Evangelicals are quick to dismiss certain objections to eternal conscious torment for all unsaved beings on the grounds of moral intuitions, declaring the sense of fairness appealed to by the objections to be faulty. Humans are said to deserve endless suffering simply by committing the slightest moral offense. The Bible is said to contradict any sense of justice that is repulsed by eternal conscious torment. Now, there is nothing problematic about disregarding conscience. In fact, this can be a sign of great moral development, since it means that one cares about morality itself and not one's feelings about it. The actual errors in this evangelical position have to do with other things: the Bible does teach proportionality in a way that contradicts the evangelical stance on hell, and evangelicals arbitrarily hold conscience in high regard when it comes to different issues.
Those in the evangelical church, on one hand, realize that conscience is not necessarily accurate, though they are wrong to characterize annihilationism and conditional immortality as unbiblical. They realize that a person's conscience might conflict with actual theological truths. On the other hand, they will be among the first to endorse the asinine claim that conscience is a sacred thing that brings moral knowledge. After all, appeals to conscience are their first responses to moral skepticism or moral nihilism (and are ultimately what their moral epistemology reduces down to). But which one is it? Is conscience valid, or is it not? It cannot be both, for an unreliable thing cannot also be accurate at the same time. Either conscience is purely subjective, or its impulses correspond to proven moral obligations.
It takes very little time to realize that the former of these options is true. Conscience is nothing but a subjective network of moral emotions. It is a sign of hypocrisy that evangelicals will literally denounce the belief that one's conscience is reliable in one case before treating it as authoritative in another. Even if conscience was only partially arbitrary, and not totally subjective, it would be impossible to distinguish an accurate judgment of conscience from an inaccurate one. There is nothing surprising about this evangelical inconsistency, to be sure, given that the whole of evangelicalism is a house of arbitrarily placed cards. All it takes to dismantle their epistemological, metaphysical, and Biblical errors is a gentle breeze.
The greatest irony here is that evangelicals think they are upholding a Biblical truth by denouncing the idea that humans cannot deserve infinite torment, when the Bible's teachings on hell make it clear that unsaved humans will perish--they will cease to exist instead of experiencing pain endlessly [1]. Evangelicalism's view of conscience is one that shifts in accordance with whatever preferences its adherents have, and they happen to regard eternal conscious torment as inherently just on some level. Ultimately, hypocrisy puts evangelicalism in direct conflict with the Bible it claims to revere. I am not an annihilationist because my conscience approves of annihilationism. I am an annihilationist because the Bible is explicitly clear that the human soul is not inherently immortal and that disproportionate punishments are grievous injustices.
[1]. See here:
A. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-truth-of-annihilationism.html
B. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/eternal-fire-common-assumption.html
Monday, December 31, 2018
Originality In Storytelling
There are two forms of originality. The first involves autonomous,
independent discovery of facts or ideas. Though they may have been
previously discovered by others, no external aid was used in the process
of learning them. The second is the introduction or development of an idea for
the first time (or one of the first times) in human history. Because of the manner in which philosophy and storytelling have respectively developed up until this point, intellectual originality is very much alive in the second sense as well as in the first, since there are numerous details of reality that have very rarely been acknowledged [1], while originality in storytelling is much more limited.
Given the vast number of stories that have been created using different mediums, there are perhaps no completely original stories that a person can invent, in the sense that there is always another story (at this point in time) with at least a passing similarity. That similarity may take the form of something as relatively minor as a name or something as significant as a character type or plot structure. Nevertheless, it is extremely difficult, at best, to not find overt narrative commonalities in stories separated by geography, time, or various cultures.
Of course, a person who devises a narrative without being aware that it shares similarities with other stories also expresses originality, but in a different sense than the person who first uses a story element does (as aforementioned). This form of originality is available to all people, regardless of what era or society they are born into. The passage of time, however, inevitably brings about the shrinking of other manifestations of originality. Despite this, contemporary and upcoming storytellers have no need to feel discouraged!
They can certainly always discover narrative structures and elements without knowing where else those elements might have appeared, meaning it is still as if they formalized those ideas on their own--and then they can always bring familiar concepts into new settings. The latter is the closest thing to the introduction of something completely new to storytelling. Even if there are no new story elements to discover, it is still possible to combine them, representing them in new ways. The intimately familiar can seem novel.
For example, basic story elements can seem bold and new simply by being inserted into different genres. Alternatively, telling familiar stories while placing an emphasis on aspects that are usually not emphasized can breathe new life into narratives that are already known. There is usually a way to take the expected and revise how it is conveyed so that it comes across as unexpected.
Some stories are far more unique than others. Even so, many of their individual components can be seen in other works of entertainment, spanning mediums and centuries. The key to coming as close to the first of the two kinds of storytelling originality as is possible is to repackage these components: this is the new application of established concepts. When stories are constructed in this way, some people might be surprised at what familiar things suddenly come across as foreign.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html
Given the vast number of stories that have been created using different mediums, there are perhaps no completely original stories that a person can invent, in the sense that there is always another story (at this point in time) with at least a passing similarity. That similarity may take the form of something as relatively minor as a name or something as significant as a character type or plot structure. Nevertheless, it is extremely difficult, at best, to not find overt narrative commonalities in stories separated by geography, time, or various cultures.
Of course, a person who devises a narrative without being aware that it shares similarities with other stories also expresses originality, but in a different sense than the person who first uses a story element does (as aforementioned). This form of originality is available to all people, regardless of what era or society they are born into. The passage of time, however, inevitably brings about the shrinking of other manifestations of originality. Despite this, contemporary and upcoming storytellers have no need to feel discouraged!
They can certainly always discover narrative structures and elements without knowing where else those elements might have appeared, meaning it is still as if they formalized those ideas on their own--and then they can always bring familiar concepts into new settings. The latter is the closest thing to the introduction of something completely new to storytelling. Even if there are no new story elements to discover, it is still possible to combine them, representing them in new ways. The intimately familiar can seem novel.
For example, basic story elements can seem bold and new simply by being inserted into different genres. Alternatively, telling familiar stories while placing an emphasis on aspects that are usually not emphasized can breathe new life into narratives that are already known. There is usually a way to take the expected and revise how it is conveyed so that it comes across as unexpected.
Some stories are far more unique than others. Even so, many of their individual components can be seen in other works of entertainment, spanning mediums and centuries. The key to coming as close to the first of the two kinds of storytelling originality as is possible is to repackage these components: this is the new application of established concepts. When stories are constructed in this way, some people might be surprised at what familiar things suddenly come across as foreign.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html
Game Review--Resident Evil 5 (Xbox One)
"A new Genesis is at hand and I will be the creator."
--Albert Wesker, Resident Evil 5
"Has it never occurred to you that this planet might be overpopulated? Only a handful of humans truly matter."
--Albert Wesker, Resident Evil 5
Despite not completely removing some of the negative traits that appeared in earlier Resident Evil games, Resident Evil 5 is a competent shooter that utilizes the gameplay format of the fourth title. It sees the Las Plagas parasite return from its predecessor as well, with the story serving as a direct sequel to the events of the previous game. The emphasis is placed on action and shooting more than on survival horror, so there is little to frighten players. The included DLC mission Lost in Nightmares provides a more intense horror atmosphere than the main game, so it is not as if horror fans need to totally skip the offering--there's actually a lot of diverse bonus content.
Though I am very grateful that Resident Evil 7 later abandoned most of the over the top cheesiness in favor of a thoroughly horror-driven experience, not even the sometimes laughable writing of Resident Evil 5 prevents the game from offering excitement. As usual with the series, the gameplay, not the story, is the strongest feature--though the story does have moments of emotional weight or lore richness. The revised partner system in the gameplay is accompanied by the consistent theme of partnership between Chris Redfield and Sheva Alomar in the plot, and the overlap accentuates the co-op mechanics well.
Production Values
Decent graphics, clear sound, and a consistent frame rate don't hide the largely lackluster dialogue, but they do enrich the overall experience. Although there are certainly more attractive, detailed games on the Xbox One, there is nothing bad about the animation quality. The visuals are noticeably superior to those of the Resident Evil 4 port for the Xbox One--likely because the the fourth and fifth games were originally released on two separate console generations, in the GameCube and Xbox 360 eras respectively. Deserving of particular praise are the very minimal load times, which sometimes finish so quickly that there is almost no waiting involved at all. The script, despite featuring a very weak tertiary villain named Irving (who thankfully dies long before the end), handles the returning Albert Wesker well. He lacks significant depth, but at least he is not poorly written like Irving. Little of the utter silliness of Resident Evil 4's horridly out of place "humor" was carried over.
Gameplay
--Campaign
Anyone who disliked the controls for Resident Evil 4 will not enjoy the control scheme for Resident Evil 5. Once a player adjusts to the abnormal inability to aim a gun and walk around simultaneously (which was a series staple for several games), combat turns out to not be as difficult as it might seem at first. Another aspect of the game that might be found unpleasant is the very small amount of items that can be carried at one time. Inventory space is scarce, though Chris and Sheva can strategically exchange items to make the most of what both are carrying. The problem of having few inventory slots is somewhat abated when weapons are upgraded to hold far more ammunition, which eliminates the need for holding as much reserve ammo, but some enemies can absorb a lot of bullets before finally dying.
The expanded partner system is the primary evolution here, as Resident Evil 5 takes the gameplay of its immediate predecessor and expands upon it by allowing AI or a human player to control a partner all throughout the campaign, whereas Resident Evil 4 only made Ashley Leon's companion for part of the story, and even then she couldn't fight. While a skilled human companion always provides more of an advantage than a CPU, the AI can actually be helpful on occasion, by using bullets only when it has clear shots, sharing ammunition, or healing you when your health drops below a certain point. After the campaign is completed, a new game plus option becomes available, and players can finally choose between controlling Chris or controlling Sheva.
--Mercenaries
Mercenaries is a bonus mode where players choose from eight characters (18 skins), with each skin having its own unique combination of weaponry, and then kill as many enemies as they can before a timer runs out. The amount of time can be extended by destroying little pillars scattered around each map, as well as by killing enemies with melee finishers. Mercenaries can be played alone or with a partner in split screen mode. For those who appreciate greater difficulty, No Mercy is an even tougher version of Mercenaries with more enemies. Since there are no perks like there are in the 3DS game The Mercenaries 3D, Resident Evil 5's version of the mode might quickly become boring once the novelty wears off, unless one plays splitscreen with another person. Even those who tire of Mercenaries in less than an hour should try out different characters and skins just to experience alternate weapons and physical attacks. For some reason, as pictured below, Sheva is the one character that is played on the right side of the screen, with every other character appearing on the left in accordance with the series norm. The unlimited ammo bow she uses when wearing her tribal costume is an excellent weapon, though!
--Lost in Nightmares
For those who dislike the lack of horror in Resident Evil 5's campaign, the DLC Lost in Nightmares provides some of what is missing from the main story. This bonus mission centers on Chris and Jill's infiltration of the Spencer estate on the night that Jill went missing after pushing Wesker out of a high window. The atmosphere is superb. Although there is only minimal combat leading up to the climactic fight with Wesker, the mansion itself is foreboding and eerie enough to enhance impact of certain puzzles. Completing the mode unlocks Jill as a playable character (Chris must be controlled before she is unlocked), and there are achievements specifically tied to this DLC, including one that involves destroying each of numerous score stars scattered about the estate. The biggest problem with Lost in Nightmares is its extreme brevity. On the easiest difficulty setting, it can be completed in 30 minutes or less. There is little incentive to replay it--some of the dialogue does change when playing as Jill, and players get to access a part of the house that only Jill can enter, but all of this can be discovered within the first five minutes spent replaying it as her.
--Desperate Escape
Desperate Escape shows how Jill reached the helicopter that brought her to the volcano fight with Wesker at the climax of the campaign. Found by Josh, a member of the West Africa Branch of the BSAA, she defeats a great number of parasite-controlled humans. Departing from the suspense of Lost in Nightmares, this DLC focuses on the action that defines Resident Evil 5 as a whole.
Story
Spoilers!
Chris Redfield arrives at Kijuju, Africa, to help prevent Ricardo Irving from triggering a bioterrorism disaster, as Irving is expected to sell a bioweapon on the black market. BSAA member Sheva Alomar is assigned to him. It quickly becomes apparent that many of the locals are victims of the Las Plagas parasite, a dangerous organism last encountered by Leon Kennedy in Europe. Data about Chris' former partner Jill Valentine is recovered, indicating that she survived a seemingly lethal confrontation with Albert Wesker several years before (she had tackled Wesker out of a high window to save Chris). Irving, it turns out, is only a lesser symptom of a larger danger.
The Uroboros project, far more alarming than the Las Plagas, is overseen by Wesker, who aims to use the Uroboros virus to kill the majority of humankind. His intentions are to save the world by purging it of destructive human influences: either the virus rejects a host, killing it, or it grants those with genetic advantages special abilities. A mysterious woman who periodically appeared with Irving is revealed to be Jill, under the influence of mind control that renders her obedient to Wesker. After she is freed from Wesker's influence, Jill informs Chris and Sheva of the way to weaken Wesker, and the two thwart his plot to subject the world to Urobosos.
Intellectual Content
Resident Evil is far from Metroid, Legend of Zelda, Tomb Raider, or even God of War when it comes to the depth of its puzzles. Still, there are some minor ones scattered throughout the campaign. Guiding beams of light around rooms using a series of reflective devices are among them. These puzzles do not require more than cursory examinations and basic in-game actions to solve, but they are present nonetheless.
Conclusion
Those who enjoy Resident Evil 5 the most will probably be the same people who cherish the fourth entry in the series, since it continues the story and brings back the same gameplay style, albeit while focusing far less on developing a suspenseful atmosphere. The attempts to introduce more variety (such as on rails turret/boat sections) do provide diversity of gameplay, but they also make the game seem far more mechanical than Resident Evil 4, which remains one of the best in the series. Even so, all the flaws of the dialogue and execution combined can't overshadow the large amount of content in this remaster, as well as the engaging shooter experience in the campaign.
Content:
1. Violence: Though gunfire can be used to disable and kill enemies, melee attacks can be especially brutal in their execution and effects. Heads can be shot completely off of torsos and the Las Plagas parasites infecting human hosts can be blown apart.
2. Profanity: Profanity is not constant, but it is used at times.
--Albert Wesker, Resident Evil 5
"Has it never occurred to you that this planet might be overpopulated? Only a handful of humans truly matter."
--Albert Wesker, Resident Evil 5
Despite not completely removing some of the negative traits that appeared in earlier Resident Evil games, Resident Evil 5 is a competent shooter that utilizes the gameplay format of the fourth title. It sees the Las Plagas parasite return from its predecessor as well, with the story serving as a direct sequel to the events of the previous game. The emphasis is placed on action and shooting more than on survival horror, so there is little to frighten players. The included DLC mission Lost in Nightmares provides a more intense horror atmosphere than the main game, so it is not as if horror fans need to totally skip the offering--there's actually a lot of diverse bonus content.
Though I am very grateful that Resident Evil 7 later abandoned most of the over the top cheesiness in favor of a thoroughly horror-driven experience, not even the sometimes laughable writing of Resident Evil 5 prevents the game from offering excitement. As usual with the series, the gameplay, not the story, is the strongest feature--though the story does have moments of emotional weight or lore richness. The revised partner system in the gameplay is accompanied by the consistent theme of partnership between Chris Redfield and Sheva Alomar in the plot, and the overlap accentuates the co-op mechanics well.
Production Values
Decent graphics, clear sound, and a consistent frame rate don't hide the largely lackluster dialogue, but they do enrich the overall experience. Although there are certainly more attractive, detailed games on the Xbox One, there is nothing bad about the animation quality. The visuals are noticeably superior to those of the Resident Evil 4 port for the Xbox One--likely because the the fourth and fifth games were originally released on two separate console generations, in the GameCube and Xbox 360 eras respectively. Deserving of particular praise are the very minimal load times, which sometimes finish so quickly that there is almost no waiting involved at all. The script, despite featuring a very weak tertiary villain named Irving (who thankfully dies long before the end), handles the returning Albert Wesker well. He lacks significant depth, but at least he is not poorly written like Irving. Little of the utter silliness of Resident Evil 4's horridly out of place "humor" was carried over.
Gameplay
--Campaign
Anyone who disliked the controls for Resident Evil 4 will not enjoy the control scheme for Resident Evil 5. Once a player adjusts to the abnormal inability to aim a gun and walk around simultaneously (which was a series staple for several games), combat turns out to not be as difficult as it might seem at first. Another aspect of the game that might be found unpleasant is the very small amount of items that can be carried at one time. Inventory space is scarce, though Chris and Sheva can strategically exchange items to make the most of what both are carrying. The problem of having few inventory slots is somewhat abated when weapons are upgraded to hold far more ammunition, which eliminates the need for holding as much reserve ammo, but some enemies can absorb a lot of bullets before finally dying.
The expanded partner system is the primary evolution here, as Resident Evil 5 takes the gameplay of its immediate predecessor and expands upon it by allowing AI or a human player to control a partner all throughout the campaign, whereas Resident Evil 4 only made Ashley Leon's companion for part of the story, and even then she couldn't fight. While a skilled human companion always provides more of an advantage than a CPU, the AI can actually be helpful on occasion, by using bullets only when it has clear shots, sharing ammunition, or healing you when your health drops below a certain point. After the campaign is completed, a new game plus option becomes available, and players can finally choose between controlling Chris or controlling Sheva.
--Mercenaries
Mercenaries is a bonus mode where players choose from eight characters (18 skins), with each skin having its own unique combination of weaponry, and then kill as many enemies as they can before a timer runs out. The amount of time can be extended by destroying little pillars scattered around each map, as well as by killing enemies with melee finishers. Mercenaries can be played alone or with a partner in split screen mode. For those who appreciate greater difficulty, No Mercy is an even tougher version of Mercenaries with more enemies. Since there are no perks like there are in the 3DS game The Mercenaries 3D, Resident Evil 5's version of the mode might quickly become boring once the novelty wears off, unless one plays splitscreen with another person. Even those who tire of Mercenaries in less than an hour should try out different characters and skins just to experience alternate weapons and physical attacks. For some reason, as pictured below, Sheva is the one character that is played on the right side of the screen, with every other character appearing on the left in accordance with the series norm. The unlimited ammo bow she uses when wearing her tribal costume is an excellent weapon, though!
--Lost in Nightmares
For those who dislike the lack of horror in Resident Evil 5's campaign, the DLC Lost in Nightmares provides some of what is missing from the main story. This bonus mission centers on Chris and Jill's infiltration of the Spencer estate on the night that Jill went missing after pushing Wesker out of a high window. The atmosphere is superb. Although there is only minimal combat leading up to the climactic fight with Wesker, the mansion itself is foreboding and eerie enough to enhance impact of certain puzzles. Completing the mode unlocks Jill as a playable character (Chris must be controlled before she is unlocked), and there are achievements specifically tied to this DLC, including one that involves destroying each of numerous score stars scattered about the estate. The biggest problem with Lost in Nightmares is its extreme brevity. On the easiest difficulty setting, it can be completed in 30 minutes or less. There is little incentive to replay it--some of the dialogue does change when playing as Jill, and players get to access a part of the house that only Jill can enter, but all of this can be discovered within the first five minutes spent replaying it as her.
--Desperate Escape
Desperate Escape shows how Jill reached the helicopter that brought her to the volcano fight with Wesker at the climax of the campaign. Found by Josh, a member of the West Africa Branch of the BSAA, she defeats a great number of parasite-controlled humans. Departing from the suspense of Lost in Nightmares, this DLC focuses on the action that defines Resident Evil 5 as a whole.
Story
Spoilers!
Chris Redfield arrives at Kijuju, Africa, to help prevent Ricardo Irving from triggering a bioterrorism disaster, as Irving is expected to sell a bioweapon on the black market. BSAA member Sheva Alomar is assigned to him. It quickly becomes apparent that many of the locals are victims of the Las Plagas parasite, a dangerous organism last encountered by Leon Kennedy in Europe. Data about Chris' former partner Jill Valentine is recovered, indicating that she survived a seemingly lethal confrontation with Albert Wesker several years before (she had tackled Wesker out of a high window to save Chris). Irving, it turns out, is only a lesser symptom of a larger danger.
The Uroboros project, far more alarming than the Las Plagas, is overseen by Wesker, who aims to use the Uroboros virus to kill the majority of humankind. His intentions are to save the world by purging it of destructive human influences: either the virus rejects a host, killing it, or it grants those with genetic advantages special abilities. A mysterious woman who periodically appeared with Irving is revealed to be Jill, under the influence of mind control that renders her obedient to Wesker. After she is freed from Wesker's influence, Jill informs Chris and Sheva of the way to weaken Wesker, and the two thwart his plot to subject the world to Urobosos.
Intellectual Content
Resident Evil is far from Metroid, Legend of Zelda, Tomb Raider, or even God of War when it comes to the depth of its puzzles. Still, there are some minor ones scattered throughout the campaign. Guiding beams of light around rooms using a series of reflective devices are among them. These puzzles do not require more than cursory examinations and basic in-game actions to solve, but they are present nonetheless.
Conclusion
Those who enjoy Resident Evil 5 the most will probably be the same people who cherish the fourth entry in the series, since it continues the story and brings back the same gameplay style, albeit while focusing far less on developing a suspenseful atmosphere. The attempts to introduce more variety (such as on rails turret/boat sections) do provide diversity of gameplay, but they also make the game seem far more mechanical than Resident Evil 4, which remains one of the best in the series. Even so, all the flaws of the dialogue and execution combined can't overshadow the large amount of content in this remaster, as well as the engaging shooter experience in the campaign.
Content:
1. Violence: Though gunfire can be used to disable and kill enemies, melee attacks can be especially brutal in their execution and effects. Heads can be shot completely off of torsos and the Las Plagas parasites infecting human hosts can be blown apart.
2. Profanity: Profanity is not constant, but it is used at times.
The Durability Of Polyamorous Relationships
According to some, polyamorous marriages are likely to experience more fractures and difficulties than monogamous ones. It is hardly abnormal for the concept of polyamorous relationships to be viewed with suspicion, loathing, or fear in a largely monogamous culture. Some might feel threatened by the mere thought that polyamory is perhaps a legitimate approach to romantic and sexual relationships, since such a thing, if true, would feed their own subjective feelings of insecurity. This insecurity makes their opposition of polyamory seem righteous.
It becomes clear, upon examination, that the arguments against polyamory are nothing but arbitrary condemnations originating from conscience or societal conditioning. There are many straw man representations of non-monogamous lifestyles, which sometimes even fail to distinguish between open marriages and polyamorous marriages featuring lifelong commitment. Many charges against polyamory, like the claim that it is not conducive to lasting relationships, are nothing but empty accusations meant to demonize what the accusers do not understand.
There is nothing about a polyamorous relationship that is naturally weaker or less sincere than a strictly monogamous relationship. After all, relationships last or dissolve because of how the individuals involved handle them, not because the people in the relationships have one spouse or multiple spouses. How many monogamous relationships end due to selfishness? Being monogamous in no way grants one's relationship a special preservative power. It is also true that being polyamorous in no way sets up an inevitable relationship failure.
If Western society ceased its misunderstanding of polyamory, people with the suitable personalities would feel able to acknowledge and act upon polyamorous desires. In such a scenario, observers would be able to see that there is nothing dangerous about merely allowing those with a natural gravitation towards multiple spouses to live in accordance with that gravitation. Polyamorous marriages are not inherently plagued with difficulties, and monogamous marriages are not inherently stable. It takes only a few moments of deductive reasoning to discover both of these truths.
It becomes clear, upon examination, that the arguments against polyamory are nothing but arbitrary condemnations originating from conscience or societal conditioning. There are many straw man representations of non-monogamous lifestyles, which sometimes even fail to distinguish between open marriages and polyamorous marriages featuring lifelong commitment. Many charges against polyamory, like the claim that it is not conducive to lasting relationships, are nothing but empty accusations meant to demonize what the accusers do not understand.
There is nothing about a polyamorous relationship that is naturally weaker or less sincere than a strictly monogamous relationship. After all, relationships last or dissolve because of how the individuals involved handle them, not because the people in the relationships have one spouse or multiple spouses. How many monogamous relationships end due to selfishness? Being monogamous in no way grants one's relationship a special preservative power. It is also true that being polyamorous in no way sets up an inevitable relationship failure.
If Western society ceased its misunderstanding of polyamory, people with the suitable personalities would feel able to acknowledge and act upon polyamorous desires. In such a scenario, observers would be able to see that there is nothing dangerous about merely allowing those with a natural gravitation towards multiple spouses to live in accordance with that gravitation. Polyamorous marriages are not inherently plagued with difficulties, and monogamous marriages are not inherently stable. It takes only a few moments of deductive reasoning to discover both of these truths.
A Pragmatic Flaw Of Torturing For Information
When a person is subjected to significant physical or psychological pain in the attempt to elicit information, there may come a point where he or she is willing to give false but persuasive information simply to end the agony. For some victims, that point may be reached quickly, whereas others might be tortured for prolonged periods before they reach it. Regardless of what intensity or duration of pain is needed to bring them to that point, it is likely that most people could be harmed enough to say something so that the suffering will cease.
Suppose that two factions are engaged in open combat. One side, seeking military intelligence, captures several enemy combatants. The war captives are tortured in an effort to force them to explain the locations and plans of their group. Not only is any information they give not guaranteed to be true, but it could also result in greater loss. War captives who are tortured into betraying the locations of their fellow soldiers might tell their torturers what they want to hear even if it is false, and acting upon the information could lead to more gratuitous deaths. The attempt to secure information via torture can backfire.
Furthermore, a torture victim might be so traumatized by his or her suffering that they are no longer aware of whether or not they are divulging true or deceptive information. Someone could genuinely be so overwhelmed by pain that their memories and communicative abilities are affected, meaning that they might give answers with little grasp of what they are actually saying, much less whether or not it is true. If torturing someone for information is itself evil, it does not matter how successful it might be. However, as the previous points demonstrate, there is a major pragmatic flaw with abusing someone in order to learn the contents of their mind.
There are only a few tortures allowed/prescribed by the Bible, and none of them are related to the extraction of information. In fact, the Biblical requirement of two or three witnesses for criminal sentencing excludes forced confessions of guilt, something comparable to torture for the sake of obtaining military intelligence (or any other kind of knowledge). Outside of a small range of scenarios where the infliction of physical pain is used as a just penalty for particular offenses, torture is an illicit, atrocious activity. The utilitarian goal of acquiring information cannot justify torture, irrespective of who the victim is. Still, the results of doing this are up in the air even whenever ethics is set aside.
Suppose that two factions are engaged in open combat. One side, seeking military intelligence, captures several enemy combatants. The war captives are tortured in an effort to force them to explain the locations and plans of their group. Not only is any information they give not guaranteed to be true, but it could also result in greater loss. War captives who are tortured into betraying the locations of their fellow soldiers might tell their torturers what they want to hear even if it is false, and acting upon the information could lead to more gratuitous deaths. The attempt to secure information via torture can backfire.
Furthermore, a torture victim might be so traumatized by his or her suffering that they are no longer aware of whether or not they are divulging true or deceptive information. Someone could genuinely be so overwhelmed by pain that their memories and communicative abilities are affected, meaning that they might give answers with little grasp of what they are actually saying, much less whether or not it is true. If torturing someone for information is itself evil, it does not matter how successful it might be. However, as the previous points demonstrate, there is a major pragmatic flaw with abusing someone in order to learn the contents of their mind.
There are only a few tortures allowed/prescribed by the Bible, and none of them are related to the extraction of information. In fact, the Biblical requirement of two or three witnesses for criminal sentencing excludes forced confessions of guilt, something comparable to torture for the sake of obtaining military intelligence (or any other kind of knowledge). Outside of a small range of scenarios where the infliction of physical pain is used as a just penalty for particular offenses, torture is an illicit, atrocious activity. The utilitarian goal of acquiring information cannot justify torture, irrespective of who the victim is. Still, the results of doing this are up in the air even whenever ethics is set aside.
Sunday, December 30, 2018
Memory And The Senses
The senses are capable of perceiving a vast amount of information, but a being must possess both an intellect (which grasps the laws of logic) and a working memory in order for its sensory perceptions to be useful. The former is required to even comprehend that one is experiencing sensory perceptions, while the latter is what enables future expectations about phenomena in the external world to be constructed.
Suppose that a hypothetical person named Amanda observes for the first time that water can extinguish fire if a proper amount of it is used (whether that water comes from artificial or natural sources). As she notices this, she does not need to recall any past precedent to make sense of her findings, as this is the first time she has seen this occurrence; memory is not needed to perceive something in the present moment.
Does Amanda truly know that water will be capable of putting out fires in the future? Certainly not, since the laws of nature, unlike the laws of logic, are not necessarily fixed. However, she now has a basis for believing that it seems likely that this phenomenon is repeatable. She does know that there is at least some evidence that this is the case.
Her memories of watching water and fire interact are themselves evidence that water will probably be able to quench fire in the future. This example highlights a crucial point about memory: apart from recollections of past experiences with the external world, information gained by the senses is practically useless. The senses cannot independently provide any basis for future expectations.
Memory is vital to the basic epistemological aspects of everyday interaction with the external world, for without it there can be no awareness of any sensory perceptions except those which are experienced in the present. It is unfortunate that the subject of memory does not appear to be addressed very thoroughly or frequently by many philosophers, as our interactions with external objects hinge on it almost entirely.
Suppose that a hypothetical person named Amanda observes for the first time that water can extinguish fire if a proper amount of it is used (whether that water comes from artificial or natural sources). As she notices this, she does not need to recall any past precedent to make sense of her findings, as this is the first time she has seen this occurrence; memory is not needed to perceive something in the present moment.
Does Amanda truly know that water will be capable of putting out fires in the future? Certainly not, since the laws of nature, unlike the laws of logic, are not necessarily fixed. However, she now has a basis for believing that it seems likely that this phenomenon is repeatable. She does know that there is at least some evidence that this is the case.
Her memories of watching water and fire interact are themselves evidence that water will probably be able to quench fire in the future. This example highlights a crucial point about memory: apart from recollections of past experiences with the external world, information gained by the senses is practically useless. The senses cannot independently provide any basis for future expectations.
Memory is vital to the basic epistemological aspects of everyday interaction with the external world, for without it there can be no awareness of any sensory perceptions except those which are experienced in the present. It is unfortunate that the subject of memory does not appear to be addressed very thoroughly or frequently by many philosophers, as our interactions with external objects hinge on it almost entirely.
Saturday, December 29, 2018
The Victories Of Villains
Entertainment both reflects the status of a culture and shapes that culture all at once. It is hardly surprising that the norms of a society make regular appearances in cinema, gaming, and literature, nor is it surprising that the entertainment in turn reinforces those norms. As a result, a work that deviates from certain thematic expectations can hold a unique power.
One such expectation is that protagonists will triumph over villains. While there are works of entertainment where protagonists do not ultimately gain the upper hand (Saw and Game of Thrones are easy examples), they are in a very small minority. The consumption of entertainment where villains win can be a haunting experience because of its rarity. These kinds of stories are contrary to the norms of entertainment at large, and because of this they can force people to confront the fact that being a genuinely good person does not guarantee victory in life, nor does it guarantee that one will not suffer immensely.
There is a need for more stories of this type, for they remind people of sobering truths that they might otherwise turn away from. Indeed, one of entertainment's greatest abilities is to hold up a mirror that highlights unpleasant or precise truths that people in general avoid. Even some who initially reject an idea upon considering it might find themselves willing to reexamine a concept that is integrated into a well-crafted work of entertainment. Many people seem eager to ask questions about why malevolent, selfish people can walk around without any seeming divine or (sometimes) human opposition, yet there are few stories that portray this phenomenon in some of its most extreme forms.
The victories of villains are some of the most realistic things that could be included in a narrative, and yet they are often excluded. If Western entertainment featured these victories more frequently, perhaps the emotion-based expectation that depraved people will inevitably be scorned or defeated during their lifetimes would lose prominence. Not everyone has this expectation--but it is rooted into Western culture enough to dominate much of its entertainment.
One such expectation is that protagonists will triumph over villains. While there are works of entertainment where protagonists do not ultimately gain the upper hand (Saw and Game of Thrones are easy examples), they are in a very small minority. The consumption of entertainment where villains win can be a haunting experience because of its rarity. These kinds of stories are contrary to the norms of entertainment at large, and because of this they can force people to confront the fact that being a genuinely good person does not guarantee victory in life, nor does it guarantee that one will not suffer immensely.
There is a need for more stories of this type, for they remind people of sobering truths that they might otherwise turn away from. Indeed, one of entertainment's greatest abilities is to hold up a mirror that highlights unpleasant or precise truths that people in general avoid. Even some who initially reject an idea upon considering it might find themselves willing to reexamine a concept that is integrated into a well-crafted work of entertainment. Many people seem eager to ask questions about why malevolent, selfish people can walk around without any seeming divine or (sometimes) human opposition, yet there are few stories that portray this phenomenon in some of its most extreme forms.
The victories of villains are some of the most realistic things that could be included in a narrative, and yet they are often excluded. If Western entertainment featured these victories more frequently, perhaps the emotion-based expectation that depraved people will inevitably be scorned or defeated during their lifetimes would lose prominence. Not everyone has this expectation--but it is rooted into Western culture enough to dominate much of its entertainment.
The Cognitive Dissonance Of Many Complementarians
In practice, complementarian ideas can manifest themselves in different ways in the lives of various couples. The irony of this fact is that it means many spouses, while professing complementarianism, might live in subtly egalitarian ways. There is no variation in spousal behaviors apart from variation in personalities and circumstances, after all. Complementarians can't approve of couples living out complementarianism differently without directly or indirectly approving the idea that personalities, situations, and consequences should determine how couples live.
Every individualistic lifestyle in a complementarian marriage already contains the seeds of an egalitarian relationship within it. Many complementarians do not realize that they only live out complementarian ideas selectively, tailoring the impact of their beliefs on their actions to a variety of factors. Evidencing this is the way that couples often practice the submission of wives to husbands and male leadership in rather differing ways. This lack of universality in approaches to marriage exemplifies a key problem with complementarianism pertaining to how its adherents live.
Left without any non-arbitrary place to draw the line (other than at wives having no obligation to submit to husbands who tell them to sin), complementarians are forced to apply their beliefs in arbitrary ways that differ from couple to couple. If these applications can legitimately differ from couple to couple, then it follows that there is no right way to apply the unilateral submission of wives to husbands (or the leading of wives by husbands). However, this would mean that there is no ultimate standard for how complementarians should live beyond a superficial notion of vague roles. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that complementarianism fails on the pragmatic level, as well as on the ideological level.
That many complementarians have cognitive dissonance between their worldview and actions is hardly remarkable on its own, considering that many people of numerous worldviews do not consistently live as their worldviews dictate. It is significant, though, for how it illustrates that a number of complementarian couples already understand the basic elements of egalitarianism. Instead of recognizing and celebrating them, these couples simply go about their lives without realizing the contradictions therein.
Complementarian ideas are by nature arbitrary. There is no reason to expect a wife to enjoy staying at home or forsaking equality simply because she is a woman, for example; likewise, there is no reason to expect a husband to be qualified to make all major family decisions or to want to do such a thing simply because he is a man. The same is true of the ways in which complementarian ideas are practiced: they are inevitably arbitrary as well. The very fact that the Bible does not detail any particular way for couples to apply the allegedly Biblical ideas of male-centric leadership and female submission should, on its own, cause complementarians to hesitate.
Every individualistic lifestyle in a complementarian marriage already contains the seeds of an egalitarian relationship within it. Many complementarians do not realize that they only live out complementarian ideas selectively, tailoring the impact of their beliefs on their actions to a variety of factors. Evidencing this is the way that couples often practice the submission of wives to husbands and male leadership in rather differing ways. This lack of universality in approaches to marriage exemplifies a key problem with complementarianism pertaining to how its adherents live.
Left without any non-arbitrary place to draw the line (other than at wives having no obligation to submit to husbands who tell them to sin), complementarians are forced to apply their beliefs in arbitrary ways that differ from couple to couple. If these applications can legitimately differ from couple to couple, then it follows that there is no right way to apply the unilateral submission of wives to husbands (or the leading of wives by husbands). However, this would mean that there is no ultimate standard for how complementarians should live beyond a superficial notion of vague roles. The inevitable conclusion, therefore, is that complementarianism fails on the pragmatic level, as well as on the ideological level.
That many complementarians have cognitive dissonance between their worldview and actions is hardly remarkable on its own, considering that many people of numerous worldviews do not consistently live as their worldviews dictate. It is significant, though, for how it illustrates that a number of complementarian couples already understand the basic elements of egalitarianism. Instead of recognizing and celebrating them, these couples simply go about their lives without realizing the contradictions therein.
Complementarian ideas are by nature arbitrary. There is no reason to expect a wife to enjoy staying at home or forsaking equality simply because she is a woman, for example; likewise, there is no reason to expect a husband to be qualified to make all major family decisions or to want to do such a thing simply because he is a man. The same is true of the ways in which complementarian ideas are practiced: they are inevitably arbitrary as well. The very fact that the Bible does not detail any particular way for couples to apply the allegedly Biblical ideas of male-centric leadership and female submission should, on its own, cause complementarians to hesitate.
An Application Of Deuteronomy 19
It is unfortunate that many potential friendships between married men and women have probably been dissolved at an early stage by accusations of infidelity. It is even more abominable that many people who call themselves Christians are likely to contribute to an environment where these friendships are erroneously viewed as adulterous. Of course, there are those who rightly live without concern for the petty perceptions other people have of them. But not everyone is unaffected by social pressures. Many people are prone to avoid something that will bring about a negative reputation, even if that thing is completely innocent. The fostering of unease about nonsinful activities is one of the most effective tools of legalists in evangelical Christendom.
Treating friendship between separately married men and women as adulterous is to egregiously misrepresent--and trivialize--both friendship and adultery. Beyond this, there is another reason why Christians should not accuse married opposite gender friends of betraying their spouses. The Bible defines adultery as nothing but extramarital intercourse where at least one person is separately married, classifying it as a capital offense in Deuteronomy 22:22. Deuteronomy also commands the execution of a person who falsely accuses another of a capital crime (19:16-21).
Within the Biblical framework of ethics, false accusations of adultery are not only irrational, hurtful, and petty; they are deserving of death. This is how gravely the Bible regards them. Death is the same punishment assigned to those who falsely accuse others of offenses like rape, murder, and kidnapping--there is nothing trivial about this penalty. Evangelicals ironically spend so much time fretting about imaginary false rape accusations against men that they do not recognize their own general tendency to suspect someone of behaving adulterously when he or she has done nothing wrong.
If an evangelical Christian says or implies that separately married men and women are behaving adulterously simply by being friends, perhaps showing them that Deuteronomy 19:16-21 prescribes death for false accusations of adultery is called for. It is amusing how evangelicals claim to have a high regard for the Bible and yet misunderstand or misapply almost every idea in it. Someone who truly cares about Biblical morality would abstain from ever making or encouraging unfounded rumors of adultery based upon this fact alone. If someone claims to love the Bible and still discourages opposite gender friendships between married people, they are either ignorant or hypocritical, but they must be at least one of these things.
Treating friendship between separately married men and women as adulterous is to egregiously misrepresent--and trivialize--both friendship and adultery. Beyond this, there is another reason why Christians should not accuse married opposite gender friends of betraying their spouses. The Bible defines adultery as nothing but extramarital intercourse where at least one person is separately married, classifying it as a capital offense in Deuteronomy 22:22. Deuteronomy also commands the execution of a person who falsely accuses another of a capital crime (19:16-21).
Within the Biblical framework of ethics, false accusations of adultery are not only irrational, hurtful, and petty; they are deserving of death. This is how gravely the Bible regards them. Death is the same punishment assigned to those who falsely accuse others of offenses like rape, murder, and kidnapping--there is nothing trivial about this penalty. Evangelicals ironically spend so much time fretting about imaginary false rape accusations against men that they do not recognize their own general tendency to suspect someone of behaving adulterously when he or she has done nothing wrong.
If an evangelical Christian says or implies that separately married men and women are behaving adulterously simply by being friends, perhaps showing them that Deuteronomy 19:16-21 prescribes death for false accusations of adultery is called for. It is amusing how evangelicals claim to have a high regard for the Bible and yet misunderstand or misapply almost every idea in it. Someone who truly cares about Biblical morality would abstain from ever making or encouraging unfounded rumors of adultery based upon this fact alone. If someone claims to love the Bible and still discourages opposite gender friendships between married people, they are either ignorant or hypocritical, but they must be at least one of these things.
Movie Review--Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse
"There's only one Spider-Man, and you're looking at him."
--Peter Parker, Into the Spider-Verse
Into the Spider-Verse is easily the greatest Spider-Man movie to date, but it is also one of the year's best films. The characterization, writing, and animation result in a synergistic effect that amounts to a splendid example of how to make a superhero story with comedy and genuine emotional gravity. It has its moments of amusement, including a wonderful jab at the dancing scene in Spider-Man 3 and a post credits scene that capitalizes on recent meme culture. At the same time, it features some very significant emotional elements. It also allows villains like Olivia Octavius, a female version of Doctor Octopus, and Scorpion to get cinema attention that they would otherwise probably not receive. Besides the leap of faith nonsense, the themes are some of the most positive I've seen in cinema this year: the movie emphasizes how we are not guaranteed lasting relationships, yet relationships are what propel most of us forwards. From the backgrounds of the heroes to that of the villain Kingpin, this point is displayed with sincerity and consistency.
Production Values
The smooth animation is a perfect match for presentation devices like the comic panels that complement the fact that this is a movie based on characters from comic books. While animation is sometimes regarded as a medium for stories aimed at children, Into the Spider-Verse has the emotional depth that is often missing from superhero films. There is humor, yes, but it never conflicts with the drama and stakes, which are integrated into the movie in a manner that is entirely natural. Excellent voice acting on all fronts helps create this urgency and depth. Kingpin has little screen time, but the superb writing means that no appearance of his goes to waste. He is developed very well in only a handful of scenes, hoping to bring himself relational peace by using the multiverse to reunite himself with his family after a tragic accident.
Of course, the Spider-people from various dimensions in the multiverse, being the premise of the story, have to be handled right for the movie to work. Every single one of them has an opportunity to shine, with Spider-Woman and an alternate Peter Parker getting the most attention. Hailee Steinfeld (who also stars in the surprisingly good Bumblebee) and Jake Johnson elevate these two characters, highlighting the individuality of the various Spider-people. Their characters help ground key themes firmly into the narrative. Then there are the other Spider-people, including Peter Porker (a talking pig with special abilities), Peni Parker (a young girl uses a robotic exoskeleton and has the spider that bit her alive and on hand), and the grittier Spider-Man Noir. Nicolas Cage voices Spider-Man Noir in one of his least wild performances. Make no mistake, Cage gets to display some of his wildness, but he does the role justice. After Ghost Rider, I'm glad that he could redeem himself in a good comic book movie. The central Spider-Man, though, is Miles Morales, who must grapple with his new powers and the confusion and terror that they initially bring. Without Shameik Moore's talent, there would be little to hold everything else in the movie together.
Story
Spoilers!
In an attempt to meet versions of his dead wife and son from other dimensions of the multiverse, Kingpin uses a Super Collider (resembling the LHC from CERN) to create a dimensional rift that brings five Spider-people to the New York where a young man named Miles Morales is adjusting to new powers after being bitten by an Alchemax spider. Having actually killed the version of Peter Parker from Miles' dimension, Kingpin can now only be opposed by Spider-people he is not familiar with. Miles has the opportunity to bond with his new companions, and with Gwen Stacy and Peter Parker in particular, mastering his abilities in time to help the others back into their respective universes before Kingpin's project destroys each of them.
Intellectual Content
Considering that the use of the multiverse in the movie is not supposed to be oriented towards intellectual matters, as in Doctor Strange, it still demonstrates the concept of the multiverse very well. In this possible but unverifiable cosmological model, there could be a parallel version of the external world for every slightly different conception of the universe that is logically possible. Into the Spider-Verse does not explore the philosophical ramifications of a hypothetical multiverse, but it securely ties the concept into the story's focus on relationships.
Conclusion
While so much of the film is executed with utter excellence, one of the things that grabbed my attention the most was the Stan Lee cameo. Planned before his actual death, the scene works even more effectively precisely because he died. It is certainly the most meaningful cameo of Stan to date because of the circumstances. In light of his death, the scene becomes all the more poignant, appropriately serving as a reminder of the movie's focus on interpersonal relationships and their prominence in human life. The cameos are often comedic asides in live action Marvel movies, but here the cameo puts one of the film's strongest aspects on full display. Into the Spider-Verse has heart, something desperately needed by many other movies in its genre.
Content:
1. Violence: The fact that the movie is animated softens the already tame violence. Even a major death is handled without showing the brutality of it.
--Peter Parker, Into the Spider-Verse
Into the Spider-Verse is easily the greatest Spider-Man movie to date, but it is also one of the year's best films. The characterization, writing, and animation result in a synergistic effect that amounts to a splendid example of how to make a superhero story with comedy and genuine emotional gravity. It has its moments of amusement, including a wonderful jab at the dancing scene in Spider-Man 3 and a post credits scene that capitalizes on recent meme culture. At the same time, it features some very significant emotional elements. It also allows villains like Olivia Octavius, a female version of Doctor Octopus, and Scorpion to get cinema attention that they would otherwise probably not receive. Besides the leap of faith nonsense, the themes are some of the most positive I've seen in cinema this year: the movie emphasizes how we are not guaranteed lasting relationships, yet relationships are what propel most of us forwards. From the backgrounds of the heroes to that of the villain Kingpin, this point is displayed with sincerity and consistency.
 |
|
Production Values
The smooth animation is a perfect match for presentation devices like the comic panels that complement the fact that this is a movie based on characters from comic books. While animation is sometimes regarded as a medium for stories aimed at children, Into the Spider-Verse has the emotional depth that is often missing from superhero films. There is humor, yes, but it never conflicts with the drama and stakes, which are integrated into the movie in a manner that is entirely natural. Excellent voice acting on all fronts helps create this urgency and depth. Kingpin has little screen time, but the superb writing means that no appearance of his goes to waste. He is developed very well in only a handful of scenes, hoping to bring himself relational peace by using the multiverse to reunite himself with his family after a tragic accident.
Of course, the Spider-people from various dimensions in the multiverse, being the premise of the story, have to be handled right for the movie to work. Every single one of them has an opportunity to shine, with Spider-Woman and an alternate Peter Parker getting the most attention. Hailee Steinfeld (who also stars in the surprisingly good Bumblebee) and Jake Johnson elevate these two characters, highlighting the individuality of the various Spider-people. Their characters help ground key themes firmly into the narrative. Then there are the other Spider-people, including Peter Porker (a talking pig with special abilities), Peni Parker (a young girl uses a robotic exoskeleton and has the spider that bit her alive and on hand), and the grittier Spider-Man Noir. Nicolas Cage voices Spider-Man Noir in one of his least wild performances. Make no mistake, Cage gets to display some of his wildness, but he does the role justice. After Ghost Rider, I'm glad that he could redeem himself in a good comic book movie. The central Spider-Man, though, is Miles Morales, who must grapple with his new powers and the confusion and terror that they initially bring. Without Shameik Moore's talent, there would be little to hold everything else in the movie together.
Story
Spoilers!
In an attempt to meet versions of his dead wife and son from other dimensions of the multiverse, Kingpin uses a Super Collider (resembling the LHC from CERN) to create a dimensional rift that brings five Spider-people to the New York where a young man named Miles Morales is adjusting to new powers after being bitten by an Alchemax spider. Having actually killed the version of Peter Parker from Miles' dimension, Kingpin can now only be opposed by Spider-people he is not familiar with. Miles has the opportunity to bond with his new companions, and with Gwen Stacy and Peter Parker in particular, mastering his abilities in time to help the others back into their respective universes before Kingpin's project destroys each of them.
Intellectual Content
Considering that the use of the multiverse in the movie is not supposed to be oriented towards intellectual matters, as in Doctor Strange, it still demonstrates the concept of the multiverse very well. In this possible but unverifiable cosmological model, there could be a parallel version of the external world for every slightly different conception of the universe that is logically possible. Into the Spider-Verse does not explore the philosophical ramifications of a hypothetical multiverse, but it securely ties the concept into the story's focus on relationships.
Conclusion
While so much of the film is executed with utter excellence, one of the things that grabbed my attention the most was the Stan Lee cameo. Planned before his actual death, the scene works even more effectively precisely because he died. It is certainly the most meaningful cameo of Stan to date because of the circumstances. In light of his death, the scene becomes all the more poignant, appropriately serving as a reminder of the movie's focus on interpersonal relationships and their prominence in human life. The cameos are often comedic asides in live action Marvel movies, but here the cameo puts one of the film's strongest aspects on full display. Into the Spider-Verse has heart, something desperately needed by many other movies in its genre.
Content:
1. Violence: The fact that the movie is animated softens the already tame violence. Even a major death is handled without showing the brutality of it.
God Of The Gaps
"God of the gaps" arguments are fallacious attempts to argue for the existence of God based upon a lack of knowledge about a given thing, especially a lack of knowledge about the natural world. The phrase is derived from the manner in which some theists identify a "gap" in knowledge, assert that the unexplained phenomenon in question is confirmation of God's existence, and then treat God's existence as if it is something obvious from a cursory examination of nature. Appeals to ignorance such as this are inescapably unsound. No matter how they are described by their adherents, they always involve belief in something on grounds that are uncertain.
All design arguments reduce down to god of the gaps claims, simply because it does not follow from the appearance of design that design is present or that a designer exists. As I have explained before [1], design arguments for the existence of God have to assume that a designer exists to even posit that nature is designed to begin with. Since the existence of a designer must first be proven for the existence of design to be established, design arguments are inherently circular, since they try to approach God's existence the other way around.
Typically, proponents of design arguments will try to subjectively persuade someone that a designer exists by giving example after example of allegedly "unexplainable" things. If pressed, they might admit that their arguments do not amount to logical proofs, but this does not dissuade them from pretending like design arguments are rational. Oftentimes, they will even deny that they are using god of the gaps fallacies at all.
The irony is that they consider those who do not regard design as obvious to be irrational, as if to demonstrate the errors in design arguments is an offense against reality. Even when their supporters fail to grasp their mistakes, god of the gaps errors are at the forefront of design arguments, since those who advocate such arguments are merely assuming that design exists because they perceive orderly behaviors of matter. In other words, though it does not follow from observing order in the natural world that the natural world must have been fine-tuned by God, these particular theists claim that a lack of verifiable alternatives clearly means that God exists.
Every argument from seeming design to designer fails. To prove that a designer exists, one must prove that there is an uncaused cause [2] and then show that this entity is a designer. Any other sequence is riddled with fallacies. There is only one legitimate proof of God's existence, and it does not start with metaphysical assumptions or fallible scientific judgments about the natural world. Demonstrating the existence of God as an uncaused cause is a relatively simple thing, but god of the gaps fallacies and the erroneous persuasion that order must signify design have nothing to do with it.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/why-design-argument-fails.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
All design arguments reduce down to god of the gaps claims, simply because it does not follow from the appearance of design that design is present or that a designer exists. As I have explained before [1], design arguments for the existence of God have to assume that a designer exists to even posit that nature is designed to begin with. Since the existence of a designer must first be proven for the existence of design to be established, design arguments are inherently circular, since they try to approach God's existence the other way around.
Typically, proponents of design arguments will try to subjectively persuade someone that a designer exists by giving example after example of allegedly "unexplainable" things. If pressed, they might admit that their arguments do not amount to logical proofs, but this does not dissuade them from pretending like design arguments are rational. Oftentimes, they will even deny that they are using god of the gaps fallacies at all.
The irony is that they consider those who do not regard design as obvious to be irrational, as if to demonstrate the errors in design arguments is an offense against reality. Even when their supporters fail to grasp their mistakes, god of the gaps errors are at the forefront of design arguments, since those who advocate such arguments are merely assuming that design exists because they perceive orderly behaviors of matter. In other words, though it does not follow from observing order in the natural world that the natural world must have been fine-tuned by God, these particular theists claim that a lack of verifiable alternatives clearly means that God exists.
Every argument from seeming design to designer fails. To prove that a designer exists, one must prove that there is an uncaused cause [2] and then show that this entity is a designer. Any other sequence is riddled with fallacies. There is only one legitimate proof of God's existence, and it does not start with metaphysical assumptions or fallible scientific judgments about the natural world. Demonstrating the existence of God as an uncaused cause is a relatively simple thing, but god of the gaps fallacies and the erroneous persuasion that order must signify design have nothing to do with it.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/11/why-design-argument-fails.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
Friday, December 28, 2018
Denial Of Conscience
A large number of Christian apologists try to "prove" the existence of objective morality by appealing to their subjective moral feelings, with this lunacy being only one of many examples of how the pursuit of moral knowledge is often tainted and hindered by conscience. Fear, stupidity, and ignorance are all factors that might drive someone into the delusion that moral intuitions or emotions can provide any illumination about ethical truths. Nevertheless, denial that conscience has any authority is the start of legitimate moral epistemology; though painful for some, this is a vital and necessary step.
A high regard for conscience is far from being equivalent to a concern for morality. If a person genuinely cares about morality, and not about arbitrary perceptions of morality, he or she will not revere conscience. In fact, conscience can be completely ignored by a serious moralist because it has nothing to do with morality in either an epistemological or metaphysical sense. The existence of conscience does not necessitate the existence of morality, and a subjective feeling is incapable of establishing anything but its own existence (as well as the existence of a perceiver).
Rational people do not settle for mere appearances when it comes to their worldviews, but instead seek to understand things as they are. Where morality is concerned, this means ignoring, suppressing, or violating conscience as needed. If this strikes anyone as extreme, it is only because the basic fact that a thriving conscience is still purely subjective is almost universally overlooked. There is no connection between conscience and moral knowledge, so the person who relies on conscience is not only irrational, but also morally dangerous: they would do anything as long as their conscience compels them.
Thorough moralists will not consult their consciences to expose ethical truths. Instead of looking to a meaningless, subjective tool for moral guidance, a sound moralist seeks to understand morality itself, which does not depend upon human preferences or awareness. Denying the validity and usefulness of conscience is the result of a sincere quest for moral knowledge. It is not necessarily an indicator of moral apathy or decay. Contrarily, it can be the most significant sign of moral growth.
A high regard for conscience is far from being equivalent to a concern for morality. If a person genuinely cares about morality, and not about arbitrary perceptions of morality, he or she will not revere conscience. In fact, conscience can be completely ignored by a serious moralist because it has nothing to do with morality in either an epistemological or metaphysical sense. The existence of conscience does not necessitate the existence of morality, and a subjective feeling is incapable of establishing anything but its own existence (as well as the existence of a perceiver).
Rational people do not settle for mere appearances when it comes to their worldviews, but instead seek to understand things as they are. Where morality is concerned, this means ignoring, suppressing, or violating conscience as needed. If this strikes anyone as extreme, it is only because the basic fact that a thriving conscience is still purely subjective is almost universally overlooked. There is no connection between conscience and moral knowledge, so the person who relies on conscience is not only irrational, but also morally dangerous: they would do anything as long as their conscience compels them.
Thorough moralists will not consult their consciences to expose ethical truths. Instead of looking to a meaningless, subjective tool for moral guidance, a sound moralist seeks to understand morality itself, which does not depend upon human preferences or awareness. Denying the validity and usefulness of conscience is the result of a sincere quest for moral knowledge. It is not necessarily an indicator of moral apathy or decay. Contrarily, it can be the most significant sign of moral growth.
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
Familiarity With The Bible
If someone reads the Bible thoroughly and completely, there will by necessity come a point where there is no explicitly new content for them to discover. There may be some specific passages that fade from memory, but there is such a thing as having nothing more from the Bible to incorporate into one's worldview, although reaching this point is not a quick endeavor. Unsurprisingly, conveying this fact is often interpreted as showing a disregard for the Bible. On the contrary, this position alone rightly regards all of the Bible's crucial messages as being understandable and applicable.
Is there a need to scrutinize the Bible after one has become aware of each of its major doctrines (and by this I mean its actual doctrines, not the misrepresentations that evangelical and liberal theologians conjure up)? There is not. Ironically, Christians who think they are obligated to continually probe the Bible even after reaching this aforementioned awareness have not realized that the Bible does not demand that a person fixate on reading it after absorbing its content. Those who think otherwise are like those who mistakenly hold that attending church on Sundays is a mark of spiritual excellence: they confuse traditions for actual authority. The Bible does not prescribe either.
Evangelicals are prone to devise extra-Biblical spiritual/moral goals, pursue them, and characterize people who do not join them as being spiritually apathetic. The expectation that a person will continually scour the Bible well after mastering its contents is a prominent example of this legalism. There are two negative effects that often come about from this, the first being a false sense of spiritual security in those who adhere and the second being a false sense of moral failing in those who do not. In both cases, Christians are adversely impacted by an erroneous construct of tradition.
It is certainly vital for Christians to become very intimately familiar with the Bible, but it is not vital for them to constantly pore over it once intimate familiarity is achieved, as if its words will change from one reading to the next. It is possible to understand every one of the Bible's central teachings and thus have no need to revisit the Bible on a frequent basis. A person should read the Bible often when reaching the point of deep familiarity. There is simply no need to do so after attaining that objective. Fortunately, we are capable of massive spiritual growth: we can amass knowledge of Scripture that is far more extensive than many Christians like to admit.
Is there a need to scrutinize the Bible after one has become aware of each of its major doctrines (and by this I mean its actual doctrines, not the misrepresentations that evangelical and liberal theologians conjure up)? There is not. Ironically, Christians who think they are obligated to continually probe the Bible even after reaching this aforementioned awareness have not realized that the Bible does not demand that a person fixate on reading it after absorbing its content. Those who think otherwise are like those who mistakenly hold that attending church on Sundays is a mark of spiritual excellence: they confuse traditions for actual authority. The Bible does not prescribe either.
Evangelicals are prone to devise extra-Biblical spiritual/moral goals, pursue them, and characterize people who do not join them as being spiritually apathetic. The expectation that a person will continually scour the Bible well after mastering its contents is a prominent example of this legalism. There are two negative effects that often come about from this, the first being a false sense of spiritual security in those who adhere and the second being a false sense of moral failing in those who do not. In both cases, Christians are adversely impacted by an erroneous construct of tradition.
It is certainly vital for Christians to become very intimately familiar with the Bible, but it is not vital for them to constantly pore over it once intimate familiarity is achieved, as if its words will change from one reading to the next. It is possible to understand every one of the Bible's central teachings and thus have no need to revisit the Bible on a frequent basis. A person should read the Bible often when reaching the point of deep familiarity. There is simply no need to do so after attaining that objective. Fortunately, we are capable of massive spiritual growth: we can amass knowledge of Scripture that is far more extensive than many Christians like to admit.
Tuesday, December 25, 2018
Game Review--Resident Evil 4 (Xbox One)
"No longer will the United States think they can police the world forever."
--Lord Osmund Saddler, Resident Evil 4
"You don't seriously think a conservative mind can chart a new course for the world, do you?"
--Jack Krauser, Resident Evil 4
Historically regarded as one of the greatest and most impactful video games of all time, Resident Evil 4 evolved not only its own franchise, but also gaming as a whole. It was games like Resident Evil 4 that popularized quick-time events. Resident Evil 4, furthermore, was one of the games that pioneered the over-the-shoulder camera that has become so common in contemporary shooters. While the dialogue can be outright disastrous to the point of hurting the narrative's execution, the atmosphere and combat remain excellent examples of how to craft a survival horror game. Capcom made the clever move of having the story focus on something other than the Umbrella Corporation, and the story fares well conceptually because of it. The concept of a European religious cult using a parasite that allows for mind control is rather unique, the group having abducted the American president's daughter Ashley as part of a plot to demonstrate its power to the West. As with the Xbox One remasters of Resident Evil 5 and Resident Evil 6, the Xbox One version of the game includes all of the bonus content.
Production Values
This game is responsible for the massive transition of its series from a fixed camera to a third-person camera. Only a handful of other games, such as Metroid Prime and Super Mario 64, truly changed the gameplay format for their own franchises so dramatically. Like these other titles, Resident Evil 4 succeeds in making its transition. Its shooting is vastly improved by the new camera style. The graphics are definitely dated and look like they are from a past console generation--which is unsurprising, since Resident Evil 4 was first released in 2005 on the GameCube and PlayStation 2--but they are sufficient when it comes to upholding the playability of this classic (meaning the animations are still smooth and clear).
Dull grays mean that vibrant colors are nowhere to be seen for much of the game, though this can actually reinforce the dark tone. Textures also appear grainy from time to time. However, the fact that the graphics have held up as well as they have across various ports and remasters is worthy of attention and praise. As might be expected, the script is outrageous at certain points. Leon Kennedy, the character controlled by the player, literally calls one of the primary antagonists "bro" at one point. Despite significant problems with the dialogue, the atmosphere is glorious, emphasizing the isolation of Leon as he rescues the president's daughter from a deranged faction. Only in the later parts of the game is the atmosphere weakened, when the horror elements are not as prominent.
Gameplay
--Campaign
One of the gameplay's greatest strengths is how it unites survival horror and action without diluting the effectiveness of either. There are periods of genuine vulnerability or uncertainty (at least upon an initial playthrough), but there is also plenty of ammunition to scavenge between most fights. You still have to ensure that ammunition is used in conservative spurts, of course, as there are otherwise some moments where there might be great concern about having leftover bullets after an encounter with a horde of villagers or priests. The controls are not the easiest for newcomers to adapt to, since Leon cannot aim his weapons and walk around at the same time. This means that players must be strategic with where they aim, since they are open to attacks from other directions and cannot dodge them. Once someone adjusts, though, the controls are mostly manageable, although precision aiming at boss weak points can be challenging. Miscellaneous quick-time events vary up the gameplay during boss fights.
To make surviving fights easier, one can upgrade the fire rate, damage, ammo capacity, and reload speed of each main weapon at certain intervals using pesetas. Pesetas (abbreviated to PTAS in the game) are easy to obtain, since enemies regularly drop varying amounts upon dying. Ironically, the peseta was not even a currency that Spain, the country where the game is set, still used as of 2005 (the year of the game's original release), but that does not stop its use from working well inside the secluded world of the story. The currency can be exchanged to a mysterious seller called the Merchant for upgrades, new weapons, and healing items. The Merchant's wares can make the game a much more bearable affair!
None of Leon's upgrades can help when players are forced to control Ashley for a brief segment of the game, however. It is here that the player's vulnerability is at its peak, since Ashley cannot use firearms, having only the ability to hurl scattered lanterns at approaching enemies. Thankfully, this section is very short, and Leon is playable once more. The only times when Leon's weapons do not easily overpower individual enemies are the boss fights, as Leon meets several enemies that have been granted special physical abilities by parasites. These bosses can be quite difficult, but I found that RPGs are highly effective against Salazar and Salazar's "right hand" and that knife attacks are the best way to repel Krauser (in the early stages of the fight with him).
--The Mercenaries
Upon completing the story for the first time, several bonus features are unlocked, including "The Mercenaries" mode. In this arcade-like secondary mode, Leon (or other characters) must kill as many enemies as he can before a two minute timer counts down to zero. There are ways to extend the time, and very high scores can unlock new characters. While Mercenaries is a nice diversion from the main story, it is very limited in scope by comparison to the content of Mercenaries in Resident Evil 5 and The Mercenaries 3D, a 3DS port of earlier Mercenaries maps that contained perks. The absence of perks in Resident Evil 4's version is very noticeable in hindsight.
--Separate Ways
Separate Ways shows Ada Wong's background involvement in many key locations and events in the main story of Resident Evil 4. For instance, she rings the bell that recalls the villagers when Leon is attacked by the farmhouses, starts the lift that Leon later uses, and so on. Pesetas are plentiful, but weapons cannot be upgraded, though they already have maximum damage when purchased. Overall, Separate Ways adds several hours more to an already lengthy game. The major weak aspect is the horrid quality of the cutscenes. They lack the clarity that those in the main game have.
--Assignment Ada
In Assignment Ada, the titular Ada must obtain five samples of the Las Plagas parasite before she leaves the island via a helicopter. Unlike with Separate Ways, there are no opportunities to save and load games; a death means the player must quit or restart. There are still checkpoints, thankfully. The beginning can be brutal, as Ada must face an enemy with a deadly weapon very early on, but the entire mode can be completed in less than an hour after some practice.
Story
Spoilers!
Leon Kennedy, a survivor of the Racoon City incident, is dispatched in 2004 to retrieve the president's daughter Ashley from Spain, where she was taken following her kidnapping. He quickly finds that a local village is inhabited by maniacal and murderous farmers. As it turns out, the villagers are being controlled by parasites called the Las Plagas, organisms that hijack hosts' nervous systems and break down their mental autonomy--and Leon is injected with the Las Plagas when briefly captured. After locating and freeing Ashley, Leon is confronted by Osmund Saddler, the leader of the Los Illuminados, who explains that his group abducted Ashley to infect her with the Las Plagas and send her back to America, where, as a puppet, she would inject the parasite into her father and help the Los Illuminados control the world.
Leon and Ashley are forced to escape from the villagers in a castle, one that is unfortunately presided over by an affiliate of Saddler named Ramon Salazar. It becomes clear that another outsider is also troubling Saddler. Ada Wong, working for the Umbrella Corporation, seeks to obtain a sample of the Las Plagas for Albert Wesker. Having killed Salazar, Leon is brought by Ada to an island where Ashley was moved. He overcomes every obstacle placed in his way by Saddler, including an enemy type with rapid regenerative abilities and an Umbrella agent named Krauser. Ultimately, he defeats Saddler, though Ada succeeds in obtaining a Las Plagas sample for Wesker, which allows for the events of Resident Evil 5 to occur.
Intellectual Content
The major emphasis is placed on survival and action, but the occasional puzzle, optional or mandatory, does allow for a brief respite from the shooting. It doesn't take long to solve the puzzles or find collectibles. I doubt that many players would even spend more than several minutes deciphering how to proceed. The puzzles are still there, nonetheless.
Conclusion
There is much to legitimately criticize about the way that the story is presented, but there is also much to admire about how Resident Evil 4 handles its atmosphere and gameplay. The latter elements win out over the former. Even 13 (almost 14!) years later, Resident Evil 4 is still one of the best offerings in its respective series, and it is still one of the best survival horror games. Since it is available on so many systems for such a relatively low price, gamers who have not played it yet should try to do so at the earliest opportunity.
In honor of the upcoming remake of Resident Evil 2, I hope to also have Resident Evil 5 and Resident Evil 6 reviewed by January 25. This is my first time to review three entries in the same series consecutively within the same month, but I aim to have five games from the series consecutively reviewed by the end of January. I eagerly await the remake!
Content:
1. Violence: A spectrum of grotesque creatures, from villagers controlled by parasites to El Gigantes to other deformities, must be killed in bloody ways via gunplay or quick-time events. Resident Evil 7 may be more graphic, but Resident Evil 4 can be a fairly violent game. Some of the death animations for Leon can be especially brutal, showing his decapitation.
2. Profanity: Several characters use the word "shit" out of frustration.
--Lord Osmund Saddler, Resident Evil 4
"You don't seriously think a conservative mind can chart a new course for the world, do you?"
--Jack Krauser, Resident Evil 4
Historically regarded as one of the greatest and most impactful video games of all time, Resident Evil 4 evolved not only its own franchise, but also gaming as a whole. It was games like Resident Evil 4 that popularized quick-time events. Resident Evil 4, furthermore, was one of the games that pioneered the over-the-shoulder camera that has become so common in contemporary shooters. While the dialogue can be outright disastrous to the point of hurting the narrative's execution, the atmosphere and combat remain excellent examples of how to craft a survival horror game. Capcom made the clever move of having the story focus on something other than the Umbrella Corporation, and the story fares well conceptually because of it. The concept of a European religious cult using a parasite that allows for mind control is rather unique, the group having abducted the American president's daughter Ashley as part of a plot to demonstrate its power to the West. As with the Xbox One remasters of Resident Evil 5 and Resident Evil 6, the Xbox One version of the game includes all of the bonus content.
Production Values
This game is responsible for the massive transition of its series from a fixed camera to a third-person camera. Only a handful of other games, such as Metroid Prime and Super Mario 64, truly changed the gameplay format for their own franchises so dramatically. Like these other titles, Resident Evil 4 succeeds in making its transition. Its shooting is vastly improved by the new camera style. The graphics are definitely dated and look like they are from a past console generation--which is unsurprising, since Resident Evil 4 was first released in 2005 on the GameCube and PlayStation 2--but they are sufficient when it comes to upholding the playability of this classic (meaning the animations are still smooth and clear).
Dull grays mean that vibrant colors are nowhere to be seen for much of the game, though this can actually reinforce the dark tone. Textures also appear grainy from time to time. However, the fact that the graphics have held up as well as they have across various ports and remasters is worthy of attention and praise. As might be expected, the script is outrageous at certain points. Leon Kennedy, the character controlled by the player, literally calls one of the primary antagonists "bro" at one point. Despite significant problems with the dialogue, the atmosphere is glorious, emphasizing the isolation of Leon as he rescues the president's daughter from a deranged faction. Only in the later parts of the game is the atmosphere weakened, when the horror elements are not as prominent.
Gameplay
--Campaign
One of the gameplay's greatest strengths is how it unites survival horror and action without diluting the effectiveness of either. There are periods of genuine vulnerability or uncertainty (at least upon an initial playthrough), but there is also plenty of ammunition to scavenge between most fights. You still have to ensure that ammunition is used in conservative spurts, of course, as there are otherwise some moments where there might be great concern about having leftover bullets after an encounter with a horde of villagers or priests. The controls are not the easiest for newcomers to adapt to, since Leon cannot aim his weapons and walk around at the same time. This means that players must be strategic with where they aim, since they are open to attacks from other directions and cannot dodge them. Once someone adjusts, though, the controls are mostly manageable, although precision aiming at boss weak points can be challenging. Miscellaneous quick-time events vary up the gameplay during boss fights.
To make surviving fights easier, one can upgrade the fire rate, damage, ammo capacity, and reload speed of each main weapon at certain intervals using pesetas. Pesetas (abbreviated to PTAS in the game) are easy to obtain, since enemies regularly drop varying amounts upon dying. Ironically, the peseta was not even a currency that Spain, the country where the game is set, still used as of 2005 (the year of the game's original release), but that does not stop its use from working well inside the secluded world of the story. The currency can be exchanged to a mysterious seller called the Merchant for upgrades, new weapons, and healing items. The Merchant's wares can make the game a much more bearable affair!
None of Leon's upgrades can help when players are forced to control Ashley for a brief segment of the game, however. It is here that the player's vulnerability is at its peak, since Ashley cannot use firearms, having only the ability to hurl scattered lanterns at approaching enemies. Thankfully, this section is very short, and Leon is playable once more. The only times when Leon's weapons do not easily overpower individual enemies are the boss fights, as Leon meets several enemies that have been granted special physical abilities by parasites. These bosses can be quite difficult, but I found that RPGs are highly effective against Salazar and Salazar's "right hand" and that knife attacks are the best way to repel Krauser (in the early stages of the fight with him).
--The Mercenaries
Upon completing the story for the first time, several bonus features are unlocked, including "The Mercenaries" mode. In this arcade-like secondary mode, Leon (or other characters) must kill as many enemies as he can before a two minute timer counts down to zero. There are ways to extend the time, and very high scores can unlock new characters. While Mercenaries is a nice diversion from the main story, it is very limited in scope by comparison to the content of Mercenaries in Resident Evil 5 and The Mercenaries 3D, a 3DS port of earlier Mercenaries maps that contained perks. The absence of perks in Resident Evil 4's version is very noticeable in hindsight.
--Separate Ways
Separate Ways shows Ada Wong's background involvement in many key locations and events in the main story of Resident Evil 4. For instance, she rings the bell that recalls the villagers when Leon is attacked by the farmhouses, starts the lift that Leon later uses, and so on. Pesetas are plentiful, but weapons cannot be upgraded, though they already have maximum damage when purchased. Overall, Separate Ways adds several hours more to an already lengthy game. The major weak aspect is the horrid quality of the cutscenes. They lack the clarity that those in the main game have.
--Assignment Ada
In Assignment Ada, the titular Ada must obtain five samples of the Las Plagas parasite before she leaves the island via a helicopter. Unlike with Separate Ways, there are no opportunities to save and load games; a death means the player must quit or restart. There are still checkpoints, thankfully. The beginning can be brutal, as Ada must face an enemy with a deadly weapon very early on, but the entire mode can be completed in less than an hour after some practice.
Story
Spoilers!
Leon Kennedy, a survivor of the Racoon City incident, is dispatched in 2004 to retrieve the president's daughter Ashley from Spain, where she was taken following her kidnapping. He quickly finds that a local village is inhabited by maniacal and murderous farmers. As it turns out, the villagers are being controlled by parasites called the Las Plagas, organisms that hijack hosts' nervous systems and break down their mental autonomy--and Leon is injected with the Las Plagas when briefly captured. After locating and freeing Ashley, Leon is confronted by Osmund Saddler, the leader of the Los Illuminados, who explains that his group abducted Ashley to infect her with the Las Plagas and send her back to America, where, as a puppet, she would inject the parasite into her father and help the Los Illuminados control the world.
Leon and Ashley are forced to escape from the villagers in a castle, one that is unfortunately presided over by an affiliate of Saddler named Ramon Salazar. It becomes clear that another outsider is also troubling Saddler. Ada Wong, working for the Umbrella Corporation, seeks to obtain a sample of the Las Plagas for Albert Wesker. Having killed Salazar, Leon is brought by Ada to an island where Ashley was moved. He overcomes every obstacle placed in his way by Saddler, including an enemy type with rapid regenerative abilities and an Umbrella agent named Krauser. Ultimately, he defeats Saddler, though Ada succeeds in obtaining a Las Plagas sample for Wesker, which allows for the events of Resident Evil 5 to occur.
Intellectual Content
The major emphasis is placed on survival and action, but the occasional puzzle, optional or mandatory, does allow for a brief respite from the shooting. It doesn't take long to solve the puzzles or find collectibles. I doubt that many players would even spend more than several minutes deciphering how to proceed. The puzzles are still there, nonetheless.
Conclusion
There is much to legitimately criticize about the way that the story is presented, but there is also much to admire about how Resident Evil 4 handles its atmosphere and gameplay. The latter elements win out over the former. Even 13 (almost 14!) years later, Resident Evil 4 is still one of the best offerings in its respective series, and it is still one of the best survival horror games. Since it is available on so many systems for such a relatively low price, gamers who have not played it yet should try to do so at the earliest opportunity.
In honor of the upcoming remake of Resident Evil 2, I hope to also have Resident Evil 5 and Resident Evil 6 reviewed by January 25. This is my first time to review three entries in the same series consecutively within the same month, but I aim to have five games from the series consecutively reviewed by the end of January. I eagerly await the remake!
Content:
1. Violence: A spectrum of grotesque creatures, from villagers controlled by parasites to El Gigantes to other deformities, must be killed in bloody ways via gunplay or quick-time events. Resident Evil 7 may be more graphic, but Resident Evil 4 can be a fairly violent game. Some of the death animations for Leon can be especially brutal, showing his decapitation.
2. Profanity: Several characters use the word "shit" out of frustration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)