Micromanaging the actions of employees inside and even sometimes outside of the workplace is a common control tactic in some businesses, and it shouldn't be difficult to understand why: if a person's actions are expected to revolve around an employer's wishes, this is a thorough attempt at influence. Inside a company, everything from informal language to flirtation might be discouraged. Far closer to the latter than the former, dating within one's company may be looked down upon or even officially prohibited.
Workplace romances between coworkers receive irrational criticism due to a perception that they are inherently dangerous for the personal and professional lives of everyone involved. As is true of many other things, dating at work can be conducted in destructive ways. It has the potential to create a frustrating or bitter atmosphere if it is not successful due to genuine mistakes made by one partner or the other. Of course, this does not reflect the nature of the thing itself, and dating in one's workplace does not set one on an inevitable path to poor performance, lack of focus, or work absenteeism.
Contrarily, romantic or sexual attraction for a coworker could easily make a person more eager to be present and engaged in the workplace, more appreciative of chances to work, and more carefully attuned to formal and informal aspects of company culture, so that their attraction is not pursued in disruptive ways. Again, as with numerous other things, it is the people involved who decide how successfully or poorly the workspace is affected. To blame workplace dating is to completely misunderstand the situation.
Dating a coworker does not have to end in the personal and corporate catastrophe that so many people expect when they imagine coworkers acting on mutual romantic affection. Irresponsible people might destroy the sense of workplace normalcy by mishandling romantic relationships with fellow workers, but it is certainly not impossible to fulfill workplace duties and date a coworker without one sphere displacing the other. The slippery slope fallacy is just that, a fallacy with nothing to offer except red herrings and gratuitous fears.
Thursday, April 30, 2020
Wednesday, April 29, 2020
Misconceptions Of Sociopathy
Sociopathy is not defined by outward actions. No amount of cruelty on its own could ever prove that someone actually is a sociopath. This is because sociopathy is not a set of behaviors, but an inner loss of conscience, which may or may not be reflected in outward actions. A sociopath could be kinder and gentler than someone with a conscience (not that kindness and gentleness are morally obligatory on their own), and someone with a conscience could be sadistic and abusive.
The typical person is too intellectually weak to do anything more than simply consult alleged authorities on psychology when contemplating sociopathy, meaning that they do not look to reason to analyze what does or does not follow from the concept of sociopathy on their own. As a result, they blindly accept whatever non-rationalistic psychologists or entertainment media present sociopathy as. Sociopathy is therefore misunderstood and unnecessarily feared on a widespread level.
These misconceptions promote irrational and unjust stereotypes of sociopaths while also trivializing the incredible dangers posed by conscience. Yes, it is conscience people should regard with caution and fear rather than sociopathy: as long as someone who believes conscience reveals moral obligations feels right, there is nothing they would not hypothetically do. Conscience and its sibling social conditioning can easily lead to more injustices, double standards, assumptions, and cruelties than sociopathy.
Ironically, most people tend to do unjust or selfish things because their consciences persuade them to, not because they have no conscience! Historical records are replete with individuals who condoned gratuitous killings, systemic sexism that has brutalized both genders, and the worst tortures a human could inflict on another--and they did it because they seemingly thought these things were either morally permissible or morally correct! Conscience can motivate atrocities of every category.
Even if every sociopath was unjustly violent and thoroughly selfish, this would not mean sociopathy itself is the problem. It would only mean that every sociopath has chosen to act selfishly. Even if every person with a conscience was just, this would not mean that conscience is a valid epistemological tool. Conscience is an emotional/personal sense of moral comfort or discomfort. It cannot confirm the veracity of moral claims, nor does having a conscience make one a righteous person.
If someone is not intelligent enough to realize these things after reflecting on what does and does not follow from the concept of having a conscience, they can still find that conversations with the average person make it clear that their consciences reflect either subjective feelings or the majority preferences of their society; nothing more can be legitimately ascribed to conscience. It follows that sociopaths are not only not in moral error for being sociopaths, but that it is ideal for some people to be sociopaths: it is objectively better to be a rationalistic and moralistic sociopath than an emotionalist with a conscience.
The typical person is too intellectually weak to do anything more than simply consult alleged authorities on psychology when contemplating sociopathy, meaning that they do not look to reason to analyze what does or does not follow from the concept of sociopathy on their own. As a result, they blindly accept whatever non-rationalistic psychologists or entertainment media present sociopathy as. Sociopathy is therefore misunderstood and unnecessarily feared on a widespread level.
These misconceptions promote irrational and unjust stereotypes of sociopaths while also trivializing the incredible dangers posed by conscience. Yes, it is conscience people should regard with caution and fear rather than sociopathy: as long as someone who believes conscience reveals moral obligations feels right, there is nothing they would not hypothetically do. Conscience and its sibling social conditioning can easily lead to more injustices, double standards, assumptions, and cruelties than sociopathy.
Ironically, most people tend to do unjust or selfish things because their consciences persuade them to, not because they have no conscience! Historical records are replete with individuals who condoned gratuitous killings, systemic sexism that has brutalized both genders, and the worst tortures a human could inflict on another--and they did it because they seemingly thought these things were either morally permissible or morally correct! Conscience can motivate atrocities of every category.
Even if every sociopath was unjustly violent and thoroughly selfish, this would not mean sociopathy itself is the problem. It would only mean that every sociopath has chosen to act selfishly. Even if every person with a conscience was just, this would not mean that conscience is a valid epistemological tool. Conscience is an emotional/personal sense of moral comfort or discomfort. It cannot confirm the veracity of moral claims, nor does having a conscience make one a righteous person.
If someone is not intelligent enough to realize these things after reflecting on what does and does not follow from the concept of having a conscience, they can still find that conversations with the average person make it clear that their consciences reflect either subjective feelings or the majority preferences of their society; nothing more can be legitimately ascribed to conscience. It follows that sociopaths are not only not in moral error for being sociopaths, but that it is ideal for some people to be sociopaths: it is objectively better to be a rationalistic and moralistic sociopath than an emotionalist with a conscience.
Tuesday, April 28, 2020
A Dreaming Mind
It is logically possible for a mind to metaphysically depend on another mind so that if the latter willed for the former to vanish, it would disappear. Similarly, it is possible for two minds to have a relationship such that the nonexistence of one would necessitate the nonexistence of the other. What is not possible is for a mind to be a figure in another mind's dreams, for a dream occurs only within a given mind; a dream character is not its own consciousness!
The idea that one is only a dream in the mind of another being is one of many asinine concepts that might nonetheless be described as if it a legitimate possibility. It is far simpler to disprove this notion than it may initially seem, despite the fact that a multitude of more foundational truths must be grasped before one can understand why this is the case. There are two specific reasons why one cannot be a figure in another mind's dream, the first having to do with what a dream itself is and the second being that the only way to prove that one is not dreaming at a given moment also disproves the idea that one is in someone else's dream.
The first reason is that one's own consciousness could not exist due to someone else's dreams by nature of what a dream is. By definition, a dream does not dictate or necessarily reflect reality outside of the dream, or else it would not actually be a dream to begin with. Dreams are nothing but constructs of mental imagery, after all. Even the divine mind of God cannot violate logical truths, and it is logically true that dreams do not sustain anything other than themselves. As for the second reason, a far more esoteric set of truths also establishes with absolute certainty that no mind exists within the dream of a separate mind.
Just as it follows from the fact that I experience any perceptions at all that I must exist as a conscious mind, it follows from the fact that I experience physical sensations that my consciousness must reside in some sort of body [1]. The immateriality of consciousness means that a mind is not capable of generating or otherwise experiencing physical sensations unless it is within a body. However, in proving to myself that I have a body, I have not only proven that I am not dreaming; by demonstrating that I am contacting an actual world of matter while awake, I have also proven that I cannot be dreamt up by another being because a material world can only exist outside of mind, since the latter is strictly immaterial.
To think that one's mind is a product of something else's dream is to approach phenomenology from a completely backwards standpoint. The seemingly autonomous minds of other people, after all, cannot be proven to exist. They might be illusions, things which only appear to be real due to inaccurate perceptions. The inverse is not true, however: one's own mind cannot be an illusion in another being's mind. My own consciousness can perceive illusions, and yet it is impossible for the perceptions themselves to only seem to exist within my mind. To perceive anything at all proves that the experience of perceiving is real.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
The idea that one is only a dream in the mind of another being is one of many asinine concepts that might nonetheless be described as if it a legitimate possibility. It is far simpler to disprove this notion than it may initially seem, despite the fact that a multitude of more foundational truths must be grasped before one can understand why this is the case. There are two specific reasons why one cannot be a figure in another mind's dream, the first having to do with what a dream itself is and the second being that the only way to prove that one is not dreaming at a given moment also disproves the idea that one is in someone else's dream.
The first reason is that one's own consciousness could not exist due to someone else's dreams by nature of what a dream is. By definition, a dream does not dictate or necessarily reflect reality outside of the dream, or else it would not actually be a dream to begin with. Dreams are nothing but constructs of mental imagery, after all. Even the divine mind of God cannot violate logical truths, and it is logically true that dreams do not sustain anything other than themselves. As for the second reason, a far more esoteric set of truths also establishes with absolute certainty that no mind exists within the dream of a separate mind.
Just as it follows from the fact that I experience any perceptions at all that I must exist as a conscious mind, it follows from the fact that I experience physical sensations that my consciousness must reside in some sort of body [1]. The immateriality of consciousness means that a mind is not capable of generating or otherwise experiencing physical sensations unless it is within a body. However, in proving to myself that I have a body, I have not only proven that I am not dreaming; by demonstrating that I am contacting an actual world of matter while awake, I have also proven that I cannot be dreamt up by another being because a material world can only exist outside of mind, since the latter is strictly immaterial.
To think that one's mind is a product of something else's dream is to approach phenomenology from a completely backwards standpoint. The seemingly autonomous minds of other people, after all, cannot be proven to exist. They might be illusions, things which only appear to be real due to inaccurate perceptions. The inverse is not true, however: one's own mind cannot be an illusion in another being's mind. My own consciousness can perceive illusions, and yet it is impossible for the perceptions themselves to only seem to exist within my mind. To perceive anything at all proves that the experience of perceiving is real.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html
Monday, April 27, 2020
Movie Review--I Am Mother
"What happens next is up to you . . . but I made you the woman you are today."
--Mother, I Am Mother
I Am Mother stands out for several reasons, partly because its production values are of a high quality and partly because of its abnormally small cast. Even other movies that take place in very limited locations like The Autopsy of Jane Doe and the original Saw usually have more than three characters. It is not that there are supporting characters that only appear in I Am Mother for several scenes; besides a baby that is introduced for several scenes, there are literally only three characters in the entire movie. For this alone, its successful storytelling is noteworthy. It is wholly based around a droid named Mother who has raised a girl she calls Daughter inside of a secure facility after an apocalyptic phenomenon.
Production Values
That the practical and computer-based effects are superb does not eclipse the fact that I Am Mother is carried from start to finish by its small handful of strong central performances. Rose Byrne (X-Men: First Class, Knowing) skillfully provides the cold but soothing voice for Mother, a seemingly sentient, humanoid machine that raises Daughter, the only human living in the facility other than a horde of stored embryos. The effects for Mother are excellent, as the machine frame looks very lifelike in motion and at rest.
Hillary Swank plays the stranger who appears outside of Mother's safe haven, a character motivated by desperation, fear, and loss, and she offers a very skillful performance, just as Rose Byrne does, even if Hillary's is physical and vocal. Thanks to Clara Ruggard-Larson, who takes the role of Daughter, the recent influx of films with great child actors (Logan, Doctor Sleep, and the It movies being prime examples) includes I Am Mother.
Story
Spoilers!
"Daughter," a human cared for by the machine called Mother, has lived inside of a sealed facility for her entire life. Mother refers to a contagion that has decimated the human population outside, saying it is unsafe to wander beyond the structure. However, a woman eventually shows up at the door seeking shelter, saying their are droids outside the compound that have eradicated many humans. Daughter is told by the newcomer and by Mother that the other is full of deception--and the stranger turns out to be correct.
Intellectual Content
There are several obvious themes that appear in I Am Mother, the two clearest being yet another warning of the hypothetical danger AI could pose to humanity and the pro-life ideas that appear later in the movie. Regarding the latter, onscreen text at the beginning distinguishes between the number of embryos and the number of humans in the facility, whereas Daughter later refers to the embryos as brothers and sisters when she fears they are unsafe with Mother. Perhaps the most foundational and important issue related to the movie, however, is the problematic approach to "making" humans better taken by Mother.
Mother thinks having children read books (digital or not) and regurgitate information in exams equates to raising intelligent and morally sound kids. Even if it was easy to make someone a more intelligent and ethical person with one's words alone, though, it would be unintelligent of that person to not engage in autonomous thinking. Neither formal education nor any other form of social learning is an epistemological savior; alignment with reason alone, which cannot be fully embraced apart from a foundation of autonomy, makes people more intelligent. Only each individual can decide if or when they want to consult reason itself and break free from whatever social conditioning they might be entrapped by.
Conclusion
In an era dominated by franchises, ensemble casts, and extensive CGI (none of which are the blight on cinema that some fallacious critics have implied or said they are), I Am Mother makes the most of its self-contained premise, its trio of talented actresses, and its minimalistic setting. Moreover, it is an intelligent movie that even manages to defy a common trope in science fiction and fantasy (though I will refrain from elaborating here so as not to spoil anything more). Few scripts that feature such a small number of characters seem to make the transition into successful, finished movies. Fortunately for Netflix, I Am Mother is one of them.
Content:
1. Violence: A small handful of scenes contain gunfire or brawls, but nothing is shown that would even begin to push the boundaries of the PG-13 rating.
--Mother, I Am Mother
I Am Mother stands out for several reasons, partly because its production values are of a high quality and partly because of its abnormally small cast. Even other movies that take place in very limited locations like The Autopsy of Jane Doe and the original Saw usually have more than three characters. It is not that there are supporting characters that only appear in I Am Mother for several scenes; besides a baby that is introduced for several scenes, there are literally only three characters in the entire movie. For this alone, its successful storytelling is noteworthy. It is wholly based around a droid named Mother who has raised a girl she calls Daughter inside of a secure facility after an apocalyptic phenomenon.
Production Values
That the practical and computer-based effects are superb does not eclipse the fact that I Am Mother is carried from start to finish by its small handful of strong central performances. Rose Byrne (X-Men: First Class, Knowing) skillfully provides the cold but soothing voice for Mother, a seemingly sentient, humanoid machine that raises Daughter, the only human living in the facility other than a horde of stored embryos. The effects for Mother are excellent, as the machine frame looks very lifelike in motion and at rest.
Hillary Swank plays the stranger who appears outside of Mother's safe haven, a character motivated by desperation, fear, and loss, and she offers a very skillful performance, just as Rose Byrne does, even if Hillary's is physical and vocal. Thanks to Clara Ruggard-Larson, who takes the role of Daughter, the recent influx of films with great child actors (Logan, Doctor Sleep, and the It movies being prime examples) includes I Am Mother.
Story
Spoilers!
"Daughter," a human cared for by the machine called Mother, has lived inside of a sealed facility for her entire life. Mother refers to a contagion that has decimated the human population outside, saying it is unsafe to wander beyond the structure. However, a woman eventually shows up at the door seeking shelter, saying their are droids outside the compound that have eradicated many humans. Daughter is told by the newcomer and by Mother that the other is full of deception--and the stranger turns out to be correct.
Intellectual Content
There are several obvious themes that appear in I Am Mother, the two clearest being yet another warning of the hypothetical danger AI could pose to humanity and the pro-life ideas that appear later in the movie. Regarding the latter, onscreen text at the beginning distinguishes between the number of embryos and the number of humans in the facility, whereas Daughter later refers to the embryos as brothers and sisters when she fears they are unsafe with Mother. Perhaps the most foundational and important issue related to the movie, however, is the problematic approach to "making" humans better taken by Mother.
Mother thinks having children read books (digital or not) and regurgitate information in exams equates to raising intelligent and morally sound kids. Even if it was easy to make someone a more intelligent and ethical person with one's words alone, though, it would be unintelligent of that person to not engage in autonomous thinking. Neither formal education nor any other form of social learning is an epistemological savior; alignment with reason alone, which cannot be fully embraced apart from a foundation of autonomy, makes people more intelligent. Only each individual can decide if or when they want to consult reason itself and break free from whatever social conditioning they might be entrapped by.
Conclusion
In an era dominated by franchises, ensemble casts, and extensive CGI (none of which are the blight on cinema that some fallacious critics have implied or said they are), I Am Mother makes the most of its self-contained premise, its trio of talented actresses, and its minimalistic setting. Moreover, it is an intelligent movie that even manages to defy a common trope in science fiction and fantasy (though I will refrain from elaborating here so as not to spoil anything more). Few scripts that feature such a small number of characters seem to make the transition into successful, finished movies. Fortunately for Netflix, I Am Mother is one of them.
Content:
1. Violence: A small handful of scenes contain gunfire or brawls, but nothing is shown that would even begin to push the boundaries of the PG-13 rating.
Sunday, April 26, 2020
The Practical Side Of Politics
Political efforts are often opposed not only on moral grounds, but on economic grounds. Economic feasibility and practicality in general is one of the first things political opponents might ask about when an ideological foe proposes an idea or course of action. Though this is sometimes a legitimate set of questions to ask, it often seems to be asked with the intent of attacking an idea regardless of its philosophical soundness or moral merits.
It is not impossible to care about the economic/practical and ethical dimensions of politics at the same time, but the latter is inevitably more important than the former. The former is concerned with pragmatism and how "doable" or "rewarding" a policy is, whereas the latter is concerned with whether or not a policy is obligatory or just in the first place. Without moral obligation behind it, a political policy has no ultimate authority whatsoever.
Economic utilitarians refuse this because they care for little to nothing beyond immediate, pragmatic success. Practical success is a component of beneficial politics, just not in the way that utilitarians suppose. An act or idea does not become morally right simply because it is profitable, easy, or appealing! This is by necessity just as true in politics as it is elsewhere.
If a hypothetical course of action would bring about economic flourishing by means of murder or some other sinful, unjust act, the practical benefits are irrelevant: the course of action should not be taken merely because it is morally wrong. There is nothing that can change this fact if it is indeed true. That avoiding the evil would make some or all people's lives more difficult is of no philosophical weight.
Those who fixate on the economic or otherwise practical parts of politics over its moral aspects approach politics with a wholly backwards emphasis. If they live out their worldview consistently, there is nothing at all they would not endorse or commit as long as it brought deterrence, superficial peace, or economic stability. Ironically, the wellbeing of citizens is jeopardized when a utilitarian framework is the goal of politics.
It is not impossible to care about the economic/practical and ethical dimensions of politics at the same time, but the latter is inevitably more important than the former. The former is concerned with pragmatism and how "doable" or "rewarding" a policy is, whereas the latter is concerned with whether or not a policy is obligatory or just in the first place. Without moral obligation behind it, a political policy has no ultimate authority whatsoever.
Economic utilitarians refuse this because they care for little to nothing beyond immediate, pragmatic success. Practical success is a component of beneficial politics, just not in the way that utilitarians suppose. An act or idea does not become morally right simply because it is profitable, easy, or appealing! This is by necessity just as true in politics as it is elsewhere.
If a hypothetical course of action would bring about economic flourishing by means of murder or some other sinful, unjust act, the practical benefits are irrelevant: the course of action should not be taken merely because it is morally wrong. There is nothing that can change this fact if it is indeed true. That avoiding the evil would make some or all people's lives more difficult is of no philosophical weight.
Those who fixate on the economic or otherwise practical parts of politics over its moral aspects approach politics with a wholly backwards emphasis. If they live out their worldview consistently, there is nothing at all they would not endorse or commit as long as it brought deterrence, superficial peace, or economic stability. Ironically, the wellbeing of citizens is jeopardized when a utilitarian framework is the goal of politics.
Saturday, April 25, 2020
What Foreknowledge Is Not
Knowing an event and causing that event are objectively distinct. The two are nonetheless usually conflated by Calvinists and even some atheists, who argue that divine foreknowledge would render human free will a logical impossibility. Even if Calvinistic ideas about foreknowledge might produce existential dread in Christians who encounter them, it is not difficult at all to prove that foreknowledge and free will are fully compatible.
The reason is simple. Seeing into the future or into other minds is not the same as affecting the future or dictating the thoughts and behaviors of other minds. If neither of these things alters what will happen or determines the actions of free creatures, the combination of the two likewise has no effect on the future events that are seen. Even having absolute certainty about every future event has no causal impact on any of those events.
Foreknowledge is nothing other than the epistemological state of partially or fully knowing the contents of the future. God having foreknowledge, therefore, cannot make God guilty of whatever evil has yet to be committed by humans, just as God having foreknowledge cannot mean that humans have no free will. There is absolutely nothing logically exclusive about foreknowledge and free will. Whatever the reason, those who claim otherwise perhaps never regard foreknowledge about strictly natural events as being responsible for causing them, resulting in a strange inconsistency.
For example, suppose that a person knew with absolute certainty that scientific phenomena like gravity or electricity would continue to behave in the future as they do in the present. Has anyone who confuses foreknowledge for predestination ever claimed that knowing scientific phenomena in advance would mean one is causing them? No one that I have heard of or talked to ever made such a claim! When the example is switched from physics to human behaviors, though, divine foreknowledge might very well be thought to entail a cause and effect relationship.
Divine foreknowledge is a clear part of Biblical theology, but no Christian (or non-Christian) needs to worry that the existence of a deity who can see the future erases their capacity to make their own voluntary choices. By nature of what foreknowledge is, it cannot impact the future; it can only perceive it before the events therein have occurred. Calvinists, fatalists, and compatibilists might conflate foreknowledge and predestination, but the two are completely separate.
The reason is simple. Seeing into the future or into other minds is not the same as affecting the future or dictating the thoughts and behaviors of other minds. If neither of these things alters what will happen or determines the actions of free creatures, the combination of the two likewise has no effect on the future events that are seen. Even having absolute certainty about every future event has no causal impact on any of those events.
Foreknowledge is nothing other than the epistemological state of partially or fully knowing the contents of the future. God having foreknowledge, therefore, cannot make God guilty of whatever evil has yet to be committed by humans, just as God having foreknowledge cannot mean that humans have no free will. There is absolutely nothing logically exclusive about foreknowledge and free will. Whatever the reason, those who claim otherwise perhaps never regard foreknowledge about strictly natural events as being responsible for causing them, resulting in a strange inconsistency.
For example, suppose that a person knew with absolute certainty that scientific phenomena like gravity or electricity would continue to behave in the future as they do in the present. Has anyone who confuses foreknowledge for predestination ever claimed that knowing scientific phenomena in advance would mean one is causing them? No one that I have heard of or talked to ever made such a claim! When the example is switched from physics to human behaviors, though, divine foreknowledge might very well be thought to entail a cause and effect relationship.
Divine foreknowledge is a clear part of Biblical theology, but no Christian (or non-Christian) needs to worry that the existence of a deity who can see the future erases their capacity to make their own voluntary choices. By nature of what foreknowledge is, it cannot impact the future; it can only perceive it before the events therein have occurred. Calvinists, fatalists, and compatibilists might conflate foreknowledge and predestination, but the two are completely separate.
Friday, April 24, 2020
The Power Of Men And Women
One does not have to venture far into an examination of Western norms and attitudes to see that each gender is widely thought to hold exclusive forms of power over the other that are complementary in nature. Women are taught that they have a specific power over men, and men are taught that they have a specific power over women. The most visible religious and secular beliefs about the matter easily overlap. They may not always be explicitly taught by words, but, when they are, they are clearly communicated in passing conversations, church services, and entertainment alike. It might actually be difficult for some people to go an entire day without hearing them reiterated in some way.
Even when it is not stated directly, the shared secular and Christian complementarianism in Western culture plainly teaches that both genders have inverse powers over each other. Women are taught that they have a kind of sensual power over men because of their bodies, with men supposedly becoming nothing but simple-mindedly fixated on sex at the sight of the female body (even though men are not attracted to all women to begin with). Meanwhile, men are taught that they have power over women that comes from physical strength, with women being helplessly resigned to the fear of being sexually assaulted by men (even though many women have committed sexual assault and many women are never victimized in this way).
These twin ideas are used to encourage everything from a perpetual, gratuitous fear of male sexuality on the part of women to the expectation on the part of men that they must make themselves human beasts of burden for women. It should be apparent to any thinker that these results are deeply harmful to individual men and women and to the societies they contribute to, and yet they are verbally and nonverbally enforced by the imbeciles who think God or "natural law" is behind them. Beyond their relational destructiveness, these consequences are simply rooted in ideas that are demonstrably false.
The male body is not an unattractive thing that has only minimal influence on women in general, nor is it a vessel of inherent strength that cannot be abused by women; inversely, the female body is not an inherently weak vessel that is incapable of harming or protecting itself from abusive men. The complementarian ideas surrounding the power that men and women have over each other are not only entirely false, but also incredibly damaging to both genders. Some women may have a "visual" power over some men and some men may have physical power over some women, but the opposite is also true in many cases.
Whatever power a person might have over others is not tied to their gender. Instead, it is tied to social and physical factors that vary from individual to individual. Physical male beauty and physical female strength can be quite powerful, even if they are not acknowledged anywhere nearly as often their opposites--physical female beauty and physical male strength--are accepted. As with all truths, of course, the faulty perceptions of the majority does not dictate reality. Power is easily found outside of the places those who submit to complementarian traditions expect it to reside in.
Even when it is not stated directly, the shared secular and Christian complementarianism in Western culture plainly teaches that both genders have inverse powers over each other. Women are taught that they have a kind of sensual power over men because of their bodies, with men supposedly becoming nothing but simple-mindedly fixated on sex at the sight of the female body (even though men are not attracted to all women to begin with). Meanwhile, men are taught that they have power over women that comes from physical strength, with women being helplessly resigned to the fear of being sexually assaulted by men (even though many women have committed sexual assault and many women are never victimized in this way).
These twin ideas are used to encourage everything from a perpetual, gratuitous fear of male sexuality on the part of women to the expectation on the part of men that they must make themselves human beasts of burden for women. It should be apparent to any thinker that these results are deeply harmful to individual men and women and to the societies they contribute to, and yet they are verbally and nonverbally enforced by the imbeciles who think God or "natural law" is behind them. Beyond their relational destructiveness, these consequences are simply rooted in ideas that are demonstrably false.
The male body is not an unattractive thing that has only minimal influence on women in general, nor is it a vessel of inherent strength that cannot be abused by women; inversely, the female body is not an inherently weak vessel that is incapable of harming or protecting itself from abusive men. The complementarian ideas surrounding the power that men and women have over each other are not only entirely false, but also incredibly damaging to both genders. Some women may have a "visual" power over some men and some men may have physical power over some women, but the opposite is also true in many cases.
Whatever power a person might have over others is not tied to their gender. Instead, it is tied to social and physical factors that vary from individual to individual. Physical male beauty and physical female strength can be quite powerful, even if they are not acknowledged anywhere nearly as often their opposites--physical female beauty and physical male strength--are accepted. As with all truths, of course, the faulty perceptions of the majority does not dictate reality. Power is easily found outside of the places those who submit to complementarian traditions expect it to reside in.
Thursday, April 23, 2020
The Hypocrisy Of Selective Tolerance
Only a minority of those who endorse widespread social tolerance are truly consistent, as many proponents of tolerance go so far as to openly call for intolerance of whatever ideas they rightly or wrongly consider intolerant. There are indeed people who cannot deserve protection from intolerance if that intolerance does not manifest itself in unjust ways, like slander or physical abuse, but intolerance itself is not automatically deserving of this response. Who is being treated in an intolerant manner? Are they actually guilty of the charges against them? Are they being accused of something that is actually irrational or immoral in the first place? It is these factors that determine if intolerance is legitimate or not. Simply responding to intolerance with intolerance by default is a selective intolerance that has no intellectual or moral foundation. Indeed, it is downright contradictory.
Showing intolerance to intolerance (no matter what the latter is intolerant of) is no less hypocritical and asinine than saying pacifism must be protected by warfare. In both cases, there is a massive disparity between professed beliefs and action. It should be obvious to everyone why it is utterly inconsistent to establish a pacifist society by force. As soon as the topic is switched from pacifism to tolerance, however, people who are staunchly tolerant of many fallacies and immoral actions suddenly pretend like intolerance is necessary to defeat intolerance. More specifically, even intolerant hostility towards anti-rationalism, relativism, and certain double standards (there are specific forms of sexism against men and women alike that somehow are defended even in our allegedly egalitarian culture) is usually seen as a negative form of intolerance that needs to met with intolerance!
As I have elaborated upon before, it is logically impossible for there to be an obligation to tolerate irrationality, evil, or the people who defend or practice such things. It is impossible to rationally defend irrationality. It is impossible to ethically defend immorality. Moreover, if objective moral obligations do not exist, not one has a right to be tolerated. Thus, whether or not objective values exist, tolerance is an ideal that is incompatible with all logically possible realities. There is no such thing as a rational or morally sound toleration of anything that is not either morally obligatory or amoral. Rather, there can only be irrational, disproportionate, or otherwise unjust responses to stupidity and evil. A harsh reaction to a particular evil might treat it as a greater moral problem than it is or involve an evil reaction to evil, but mere harshness is not the issue.
There is never a place for tolerance of irrationality or injustice in a rationalistic society. Does this mean that anyone who embraces irrationality or injustice should be treated as sub-human? Of course not! Many confuse intolerance for cruelty, when it does not have to be anything more than justified harshness. Treating someone harshly for doing that which is obligatory or for doing something amoral is itself an injustice. Discriminating against irrational people by recognizing their stupidity, withholding supererogatory forms of kindness, and mocking them when they refuse to change is intolerant, but none of these things is cruel or unjust. They are, in fact, perfectly rational and just responses to a society whose leaders and citizens are largely non-rationalists.
As I have elaborated upon before, it is logically impossible for there to be an obligation to tolerate irrationality, evil, or the people who defend or practice such things. It is impossible to rationally defend irrationality. It is impossible to ethically defend immorality. Moreover, if objective moral obligations do not exist, not one has a right to be tolerated. Thus, whether or not objective values exist, tolerance is an ideal that is incompatible with all logically possible realities. There is no such thing as a rational or morally sound toleration of anything that is not either morally obligatory or amoral. Rather, there can only be irrational, disproportionate, or otherwise unjust responses to stupidity and evil. A harsh reaction to a particular evil might treat it as a greater moral problem than it is or involve an evil reaction to evil, but mere harshness is not the issue.
There is never a place for tolerance of irrationality or injustice in a rationalistic society. Does this mean that anyone who embraces irrationality or injustice should be treated as sub-human? Of course not! Many confuse intolerance for cruelty, when it does not have to be anything more than justified harshness. Treating someone harshly for doing that which is obligatory or for doing something amoral is itself an injustice. Discriminating against irrational people by recognizing their stupidity, withholding supererogatory forms of kindness, and mocking them when they refuse to change is intolerant, but none of these things is cruel or unjust. They are, in fact, perfectly rational and just responses to a society whose leaders and citizens are largely non-rationalists.
Wednesday, April 22, 2020
Why It Would Be Inconsistent For The Bible To Condemn Premarital Sex
If it was always immoral for sexually mature men and women to consensually sleep together without a government-recognized marriage ceremony despite there being no promiscuity, insincere commitment, adultery, incest, or objectifying motives involved, then the first humans of the Genesis creation account could never have produced the next generation of the human race without sinning. There is no mention in Genesis of God creating human governments, and the church as it is commonly conceived of is not formed until the times of the early New Testament. God only created the people who could eventually form governments. Thus, there were no governments or church communities for men and women to go to in order to form a "legitimate" marriage.
This fact alone disproves the idea that the Bible is even possibly against all cases of "premarital sex," as it would require a fundamental inconsistency at best. The core of Biblical morality--matters of sexual morality, justice, and so on--is presented as being unchanging because it is rooted in God's nature, which is itself presented as unchanging (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17). It follows that if premarital sex is inherently wrong, it could not have been morally permissible in even the early stages of human historical/social development after Genesis 3. Of course, if premarital sex is not inherently wrong, it is irrational and unjust to oppose it by default.
I have yet to see even a single person bring this set of facts up either to refute or defend the idea that all premarital sex is sinful. It is rather specific, but a total lack of awareness of these ramifications from the evangelicals who assert that all sex before a legal marriage is immoral according to Biblical ethics. Casual sex--that is, sex with random partners or sex with a lack of premeditated commitment--is not promoted or even permitted by the verses that allow premarital sex (Exodus 22:16-17). Evangelicals may have difficulty realizing this even when it is explicitly pointed out to them by Christians more intelligent than they are, but not all premarital sex is the same. There is a vast difference between noncommittal sex and mere sex outside of a legal marriage.
Beyond the inability to account for the necessity of premarital sex before governments had even been established, there is other Biblical confirmation that marriage is not legitimized by government, church, or community recognition. If it was, all it would take to morally legitimize a homosexual relationship is the approval of some social body such a government. Evangelicals vocally recognize that this is not the case. To say this is true would clearly contradict the Bible--but consistency demands that government or church approval is never the factor that makes a sexual relationship morally permissible. It is not as if political/social approval makes only some sexual actions legitimate. It is either all or nothing, and reason and the Bible agree: cultural norms and human legal systems are irrelevant to morality.
The evangelical world brims with thorough intellectual hypocrisy concerning a great many subjects (moral epistemology, the nature of death and hell, the Biblical attitude towards sexuality, and so on). Premarital sex is only one of many issues evangelical Christians treat with layers of cognitive dissonance, and all it takes to expose the folly of universally condemning sex outside of a legal marriage is pointing out that 1) Genesis contradicts this by describing people forming governments after the creation account and 2) Mosaic Law gives clear examples establishing that the legal status of a marriage has nothing to do with whether a sexual behavior is morally legitimate or not. What Christian who cares about reason and the actual contents of the Bible would reject these points in favor of tradition?
This fact alone disproves the idea that the Bible is even possibly against all cases of "premarital sex," as it would require a fundamental inconsistency at best. The core of Biblical morality--matters of sexual morality, justice, and so on--is presented as being unchanging because it is rooted in God's nature, which is itself presented as unchanging (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17). It follows that if premarital sex is inherently wrong, it could not have been morally permissible in even the early stages of human historical/social development after Genesis 3. Of course, if premarital sex is not inherently wrong, it is irrational and unjust to oppose it by default.
I have yet to see even a single person bring this set of facts up either to refute or defend the idea that all premarital sex is sinful. It is rather specific, but a total lack of awareness of these ramifications from the evangelicals who assert that all sex before a legal marriage is immoral according to Biblical ethics. Casual sex--that is, sex with random partners or sex with a lack of premeditated commitment--is not promoted or even permitted by the verses that allow premarital sex (Exodus 22:16-17). Evangelicals may have difficulty realizing this even when it is explicitly pointed out to them by Christians more intelligent than they are, but not all premarital sex is the same. There is a vast difference between noncommittal sex and mere sex outside of a legal marriage.
Beyond the inability to account for the necessity of premarital sex before governments had even been established, there is other Biblical confirmation that marriage is not legitimized by government, church, or community recognition. If it was, all it would take to morally legitimize a homosexual relationship is the approval of some social body such a government. Evangelicals vocally recognize that this is not the case. To say this is true would clearly contradict the Bible--but consistency demands that government or church approval is never the factor that makes a sexual relationship morally permissible. It is not as if political/social approval makes only some sexual actions legitimate. It is either all or nothing, and reason and the Bible agree: cultural norms and human legal systems are irrelevant to morality.
The evangelical world brims with thorough intellectual hypocrisy concerning a great many subjects (moral epistemology, the nature of death and hell, the Biblical attitude towards sexuality, and so on). Premarital sex is only one of many issues evangelical Christians treat with layers of cognitive dissonance, and all it takes to expose the folly of universally condemning sex outside of a legal marriage is pointing out that 1) Genesis contradicts this by describing people forming governments after the creation account and 2) Mosaic Law gives clear examples establishing that the legal status of a marriage has nothing to do with whether a sexual behavior is morally legitimate or not. What Christian who cares about reason and the actual contents of the Bible would reject these points in favor of tradition?
Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Accidental Scientific Discoveries
Recognition of almost all logical truths takes at least some effort, as one must actively reason something out even if the initial thoughts were not intended to head in the direction they eventually go in. Scientific observations, on the other hand, can occur on an almost completely passive level, with no effort beyond merely watching a phenomenon being exerted. This is not to say that science itself is a thoughtless pursuit, but that genuine scientific progress can be made haphazardly.
There is still a difference between finding a scientific correlation or side effect when one was looking for something else and finding a scientific phenomenon without any forethought at all--and both can happen. While it does require at least some minimal intellectual effort to reason out the seeming nature of a correlation, scientific discoveries differ from purely logical discoveries in that the former can occur completely by accident, as is even the case when an elaborate experiment produces wholly unexpected outcomes. A great deal of intentionality can certainly be put behind scientific endeavors, but this does not have to be the case.
Indeed, even several scientific discoveries recorded in history were not made because of predicted results. The person who recognizes an alternate usage for a medicine or sees an unpredicted side effect of some other kind of experiment may even have arrived at highly valuable information, for, thankfully, the significance of an empirical finding may have nothing to do with the sort of reaction given to that finding. To dismiss a result simply because it was not the priority--or because it was not expected at all--is a disservice to science.
Whether it is in our daily lives or in environments where we might be intentionally observing a particular set of phenomena, the unexpected should be taken as seriously as scientific discoveries that only came about due to planned analysis. That something was not predicted does not denote a lower level of importance by default, as those who benefit from accidental discoveries can learn from direct experience. Science is quite capable of taking one by surprise even when it comes to a relatively important discovery.
There is still a difference between finding a scientific correlation or side effect when one was looking for something else and finding a scientific phenomenon without any forethought at all--and both can happen. While it does require at least some minimal intellectual effort to reason out the seeming nature of a correlation, scientific discoveries differ from purely logical discoveries in that the former can occur completely by accident, as is even the case when an elaborate experiment produces wholly unexpected outcomes. A great deal of intentionality can certainly be put behind scientific endeavors, but this does not have to be the case.
Indeed, even several scientific discoveries recorded in history were not made because of predicted results. The person who recognizes an alternate usage for a medicine or sees an unpredicted side effect of some other kind of experiment may even have arrived at highly valuable information, for, thankfully, the significance of an empirical finding may have nothing to do with the sort of reaction given to that finding. To dismiss a result simply because it was not the priority--or because it was not expected at all--is a disservice to science.
Whether it is in our daily lives or in environments where we might be intentionally observing a particular set of phenomena, the unexpected should be taken as seriously as scientific discoveries that only came about due to planned analysis. That something was not predicted does not denote a lower level of importance by default, as those who benefit from accidental discoveries can learn from direct experience. Science is quite capable of taking one by surprise even when it comes to a relatively important discovery.
Monday, April 20, 2020
Game Review--Bayonetta 2 (Switch)
"We may not see our next step. We may stumble. We may fall off the path. But we always move forward. That is the power of man."
--Balder, Bayonetta 2
Bayonetta 2 improves on its predecessor with its frequent boss fights that outnumber those of the original, vibrant colors, expanded arsenal of weaponry, and stronger story (not that it takes much for a story to be superior to the plot of the first Bayonetta!). This time, Bayonetta is forced to confront angels and demons, diversifying her enemy types as well. Here is a sequel that takes the best of its foundation and adds to it in a natural but necessary way. The lore is explored more deeply, the gameplay includes new aerial fight sequences, and the characterization is at least a little deeper. Indeed, Bayonetta 2 is one of the best games one could play on the Switch!
Production Values
Early in the game, it becomes apparent that the animations are better and more colorful than those of the first Bayonetta, and some of the boss fights take advantage of the heightened animation detail. Perhaps because of the superior graphical clarity, the load times are far longer. This does not mean that the loading times are extreme, as the original Bayonetta's loading periods are rather brief (at least on the Switch), only that someone who moves to the second game shortly after the first should see an obvious difference. The voice acting complements the better characterization--in the original, Bayonetta herself was one of the only characters to have a somewhat developed personality. The returning characters certainly benefit from having already been established in a prior game. Thankfully, newcomer Loki is presented as a fairly complex character by the standards of Bayonetta storytelling, and Bayonetta, while she still commits several fallacies in the sequel, is a more mature character.
Gameplay
All of the combat staples of the previous Bayonetta game return, as do some of the abilities that do not have just combat applications, like Witch Time, Witch Walk, Panther Within, Crow Within, and so on. There are additions to the animal transformations and weapons, such as Snake Within (which can only be triggered when submerged in water) and a bow that fires insect projectiles. Undine, a flamethrower said to hold the soul of a former witch of the same name, is just one of the new weapons. It is easier than ever to obtain the in-game currency necessary to buy more weapons and abilities, so it is possible to obtain many of them during the first playthrough.
In fact, numerous aspects of Bayonetta 2 are easier than those of its predecessor: the boss fights, optional challenges, and quick-time events do not take as much effort as they did before. Some players such as myself could even complete the entire story mode without dying once. In the first game, multiple deaths were sometimes necessary to receive a full health bar after passing a save point, as you could not hold more than fixed amounts of a given item. While there is still a limitation on how many items you can buy from Rodin's shop, you can add any extras found in the levels themselves to your inventory. This can be very helpful during the more difficult boss fights, not that the bosses offered me as much trouble as some bosses of the first game did.
Story
Mild spoilers below!
Umbran Witch Jeanne visits her companion Bayonetta to inform her that angels and demons alike are becoming more hostile, in contrast to the events of the first game, in which Bayonetta fought angels with the aid of select demons. Soon after, Jeanne's soul is sent to Inferno when her body is killed--despite her soul separating from her body, she isn't dead in the fullest sense. She has to be fully absorbed into Inferno before her death is finalized. Hoping to restore her friend's life, Bayonetta travels to Inferno with the help of a young boy named Loki who has suffered an amnesia not unlike her own after she awoke years before.
Intellectual Content
As is often the case with hack-and-slash games, the collectibles are usually not difficult to spot or obtain. Still, certain collectibles add lore entries to a notebook accessible from the pause menu. Several of these are more philosophical in nature than much of the in-game dialogue is, which should not surprise anyone who played the first game and read its collectible documents. Some describe a God who cared deeply for humanity, and others speculate that humans might be more terrible than the angels and demons they fear. Since these themes are not directly integrated into the experience of the main story, though, much of the possible depth is squandered. Even at the end of the game, the characters reference human free will quite a bit, but the largely sudden emphasis on free will after a story driven mostly by visual spectacle and set pieces is too late to amount to much.
Conclusion
Bayonetta 2 is an excellent example of how a sequel can surpass its predecessor by building on the established foundation. The story might still be quite weak compared to the plots of other games--including hack-and-slash franchises like God of War--but it is an improvement over the first Bayonetta. At the very least, the exploration of the metaphysics behind the lore, the boss fights, and the weapons are better than ever. If the upcoming Bayonetta 3 will improve on the mechanics of the second game to the same extent, the trilogy will be one of the rare series where practically everything is genuinely perfected with each release.
Content:
Violence: The violence of the first game returns alongside new weapons. There is no explicit gore, but there are many ways to defeat angels and demons alike, including methods that involve summoning a monstrous entity from Inferno to brutally overpower certain enemies.
Profanity: "Fuck" is regularly used by both Bayonetta and other characters.
Nudity: This time, Bayonetta's buttocks can be seen in one of the opening scenes, whereas certain parts of her body were strategically covered in the first game.
--Balder, Bayonetta 2
Bayonetta 2 improves on its predecessor with its frequent boss fights that outnumber those of the original, vibrant colors, expanded arsenal of weaponry, and stronger story (not that it takes much for a story to be superior to the plot of the first Bayonetta!). This time, Bayonetta is forced to confront angels and demons, diversifying her enemy types as well. Here is a sequel that takes the best of its foundation and adds to it in a natural but necessary way. The lore is explored more deeply, the gameplay includes new aerial fight sequences, and the characterization is at least a little deeper. Indeed, Bayonetta 2 is one of the best games one could play on the Switch!
Production Values
Early in the game, it becomes apparent that the animations are better and more colorful than those of the first Bayonetta, and some of the boss fights take advantage of the heightened animation detail. Perhaps because of the superior graphical clarity, the load times are far longer. This does not mean that the loading times are extreme, as the original Bayonetta's loading periods are rather brief (at least on the Switch), only that someone who moves to the second game shortly after the first should see an obvious difference. The voice acting complements the better characterization--in the original, Bayonetta herself was one of the only characters to have a somewhat developed personality. The returning characters certainly benefit from having already been established in a prior game. Thankfully, newcomer Loki is presented as a fairly complex character by the standards of Bayonetta storytelling, and Bayonetta, while she still commits several fallacies in the sequel, is a more mature character.
Gameplay
All of the combat staples of the previous Bayonetta game return, as do some of the abilities that do not have just combat applications, like Witch Time, Witch Walk, Panther Within, Crow Within, and so on. There are additions to the animal transformations and weapons, such as Snake Within (which can only be triggered when submerged in water) and a bow that fires insect projectiles. Undine, a flamethrower said to hold the soul of a former witch of the same name, is just one of the new weapons. It is easier than ever to obtain the in-game currency necessary to buy more weapons and abilities, so it is possible to obtain many of them during the first playthrough.
In fact, numerous aspects of Bayonetta 2 are easier than those of its predecessor: the boss fights, optional challenges, and quick-time events do not take as much effort as they did before. Some players such as myself could even complete the entire story mode without dying once. In the first game, multiple deaths were sometimes necessary to receive a full health bar after passing a save point, as you could not hold more than fixed amounts of a given item. While there is still a limitation on how many items you can buy from Rodin's shop, you can add any extras found in the levels themselves to your inventory. This can be very helpful during the more difficult boss fights, not that the bosses offered me as much trouble as some bosses of the first game did.
Story
Mild spoilers below!
Umbran Witch Jeanne visits her companion Bayonetta to inform her that angels and demons alike are becoming more hostile, in contrast to the events of the first game, in which Bayonetta fought angels with the aid of select demons. Soon after, Jeanne's soul is sent to Inferno when her body is killed--despite her soul separating from her body, she isn't dead in the fullest sense. She has to be fully absorbed into Inferno before her death is finalized. Hoping to restore her friend's life, Bayonetta travels to Inferno with the help of a young boy named Loki who has suffered an amnesia not unlike her own after she awoke years before.
Intellectual Content
As is often the case with hack-and-slash games, the collectibles are usually not difficult to spot or obtain. Still, certain collectibles add lore entries to a notebook accessible from the pause menu. Several of these are more philosophical in nature than much of the in-game dialogue is, which should not surprise anyone who played the first game and read its collectible documents. Some describe a God who cared deeply for humanity, and others speculate that humans might be more terrible than the angels and demons they fear. Since these themes are not directly integrated into the experience of the main story, though, much of the possible depth is squandered. Even at the end of the game, the characters reference human free will quite a bit, but the largely sudden emphasis on free will after a story driven mostly by visual spectacle and set pieces is too late to amount to much.
Conclusion
Bayonetta 2 is an excellent example of how a sequel can surpass its predecessor by building on the established foundation. The story might still be quite weak compared to the plots of other games--including hack-and-slash franchises like God of War--but it is an improvement over the first Bayonetta. At the very least, the exploration of the metaphysics behind the lore, the boss fights, and the weapons are better than ever. If the upcoming Bayonetta 3 will improve on the mechanics of the second game to the same extent, the trilogy will be one of the rare series where practically everything is genuinely perfected with each release.
Content:
Violence: The violence of the first game returns alongside new weapons. There is no explicit gore, but there are many ways to defeat angels and demons alike, including methods that involve summoning a monstrous entity from Inferno to brutally overpower certain enemies.
Profanity: "Fuck" is regularly used by both Bayonetta and other characters.
Nudity: This time, Bayonetta's buttocks can be seen in one of the opening scenes, whereas certain parts of her body were strategically covered in the first game.
Sunday, April 19, 2020
The Uncertain Security Of Money: Skepticism Of Object Permanence
Object permanence is assumed to be true without justification by the average person, for many people react as if object permanence is an absolutely certain, immutable aspect of reality while never even hinting at any sort of skepticism about the matter. While the ultimate unverifiability of object permanence has broader philosophical ramifications than the following points, the relationship between object permanence and the perceived security of something like money are scarcely ever touched upon.
Money, whether it is physically stored in a safe or deposited in a bank and represented by digital numbers, is often looked to for a sense of stability. There is nothing inherently irrational about this: money allows people to obtain things they desire, even if they care little for money on its own. It permits financial safety and therefore emotional relief for many people. Nonetheless, this sense of security is often overestimated to a significant extent due to epistemological assumptions about the nature of matter.
Anyone who can understand the unprovable nature of object permanence in general is capable of understanding how it would undermine the epistemological security offered by money. Who can prove that their money will not metaphysically evaporate into nonexistence simply because it is logically possible for the laws of physics to change? Who can prove that physical currency they place in a safe will be there when they check inside? Philosophically speaking, there is no such thing as absolute certainty about whether one's money will even be there when one looks for it!
Even if money provides practical security, there is no genuinely absolute certainty about whether one's money will continue to exist--and yet there is a plethora of more practical reasons (as opposed to the more abstract and metaphysical reasons) for which money might be lost or rendered less useful. There are degrees of security offered by money, none of which are absolute. One can only prove that one is in a position of better financial security than some other set of circumstances would allow for. Of this one can be absolutely certain, but this is not the same as having infallible future security.
In other words, it is impossible for money to provide absolute security about the future for both practical and more explicitly philosophical reasons (practicality is not outside of philosophy, for philosophy contains all things, yet it is the lowest and most trivial aspect of philosophy). Money can be reassuring, but thinking that money can deliver one from all uncertainty is a display of intellectual ineptitude. Only when one regards money as its nature deserves can one learn how to best use it.
Money, whether it is physically stored in a safe or deposited in a bank and represented by digital numbers, is often looked to for a sense of stability. There is nothing inherently irrational about this: money allows people to obtain things they desire, even if they care little for money on its own. It permits financial safety and therefore emotional relief for many people. Nonetheless, this sense of security is often overestimated to a significant extent due to epistemological assumptions about the nature of matter.
Anyone who can understand the unprovable nature of object permanence in general is capable of understanding how it would undermine the epistemological security offered by money. Who can prove that their money will not metaphysically evaporate into nonexistence simply because it is logically possible for the laws of physics to change? Who can prove that physical currency they place in a safe will be there when they check inside? Philosophically speaking, there is no such thing as absolute certainty about whether one's money will even be there when one looks for it!
Even if money provides practical security, there is no genuinely absolute certainty about whether one's money will continue to exist--and yet there is a plethora of more practical reasons (as opposed to the more abstract and metaphysical reasons) for which money might be lost or rendered less useful. There are degrees of security offered by money, none of which are absolute. One can only prove that one is in a position of better financial security than some other set of circumstances would allow for. Of this one can be absolutely certain, but this is not the same as having infallible future security.
In other words, it is impossible for money to provide absolute security about the future for both practical and more explicitly philosophical reasons (practicality is not outside of philosophy, for philosophy contains all things, yet it is the lowest and most trivial aspect of philosophy). Money can be reassuring, but thinking that money can deliver one from all uncertainty is a display of intellectual ineptitude. Only when one regards money as its nature deserves can one learn how to best use it.
Saturday, April 18, 2020
Manipulating Non-Rationalists
Almost every person acts as though they want to be regarded as rational, even though only a minority even clearly understands what reason is in the first place. Only some within that minority intentionally align themselves with reason. A mere five minute conversation about anything explicitly philosophical with almost anyone outside of this small group exposes their lack of intelligence rather quickly.
There are several ways for a rationalist to deal with whoever is not an ideological sibling. They can 1) patiently reason with non-rationalists, 2) reason with non-rationalists or refute them in a more openly aggressive manner, or 3) actively manipulate them into silence. The first strategy almost never pays off (at least not before a great deal of damage has already been done to some part of society), and the second is often not enough to deter stupidity. The third strategy, on the other hand, is likely to be highly successful when implemented right.
One of the most effective ways a rationalist can exploit the intellectual incompetence of non-rationalists--which can have the benefit of emotionally incapacitating them in the process--is by taking advantage of their desires to be seen as rational. Very few people, if anyone at all, truly want to be seen as irrational, regardless of whether or not it is what their worldview and actions deserve. By bringing attention to their fallacies and moral errors in the presence of those they look up to, one can cause their emotionalism to backfire and force them into a conflict of interests.
Those who have been outed as irrational around someone they hope views them positively are particularly susceptible to this form of manipulation. If they will not back away from their logical or moral errors on their own, simply expose those errors in a way that psychologically or socially damages them and makes them reluctant to ever speak out of their stupidity ever again. Use their own words and professed beliefs as knives that can be twisted until they relent from the pain. If they do not abandon irrationality even then, one can always profit from the newfound stress in the target's relationships by turning their friends against them.
Even when someone plainly does not live in alignment with reason, they will still likely seek the reputation of someone who does. It is this fact that the aforementioned strategy exploits. Not every rationalist has a personality that embraces such harshness, and no one is irrational for choosing to not use every morally permissible manipulation tactic they can. However, as long as slander and malice are not involved, there is nothing a rationalist should actually consider off limits when it comes to manipulating and silencing those who stand in the way of the truth.
There are several ways for a rationalist to deal with whoever is not an ideological sibling. They can 1) patiently reason with non-rationalists, 2) reason with non-rationalists or refute them in a more openly aggressive manner, or 3) actively manipulate them into silence. The first strategy almost never pays off (at least not before a great deal of damage has already been done to some part of society), and the second is often not enough to deter stupidity. The third strategy, on the other hand, is likely to be highly successful when implemented right.
One of the most effective ways a rationalist can exploit the intellectual incompetence of non-rationalists--which can have the benefit of emotionally incapacitating them in the process--is by taking advantage of their desires to be seen as rational. Very few people, if anyone at all, truly want to be seen as irrational, regardless of whether or not it is what their worldview and actions deserve. By bringing attention to their fallacies and moral errors in the presence of those they look up to, one can cause their emotionalism to backfire and force them into a conflict of interests.
Those who have been outed as irrational around someone they hope views them positively are particularly susceptible to this form of manipulation. If they will not back away from their logical or moral errors on their own, simply expose those errors in a way that psychologically or socially damages them and makes them reluctant to ever speak out of their stupidity ever again. Use their own words and professed beliefs as knives that can be twisted until they relent from the pain. If they do not abandon irrationality even then, one can always profit from the newfound stress in the target's relationships by turning their friends against them.
Even when someone plainly does not live in alignment with reason, they will still likely seek the reputation of someone who does. It is this fact that the aforementioned strategy exploits. Not every rationalist has a personality that embraces such harshness, and no one is irrational for choosing to not use every morally permissible manipulation tactic they can. However, as long as slander and malice are not involved, there is nothing a rationalist should actually consider off limits when it comes to manipulating and silencing those who stand in the way of the truth.
Friday, April 17, 2020
Love Of Money
An appreciation of money is easily be misinterpreted in a negative way by those who blindly equate money with greed, as if there is no difference between someone who is fond of money and someone who allows money to control their priorities, actions, and worldview. There is even a difference between loving money for its own sake and loving money for the sake of what it can provide.
The former is what the context of 1 Timothy 6:10, a verse that may be cited in opposition to money, condemns: a lack of contentment and the abandonment of Christian ethics for the sale of money are what the context is clearly discouraging. If 1 Timothy 6:10 meant anything more than this, the verse would plainly contradict other passages in the Bible that clarify the nonsinful nature of wealth. Nowhere does Mosaic Law prohibit wealth or the mere desire for wealth, and to add to the revealed commands is itself an offense (Deuteronomy 4:2).
Even if a desire for money was sinful regardless of the motives behind that desire, an insatiable desire for money is not literally behind every individual sin, as some have taken 1 Timothy 6:10 to mean. Rather, someone who values money above all else could be enticed by money to commit any particular sin if the price is high enough. Money has no ability to make anyone exploit, abuse, or trivialize others, as only a sentient being could do such a thing. People are responsible for their own actions, not currency! It is clear that Mosaic Law, Jesus, and Paul are not opposed to money itself.
Therefore, having, wanting, or needing money is not a moral abomination. Only when a love of money surpasses a love of truth, God, others, or oneself (if the basis for loving others is that they bear God's image, that love should apply to oneself as well) does one have a flawed relationship with money. Short of looking to money for what it cannot give or prioritizing it above that which is more significant, there is nothing problematic about wanting money on its own.
The Christian deity does not condemn humans for seeking health, peace, and security--all things that can be far easier to obtain with the aid of money. This is why the possession of wealth is not sinful. Money can be used for morally neutral or positive ends. Even when a person's motivations for accumulating money are not explicitly benevolent to others, there is nothing immoral about having any particular sum of money.
The former is what the context of 1 Timothy 6:10, a verse that may be cited in opposition to money, condemns: a lack of contentment and the abandonment of Christian ethics for the sale of money are what the context is clearly discouraging. If 1 Timothy 6:10 meant anything more than this, the verse would plainly contradict other passages in the Bible that clarify the nonsinful nature of wealth. Nowhere does Mosaic Law prohibit wealth or the mere desire for wealth, and to add to the revealed commands is itself an offense (Deuteronomy 4:2).
Even if a desire for money was sinful regardless of the motives behind that desire, an insatiable desire for money is not literally behind every individual sin, as some have taken 1 Timothy 6:10 to mean. Rather, someone who values money above all else could be enticed by money to commit any particular sin if the price is high enough. Money has no ability to make anyone exploit, abuse, or trivialize others, as only a sentient being could do such a thing. People are responsible for their own actions, not currency! It is clear that Mosaic Law, Jesus, and Paul are not opposed to money itself.
Therefore, having, wanting, or needing money is not a moral abomination. Only when a love of money surpasses a love of truth, God, others, or oneself (if the basis for loving others is that they bear God's image, that love should apply to oneself as well) does one have a flawed relationship with money. Short of looking to money for what it cannot give or prioritizing it above that which is more significant, there is nothing problematic about wanting money on its own.
The Christian deity does not condemn humans for seeking health, peace, and security--all things that can be far easier to obtain with the aid of money. This is why the possession of wealth is not sinful. Money can be used for morally neutral or positive ends. Even when a person's motivations for accumulating money are not explicitly benevolent to others, there is nothing immoral about having any particular sum of money.
Thursday, April 16, 2020
Animal Intelligence
Animal rights and animal intelligence are indeed somewhat related subjects, and the extent to which an animal is regarded as undeserving of being trivialized is often tied to how intelligent it is perceived to be. Concerns that animal exploitation harms intelligent species are among the more philosophically serious objections to how some animals are treated by modern civilization. Still, a creature does not need to have human-level intelligence in order to deserve to not be treated in an uncaring, cruel manner.
It is ultimately impossible to see an animal's inner thoughts by merely looking at its behaviors, for the phenomenology of a mind can only be known by direct experience (that is, if it is one's own mind) or by telepathy, a psychic window into other minds. This does not undermine evidence for animal rights, however, for the same reason that the inability to know if other human minds exist does not undermine the evidence for human rights. Even so, there are still differences in the evidences for human intelligence and animal intelligence.
With a mute person, one can at least know that the mute is, by all outward appearances, human, and that there is thus evidence that he or she may very well have at least many of the cognitive functions that oneself has. With an animal, there is seldom any indication of cognition that goes beyond processing sensory perceptions, reacting to prompts learned by humans, and coordinating behaviors with other members of its species. Outward actions reveal varying degrees of seeming intelligence, but they cannot reveal anything more.
A given animal might very well be just as capable of grasping the abstract laws of logic to the same extent that humans are, but nothing short of telepathy could ever confirm or falsify this. Animals do not communicate with humans in a verbal way that humans can understand, and yet outward behaviors cannot convey if an animal understands that logic provides absolute certainty, that its sensory perceptions may not correspond to the reality beyond them, and so on.
Of course, a sentient being does not need either the capacity for language or the maximum capacity for abstract reasoning to have moral rights, and thus an inability to prove just how similar the minds of animals and humans are does not establish that animals have no rights. It only means that a human can prove to himself or herself that an animal might have a lower capacity for reasoning. In either case, there is a Biblical obligation to not treat animals in a cruel manner [1], even when the disconnection between minds prevents the most direct analysis of animal intelligence.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/09/human-exceptionalism-and-biblical.html
It is ultimately impossible to see an animal's inner thoughts by merely looking at its behaviors, for the phenomenology of a mind can only be known by direct experience (that is, if it is one's own mind) or by telepathy, a psychic window into other minds. This does not undermine evidence for animal rights, however, for the same reason that the inability to know if other human minds exist does not undermine the evidence for human rights. Even so, there are still differences in the evidences for human intelligence and animal intelligence.
With a mute person, one can at least know that the mute is, by all outward appearances, human, and that there is thus evidence that he or she may very well have at least many of the cognitive functions that oneself has. With an animal, there is seldom any indication of cognition that goes beyond processing sensory perceptions, reacting to prompts learned by humans, and coordinating behaviors with other members of its species. Outward actions reveal varying degrees of seeming intelligence, but they cannot reveal anything more.
A given animal might very well be just as capable of grasping the abstract laws of logic to the same extent that humans are, but nothing short of telepathy could ever confirm or falsify this. Animals do not communicate with humans in a verbal way that humans can understand, and yet outward behaviors cannot convey if an animal understands that logic provides absolute certainty, that its sensory perceptions may not correspond to the reality beyond them, and so on.
Of course, a sentient being does not need either the capacity for language or the maximum capacity for abstract reasoning to have moral rights, and thus an inability to prove just how similar the minds of animals and humans are does not establish that animals have no rights. It only means that a human can prove to himself or herself that an animal might have a lower capacity for reasoning. In either case, there is a Biblical obligation to not treat animals in a cruel manner [1], even when the disconnection between minds prevents the most direct analysis of animal intelligence.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/09/human-exceptionalism-and-biblical.html
Wednesday, April 15, 2020
The Danger Of Language
Language does indeed simplify many aspects of everyday life, such as casual communication between family members or the ability to understand signs. Its benefits are blatant. There is nevertheless a danger associated with how some people might perceive language. This danger is a possibility in any civilization whose members are not all rationalists--which means that almost every recorded society has likely had at least some of its members succumb to this danger.
The danger of language is that individuals and the societies they form might not look past words to the concepts those words are supposed to convey. There are, in fact, many examples of this already: many people use words like "rational" and "conscious" even though it is clear that they are likely not referring to the exact metaphysical or epistemological concepts behind them. Most people use language not as a means to the end of consistently communicating philosophical concepts, but as a means to the end of fitting in with their culture of ignorance.
The incompetence of the majority does not reflect negatively on language itself, of course. Nothing at all is illicit just because it could be misused. There is nothing at all that cannot be misused, and language is just one of many things that is not used in a rational manner by the majority. It is just that a misunderstanding of language has ramifications for a person's worldview and lifestyle as a whole. Someone who fails to see past words to ideas--and analyze those ideas in light of reason rather than in light of arbitrary social norms--will inevitably have an incomplete or assumption-based grasp of concepts at most.
Language has many beneficial impacts on the group of people who use it, so language itself is not problematic; no irrational approach to language could ever erase its genuinely helpful applications. All the same, each individual who seeks truth must not fail to look to concepts rather than words when evaluating ideas. After all, words are nothing more than constructs that are of no immediate need when there is no one else to converse with. The fool is the one who thinks there is no way to analyze concepts without language or no need to look beyond the arbitrary linguistic customs of their culture.
The danger of language is that individuals and the societies they form might not look past words to the concepts those words are supposed to convey. There are, in fact, many examples of this already: many people use words like "rational" and "conscious" even though it is clear that they are likely not referring to the exact metaphysical or epistemological concepts behind them. Most people use language not as a means to the end of consistently communicating philosophical concepts, but as a means to the end of fitting in with their culture of ignorance.
The incompetence of the majority does not reflect negatively on language itself, of course. Nothing at all is illicit just because it could be misused. There is nothing at all that cannot be misused, and language is just one of many things that is not used in a rational manner by the majority. It is just that a misunderstanding of language has ramifications for a person's worldview and lifestyle as a whole. Someone who fails to see past words to ideas--and analyze those ideas in light of reason rather than in light of arbitrary social norms--will inevitably have an incomplete or assumption-based grasp of concepts at most.
Language has many beneficial impacts on the group of people who use it, so language itself is not problematic; no irrational approach to language could ever erase its genuinely helpful applications. All the same, each individual who seeks truth must not fail to look to concepts rather than words when evaluating ideas. After all, words are nothing more than constructs that are of no immediate need when there is no one else to converse with. The fool is the one who thinks there is no way to analyze concepts without language or no need to look beyond the arbitrary linguistic customs of their culture.
Tuesday, April 14, 2020
Deserving Life Or Death
There is an enormous difference between not deserving to live and deserving to be killed by others. In the first case, a person has simply done nothing to justify their existence (i.e., they refused to pursue truth and live justly), but they have not necessarily done anything that deserves capital punishment; in the second case, a person has committed some act that merits execution at the hands of other humans. Being in the first category in no way establishes that one automatically belongs in the second category, and yet the typical evangelical Christian conflates them in a way that trivializes sin, capital punishment, and the genuine differences in the moral status of individuals.
Rather than claim that all people deserve to live or die in these senses regardless of their moral status, the Bible teaches that, while many people do not truly deserve to live (Romans 6:23), they do not deserve to be actively killed by other humans unless they first commit one of several capital offenses. It is utterly contrary to Biblical Christianity to perpetuate the evangelical lie that everyone is equally deserving of life or death. Few truly deserve to live, and this has nothing to do with whether they are saved, and many do not deserve to live, even though they do not deserve to be actively killed.
Even though it is entirely possible for someone to reason out these distinctions on their own, to have them explained to oneself and then reject them is treason against rationality and justice. Unsurprisingly, the evangelical world rejects this distinction, holding that all people somehow deserve to both die and live at the same time--an impossible thing. On one hand, they usually insist that all sins are equal and that everyone equally deserves death in an ultimate sense. On the other hand, they usually insist on capital punishment being imposed on a mere fraction of the crimes the Bible actually prescribes it for (which is an entirely separate inconsistency).
There is little to no attempt on their part to explain these discrepancies, and thus almost none of them ever clarify the difference between deserving death and deserving to be killed. If anything, they are likely to act like it logically follows from everyone deserving death that no one deserves to be killed by others. This conclusion, as any rationalist can see, does not follow at all! It is yet another example of the evangelical irrationalism that has become equated with Christianity itself in the eyes of many philosophically incompetent observers outside of the church.
Finding a person who deserves to exist is a rare phenomenon. The emotional dislike of this truth drives many away from it, and it sometimes drives Christians to make claims about capital punishment and interpersonal relationships in general that do not follow at all from their premises. That all people who have not committed a Biblical capital offense have a right to life does not mean they have any individual value beyond their human rights, nor does it mean they truly deserve to live. It only means that they have not done anything to deserve premature death at the hands of others.
Rather than claim that all people deserve to live or die in these senses regardless of their moral status, the Bible teaches that, while many people do not truly deserve to live (Romans 6:23), they do not deserve to be actively killed by other humans unless they first commit one of several capital offenses. It is utterly contrary to Biblical Christianity to perpetuate the evangelical lie that everyone is equally deserving of life or death. Few truly deserve to live, and this has nothing to do with whether they are saved, and many do not deserve to live, even though they do not deserve to be actively killed.
Even though it is entirely possible for someone to reason out these distinctions on their own, to have them explained to oneself and then reject them is treason against rationality and justice. Unsurprisingly, the evangelical world rejects this distinction, holding that all people somehow deserve to both die and live at the same time--an impossible thing. On one hand, they usually insist that all sins are equal and that everyone equally deserves death in an ultimate sense. On the other hand, they usually insist on capital punishment being imposed on a mere fraction of the crimes the Bible actually prescribes it for (which is an entirely separate inconsistency).
There is little to no attempt on their part to explain these discrepancies, and thus almost none of them ever clarify the difference between deserving death and deserving to be killed. If anything, they are likely to act like it logically follows from everyone deserving death that no one deserves to be killed by others. This conclusion, as any rationalist can see, does not follow at all! It is yet another example of the evangelical irrationalism that has become equated with Christianity itself in the eyes of many philosophically incompetent observers outside of the church.
Finding a person who deserves to exist is a rare phenomenon. The emotional dislike of this truth drives many away from it, and it sometimes drives Christians to make claims about capital punishment and interpersonal relationships in general that do not follow at all from their premises. That all people who have not committed a Biblical capital offense have a right to life does not mean they have any individual value beyond their human rights, nor does it mean they truly deserve to live. It only means that they have not done anything to deserve premature death at the hands of others.
Monday, April 13, 2020
The Moral Irrelevance Of Patriotism
Patriotism, in many cases, is lived out as nothing but an emotionalistic attachment to a person's country in spite of whatever sins that country may be guilty of. This does not have to be what all expressions of patriotism reduce down to, but the manner in which patriotism tends to be asserted even in the face of injustices means that this is usually the case. The more stubborn but positive assumptions a person makes about the moral state of their country, the more likely they are to be patriotic.
The intellectually and morally hollow nature of patriotism in most instances renders the love of one's country pointless outside of a very specific context. That context is not times of national distress when strangers benefit from emotional connections with each other, for it has nothing to do with personal appreciation, collective utilitarian gain, or any sort of survival value at all. The presence of these things is empty if the one condition that gives patriotism meaning is not found.
A country can have significance that transcends the subjective--in order to do so, it must be in alignment with values that are objective in nature. However, many people immersed in patriotism are not primarily or ultimately concerned with whether their country is truly just or consistently upright. They are simply concerned with feeling an arbitrary, personal sense of pride over living in a country they subjectively admire. Beyond this, it is impossible for the reported moral ideologies of every culture to be correct given how they so thoroughy conflict with each other, and thus patriotism cannot be a universal good in the first place.
Even when one's country is in a morally sound condition, the love of one's country is a fundamentally lesser love than the love of morality itself. It is not that no country is capable of deserving praise or respect, but that a country only deserves that respect based upon how well it matches the external criteria of morality. When one loves righteousness for its own sake regardless of whether it has been practiced in a country that has one's affections, patriotism might be easily regarded as irrelevant.
The intellectually and morally hollow nature of patriotism in most instances renders the love of one's country pointless outside of a very specific context. That context is not times of national distress when strangers benefit from emotional connections with each other, for it has nothing to do with personal appreciation, collective utilitarian gain, or any sort of survival value at all. The presence of these things is empty if the one condition that gives patriotism meaning is not found.
A country can have significance that transcends the subjective--in order to do so, it must be in alignment with values that are objective in nature. However, many people immersed in patriotism are not primarily or ultimately concerned with whether their country is truly just or consistently upright. They are simply concerned with feeling an arbitrary, personal sense of pride over living in a country they subjectively admire. Beyond this, it is impossible for the reported moral ideologies of every culture to be correct given how they so thoroughy conflict with each other, and thus patriotism cannot be a universal good in the first place.
Even when one's country is in a morally sound condition, the love of one's country is a fundamentally lesser love than the love of morality itself. It is not that no country is capable of deserving praise or respect, but that a country only deserves that respect based upon how well it matches the external criteria of morality. When one loves righteousness for its own sake regardless of whether it has been practiced in a country that has one's affections, patriotism might be easily regarded as irrelevant.
Sunday, April 12, 2020
Game Review--Bayonetta (Switch)
"Beginning in the 15th century, the whole of Europe has been swept by a madness; a tragic event unprecedented in human history - the witch hunts. As a result, the dark clan of Umbra Witches were wiped from the pages of history forever."
--The Witches' Tears of Blood, Bayonetta
The original Bayonetta introduces both the "Trinity of Realities," a metaphysical world comprised of Inferno, Paradiso, and the "Human World" (with Purgatorio existing as a parallel realm), and the titular Umbra Witch with the power to manipulate the environment around her. The very fact that it is finally normal for a game like this to be on a Nintendo system is itself an achievement of Nintendo. The sensuality and violence are themselves inseparable parts of the game's fairly unique style, and Bayonetta earns her place alongside other notable characters of the hack-and-slash genre like Kratos thanks to her sorcery-driven attacks, stylish sensuality, and antihero personality. Even though the immediate story clearly lacks depth, the background lore and imagery delve into fictional metaphysics that so easily fit into the game's iconic sense of style.
Production Values
Bayonetta's graphics are definitely not the best on the Switch platform, but the game is a port from a previous generation of consoles, so there is nothing atrocious about them due to this context. Even if the visuals are not at the same level as the graphics of games like Luigi's Mansion 3, the frame rate holds up consistently, which is very needed because of the speed and fluidity required for smooth combat. The voice acting for Bayonetta herself and the supporting characters is mostly strong, but the cinematics are more hit or miss as far as their artistic sophistication goes. At this point, some of the cinematics look downright primitive due to amounting to little more than transitioning storyboards with subtitles. Thankfully, it is only some of the story videos that have this format, as plenty of cutscenes shown during a given level simply portray events using the same visuals as those of the main game.
Gameplay
Combat is the primary component of the gameplay, though minor platforming and puzzle solving are also components of the game--and the fighting can be very fucking difficult. The main attacks consist of kicks or shots from guns that are either held by Bayonetta's hands or attached to her boots. These attacks can be strung together in the same way that the light and heavy attacks in the God of War games can be combined in order to launch new moves, and the occasional mild quick time event adds slightly more variety to the combat. It is the witch powers, however, that provide the most opportunities to devastate your enemies.
Foremost among these powers is Witch Time, a mechanic involving a temporarily slowed perception of time that can be triggered by evading attacks at the last second. You can even continuously activate Witch Time consecutively as long as dodges are timed correctly. Another witch ability is Witch Walk, which allows Bayonetta to walk on walls without being subjected to the standard presence of gravity when there is a full moon. Witch Time, Witch Walk, and other magical powers have great uses during fights, and multiple abilities can be used at the same time.
A finishing move for bosses featuring a demon called Gomorrah, an enormous creature that bites larger foes, is accessible at the end of some boss fights, serving as the most dramatic example of Bayonetta's connection with the demonic spirits of Inferno. Other finishing moves allow you to trap angels in iron maidens, guillotine them, or spin a spiked wheel on their backs. Violent combat is the heart of Bayonetta: the puzzles and story take an obvious back seat to the focus on stylized killings. Moreover, the spectacle is given obvious priority over the story.
Story
Mild spoilers are below!
Bayonetta is one of the last surviving Umbra witches, a group that was hunted to near extinction by human witch hunts throughout history. In a modern setting, her companion Enzo recounts how she was found in a casket at the bottom of a lake 20 years prior to the main events of the game. As she grapples with a general amnesia about her identity before that, she encounters another witch named Jeanne, whose presence triggers select memories about Bayoneta's past.
Intellectual Content
Even though the emphasis is clearly placed on creating a sensual and violent game first and foremost, it is established early on that Bayonetta lives in a world modeled partially after Dante Alighieri's pitifully unbiblical representation of Christian theology. The existence of God, angels, and realms like Purgatorio and Inferno are acknowledged regularly by some of the primary characters in the universe of Bayonetta, which means that many of the plot points are created around a theology that is superficially similar to Christian metaphysics. This makes the objections of some Christians to playing Bayonetta all the more ironic.
Conclusion
Bayonetta is not the best that the hack-and-slash genre has to offer, but it is not constructed poorly. Its pseudo-"Christian" lore does help set it apart from somewhat comparable games like God of War. Its uniqueness and style might be its strongest elements, even if its strangeness might simultaneously disinterest some players. The lore is certainly not a generic copy of the lore of other games. All the same, the way that lore is presented will not be for everyone. For those who are not alienated by the setup, though, Bayonetta provides fighting encounters not unlike those of the best in the genre.
Content:
1. Violence: Bayonetta obliterates her enemies with bloody kick and gun attacks. In some cases, she summons a manifestation of her power in the form of a giant, demonic creature that grabs large enemies with its teeth.
2. Profanity: By the time the first few levels alone have been completed, everything from "damn" to "fuck" has been said.
3. Nudity: While there is no full nudity shown onscreen, some of Bayonetta's attacks have her pull back the strands of hair she wears as clothes, leaving her partially or totally naked, even if players cannot directly see it.
--The Witches' Tears of Blood, Bayonetta
The original Bayonetta introduces both the "Trinity of Realities," a metaphysical world comprised of Inferno, Paradiso, and the "Human World" (with Purgatorio existing as a parallel realm), and the titular Umbra Witch with the power to manipulate the environment around her. The very fact that it is finally normal for a game like this to be on a Nintendo system is itself an achievement of Nintendo. The sensuality and violence are themselves inseparable parts of the game's fairly unique style, and Bayonetta earns her place alongside other notable characters of the hack-and-slash genre like Kratos thanks to her sorcery-driven attacks, stylish sensuality, and antihero personality. Even though the immediate story clearly lacks depth, the background lore and imagery delve into fictional metaphysics that so easily fit into the game's iconic sense of style.
Production Values
Bayonetta's graphics are definitely not the best on the Switch platform, but the game is a port from a previous generation of consoles, so there is nothing atrocious about them due to this context. Even if the visuals are not at the same level as the graphics of games like Luigi's Mansion 3, the frame rate holds up consistently, which is very needed because of the speed and fluidity required for smooth combat. The voice acting for Bayonetta herself and the supporting characters is mostly strong, but the cinematics are more hit or miss as far as their artistic sophistication goes. At this point, some of the cinematics look downright primitive due to amounting to little more than transitioning storyboards with subtitles. Thankfully, it is only some of the story videos that have this format, as plenty of cutscenes shown during a given level simply portray events using the same visuals as those of the main game.
Gameplay
Combat is the primary component of the gameplay, though minor platforming and puzzle solving are also components of the game--and the fighting can be very fucking difficult. The main attacks consist of kicks or shots from guns that are either held by Bayonetta's hands or attached to her boots. These attacks can be strung together in the same way that the light and heavy attacks in the God of War games can be combined in order to launch new moves, and the occasional mild quick time event adds slightly more variety to the combat. It is the witch powers, however, that provide the most opportunities to devastate your enemies.
Foremost among these powers is Witch Time, a mechanic involving a temporarily slowed perception of time that can be triggered by evading attacks at the last second. You can even continuously activate Witch Time consecutively as long as dodges are timed correctly. Another witch ability is Witch Walk, which allows Bayonetta to walk on walls without being subjected to the standard presence of gravity when there is a full moon. Witch Time, Witch Walk, and other magical powers have great uses during fights, and multiple abilities can be used at the same time.
A finishing move for bosses featuring a demon called Gomorrah, an enormous creature that bites larger foes, is accessible at the end of some boss fights, serving as the most dramatic example of Bayonetta's connection with the demonic spirits of Inferno. Other finishing moves allow you to trap angels in iron maidens, guillotine them, or spin a spiked wheel on their backs. Violent combat is the heart of Bayonetta: the puzzles and story take an obvious back seat to the focus on stylized killings. Moreover, the spectacle is given obvious priority over the story.
Story
Mild spoilers are below!
Bayonetta is one of the last surviving Umbra witches, a group that was hunted to near extinction by human witch hunts throughout history. In a modern setting, her companion Enzo recounts how she was found in a casket at the bottom of a lake 20 years prior to the main events of the game. As she grapples with a general amnesia about her identity before that, she encounters another witch named Jeanne, whose presence triggers select memories about Bayoneta's past.
Intellectual Content
Even though the emphasis is clearly placed on creating a sensual and violent game first and foremost, it is established early on that Bayonetta lives in a world modeled partially after Dante Alighieri's pitifully unbiblical representation of Christian theology. The existence of God, angels, and realms like Purgatorio and Inferno are acknowledged regularly by some of the primary characters in the universe of Bayonetta, which means that many of the plot points are created around a theology that is superficially similar to Christian metaphysics. This makes the objections of some Christians to playing Bayonetta all the more ironic.
Conclusion
Bayonetta is not the best that the hack-and-slash genre has to offer, but it is not constructed poorly. Its pseudo-"Christian" lore does help set it apart from somewhat comparable games like God of War. Its uniqueness and style might be its strongest elements, even if its strangeness might simultaneously disinterest some players. The lore is certainly not a generic copy of the lore of other games. All the same, the way that lore is presented will not be for everyone. For those who are not alienated by the setup, though, Bayonetta provides fighting encounters not unlike those of the best in the genre.
Content:
1. Violence: Bayonetta obliterates her enemies with bloody kick and gun attacks. In some cases, she summons a manifestation of her power in the form of a giant, demonic creature that grabs large enemies with its teeth.
2. Profanity: By the time the first few levels alone have been completed, everything from "damn" to "fuck" has been said.
3. Nudity: While there is no full nudity shown onscreen, some of Bayonetta's attacks have her pull back the strands of hair she wears as clothes, leaving her partially or totally naked, even if players cannot directly see it.
Saturday, April 11, 2020
Online Information Storage (Part 2)
As far as logical truths are concerned--not logical truths about empirical observations, but logical truths that can be reasoned out in the privacy of one's mind without any sensory input whatsoever--the internet at large is not a particularly helpful place. If someone truly needed the help that the internet might offer when it comes to discovering purely logical truths, it would be difficult to find even the most foundational and basic logical facts elaborated upon in a rational way!
The self-verifying nature of deductive reasoning, for example, is hardly even alluded to online, and yet completely unverifiable scientific and historical hearsay are commonly accepted. Sometimes such hearsay is even dissected with a level of detail that is almost never present in a great deal of what is said on internet about more explicitly philosophical matters. For all of the advantages offered by the internet, the information most people discuss and debate online is trivial, incomplete, or highly fallacious.
If logical axioms are neglected online (not that people should immediately rush to the internet to discover basic logical truths they can reason out themselves), one should not expect to find that the more precise truths about logic, metaphysics, and epistemology somehow avoid this fate. I am not even referring to logical facts like the ones on this list [1], much less the logical truths that are even more specific and original which I have hinted at someday addressing; I am referring to facts such as the unverifiability of the connection between seeing an external stimulus and the stimulus actually existing or the inability to prove the existence of other minds.
The more specific a logical truth is, the less likely a random person is to know it. As such, it is less likely that people will discover it on their own or that it will even be mentioned on the internet in the first place. This does not always reflect negatively on those who contribute to the internet because some logical truths are particularly abstract. Nevertheless, the average person's lack of autonomous discoveries of basic logical facts (for instance, that consciousness cannot be illusory, that perception does not always match the reality behind the perception, and so forth) is reflected in the internet, and this does cast a negative light on most modern people.
One of the goals behind this blog was to, at some point, address or reveal several key philosophical points that very few or, in some cases, perhaps no others have even thought of. On multiple other occasions, I have already briefly mentioned or alluded to some of the philosophical points which I have never heard anyone else even hint at (I plan on addressing these directly at some point), although some have found the logical facts that underpin them. However, the internet does not merely have no information about these particular things, but it also has little sound information about logical truths that should be far more commonly known as it is.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html
The self-verifying nature of deductive reasoning, for example, is hardly even alluded to online, and yet completely unverifiable scientific and historical hearsay are commonly accepted. Sometimes such hearsay is even dissected with a level of detail that is almost never present in a great deal of what is said on internet about more explicitly philosophical matters. For all of the advantages offered by the internet, the information most people discuss and debate online is trivial, incomplete, or highly fallacious.
If logical axioms are neglected online (not that people should immediately rush to the internet to discover basic logical truths they can reason out themselves), one should not expect to find that the more precise truths about logic, metaphysics, and epistemology somehow avoid this fate. I am not even referring to logical facts like the ones on this list [1], much less the logical truths that are even more specific and original which I have hinted at someday addressing; I am referring to facts such as the unverifiability of the connection between seeing an external stimulus and the stimulus actually existing or the inability to prove the existence of other minds.
The more specific a logical truth is, the less likely a random person is to know it. As such, it is less likely that people will discover it on their own or that it will even be mentioned on the internet in the first place. This does not always reflect negatively on those who contribute to the internet because some logical truths are particularly abstract. Nevertheless, the average person's lack of autonomous discoveries of basic logical facts (for instance, that consciousness cannot be illusory, that perception does not always match the reality behind the perception, and so forth) is reflected in the internet, and this does cast a negative light on most modern people.
One of the goals behind this blog was to, at some point, address or reveal several key philosophical points that very few or, in some cases, perhaps no others have even thought of. On multiple other occasions, I have already briefly mentioned or alluded to some of the philosophical points which I have never heard anyone else even hint at (I plan on addressing these directly at some point), although some have found the logical facts that underpin them. However, the internet does not merely have no information about these particular things, but it also has little sound information about logical truths that should be far more commonly known as it is.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)