does not have to be the active killing of an unborn baby, but that it can instead be nothing more than the discontinuation of providing the baby with the resources it needs to survive via gestation. The assertion holds that there is no moral obligation to keep the baby alive because gestation is an act of supererogatory (morally good but not obligatory) nature. As such, it represents abortion, or at least abortion using certain methods, as a passive refraining from giving the baby what it needs to stay alive.
This is simply a misleading use of language, since allowing a baby to die by intentionally withholding what it needs to survive is itself a method of killing it. Even if this was not killing of an indirect manner, it would follow that parents could starve their children, regardless of how young or old the children are, without moral ramifications, since they would only be withholding what their kids need to survive. Any person who argues for the former while regarding the latter as heinous is merely a fallacious hypocrite who understands little to nothing about consistency.
Here, pro-abortionists find themselves addressing the issue of arbitrary lines. If an unborn baby can be legitimately killed by the withholding of resources, then there is no reason to think that one cannot legitimately kill infants, toddlers, or even teenagers by similarly refraining from providing them with the resources necessary for survival. Unless all of one's children are to be kept alive, there is no such thing as any fixed moral obligation in this area.
Furthermore, many people, including those who condone abortion rights, have no epistemological or metaphysical basis for their moral beliefs. They operate on the basis of conscience, consensus, legality, or tradition. As such, they can only appeal to feelings, preferences, and social mores, all of which have absolutely nothing to do with whether a moral claim is either true or verifiable.
As a concluding aside, since many supporters of abortion rights are politically liberal, they should be asked if it would be morally legitimate for people to simply neglect the poor until they die of starvation, dehydration, or disease. I doubt that they would be consistent with their own premises when confronted with the obvious ramifications of them. When someone is inconsistent, they either have not contemplated an issue thoroughly or they are only pretending to have a concern for truth, if not both.
One argument in favor of abortion that is among these asinine claims posits that abortion does not have to be the active killing of an unborn baby, but that it can instead be nothing more than the discontinuation of providing the baby with the resources it needs to survive via gestation. The assertion holds that there is no moral obligation to keep the baby alive because gestation is an act of supererogatory (morally good but not obligatory) nature. As such, it represents abortion, or at least abortion using certain methods, as a passive refraining from giving the baby what it needs to stay alive.
This is simply a misleading use of language, since allowing a baby to die by intentionally withholding what it needs to survive is itself a method of killing it. Even if this was not killing of an indirect manner, it would follow that parents could starve their children, regardless of how young or old the children are, without moral ramifications, since they would only be withholding what their kids need to survive. Any person who argues for the former while regarding the latter as heinous is merely a fallacious hypocrite who understands little to nothing about consistency.
Here, pro-abortionists find themselves addressing the issue of arbitrary lines. If an unborn baby can be legitimately killed by the withholding of resources, then there is no reason to think that one cannot legitimately kill infants, toddlers, or even teenagers by similarly refraining from providing them with the resources necessary for survival. Unless all of one's children are to be kept alive, there is no such thing as any fixed moral obligation in this area.
Furthermore, many people, including those who condone abortion rights, have no epistemological or metaphysical basis for their moral beliefs. They operate on the basis of conscience, consensus, legality, or tradition. As such, they can only appeal to feelings, preferences, and social mores, all of which have absolutely nothing to do with whether a moral claim is either true or verifiable.
As a concluding aside, since many supporters of abortion rights are politically liberal, they should be asked if it would be morally legitimate for people to simply neglect the poor until they die of starvation, dehydration, or disease. I doubt that they would be consistent with their own premises when confronted with the obvious ramifications of them. When someone is inconsistent, they either have not contemplated an issue thoroughly or they are only pretending to have a concern for truth, if not both.
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Refuting The Mathematics Applicability Argument For God
If one sees through the shallow stupidity of many contemporary and historical arguments for God's existence, sometimes desperate theists, instead of demonstrating the logical necessity of an uncaused cause given that contingent things exist, resort to conjuring up the most asinine arguments in order to persuade. One such argument is the mathematics applicability argument for God, which claims that either the best explanation for or the reason why mathematical truths apply to the physical world is the existence of God. Unsurprisingly, apologist William Lane Craig regards this argument as sound, when it is not! He continues to appeal to fallacious nonsense in order to attract other people to his worldview.
Mathematical truths are nothing but numeric manifestations of logic, and logic itself is omnipresent and inviolable, existing by necessity without dependence on anything else--not on human consciousness, matter, or God. God could cease to exist, and all of creation would cease to exist with him. But logic is uncreated because it is a necessary existent: it cannot not exist. The laws of logic, from the most basic axioms ("truth exists," "a thing is what it is," "contradictions are impossible") to the laws of deductive reasoning, exist because they cannot fail to do so. The only way for them to be false is if they are true.
Thus, mathematics has to govern the physical world because contradictions are not possible. One rock is one rock. Two rocks is two rocks. Three rocks is three rocks, and so on. No alternatives are even possible, whether or not God exists! Mathematics, being numeric logic, governs all things because logic governs all things. There only needs to be an uncaused cause because there are created things and because infinite regress, self-creation, and beginning to exist without a cause are logically impossible. Even here, it is logic, not God, that is supremely necessary.
As I previously clarified, God himself does not have to exist. The uncaused cause could vanish from existence at any time, rendering all things contingent upon it nonexistent as well. There is no such thing as a "greatest conceivable being" that must exist in the absence of created things (the ontological argument, which claims the opposite and which I hope to eventually post about, is an asinine argument full of assumptions and non sequiturs). And the existence of God has nothing to do with the fact that logic and its subcategory of mathematics cannot not govern matter.
As with a multitude of other arguments for God's existence, like the design [1], transcendental[ [2], desire [3], and consciousness [4] arguments, the mathematics applicability argument fails spectacularly due to its many logical errors. I'm quite glad that the defensibility of Christianity does not depend upon the fallacies of William Lane Craig and his evangelical apologist cohorts. If someone honestly thinks that the relationship between mathematical truths and the external world has anything to do with God's existence, either metaphysically or epistemologically, they are either desperate to persuade others that God exists or their worldviews are based in a misunderstanding of the laws of logic.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/why-design-argument-fails.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/refuting-transcendental-argument-for-god.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/refuting-desire-argument-for-god.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/05/refuting-consciousness-argument-for-god.html
Mathematical truths are nothing but numeric manifestations of logic, and logic itself is omnipresent and inviolable, existing by necessity without dependence on anything else--not on human consciousness, matter, or God. God could cease to exist, and all of creation would cease to exist with him. But logic is uncreated because it is a necessary existent: it cannot not exist. The laws of logic, from the most basic axioms ("truth exists," "a thing is what it is," "contradictions are impossible") to the laws of deductive reasoning, exist because they cannot fail to do so. The only way for them to be false is if they are true.
Thus, mathematics has to govern the physical world because contradictions are not possible. One rock is one rock. Two rocks is two rocks. Three rocks is three rocks, and so on. No alternatives are even possible, whether or not God exists! Mathematics, being numeric logic, governs all things because logic governs all things. There only needs to be an uncaused cause because there are created things and because infinite regress, self-creation, and beginning to exist without a cause are logically impossible. Even here, it is logic, not God, that is supremely necessary.
As I previously clarified, God himself does not have to exist. The uncaused cause could vanish from existence at any time, rendering all things contingent upon it nonexistent as well. There is no such thing as a "greatest conceivable being" that must exist in the absence of created things (the ontological argument, which claims the opposite and which I hope to eventually post about, is an asinine argument full of assumptions and non sequiturs). And the existence of God has nothing to do with the fact that logic and its subcategory of mathematics cannot not govern matter.
As with a multitude of other arguments for God's existence, like the design [1], transcendental[ [2], desire [3], and consciousness [4] arguments, the mathematics applicability argument fails spectacularly due to its many logical errors. I'm quite glad that the defensibility of Christianity does not depend upon the fallacies of William Lane Craig and his evangelical apologist cohorts. If someone honestly thinks that the relationship between mathematical truths and the external world has anything to do with God's existence, either metaphysically or epistemologically, they are either desperate to persuade others that God exists or their worldviews are based in a misunderstanding of the laws of logic.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/why-design-argument-fails.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/refuting-transcendental-argument-for-god.html
[3]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/refuting-desire-argument-for-god.html
[4]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/05/refuting-consciousness-argument-for-god.html
Saturday, October 27, 2018
Movie Review--Halloween (2018)
"Do you know that I prayed every night that he would escape?"
--Laurie Strode, Halloween
Halloween is a glorious return to the heart of the series of the same name without a return to the unfortunate 70s cheesiness that pervaded so much of the original. The new Halloween has gravity, urgency, and consistency. This is how you continue a classic franchise while preserving the norms and themes therein. The movie belongs to Laurie and Michael, and both characters deliver exactly what they need to in order to give the script the treatment it deserves--Laurie is driven by a desperate desire to kill Michael, and Michael has an almost supernatural presence (the opening sequence where a journalist takes out his mask in front of him epitomizes this). It is by far one of the best recent horror movies, with the score, acting, plot, and series significance all being executed successfully.
Production Values
I initially worried that the brand of generic, overdone comedy that is so popular in cinema at this time might make an appearance and corrupt the horror atmosphere. Thankfully, unlike with the disappointing The Predator, it never did. Yes, there is definitely humor in some scenes, but it is always contained to very limited portions of the film. It never tries to usurp the tone. In other words, this is far from the style of many MCU movies. The script is very consistent in preserving an atmosphere of terror within the world of the narrative.
Jamie Lee Curtis does a phenomenal job reprising her role of Laurie Strode, with her character written like Sarah Connor from Terminator 2: she is a woman who is paranoid about a legitimate threat and who has not been taken seriously by a fair number of people. There is not a scene Curtis appears in with a subpar performance on her part. Her performance is easily one of the greatest assets of the movie, along with that of the character of Michael.
As Laurie's grand opponent, Michael (acted by Nick Castle) is presented with all of the malevolence and abnormal strength that he needs to return as an effective, distinguished slasher villain. Several shots in particular emphasize the quiet malice hiding behind his mask, a malice that is left enigmatic even as its results are examined by supporting characters. He never speaks even once--but he does not need to to convey his characterization with great clarity. Michael is, to my knowledge, the supreme cinematic example of a killer who murders simply because anything else is anathema to his desires. While this could come across as extremely simplistic, in Michael's case, it works because it is handled so well. He even defies some expectations by, for instance, sparing a baby in a crib. Michael does not need to be as complex as a villain like Jigsaw to have a captivating screen presence.
The supporting cast stands alongside Laurie and Michael well, but the two central characters easily overshadow everyone else. As I said in the opening, this movie ultimately belongs to the two of them, with the greatest payoff coming from their fierce, climactic showdown 40 years after their first fight. Their clash is not brief or underdone; it is a prolonged, glorious set piece that would likely appeal to a large number slasher fans.
Story
Spoilers!
Two investigative journalists attempt to interview murderer Michael Myers in a rehabilitation center before he will be brought to a new location. One of them takes Michael's mask out of his bag, speaking to Michael without evoking any verbal response. However, the other patients erupt into a cacophony of noise. Michael now knows that they are in possession of the relic.
Laurie Strode, the woman who encountered Michael Myers on Halloween night of 1978 and lived, lives in a state of anxiety, an anxiety heightened by the fact that Michael is about to be transferred from one facility to another. Her daughter actively tries to avoid contact with her, viewing her as delusional. Although Laurie is perceived as insane, her fears materialize when the bus transporting Michael crashes and he escapes shortly before Halloween.
Michael kills the journalists, reclaiming his mask just in time to continue his murders 40 years to the day that he pursued Laurie. He is subdued by a police officer, but the officer is killed by Michael's doctor, who wants to see him fight Laurie in an uncontrolled environment (her house), but he is killed before he can arrive at her home. Of course, Michael does reach Laurie's home, where she is waiting to confront him again. In a lengthy scene brimming with tension, Laurie and Michael mutually hunt each other, resulting in Michael being trapped in a basement room as Laurie ignites a gas that will lead to the burning of her house. It is never confirmed if the flames kill Michael.
Intellectual Content
As with the first film, there is very minimal philosophizing. However, one of the things that stands out about Halloween, intentionally or unintentionally, is that it is a splendid example of how horror films often treat evil as if it is not merely a construct of human societies; one does not have to search hard to find moral realism in the genre.
Conclusion
Halloween ends with ambiguity, leaving viewers uncertain if Michael will stalk Laurie again. Considering that this is technically the second film in the series, since it ignores the original sequel, the door is open to a continuation of the series that puts an end to Laurie's role in the "rebooted" franchise. If this 2018 follow up is itself the end of the series, then it is a worthy end. It is the essence of the first Halloween with the cheesiness removed. In a cinematic landscape becoming increasingly dominated by gratuitous comedy, the new Halloween shows viewers that serious narratives are not dead.
Content:
1. Violence: Michael's psychopathy is manifested in multiple kills of varying brutality. Some are comparatively tame, like the strangulation kills, but some are fairly graphic; the stabbing of a woman's neck and the crushing of a man's skull are the most violent scenes.
2. Profanity: There are multiple uses of profanity, including some of the "most" explicit words classified as such.
3. Nudity: In a flashback to the opening scene of the 1978 Halloween film, a woman's breasts are seen. As usual, I want to clarify again that there is nothing sexual about this (the only reason I mention female breasts here, something I do not do with scenes involving male shirtlessness, is because of the asinine cultural sensitivity to them).
--Laurie Strode, Halloween
Halloween is a glorious return to the heart of the series of the same name without a return to the unfortunate 70s cheesiness that pervaded so much of the original. The new Halloween has gravity, urgency, and consistency. This is how you continue a classic franchise while preserving the norms and themes therein. The movie belongs to Laurie and Michael, and both characters deliver exactly what they need to in order to give the script the treatment it deserves--Laurie is driven by a desperate desire to kill Michael, and Michael has an almost supernatural presence (the opening sequence where a journalist takes out his mask in front of him epitomizes this). It is by far one of the best recent horror movies, with the score, acting, plot, and series significance all being executed successfully.
 |
|
Production Values
I initially worried that the brand of generic, overdone comedy that is so popular in cinema at this time might make an appearance and corrupt the horror atmosphere. Thankfully, unlike with the disappointing The Predator, it never did. Yes, there is definitely humor in some scenes, but it is always contained to very limited portions of the film. It never tries to usurp the tone. In other words, this is far from the style of many MCU movies. The script is very consistent in preserving an atmosphere of terror within the world of the narrative.
Jamie Lee Curtis does a phenomenal job reprising her role of Laurie Strode, with her character written like Sarah Connor from Terminator 2: she is a woman who is paranoid about a legitimate threat and who has not been taken seriously by a fair number of people. There is not a scene Curtis appears in with a subpar performance on her part. Her performance is easily one of the greatest assets of the movie, along with that of the character of Michael.
As Laurie's grand opponent, Michael (acted by Nick Castle) is presented with all of the malevolence and abnormal strength that he needs to return as an effective, distinguished slasher villain. Several shots in particular emphasize the quiet malice hiding behind his mask, a malice that is left enigmatic even as its results are examined by supporting characters. He never speaks even once--but he does not need to to convey his characterization with great clarity. Michael is, to my knowledge, the supreme cinematic example of a killer who murders simply because anything else is anathema to his desires. While this could come across as extremely simplistic, in Michael's case, it works because it is handled so well. He even defies some expectations by, for instance, sparing a baby in a crib. Michael does not need to be as complex as a villain like Jigsaw to have a captivating screen presence.
The supporting cast stands alongside Laurie and Michael well, but the two central characters easily overshadow everyone else. As I said in the opening, this movie ultimately belongs to the two of them, with the greatest payoff coming from their fierce, climactic showdown 40 years after their first fight. Their clash is not brief or underdone; it is a prolonged, glorious set piece that would likely appeal to a large number slasher fans.
Story
Spoilers!
Two investigative journalists attempt to interview murderer Michael Myers in a rehabilitation center before he will be brought to a new location. One of them takes Michael's mask out of his bag, speaking to Michael without evoking any verbal response. However, the other patients erupt into a cacophony of noise. Michael now knows that they are in possession of the relic.
Laurie Strode, the woman who encountered Michael Myers on Halloween night of 1978 and lived, lives in a state of anxiety, an anxiety heightened by the fact that Michael is about to be transferred from one facility to another. Her daughter actively tries to avoid contact with her, viewing her as delusional. Although Laurie is perceived as insane, her fears materialize when the bus transporting Michael crashes and he escapes shortly before Halloween.
Michael kills the journalists, reclaiming his mask just in time to continue his murders 40 years to the day that he pursued Laurie. He is subdued by a police officer, but the officer is killed by Michael's doctor, who wants to see him fight Laurie in an uncontrolled environment (her house), but he is killed before he can arrive at her home. Of course, Michael does reach Laurie's home, where she is waiting to confront him again. In a lengthy scene brimming with tension, Laurie and Michael mutually hunt each other, resulting in Michael being trapped in a basement room as Laurie ignites a gas that will lead to the burning of her house. It is never confirmed if the flames kill Michael.
Intellectual Content
As with the first film, there is very minimal philosophizing. However, one of the things that stands out about Halloween, intentionally or unintentionally, is that it is a splendid example of how horror films often treat evil as if it is not merely a construct of human societies; one does not have to search hard to find moral realism in the genre.
Conclusion
Halloween ends with ambiguity, leaving viewers uncertain if Michael will stalk Laurie again. Considering that this is technically the second film in the series, since it ignores the original sequel, the door is open to a continuation of the series that puts an end to Laurie's role in the "rebooted" franchise. If this 2018 follow up is itself the end of the series, then it is a worthy end. It is the essence of the first Halloween with the cheesiness removed. In a cinematic landscape becoming increasingly dominated by gratuitous comedy, the new Halloween shows viewers that serious narratives are not dead.
Content:
1. Violence: Michael's psychopathy is manifested in multiple kills of varying brutality. Some are comparatively tame, like the strangulation kills, but some are fairly graphic; the stabbing of a woman's neck and the crushing of a man's skull are the most violent scenes.
2. Profanity: There are multiple uses of profanity, including some of the "most" explicit words classified as such.
3. Nudity: In a flashback to the opening scene of the 1978 Halloween film, a woman's breasts are seen. As usual, I want to clarify again that there is nothing sexual about this (the only reason I mention female breasts here, something I do not do with scenes involving male shirtlessness, is because of the asinine cultural sensitivity to them).
Friday, October 26, 2018
The Nuances Of Friendship
The truths of individualism govern all aspects of individual and social life. It is no surprise, then, that friendships are affected by the manifestations of individual personality traits, as friendships are a key aspect of sociality. This effect extends far beyond people having preferences for friendships with certain types of people. That such a thing is true is obvious! It is experientially clear to people with more than one deep friendship that the same activities and discussions can feel quite different in the presence of different people, even when one has relationships of the the same general quality or depth with each person.
Why is this the case? It is because people are their own individual selves, with nuanced personalities. Variations in personality, however slight, affect how conversations with different people can feel. Even when two friendships are similar in their duration and strength, they can still feel very distinct. This can be a very pleasurable thing! After all, this means that having multiple friends who possess complete worldview overlap and similar personality types does not have to be dull. It means that broaching the same topics and sharing the same dimensions of oneself with new people can be fulfilling anew every time.
It is this fact that allows for repetition of the same activities to deepen various friendships in different ways; even further, it is accounting for the individual natures of different friends that allows friendships to thrive, for people can only flourish to the greatest extents possible when they do not hide themselves. Without seeing a person's individuality, one cannot see them as they are. As such, friendships are deepened and sustained by the sharing of the features that mark the personalities of each friend.
Grasping the individuality of different persons is key to understanding how to interact with them. Friendship provides the perfect arena to not just acknowledge the truths of individualism, but celebrate them, with both parties identifying and appreciating the differences in personality that distinguish their souls. The revelation of these traits that occurs when friends feel comfortable in their relationship of mutuality can be one of the most exciting aspects of friendship. And when one person shares himself or herself, it is not unlikely that the recipient of the information will be willing to share in return. This mutual expression of individuality is at the core of friendships, for without it relational intimacy will hit a wall, but affectionate relationships thrive on it.
Why is this the case? It is because people are their own individual selves, with nuanced personalities. Variations in personality, however slight, affect how conversations with different people can feel. Even when two friendships are similar in their duration and strength, they can still feel very distinct. This can be a very pleasurable thing! After all, this means that having multiple friends who possess complete worldview overlap and similar personality types does not have to be dull. It means that broaching the same topics and sharing the same dimensions of oneself with new people can be fulfilling anew every time.
It is this fact that allows for repetition of the same activities to deepen various friendships in different ways; even further, it is accounting for the individual natures of different friends that allows friendships to thrive, for people can only flourish to the greatest extents possible when they do not hide themselves. Without seeing a person's individuality, one cannot see them as they are. As such, friendships are deepened and sustained by the sharing of the features that mark the personalities of each friend.
Grasping the individuality of different persons is key to understanding how to interact with them. Friendship provides the perfect arena to not just acknowledge the truths of individualism, but celebrate them, with both parties identifying and appreciating the differences in personality that distinguish their souls. The revelation of these traits that occurs when friends feel comfortable in their relationship of mutuality can be one of the most exciting aspects of friendship. And when one person shares himself or herself, it is not unlikely that the recipient of the information will be willing to share in return. This mutual expression of individuality is at the core of friendships, for without it relational intimacy will hit a wall, but affectionate relationships thrive on it.
A Stigma Around Masturbation
Humans can be very paradoxical beings, and their attitudes towards sexuality in particular often involve a rather great degree of nuance. For example, people who are otherwise quite open about their attractions to certain individuals or their desires for sexual activity might have difficulty admitting to others that they enjoy stimulating their own genitals. This paradoxical attitude is, in many cases, seemingly the result of myths about masturbation or societal discouragement of overt acknowledgment of select sexual behaviors.
Perhaps it is due to misconceptions about how masturbation is what people who are unable to find a partner resort to, as if masturbating is a private admission that one is incapable of entering into a mutual romantic or sexual relationship. It is no such thing; someone can be in a fulfilling, committed sexual relationship and still thoroughly enjoy self-stimulation. Nothing about either excludes the other. Likewise, the idea that one's partner will inevitably be offended if one masturbates is asinine.
What is more likely in many cases, instead, is that social mores selectively suppress certain forms of sexual expression, or at least acknowledgment of those forms of expression. Since masturbation, on its own, is an act involving only one person, people might gratuitously feel awkward about admitting their indulgence (though it is fallacious to say that everyone masturbates, contrary to some jokes) because of the way that masturbation is treated as a very personal, private thing. But sexuality itself is not awkward; this does not stop some people from perceiving it through a lens of anxiety.
With sexuality, as with other matters, I have found that those who are willing to openly share information about themselves are likely to have their vulnerability and boldness reciprocated to some extent. If society at large is to embrace a relaxed, consistent stance towards nonsinful expressions of sexuality, someone needs to start by modeling openness in discussing sexual habits and feelings. There is nothing shameful or reprehensible about appreciating or discussing impulses that God implanted with the majority of humankind.
Perhaps it is due to misconceptions about how masturbation is what people who are unable to find a partner resort to, as if masturbating is a private admission that one is incapable of entering into a mutual romantic or sexual relationship. It is no such thing; someone can be in a fulfilling, committed sexual relationship and still thoroughly enjoy self-stimulation. Nothing about either excludes the other. Likewise, the idea that one's partner will inevitably be offended if one masturbates is asinine.
What is more likely in many cases, instead, is that social mores selectively suppress certain forms of sexual expression, or at least acknowledgment of those forms of expression. Since masturbation, on its own, is an act involving only one person, people might gratuitously feel awkward about admitting their indulgence (though it is fallacious to say that everyone masturbates, contrary to some jokes) because of the way that masturbation is treated as a very personal, private thing. But sexuality itself is not awkward; this does not stop some people from perceiving it through a lens of anxiety.
With sexuality, as with other matters, I have found that those who are willing to openly share information about themselves are likely to have their vulnerability and boldness reciprocated to some extent. If society at large is to embrace a relaxed, consistent stance towards nonsinful expressions of sexuality, someone needs to start by modeling openness in discussing sexual habits and feelings. There is nothing shameful or reprehensible about appreciating or discussing impulses that God implanted with the majority of humankind.
I am transparent about the fact that I enjoy masturbation, simply because it is a thing that I subjectively find very pleasurable, even as an asexual [1]. Though people are free to refrain from sharing details about their sexuality, there is nothing "indecent" or shameful about doing so. And in doing so, people can attain a level of comfort with their bodies and the functions of their bodies that far exceeds what is otherwise the status quo.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/can-asexuals-masturbate.html
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/can-asexuals-masturbate.html
The Historical Jesus
History might be subjectively
fascinating and important, but it does not belong anywhere near the
forefront of legitimate epistemology. The unverifiability of historical events means that
one can never actually establish any particular past occurrence (with
the exception of the physical world and time having a beginning, since
this beginning is logically necessary). In fact, one cannot even prove that the past has existed for more than a moment! In this light, anyone who thinks they can know that Jesus existed is delusional. But so is the person who thinks they can actually know that George Washington, Julius Caesar, or Susan B. Anthony existed.
In this deficit of historical certainty, which leaves us short of even having absolute certainty about the histories of our own lives, we are left only with evidences for past events. These evidences, if they support events prior to our existences, take the form of documentation and artifacts. There is something that never serves as evidence for a historical event, though it is often mistaken for evidence: the consensus of historians.
Some Christian apologists, like William Lane Craig, repeatedly appeal to the agreement of current historians as if this demonstrates that Jesus was an actual historical figure. When investigating historical matters, thoroughly rational people will have no concern for whether or not there is any kind of agreement among contemporary or past historians. Instead, they will look directly to historical documents themselves. The consensus of historians is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not Jesus existed.
There is evidence that Jesus existed and resurrected, yes. None of this evidence is related to an overlap of belief among any historians; this evidence is exclusively comprised of the documentation that strongly supports, but cannot prove, the existence of Jesus. The puzzlement of average Christians at this kind of nuance never fails to amuse me! They want the fallacious but easy epistemological road. They want historical evidence to be as simple as someone they respect affirming what they already believe. Ultimately, they undermine the very defensibility of their commitment to Christianity in doing so.
No one has any basis for concerning themselves with petty matters like consensus. If a person wants to understand the evidence for Jesus' existence, they will look to the contents of documents, not what people say about those documents. This is the only sound form of apologetics pertaining to the historical Jesus. Does this make pursuing the most informed historical estimations harder? Certainly. Nevertheless, this difficulty comes with knowledge of the evidence itself, not knowledge of unverified claims about the evidence.
In this deficit of historical certainty, which leaves us short of even having absolute certainty about the histories of our own lives, we are left only with evidences for past events. These evidences, if they support events prior to our existences, take the form of documentation and artifacts. There is something that never serves as evidence for a historical event, though it is often mistaken for evidence: the consensus of historians.
Some Christian apologists, like William Lane Craig, repeatedly appeal to the agreement of current historians as if this demonstrates that Jesus was an actual historical figure. When investigating historical matters, thoroughly rational people will have no concern for whether or not there is any kind of agreement among contemporary or past historians. Instead, they will look directly to historical documents themselves. The consensus of historians is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not Jesus existed.
There is evidence that Jesus existed and resurrected, yes. None of this evidence is related to an overlap of belief among any historians; this evidence is exclusively comprised of the documentation that strongly supports, but cannot prove, the existence of Jesus. The puzzlement of average Christians at this kind of nuance never fails to amuse me! They want the fallacious but easy epistemological road. They want historical evidence to be as simple as someone they respect affirming what they already believe. Ultimately, they undermine the very defensibility of their commitment to Christianity in doing so.
No one has any basis for concerning themselves with petty matters like consensus. If a person wants to understand the evidence for Jesus' existence, they will look to the contents of documents, not what people say about those documents. This is the only sound form of apologetics pertaining to the historical Jesus. Does this make pursuing the most informed historical estimations harder? Certainly. Nevertheless, this difficulty comes with knowledge of the evidence itself, not knowledge of unverified claims about the evidence.
Libertarianism Is Consistent Conservatism
Contrary to popular sentiments, political tolerance is an asinine thing. If an ideology is either inherently flawed or evidentially unsopportable, no one can have a right to defend, identify with, or advocate it. Politics, like every other aspect of society, suffers when tolerance is viewed as a positive force. It is logically impossible for anyone to have a right to believe in anything other than demonstrable truths. As such, there is always a need to refute asinine political ideas when they are erroneously presented as legitimate or consistent.
Conservatives are notorious for their many fallacies and hypocrisies (as are liberals), but there is one particular inconsistency that highlights the contradiction at the heart of conservatism. Since conservatism is ultimately about preserving traditions, with the exact traditions being preserved a matter of arbitrary preference, sometimes conservatives clamor to protect things that are ironically opposed to their other values.
Those in the conservative party often lament the large size of the government, complaining about taxation rates and government intrusion into the lives of citizens, yet they are not even consistent with their own demands for "small government"--they would be libertarians if they were! Libertarianism is the consistent version of the small government tenet of conservatism. Anything less is an incomplete, selective application of that tenet at best.
Conservatism is not inconsistent only when "misapplied," but it is inconsistent in any form whatsoever. The only consistent form of certain conservative ideas is libertarianism, but libertarianism separates itself from conservativsm entirely, as it is a distinct political ideology. Every time that conservatives object to some government oversteps but not to others, they communicate that they either don't understand the inconsistency of conservativism or they are using conservatism for some personal agenda.
The very foundations of both conservatism and liberalism are plagued with numerous fallacies, with each of the two parties being arbitrary in their own ways. The former clings to tradition for the sake of tradition; the latter scrambles to reach an ever-shifting destination away from the status quo. Libertarianism alone survives a meeting with rationalism. It is the only consistent, Biblical form of government.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
Conservatives are notorious for their many fallacies and hypocrisies (as are liberals), but there is one particular inconsistency that highlights the contradiction at the heart of conservatism. Since conservatism is ultimately about preserving traditions, with the exact traditions being preserved a matter of arbitrary preference, sometimes conservatives clamor to protect things that are ironically opposed to their other values.
Those in the conservative party often lament the large size of the government, complaining about taxation rates and government intrusion into the lives of citizens, yet they are not even consistent with their own demands for "small government"--they would be libertarians if they were! Libertarianism is the consistent version of the small government tenet of conservatism. Anything less is an incomplete, selective application of that tenet at best.
Conservatism is not inconsistent only when "misapplied," but it is inconsistent in any form whatsoever. The only consistent form of certain conservative ideas is libertarianism, but libertarianism separates itself from conservativsm entirely, as it is a distinct political ideology. Every time that conservatives object to some government oversteps but not to others, they communicate that they either don't understand the inconsistency of conservativism or they are using conservatism for some personal agenda.
The very foundations of both conservatism and liberalism are plagued with numerous fallacies, with each of the two parties being arbitrary in their own ways. The former clings to tradition for the sake of tradition; the latter scrambles to reach an ever-shifting destination away from the status quo. Libertarianism alone survives a meeting with rationalism. It is the only consistent, Biblical form of government.
Logic, people. It is very fucking helpful.
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
Confronting Reverse Racism
When an evil is only selectively condemned, the inconsistent forfeit the legitimacy of their claims to moral superiority. Their hypocrisy reveals that they do not care about doing the right thing because it is good and obligatory; they do the right thing if or when it benefits them in some way, whether it grants them social acceptance, appeases their consciences, or simplifies their lives in some other manner. While there are many moral issues that people treat inconsistently, there is one that is closer than others to the surface of general conversations in America: racism.
Racism against various minority ethnicities is at last condemned outright as an atrocity, but sometimes this is accompanied by reverse racism, or racism redirected towards "majority" ethnicities. This is often a response to past evils committed by previous generations, which only amplifies the injustice, since treating a person as if he or she is responsible for the actions of someone else is inherently unjust. Those guilty of reverse racism betray the very moral ideas they claim to be upholding.
In order to show the hypocrisy of reverse racism, consider a scenario from 1800s America. Suppose that a white master abuses his slaves, thinking them of lesser value simply because of the color of their skin. The master commits an egregious sin. However, so do any of his slaves who loathe him simply for the color of his skin and not for his abusive behaviors, since they are then guilty of an identical moral offense. They have become like their master in this regard, sharing this moral fault. Racism does not become legitimate when it is reciprocated towards a racist person (and the same is true of sexism).
Some do not want to admit this, since it contradicts their own respective forms of racism that they seek to portray as legitimate, upright, and justified. Racism can be nothing other than what it is, irrespective of the prejudices of those who only endorse it selectively. When fighting an evil, one must avoid responding with another evil, no matter how comparatively small it is (of course, there are rare situations where one cannot avoid sinning, and thus must choose the lesser evil [1]). If one commits the same evil one is attempting to defeat, the lack of consistency shows a lack of concern for morality itself. At that point, one is only opposing another evil because of annoyance, not moral fortitude.
The racism of one person or group does not and cannot justify reverse racism. It only requires a minimal grasp of morality and deductive reasoning to understand this. The unfortunate truth is that many people do not have either.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-morality-of-vows.html
Racism against various minority ethnicities is at last condemned outright as an atrocity, but sometimes this is accompanied by reverse racism, or racism redirected towards "majority" ethnicities. This is often a response to past evils committed by previous generations, which only amplifies the injustice, since treating a person as if he or she is responsible for the actions of someone else is inherently unjust. Those guilty of reverse racism betray the very moral ideas they claim to be upholding.
In order to show the hypocrisy of reverse racism, consider a scenario from 1800s America. Suppose that a white master abuses his slaves, thinking them of lesser value simply because of the color of their skin. The master commits an egregious sin. However, so do any of his slaves who loathe him simply for the color of his skin and not for his abusive behaviors, since they are then guilty of an identical moral offense. They have become like their master in this regard, sharing this moral fault. Racism does not become legitimate when it is reciprocated towards a racist person (and the same is true of sexism).
Some do not want to admit this, since it contradicts their own respective forms of racism that they seek to portray as legitimate, upright, and justified. Racism can be nothing other than what it is, irrespective of the prejudices of those who only endorse it selectively. When fighting an evil, one must avoid responding with another evil, no matter how comparatively small it is (of course, there are rare situations where one cannot avoid sinning, and thus must choose the lesser evil [1]). If one commits the same evil one is attempting to defeat, the lack of consistency shows a lack of concern for morality itself. At that point, one is only opposing another evil because of annoyance, not moral fortitude.
The racism of one person or group does not and cannot justify reverse racism. It only requires a minimal grasp of morality and deductive reasoning to understand this. The unfortunate truth is that many people do not have either.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-morality-of-vows.html
Monday, October 22, 2018
Game Review--Call Of Duty: Black Ops 4 (Xbox One)
"The knowledge you seek was not intended for mortal men."
--The Oracle, Call of Duty: Black Ops 4
Black Ops 4 showcases some genuine improvements over its predecessor, Black Ops III, although it also takes a step backwards due to the absence of a traditional campaign mode. The exclusion of the campaign is a disappointing move, but Zombies is often a far deeper, more addicting experience than the campaigns as it is, and the same can be said of the multiplayer. The good news is that people who enjoy Zombies will have many reasons to relish the way that Treyarch has evolved how zombie-fighting is experienced (many of the miscellaneous screenshots featured in this review are from Zombies because it is safer to take pictures in that mode). Likewise, the multiplayer is exactly what many players expect and want from a Call of Duty game, providing its own evolutions.
Production Values
The graphics are spectacular, as one might expect from a Call of Duty title in the current console generation. I never experienced drops in the frame rate when playing Zombies, even when a legion of enemies descended upon me. Though the cheesy one-liners and comments that characters make in Zombies might get annoying after a while, the lines are delivered well. Thankfully, the quality of the audio isn't as sigh-inducing as the lines themselves! The production values are among the best ever seen on present consoles.
Gameplay
--Zombies
The developers imbued new levels of depth into Zombies. Now, one can customize the difficulty of a zombies match, as well as choose to play with AI bots as companions. They can make solo zombies games much easier! In fact, they can make it too easy; their overpowered weapons and amplified health bars render them able to carry players past wave 20 without a great degree of difficulty. There are even different modes within the same Zombies maps. For instance, now one can play in "Rush" mode, where all perks, weapons, and ammunition refills are free, but doors can only be unlocked by killing a certain number of zombies. You will have to rush (hence the title) to various positions in the maps and defend those locations, earning points in the form of yellow tokens that increase a score multiplier.
Enemy variety has also been greatly expanded. Whereas before zombies mostly possessed the same height and strength, now one must guard against much larger gladiator zombies in IX and zombies with elemental powers like fire or electricity. The larger number of basic enemy types is accompanied by the largest number of Zombies maps available at launch in any Call of Duty game: there are three maps that are accessible from the start, with a fourth granted to those who buy the DLC. One of them, a reimagining of the Black Ops II map Mob of the Dead (now called Blood of the Dead), follows the four characters from the earlier Zombies maps, while the other two, Voyage of Despair and IX, follow an entirely new cast.
For the first time, players can even edit factors like health regeneration speed, how many hits characters can take before entering last stand mode, what wave number a match begins at, which types of zombies can appear, whether or not killing zombies restores an amount of health. The drawback is an ability to earn XP from custom matches. In my case, this served as a strong deterrent to devising my own versions of Zombies. Some players might still derive a lot of fun from editing matches in order to make them particularly easy or brutal.
In addition, there are many new changes to the overall structure of Zombies. Gobblegums have been replaced by elixirs, which recharge after use, meaning you don't have to run to a machine and obtain new ones repeatedly. You also have four per match; the exact four can be customized before you launch a game. The perks in the maps for the Chaos story (which has the new characters is thus distinct from the Aether storyline with the old characters) are now tied to statues of specific deities instead of vending machines. A pre-match option allows players to choose which perks will be offered at which altar or, in the case of Blood of the Dead, which vending machine.
--Multiplayer
Also for the first time, the multiplayer in a Call of Duty game does not feature health regeneration. Instead of having their health restored after a period of waiting, players must heal themselves using an injection that can only be used at certain time intervals. The action is just as intense as ever, so franchise veterans can feel right at home in the chaotic, layered multiplayer environment of Black Ops 4. As usual, you level up weapons and ranks by making kills, unlocking new items that facilitate battlefield dominance.
--Blackout
For those who enjoy battle royale shooters, Black Ops 4's Blackout mode offers a series first that may prove fun. I did not spend much time with this mode--it can be very annoying to spend time collecting weapons only to be shot from across the map, since there is only one life per match.
Story
The closest thing the game has to a main story is the duo of narratives in Zombies. The Aether storyline introduces new elements into the classic Zombies chronology, but the maps in the Chaos storyline feature new characters who find themselves confronting an Illuminati-like conspiracy group. Amusingly, the golden masks of the group's members (one is featured in the above screenshot) in IX are quite comparable to the golden masks of the Sons of the Harpy from Game of Thrones!
Intellectual Content
Discovering/utilizing the Easter eggs in Zombies can require some serious planning, but the lack of a campaign means that Black Ops 4 simply cannot be marked by any specific conceptual themes in the way that Black Ops III is.
Conclusion
The fact that Black Ops 4 does not have a campaign certainly diminishes its appeal for many players, but lovers of Zombies and the frenetic multiplayer Call of Duty is known for will find that those respective modes are at their peak here. Ultimately, those are the players Black Ops 4 was designed for. What content is left is deep and inviting--it would be easy to spend dozens of hours slaying zombies and unlocking rewards in traditional multiplayer. While I want to see the campaign return in the next installment of the series, I can unhesitatingly recommend Black Ops 4 to people who appreciate the other signature aspects of the Call of Duty franchise.
Content
1. Violence: Zombies involves a lot of blood, with some enemies (like the tigers in IX) vanishing in explosions of blood upon being defeated. Players can shoot off the arms of zombies and blow off their heads.
2. Profanity: Scarlet, whether one plays as her or has her as a bot/companion, frequently uses variations of the word "fuck." Other characters from the Chaos Zombies maps use profanity, but to lesser extents.
--The Oracle, Call of Duty: Black Ops 4
Black Ops 4 showcases some genuine improvements over its predecessor, Black Ops III, although it also takes a step backwards due to the absence of a traditional campaign mode. The exclusion of the campaign is a disappointing move, but Zombies is often a far deeper, more addicting experience than the campaigns as it is, and the same can be said of the multiplayer. The good news is that people who enjoy Zombies will have many reasons to relish the way that Treyarch has evolved how zombie-fighting is experienced (many of the miscellaneous screenshots featured in this review are from Zombies because it is safer to take pictures in that mode). Likewise, the multiplayer is exactly what many players expect and want from a Call of Duty game, providing its own evolutions.
Production Values
The graphics are spectacular, as one might expect from a Call of Duty title in the current console generation. I never experienced drops in the frame rate when playing Zombies, even when a legion of enemies descended upon me. Though the cheesy one-liners and comments that characters make in Zombies might get annoying after a while, the lines are delivered well. Thankfully, the quality of the audio isn't as sigh-inducing as the lines themselves! The production values are among the best ever seen on present consoles.
Gameplay
--Zombies
The developers imbued new levels of depth into Zombies. Now, one can customize the difficulty of a zombies match, as well as choose to play with AI bots as companions. They can make solo zombies games much easier! In fact, they can make it too easy; their overpowered weapons and amplified health bars render them able to carry players past wave 20 without a great degree of difficulty. There are even different modes within the same Zombies maps. For instance, now one can play in "Rush" mode, where all perks, weapons, and ammunition refills are free, but doors can only be unlocked by killing a certain number of zombies. You will have to rush (hence the title) to various positions in the maps and defend those locations, earning points in the form of yellow tokens that increase a score multiplier.
Enemy variety has also been greatly expanded. Whereas before zombies mostly possessed the same height and strength, now one must guard against much larger gladiator zombies in IX and zombies with elemental powers like fire or electricity. The larger number of basic enemy types is accompanied by the largest number of Zombies maps available at launch in any Call of Duty game: there are three maps that are accessible from the start, with a fourth granted to those who buy the DLC. One of them, a reimagining of the Black Ops II map Mob of the Dead (now called Blood of the Dead), follows the four characters from the earlier Zombies maps, while the other two, Voyage of Despair and IX, follow an entirely new cast.
For the first time, players can even edit factors like health regeneration speed, how many hits characters can take before entering last stand mode, what wave number a match begins at, which types of zombies can appear, whether or not killing zombies restores an amount of health. The drawback is an ability to earn XP from custom matches. In my case, this served as a strong deterrent to devising my own versions of Zombies. Some players might still derive a lot of fun from editing matches in order to make them particularly easy or brutal.
In addition, there are many new changes to the overall structure of Zombies. Gobblegums have been replaced by elixirs, which recharge after use, meaning you don't have to run to a machine and obtain new ones repeatedly. You also have four per match; the exact four can be customized before you launch a game. The perks in the maps for the Chaos story (which has the new characters is thus distinct from the Aether storyline with the old characters) are now tied to statues of specific deities instead of vending machines. A pre-match option allows players to choose which perks will be offered at which altar or, in the case of Blood of the Dead, which vending machine.
--Multiplayer
Also for the first time, the multiplayer in a Call of Duty game does not feature health regeneration. Instead of having their health restored after a period of waiting, players must heal themselves using an injection that can only be used at certain time intervals. The action is just as intense as ever, so franchise veterans can feel right at home in the chaotic, layered multiplayer environment of Black Ops 4. As usual, you level up weapons and ranks by making kills, unlocking new items that facilitate battlefield dominance.
--Blackout
For those who enjoy battle royale shooters, Black Ops 4's Blackout mode offers a series first that may prove fun. I did not spend much time with this mode--it can be very annoying to spend time collecting weapons only to be shot from across the map, since there is only one life per match.
Story
The closest thing the game has to a main story is the duo of narratives in Zombies. The Aether storyline introduces new elements into the classic Zombies chronology, but the maps in the Chaos storyline feature new characters who find themselves confronting an Illuminati-like conspiracy group. Amusingly, the golden masks of the group's members (one is featured in the above screenshot) in IX are quite comparable to the golden masks of the Sons of the Harpy from Game of Thrones!
Intellectual Content
Discovering/utilizing the Easter eggs in Zombies can require some serious planning, but the lack of a campaign means that Black Ops 4 simply cannot be marked by any specific conceptual themes in the way that Black Ops III is.
Conclusion
The fact that Black Ops 4 does not have a campaign certainly diminishes its appeal for many players, but lovers of Zombies and the frenetic multiplayer Call of Duty is known for will find that those respective modes are at their peak here. Ultimately, those are the players Black Ops 4 was designed for. What content is left is deep and inviting--it would be easy to spend dozens of hours slaying zombies and unlocking rewards in traditional multiplayer. While I want to see the campaign return in the next installment of the series, I can unhesitatingly recommend Black Ops 4 to people who appreciate the other signature aspects of the Call of Duty franchise.
Content
1. Violence: Zombies involves a lot of blood, with some enemies (like the tigers in IX) vanishing in explosions of blood upon being defeated. Players can shoot off the arms of zombies and blow off their heads.
2. Profanity: Scarlet, whether one plays as her or has her as a bot/companion, frequently uses variations of the word "fuck." Other characters from the Chaos Zombies maps use profanity, but to lesser extents.
Sunday, October 21, 2018
The Generation That Normalizes Cross-Gender Friendship
In the past three years, I have noticed more people around me become more accepting of my friendships with women, which comprise all of my deepest relationships [1]. At the same time, I have noticed that similar friendships are, at last, becoming more entrenched in Western culture in general. It is becoming increasingly common for men and women to interact without the anxieties instilled by complementarian ideas of either secular or perverted religious origin. My generation might be the one to, as a whole, totally discard the social factors that have suffocated and discouraged male-female friendships in America for so long. Despite this progress, there are enough complementarian ideas still ingrained in American society to condition some to perceive friendships between men and women as unnatural, dangerous, or impossible to preserve.
These friendships, if they exist against the backdrop of sexist social expectations, possess a beauty that same gender friendships cannot. Every man and woman who commit to a non-romantic relationship with each other (in such a societal context) must defy ignorant traditions, and this allows them the opportunity to blatantly live out the most foundational elements of egalitarianism. Men and women who share intimate friendships acknowledge the other as an equal worthy of a significant emotional connection. For Christians, these relationships provide the supreme affirmation of the fact that God intentionally made both men and women in his image.
Thus, each friendship between men and women openly spits on the face of harmful and fallacious ideas that have segregated the two genders for centuries--if not physically, then emotionally and relationally. Each one of them is ultimately an expression of the truths of egalitarianism, even if the friends involved in them do not recognize this aspect. This is why cross-gender friendships have a special significance in certain cultural contexts. There is nothing counter-cultural about someone having a friendship with another person of the same gender; however, friendships with the opposite gender communicate a great deal about one's worldview from a distance. Their very existence threatens ideological structures that stand upon sexism, and this is no small power.
Social norms that discourage friendship between men and women are utterly antithetical to everything about rationality and Christianity. Logic obliterates the arguments for these norms, exposing them as the destructive forces that they are. They have perverted numerous relationships and thwarted many others. Conservative Christians who enforce them have exchanged reason for error and Biblical morality (Deuteronomy 4:2, Romans 7:7) for the human constructs so viciously condemned by Jesus, placing them among the Pharisees [2] of the modern church landscape (Matthew 15:3-9).
Humans are social beings (Genesis 2:18), and even evangelical legalists will admit this. Avoiding friendships with the opposite gender has the devastating effect of restricting one's pool of possible friends to a far smaller number on the basis of nothing but that one has a different bodily structure and different physiological functions! If one argued against friendships between people of different ethnicities, the evangelical world would revolt in outrage; substitute gender for race, and their cognitive dissonance is set on full display. They are just as inconsistent and incompetent in this area of their worldview as they so often are in others.
May my generation be the one that not only fully sheds this sexist, unbiblical nonsense, but one that also embraces the "normalization" of these friendships! Already I see signs suggesting that this will be true of my generation, and, in light of this, egalitarians should do their best to contribute towards the reshaping of the social world so that this comes about.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-impact-of-cross-gender-friendship.html
[2]. Here I use the word "Pharisee" in the more colloquial Christian sense, referring to someone who ignores the actual commands of the Bible in favor of clinging to extra-Biblical preferences.
These friendships, if they exist against the backdrop of sexist social expectations, possess a beauty that same gender friendships cannot. Every man and woman who commit to a non-romantic relationship with each other (in such a societal context) must defy ignorant traditions, and this allows them the opportunity to blatantly live out the most foundational elements of egalitarianism. Men and women who share intimate friendships acknowledge the other as an equal worthy of a significant emotional connection. For Christians, these relationships provide the supreme affirmation of the fact that God intentionally made both men and women in his image.
Thus, each friendship between men and women openly spits on the face of harmful and fallacious ideas that have segregated the two genders for centuries--if not physically, then emotionally and relationally. Each one of them is ultimately an expression of the truths of egalitarianism, even if the friends involved in them do not recognize this aspect. This is why cross-gender friendships have a special significance in certain cultural contexts. There is nothing counter-cultural about someone having a friendship with another person of the same gender; however, friendships with the opposite gender communicate a great deal about one's worldview from a distance. Their very existence threatens ideological structures that stand upon sexism, and this is no small power.
Social norms that discourage friendship between men and women are utterly antithetical to everything about rationality and Christianity. Logic obliterates the arguments for these norms, exposing them as the destructive forces that they are. They have perverted numerous relationships and thwarted many others. Conservative Christians who enforce them have exchanged reason for error and Biblical morality (Deuteronomy 4:2, Romans 7:7) for the human constructs so viciously condemned by Jesus, placing them among the Pharisees [2] of the modern church landscape (Matthew 15:3-9).
Humans are social beings (Genesis 2:18), and even evangelical legalists will admit this. Avoiding friendships with the opposite gender has the devastating effect of restricting one's pool of possible friends to a far smaller number on the basis of nothing but that one has a different bodily structure and different physiological functions! If one argued against friendships between people of different ethnicities, the evangelical world would revolt in outrage; substitute gender for race, and their cognitive dissonance is set on full display. They are just as inconsistent and incompetent in this area of their worldview as they so often are in others.
May my generation be the one that not only fully sheds this sexist, unbiblical nonsense, but one that also embraces the "normalization" of these friendships! Already I see signs suggesting that this will be true of my generation, and, in light of this, egalitarians should do their best to contribute towards the reshaping of the social world so that this comes about.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-impact-of-cross-gender-friendship.html
[2]. Here I use the word "Pharisee" in the more colloquial Christian sense, referring to someone who ignores the actual commands of the Bible in favor of clinging to extra-Biblical preferences.
The Only Perfect Communication
It is not difficult to to learn through deduction and conversational experience that human communication, whether it involves language, spoken or written, or alternative nonverbal means, is a deeply ambiguous thing that can easily be manipulated or misunderstood. The only means of perfect communication, a direct connection of one mind to another, is inaccessible to humans. In the absence of telepathy, a being can only rely on inferior methods of communication and must deal with the limitations therein. Though telepathy is foreign to human experience, it is a simple matter to grasp the three particular aspects of human existence that would be transformed if telepathy was bestowed upon humankind.
Telepathy would solve the problem of other minds, and it remains the only way to do so. Without the ability to see into other consciousnesses, there is no way to know if other entities that behave as if they possess their own respective minds truly do have mental life. If a person programs an automaton to act as if it is conscious, though there is no consciousness that animates the shell, all appearances make it seem as if the automaton is conscious. The only ways to know if a consciousness exists are 1) to directly experience it (as one does with their own mind) or 2) telepathically gaze into another mind.
Not only would telepathy reveal or disprove the existence of other minds, but it also would enable people to experience the deepest intimacy. Only with such a mental ability could people truly share the deepest sense of oneness with others. If other minds with the same limitations as my own mind exist, I can never share the most complete intimacy with them, for our minds are separate, disconnected by a lack of telepathy. In the absence of telepathy, I am left without even the capacity to know if their minds exist. This holds significant ramifications for human relationships, for the effects touch all aspects of how humans interact.
Yet another benefit of telepathy would be the ease with which the rational could expose the stupidity of the fallacious--showing the world the distinction between the truth and falsity of a matter would be easier than ever, as nothing more than gazing into the minds of others would settle a multitude of disputes. Pseudo-intellectuals could no longer hide behind their claims, left with no way to shelter their intellects from the vicious scrutiny of the intelligent minority. After all, the same features of telepathy that would provide heightened intimacy would also erase the possibility of anyone concealing their fallacies and motivations.
Communication using human language is inherently flawed, limited, and arbitrary, but none of these things render it totally useless. Societies can remain relatively stable in part due to partially shared linguistic norms. We do not need telepathy in order to communicate effectively, albeit imperfectly. Nevertheless, telepathy alone can be legitimately called the only perfect communication between one mind and another. No other nonverbal or verbal method of conveying information can compare favorably.
Telepathy would solve the problem of other minds, and it remains the only way to do so. Without the ability to see into other consciousnesses, there is no way to know if other entities that behave as if they possess their own respective minds truly do have mental life. If a person programs an automaton to act as if it is conscious, though there is no consciousness that animates the shell, all appearances make it seem as if the automaton is conscious. The only ways to know if a consciousness exists are 1) to directly experience it (as one does with their own mind) or 2) telepathically gaze into another mind.
Not only would telepathy reveal or disprove the existence of other minds, but it also would enable people to experience the deepest intimacy. Only with such a mental ability could people truly share the deepest sense of oneness with others. If other minds with the same limitations as my own mind exist, I can never share the most complete intimacy with them, for our minds are separate, disconnected by a lack of telepathy. In the absence of telepathy, I am left without even the capacity to know if their minds exist. This holds significant ramifications for human relationships, for the effects touch all aspects of how humans interact.
Yet another benefit of telepathy would be the ease with which the rational could expose the stupidity of the fallacious--showing the world the distinction between the truth and falsity of a matter would be easier than ever, as nothing more than gazing into the minds of others would settle a multitude of disputes. Pseudo-intellectuals could no longer hide behind their claims, left with no way to shelter their intellects from the vicious scrutiny of the intelligent minority. After all, the same features of telepathy that would provide heightened intimacy would also erase the possibility of anyone concealing their fallacies and motivations.
Communication using human language is inherently flawed, limited, and arbitrary, but none of these things render it totally useless. Societies can remain relatively stable in part due to partially shared linguistic norms. We do not need telepathy in order to communicate effectively, albeit imperfectly. Nevertheless, telepathy alone can be legitimately called the only perfect communication between one mind and another. No other nonverbal or verbal method of conveying information can compare favorably.
Friday, October 19, 2018
Game Review--Shadow Of The Tomb Raider (Xbox One)
"It felt like I woke something up."
--Lara Croft, Shadow of the Tomb Raider
--Lara Croft, Shadow of the Tomb Raider
2013's Tomb Raider [1] had spectacular gameplay and served as a wonderful introduction to a rebooted version of Lara Croft, but the game suffered from a serious lack of character depth. The immediate sequel, Rise of the Tomb Raider [2], improved practically everything about the former game. Thankfully, Shadow of the Tomb Raider continues the needed evolution of both certain gameplay mechanics and Lara's characterization. This time, Lara is at her stealthiest and most powerful point in the trilogy, and yet she is also at her most emotionally vulnerable. Her friendship with her best friend Jonah (it's very refreshing to see a strictly non-romantic, intimate relationship between a man and woman in entertainment!), a returning character from the two preceding games, helps highlight her emotionality in deeper ways than before. The two share some of the most moving moments in the entire series, the personal journey of Lara occurring alongside a race to thwart the Mayan apocalypse, which Lara unwittingly triggers.
Production Values
Gorgeous visuals welcome players to a detailed realization of Mesoamerican cultures and environments. Tombs, caves, and marketplaces are animated beautifully--though I did notice some sub-optimal lip-word synchronization at one point. The sound matches the quality of the graphics, with excellent voice acting on the parts of Lara and Jonah carrying much of the narrative. The visuals and sound contribute to a sometimes horror-like atmosphere, something that allows Shadow of the Tomb Raider to have the creepiest moments in the trilogy. One thing that I did find odd, despite my praises, is the gratuitous and bizarre change of Jonah's facial structure and ethnicity. The voice actor from before does reprise his role, making for a strange blend of the familiar and new.
Gameplay
Lara has become a predator just as lethal as any of the most dangerous wild animals encountered in the game. She can cover herself in mud to evade enemy detection, hang enemies from tree branches without alerting others, and easily dispatch multiple enemies in a row from the cover of vegetation, pulling the corpses into bushes to conceal her presence. The stealth system is at its absolute peak here. Not only can stealth be incredibly fun to utilize, but it is sometimes the only way to most effectively ensure that players don't repeatedly die in some combat scenarios. Just don't think that all of Lara's opponents are easy to kill using stealth: this game introduces Trinity soldiers with goggles that can detect Lara's body heat through plant cover, so even maintaining stealth can be challenging.
Besides these improvements, there is not much about the gameplay that is new. This does not mean that players will not have a hell of a good time executing stealth attacks, engaging in gunfights, raiding challenge tombs, completing tasks for NPCs, and upgrading Lara. Anyone who would not want to play something fairly similar to Tomb Raider and Rise of the Tomb Raider might not appreciate the gameplay very much, but anyone who enjoyed the other two entries in the trilogy should find many things to enjoy.
Story
Spoilers!
Having dedicated herself to fighting the shadow organization known as Trinity, Lara Croft, with her best friend Jonah Maiava, visits Mexico. In a benevolent but catastrophic decision, she takes the Dagger of Ix Chel from an area marked by a mural depicting a hidden city and several apocalyptic events called the Cleansing. Lara discovers that her actions seem to have set the very apocalypse portrayed on the mural in motion, and a Trinity member named Pedro Dominguez (who knew her father) confiscates the Dagger.
Dominguez seeks to "remake the world" according to his preferences, hoping to find the secret Box of Chak Kel affiliated with the Dagger in order to stop the apocalypse from reaching its final phase. In the wake of a tsunami that devastates a local community, Lara grapples with doubts, regrets, and guilt. She travels to the hidden city of Paititi shown in the mural, a civilization faced with the threat of the cult of Kukulkan, a cult that practices human sacrifice.
More disasters ravage the environment as as Dominguez comes closer to uniting the box (which is in his possession) with the Dagger. Lara makes an alliance with the Yaaxil, creatures that once guarded the box, and together they overpower Trinity forces, at which point Lara defeats Dominguez and averts the Cleansing by offering herself as a symbolic sacrifice.
Intellectual Content
There are plenty of puzzles, both in the main narrative and in the side quests and optional challenge tombs, to occupy the attention of players looking for intellectual stimulation. Lara can give hints if players desire so, but the difficulty of the puzzles can be adjusted so that Lara gives minimal hints or none at all. Completing the challenge tombs grants access to skills only available to those who conquer them. Some of these abilities can greatly facilitate certain parts of the main story, so there is an incentive for even non-completionists to invest some time in discovering and finishing the challenge tombs.
Conclusion
A post-credits scene hints at a possible continuation of this iteration and its version of Lara, but if the series ends with Shadow of the Tomb Raider, it will end with a very personal, fitting story that shows how the new Lara has matured since her first game in 2013. The narrative has the highest stakes of any entries in the trilogy, which complements the exploration of Lara's personal demons rather well, as Lara faces both environmental cataclysms and emotional conflicts at once. Shadow of the Tomb Raider is indubitably an adventure worth embarking upon for those who fell in love with the style and characters of the earlier reboot games. After all, the best elements of the series have been refined to the point where it would be very difficult to improve them further. And that is exactly what the final installment in a trilogy should accomplish!
Content:
1. Violence: The combat is brutal but largely non-graphic, though, near the beginning of the main narrative, a dismembered corpse is shown onscreen.
2. Profanity: On several occasions (not very often), Lara and Jonah use the word "fuck."
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/03/game-review-tomb-raider-xbox-one.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/game-review-rise-of-tomb-raider-xbox-one_6.html
Gorgeous visuals welcome players to a detailed realization of Mesoamerican cultures and environments. Tombs, caves, and marketplaces are animated beautifully--though I did notice some sub-optimal lip-word synchronization at one point. The sound matches the quality of the graphics, with excellent voice acting on the parts of Lara and Jonah carrying much of the narrative. The visuals and sound contribute to a sometimes horror-like atmosphere, something that allows Shadow of the Tomb Raider to have the creepiest moments in the trilogy. One thing that I did find odd, despite my praises, is the gratuitous and bizarre change of Jonah's facial structure and ethnicity. The voice actor from before does reprise his role, making for a strange blend of the familiar and new.
Gameplay
Lara has become a predator just as lethal as any of the most dangerous wild animals encountered in the game. She can cover herself in mud to evade enemy detection, hang enemies from tree branches without alerting others, and easily dispatch multiple enemies in a row from the cover of vegetation, pulling the corpses into bushes to conceal her presence. The stealth system is at its absolute peak here. Not only can stealth be incredibly fun to utilize, but it is sometimes the only way to most effectively ensure that players don't repeatedly die in some combat scenarios. Just don't think that all of Lara's opponents are easy to kill using stealth: this game introduces Trinity soldiers with goggles that can detect Lara's body heat through plant cover, so even maintaining stealth can be challenging.
Besides these improvements, there is not much about the gameplay that is new. This does not mean that players will not have a hell of a good time executing stealth attacks, engaging in gunfights, raiding challenge tombs, completing tasks for NPCs, and upgrading Lara. Anyone who would not want to play something fairly similar to Tomb Raider and Rise of the Tomb Raider might not appreciate the gameplay very much, but anyone who enjoyed the other two entries in the trilogy should find many things to enjoy.
Story
Spoilers!
Having dedicated herself to fighting the shadow organization known as Trinity, Lara Croft, with her best friend Jonah Maiava, visits Mexico. In a benevolent but catastrophic decision, she takes the Dagger of Ix Chel from an area marked by a mural depicting a hidden city and several apocalyptic events called the Cleansing. Lara discovers that her actions seem to have set the very apocalypse portrayed on the mural in motion, and a Trinity member named Pedro Dominguez (who knew her father) confiscates the Dagger.
Dominguez seeks to "remake the world" according to his preferences, hoping to find the secret Box of Chak Kel affiliated with the Dagger in order to stop the apocalypse from reaching its final phase. In the wake of a tsunami that devastates a local community, Lara grapples with doubts, regrets, and guilt. She travels to the hidden city of Paititi shown in the mural, a civilization faced with the threat of the cult of Kukulkan, a cult that practices human sacrifice.
More disasters ravage the environment as as Dominguez comes closer to uniting the box (which is in his possession) with the Dagger. Lara makes an alliance with the Yaaxil, creatures that once guarded the box, and together they overpower Trinity forces, at which point Lara defeats Dominguez and averts the Cleansing by offering herself as a symbolic sacrifice.
Intellectual Content
There are plenty of puzzles, both in the main narrative and in the side quests and optional challenge tombs, to occupy the attention of players looking for intellectual stimulation. Lara can give hints if players desire so, but the difficulty of the puzzles can be adjusted so that Lara gives minimal hints or none at all. Completing the challenge tombs grants access to skills only available to those who conquer them. Some of these abilities can greatly facilitate certain parts of the main story, so there is an incentive for even non-completionists to invest some time in discovering and finishing the challenge tombs.
Conclusion
A post-credits scene hints at a possible continuation of this iteration and its version of Lara, but if the series ends with Shadow of the Tomb Raider, it will end with a very personal, fitting story that shows how the new Lara has matured since her first game in 2013. The narrative has the highest stakes of any entries in the trilogy, which complements the exploration of Lara's personal demons rather well, as Lara faces both environmental cataclysms and emotional conflicts at once. Shadow of the Tomb Raider is indubitably an adventure worth embarking upon for those who fell in love with the style and characters of the earlier reboot games. After all, the best elements of the series have been refined to the point where it would be very difficult to improve them further. And that is exactly what the final installment in a trilogy should accomplish!
Content:
1. Violence: The combat is brutal but largely non-graphic, though, near the beginning of the main narrative, a dismembered corpse is shown onscreen.
2. Profanity: On several occasions (not very often), Lara and Jonah use the word "fuck."
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/03/game-review-tomb-raider-xbox-one.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/game-review-rise-of-tomb-raider-xbox-one_6.html
Asinine Responses To Moral Relativism
If one peruses superficial, generic Christian apologetics websites, one might find the argument that moral relativism is false because it would mean that moral progress has not been made across history, as there can be no moral progress without an objective moral standard to move towards. This objection is childish because those using it merely assume that morality exists, disqualifying the claim from any vestiges of legitimacy: the claim is the equivalent of just saying X is false because the opposite of X is true! But to falsify relativism, one would either have to prove that moral relativism contradicts itself (the only legitimate total refutation of moral relativism) or that objective moral obligations exist. The existence of morality, unlike the laws of logic, is neither necessary nor self-evident, so it is impossible for the latter to be some obvious thing that must be true.
Asking questions exposes the folly of the argument in question. How does one know that moral relativism is false? "Because then there would be no moral progress." But how does one know that moral progress has been made? "Because morality exists." How does one know that a certain arbitrary set of moral ideas from one culture or another is correct? "Because some things are just wrong." And how does one know this, from the fallacious foundation of conscience? "Because moral relativism is false." This is what conscience-based arguments against moral relativism always amount to at their cores.
An activity is morally evil or it is not--either because there is no standard of morality, and thus no obligations for the action to violate, or because the activity is either morally good or permissible/amoral. People cannot invent their own conflicting values, as if contradictory moral ideas can be separately true in the lives of various individuals. Therefore, moral relativism is refuted in full by the necessary existence and nature of the laws of logic, not by the existence of morality. Moral relativism's falsity is ultimately due to strictly logical facts and not moral ones. This should not be a difficult thing for professional Christian apologists to grasp and articulate, but they consistently refuse to do so out of either ignorance or stubbornness.
Moral relativism is impossible, yes. It cannot be true; either no morality exists or morality exists and has nothing to do with human perceptions, feelings, mores, and consensuses. There are no other legitimate alternatives. This leaves no room for moral relativism to even be within the realm of possibility, since it contradicts logic, which cannot be false. However, many moral realists are just as imbecilic as the relativists that they berate. Those who argue against moral relativism on grounds of conscience contradict themselves, saying that ethical disputes and the subjectivity of moral feelings do not disprove the notion of objective moral obligations as they appeal to those very things, in all of their uselessness, to argue that morality exists!
What many do not realize is that it does not follow from the impossibility of moral relativism (because relativism involves metaphysical contradictions, which are impossible due to the necessary laws of logic) that moral realism/objectivism is true or that moral truths can be known. It is fairly common to find people argue against moral relativism only to ascribe some nonexistent epistemological status to conscience. It is as if they are saying, "Moral relativism must be false because I have intense moral feelings!" This is what the arguments of apologists like William Lane Craig reduce down to. Until they stop using these asinine, fallacy-riddled arguments, they will continue to poison the minds of those who look up to them.
Asking questions exposes the folly of the argument in question. How does one know that moral relativism is false? "Because then there would be no moral progress." But how does one know that moral progress has been made? "Because morality exists." How does one know that a certain arbitrary set of moral ideas from one culture or another is correct? "Because some things are just wrong." And how does one know this, from the fallacious foundation of conscience? "Because moral relativism is false." This is what conscience-based arguments against moral relativism always amount to at their cores.
An activity is morally evil or it is not--either because there is no standard of morality, and thus no obligations for the action to violate, or because the activity is either morally good or permissible/amoral. People cannot invent their own conflicting values, as if contradictory moral ideas can be separately true in the lives of various individuals. Therefore, moral relativism is refuted in full by the necessary existence and nature of the laws of logic, not by the existence of morality. Moral relativism's falsity is ultimately due to strictly logical facts and not moral ones. This should not be a difficult thing for professional Christian apologists to grasp and articulate, but they consistently refuse to do so out of either ignorance or stubbornness.
Moral relativism is impossible, yes. It cannot be true; either no morality exists or morality exists and has nothing to do with human perceptions, feelings, mores, and consensuses. There are no other legitimate alternatives. This leaves no room for moral relativism to even be within the realm of possibility, since it contradicts logic, which cannot be false. However, many moral realists are just as imbecilic as the relativists that they berate. Those who argue against moral relativism on grounds of conscience contradict themselves, saying that ethical disputes and the subjectivity of moral feelings do not disprove the notion of objective moral obligations as they appeal to those very things, in all of their uselessness, to argue that morality exists!
What many do not realize is that it does not follow from the impossibility of moral relativism (because relativism involves metaphysical contradictions, which are impossible due to the necessary laws of logic) that moral realism/objectivism is true or that moral truths can be known. It is fairly common to find people argue against moral relativism only to ascribe some nonexistent epistemological status to conscience. It is as if they are saying, "Moral relativism must be false because I have intense moral feelings!" This is what the arguments of apologists like William Lane Craig reduce down to. Until they stop using these asinine, fallacy-riddled arguments, they will continue to poison the minds of those who look up to them.
Thursday, October 18, 2018
The Courage Of Rationalism
I have been told that rationalism, in excluding the very concept of faith, excludes courage as a consequence. Accurate reflection reveals that the very opposite is true, unless courage is conflated with stupidity. Courage is a commitment to doing something even when one experiences fears about the matter, not a reluctance to immerse oneself in rationalism. Living rationally can necessitate confronting things that are discomforting, or perhaps even quite upsetting. Faith is a blind leap in an arbitrary direction.
Faith is not an indicator of courage, but of stupidity (by faith I mean belief in an unproven thing, not commitment to something supported by evidence--which is not belief that the unproven thing is true). It does not require courage for simplistic people to settle for a worldview that is unverifiable or unverified. Some might find faith far more comfortable than the process of rejecting assumptions, identifying fallacies, and autonomously reasoning.
There is no courage in faith unless one holds to faith in something in the presence of doubts, but this is a pathetic form of courage, for it involves maintaining a worldview that is contrary to rationality. The deepest of courage pertains to pursuing truth even when it is painful or difficult. This shows that one has a genuine devotion to knowing reality for reality's sake, not merely in order to appease existential fears. It is easy to remain with ideas that one subjectively finds comfortable; moving beyond that realm of comfort can be a terrifying ordeal.
Confronting and accepting truth can be one of the most difficult things about human existence. Truth is not always pleasant, fulfilling, or simple, but it always remains the truth despite this. Rationalism, therefore, cannot exclude courage; on the contrary, embracing rationalism can be a sign of the deepest courage. Though difficulties can be overcome, not every rationalist finds truth an easy thing to consistently live for.
Faith is not an indicator of courage, but of stupidity (by faith I mean belief in an unproven thing, not commitment to something supported by evidence--which is not belief that the unproven thing is true). It does not require courage for simplistic people to settle for a worldview that is unverifiable or unverified. Some might find faith far more comfortable than the process of rejecting assumptions, identifying fallacies, and autonomously reasoning.
There is no courage in faith unless one holds to faith in something in the presence of doubts, but this is a pathetic form of courage, for it involves maintaining a worldview that is contrary to rationality. The deepest of courage pertains to pursuing truth even when it is painful or difficult. This shows that one has a genuine devotion to knowing reality for reality's sake, not merely in order to appease existential fears. It is easy to remain with ideas that one subjectively finds comfortable; moving beyond that realm of comfort can be a terrifying ordeal.
Confronting and accepting truth can be one of the most difficult things about human existence. Truth is not always pleasant, fulfilling, or simple, but it always remains the truth despite this. Rationalism, therefore, cannot exclude courage; on the contrary, embracing rationalism can be a sign of the deepest courage. Though difficulties can be overcome, not every rationalist finds truth an easy thing to consistently live for.
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
The Scarcity Of Intelligence
Anyone who legitimately thinks that people with completely different foundational positions can simultaneously be intelligent does not understand what intelligence is--meaning they do not understand what it means to grasp rationality, since intelligence is nothing other than a measure of someone's comprehension of the laws of logic. That it is considered controversial to draw attention to this highlights the intellectual shallowness of those who object.
Since two contradictory ideas cannot both be true, reason can only establish or favor one side or the other. It follows necessarily that two people clinging to opposing worldviews cannot both be intelligent. At least one, if not both, must be thoroughly mistaken in their conclusions, in their methodology, or in both matters. Thus, when people say that "there are intelligent people on both sides" of some polarizing issue, they overlook the fact that such a thing is impossible. The rigidness, exclusivity, and necessity of logic not only prohibit this from being true, but also from even being within the spectrum of possibility.
When it comes to certain precise details, people who dispute can both still wield actual intelligence, though one must exercise more intelligence than the other(s), as one is at least more rational than the other. However, the same it not true of people who represent conflicting, broad frameworks. They cannot hide behind the extreme precision of the issue; they are making more general claims that will expose their inconsistencies far more easily. Reason rejects at least one of two frameworks that are not logically connected. In doing so, reason reveals the unintelligence of those who cling to unintelligent, false, or unverifiable worldviews.
Not everyone can deserve to be praised for their intelligence because not everyone possesses more than minimal intelligence. There is nothing belittling about admission of this in itself, but even if it was belittling, the injustice of treating fallacious minds as intelligent would not be erased. If a person holds to an idea that is either irrational or unverifiable, that person cannot deserve to be labeled an intelligent individual--or at least cannot be legitimately regarded as an intellectual equal of the rational.
Since two contradictory ideas cannot both be true, reason can only establish or favor one side or the other. It follows necessarily that two people clinging to opposing worldviews cannot both be intelligent. At least one, if not both, must be thoroughly mistaken in their conclusions, in their methodology, or in both matters. Thus, when people say that "there are intelligent people on both sides" of some polarizing issue, they overlook the fact that such a thing is impossible. The rigidness, exclusivity, and necessity of logic not only prohibit this from being true, but also from even being within the spectrum of possibility.
When it comes to certain precise details, people who dispute can both still wield actual intelligence, though one must exercise more intelligence than the other(s), as one is at least more rational than the other. However, the same it not true of people who represent conflicting, broad frameworks. They cannot hide behind the extreme precision of the issue; they are making more general claims that will expose their inconsistencies far more easily. Reason rejects at least one of two frameworks that are not logically connected. In doing so, reason reveals the unintelligence of those who cling to unintelligent, false, or unverifiable worldviews.
Not everyone can deserve to be praised for their intelligence because not everyone possesses more than minimal intelligence. There is nothing belittling about admission of this in itself, but even if it was belittling, the injustice of treating fallacious minds as intelligent would not be erased. If a person holds to an idea that is either irrational or unverifiable, that person cannot deserve to be labeled an intelligent individual--or at least cannot be legitimately regarded as an intellectual equal of the rational.
Sunday, October 14, 2018
Physical Attraction Is Not Superficial
Whether they are in a romantic relationship or in the process of seeking one, some Christians may seriously contemplate the actual importance of physical attraction to their partners. The answers supplied to them on the subject are often incomplete, unhelpful, or thoroughly incorrect. In many cases, this form of attraction is characterized as a shallow, insignificant thing, with emphasis on the feature's of a person's soul drowning out an emphasis on interest in their body. Despite this, the exact importance of physical attraction in a relationship depends on the traits, priorities, and preferences of all parties in the relationship.
Physical attraction is sexual attraction to a person's body, perhaps accompanied by a sexual reaction of one's own body in the form of physiological arousal. Physical attraction is far from the only manifestation of sexual attraction, as sexual attraction can also be sparked by personality traits, emotional intimacy, and the nature of an established relationship. Treating physical attraction as the only legitimate or possible form of attraction is erroneous, but having desires for it, even powerful, deep ones, is in no way a problematic thing. In fact, it can be a great tool for the purpose of bringing about relational closeness with a partner.
Since people have their own individual personalities, some people might naturally crave physical attraction, while others might scarcely care about it or not care about it at all. It is unfortunate that some Christians are taught that any significant concern with physical attraction to a partner is itself a mark of spiritual or emotional shallowness. Emphasis on physical attraction only becomes superficial if someone elevates it above more important factors, whether by caring more about it than things like a potential partner's intellect, spirituality, personality, and moral character or by dismissing other factors altogether.
People do not succumb to shallowness by realizing that it is subjectively important to them that they feel genuine physical attraction to their significant others or spouses. In some cases, acceptance of this fact about themselves can actually be a clear sign of maturity, self-awareness, and depth. It might feel superficial for a person to recognize how important physical attraction is to them, but this only means that their emotions are not oriented towards reality. Thankfully, we are not always everything that we feel we are.
Physical attraction is sexual attraction to a person's body, perhaps accompanied by a sexual reaction of one's own body in the form of physiological arousal. Physical attraction is far from the only manifestation of sexual attraction, as sexual attraction can also be sparked by personality traits, emotional intimacy, and the nature of an established relationship. Treating physical attraction as the only legitimate or possible form of attraction is erroneous, but having desires for it, even powerful, deep ones, is in no way a problematic thing. In fact, it can be a great tool for the purpose of bringing about relational closeness with a partner.
Since people have their own individual personalities, some people might naturally crave physical attraction, while others might scarcely care about it or not care about it at all. It is unfortunate that some Christians are taught that any significant concern with physical attraction to a partner is itself a mark of spiritual or emotional shallowness. Emphasis on physical attraction only becomes superficial if someone elevates it above more important factors, whether by caring more about it than things like a potential partner's intellect, spirituality, personality, and moral character or by dismissing other factors altogether.
People do not succumb to shallowness by realizing that it is subjectively important to them that they feel genuine physical attraction to their significant others or spouses. In some cases, acceptance of this fact about themselves can actually be a clear sign of maturity, self-awareness, and depth. It might feel superficial for a person to recognize how important physical attraction is to them, but this only means that their emotions are not oriented towards reality. Thankfully, we are not always everything that we feel we are.
Friday, October 12, 2018
Game Review--Batman: Arkham Knight (Xbox One)
"Fear isn't pure biology, Batman. It's more than instinct. True fear is the absence of hope."
--Scarecrow, Batman: Arkham Knight
"Without fear, life is meaningless."
--Scarecrow, Batman: Arkham Knight
The greatest works of entertainment are those which unite intellectual and emotional depth with grand stories and brilliant characterization. While many stories have at least one of these features, few possess them all. Batman: Arkham Knight is among them, offering an excellent presentation of the character of Batman and a story that features diverse objectives, a large amount of side content, and an array of unique gadgets. Scarecrow's plan to induce genocidal chaos in the world through mass dispersion of a fear toxin forms the backbone of the main narrative--alongside the titular Arkham Knight's vendetta against Batman, who seeks to retire by the night's end. Since the game falls at the end of a trilogy with a great deal of in-universe backstory, the script plays out like the Nolan films might have if Batman had an established relationship with numerous villains in them.
Production Values
Arkham Knight is several years old by now, but its visuals hold up well, a testament to the quality of the graphics at the time of release. I encountered almost no loading issues as I moved from one part of the city to another. From the grand visual details to the specifics of the environment, the destructible world of Gotham is exceptionally well-realized. The audio stands alongside the aesthetics in its high quality. Not only is the voice acting excellent, but things like the chatter of small-time criminals outside of the main story change to keep up with the rather significant events that occur throughout the narrative. As a result, Gotham seems like a city with actual people who react to important happenings instead of one full of lifeless NPCs who recycle limited dialogue.
Gameplay
Players can actually feel like Batman as they grapple, glide, brawl, and use an array of weapons to overpower criminals. Want to hide under floor panels and ambush enemies one by one, luring others with the bodies of their comrades? You can do that. Would you rather chase down APCs (armored personnel carriers) in the Batmobile or protect areas from legions of drone tanks? You can do that as well. Care to use the grapple gun to launch yourself into the air, letting you glide around and stumble upon new side missions? That is also doable. You can summon the Batmobile at almost any point in the game, given that you are outside, providing tremendous freedom to explore Batman's technology at will.
There are numerous opportunities to attain upgrade points that can unlock things like new uses for gadgets. Ranging from the classic batarang to other devices/objects used in the Arkham series (explosive gel, for instance), Batman's wide array proves very useful in the primary story and in the optional ones. After all, the many different abilities will be needed to apprehend classic Batman villains. Man-Bat, Two-Face, Scarecrow, the Penguin, the Riddler, Deathstroke, and Professor Pyg all appear in-game to different extents, with some of their appearances flirting with the line between the thriller/mystery and horror genres. The atmosphere is relentlessly consistent despite these genre blurs, as Gotham is almost always a land of bleakness and desperation.
With so much to do outside of completing the main objectives, players could be occupied with Arkham Knight for quite some time. Yet, up to the end, there would almost always be something new to unlock, discover, or try out. This is no small, simple game; it is one with a broad variety of activities and a plethora of upgrade points to earn.
Story
Spoilers!
Nine months after the cremation of the Joker, Gotham's crime has diminished. A serious chemical attack in a diner disrupts this peace. In a very sincere but malevolent statement, Scarecrow warns the inhabitants of Gotham to flee the city quickly, promising more attacks of a similar kind. And so a mass evacuation ensues, leaving Gotham with only the freed inmates of Arkham (and other criminals), Batman, and the police or public safety personnel who volunteered to stay or remained due to abductions/threats.
Batman apprehends Poison Ivy and brings her to the Gotham City Police Department, soon to find himself hunted by a skilled assailant called the Arkham Knight--someone with a major grudge against Batman. Amidst the chaos, Batman finds himself plagued by hallucinations of the Joker after exposure to some of Scarecrow's fear gas, which induces deep psychosis.
Batman prevents Scarecrow from spreading the toxin to other areas, but not in time to stop the gas from being unleashed on Gotham in an awe-inspiring display of Scarecrow's cruelty. However, he, backed by his closest friends, endures the night, learning that the Arkham Knight is a former Robin named Jason Todd, thought to have been killed by the Joker after brutal torture. Despite experiencing the emotional weight of such a discovery, Batman delivers Gotham's police force from utter annihilation, handing himself over to Scarecrow--though Scarecrow unmasks him on live television in order to destroy the hope he stands for to the public. He overcomes the demons of his trauma over the loss of his parents, as well as his hallucinations of the Joker, defeating Scarecrow. Batman, his identity exposed to the world, plans to clean the streets of crime one last time before activating the Knightfall Protocol and stepping back from his role as the anonymous guardian of the city.
Intellectual Content
While the game naturally pushes one to strategically plan attacks instead of blindly charging into skirmishes, the process of finding the many collectibles is by far the most intellectual aspect of the title: there are literally 243 Riddler trophies to either find by happenstance or obtain by solving puzzles of varying difficulty. Some of the puzzles are extraordinarily simple, while others require complex use of both the Batmobile and Batman's gadgets. Some trophies can even be acquired by simply walking up and grabbing them--but they are often well-concealed. Completionists might have to spend a long, frustrating time collecting all of the trophies!
Conclusion
Arkham Knight is a masterpiece on many levels, displaying a stellar gameplay system, a realistic world caught in a lethal plot following the Joker's death, and all of the core elements of the Batman character. Its series likely involves the best representation of Batman that will ever be seen in gaming, as well as one that easily surpasses many cinematic representations. Sophisticated and dark, Arkham Knight does the Batman universe justice. It is a far more stable conclusion to its respective trilogy than The Dark Knight Rises is to its own--and it deserves to be recognized as such.
Content:
1. Violence: There is no actual gore, but Batman and other playable characters like Nightwing and Robin toss opponents around, breaking bones and beating them into unconsciousness. The fighting itself can be somewhat brutal.
2. Profanity: There is a surprisingly small amount of profanity, with most of it having to do with background dialogue Batman hears via his suit.
--Scarecrow, Batman: Arkham Knight
"Without fear, life is meaningless."
--Scarecrow, Batman: Arkham Knight
The greatest works of entertainment are those which unite intellectual and emotional depth with grand stories and brilliant characterization. While many stories have at least one of these features, few possess them all. Batman: Arkham Knight is among them, offering an excellent presentation of the character of Batman and a story that features diverse objectives, a large amount of side content, and an array of unique gadgets. Scarecrow's plan to induce genocidal chaos in the world through mass dispersion of a fear toxin forms the backbone of the main narrative--alongside the titular Arkham Knight's vendetta against Batman, who seeks to retire by the night's end. Since the game falls at the end of a trilogy with a great deal of in-universe backstory, the script plays out like the Nolan films might have if Batman had an established relationship with numerous villains in them.
Production Values
Arkham Knight is several years old by now, but its visuals hold up well, a testament to the quality of the graphics at the time of release. I encountered almost no loading issues as I moved from one part of the city to another. From the grand visual details to the specifics of the environment, the destructible world of Gotham is exceptionally well-realized. The audio stands alongside the aesthetics in its high quality. Not only is the voice acting excellent, but things like the chatter of small-time criminals outside of the main story change to keep up with the rather significant events that occur throughout the narrative. As a result, Gotham seems like a city with actual people who react to important happenings instead of one full of lifeless NPCs who recycle limited dialogue.
Gameplay
Players can actually feel like Batman as they grapple, glide, brawl, and use an array of weapons to overpower criminals. Want to hide under floor panels and ambush enemies one by one, luring others with the bodies of their comrades? You can do that. Would you rather chase down APCs (armored personnel carriers) in the Batmobile or protect areas from legions of drone tanks? You can do that as well. Care to use the grapple gun to launch yourself into the air, letting you glide around and stumble upon new side missions? That is also doable. You can summon the Batmobile at almost any point in the game, given that you are outside, providing tremendous freedom to explore Batman's technology at will.
There are numerous opportunities to attain upgrade points that can unlock things like new uses for gadgets. Ranging from the classic batarang to other devices/objects used in the Arkham series (explosive gel, for instance), Batman's wide array proves very useful in the primary story and in the optional ones. After all, the many different abilities will be needed to apprehend classic Batman villains. Man-Bat, Two-Face, Scarecrow, the Penguin, the Riddler, Deathstroke, and Professor Pyg all appear in-game to different extents, with some of their appearances flirting with the line between the thriller/mystery and horror genres. The atmosphere is relentlessly consistent despite these genre blurs, as Gotham is almost always a land of bleakness and desperation.
With so much to do outside of completing the main objectives, players could be occupied with Arkham Knight for quite some time. Yet, up to the end, there would almost always be something new to unlock, discover, or try out. This is no small, simple game; it is one with a broad variety of activities and a plethora of upgrade points to earn.
Story
Spoilers!
Nine months after the cremation of the Joker, Gotham's crime has diminished. A serious chemical attack in a diner disrupts this peace. In a very sincere but malevolent statement, Scarecrow warns the inhabitants of Gotham to flee the city quickly, promising more attacks of a similar kind. And so a mass evacuation ensues, leaving Gotham with only the freed inmates of Arkham (and other criminals), Batman, and the police or public safety personnel who volunteered to stay or remained due to abductions/threats.
Batman apprehends Poison Ivy and brings her to the Gotham City Police Department, soon to find himself hunted by a skilled assailant called the Arkham Knight--someone with a major grudge against Batman. Amidst the chaos, Batman finds himself plagued by hallucinations of the Joker after exposure to some of Scarecrow's fear gas, which induces deep psychosis.
Batman prevents Scarecrow from spreading the toxin to other areas, but not in time to stop the gas from being unleashed on Gotham in an awe-inspiring display of Scarecrow's cruelty. However, he, backed by his closest friends, endures the night, learning that the Arkham Knight is a former Robin named Jason Todd, thought to have been killed by the Joker after brutal torture. Despite experiencing the emotional weight of such a discovery, Batman delivers Gotham's police force from utter annihilation, handing himself over to Scarecrow--though Scarecrow unmasks him on live television in order to destroy the hope he stands for to the public. He overcomes the demons of his trauma over the loss of his parents, as well as his hallucinations of the Joker, defeating Scarecrow. Batman, his identity exposed to the world, plans to clean the streets of crime one last time before activating the Knightfall Protocol and stepping back from his role as the anonymous guardian of the city.
Intellectual Content
While the game naturally pushes one to strategically plan attacks instead of blindly charging into skirmishes, the process of finding the many collectibles is by far the most intellectual aspect of the title: there are literally 243 Riddler trophies to either find by happenstance or obtain by solving puzzles of varying difficulty. Some of the puzzles are extraordinarily simple, while others require complex use of both the Batmobile and Batman's gadgets. Some trophies can even be acquired by simply walking up and grabbing them--but they are often well-concealed. Completionists might have to spend a long, frustrating time collecting all of the trophies!
Conclusion
Arkham Knight is a masterpiece on many levels, displaying a stellar gameplay system, a realistic world caught in a lethal plot following the Joker's death, and all of the core elements of the Batman character. Its series likely involves the best representation of Batman that will ever be seen in gaming, as well as one that easily surpasses many cinematic representations. Sophisticated and dark, Arkham Knight does the Batman universe justice. It is a far more stable conclusion to its respective trilogy than The Dark Knight Rises is to its own--and it deserves to be recognized as such.
Content:
1. Violence: There is no actual gore, but Batman and other playable characters like Nightwing and Robin toss opponents around, breaking bones and beating them into unconsciousness. The fighting itself can be somewhat brutal.
2. Profanity: There is a surprisingly small amount of profanity, with most of it having to do with background dialogue Batman hears via his suit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)