Understanding Survival In Its Rightful Place

Survival is a vital part of practical life, as there would be no daily life without surviving in order to experience it, and thus some actions are taken by the average person on a regular basis to ensure this.  Even in modern times, the Western approach to careers is about sheer survival before it is about status, comfort, and luxury.  Without any of the latter things, people would still need to work simply to have some sort of income to buy food and ensure access to water, housing, and transportation.  However, not only is even professional work itself not solely about survival, even if some people only care about getting paid, but numerous other parts of human life are based on things other than survival.

Most social relationships are not ultimately about staying alive.  Indeed, in an ultimate sense, social bonds are not necessary for survival at all anyway, as individual people could eat, create shelter, and even live without the constant threat of death on their own, short of having some disability that gets in the way.  Increased chances of survival are a byproduct of some social activities, but that is hardly why many people form friendships, seek dating relationships, or gather with others for religious purposes.  Survival might rarely even be on the minds of people who are not in immediate danger or severe poverty.  Regardless, survival is neither the most foundational thing about reality nor the most important philosophical issue; in fact, it is very far from being either.

It is true that a person cannot grasp reason, introspect, or pursue any personal or moral goal if they are not alive, but there is so much more to the matter that reveals just how trivial survival truly is.  Survival could not be understood conceptually or be a part of reality on any level if it was not logically possible to reason out truths about it or to act on those logical truths.  Reason is inevitably, inherently more foundational than survival.  In the case of survival, that it is a prerequisite to having a life long enough to be able to reflect on key philosophical issues does not make it of anything remotely similar to the utmost importance.

There is more that could be said.  For example, there is the fact that understanding one's own existence as a metaphysical being capable of aligning with reason and engaging in introspection is completely different from focusing on the biological nature of the body one's consciousness inhabits or the factors that allow the body to survive.  There is the fact that it is not obvious or clear whether or not an afterlife exists, which means that biological survival is not necessarily the ultimate form of human existence as it is.  There is the fact that perhaps no one at all wants to survive merely for the sake of living: they seek some sort of ideological or subjective fulfillment and survival happens to keep them on the path to obtaining that fulfillment.

It is hopelessly reductionistic and false to treat survival as the umbrella under which all aspects of human behavior and thought fall.  Survival is a means to an end desired more than survival itself, not the sole or ultimate thing for which everyone strives from one moment to the next.  Only irrational beliefs would bring someone to pretend like anything contrary to this summarizes human life.  This is the very nature of all reductionism, which entails a neglect of all but a single aspect of a concept when that aspect cannot account for the whole.  In the case of pitiful reductionistic attempts to emphasize the pursuit of survival over all other parts of human existence, all it takes is a few moments of sincere reflection and introspection to disprove the error in full.

The Person Who Appeals To Legality

Beware the person who appeals to legality to "prove" the veracity of a moral idea only to suddenly admit that morality, if it exists, transcends the dictates of human legal systems.  Now, they likely do not even realize the inherent distinction between the concept of a moral obligation and that of a law, much less care about whether they are compliant with any actual moral obligations that might exist.  Their explanation for why something they do or want to do is justified starts and stops with whether it is legal in their community to do so.  At least, this is where it starts and stops before it suits their preferences to abandon this idea for something else.

Hypocrisy is the defining trait of an individual who fits this description.  When this kind of person wants to avoid criticism of their moral stances, they shallowly assert that the activity in question is legal, and when this kind of person feels that a law is unjust (for they clearly base their moral actions on preferences and emotion), they say that a deed is still moral or immoral in spite of the law.  There is not even any loyalty to one position or another based on mere emotion, just willingness to randomly switch stances in accordance with preferences.  Which thing they will say or perhaps even believe depends on their circumstances, feelings, and whatever personal benefit a certain act might bring them.

All it takes is one inconvenient or unexpected experience and they will continuously revert from one position to another!  Their stupidity is evident in their utter hypocrisy.  The same is true of their insincerity.  It is one thing to be inconsistent but at least somewhat thoughtful and concerned about truth, including truths about morality, but it is another thing to be ideologically tossed to and fro, consistent only in that changing circumstances motivate a backsliding worldview.  Going back and forth between a sort of societal law-based relativism and moral realism as is personally convenient is one of the most asinine ways someone could approach the concept of morality.

Laws reflect moral ideas, and those moral ideas are true or false irrespective of what laws or customs any culture erects.  Either no laws are just or some laws are just, but they cannot all be simultaneously correct, as the laws of different countries and even sometimes of the same country contradict each other.  Of course, legality and morality are objectively distinct concepts, and anyone is capable of realizing this completely on their own.  In no case does a law have actual philosophical authority just because a ruling class or "the people" support it.  The person who appeals to legality only betrays himself or herself in an elusive effort to fit into the changing cauldron of arbitrary cultures.

Rationalistic Optimism

A consistent rationalist is neither a philosophical pessimist in the sense of thinking that everything is automatically objectively or subjectively unpleasant nor a naive optimist in the sense of thinking that every event and mental experience will automatically work out for some cosmic or personal benefit.  Instead, a consistent rationalist realizes that some events or states of being are more personally preferable than others, as well as that it is possible for some personal and societal conditions to be morally better than others.  Irrational optimism does not rule out optimism of a different kind.

There is always the possibility that suboptimal personal or societal circumstances can improve as long as the conditions one hopes for do not contradict themselves or any necessary truth of reason.  In this way, rationalistic optimism can be found: regardless of personal preference, it is not impossible to bring about a more subjectively preferable life or conceive of a society that is not riddled with the problems present in one's community.  Not all active hope--that is, hope that is chosen instead of experienced regardless of one's wishes--is irrational or in vain.

Just as it rescues people from all manner of other errors, rationalism dispels false pessimism and false hope alike.  It can provide absolute clarity about both one's subjective comforts and discomforts and their conceptual relationship to perceived external circumstances.  Just because something seems unbearable does not mean that it is; just because something initially seems hopeless does not mean that it is.  The absolute certainty and universality of reason can even provide a source of empowerment and energy to face trials of many kinds.

Hoping for something impossible like reason being false is the most irrational kind of hope possible, and this makes hoping that any single logical truth will change the height of asinine desire.  However, this leaves hoping for anything that is logically possible within the scope of non-irrational desires.  This might seem trivial to some people, but the fact that some degree of contentment, hope, or desire is necessary to even continue living from day to day makes rationalistic optimism a matter of both philosophical clarity and personal benefit.

With this in mind, the importance of understanding optimism and hope without fallacies and assumptions should be quite clear.  It is both a matter of truth and a matter of subjective relief, or at least potential relief.  Knowledge and peace can be acquired by reflecting on this issue.  This, ultimately, is the dual impact of philosophy: everyone has a worldview, and that worldview inevitably shapes people's degrees of self-awareness, motivations, and ability to endure the trials of human life.  Rationalistic knowledge reflects a concern for truth as it also provides a basis for optimism, creating a psychological anchor amidst uncertain, sometimes overwhelming circumstances.

The Extent Of Sexism And Racism

It is possible for someone, even a supposedly committed Christian, to reject all notions that one gender or race has superior value while still regularly discriminating against men, women, blacks, whites, and so on--even in very obvious or particularly harmful ways.  Sexism and racism can manifest on the level of worldviews or actions even when a person would despise the very thought of a person having inferior or superior value because of their genitalia or skin color.  Thankfully, there is no such thing as inevitable sexism or racism of any kind, just as there is no such thing as an ideological or behavioral "blind spot" that someone can identify on their own through sheer rationality.

Some people might think that as long as they do not insult or dismiss women on the basis of their gender or believe that black people inherently live criminal lifestyles, they are not truly sexist or racist.  This is double erroneous, as there are many ways one could be sexist against women or racist against blacks beyond this, and there are many ways one could be sexist against men and racist against people with white or brown skin, to name just several examples.  Even the slightest discrimination against someone because of their gender or race is sexism or racism by default.  Of course, not all instances of sexism and racism are minor, but even the smaller cases of it, whether they are largely confined to the level of beliefs or not, always have the potential to snowball into far greater offenses against reason.

The relatively small cases of sexism or racism usually do lead to greater forms, of course.  For example, the idea that black people are somehow inherently dangerous could isolate them in ways that make life economically more difficult because of the color of their skin, which in turn can make theft an easier way to obtain basic things like food.  The theft is then in turn potentially used as a red herring "justification" for regarding blacks as more dangerous and worthy of automatic suspicion.  Almost all forms of sexism and racism--against men, women, blacks, whites, and other racial categories--have this devious way of spiralling further into stupidity.  No gender or racial stereotype has purely "trivial" potential to inspire further fallacies and injustices.

All that is necessary to see if someone understands the true scope of either kind of discrimination is to observe how consistent they are in denouncing either.  The belief that black people naturally gravitate towards crime, whether or not many individual black people commit certain crimes due to the social pressures of stereotypes and other factors, is racist, yet so is the belief that white people are oblivious or racist by default.  Fighting racism against blacks is not enough; fighting some racism against blacks is likewise not enough.  Similarly, fighting sexism against women, especially in a selective manner, is not enough to make someone an egalitarian.  Discrimination of this kind is diverse enough to survive in some forms even as others are condemned harshly.

There is no single way that it is possible to embrace or express sexism and racism.  Anyone who believes that sexism can only be inflicted on women or racism on non-whites is already hypocritical and irrational by default, but even women and blacks can be discriminated against in numerous ways.  A sexist or racist person could make genuine effort to overcome their prejudices in some areas while leaving other areas unnoticed.  Such a person could fiercely hate some types of discrimination based on gender or race because they are sexist or racist and yet still be ideologically blind enough to not be consistent.  In fact, many people are this way.  Inconsistency is the great enemy of sincerity that only a self-aware and rationalistic person, other than a blind but fortunate one, can avoid entirely.

Logical Possibility And Sensory Experiences

There are only so many strictly logical truths that can be discovered about certain issues and concepts before there is nothing left to discover about them that can be learned apart from psychological or sensory experiences.  At least the fact that the necessary truths of logic, such as what follows and does not follow from a fact or idea, apply to any particular thing can be known, and sometimes that is all that can be proven about a thing.  The truth about issues in this category might be unknowable beyond this, but not every issue falls in this category.  Some of the others can be fully illuminated by reason because they involve purely logical truths, and some involve a different nature altogether.

In some cases, logical possibility and sensory experiences can lead to the same conclusion independently of each other.  For example, a person who has very briefly seen or heard of fire can realize that it is logically possible for fire to burn a variety of materials, but they could also directly observe fire burning different materials with their own senses without ever specifically thinking of the logical possibility of the matter beforehand.  Reasoning out that such a thing is possible first could lead to sensory tests, and vice versa.  Either of these options can lead to the same awareness that specific events in the material world are at least possible.

The example of fire's ability to burn different substances is one of numerous examples that could be given of logically possible concepts for which the same epistemological relationship applies.  Many aspects of human life share the same qualities.  It is possible to reason out that men and women can be purely nonromantic friends or that different plants might need different environmental conditions with no other sensory experiences than those necessary to introduce someone to perceptions of men, women, or plants.  These are random examples, but they clearly illustrate the type of information in question.

Of course, no one can prove that their sensory perceptions accurately reflect the whole of the external world, so the only true knowledge that can be gained here is conceptual knowledge and knowledge of one's sensory perceptions themselves.  Since conceptual knowledge of reason and beyond is the foundation of sound epistemology in the first place, this does not threaten awareness of objective truth at all.  All that it means at most is that human epistemological limitations prevent specific kinds of knowledge that experience and reason would otherwise illuminate in full.

Looking To Words Instead Of Concepts

The folly of looking primarily to words instead of thoroughly looking to actual concepts is sometimes the reason why certain people fail to use language consistently.  Some words like "logic" or "conscious" that can convey very specific philosophical concepts or truths are still used with much lesser degrees of thoughtfulness and precision in "normal" conversations.  Many times, someone will get away with contradictory uses of the same words because they do not consciously acknowledge that philosophy underpins everything about existence, as well as because they genuinely lack the self-awareness and self-development necessary to understand concepts themselves consistently.

It is one thing to intentionally, knowingly use less specific language in conversations that are not particularly philosophical or important.  Of course this can be far more convenient even for people who do not pretend they can truly avoid philosophy in certain social or life contexts.  It is another thing to only think precisely about concepts when someone else calls out the ambiguities or inconsistencies in their casual language (not that everyone even uses language inconsistently or without having thought rationally about what they mean by specific words ahead of time).

In the case of the latter, one finds that plenty of other people act like they wish to be thought of as rational only to not even describe their own worldviews coherently when pressed.  I am not talking about people who are rational but simply do not have an easy time articulating their valid philosophical stances.  I am referring to people whose words betray a lack of intelligence, consistency, and depth, people who do not even use words consistently when someone discusses more abstract matters than daily practicality.

For some people, language, not reason, is what they look to, stopping at words and halfhearted attempts to describe beliefs and ideas instead of looking to the concepts behind them.  This is why their linguistic habits are inconsistent without them even recognizing it until someone else points it out.  They do not even try to consistently understand philosophical concepts on their own, even when their everyday lives make them stare at those concepts blankly, because it is so much easier to only think about whatever concepts are directly referred to in informal communication with coworkers or similarly inept friends.

Reason and concepts precede language, and anyone who places a reverse emphasis on these things stands on sheer philosophical nonsense.  The tendency for non-rationalists to not even know how they need to use words in order to be clear (as clear as language allows for, at least) and consistent with their own terms and ideas is quite evident when one searches for it.  All one needs to do to expose this lack of philosophical substance and basic consistency is ask the people in question to clarify their definitions in different scenarios.  If they do not grasp the concepts behind their words soundly, they will likely not even be able to explain themselves without contradicting something they said before.

Sinning In Hell: A Failed Rescue Device For Standard Eternal Conscious Torment

Perhaps the only reason why someone is likely to think that the unsaved consistently sin in hell is if they realize, at least on some level, that there is an enormous disparity between a limited number of sins committed in a finite duration, and default eternal conscious torment for every sinful being.  Yet this is exactly what certain evangelicals support or hypothesize.  Why else would someone seriously consider something so foreign to clear Biblical statements about hell and ultimate punishment except as an extra-Biblical way to make it seem like an eternal, conscious existence in hell's torments is actually the just thing for God to impose?

After all, there is not only blatant and consistent confirmation that the Bible says the wicked are damned to eventual cosmic death (with the seeming exception of very specific subcategories of fallen beings [1]), but the Bible also emphasizes the finite and proportional nature of justice.  40 lashes and no more, the Bible says (Deuteronomy 25:1-3); eye for eye, the Bible says, speaking only of certain permanent injuries inflicted in specific kinds of non-sexual assaults [2]; seven years can a criminal work off their debt before they are released, the Bible says (Exodus 22:3 with 21:2).

Then there are the numerous acts the Bible prohibits, such as rape, kidnapping, and many severe tortures (again, see Deuteronomy 25:3) which are always condemned and punished because they are inherently evil on the Biblical worldview.  If 41 lashes are to never be inflicted on any man or woman no matter what they have done because such punishment is degrading and therefore unjust due to cruelty, how can suffering without any respite or ending point be just?  If no amount or kind of sin makes someone deserve to have an inherently sinful act like rape inflicted on them, and if proportionate punishments of the exact kinds prescribed in the Bible are just, how could God himself not contradict his own nature by subjecting all humans to endless torment?

It would not matter if someone never stopped sinning.  Injustice is still injustice.  However, why would anyone think it true or even likely true that all unsaved persons will continue to sin in hell?  People have their own motivations and desires, so even if some people were to sin endlessly in hell--and how improbable this seems if they are suffering the way some proponents of eternal conscious torment insist--it would not follow that other people will do the same.  Even so, the Bible already teaches that death of body and soul (Matthew 10:28, Ezekiel 18:4, Romans 6:23) awaits unsaved humans, with God himself having to grant humans eternal life if they are not to perish forever (even a verse as commonly misapplied as John 3:16 says as much).

If constant sinning in hell would make eternal conscious torment just, then the Bible, in saying that an end of conscious life awaits the unsaved, would directly teach something from which it follows that there will be no such perpetual sinning in the lake of fire.  This notion is a faulty rescue device for the standard idea of eternal conscious torment for all beings.  It is nothing but a random notion invoked as a hypothetical justification for an unbiblical tradition.  Most evangelical and historical ideas about the Christian hell blatantly contradict the Bible, and never once does the Bible even suggest that every unsaved person will literally sin against God or others in hell without end.

[1].  See here:

 A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2020/03/revelation-149-11.html

 B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/revelation-20-and-annihilationism.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/revelation-20-and-annihilationism.html

Movie Review--Death Of Me

"Why leave paradise?"

--Madee, Death of Me

Director Darren Lynn Bousman has been heavily involved in the Saw franchise, and, just as Leigh Whannel eventually directed The Invisible Man, Bousman has his own separate horror film with Death of Me.  Death of Me is not the masterpiece of restraint and thematically important but artistically superb filmmaking that Whannel's The Invisible Man turned out to be, yet the former still shows that Bousman is perfectly capable of directing horror films other than something like Saw III or his upcoming Saw sequel Spiral.  With Death of Me, Bousman addresses the potential of Eastern metaphysical ideas for horror while letting an actress and actor not particularly associated with the genre take the lead roles.

Production Values

A lack of both cryptozoological and supernatural creatures and the limited location keep Death of Me centered on drama, the plight of its main characters, and a handful of relevant epistemological themes.  A handful of scenes show people with their eyes and mouths sewn shut, which is largely as close as the film gets to showing any sort of antagonists other than mysterious natives of Thailand.  Maggie Q and Chris Hemsworth have great chemistry as an affectionate couple slammed with one problem after another as they try to end their vacation until they find a video of one killing the other.  The nature of the story is more about them reacting to troubling circumstances than them changing as characters, but that does not cast any sort of negative light on the performances.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

An American couple--Neil and Christine--visiting Thailand wakes up needing to quickly take a ferry off the island to escape a typhoon, but a series of grave inconveniences leave them without their passports, their luggage getting ferried away as they are forced to stay.  They return to their room, at which point Neil views some pictures and part of a two and a half hour video he took (he came to the island as a photographer).  Watching the massive video, they see the waitress put something into their drinks shortly before they head back to their room.  However, the video shows a waitress drug Christine and Neil, who then walk back to their sleeping quarters before Neil chokes Christine seemingly to death, digs a grave, and buries her.  She begins having bizarre experiences that disorient her and make her question the veracity of her sensory perceptions.

Intellectual Content

The puzzling video of Neil and Christine in which one kills the other marks the beginning of the grave epistemological inquiries Death of Me stands on, with one character acting like the video is a staged production by default and others treating it with suspicion.  The word "impossible," as is often the case in entertainment as a whole, is thrown out by people who mistake something that conflicts with their sensory perceptions and memories for something that cannot be true.  Anyone can recognize that, with the sole exception of physical sensations [1], sensory perceptions do not prove anything about the actual external world, and they do not need to wait until some disturbing sensory experience or someone else talks about philosophy with them to realize that seeing something does not prove it exists in any form outside of one's mind.

Conclusion

2020 was a year of drought for cinema, with horror unsurprisingly still having some excellent releases even as enormous movies were pushed back into 2021 or beyond.  Death of Me is just one of several clever horror films that debuted last year.  Yes, it shares some loose similarities to previous horror movies (which I will not name for the sake of not accidentally spoiling some of the plot), but it also has its own novel elements that reinforce both the story and the philosophical themes, even if the latter will be misunderstood or ignored by many viewers.  Maggie Q, Luke Hemsworth, and Buddhist references help it stand on its own even if viewers of older horror movies might recognize some familiar plot points.

Content:

 1.  Violence:  A character chokes another person to the point of unconsciousness and seeming death early on.  The same character is shown cutting himself with a knife and pulling out his own organs later, but it is unclear if the act was hallucinated or if he actually did it.  Closer to the end, a woman shoots someone in the head at close range, which throws blood on a window.

 2.  Profanity:  Mild profanity includes a usage of "hell" in a non-theological context, but variants of "fuck" and "shit" are heard.

 3.  Sexuality:  The two lead characters engage in a largely clothed sexual act of penetration in the video they watch.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html

If Social Conditioning Shunned Clothing Itself As Sexual

It is extremely common for those in America to almost exclusively encounter clothed people in daily life, with nudity often being reserved for bathing or showering, privately changing clothes, erotic media, in-person sexual acts, or the occasional nude beach or resort.  The shock at nudity in other contexts, whether the intention or actions taken afterward are sexual or not, perpetuates the general public perception that nudity has an inescapable sexual component even when a naked person in the presence of others is not doing or thinking anything sexual.  This misleading perception actually could have been the opposite of what it is, however rare this inverse set of perceptions is now.

Perhaps if the majority of a large society's members regularly went about their lives without clothing instead of regularly wearing some kind of clothes, it would be the case that wearing clothing, especially tighter or more revealing clothing that showcases male and female bodies, would actually be mistakenly assumed to be sexual and nudity would be perceived as nonsexual.  It would still be irrational for anyone to think that any kind of clothing or the lack of clothing is sexual, as both the clothed and unclothed body would be objectively nonsexual while still being subjectively perceived as sexy by some individuals at some times.  Still, if most people in a culture acted like clothing is sexual and nudity is not, the prudish American attitudes towards nudity could be reversed.

After all, the same people who think that nudity is a sexual thing that can be used in nonsexual contexts, as opposed to an objectively nonsexual thing that can be used in sexual contexts, could be conditioned to think that it is actually clothing that is inherently sexual and not the naked body.  All it would take is a culture of different myths.  Multiple people might then mention that certain clothing, perhaps of a certain tightness, transparency, or otherwise revealing nature, is more arousing to them than simple nudity.  Others might assume that people only wear clothing at least in part to sexually entice those of the opposite gender into wondering how sexy their unclothed bodies might be.  Instead of this possible set of perceptions, we have in America a different set.

Maybe the present public perceptions are simply how things would seem to them left to themselves, and maybe those perceptions were shaped or even completely brought into their experiences by social conditioning, intentionally or unintentionally, but no one would be unable to reason out the truth of the matter.  Every individual could still sincerely reflect on the matter, look to reason, and see that there is a difference between sexiness (which is all about whether an individual finds something sexually attractive or exciting at a certain moment) and the logical nature of clothing, nudity, and sensuality.  The truth is that while neither clothing nor the absence of clothing is sexual, nudity and clothing can both be appreciated sexually on a selective basis--and either or both can be mistaken as sexual.

Different groups of people have different perceptions of how sexual or nonsexual the naked human body is, as well as different perceptions of how sexual or nonsexual the body of either gender is when adorned with various styles or degrees of clothing; all people can give themselves philosophical enlightenment on the matter by thinking about it rationalistically.  This knowledge of the differences between sensuality and sexuality, beauty and sexiness, and nudity and sex can be attained without thinking about a hypothetical society where clothing itself is thought of as shockingly sexual.  The hypothetical society in question only shows how arbitrary and socially enforced the current American approach to nudity is in a general sense.

That Which Is Greater Than Oneself

One reason why some people are so eager to throw themselves in with popular ideologies and groups is a desire to be a part of something larger than their own lives.  They think that social connection with others, no matter the philosophies they have, will fulfill them and make them feel immersed in something significant.  Acceptance and fitting in are appealing to the point that deviation from socially favored ideas might be perceived as shallow and non-rationalistic peace is perceived as a thing of depth.  The group's satisfaction seems that special to such an inane thinker.  After all, the group is larger than them in that they are but one of many people, and a sense of belonging and connection to something larger are all they want most.

Turning to group approval instead of truth is a betrayal of reality itself, as it involves turning one's back on reason.  Self-verifying truths are of greater philosophical importance than any group of mere people could ever be.  A desire to be affiliated with something grand and large can find in logic its ultimate relief.  Reason is not seen with the sense of sight or validated by collective belief; it is grasped with the intellect and used to evaluate sensory information, which, along with its inherent self-affirming nature [1], makes it more foundational than anything perceived with the five senses (not that there are only five senses!), including the words and appearances of other people.

Reason is bigger than everything else because it governs all things in a way that renders it impossible for anything at all to deviate from what must logically follow from certain truths or concepts.  If someone wishes to belong to something larger than they are, the only thing that they can give their focus and allegiance to without there being something philosophically greater is the truths of reason.  People can only exist in the first place and have correct ideas if it is logically possible for them to exist and for their ideas to be correct (although logical possibility alone does not make something true!), while logic is true, accessible, and universal.  Social agreement is none of these things by default.

A sense of extraordinarily vast scale and metaphysical significance--which is not the same as significance in the sense of objective values--is merely a happenstance, subjective byproduct of various thoughts and experiences, whether spurred by social interaction or not, so it is more of a potential blessing than a philosophical necessity.  All the same, no one who intentionally seeks it out needs to look to the pathetic nature of social agreement and cooperation to find that kind of awe and fulfillment.  Looking to reason and recognizing its central primacy in all matters of truth, from matters of abstract epistemology to grand metaphysics to personal practicality, can provide the ultimate sense of alignment with something larger than oneself.

Indeed, it is by reason that reason itself and all other knowable things can be known, and rationalism and the laws of logic are true whether or not other people exalt them to their rightful place.  No one escapes or nullifies reason by identifying with popular beliefs and preferences simply because they are popular or preferred, but everyone who consistently aligns with reason can escape every single error they and their societies would otherwise succumb to.  They can ensure they are living for the one thing that must be true in order for anything else to be true and can consequently reason certain things out alone before helping others of a more sluggish pace understand those truths as well, for rationalism does not isolate people from social connections.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/denial-of-reason.html

Zack Snyder's Superman

It would be difficult for someone even faintly familiar with Christian images and theology to not notice that Zack Snyder's Man of Steel repeatedly points to its titular character resembling Jesus.  His dedication to quite literally saving humanity in Man of Steel, his controversy-riddled life that ends in a sacrificial death in Batman v Superman, and his resurrection in Zack Snyder's Justice League collectively tell a story that is brimming with Christological themes.  In response to this major part of the DCEU's core storytelling, there have been two primary stances that non-interested audience members take, neither of which is particularly friendly to the director's goals.

I have seen Christians complain about how a secular entertainment industry is trying to "get Christians to spend money" by including explicitly Christological imagery in themes in movies like Man of Steel, and I have also seen non-Christians (or at least seeming non-Christians) mock Zack Snyder for allegedly trying too hard to be subtle and overt at once.  Both of these are entirely misguided approaches to Zack Snyder's Superman.  Superman, with the exception of his alternate versions like the one seen in the Injustice video games or the Red Son "Elseworlds" type of stories, is sometimes literally supposed to be a Christ figure.

On one hand, Superman is literally supposed to be a science fiction version of Moses and Jesus--he is sent away as a child by his parents to avoid death and be raised by others, only to become an almost Messianic figure to the humans who will eventually look to him for deliverance and inspiration.  This much has been apparent across different iterations.  In light of this, it would actually be a betrayal of the comic origin to disregard the intentionally explicit Christological comparisons which can be made.  Man of Steel and Batman v Superman both make this clear, but moreso Man of Steel, with story choices like having Clark Kent undergo a grand struggle at age 33 or holding his body in the shape of a cross after being told he can save humankind.

On the other hand, as for the other set of criticisms, this thematic side of the plot is supposed to be blatant to at least some extent.  After all, the Christological characteristics of Kal-El are part of his core character outside of the alternate, more experimental versions of the character that only seem so jarring because they are different from the standard character.  Making a Superman without the Christ-like relationship to humans would be like making a Batman without the trauma of his parents' death--perhaps it could work, as it does in Injustice, but it is not Superman's most prominent form.  Saying that Superman's Christ parallels are overt is like saying that Batman's family-related trauma is obvious.

Zack Snyder's Superman is one of the best versions in recent years, certainly the deepest iteration in film.  The similarities between this Superman and the Jesus of Christian theology are integral to this vision of the character.  Like Noah and Exodus, other films that are very clearly about Christian subject matter but made by non-Christians, Man of Steel shows that it is ironically those who are not committed to Christianity that historically tend to create the most philosophically, culturally impactful and artistically significant works of entertainment that grapple with Christian themes.  This does not have to be the case, but the most controversial cinematic depiction of Superman only serves as another example of this.

Gratuitous Linguistic Distinctions

Words communicate concepts, and anyone who thinks words have some special, objective significance beyond this is foolish.  Concepts do not change, but words are contrived, used, modified, and abandoned as needed, even when the users do not directly think about the true arbitrariness and disposability of language.  Words are inevitably used to define other words, and those words can be switched out for others as is most convenient for clarifying the speaker's ideas or helping the audience understand those ideas.  There is always an underlying randomness to how language is initially created, however consistent its sounds and words might be beyond the starting point, but even more random is the attempt to distinguish synonyms as if the ideas they are associated with are truly distinct.

There are numerous examples of words used interchangeably on a regular basis that some would strongly insist actually refer to different things, such as feeling (like anger or sadness, not physical pain) and emotion, fact and truth, moral and ethical, and movie and film.  Each of these pairs, in reality, can refer to exactly the same idea(s).  What a fool a person must be if they do not understand that many people use one member of the pair in place of the other without contradiction or intellectual error!  As I have elaborated upon multiple times before here, there is no such thing as a non-arbitrary language, although consistent language and non-arbitrary grasp of concepts are both entirely possible.  However, with distinctions such as the aforementioned ones some try to enforce, the arbitrariness increases significantly.

Perhaps attempting to distinguish certain words makes someone feel sharp, but it is far from intelligent and helpful to do so.  For those who try to needlessly make language even more arbitrary than it inherently is--for no sound from the human tongue or written symbol has intrinsic linguistic meaning other than whatever the individual speaker/writer means by it--dividing otherwise synonymous terms like "moral" and "ethical" might provide a feeling of illusionary sophistication or of fitting into a pre-established group.  They might feel or believe they have accomplished something important, but they have only introduced the potential for more unnecessary linguistic confusion.

Little to nothing is accomplished by these especially arbitrary and vague distinctions of language other than the treatment of identical concepts as if they are as separate as different words.  Rational minds do not try to divide or multiply words referring to concepts that reduce down to the same thing simply for the sake of doing so, and irrational minds will likely either embrace conceptual error or fall into puzzlement when words are used in this way.  The entire social purpose of words is communication of ideas.  Only the contents of one's own mind can be directly proven and experienced, so I cannot know if other people truly understand what I mean by my words, but there is no need or benefit to continually dividing words when they revolve around the same concepts.

The Existential Peril Of Ignoring Truth For Desire

The pursuit of random desires and pleasures for their own sake has no end but the setting aside of truth and the accompanying rejection of the only genuine source of stability.  It is true that a lack of rationalistic initiative can help some people avoid existential crises out of sheer stupidity, as a non-rationalist is not even self-equipped to understand the epistemological and metaphysical issues that could prompt a personal crisis, but even non-rationalists are immersed in philosophical matters on a constant basis whether or not they wish to realize it, and some of their thoughts or experiences might still trigger an existential crisis.  If this kind of turmoil consumes their life, they will have not prepared adequately.

Random pleasures and distractions might be able to push back existential dread for a time, and not everyone will necessarily have the same subjective attitude or response towards any aspect of reality, but pleasure and distraction might only hold off awareness of how deep the ramifications of nihilism truly are for so long.  Even someone truly able to find personal refuge in subjective happiness alone is no more than a potential moment away from having to painfully confront the fact that subjectivity can only have significance in light of objectivity and that unless there is objective meaning to human existence, subjective satisfaction is inherently empty, offering nothing more than temporary experiential contentment.

That contentment could be snatched away or shattered by a simple philosophical analysis of the nature of contentment and subjectivity is one potential reason why so many people do not dwell on, bring up, or outwardly engage with any sort of philosophical ideas about epistemology and values outside of the narrow scope of their community's norms.  A single moment of introspective and intellectual honesty could reduce an irrational person to sheer terror.  If that moment comes--and, as philosophically apathetic and inept as most people are, it probably will come--the non-rationalist has no consistent grasp of reason ready to turn to.  Ignoring logical truths and the difference between subjective joys and objective meaning is nothing but peril.

It is one thing to realize that personal longings, preferences, and joys can indeed be very deep, inspiring, and complex, even if it is utterly shallow to mistake them for anything more than the subjective layer of existence that they are.  It is another thing, and a completely asinine one at that, to mistake the subjectivity of fulfillment and desires for confirmation that nihilism must be true.  Moreover, sidelining a focus on reason in favor of unreflective pleasures is a choice of philosophical cowardice and a betrayal of reason.  This path not only drives one further from the only truths there are about the matter, even though some of them are unknowable, but it also undermines the very basis of the deepest satisfaction by divorcing it from rationality.

Without acknowledgment of the inflexible, omnipresent nature of logical truths, any attempt to live a meaningful or fulfilling life--and the concepts of meaning and fulfillment are entirely distinct--is a futile, unsound approach to living.  People are adrift in avoidable stupidity when they truly think or act as if their desires automatically have validity whether or not nihilism is true.  Some truths about meaning, including whether it is true if objective meaning exists, might ultimately be unprovable, but everyone is at least capable of realizing how shallow, pointless, and asinine the pursuit of personal satisfaction at all costs inherently is.

Movie Review--Dominion: Prequel To The Exorcist

"It's so much easier to believe evil is random, or an ogre.  And not that it's a human condition, something everyone is capable of."

--Rachel Lesno, Dominion: Prequel to The Exorcist

Dominion, its status as a prequel to The Exorcist literally part of its full title, tries to tackle very serious subject matter like the impact of Nazi Germany and ideological confusion while in a time of crisis, handling them with more of a focus on very slow burn worldbuilding than a focus on supernatural horror, at least for the first hour of the film.  There is an exorcism, which unfortunately includes the typical Trinitarian bullshit equated with core Christianity in so many movies, but most of the movie is dedicated to mere buildup.  Some viewers might subjectively find it too slow for them because of this, while viewers who prefer intentionally philosophical works might appreciate it far more.

Production Values

Dominion stands largely on its performances as it slowly builds to a climax, some of the primary cast members being Stellan Skarsgard (Thor) as Lankester Merrin, a priest who succumbs to a Nazi officer's whims, and Clara Bellar as Rachel, a medical professional who romantically bonds with Merrin after World War II.  The actors and actresses maintain very sincere performances all the way through, discussing and wrestling with philosophically important aspects of Christianity and relations between groups of people while exhibiting their individual characters' nuances--yet not all aspects of Dominion remain so consistently strong.  Closer to the end, very weak CGI contrasts with the largely practical effects and CGI-less shots of desert scenery and human interactions that take up far more of the runtime.  Since the effects of a poor quality are mostly if not wholly confined to later scenes, such blemishes on an otherwise carefully executed film cannot be legitimately said to represent the entire movie.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

Some time before the end of World War II, a Nazi has random civilians in an occupied territory shot when he cannot find the person responsible for killing German soldiers, pressuring a priest into choosing which people will die.  The experience traumatizes Lankester Merrin (the priest) so deeply that he hides within a pursuit of archeology after the war.  One of his excavation projects leads to the unearthing of a pseudo-church structure that appears to mark or guard something below its surface.  On further inspection, an area below the church-like building seems to have been used in human sacrifice to a pagan deity or demonic entity.

Intellectual Content

There is no logical fact from which it follows that a malevolent spirit will be trapped by building a structure dedicated to God above a temple used to sacrifice people to the demon or to some pagan deity the demon supposedly represents.  It remains logically possible, but Biblical details do not even hint at such a thing.  Much of the common conception of demonic activity and the possibility of one person restoring another from possession has far more to do with film norms than with Biblical theology.  Everything from the arbitrary exorcism rituals in many possession movies to the emphasis on physical iconography like "holy" water or random crosses has no basis in the Bible.  Even aside from the continuation of theologically baseless cliches, the characters often fall into the stupidity of hating God or religions that have not been disproven instead of hating whatever people are responsible for the deeds that have harmed them, a backwards approach that is far more damaging than yet another pointless association of things like holy water and genuine Christianity.

Conclusion

As a possession story, or at least a prequel to one of the most popular and respected possession movies of all time, Dominion has a weaker presence than plenty of other films.  This is not a default sign of poor quality for this subgenre im itself.  What it does mean is that viewers will find that the demonic activity does not even start until at least around 40-45 minutes in, and even then, subtlety and gradual buildup of the spiritual conflict are in play.  Dominion could have been more eventful and deep, yes.  Nonetheless, its consistently strong performances and its connection to a movie of immense cultural significance serve as genuine merits.

Content:

 1.  Violence:  The corpses of two men are displayed on an altar, with blades protruding from one of them.  A British brass member strikes a Kenyan on the head with a pistol before shooting another one in the head onscreen.

The Slippery Slope Fallacy Defense Of Free Speech

The last refuge--if not the first refuge--of the irrational when putting forth their positions on matters of morality or law is the hypothetical consequences of something rather than its actual nature.  The moment someone uses the slippery slope fallacy, they have exposed a philosophical weakness that touches upon their intellectual and moral incompetencies.  Although anything could be argued for using slippery slopes, which appeal to uncertain outcomes as justification for philosophical beliefs and actions in the present, some particular stances are more publicly defended with them, such as the current legal-moral conception of freedom of speech.  Future tyranny is one of the first and only defenses conservatives put forth.

Indeed, it almost always comes down to its adherents defending freedom of speech in a universal or near-universal scope simply because they fear that they might be eventually ostracized for their words in the future, as if conservatism as a moral and legal philosophy isn't asinine and worthy of refutation and condemnation as it is.  It is as if they think opposing freedom of speech on valid philosophical grounds is almost synonymous with legally punishing people for saying unpopular things.  Never is the focus of someone who defends freedom of speech (whether or not they have arbitrary exceptions) on truth, or else they would abandon the madness of thinking that lack of freedom of speech means that legal penalties accompany every fallacious or unintelligent thought someone articulates.

Conservatives who emphasize their love of freedom of speech--and liberals too, although conservatives are the ones who tend to emotionalistically appeal to the supposed moral authority of a political document in favor of freedom of speech--often must stir up anxiety about the future in order to defend the idea.  This kind of person is always worried about some hypothetical, unprovable future time when certain worldviews or individuals will be "censored" or punished on a mass scale.  Slippery slopes and broader appeals to future events are both fallacies on their own, and the former is, in fact, just a subcategory of the latter, but there is a deeper irrationality than this kind of assumption.

Another thing they overlook, if they even understand it on any level, is that truth itself is by nature in opposition to any legal freedom to embrace irrationality or evil.  Freedom of speech goes beyond merely not punishing people for making miscellaneous asinine or inflammatory claims; all that would be necessary to ensure that is not having laws allowing for the prosecution of people just for being irrational.  The concept of freedom of speech stands on the myth that people have a right to believe and say whatever they want out of sheer preference.  The very notion that people are morally free to do such a thing is inherently at odds with logic and truth themselves.

Since the entire point of freedom of speech is that people have a right to believe (implicitly) and a right to say whatever they want regardless of what is true, it is incoherent to even pretend like freedom of truth is about protecting or furthering the truth in any way.  Conservatives (or liberals, perhaps) who believe freedom of speech--in the contemporary sense meant by the phrase--is a right have only preference to look to.  Preference is an inherently arbitrary and unstable basis for law, and legal structures can only have validity if morality both exists and matches the content of the laws.  Conservatives, for all their usual talk about wanting to make sure they do the right thing regardless of cultural norms, fail to be consistent with some of their own tenets.

Exploiting Hypocrisy

All it takes to expose many hypocrites is several minutes of questioning.  After all, hypocrisy can be evident without watching anyone's actions--their words and the ideas those words are supposed to express can betray just inconsistency as their actions, and sometimes it can bring even more to light.  Actions can be disguised in a cloak of false motives and can even sometimes be explained in a way that is not truly inconsistent with professed beliefs.  However, an irrational person cannot hide assumptions or philosophical inconsistencies completely, even if their actions are wholly consistent with their ideologies.

After all, even a single attempt to excuse or misleadingly describe just some aspects of their worldview shows that they do not have consistent alignment with reason, with inconsistency necessitating either stupidity or insincerity, if not both at once.  Such a person might present themselves as rational--as assumption-free, consistent, thorough, and focused on important truths.  They simply will not be able to do so forever if they truly are a hypocrite.  The moment their hypocrisy is exposed, they have given rationalists a glaring weak point that can be ruthlessly exploited as needed.  In fact, it is one of the greatest outwardly evident weaknesses to non-rationalists.

Hypocrisy is one of the best social tools a hypocrite could provide to a rationalist.  Most people cannot reason out explicitly philosophical truths on their own (not because of an ultimate inability to do so but because they lack self-development and philosophical initiative), but almost anyone can be at least manipulated into recognizing the hypocrisy of someone with worldviews they have no bias in favor of.  This is instrumental to swaying otherwise ignorant, apathetic people to oppose someone with a fallacious stance.  When a non-rationalist has hypocritical beliefs or engages in hypocritical actions, they have thus held out knives for rationalists to freely take and stab them with as others watch.

Simple questions can bait a hypocrite into thoughtlessly revealing their true self, making them vulnerable to even the sluggish, often inept observations of onlookers.  Hypocrisy, being one of the most consistently criticized errors in mainstream culture, has nowhere to hide when it has been forced into the open.  If someone will not be consistent in a rational way, it is very likely that they believe their own philosophical ideas in a selective manner.  When this is the case, there is always the possibility of exposing the inconsistencies to those who hoped they were at least sincere and consistent in their philosophies.  There are few weapons as potent in manipulating non-rationalists as exploiting hypocrisy on the level of actions, words, or beliefs.

The Witch Of Endor

The Bible itself, in giving examples of specific witches, casts aside the notion that verses like Exodus 22:18 do not really refer to actual sorcerers and sorceresses, a notion based on the mere assumption that witches do not or cannot exist.  If the Bible simply taught that witchcraft is an impossible sin but one that can be feigned, it would not only have to specifically say that in order to clarify Exodus 22:18--or else it would command executions for merely pretending to commit a capital offense and thus violate repeated instructions to only punish people for things they have truly done--but it would also have to omit or change figures like the Witch of Endor that King Saul is said to have visited.

Deuteronomy 18:9-13 refers to people who are described as if they genuinely are capable of using supernatural power beyond ordinary human abilities, yet the aforementioned Witch of Endor exemplifies what it might look like for someone to actually use some of these powers.  In this story from Samuel 1 28:3-25, King Saul disobeys Mosaic Law by seeking advice from a necromancer when God does not give him military instructions about how to deal with the Philistines.  Saul disguises himself in other clothing to hide his identity as king before setting out.  The passage does not say that the witch at Endor only summoned a demon impersonating Samuel or that the experience was a shared hallucination or trick on her part; it says that the woman brings up Samuel himself.

Some in church history have foolishly assumed that the Witch of Endor must have falsely pretended to summon the dead, with the frightened reaction of the witch serving as supposed evidence.  However, any attentive reader can see that she is concerned because she has been visited by King Saul, a person at least superficially associated with Yahweh's laws, some of which call for the execution of all genuine sorcerers and sorceresses, necromancers, and those who consult demonic spirits.  After all, even before she realizes Saul is the man before her, she voices alarm about Saul's enforcement of Mosaic Law, after which Saul promises that she would not be killed for fulfilling his request (1 Samuel 28:9-10).

The witch recognizes him only two verses later after the prophet Samuel is named and conjured up, at which point Saul again affirms that she does not need to be afraid of execution.  1 Samuel does not take this additional opportunity to state that the witch was actually a fraudulent pretender who only appeared to summon a spirit at whim.  Thus, the textual evidence plainly suggests that the Witch of Endor truly did possess powers of necromancy or sorcery, contradicting the claims of any Christian who say otherwise.  Not only does 1 Samuel say that the witch was genuine, it provides no evidence at all that could be wrongly interpreted in support of the pretender idea!

The only way someone would think that the Witch of Endor was not connected with supernatural abilities is if they make assumptions rather than analyze the text rationalistically.  Such an endeavor is inherently irrational because all assumptions are lapses in rationality, but the error is doubled when a Christian who would say this also thinks they are truly trying to understand the Bible as it is without assuming some incorrect framework and imposing it on the stories and commands therein.  Exodus 22:18, Deuteronomy 18:9-13, and 1 Samuel 28:3-25 are just some of the verses that directly present witchcraft and necromancy as acts that humans can legitimately perform.  Witchcraft, as rare as it might be in Christian theology and in actual history (that is, if the Biblical accounts of history are true), is certainly a legitimate thing according to the Bible.

The Other Side Of Black Holes

Beyond engaging with subjective fascination or curiosity, there is little reason to even contemplate the nature of many cosmological bodies or phenomena, real or hypothetical, other than to use them as examples of what does or does not logically follow from something.  Among the most special cosmological entities is the black hole, a singularity (gravitational anomaly with an extreme pull) said to absorb matter and even visible light itself.  This puts black holes in the position of being unobservable in any direct sense.  Some people might misunderstand what I am saying to the point of straw manning me as if I said that black holes do not exist, but any rational reader should be able to clearly see that this is not the case.

However, individual people do not have any way of observing black holes on their own.  This fact, alongside the logical fact that perceiving something in the external world does not automatically means it exists, means that I--and other beings with my epistemological limitations--cannot know whatsoever if black holes actually exist.  The existence of black holes, if such a thing could be ultimately known, would still not establish what lies on the other side.  How could whatever natural event, material object, or nonphysical energy might wait on the other side of black holes possibly be known?  

Some actually suggest that black holes lead to alternate universes or perhaps serve as some other kind of spatial portal to a different region in our own universe (which may be the only one as it is).  There is a glaring problem with accepting this, though.  If a black hole truly is a portal to another spatial location, there would be no way to even muster sensory evidence by simply observing it from the outside.  Of course, sensory evidence proves only that one is perceiving something with the senses, as logic alone can prove things on its own.  There is also the inconvenient fact that, at the very least, most people cannot observe black holes anyway and thus they must rely on sheer faith if they believe in their existence in the first place.

What if a black hole does lead to a gravitational singularity that would obliterate any biological life form that was pulled inside?  Again, there is no way to know with absolute certainty from outward observations.  This is the very nature of visual sensory perceptions!  Even if one could look at a black hole from afar, seeing past the event horizon would remain impossible if the gravitational maelstrom does not even allow any trace of light to escape.  The concept of a black hole as described by scientists themselves would leave the phenomena invisible to ordinary human perception.

The idea of a black hole is nonetheless one that can inspire genuine awe at the hypothesized scale of such a thing.  It may have absolutely nothing to do with the core of philosophy and everyday life alike, but it can still serve as an example of where scientific speculation is distinct from what logic reveals about truth and possibility.  Black holes are similar to quantum particles and all sorts of other scientific concepts in that regard.  Understanding the difference puts one at a superior epistemological standing over those who truly think that appeals to authority and popularity verify scientific notions.

Female-Male Sexual Assault In Entertainment

The parallels between how the sexual assault of men by women in entertainment, especially in cinema and television, and in real life are treated are almost exact.  Even when women sexually assault men right in front of the viewer, the acts are often scarcely brought up in person or classified as something other than sexual assault.  Although stereotypes about men and women have led to entertainment in general focusing on male-female assault more than on the inverse kind, both are in plain sight.  Female-male sexual abuse is more common in entertainment, just as there is evidence that it is far more common in real life, than most people are intelligent, observant, or concerned enough to admit.

In a recent example, 2019's Midsommer builds to a climactic rape scene where a pagan woman drugs and has sex with a male character--and other nude women fondle his body as they watch the violation.  After this, he is burned alive, his girlfriend supportive of his death.  She even cries in sadness when she sees him being raped, but only because she thinks he is cheating on her, not because he is being victimized.  No mainstream movie is likely to do this if the roles were reversed, yet some people did not even take the rape scene seriously despite it being a very grim part of the film.

An even more blatant example can be found in Siren, an indie horror film serving as a spin-off of V/H/S.  As with Midsommer, Siren's scenes where the titular creature, a female demonic being named Lilith, rapes Jonah (the male protagonist) are not used for comedic purposes.  The rapes are rightly shown to be traumatic violations of Jonah's will.  The siren is consistently portrayed as a dangerous creature who exploits Jonah, pursues him against his wishes, and has no regard for the consent of her victim.  She seeks to make him a functional sex slave even if she is too lustful (Jonah is engaged, so her attitude towards him later in the film fits the Biblical definition of lust) or ignorant to realize it.

Even Game of Thrones, a show which sometimes has its number of male-female sexual assaults greatly exaggerated, has obvious scenes of female sexual villainy that go unnoticed or unacknowledged by many who complain about the onscreen sexual assaults of women (not that there is anything wrong with showing any kind of abuse).  In one scene, Jon Snow's eventual wildling lover threatens to have him killed if he does not have sex with her to "prove" that he is not a member of the Night's Watch, and Theon Greyjoy is fondled by women when he wakes up disoriented and frightened as a captive of the sadistic Ramsay Bolton.

These cases alone are already enough to refute the claim that there is no portrayal of women sexually assaulting men in mainstream entertainment (Siren is the only example that is not particularly mainstream), but there are still other clear and overlooked examples in cinema, television, gaming, and literature.  While it would always be helpful for entertainment to portray more female villains as cruel to the point of sexually abusing men, since many people are philosophically inept enough to merely be influenced by entertainment, there are plenty of cases that have simply been ignored.  Unfortunately, this is exactly how a large part of Western culture treats the sexual victimization of men by women.

Dismissal Of The Dietary Laws Due To Inconvenience

One subcategory within Mosaic Law that would have some of the greatest potential to change the daily habits of Christians is that of the dietary laws.  This subcategory is also one that, more than some others, is the easiest for evangelicals to sidestep for the sake of convenience.  Whether these specific laws have binding validity is actually beside my point here.  When it comes to the dietary laws, even if they do not resort to red herrings and non sequitur fallacies, evangelicals might vaguely refer to a handful of passages from the gospel accounts or Acts that they have never thoroughly reflected on, at least not rationalistically (of course, if they were rationalistic, they would not be evangelicals!).  Part of the reason why they might remain so evasive is the broad, perhaps inconvenient set of ramifications for their lives if their position is contrary to the book they claim to base their moral priorities on.

Moreso than the far more important laws dealing with matters of justice and specifying which sins are so severe that they deserve specific legal penalties, the dietary laws would directly shape much of everyday life for anyone who follows them.  This is ironic given that it is a far greater sin to execute someone for a Biblically non-capital offense or torture them than it is to eat a certain kind of meat!  Because of how much of life the dietary laws would impact, desire for mere convenience seems to drive many Christians to almost never even think about or discuss the dietary laws at all except to emphasize the supposed non-applicability of Mosaic Law in modern cultures, something that at least is not true of the laws pertaining to more serious sins like rape and the strict prescriptions of justice attached to them because God's moral nature is said to never change (Malachi 3:6).

Again, this is not to say that the theological conclusion is therefore valid or invalid; the point is that the church would likely not accept the dietary restrictions of Mosaic Law even if they were clearly commanded at all times simply because it would be inconvenient to change such a vast part of its members' lifestyle.  Many Christians offer nothing more than appeals to the nonexistent philosophical authority of a pastor or theologian they subjectively respect without basis, and if they do mention an actual passage of the Bible at all, they have likely done little more than blindly regurgitate what random figures have stated without truly thinking about whether the conclusion was assumed.

Even apart from the Biblical evidence relevant to whether the dietary laws remain obligatory, as all criminal justice laws in Mosaic Law do [1], each Christian can know if they truly would have the desire to adapt their eating habits to their moral obligations if the Bible called for it.  The shallow analysis of the issue from most Christians who mention it suggests that they would be hesitant to change even if it was demonstrated that eating certain animals was sinful.  For the people to whom this would apply, ease and preference is what shapes their moral priorities--at least in this particular area.

Convenience is a practical benefit of some truths, but it is not an inherent quality of truth or something that epistemologically reveals the truth of a matter.  It would very obviously be quite convenient if there is no obligation to adhere to the multiple dietary restrictions in Mosaic Law, as many Christians would not have moral reason to change their lifestyles in this area that would probably strike them as "petty" or "unimportant."  Indeed, it is true that the dietary laws are of minimal importance by comparison to moral categories like justice, sexuality, and violence, but even the least important moral obligation is still an obligation.  This means that violating an obligation is not made permissible if doing the opposite imposes major restrictions on one's life.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-old-covenant.html

The Concept Of A Demon

The concept of a demon is not as inflexible across different theologies and broader worldviews than some might think.  There is enough information in the Bible to portray demons as spiritual beings on the wrong side of Yahweh's moral nature, which is already enough to distinguish Biblical demons from the demons of several other worldviews.  Fallen angels, after all, are more than just malevolent spirits, even if all fallen angels would be malevolent spirits (at least all unrepentant ones).  It is here that the Bible goes beyond how some other ideas might frame demons despite the fact that it actually clarifies just a fairly small number of things about them.  Yes, it has far less to say about demons than many Christians might suppose based on unevaluated hearsay, yet it does plainly affirm some things about them.

One thing it contradicts is a looser understanding of a demon as simply being eager to harm humans.  A hypothetical (or real) being could be malevolent and aligned with moral evil without actually being formerly perfect in a moral sense, like Satan.  This is why the Biblical conception of a demon differs from certain other similar concepts.  For example, the wendigo of Algonquian (a group of Native Americans) tribal tales is a cannibalistic spirit that can manifest itself in a physical form, but it is not a former angelic being that chose corruption.  Humans can even become wendigos by practicing cannibalism according to some descriptions!  This is not the case in Christian theology, which presents demons as evil spirits that can possess human and animal bodies and yet are distinct from human consciousnesses.

Moreover, while the New Testament clearly describes Satan as having a prominent status among the non-human spiritual enemies of Yahweh, Satan himself is a demon, even though the word typically gets used in reference to lesser wicked spirits other than the devil.  Since the fundamental concept behind the word demon is a fallen angel, at least in the context of Christian theology, Satan is also a demon, just an especially noteworthy one.  Of course, much about Satan is left undisclosed [1], even to the point of the Bible not truly confirming that the entity described in Ezekiel 28 as being cast out because of its pride is the same being elsewhere called the devil [2].

Indeed, the collective history of demons other than Satan is left obscure.  Only a handful of details are provided as to their origin.  Even passages that do not mention demons are occasionally relevant, such as Genesis 1 when it calls that which God creates "good" left to itself--the point being that God cannot create beings in a state of hostility towards him; they must rebel on their own.  Other verses only speak of a subset of demons, such as 2 Peter 2:4, which mentions a group of demons that committed an unspecified sin and were cast into "Tartarus" as divine punishment.  Matthew 25:41 does teach that the devil "and his angels" will be sentenced to hell, but this is a rare verse that refers to demons as a whole.

The Biblical concept a demon is clear enough to establish that it entails a fallen or evil angelic creature without being clear enough for the Bible to mention a great many details about them.  Nothing more is truly necessary, as angels and demons are never the primary focus of the Bible.  The strongest emphasis is always placed on issues of more foundational metaphysics, morality, and soteriology.  This seems to have never stopped the majority of Christians from contriving unbiblical ideas about demonology, broader metaphysics, morality, and soteriology, but at least the Bible has far more to say on the other matters, something which makes it even easier to show that not only do mainstream Christians embrace extra-Biblical theological concepts as Biblical, but that they also ignore the wealth of details that are present in some cases.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-identity-of-satan-part-1.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-identity-of-satan-part-2.html

Emotionalism Cheapens The Depth Of Emotionality

Emotionality can be a very fulfilling, stimulating part of human life.  Understood correctly, emotionality does not threaten either reason or the intellect that grasps it, and it adds otherwise nonexistent layers of depth or excitement to all kinds of experiences.  One of many truths rationalists can realize and embrace is the fact that emotion is not a sign of irrationality.  Emotionalism, on the contrary, is inescapably irrationalistic and shallow.  Someone who looks to emotionalism for a cathartic release of deep emotions has only misunderstood both reason and emotion.

Celebrating and dwelling on emotions only has serious depth when done rationalistically.  Apart from intentionally consulting reason, the true nature of emotions cannot even be understood, which might lead some to the fallacies and perils of emotionalism.  There is no depth in emotionalism, only an emphasis on letting whatever arbitrary or conflicting emotions someone might experience guide them in spite of whether their beliefs deviate from reality and whether their actions ultimately harm them or others.  Emotionalism is indeed among the absolute shallowest kinds of worldviews and personal approaches to life.

It should be no surprise that emotionalism is the close companion of metaphysical or moral relativism.  Just like emotionalism, relativism in all of its forms is the epitome of shallowness, pettiness, and stupidity.  Intellectual depth is nowhere to be found in relativism or emotionalism, but even emotionalists and relativists still inevitably brush up against concepts and aspects of their own personal psychologies that are deep.  In the case of personal psychologies, they have simply exchanged the infallibility, stability, and illumination of logical truths for temporary delight in untrue ideas.

Whatever pathetic joy someone might find in emotionalism or relativism pales in comparison to the inherent depth of rationalism, for the necessary truths of reason are at the heart of all things, and yet those who adhere to these self-refuting worldviews still have the capacity to look to reason if they wish to--and even then the most unintelligent relativist to have ever lived must still depend on reason to even reason out the ramifications of their worldview and preferences, however selectively or hypocritically they might do so.  Embers of the potential for genuine depth are still present.

The depths of human emotion can only be comprehended as they are when analyzed with reason, a truth that leaves non-rationalists at an inherently lesser, incomplete understanding of emotions at best.  The most thorough emotional depth comes solely from the rationalistic embrace of logic.  This does not cheapen emotion, instead putting it in its rightful epistemological and metaphysical place as a cauldron of potentially deep feelings, motivators, and inner life that does not overpower a person's grasp of logic unless it is allowed to.

Game Review--Conarium (Switch)

"The wearable Conarium we're carrying on our left arms connects and thus receives sensations from the same ancient source!  And sometimes I wonder whether there has ever been another soul during humanity's relatively brief period of existence who was able to achieve such a feat."

--Collectible note, Conarium

"As I predicted: a race, reptilian in physiology, lived inside these ruins after the original builders, the Elder Things, left the area after some unknown cataclysmic event, now lost in an archaic and lost chapter of earth's history."

--Apparition, Conarium

A reptilian, bipedal alien species that has links to the ancient race of Elder Things serves as one of the primary Lovecraftian elements of Conarium, a cosmic horror game that is a sequel to the story of At the Mountains of Madness.  This game has the distinction of being one of the only cosmic horror games to not have an M rating, as Conarium bears a T rating.  This does not result in a diluted Lovecraftian atmosphere.  The Necronomicon, a book detailing Lovecraft's eldritch creatures, is mentioned by name, and one collectible item looks like an octopus with a head much larger than the dangling tentacles, a seeming reference to Cthulhu.  The signature aspects of Lovecraft's universe are all present.

Production Values

The strongest part of the production values is certainly the clear visuals.  Ranging from small objects to open subterranean landscapes and, depending on a player choice, even an alien world, the digital environments of Conarium are far from the worst seen on the Switch.  The voice acting has a distinctly lesser quality when the main character speaks, unfortunately.  Frank Gilman is not the most vocally energetic or protagonist, but at least his voice acting is not at the level of the poor quality of Agony's!  For some reason, the voices heard from optional phonograph cylinders sound more natural than the main character's own voice.

Gameplay

Conarium presents a world of puzzles, exploration, and secrets where the majority of the player's time is spent walking or sprinting around and making observations or bringing objects to the correct location so they can be used to solve the game's many puzzles.  The puzzles are actually rather diverse, so the risk of having numerous puzzles with the same setup or aesthetic was avoided.  There is no combat at all and only one chase sequence that has to be completed in a way that is not obvious, so anyone looking for a cosmic horror game with a more intense approach to its subject matter could be disappointed with the slower pace of Conarium.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

A research team in Antarctica experimenting with devices called Conariums, which have the ability to help humans transcend ordinary sensory and phenomenological experiences, and investigating alien ruins beneath the continent's surface falls apart from psychological stress and strange evolutions.  A member named Frank Gilman serves as the protagonist and periodically has visions of moving figures or disembodied voices explaining Elder Thing artifacts.  He encounters items uncovered by the expedition, but he also has to deal with the spiritual power of those items and eventually has to make a grand decision when faced with the personal and metaphysical ramifications of Elder Thing culture.

Intellectual Content

Conarium naturally brings up issues like the possibility of extraterrestrial life, the nature of consciousness and perception, and the fixedly limited scope of scientific observations.  For all of its references to Elder Things and the dominant species on the planet between them and humans, it does not actually reveal their intentions or past with any great amount of clarity.  Players still interact with puzzles designed either by the Elder Things or the seemingly extinct reptilian species associated with them.  The themes might be philosophically significant, but the puzzles constitute the most direct parts of the intellectual content.  Minimal or no hints are given as to where to acquire puzzle-related items or how to use them; most of the game must be discovered on one's own.  One of the last puzzles is especially ambiguous to the point of the game's creators having done a terrible job of setting it up, even with a "hint" provided in the form of a sketch Frank makes shortly before.  For this one, I consulted the internet to save time, as the puzzle was designed poorly.

Conclusion

Conarium is closer in gameplay style to cosmic horror games like Lust for Darkness than it is to more mainstream genre examples like Call of Cthulhu or The Sinking City, meaning there is far more walking from one puzzle to another than dialogue or action sequences.  What this emphasis leaves is the largely self-guided exploration of underground environments.  As mentioned already, there truly is little to go off of for solving puzzles, and one of the later puzzles is almost unsolvable except by accident unless one looks up a walkthrough, but optional secrets and the more accessible puzzles help convey the Lovecraftian idea that individual humans are practically alone in their pursuit of understanding eldritch beings.  This also makes Conarium a cosmic horror game more suitable to people who want the philosophical themes of cosmic horror without the explicit horror nature of other games.

Content:

 1.  Violence:  In one specific part of the game, bipedal entities can chase and grab Frank.  The worst violence is thus extremely mild.

 2.  Profanity:  "Damnit" or similar words are used a handful of times.