Overestimating The Importance Of Quantum Physics (Part 2)

The philosophical significance and epistemological verifiability of modern claims about quantum physics are both enormously overestimated to the point where the study of quantum physics is held up as the utter height of philosophical and scientific accomplishment.  The bizarre nature of many claims about quantum physics has awed many people into a wild and gratuitous excitement over subatomic physics, even when they do not understand the information being directed at them.  After all, all that it takes to impress the average person is the mention of the word "quantum" before another random word!

Even if the popular claims about quantum physics could be verified--other than the claim that quantum particle behavior deviates from the laws of logic, which is false by default due to the necessary nature of logical truths--it is far from true that "everything" about our awareness of reality changes.  The immutability of logical facts aside, even our ability to understand scientific events at the macroscopic level isn't changed by quantum physics; at most, quantum physics would simply add to modern scientific ideas, not require the complete revising of them.

The fairly relentless references to quantum physics in everything from entertainment to online news articles has led many people to act like the opposite is true. Quantum physics is treated like it is the pinnacle of philosophy, science, and human knowledge, when none of these things are the case.  Indeed, no one can even prove that a quantum world even exists!  It is possible for a quantum world to exist, and anything that is logically possible could be true about a hypothetical quantum scale, but there is no way to verify the presence of the quantum world by looking at the macroscopic world.

Of course, the macroscopic world is all that humans have natural access to.  It is nevertheless popular for people--including scientists--to speculate about unverified ideas that they are not even remotely rational enough to personally understand on a philosophical level.  Only rationalism grants consistent knowledge, and hardly anyone seems to be approaching rumored (aka, unverifiable) notions about quantum energy and particle behavior from a truly rationalistic standpoint.  If more people did so, they would realize that quantum physics is far from the height of philosophy.

Indeed, the entirety of quantum physics, even if true, pales in significance compared to the most basic facts about logic.  The fundamental epistemological infallibility of logical axioms, recognition of which is literally the first step in making a sound worldview, is more important than the whole of quantum physics could ever be simply on its own!  The simplest fact about logic is on one level certainly far less complicated than many of the ideas about quantum particles that have been thrown around, yet it is inherently more important to the pursuit of knowledge.

Digital Communication

The increasing reliance of modern life on digital communication is disliked by some under the misguided impression that this style of communication is an acid to in-person relationships (mostly conservatives, of course), even though its critics are often quick to assert other claims that contradict their entire basis for discouraging digital communication.  Digital messaging formats like texting allow for instant communication between friends, family members, coworkers, and strangers across continents, and it is often used for trivial purposes or dismissed as a destructive thing!

It is hardly surprising that conservatives, who are slow to embrace even positive social changes, might be reluctant to accept new technological trends, but that does not lessen the cognitive dissonance when they simultaneously refuse to express consistent gratitude for the technology they rely on as they lament the supposed lack of gratefulness in their society.  Ironically, some of those who would fallaciously condemn digital communication technology as a detriment to human sociality are the first to complain about a real or perceived lack of gratefulness in the modern era.

Of course, hypocritical tirades against technology are not limited to people who allegedly despise ungratefulness while being ungrateful about the monumental strides towards greater communicational convenience that technology has allowed for.  The bias against digital communication methods is only one of many ways that technology is unjustly treated as invasive or immoral.  It is simply one of the more visible and ironic anti-technology biases.

It is easier than ever to form networks for one's professional life, keep friendships alive or thriving even when great distance is involved, and stay updated on current events (as far as epistemological limitations allow for).  The reason for this is technology in every case!  There is nothing rational about making negative assumptions about technology--or making assumptions of any kind about any subject--but the stupidity of those who are hostile to new technology by default goes even deeper.

Diversity In Entertainment

It is certainly fine for some entertainment to predominantly feature men or women, blacks or whites, rich or poor people, and so on.  For example, a period piece needs to reflect what historical evidence actually suggests, and some parts of history are more overtly brimming with sexism (towards either gender) or racism than others.  Even though the historical context which calls for an emphasis on one gender or race over others reflects a deep stupidity on the part of that society, it is not an artistic or moral offense to portray it.  A storyteller is not sexist or racist for being historically honest about the asinine prejudices of a given culture or era.

This truth applies even when illicit prejudices are a major part of a story.  In fact, sometimes themes of unjust discrimination can be used to better emphasize the human qualities of a minority character or a character from a majority demographic that is stereotyped all the same.  A story that features only one male, female, black, or white character can capitalize on the fact that there is only one person of that category included, taking advantage of the opportunity to dispell myths about their humanity or portray a more complex characterization.  Diversity is not always needed to combat sexism or racism.

Indeed, diversity alone does not make a story thoughtful, sophisticated, deep, or effective.  Diversity in no way excludes these things, but it is not a guarantee of storytelling quality.  The mere presence of primary characters of both genders or multiple races in a book, video game, movie, or TV/streaming show may not mean anything more than that the characters are diverse.  Moreover, while a lack of diversity might even sometimes be the product of chance, diversity itself might be present in a given story by happenstance as well.  It does not follow from a story having a diverse cast that the diversity is utilized in an important way or for significant reasons.

Should diversity be an intentional goal of storytelling wherever it is applicable?  For the sake of realism and the deconstruction of stereotypes, yes.  Does diversity automatically signify quality or even ideological accuracy on the part of the storytellers?  Not at all.  Very few people seem to understand that all of these things are true at the same time, as one fact or the other is usually emphasized apart from the others.  Some may even try to use one of these facts to argue against the others!  Diversity remains an important but nuanced issue within entertainment, as reason reveals to whoever is willing to find out.

The Kindness Of Christians: A Red Herring To Apologetics

One of the most common goals of Christians who emphasize gratuitous acts of kindness is a sort of "relational evangelism" where they aim to win people over to Christianity by their loving actions.  Though this might be very appealing to some people on both sides of the kind deeds, it has no place in evaluating the probabilistic evidence for a worldview as multifaceted as Christianity (in that it has components that thoroughly overlap with historical or scientific inquiries).  Indeed, the actions of any person are not evidence for their worldview, much less logical confirmation of it.

Whoever becomes a Christian after being impressed with the kindness of those who identify as Christians, short of a total reevaluation of their worldview at a later point, builds their spiritual identify on an irrelevant factor.  Not only is the behavior of Christians (whether they are professing or genuine) a total red herring to the veracity of any theological idea, but it is also something that could change at any moment.  There is no way to prove that anyone's actions will remain consistent in the future, after all.

The inevitable conclusion is that if the Christians around such a person shifted their actions, the person in question would likely abandon their worldview--because someone else subjectively offended them!  Only a fool who treats their worldview lightly would ever accept a demonstrably true ideology because they are treated kindly by those who claim that ideology.  Behavior is of no value when it comes to evaluating epistemology, metaphysics, and morality.

Of course, kindness is irrelevant to much of Biblical ethics in the first place!  The Bible demands that the church be just, for every individual is obligated to not mistreat those around them.  However, it does not prescribe any particular set of kind acts outside of those that involve the mere honoring of the rights of a human or animal.  While some of the acts prescribed by Mosaic Law or the New Testament might come across as kind, something is never Biblically obligatory merely because it is kind.

Committing to Christianity because one is pleased with the behaviors of some or all Christians is one of the most asinine reasons a person could ever become a Christian.  To commit to something with such extensive ramifications for one's life, or any "smaller" philosophical idea, because one feels welcomed by its adherents is a sign of immense unintelligence and a lack of concern for truth.  If this is someone's basis for being a Christian, it should come as no surprise that they might very well renounce Christianity when a more subjectively appealing group of people comes along.

The Scourge Of Emotionalism

The scourge of emotionalism would not exist without emotionalists--irrational ideas have no power apart from the inept thinkers who adhere to them.  Almost everyone reacts to criticism as if they want to be perceived as rational, yet very few are deserving of such a thing.  In spite of this, the majority of people tend to act as if everyone has a human right to be treated like rational beings, as if by merely being human they somehow deserve to be treated with the same intellectual respect that has been earned by a rationalist's intelligence and commitment to truth.

If someone chooses to not distinguish reasoning and emotion in terms of their cognitive and epistemological natures, they have no right to be treated like intellectual beings whose thoughts should be taken into consideration.  Even if they happen to be right when it comes to their worldviews, their stupidity necessitates that they would be right by sheer happenstance.  There could be no obligation for rationalists to treat them as intellectual equals because they are mere inferiors at best.  No one can deserve to be treated as something they are not, rendering emotionalists undeserving of any treatment that regards them as if they are the full equals of rationalists.

Almost any ideology that does not treat all people as inherently equal is likely to receive criticism for that reason alone, but an individual's concern for truth can render them the superior of someone who lacks that concern.  If truth matters, rationality and commitment to truth--which have nothing to do with a person's gender, race, nationality, size, physical ability, or educational status--make those who have them superior to those who do not.  People are not equal in the sight of the truth, for only a minority ever dares to pursue it.

Someone who cannot identify the most basic form of societal conditioning, that of unintentionally or intentionally promoting a framework of emotionalism, is a reason why rationalists have to live in a world dominated by problems generated by the unintelligent.  There is no other way to minimize the influence of emotionalism than by directly challenging (and perhaps even trampling on) emotionalists.  Anyone is capable of changing for the better, but whoever chooses emotionalism over rationalism has no basis to call themselves equal to rationalists.

Game Review--Doom (2016) [Switch]

"In the first age, in the first battle, when the shadows first lengthened, one stood.  Burned by the embers of Armageddon, his soul blistered by the fires of Hell and tainted beyond ascension, he chose the path of perpetual torment."
--Slayer Testament I, Doom (2016)


Doom's release on the Switch a year after its initial release on other consoles marked a major advancement in the reputation of console-to-handheld ports.  It is not the supreme edition of the game as far as production values go, but it remains a standout achievement.  I did review the 2016 reboot of Doom for the Xbox One two years ago, but the Switch port is so significant as a technical achievement--and the game itself is so excellent--that reviewing the Switch port is not wholly redundant.  Since I have already reviewed the base game, though, I will go into more detail in addition to simply describing the Switch version of the game.

Production Values

The production values of the Switch port of Doom have been extensively compared to those of the other versions, and the differences are obvious when the Switch edition is played next to the others.  Does it look and run as well as it does on other consoles?  No, and the frequent motion blur might annoy some players.  Nevertheless, the fact that the full game of Doom (other than a map editor) can run on the Switch Lite or on an undocked Switch is a technical feat worthy of acknowledgment.  Doom was one of the first current generation console games to be ported to the Switch, and it utterly refutes concerns that the Switch cannot handle modern third-party games.

The days where handheld systems are incapable of handling anything other than the occasional console port, ports of prior generation consoles aside, are gone.  The 3DS and Vita certainly received console ports of their own (like Spider-Man: Edge of Time and Borderlands 2 respectively), but none were as ambitious as Doom on a visual level.  The frame rate might not be as high or stable as it is on other systems, but there is much to admire about the overall performance of the game.  The sound does fare somewhat better than the visuals in terms of port quality, but that does not mean the graphics are not quite impressive a handheld platform.


Gameplay

In many ways, Doom is the equivalent of merging Halo and Metroid Prime while augmenting the violence.  Elements like the automap stations and map screen are overtly reminiscent of Metroid Prime, and the occasional healing station functions like those of the side-scrolling Metroid Fusion.  It isn't just these elements that reinforce the comparison to Metroid, though.  The exploration and collectible hunting are actually inserted alongside the brutal combat very well.

You can replay completed chapters to discover any remaining secrets and unlock all of the weapon enhancements, upgrade points, Praetor tokens, Doomguy action figures, and rune trials.  Some will probably find that there is no pressure to revisit old areas for the sake of upgrades unless they plan on trying to beat story mode on a higher difficulty setting, but it is unlikely that all of the secrets will be found on the first playthrough.

Some of the collectibles can be easily missed without careful observation, but whether you are relying the story or playing it for the first time, you cannot avoid the combat.  The demons in the Mars facility and in Hell can be defeated by means of a diverse array of firearms or by glory kills, finishing moves that are executed by vicious melee attacks.  It is the ferocity of the shooting and dismemberment that has earned Doom so much praise.  The other aspects of the game are mostly executed very well, but the combat is superbly handled.

Beyond an arcade mode that allows players to play evels with the goal of accumulating a score with the help of point multipliers, there is a multiplayer mode.  The multiplayer is certainly not the main attraction, but it does provide an aditional option for interested players despite lacking the depth of multiplayer in shooters like Call of Duty.


Story

Mild spoilers below!

The plot of Doom is a lower priority than combat and exploration, and the majority of the lore is found in optional data packets instead of in mandatory dialogue.  Still, the story sufficiently explains the basis for why the Doom Slayer needs to kill so many demons.  A corporation called the UAC constructed a base on Mars to study Argent energy, a feature from another dimension bluntly referred to as Hell.  Olivia Pierce, a leader of the operation, aligned with the demons, and they invade the facility.  The Doom Slayer is awoken as a last resort to defeat the demonic entities.


Intellectual Content

While the story of Doom is at best light on both characterization and philosophical themes, a variety of collectibles concealed in remote locations await completionists.  A few can be discovered by simply walking in the general direction of an objective, but many of them require intentional exploration, attention to detail, or major luck.  It is the fact that these items are usually concealed so well that most strongly evokes the style of gameplay in the main Metroid Prime entries.


Conclusion

The Switch port of Doom has a phenomenal significance merely by virtue of translating a game for the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One to Nintendo's hybrid console, but it is also an excellent game even apart from that fact.  Furthermore, there has never been a better time to play it on the Switch than in the days surrounding the release of Doom Eternal, which is set to debut on the Switch at some point this year.  Anyone who owns a Switch (or a Switch Lite, like myself) and either wants to play console games from the current generation on a portable system or simply enjoys the reboot of Doom will almost certainly find the port exciting!


Content:
 1. Violence:  As anyone who played Doom on other consoles has seen, the shooting and kills in the game involves a great deal of blood and dismemberment.  Gunshots, chainsaw attacks, and physical finishing moves can remove body parts, and the carnage is all shown directly onscreen.

How Crises Reveal Worldviews

It is not possible to live one's life without engaging in philosophy to at least some relatively minor extent: even the most practical of matters has elements of epistemology and metaphysics.  Of course, as a conversation with all but a small number of people shows, many have no idea how to even explain what something as basic as the laws of logic, logical fallacies, and the scientific method are.  Whatever shallow grasp or misconceptions of concepts plagues a given individual do not automatically vanish when global trials arise.  If anything, most people tend to react to trials by doubling down on their own stupidity, and the COVID-19 situation is no exception.

The COVID-19 pandemic gives those who make positive assumptions about scientific progress and the alleged epistemological authority of "experts" a chance to feel vindicated in their fallacies.  In the same way, the pandemic gives those who are prone to embrace unverifiable conspiracy theories about bioweapons or government secrets a chance to feel vindicated in their own respective fallacies as well.  These responses to COVID-19, as well as several others, exemplify how crises--no matter how minor, mediocre, or severe they actually are--reveal the ramifications of people's worldviews that they might otherwise ignore.

If it is never rational to assume that an authority figure is right, the COVID-19 pandemic does not change that.  If a conspiracy theory cannot be proven, there is never an intellectual or moral justification for endorsing that conspiracy theory even when the subject matter is as big as the new corona virus (as usual, the left and right are guilty of collectively erroneous reactions to the sudden pandemic).  Reason and morality do not change when circumstances shift.  However, what people believe about reason and morality often does either change or at least come to light in the presence of a crisis like the virus.

Intentionality, intelligence, and a commitment to truth are all necessary to step away from the asinine ideas that might seize individuals--or even entire countries--when trials like a novel sickness strike.  One does not have to be especially observant, though, to see that trials often force people to acknowledge or evaluate their worldviews.  Those worldviews are at best rarely sound, but there is nothing a person can do in a time of personal, national, or global crisis without revealing their philosophical stances.  What do people believe is possible?  This will impact their proposed responses.  What do people think about morality?  This will impact how they treat others in such times.

Worldviews always come to light in trials, even if only in the introspective privacy of people's own minds.  Whether those worldviews are rational or not is up to each individual in that no one is held hostage to false ideas.  Every being that can reason can know at least foundational truths about reality; unfortunately, few even try to understand these basic truths until their circumstances push them into a philosophical corner.  Nevertheless, every crisis is an opportunity for the irrational or apathetic to amend their worldviews as reason demands.  No person has to remain with a philosophy that is false or unverifiable.

The Benevolent Azathoth

In Lovecraftian lore, Azathoth, the "blind idiot god" and the "nuclear chaos," dreams other beings and the external world itself into existence as he slumbers, unaware of how he has intimately shaped reality outside of his mind.  If he was to awaken, the contingent objects and beings of the universe would cease to exist--even the great old ones, such as Cthulhu.  This fact contributes to the cosmic horror aspects of the literary universe's lore, as Lovecraft's deities and other exotic monsters represent the futility and insignificance of human existence.

The cosmic horror themes of Lovecraft's stories, including the ultimate triviality of human life and the fear of the unknown, might be perceived as present in seemingly unlikely places.  The concept of a deity like Yahweh might even come across to some in Lovecraftian manner: some might perceive the Biblical Yahweh to be wholly alien, cold towards humankind and monstrous in his treatment of his enemies.  To them, it might seem like worshipping Yahweh is no less nihilistic and horrifying than the worship of an entity like Azathoth or Cthulhu.

While the Biblical description of God is not one of a dreaming deity that is unaware of the universe sustained by his dreams (moreover, it is logically impossible for one consciousness to literally exist in the dream of another consciousness, for reasons I will explain in an upcoming article), Yahweh could easily reduce every other being to a state of total and permanent nonexistence.  All it would take is a whim, sadistic or otherwise.  Creation only exists because the mind of God has not willed otherwise.

The Biblical God, of course, is not said to have created humanity either unknowingly or for sadistic pleasure.  His immense power might be comparable to that of Azathoth, even if neither being could possibly be the metaphysical existent upon which all else hinges (logic is more metaphysically fundamental than God could be [1]), but his character differs enormously from that of Lovecraftian entities.  Yahweh wants humans to seek him as much as their epistemological limitations permit for their own sake (2 Peter 3:8-9).

In this regard, Yahweh is the "benevolent Azathoth," the cosmic being that possesses the ability to destroy or sustain the entirety of the cosmos and all of the sentient life within it and yet prefers for the spiritual flourishing of humanity.  Yahweh's described interactions with humanity in the Bible are not accidental on his part, nor do they in any way suggest an default apathy towards human affairs.  Rather, they are manifestations of affection, justice, or redemption.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-ramifications-of-axioms.html

Peace With Sexuality And Sensuality

Given that sexuality is such a multilayered and thorough part of human existence, it is in every individual's best interest to reason out whatever metaphysical, moral, and personal information about the matter that they can.  Nevertheless, there are benefits to understanding and accepting the fact that humans are sexual beings which go beyond simply avoiding intellectual or theological errors.  Even the nonsexual elements of human life can be appreciated more because of this.

Sensuality is frequently mistaken for sexuality, even though the two do not intersect when it comes to numerous human experiences.  For example, enjoying the sight of an attractive member of the opposite gender, clothed or unclothed to any extent, can be a completely nonsexual experience, even though it might be sexual in another case.  While mere sensuality and sexuality might overlap in this scenario, they can be separate (this is not to say that sexuality does not involve sensuality, but to say that sensuality is not an expression of sexuality in itself).

Peace with sexuality (in all of its nonsinful manifestations) allows a person to accept a part of themselves and of others that has long been misunderstood by secular and Christian circles alike.  The sexual and introspective benefits of this are clear.  However, peace with sexuality is often accompanied by a broader peace with nonsexual sensuality, which allows people enjoy the sensual pleasure of the human body without automatic fear of being overwhelmed by hedonistic impulses or mistaking something nonsexual for something sexual.

Acceptance of the nonsexuality of mere sensuality does not by any means have to diminish the strong pleasure that can be stirred up by the sight, thought, or touch of the human body.  Still, pleasure encompasses far more than sexuality, and those who have accepted nonsinful pleasures of sexuality are more likely to accept nonsinful pleasures of sensuality as a whole.  The former can be spiritually and personally fulfilling, but the latter represents a more total fulfillment that already encompasses the former.

A Child's Intelligence

One can expose the intellectual helplessness of the average adult by merely asking questions about their worldview, which, in many cases, will lead to an admission that he or she has merely assumed their worldview or a confused attempt to equate an assumption with knowledge.  In spite of this, adults are often believed to have some arbitrary threshold of intelligence.  Inversely, children, especially young children, are assumed to have a lower threshold of intelligence.  A few moments of rational reflection, however, can show that these beliefs are just assumptions based on a person's age--they are not sound assessments of those individuals.

Intelligence is not the prize of the young or the old, but it is instead a prize of those who are rational, for intelligence is nothing but rationality.  Making a judgment about someone's intelligence prior to conversing with them about philosophical or practical issues (even understanding the later involves some degree of rationality) is an example of making an ageist fallacy: people whose bodies are a certain age are commonly assumed by non-rationalists to have a certain level of intellectual ability or a lack of intellectual ability respectively, depending on their age.  There is no necessary connection between age and intelligence.

If an adult is not intelligent simply because they are an adult, then a child is not unintelligent simply because they are a child.  Although the ability to grasp reason is not contingent upon existing for some arbitrary number of years, many adults still trivialize the intellectual capacity of children, perhaps confusing the ability to use language well or experiences with an educational system with actual intelligence.  Intelligence is not merely separate from education, but it can exist without being communicated--indeed, a person, young or old, can be highly intelligent even if they do not have a means of consistently expressing it.

Young children can be rational even to the point of surprising those many years older than them!  As long as an adult is willing to realize that intelligence is not education, a full memory, articulate speech, or a wealth of life experiences, they will be able to recognize signs of genuine intelligence when children demonstrate them.  It is actually a sign of unintelligence when an adult pretends like age is any sort of definitive indicator of intellectual maturity.  Moreover, children may be more likely to embrace whatever intelligence they have if it is not trivialized.

I do not say this hoping that people in general will be regarded as particularly intelligent, for most children and adults do not reason things out in a sound way.  Many people from various age groups use logical fallacies and regularly make assumptions, so the biological age of their bodies has nothing to do with the developed ability to wield reason.  To assume that someone is intelligent just because it is possible for this to be the case is just as intellectually inept, ironically, as assuming that someone is not intelligent because of their young age or lack of life experiences.  Any assumption is an indefensible error, or else it would not be an assumption, but a provable fact.

Game Review--Doom (1993) [Switch]

"Looks like you're stuck on the shores of hell.  The only way out is through."
--Episode 1 completion screen, Doom


One of the original first-person shooter games, and therefore one of the vital steps taken towards popularizing the genre, was Doom, ID Software's violent start to a largely successful franchise.  The shooting and exploration that has come to define the Doom series started in 1993.  Now, as with Doom II and Doom 3, the first Doom is now available on the Switch (and other consoles).  In honor of the latest new release within the Doom franchise, I wanted to revisit the first entry in the series to highlight just how far the franchise and genre have come.

Production Values

Much of what I wrote about the graphics in my review of Doom II applies to its predecessor as well.  The visuals are the opposite of impressive by modern standards, and yet they were the starting point for a series that now enjoys excellent graphics on the most recent consoles.  As for the audio, the weapon and enemy noises work, but there is no dialogue.  This is somewhat fitting, given both the technical limitations of the day and the almost complete lack of a developed story.


Gameplay

The gameplay is by far the strongest aspect of Doom, as the gunplay and exploration take the center stage.  Indeed, everything about the game is built around these two aspects first and foremost.  Each of the 30+ levels provides enough ammunition to decimate demons with weapons like a chaingun, an energy rifle, and a shotgun (yes, the "big fucking gun" or BFG also makes its debut here).  Some of the levels have complex layouts that might confuse players in between fights--if this happens, the map, which does not prevent in-game movement, can be very helpful in some cases.

Story

Doom, being so old and having such a minimal story, has little narrative to spoil that isn't familiar to gaming historians, but the premise involves a demonic invasion of bases on Mars (and its moons Phobos and Deimos) owned by a company called the Union Aerospace Corporation.  An unnamed marine fights his way into Hell, the dimension from which the demons emerged, and defeats a mechanically enhanced spider-like being.


Intellectual Content

Like its sequel Doom II, Doom has little to no thematic or narrative depth.  There are still secret areas and pickups scattered throughout each level despite the absence of philosophical or storytelling complexity.  Secrets are not always easily distinguished from random pickups or mandatory sections, however, but the screen at the end of a level displays the percentage of secrets found in that map, so completionists could return to specific levels to find everything if they desire so.


Conclusion

Even though it has clearly been surpassed by many later games in scope, depth, and quality, the original Doom is one of the most important games of all time, helping make first-person shooters the mainstream entertainment experiences they are now.  The 2016 reboot effortlessly towers above it in terms of lore development and multiple other categories, yet the impact of the first game in the series remains enormous.  Because of this 1993 release, Doom Eternal is here.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  Killing possessed humans or demons results in bursts of highly pixelated blood.  Demon corpses can be seen on the ground, torn open by gunfire.

Overestimating The Importance Of Quantum Physics (Part 1)

All aspects of reality are metaphysically or epistemologically important in their own way, even if some are less important than others.  Proving the comparative importance of a philosophical truth or issue is far from the most difficult part of pursuing reality in many cases, as the practical, personal, and abstract natures of various logical truths can be quickly distinguished.  Some experiences or concepts may have value that does not extend beyond inciting a subjective sense of awe, and, for the most part, this is the primary significance of contemporary claims about the behaviors and natures of quantum particles.

Quantum physics seems to be commonly misperceived as the supreme manifestation of human discovery and intellectual ability, although many of the same people who pretend it has this status might also pretend like the claims scientists make about subatomic particles are utterly incomprehensible.  Nevertheless, the set of ideas associated with modern quantum physics is neither the most significant nor the most complex bundle of concepts.  If anything, much of the supposed shock scientists experience when exploring quantum physics is just a different example of something that is actually far from unusual.

Showing a smartphone to someone from the Middle Ages or showing nuclear weaponry to someone from the days of Jesus might have the same effect.  The biggest epistemological difference between smartphones or nuclear weapons and quantum particle behaviors, of course, is that devices can actually be observed at the macroscopic level.  In other words, anyone who hasn't explicitly seen the quantum world and yet believes what scientists say about it has merely assumed that the potentially sensationalistic hearsay is true--not that seeing something reveals truths about anything other than one's perceptions to begin with.

Put in this light, it would be completely unsurprising if future generations were to easily adapt to the alleged "bizarrity" of quantum physics.  That quantum physics is said to be thoroughly strange does not make it anything more than yet another scientific discovery that initially strikes the masses as unintelligible despite the fact that there is nothing unintelligible about it whatsoever (that is, if quantum physicists are even making correct observational or theoretical claims about subatomic particle behaviors in the first place).  Either way, the science of the quantum world is not the most important component of human life.

No aspect of physics could possibly be the most metaphysically, epistemologically, or existentially important part of reality--the most important aspect of reality could not be anything other than reason, without which nothing else could exist and without which nothing at all could be known.  Reason is what permits people to disprove some claims about quantum physics in the total absence of any personal observations of the subatomic world!  After all, nothing can be outside of the universal scope of reason, falsifying the idea that quantum physics somehow transcends or escapes the laws of logic.

Misunderstood Harshness: Leviticus 20:13

Thanks to the gratuitously obsessive fixation on issues related to homosexuality among theological or political conservatives and liberals, it is difficult to find anyone who does not exaggerate the seeming harshness of the Biblical capital punishment law for homosexuality.  Found in Leviticus 20:13, this law does fasten the death penalty to homosexual sex itself, but it does not teach certain ideas that have become associated with it due to the stupidity of the average reader of the Bible, Christian or not.

Leviticus 20:13 does not say, for instance, to execute people for experiencing sexual attraction to the same gender, nor does it say that all homosexual behaviors warrant the death penalty.  Of course, this does not stop many unintelligent Christians and non-Christians from thinking or acting like Leviticus 20:13 literally says that all people with a homosexual "orientation" must be put to death.  Nevertheless, mass misinterpretation does not alter the intended meaning of a text!

The popularity of pro-homosexuality ideas and the overreactions against them by Christians have led people of differing stances on the ethics of homosexuality to drastically misunderstand what exactly Leviticus says when it briefly addresses homosexuality.  In their emotionalistic fervor, it is easy for people to exaggerate the content of Leviticus in order to win others over to some fallacious position regarding either the Bible and homosexuality as a general topic.

Yes, Leviticus does say to execute people who have homosexual sex with each other--if seen by two or three honest eyewitnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15).  It should hardly be surprising that this detail is neglected by most people, as many are either eager to make the Bible seem to encourage as vicious a response as possible to homosexuality, whether they perceive that alleged viciousness to be positive or negative.  The call for the execution of those caught engaging in homosexual sex is rather limited in its scope.

This is not the same as demanding the execution of anyone who feels homosexual attraction: even if homosexual feelings were themselves sinful (merely having a given emotional state without choice is not a matter of moral excellence or guilt), no passage in Mosaic Law prescribes a punishment for invisible thoughts or feelings.  For example, no one is punished for wanting to commit adultery or murder, only for carrying out the deed.  No one is punished for wanting to steal, only for theft itself.  In the same way, no one is to be Biblically punished for any homosexual desire or even any homosexual behavior short of sex itself.

A "Real" Job

A "real job" is any voluntarily accepted work that is meant to receive payment on the part of the worker.  Not all jobs are equally profitable, and not all jobs are equally significant when it comes to meeting the needs or desires of others.  However, none of this means a job is not "real" if if falls below an arbitrary level of financial gain or social status.  A job that does not pay well or that is rather nontraditional is just as real as the most prestigious, profitable, or important job, even though it may be 1different than the typical or expected kind of work.

The no true Scotsman fallacy is especially appealing, here and elsewhere, to those who want to feel like they have an arbitrarily defined sort of illusory legitimacy behind their worldview or work, as is evidenced by the reaction when their stupidity is challenged.  The person who wants to treat the concept of any given job as if simply being a job doesn't qualify a certain kind of work for the definition is likely motivated by a kind of arrogance.  No other criteria could make something a job other than payment and the consent to work for that payment.

There has been a gradual acceptance of nontraditional jobs, especially online jobs, thanks to the internet's increasing integration into practical and corporate life, so the number of people who might misdefine the word job are decreasing.  However, certain types of jobs, such as those which are strictly conducted online, might still be considered illegitimate or inherently inferior to the norm, especially by conservatives.  These online jobs may nonetheless require a great deal of professionalism, skill, and familiarity with special information not known by more than a minority.

Ironically, the conservatives who might tend to fallaciously look down on online jobs by default might be forced to acknowledge the convenience and importance of online work during the present COVID-19 panic!  Some traditional jobs are incapable of producing steady income during times of crisis, even when that crisis might be misrepresented as far more dangerous than it truly is.  It is actually beneficial to have at least one online job, even if only as a fallback option for such times.

As long as there are fools who assume that novelty is a negative thing, there will be people who react to "unusual" kinds of jobs with misunderstanding and perhaps even contempt simply because they are not traditional.  It takes rationality to see that a job is not worthy of dismissal just because it is different.  When such a person makes this assumption, they only show their own unintelligence to those around them.  They also position themselves to have greater difficulties in enduring a time like the immediate pandemic.

Myths About Gender And Physical Strength

Gender egalitarianism is first and foremost about opposing the stereotypes and other forms of moral or social discrimination facing both women and men, but it has obvious ramifications for how people regard the usefulness of the male and female body.  Indeed, gender stereotypes often circulate precisely because people allow perceived or actual differences in the bodies of men and women to convince them that the minds of men and women must also be different.  Many egalitarians still refuse to correctly address myths about the physical strength of men and women!

Men do not have inherently stronger bodies than women; women do not have inherently weaker bodies than men.  Even if these things were true, the idea that men and women have moral or psychological differences that are not present solely because of social conditioning would still be false--it is simply the case that these ideas about the functional nature of the bodies of men and women are likewise false.  The male and female body may have somewhat different appearances, but this does not translate over to the strength of each type of body.

In a society where men are unjustly used as human beasts of burden and pressured into acting like they want to be treated this way, it should not be surprising if men develop physical strength more overtly than women.  In a society where women are unjustly told that they are too weak for many manual activities, it should not be surprising that women do not develop physical strength as much often as men.  Since a large number of societies have adopted both sets of fallacious ideas, any consistent differences between the physical strength of men and women are not proof that strength is inherent in men and naturally lacking in women.

Some people who would otherwise oppose discrimination against men and women might find themselves supporting myths about gender and strength.  More importantly, though, those who support these myths fail to realize that psychological stereotypes about gender are rooted in errors about the body.  Even when men are understood to not be fixated on sex, they are often told that they cannot be raped or otherwise physically abused by women simply because they are "too strong" to be victimized by women.  Women, too, can have recognition of their psychological status overshadowed by negative ideas about how "weak" they are.

These things should seem obvious to any serious egalitarian, at least upon hearing someone else state them, but scientific misconceptions about the male and female bodies have persisted even in minds that have rejected misconceptions about the personality traits or moral character of men and women.  In order to fully demolish the injustices that accompany gender stereotypes, myths about each gender's physical strength must also be demolished.  Without the latter, the former will only be even more vulnerable to intellectual defeat.

Knowledge Without The Senses

To doubt if one's sensory perceptions reflect the external world's true nature is seen by a number of non-rationalists as if it is the same as denying that anything at all can be known.  For many, sensory information is the first thing that they might point to if asked for an example of something they know.  It takes only a slight push by oneself or others to be able to see, however, that the knowledge derived from the senses largely reduces down to mere perceptions of the external world, as the senses are incapable of demonstrating that the exact stimuli they perceive correspond to the true external world.

Rather than cast someone into an abyss of no knowledge about reality, though, understanding the epistemological limitations of the senses allows one to focus more on what can be known even apart from the senses: reason and oneself.  The senses, at an absolute minimum, do provide genuine knowledge of one's perceptions, but reason and one's own mind can be perceived as they are simply by reflecting on them.  There is no need to venture out into the world one perceives in order to discover purely logical truths or facts about one's own mental states.

Even if no matter of any kind existed, perceived nothingness would quickly yield recognition of logical truths, whether the perceiving mind was led to them through the acknowledgment of self-verifying axioms, the realization that it doesn't follow from one not perceiving sensory stimuli that nothing whatsoever other than one's mind exists, or the revelation that nothingness is itself something--which would mean that it could never be true that "nothing" is in existence.  The laws of logic that govern the nature of "nothingness" would always be separate from "nothingness" itself, and any truth that logic can reveal without sensory input would still be capable of being grasped.

In addition to knowing strictly logical truths, a mind that exists in a matterless reality would be able to identify and explore introspective truths about itself.  A mind could still have emotional reactions to its lack of sensory stimuli, for example, and it could also have certain attitudes towards logical truths (perhaps gratefulness for the absolute certainty they impart).  There is nothing about a lack of external stimuli that entails a lack of emotion, introspection, and inner life.  On the contrary, it is logically possible for these things to exist in the total absence of matter.

It is thus true that even the total nonexistence of matter and the senses would not bring a total lack of knowledge with it.  That which does not depend on matter and which does not need the senses is still accessible even if the external world were to vanish entirely.  As long as a being is capable of understanding logic, it is capable of knowing a plethora of metaphysical and epistemological facts pertaining to the nature of its own mind and of the laws of logic themselves.

Movie Review--The Hunt

"War is war."
--Athena, The Hunt


Few filmmakers are willing to make movies that target both of America's philosophically inept political parties, much less with such irreverent, savage comments.  Thankfully, director Craig Zobel's controversial The Hunt has finally been released after being rescheduled due to dramatic overreactions from emotionalistic people last year (yes, liberals and conservatives can both be petty snowflakes).  The Hunt uses a clever series of misdirects to hide who its main character is until several important scenes have already passed.  By this time, the black comedy at the heart of the film has already been established.  It does not take long for intelligent viewers to realize that The Hunt does not just attack one major party or the other, though.


Production Values

There are twists and revelations, but The Hunt is not a movie about developing multiple characters across its runtime.  It is about political ideas, gore, and comedy--three things that go together very well here.  Given the nature of the film, this works: Betty Gilpin's character Crystal, a veteran of Afghanistan with the observational skills to work around trap after trap, gets plenty of attention, while other characters often die after serving their narrative or comedic purpose.  Betty Gilpin does a phenomenal job with her role, conveying everything from intelligence to humor to emotional moments without any of her scenes tonally conflicting with the others.  Hillary Swank, Ike Barinholtz, Emma Roberts, and the other supporting cast members likewise make the most of their roles, but Betty Gilpin's Crystal is clearly the character the movie is based around.


Story

Mild spoilers!

An opening text conversation referring to a hunt eventually spurs several individuals to make a plane trip with abducted people on board.  When the majority of them wake up, they find themselves gagged and placed next to a box that turns out to be full of weaponry.  Sudden gunshots result in several quick deaths, and the disoriented survivors find themselves being hunted by unseen attackers.  One particular victim with the skills necessary to identify key traps begins the process of tracking down Athena, the woman behind the murderous hunt.


Intellectual Content

Without ever actually having its characters explicitly identify as liberal or conservative, The Hunt does an excellent job of showing the seeming political and moral ideas of its characters simply through the jokes they make and the comments they make about other ideas.  This is used for comedic purposes all throughout the film, but the best political comedy or satire exploits genuine contradictions or the fact that certain ideas are merely assumed to be true.  A great example of this is when the liberals who organize the titular hunt are screening possible victims, only to almost reject a black candidate who fits their target profile simply because he is black--one of them even says they have to lean into stereotypes about blacks in order to eventually oppose the stereotypes!  In another scene, a character who has been espousing typical conservative ideas objects when a character is about to kill a woman who has been participating in the hunt.  The character who eventually kills her asks if she should receive merciful treatment just because she is a woman, to which the woman says "No" before she is quickly killed.

Scenes like these deconstruct allegedly "positive" forms of racism and sexism rather well!  While provoking laughter, they demonstrate how asinine, arbitrary, and unjust it is to make exceptions to punitive actions on the basis of someone's race or gender.  Of course, The Hunt touches on plenty of other misconceptions and fallacies, like the equivocation of the right to own firearms and the right to murder, the assumption that anyone who looks Mexican must be an illegal immigrant, and the idea that there is absolutely no reason to be concerned about the environment at this time.  As aforementioned, no one ever specifically calls themselves liberals or conservatives: it is the worldviews that make the distinction clear as things unfold.


Conclusion

The Hunt cleverly combines relentless comedy with graphic violence, mocking people on both sides of the major American political parties in ways that often do touch on legitimate ideological problems.  However, if someone wants to simply watch it for its action and mystery, there is plenty of both to be found.  The philosophical underpinnings are not the only parts of The Hunt that are executed well.  Hell, the final confrontation between two certain characters is a better fight than those of many superhero movies that have been released in recent years!  Anyone eager to see a movie with quality in a time when other major films have been pushed back due to concerns over COVID-19 who is also aware of the failings of both primary American parties might find The Hunt provides more than they expected.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  The Hunt is one of the most violent movies to come to theaters in recent times.  Early in the film, a man's eye is impaled, pulled out of its socket, and shown onscreen while it is still stuck on the object that pierced it.  A woman falls into a spike pit, getting out with some help only to be thrown back into the pit without her legs after an explosion.  In another scene, a man is shot with arrows that come out the other side of his torso--and all of these things happen near the beginning alone!
 2.  Profanity:  "Fuck" is by far the most prominent choice of profanity in the movie, but "shit" is exclaimed at times as well.

A Voluntary Sacrifice

There is a potential Jewish and atheistic objection to Christianity based around the death of Jesus that might strike many Christians as odd, but it is nonetheless worth responding to.  The objection in question treats the death of Christ as a sort of human sacrifice, an act blatantly condemned in the very divine laws Jesus endorsed.  Thus, in order to refute this objection, one must demonstrate that the Biblical depiction of Jesus' death is fundamentally different from a pagan sacrifice of human life to some other deity.

It is indeed the case that Jesus' death is hardly comparable to a human sacrifice, where a (likely unwilling) victim is murdered to appease an apathetic or brutal deity.  On the contrary, Jesus directly clarifies in John 10 that Yahweh did not coerce him into dying on behalf of humanity.  His sacrifice was not a fatalistic event that could not have been avoided: it was entirely voluntary.  Not only could he have chosen to not die via crucifixion, but he also could have chosen not to die at all.

God (Yahweh) is not said to have threatened Jesus until he agreed to die, nor is he portrayed as overriding Jesus' own freedom to choose his actions--in Luke 22, the opposite is confirmed.  In this chapter, Jesus submits his will to that of Yahweh despite preferring a future that would not involve the crucifixion, demonstrating his own willingness to enable human salvation at the cost of torture and death.  What makes this death even more significant for soteriology is that it was motivated, as far as the Biblical evidence indicates, by a redemptive longing for fallen humans to be restored to God.

It follows that the Biblical depiction of the death of Christ scarcely resembles the kind of human sacrifice that Yahweh himself so fiercely opposes in Mosaic Law, which goes so far as to demand the death of whoever would murder another human in this context or in others (Leviticus 20:1-5).  Human sacrifice, indeed, is a capital offense by Biblical standards!  To kill an unwilling person outside of self-defense or a just execution or military campaign is a moral abomination, but human sacrifice adds the depravity of misrepresenting the divine will for human behaviors by treating murder as theologically positive in some way.

It requires lunacy to equate the death of Jesus with a human sacrifice to a deity that has no concern for humanity until blood is shed.  Neither divine nor human forces made Jesus a hostage to their own whims, as Jesus could have changed his mind at any time, and the gospel accounts plainly describe him as approaching his death without external coercion.  It is for this reason that a willingness to commit to Yahweh's will was the motivation behind Jesus' allowance of his own death.

Artistic Inspiration

Art, like philosophy, is not itself about reacting to other people or honoring them, as it is instead about ideas, whether they have to do with storytelling or themes.  When this fact is grasped, it becomes clear that the claim that every artist could not have produced their work--their movie, video game, song, instrumental track, painting, sculpture, or other kind of art--apart from being inspired by someone else's art beforehand is demonstrably untrue.  There is no inherent need to consult or observe other people in order to conceptualize art.  Indeed, to think otherwise lands one in a hopelessly contradictory position.

If every artist needs to be inspired by someone else's art to make their own, what inspired the first artist to create?  The impossibility of infinite regression alone disproves the idea that we can only artistically stand on the shoulders of predecessors, but there is a simpler way to realize the error of this idea.  Without ever conversing with other people, a rational thinker can simply reason his or her way to the fact that artistic ideas themselves, like logical concepts, are accessible prior to any exposure to the works or words of others.  In fact, every storytelling possibility that involves concepts or experiences a person grasps on at least an intellectual level is available to everyone.

No one needs exposure to entertainment that has already been released in order to come up with their own stories, regardless of whether those stories have already been mentally constructed or told by someone else.  Perhaps a story that a given person forms in their mind has already been told (even if the names of characters or objects were different, the plot might be identical), but this would in no way mean that the person who later constructs the story on their own relied on anyone else in the process.  Of course, there are those who would pretend otherwise, but they are the kinds of people who do not understand autonomous thinking.

The myth that everyone merely stands on top of someone else simply glorifies a kind of pseudo-originality that many people may mistake for some kind of significant depth, sometimes even mistaking it for the highest form of creative depth that individuals are capable of.  While people do often build off of other's work in arenas like science, a person's creativity, like their worldview, does not have to be shaped by others.  Not a single person capable of conscious thought is truly incapable of exercising their own intellectual or artistic autonomy, even if everyone around them claims they can do nothing but react to the accomplishments of others or stand on someone else's shoulders.

The Breast Double Standard

In American society at large, it is not considered utterly strange to occasionally see men appear in public with no upper body clothing.  Women may find the sight sexually arousing or attractive, but men are not socially penalized simply for forgoing shirts in casual contexts.  However, the sight of a woman in public with nothing covering her upper body would widely be considered bizarre, offensive, or even inherently sexual, despite only some men finding female breasts sexually attractive in most or all cases (almost always due to social conditioning, in all probability).

The hypocritical sexism around this issue embedded in American law is not the worst instance of sexism that has been present in the American legal system (for instance, sexual assault laws have long failed male victims more than they ever did female victims), but it is one that is visible to anyone who has ever seen men jog or walk around without shirts on and thought nothing was "inappropriate."  The most foundational problem with this set of norms is that the sight of breasts of either gender is not nudity, yet everyone from the common person to members of rating boards for films and video games treat it as such in the case of women.

A woman who walks around topless is not truly naked, and thus there is no nudity present on her part.  Of course, Western culture treats female breasts as if their exposure is nudity, but if this were true, male shirtlessness would also be nudity.  That almost no one, if anyone, thinks the latter is nudity shows that this is a thoroughly sexist stance.  Since forgoing a shirt (and brassiere in the case of a woman) is in no way nudity--which is a total lack of clothing, with nothing covering the genitalia--female toplessness cannot be legitimately equated with female nudity one way or another to begin with.

Universal laws against public nudity are arbitrary (no amount of clothing is appropriate or inappropriate outside of relevance to specific tasks), unsound (one cannot argue for them without a host of fallacies), and asinine (subjective discomfort does not justify the legal prohibition of anything), but laws that permit men to appear in public without any clothing on their upper bodies while also prohibiting public exposure of female breasts are explicitly sexist towards women.  If there is no rational defense of a universal legal prohibition of public nudity, there is certainly no basis for laws that treat non-nudity as nudity only when it comes to the female body.

Women have done nothing harmful by treating their breasts like the nonsexual body parts they are, by showing them around other people without the intent to offend, or by challenging the double standard that convinces so many people to oppose female toplessness in everyday settings.  If anyone is comfortable seeing the upper body of one gender in public places but not that of the other gender, they need to abandon whatever cultural or personal ideas might be feeding their selective discomfort.  Double standards like the one in question would not survive if various people of both genders were not supportive of it.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.

Online Information Storage (Part 1)

Information is far more lasting, accessible, and likely to be found when it is kept online as opposed to only in books.  Both forms of information storage have their potential drawbacks, but the former has a scope that goes far beyond that of any physical library on record.  Although a person might prefer one or the other, it is clear that physical books will not likely win the war of relevance.  Despite these differences, both books and the internet share a common aspect of their natures: neither is a philosophical authority on its own.  Even if a writer makes accurate claims that can be logically verified, reason is the authority.

In this regard, the internet, despite being far more convenient and accessible for many people than specific books, shares the same epistemological failures or problems that written information does.  Neither books nor webpages can actually confirm whatever scientific or historical information they contain, except to correctly explain what does or does not follow from given scientific or historical ideas or to explain the mere evidences for them.  Although the internet is held up as the pinnacle of human knowledge, the vast majority of the information people document or discuss online cannot be proven to correspond to anything more than one's mere perceptions!

Another irony behind the internet is the fact that no one needs to ever consult anyone else to learn logical truths about logic itself or about the miscellaneous truths about one's own existence and experiences.  To learn these things, one needs only to look to reason and follow wherever it leads.  This renders the internet, books, and any form of communication between persons unnecessary when it comes to practically all strictly logical truths, even if some of the the more precise ones (for instance, some of the logical facts listed here [1]) are unlikely to be discovered by many people left to themselves.

The ever-expanding sea of online webpages is useful for quickly gathering information--not verifiable facts, but information--about things which one cannot learn by privately reasoning alone (one example is that only something like the internet can quickly convey reports of immediate political happenings in other countries).  However, it is not anything like the supreme epistemological savior that it is regarded as in many everyday situations.  It is little more than a digital set of interconnected pages and videos that can only reveal either logical facts that can ultimately be known prior to any interaction with another person, virtually or otherwise, or unverifiable scientific or historical claims.

There is nothing fallacious about recognizing the nature of online information storage for what it is and simply taking it at that.  Recognition of this does not mean that the internet is utterly useless!  The error arises when the internet is viewed as yet another avenue for appeals to authority that are perceived as valid; anything short of this is an epistemologically sound, potentially helpful use of online information.  Of course, it is precisely the position on the matter that only a minority is ever bold enough to take.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html

Movie Review--Parasite

"Tutor a rich kid.  It pays well."
--Min, Parasite


Bong Joon-ho's Parasite is not just one of the best thematically reinforced movies of 2019, but it also holds some of 2019's best twists.  That Parasite is a blatantly Korean film with English subtitles only makes its clever exploration of poverty and deception all the more significant: the issues addressed therein are not confined only to Western countries.  Parasite may have been made in South Korea, but the urgent relevance and importance of its themes mean that it is a film that everyone should see at some point in their lives.  One of the best movies of 2019, it easily stands alongside other standout movies of the year like Joker, Doctor Sleep, Avengers: Endgame, and Little Women.


Production Values

Westerners will not need to be familiar with the names of the Korean actors and actresses to see that they are genuinely talented performers who never make an acting misstep in the film.  There is no weak link when it comes to the acting; there is no subpar delivery of lines (lines that many Americans could not even understand without the included subtitles).  Everything from the performers' casual mannerisms to their dialogue elevates the characters to sinister realism, all of which helps communicate the increasingly complex, unexpected, and selfish lengths they must go to in order to sustain a lifestyle built on deception.

It is not only the performances that deserve praise, though.  The cinematography, music, and locations are all utilized very well in their own right, contributing to the themes in ways that these components rarely do in other films.  As with the acting, there is no true weak link in the various other aspects of Parasite's presentation.  The different elements of the film lock together exactly like those of other excellent movies do.  Indeed, any American who watches Parasite will see an example of the fact that the best films of a year (or decade) do not have to come from traditional places.


Story

Spoilers!

A family living in poverty gets the opportunity to increase its material wealth as each member gradually begins working for a rich family as a tutor, an art therapist, a driver, and a housekeeper.  However, every single member of the former family is only pretending: they are not really tutors, drivers, and so on.  The rich family is oblivious, becoming more and more open to the suggestions of the deceptive individuals they employ.


Intellectual Content

Intentionally or unintentionally, Parasite acknowledges that while financial productivity and needs might be fundamental to human life, there is far more to human existence than monetary concerns.  Its direct and unflinching look at the lifestyle and mindset differences of the rich and poor does not stop it from showing the family of "protagonists" eventually begin to look down on others who experience some of the same misfortunes they once did--not that the family was on the right side of morality to begin with.  Nevertheless, they are shown as highly intelligent due to necessity more than anything else: they are clear depictions of what intelligent people are capable of when they are willing to cross almost any line to materially better their lives.


Conclusion

Parasite does not demonize the rich or demonize the poor.  Rather, it merely calls attention to pressing class problems that are just as much of an issue in other parts of the world as they are in America, as the release of Joker and Parasite in the same year evidence.  The enormous filmmaking skill on display serves as a great example of how a strong thematic core does not have to come at the expense of originality, excellence, and consistency of quality.  It is the combination of both that is most likely to impact audiences and challenge the worldviews of those who need to be challenged, and Parasite does not sacrifice either component for the sake of the other.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  A man makes his face bloody by slamming it against a wall, and he later kills a boy by using a large rock to strike his head.  He also stabs a girl.
 2.  Profanity:  "Fuck" is uttered numerous times.
 3.  Sexuality:  In one scene, a husband and wife sexually fondle each other's genitals while fully clothed.

An Incomplete Motive For Studying Eschatology

1 Thessalonians 3:13 may feature an encouragement from Paul to the church at Thessalonica for its members to be found righteous in the event of Christ's return, but moral soundness is something Christians should strive for even completely apart from eschatological concerns.  Unfortunately, some who have a disproportionate gravitation towards matters of eschatology might encourage interest in prophecies in the name of provoking moral betterment.  The goal is not problematic; nonetheless, the goal should not be pursued primarily out of a desire to avoid whatever Biblical disasters will supposedly strike.

Eschatology might very well help motivate some Christians to live in accordance with their obligations (Christians do not have special obligations that the unsaved do not, so I am simply referring to human obligations), but every individual should be fulfilling their obligations even without the possibility of upcoming apocalyptic events serving as a motivator.  The very nature of morality is that it is what one should act in accordance with regardless of personal trials, preferences, or convenience.

Moral obligations--with the exception of Biblical commands that can only be context-sensitive, like sacrificing animals at a temple [1]--are not determined by how near or distant eschatological events like the return of Jesus are relative to one's point in history.  If someone should live in a certain way because it is obligatory to do so, life circumstances have no relevance.  A person who has no motivation to align themselves with morality apart from fears of what might suddenly happen to them if they do not are not concerned with morality for any reason other than self-interest.  It is not negative to let eschatology motivate one to pursue righteousness as a happenstance byproduct, but this motive is woefully incomplete on its own.

If eschatology was of no importance to Christian theology, there would be no need for the Bible to provide any details about it whatsoever.  It follows that, on the Christian worldview, what the Bible clarifies about eschatology (not what random scholars who are assumed by the average Christian to be sound have to say) is worth examining to some extent by default, even if one has no personal anxieties about future events in general.  Eschatology is far from the most important aspect of Christianity, but it has importance nonetheless.

It is obvious to any rational Christian who has considered the matter that, on both a philosophical and practical level, it is far more significant to understand Biblical ethics and the relationship between epistemology and Christianity than it is to reason out what the Bible says about the eschatological calamities predicted to befall the planet.  Eschatology does deserve some level of consideration, but never as much as many other components of Christianity or philosophy at large.


[1].  One cannot be obligated to sacrifice animals to Yahweh at a specific temple if that temple is no longer standing, as the temple's existence is a logically necessary prerequisite.