Cosmic Treason

It is no offense against reality to shrug off the dictates of a hypocritical, tyrannical, or otherwise irrational leader when needed.  Any ruler could label the process of challenging their arrogance or broader stupidity treason, but the context and the nature of the person who is being rebelled against are the only things that could determine if the treason is truly unwarranted.  It is not rationally or morally problematic at all to have a "treasonous" attitude towards a government or some individual by default.  There is, however, a type of being for which this could not be true.  God, or the uncaused cause, has a higher metaphysical status than any person or collection of persons.

The uncaused cause is the only being whose moral commands could have any true weight, and it is thus cosmic treason to think that personal preferences could ever justify avoiding even the slightest moral demand from such a being.  There is no other entity that could have moral authority.  In fact, even on a purely utilitarian level, there could not be a being which rebellion against could have greater pragmatic consequences.  An uncaused cause could be capable of removing humans or other entities from existence with a thought (though this power would depend on the broader nature of the uncaused cause, as simply preceding and creating the universe and lesser beings does not mean something has this ability).

This is the only treason that could possibly be directly tied to the nature of the being which the opposition is directed towards: refusing to submit to and even hating or fighting a human could be a rational or morally obligatory thing to do, but hating or waging any kind of war, ideological or an attempted literal war, against the uncaused cause would immediately mean moral or utilitarian doom.  Cosmic treason against the uncaused cause is the only treason against another being that matters in any sort of ultimate sense.  If Christianity is true, this is why Leviticus 24:15-16's prescription of the death penalty for blasphemy (cursing God).

Cursing God is more than just expressing personal but pointless dissatisfaction with the idea of an uncaused cause or the actual uncaused cause that by logical necessity preceded the cosmos; it is to curse the only possible moral authority that could exist as if subjective passion could philosophically justify such a thing.  If the uncaused cause did have a certain kind of moral nature from which it follows that blasphemy is a cosmic treason, then it could not be overkill to execute those guilty of this offense.  Of course, cursing God does not entail the petty and imaginary "sins" of uttering phrases like "oh my God," contrary to what evangelicals like to pretend, so blasphemy is so much more than what it is often taken to mean.

Indeed, the pathetic misconception that using the word God as a slang word, like how one might use profanity, is a variation of blasphemy severely trivializes the concept of cursing God--not to mention how it is equated with using God's "name" in vain when this is not so, partly because the word God is not a name, but a reference to a metaphysical category.  Since Leviticus 24:15-16 specifically refers to intentionally cursing God as blasphemy, it is incorrect to think that anything less than this, whether it even is or is not sinful in the first place, constitutes blasphemy within the framework of Christianity.  Only the malicious cursing of the uncaused cause (not that a mere person has any way of directly harming a true deity in the strictest sense) amounts to the cosmic treason Leviticus takes so seriously that it classifies it as a capital crime.

William Lane Craig's Error On Metaphysical Space Revisited

Metaphysical space is not the outer space mentioned more regularly in casual conversation among people who have no investment in the philosophical truths that surround them.  Outer space is the universe beyond individual planets and other celestial bodies like moons, the gravity-free vacuum in which no sound is said to travel and which is supposed to contain only relatively miniscule particles of matter; the more ultimate metaphysical space that holds matter, which has a similar word affiliated with it, is a more fundamental part of reality, as it must exist for there to even be a place for the smallest of material objects to exist in the first place.

The fallacious Christian apologist William Lane Craig touched on the nature of the latter kind of space (metaphysical space that would have to hold outer "space") when he recently reposted a 2019 answer to a question about what the universe is expanding into [1].  However, he predictably fails to handle the issue rationally.  Rightly denying that the universe is expanding "into" God because God does not hold the universe within him in any sort of spatial sense, Craig conflates the universe itself and the space in which the universe resides and sides with the faulty position that space began to exist at the beginning of the universe, failing to distinguish between the two in a complete sense.

Craig states that space expands with the physical universe, moving outward since the initial Big Bang, before which space did not exist according to him.  His claim is that there is no space into which the universe expands.  This might be an idea that some scientists associate with the Big Bang, but there is no logical connection between the the ideas of the universe expanding and space expanding because the former is made of matter and the latter is immaterial.  The universe therefore has a drastically different nature than the space that holds it.  Indeed, the metaphysical differences go far beyond just one being material and the other nonphysical.  One is metaphysically necessary in that it is logically impossible for it to not exist.

The world of matter could not have always existed because of the logical impossibility of an infinite chain of past events.  If an endless chain of moments and physical events occuring during those moments occurred, the present moment and all events in the universe happening at this immediate time could never have been reached, as there would be no end to the number of moments that must elapse before the present arrives!  Space, in contrast to the universe it holds, has to exist with or without matter.  Space is not what Craig misunderstands it to be: it is not something that could have had a different nature, whereas physical substance could have acted differently (and might behave differently in the future) and could have never existed at all.

At any spatial boundary which marks the hypothetical or real edge of the physical universe, there is always space beyond on the other side.  It is logically impossible for there to be a point or conceptual line dividing space from "non-space," or a place where there is no space, which would still be space.  Even if matter does not exist beyond a certain point, regardless of whether that point changes with the expansion of the universe, matter always could have been placed beyond that point by God or by natural forces after the uncaused cause created the original matter of the universe.  Thus, space extends in every direction endlessly--and must by necessity exist even if matter had never become a part of reality at all.

[1].  https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/

An Irrational Motivation For Preparing For An Apocalyptic Event

Even outside of the chaos of 2020, there was and is merit in preparing for difficult times.  Some people prepare for such occasions by stockpiling select items of great help when cut off from electricity or usual sources of food or water, sometimes amassing them slowly over long periods of time when there is relative safety and normalcy.  Sporadically using free resources to ensure that one could more easily navigate a surprise crisis could even end up keeping certain people alive if danger does befall them.  In spite of the benefits this could bring, there is such a thing as an outright irrational belief that could motivate a person to engage in this process of preparing for disaster.

It is not that gradually purchasing miscellaneous tools or objects that would be beneficial in a societal breakdown, prolonged electrical blackout, or natural disaster is irrational.  It could be very helpful and potentially lifesaving to acquire various items that would be useful in an apocalyptic or pseudo-apocalyptic setting, but a problem does arise if someone gathers surplus food, batteries, knives, gasoline, or some other item specifically with a purely speculative scenario in mind that they believe will happen.  At this point, a clever way to casually ensure that one has a better chance of thriving in unforseen but dangerous circumstances gives way to irrationalistic belief in an unproven and perhaps also unlikely future event.

This is what it would look like for someone to consistently do things that, at the very least, provide security in the case of possible disasters for a reason that is anything but rational.  For someone who understands reason and their own mind, this stupidity is completely avoidable.  Doing things like periodically storing excess gasoline or buying additional food for emergencies is a great way for them to at least spark a stronger sense of peace about how one could handle unexpected or brutal circumstances.  Of course, not everyone who either does or does not accumulate supplies to set aside for this purpose will feel a certain way about the matter, and some people could prepare for trials that might not ever arrive without being motivated by any sort of fear.  It is just that not every motivation is rational.

Whether or not a true "apocalypse" is on the horizon, there is nothing harmful or irrational about merely gathering various items that have usefulness in such a situation.  Of course, it is not irrational to not do this as well, given that it is not because one assumes that a catastrophic event will not occur, which only commits the inverse error of assuming a different unprovable thing about the future.  When an event that may or may not happen is treated any other way, the people who succumb to these types of assumptions do something that could be genuinely profitable without the corresponding philosophical awareness that would justify it.

How Rationalistic Knowledge Can Enhance Sexual Experiences

Sexuality has a deeply experiential nature that provides a rationalist with much to reflect on and bask in, as it spans actions, thoughts, feelings, relationships, and moral considerations.  As a rational person reasons out more individual logical truths about sexuality--and sexually introspects or lets friends or romantic partners hear more about their sexuality--he or she can acquire a unique set of emotional filters that carry a distinct awareness of specific truths into everyday sexual experiences.  Since some accessible and hyper-precise, often unheard of truths reason can reveal are about sexuality, and since knowledge can help shape how life is experienced from one moment to the next, rationalistic awareness of sexuality can pleasantly alter private and social sexual experiences.

One example of this is how realizing that sexual feelings do not override rationality and free will can in turn instill a sense of peace and excitement about one's sexuality that remains throughout one's general life.  Whether reflecting on one's own sexual depths or on sexual attraction to someone of the opposite gender, one can have an amplified experience just by having engaged in a rational analysis of broad and specific logical facts about sexuality.  Rational beliefs can impact feelings and attitudes, and feelings and attitudes can change how someone perceives their own life from one event to the next.  Sexuality, unfortunately, is not usually associated with rigid rationalism, but it is an enormous part of human existence and its relationship to how rationalism deepens personal experiences has important ramifications.

There are truths about sexuality that are more specific and scarcely recognized which could also make excellent examples.  The pleasure of something as somewhat standard as husbands and wives wearing lingerie to sexually excite each other could be heightened with the knowledge that there is nothing sexual about any kind of clothing itself, only an individual's perceptions of that clothing, no matter how revealing or sensual it is, as well as no matter what the intent behind making, selling, buying, and wearing it is.  The paradoxical nature of how purely nonsexual but sensual clothing like swimwear and, far less obviously to many people, lingerie can randomly excite people in an explicitly sexual way could inspire a deep awe at the nuances of sexuality that follows one into romantic relationships and even private sensual experiences and thoughts.

A husband's pleasure at seeing his wife wear revealing lingerie and a wife's pleasure at seeing her husband wear sensual, revealing lingerie of his own (there is nothing about lingerie that is logically connected to just one gender or the other!) could have even more experiential depths in light of this fact.  The intimacy of a couple mutually concerned about bowing to truth, the gripping sense of pleasure at the visual stimulation, and the feeling of clarity can all work together to allow a side of sexual life with a partner that far surpasses the emotional riches that would otherwise be accessible.  In fact, savoring the many logical truths about sexuality in a conceptual and personal sense is one of the best ways to offer oneself a stronger kind of sexual satisfaction.

Understanding truths about sexuality is a significant part of understanding reality as a whole.  Both truths that are more apparent to seekers of rationalistic knowledge, like the fact that sexuality is not some philosophically irrelevant topic to be dismissed, and truths that only a smaller number of genuine truth seekers are likely to discover, like the fact that lingerie is utterly nonsexual because no aesthetic category of clothing has a quality that makes it itself sexual, are important in a philosophical sense, and they also have the power to make sexuality all the more enjoyable to people who understand them.  Something with as much conceptual depth, introspective potential, and social and moral ramifications as sexuality cannot be validly reduced to just one small part of human life.  All people are sexual beings, and all people who wish to appreciate their sexualities and be in alignment with ultimate reality can find that the two goals intertwine so easily.

Game Review--The Elder Scrolls: Blades (Switch)

"The Bloodfall Queen sent mercenaries to collect taxes from the townsfolk.  Things escalated, and one of the men smashed the ancient statue of the town's founder.  At that point, all Oblivion broke loose . . ."
--Junius the Elder, The Elder Scrolls: Blades


Not a traditional Elder Scrolls game by any means, Blades is the Switch equivalent of what is closer to a conventional mobile game for smartphones.  In fact, there is a crossplay option that can link progress across the Switch and smartphones, so it is hardly surprising that Blades scarcely resembles more traditional console games.  Daily missions and rewards, short missions, limited features, and animation problems are constant reminders of the smaller scope of Blades, although there are those who are still happy with the release of the Switch version.

Production Values

The graphical quality of the game reflects the lack of excellence that defines almost every part of the experience.  Environmental objects like trees may pop in as you walk closer, and the game might sometimes slow down when there are not even any enemies onscreen.  As for the voice acting, only certain lines of dialogue are even spoken aloud, and the conversations between characters are relatively shallow.  There is little to no thorough worldbuilding from any of these sources, visuals and audio included.

Gameplay

Brief, confined missions let the player gain XP and gather resources needed to rebuild a town that was devastated by the Bloodfall Queen.  As you walk around the very limited environments, various enemies challenge you, often to single combat.  Combat locks the player into facing a single enemy while standing in place until that enemy is defeated.  You cannot even see the hands of your own character, as whatever weapon is being used in combat hovers when attacks are being prepared.  Spells provide some variety, but the overall mechanics of the fighting are extremely simplistic and restrictive.

More amusingly, "secret areas" in the main "levels" are pitifully obvious: they often are opened by very large, blatant switches.  There is an endless Abyss mode that lets you take your character as far into an underground area as possible before being killed, which serves as an alternate way to get XP, yet it does nothing to atone for the deep flaws of the game itself.  There is even a multiplayer battle system in the "Arena" that pits players against each other after they confirm armor, weapon, and potion selections from their respective inventories.  However, since the Arena is exclusively a combat-based mode, the stifling shallowness of the fighting system is on full display.

Story

There is scarcely anything to spoil, but some spoilers are below all the same.

After the Bloodfall Queen destroys a town, a "Blade," a skilled warrior, returns to find it in ruins.  Junius the Elder from Elder Scrolls lore awaits the Blade (who is customized and named by the player), and he provides enough information for the warrior to begin reconstructing the town, rescuing its inhabitants, and defeating groups of threatening enemies.


Intellectual Content

There are no obscure collectibles, philosophical themes, deep characterization aspects, or explorations of sophisticated lore.  Blades is one of the shallowest Switch games I have ever played.  Perhaps a handful of players will find this to their liking, but the game suffers from a thorough lack of depth on practically all fronts.  The many problems of the game do not mean that it has no basis for existing whatsoever, and it is free, yet anyone who expects a deep experience will find that the opposite awaits them.


Conclusion

Blades is no Skyrim.  Although it is not a free-to-play game, Skyrim is the wholly superior choice for anyone who wants to play an Elder Scrolls game on the Switch.  There is little offered by Blades except a miniscule, trivial look into the world of The Elder Scrolls.  It may offer several hours of enjoyment to more casual players--and there is nothing wrong with that--but it is far from a masterpiece or even an artistically significant game.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  You can use magic to attack enemies, such as by using a fire spell to ignite them, and use various physical weapons to slash at them until their health bars are empty.
 2.  Profanity:  When speaking to the Bloodfall Queen for the first time, the word "damn" is used via written text.

The Limited Malleability Of Emotions

Spending a lifetime warring with nonsinful desires is a legalistic waste of time found easily in the evangelical world, but it would be even more difficult for a Christian to endure a lifetime of thinking that all feelings can be controlled at whim or that it should not be particularly difficult for a mature Christian to simply will certain emotions in and out of their experiences.  The potential depths of emotion can resist attempts to force them to change.  Moreover, the very introspective process of trying to dictate which emotions one feels and to what extent one feels them could even backfire and make unwanted emotions intensify.

Never does God instruct people to completely change all of their subjective feelings, a command that would at least sometimes be impossible to obey.  Instead, he demands that people act in certain ways and have certain ideological priorities.  These are things within the power of everyone to control.  No matter how a person feels, they can act or not act on their desires and emotions in a given way.  Likewise, they can reason out if it truly does follow or not follow from their desires that it would be rational or Biblically moral to believe or act as the desire compels.  Never does having the emotion or desire, even if willpower does not dispel it, amount to sin on a Biblical worldview.

Emotions cannot always be chosen.  In fact, it is often the case either that they are present no matter one's circumstances or that they partially fluctuate as a reaction to other thoughts and experiences.  In light of this, it would actually be irrational of God to condemn people for that which humans cannot avoid!  Thankfully, emotions do not have to lead to any particular act.  There is no action, obligatory or immoral, strenuous or easy, which a human could commit that they are fated to inevitably perform.  In other words, behaviors can be controlled, withheld, and carried out in accordance with a person's will, which is in turn affected by their rationality and sense of individuality.  Instructions in the Bible focus on priorities, stances, actions, and the restraint of certain desires, all of which are manageable.

A deity with the characteristics ascribed to Yahweh in the Bible would be fully aware that it can sometimes be futile for humans to try to change the feelings they experience.  They might struggle intensely to erase certain emotions or desires, and sometimes they might even succeed.  Sometimes they might struggle in vain.  In either case, being a righteous person does not reduce down to how one feels about something, but it does reduce down to beliefs (rationality) and actions (justice).  No person can validly blame their worldview and behaviors on whatever set of subjective emotions they might not be able to wish away.  It is impossible to rationally believe that emotions either inescapably lead to unwanted or sinful behaviors or disappear when it is personally convenient.

Because of this, no Christian needs to suffer self-imposed guilt over how they feel about any given issue if those feelings are not what shape their worldview.  Emotions can have a limited malleability in cases where they can be amplified, diminished, or silenced as one wishes; it is still true, and vitally so, that people (Christians and otherwise) need to understand that even emotions that cannot be strictly dismissed do not have to be enslaving and do not ultimately dictate one's moral and broader philosophical standing.  Confining certain feelings when possible can be incredibly helpful for experiencing a sense of motivation to do that which God commands, yet Biblical ethics and Christian life do not hinge on this.

Worship Of Something Is Not Inevitable

Evangelicalism is home to many logical fallacies, contradictions, and Biblical heresies, and a rationalistic observer might find new ones even years after starting to thoroughly examine the sheer illogicality and unbiblicality of most evangelical tenets.  One popular evangelical idea that one would probably encounter far sooner is the belief that everyone worships something.  Of course it is true that practically everyone has at least something that they orient their life around, even if only an ever-changing set of personal preferences, as it would be impossible to have a genuine desire to live at all if it wasn't for some desire or goal.  Evangelicals do not stop at acknowledging this philosophical truth.  They go further to the point of conflating having a high priority that gets more attention than others with revering something in a more religious sense.

There is an enormous difference between love of something--an idea, an emotion, a person, or something else--and literal worship.  The latter involves a more explicitly focused, deliberate form of reverence that is usually associated with some sort of religious deity.  Even a very passionate, deep, relentless affection for something does not have to have the same psychological substance as actual worship.  There is a spectrum of affection and devotion which has worship at one end and other manifestations which have a lesser type of existential motivation at the other, and many people who are not Christians will fall at different places on this spectrum.  In fact, someone could even be a theist and not worship the uncaused cause/divine figure they hold to.  Worship is not inescapable.

It is not that it is logically impossible to worship something other than a deity.  After all, there is literally nothing a person could feel or do in the name of a real or false god that they could not also do with regard to something else.  It just does not follow from this that everyone, including atheists, inevitably worships something.  However, what is true is that anyone who wants to continue living has some sort of goal or priorities, even if their immediate goal is to merely distract their own thoughts from matters of grand truth or to figure out what they want to live for in the first place.  If this is what the evangelical kind of irrationalistic Christian means by saying that "Everyone worships something," they have done a terrible job at communicating the idea using common linguistic norms.

This is because what they would mean by this phrase is not necessarily associated with a religious kind of devotion, which is what many people refer to when they speak of worship.  The latter group often reserves the word worship for beliefs, actions, and words that regard something as literally divine or that treats it as divine even if it is not regarded as such in the purest sense.  Of course, this concept is consistent with an atheist or agnostic treating nature, society, or himself or herself in a manner that could be genuinely equated with worship in some very specific cases, but this does not mean what evangelicals like to say it does.  In other words, the mere possibility of a non-theist ironically revering something else like a deity does not mean that everyone is fated to do so just because they have ideological or personal priorities.

A deity with a moral nature would deserve worship by virtue of being the only being that has any sort of moral authority, and this is one component of true Christianity.  The Biblical deity demands worship because its nature makes it the only entity in the book to which other beings have to be compared in order to be morally judged in the first place.  Still, even the Bible does not say that everyone actively worships something other than God if they do not worship him instead.  What it does say is that God deserves worship and that to worship a false deity, fellow humans, other animals, or an aspect of the natural world is idolatrous (Deuteronomy 4:15-19).  This is far from affirming the asinine and objectively untrue notion that vocal evangelicals add.

Philosophy In Television (Part 7): Watchmen

"So Regular God asks Blue God, 'What have you done with these gifts?'  And Blue God says, 'I fell in love with a woman, I walked across the sun . . . I won the Vietnam War.  But mostly, I just stopped giving a shit about humanity.'  God sighs.  'Do I even need to ask how many people you've killed?'  Blue God shrugs.  'A live body and a dead body have the same number of particles, so it doesn't matter.  And it doesn't matter how I answer your question, because you're sending me to hell.'  'How do you know that?' asks God.  And Blue God sounds very, very sad when he softly says, 'Because I'm already there.'"

--Laurie Blake, Watchmen (season one, episode three)

"I once asked you, Jon, whether it was all worth it in the end.  You avoided answering by saying, 'Nothing . . . ever ends.'"

--Adrian Veidt, Watchmen (season one, episode eight)

The HBO limited series Watchmen shows the aftermath of the comic's initial finale, set decades after a man named Ozymandias tries to unify the world by plotting an event made to look like an alien invasion and the superhuman Dr. Manhattan leaves Earth shortly after.  The United States of this alternate history is shaped largely by a vicious series of fights between the white supremacist group called the Seventh Kavalry and America's torture-prone, mask-wearing police force, as these two forces of injustice war over the political landscape.  This timeline has seen Vietnam become part of the US, the onset of weather anomalies like rain of small squids (a nod to how the Watchmen comic has Ozymandias stage an attack on New York with a giant squid-like creature), and police brutality get used against racists by hypocritical law enforcement members.  The show portrays an America dominated by overt cruelty on almost all sides.

In the midst of this turmoil, Dr. Manhattan, the superhuman being that left Earth for Mars years before, is revealed to have been in humanity's midst for quite some time.  Even at the height of his power, he does rather little to aid the humans around him.  Superman, at least in his most traditional depictions, is the Messiah-like figure of grand power who is both willing and eager to aid humankind, but Dr. Manhattan has a nuanced mixture of indifference towards broadly using his powers in a benevolent sense and peaceful interest in certain humans.  That is the key difference between these two titans of DC: one strives to be a genuine force for justice (or at least his moral preferences) and the other is content to mostly just observe.

It is Dr. Manhattan and the conversations he has with others through which Watchmen explores what are paradoxically both more foundational and very precise issues of metaphysics, perception, and morality.  Dr. Manhattan appears to a woman named Angela and attempts to persuade her to go out with him the next night as he describes his superhuman experience of time.  Out of love for a human woman, he even takes a risk by letting her place a memory-altering device in his skull when he does not know exactly what the impact of such an object on him would be, all after foreseeing a tragedy related to this relationship that will befall him.  Unintentionally or not, this portrayal of Dr. Manhattan echoes certain characteristics Christian theology ascribes to Jesus, whom the Bible presents as a superhuman being with more knowledge than humans about the future even though he did not know all future events (as Matthew 24 makes clear)--and a love of humanity so strong he would face torturous death to save it.

Whether one is watching Zack Snyder's film adaption of the original Watchmen graphic novel--one that competently reflects the overt philosophical issues the source material puts in the spotlight, such as how Dr. Manhattan represents the God of whom people ask "Why wouldn't he stop destructive acts?"--or the HBO's Watchmen limited series, the comparison of Dr. Manhattan to a literal deity is a natural one to make.  In the film, the dialogue is set up so as to make this comparison very explicit.  In the HBO show, another thing is made clear.  Most people only care about what Dr. Manhattan can do for them or for their erroneous or assumption-riddled ideological pursuits.  So, too, are most people only interested in the concept of theism, as well as the actual uncaused cause, in a supportive or hostile way based upon personal desires that are elevated above philosophical truths.

All evidence points to this being how most people regard not just God or the idea of a deity, but truth itself as a whole.  Each individual person can gaze into their own intentions, beliefs, and priorities with perfect clarity, and it is possible to achieve perfect ideological and behavioral consistency, but when it comes to other people, one can easily find hypocrisy, untruths, and philosophical apathy.  It is when the typical non-rationalist benefits from a truth that they are suddenly concerned with being on the right side of reality for that one case.  Of course, truths about issues like the existence of God and God's nature do not depend on preference and usefulness.  Every aspect of reality shares this characteristic.

Movie Review--Spiral: From The Book Of Saw

"Hello Detective Banks.  I want to play a game."

--Jigsaw copycat, Spiral: From the Book of Saw

Spiral is the product of several very unusual decisions.  For starters, it is almost a side story featured in the same universe as the other eight Saw movies--like if a Lord of the Rings spin-off film was made where one character from the main stories in that universe was referenced.  There is also far more sarcasm and intentional or unintentional humor in the first third of Spiral than has ever been in any Saw movie before it, but the grim seriousness completely overtakes those elements by the end.  Yet another bold storytelling decision led to Spiral, a movie centered on a corrupt police department released in the 2020s of all times, not touching on racism at all despite featuring two black lead characters who are or were part of the police department in question.  Together, these aspects make Spiral one of the most artistically and thematically interesting movies of recent years.  It is connected to an enormous franchise without relying on that connection very much in an era dominated by increasingly massive entertainment franchises, and it, whether purposefully or not, points to several key truths about how not all corruption in halls of political power has to do with racism even if some certainly does.

Production Values

Practical effects for the traps and more of an emphasis on comedy are united in the first 20-30 minutes, which marks a series first when it comes to having both at the time time.  However, the intensity of the traps and the jokes and sarcasm in the first parts of the movie are not in conflict, partly because of the shift in the performance of the main actor.  Chris Rock, the voice of Marty the zebra from Madagascar of all movies, is right at home in his dramatic central role in Spiral as a detective.  He is one of the biggest sources of the sarcastic line delivery in the entire movie, but he does not let the character's initial attempts at humor define his detective for the whole runtime.  Just like Chris Rock, Samuel L. Jackson handles his role by showing his capacity for humor and drama at different times; it is just that he has a much smaller role than the former.  In fact, almost every other character besides Chris Rock's Zeke Banks is very obviously secondary.  It is clearly Rock and Jackson that carry the brunt of the character expression.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

When a police officer is victimized in a situation that is reminiscent of the traps arranged by Jigsaw before his death, detective Zeke Banks has to identify a new murderer that is relentlessly targeting members of his police department for the wrongs committed by the individuals in the group and covered up by the collective department.  This killer is inspired by Jigsaw but not dedicated to embracing his specific, inconsistent kind of moralistic take on Darwinism.  The new kidnapper and murderer just appreciates parts of his ideology and physical symbols.  Zeke is driven to desperation when the case becomes more and more personal, forcing him to reevaluate his standing with the police and reconnect with his father.

Intellectual Content

While other Saw movies have always involved police characters, both corrupt in the sense that they are sympathetic towards Jigsaw's ideas or corrupt in that they were guilty of hypocrisies or deeds that drew Jigsaw's attention, but Spiral is by far the one with the greatest emphasis on the police side of events.  This makes the thematic focus on police corruption a very natural fit.  Now, the fact that the themes of a movie like this have nothing to do with racism is almost abnormal in a political era like this, but this highlights how just because a group is oppressive does not mean it is racist.  Moreover, numerous police officers or detectives in the series have been black, meaning that Saw was including natural diversity long before the cultural push to have it for the sake of having it.  The skin color and gender of the characters in Spiral are just not given specific attention even though the cast is so diverse.  There is a need for movies that emphasize diversity, and there is a need for movies that directly or indirectly focus on how the capacity for injustice has nothing to do with race or gender, and Spiral is an example of the latter.

Conclusion

Spiral is in the unique position of aiming to reboot the Saw franchise yet again while being the least connected with the main story and characters of the series.  Fans wondering what became of surviving Jigsaw successors Dr. Gordon and Logan, who may have never even met even if they heard of each other, will still have the same unresolved curiosity by the time the twists of Spiral have all been revealed.  This is indeed the most self-contained Saw movie other than the original, and the first film in the series is only self-contained because it is literally the start of something that was not even planned to be the major franchise it has become!  Whether someone will enjoy Spiral as much as the other films is a matter of which approach to storytelling they subjectively prefer, but there is plenty in Spiral that both honors series norms (like the regular use of flashbacks) and heads in new directions that could be promising if a sequel is made.

Content:

 1.  Violence:  Situated between the tamer and most graphic scenes in the Saw series, the trap scenes are actually not the as close to the center of attention as they are in earlier films.  Some of them do very briefly show people losing their tongue or fingers, but they are rather few and far between.

 2.  Profanity:  There are many uses of "fuck" surrounded by more infrequent uses of "shit" and "damn."

James 4:13-17 And Skepticism Of The Future

The future is unknown.  Of this, most people seem aware enough to admit it when pressed.  What this truly means, and what might not be realized in any thorough sense, is that the future is unknowable.  For various reasons, such as the unprovable nature of inductive reasoning, the possibility of scientific laws changing, and the fact that people can decide to behave in random or abnormal ways, there is not a single future event that must happen.  While it can still be known that logical truths must hold in the future because they are necessary truths, everything else about the future is unprovable.  Rationalistic skepticism will inevitably lead someone who reflects on the epistemology of the future to this truth.

A particular New Testament passage goes so far as to admit that people who truly believe they know what tomorrow holds for them have deluded themselves.  In James 4:13-17, the author writes that God might not will for the plans of a given person to come about, comparing human life to a mist that briefly appears and then vanishes entirely.  Verse 14 explicitly says that "you do not even know what will happen tomorrow."  Shortly after, James states that God could allow or disallow certain events to occur regardless of one's intentions, adding that this leaves humans who believe that their plans for "tomorrow" must be fulfilled simply because of personal expectations in a state of ignorance and arrogance.

James 4 actually agrees with a thorough kind of skepticism of future events--not that the Bible contradicts strict rationalism anywhere else.  It is just that this is a particular example of the Bible specifically affirming that future events are not ultimately knowable by humans.  We can have expectations and hopes, which are not necessarily irrational, as they might reflect nothing more than subjective preferences, but to believe that one knows anything about the future other than that logical truths will remain true (which does break down into awareness of multiple truths, except all of them strictly pertain to necessary truths and what follows from them).

The final verses of James 4 assess the uncertainty of future events in human life from a theological standpoint, rightly stating that it is foolish and potentially arrogant to truly believe that one knows what tomorrow will hold for one's life.  Arrogance is thinking of oneself more highly than one's nature merits, and thinking one can know something in a category that is inherently unknowable for humans is therefore arrogant precisely because it entails belief beyond what one's epistemological, metaphysical nature allows one to know.  That the Bible itself not only does not contradict this but directly concedes it is yet another way that the Bible connects with rationalistic philosophy in unexpected ways.

Even the future events predicted by the Bible are not clarified down to their actual date in history, so there is nothing contradictory about the Bible prophesying specific events and simultaneously acknowledging that humans do not know what will come next.  Of course, even if each Biblical prophecy about specific occurrences did involve details about the exact time, one cannot know if the prophecy will actually be fulfilled as promised just by reading about it!  That is the very nature of the future.  Prophecies provide events to look out for as evidences of divine revelation; they are not able to refute skepticism of the future within the Biblical worldview, which makes the epistemological idea behind James 4:13-17 one of many ways that a Biblical passage that might even be familiar to some typical Christians and churchgoers overlaps with strict rationalism.

The Sabbath Year

The prescription to have a personal "Sabbath" for one day out of every seven is one of the most overlooked and misunderstood parts of Mosaic Law.  Assuming that the Bible prescribes that a specific day of the modern calendar be treated as a day of rest, most readers seem to completely miss the fact that verses like Leviticus 23:3 at most instruct people to hold one day out of every seven as a day of rest, which means that someone is not automatically sinning if they have their Sabbath on a different day of each consecutive week [1].  This is one of the most unheard of logical facts about the concept of the Sabbath as the Bible describes it.

The Sabbath is best known as a single day on which no unnecessary work is to be carried out--of course, if any activity that entails physical/professional labor was sinful on the Sabbath, then something like self-defense would be immoral (which is never true by the Bible's own standards in places like Exodus 22:2-3), as would the healings Jesus himself carried out on the Sabbath in Mark 3:1-6.  Most discussions about or references to the Sabbath have to do with the day.  However, Leviticus 25 calls for an entire Sabbath year to be held every seven years.  Like the day of rest, this year centers on rest.  In this case the rest is instead for land that would otherwise be farmed.

The Sabbath year is supposed to involve abstinence from planting or harvesting crops, but other year-long occupations would remain entirely valid as long as they are not practiced on individual Sabbath days.  It is not as if the Bible presents God as requiring that all people refrain from all physical labor for an entire calendar year (it is impossible to fully define what the Bible must mean when it calls for no "work" on the Sabbath, but there are at least a handful of Biblical examples of physical or professional work and logical extensions of those examples that would have to be exceptions within the Christian worldview).  The two types of Sabbaths have different scopes.

Nowhere does God prescribe capital punishment for failing to uphold the Sabbath year, which is a collective agricultural phenomenon that would span an entire society.  Not a single one of the 54 verses in Leviticus 25 addresses any sort of punishment for disregarding the Sabbath year.  Though even many Christians would object to the Bible's own capital punishment laws for disregarding the Sabbath day (Exodus 31:15), execution is reserved only for violation of the more well-known Sabbath command.  Subjective horror or dislike would not have anything to do with moral obligations either way.

The Sabbath year and day are not treated identically.  Some similarities overlap each category, like the fact that surplus resources can be accumulated in the six days or six years around the Sabbath of either kind.  In the words of Jesus, the Sabbath day is not prescribed as an oppressive thing (Mark 2:27), but as something intended to aid human flourishing.  The same would likely true of the Sabbath year, just with the additional aim of providing a time of rest for land.  Even for the entire year, eating whatever food the land itself naturally produces without farming is still nonsinful (Leviticus 25:7).  One of the key characteristics of both Sabbaths is an emphasis on rest for the sake of both reflecting on God and receiving the benefits of leisure.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-pattern-of-sabbath.html

The Philosophical Importance Of Health

It would be very difficult to live a stable or enjoyable life without at least some degree of health--and not just mental health, the most vital kind, but also the physical health that allows a person to remain alive in order to engage in practical and abstract pursuits alike.  While mental health is vital to experience a consistently pleasurable and fulfilling life, physical health of some extent is vital for basic survival and is nonetheless a lower aspect of human existence than than matters of philosophical reflection, introspection, and the mental health that is more closely related to the latter than it is to doing the bare minimum to merely survive.  The health of the body in at least some ways is a necessity for physical comfort and safety.

For the sake of explicit clarity, the statements that follow do apply to physical health and not mental health.  A life of constant physical pain could quickly deteriorate a person's eagerness to continue living, but a thriving love of reason, introspection, or human relationships could actually counteract this to the point that a person in great physical suffering might still wish to endure everything for their sake.  It is clear that physical health and mental health, although they can sometimes be overtly intertwined, must be addressed separately to a large extent even if some very loose similarities are shared.  For this reason, physical and mental health have different levels of philosophical significance.

Like jobs and survival in a broader sense, the former category of health is at most a mere means to an end, and the end for which it is pursued might be philosophically significant, or it might be shallow.  Someone who wishes to be healthy out of blind desire to be healthy has not displayed any inner or outer depth.  Someone who seeks health out of regard for some cultural ideal has likewise failed to have any sort of intelligent or significant basis for orienting their life around health beyond the bare minimum required to stay alive.  Rather, going beyond this with the motive of doing so for its own sake is actually a pathetic way to build a life around nothing that is even capable of having ultimate importance.

The rationalistic way to regard basic health is a condition of the physical body that does not even begin to approach the existential and epistemological status of mental health and philosophical truths.  Nevertheless, this does not mean that it is irrational or shallow to care about physical health for oneself or for others; it means that an inflated reverence for health is a sign of stupidity (due to the inherently fallacious nature of the beliefs behind this attitude) and superficiality.  Health has an important role to play in human life, yes, but, like many other things that reduce down to practicality more than more foundational matters of truth, it has a very limited scope of significance at best.  It is only a way to reach other goals which may or may not be worth pursuing.

Talking About Masturbation

It is quite paradoxical that a society fixated on sexuality to the point of confusing nonsexual things like platonic opposite gender friendships, revealing clothing, and nudity for generally sexual natures has such a collective reluctance to even talk about the act of self-pleasuring openly and honestly.  Rarely is masturbation talked about intellectually or personally in the same way that other sexual activities are.  Even then, other sexual activities are often discussed in very predictable ways that fail to acknowledge the true scope, nature, and importance of sexuality as a philosophical/theological category.  It is easier for non-rationalists to remain silent on the matter, or at least on the more culturally unfavored aspects of it.

Silence is one reason assumptions are made by people too philosophically inept or unfocused to think without prompting.  When those around them remain quiet, assumptions--such as the assumption that men masturbate to every attractive member of the opposite gender they see, that women do not masturbate regularly or to sensual imagery of men, or that asexuals would not wish to masturbate--might be made and then never examined rationalistically.  Sexual repression, confusion, and ignorance tend to follow when silence smothers a truly logical and Biblical analysis of sexuality.

Masturbation is particularly vulnerable to prudery since it does not inherently involve a partner at all.  It does not even have to involve sensual imagery, although this can greatly enhance the experience.  It can therefore be misunderstood as an exclusively private, selfish act that ignores one's partner (if a person is in a dating or marriage relationship) and encourages a hedonistic focus on oneself.  When it is thought of like this, masturbation can be shunned for fallacious reasons beyond basic aversion to sexual expression and openness.  This specific form of prudery is an attack on the Biblical freedom of every person to express their sexuality in such a manner.

Openness about masturbation is therefore a very personal and strategic way to overturn prudery.  Openness about self-pleasuring can even push back against other forms of prudery broader than just that which targets masturbation.  In discussing masturbation as a philosophical and practical issue (not that practicality falls outside the all-encompassing scope of philosophy), one has already taken at least one step towards affirming sexuality as something worthy of contemplation, discussion, and celebration.  The vulnerability or transparency necessary to talk about masturbation in a strictly intellectual or a personal sense is antithetical to both legalism and secular prudery!  However, men and women sometimes face somewhat unique pressures to avoid such openness.

While women in particular are encouraged by sexist norms to think that there is something abnormal about their masturbation as a whole and about masturbating to imagery of men, men are also pressured to not talk about masturbation or masturbating to imagery of women, at least in some cases, simply as a consequence of the West's leftover prudery.  When prudery discourages masturbation and talking about masturbation, the result is often shame around legitimate forms of sexual expression and a hesitation to think about the matter rationalistically.  Men and women alike need to be open about masturbation as a serious subject of philosophical exploration and personal expression.

Responding To Gender And Racial Stereotypes

The societal conditions created by multitudes of individual, irrational people, perhaps each of them with their own unique fallacies and expressions of emotionalism or assumptions, make it necessary for a sincere seeker of truth to consider some logical facts more thoroughly than they might have in other circumstances.  When it comes to sexism and racism, stereotypes denying or exaggerating traits of men, women, whites, blacks, and other "races" might spur on rational people to specifically reason out why having certain genitalia or a certain skin color is wholly unconnected with a given personality trait.  What if these stereotypes were never embraced, though?  The pushback that drew the attention of some people to how women are visual or how men are not hypersexual would never have been present.

If Eden had never fallen, if no community had ever embraced particular stereotypes of men, women, blacks, whites, and so on, there would have never been a pressing social need to emphasize that those particular ideas of sexism and racism are false--and this actually means that we have the opportunity to bask in the truths of individualism and despise specific manifestations of sexism against both genders and racism against all races all the more.  A rationalist living in the modern world might privately reflect or openly discuss gender and race while realizing that they might actually have a more intense concentration on the capacity of individual people for specific traits.

I might never have focused on the fact that men have emotional capacity that extends far beyond aggressive feelings or the fact that women are capable of competent leadership over either gender in the same ways that I do now.  Of course, anyone could still recognize these logical facts in a world that never saw anything other than sheer individualism as far as the treatment of different demographics goes, even if in a peripheral manner, but spending significant amounts of time reflecting on them specifically and discussing them with other people would never have been a societal necessity for rationalists and Christians.  No one would even need to focus on them in order to understand themselves better as a response to sexism and racism because no one would have assumed that they must act or experience things in a certain way because of their gender or race.

The more prominent appreciation of certain ways that men and women defy gender stereotypes of the ancient and modern worlds does not make even the slightest fallacious, sexist comment worthwhile because of the reflection it led to for some people.  Irrationality and sin are not justified by what good might be produced as a reaction.  However, it is worthwhile for sound thinkers to be aware of how some individualistic traits would have never needed to be explicitly described as disconnected from gender and race in conversations if their cultural background was different.  Thinking about this can even deepen the appreciation of those individualistic traits all the more.

It is worth mentioning the potentially comforting fact that even if someone would not have dwelled on certain truths of egalitarianism does not mean that they would have believed in any idea that contradicts those truths.  If I had not been born into 1990s America, perhaps I might not have had the same thorough focus on some aspects of my existence and personality that disprove sexist Western stereotypes about men, but I could not be thoroughly rationalistic if I believed in something that contradicted the fact that gender and personality or talent are not connected.  I simply would not have needed to look to some truths about what gender does not dictate in the same way that I do now.

Movie Review--Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines

"The future has not been written.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves.  I wish I could believe that."

--John Connor, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

As an action movie, Terminator 3 has moments of spectacle.  Some of the later scenes with prototype Skynet machines that preceded Terminators capitalize on at least some of their potential.  As a drama built around iconic characters, it suffers from a glaring absence of James Cameron's direct influence.  The optimism and genuine philosophical and storytelling depth of Terminator 2 are replaced with unhelpful comedic attempts and underwritten characters in this simplistic chase story.  2019's Dark Fate, contrary to what its abysmal financial earnings and controversial reputation might suggest, is a very well-made movie that surpasses the previous R-rated movie in every way.

Photo credit: twm1340 on
 Visualhunt.com / CC BY-SA

Production Values

The special effects of Terminator 3 actually hold up fairly well compared to plenty of other films from the early 2000s, both with regards to CGI and practical effects.  The endoskeleton and arm-based weapon of the T-X in particular do not look terrible even by modern standards of CGI!  Other Skynet machines, including smaller models of the Hunter-Killer drones seen in the futuristic warfare of other Terminator films, can look slightly more artificial.  The T-101 played by Arnold Schwarzenegger would naturally have the easiest time getting portrayed with practical effects, and this is fitting, for Arnold's Terminator is less personable than the model he played in Terminator 2 ever was.  His character is reduced to more of a comedic character without the previous depth both in writing and presentation.  The dialogue even suffers in other cases as well.

With John Connor, it does not help that the performance is so different from before.  Edward Furlong's younger John Connor has a stronger onscreen personality in Terminator 2 than Nick Stahl ever does in Terminator 3.  The characterization of John Connor has changed--not that it is bad or even unrealistic for some people in entertainment to undergo very noticeable changes--in a way that does not build off of the previous portrayal very organically given the dialogue.  Kristanna Loken has few lines as the T-X, which is perhaps for the best, given how Arnold's actions and lines are used for humor more than before.  Her "Terminatrix" prefers to use silence and force to accomplish its goals.  It is actually Claire Danes as John Connor's future wife Katherine Brewster that probably gives the strongest acting efforts of the entire cast.  Katherine might not be a a figure entrenched in former Terminator lore, but Claire at least shows more emotion than Nick.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

John Connor wanders from one location and job to another carrying memories of how his mother helped stop Judgment Day, the day of a genocidal machine rebellion against humanity.  A new Terminator, possessing the shapeshifting abilities of the antagonist from Terminator 2 and new features alike, is nonetheless sent to kill him and several other future resistance members.  Meanwhile, a computer virus has taken over part of a military network, the response to which involves a plan to have a separate program eliminate the virus.  It is this very attempted solution that births Skynet, but a Terminator is also sent to save John's life yet again, ensuring he survives the initial missile launches.

Intellectual Content

Rise of the Machines is the first Terminator film to actually show Skynet take power over humanity, rather than only having its future activities talked about.  Because of this, and because of the way in which Skynet triggers Judgment Day, the possible dangers of artificial intelligence are more directly portrayed.  Skynet is given control of all American government computer systems in order to purge a major computer virus that is later said to be part of Skynet itself.  This scenario is logically possible, as it contains no conceptual contradiction, but there is such an exaggerated level of concern over artificial intelligence in the current age that it needs to be emphasized that there is no such thing as an "inevitable" uprising of machines against humans.  The internet has come a long way since the year in which Terminator 3 is set, and artificial intelligence of the kind seen in Terminator units is not mainstream at all.  Even if it was, it would not follow that even a truly conscious AI will despise humans or lash out at them.

Conclusion

Terminator 3 could have been far worse than it turned out, but it is at most a heavily diluted example of what the series is capable of.  It even shares some plot and thematic similarities to Dark Fate, the sequel that actually ignored Rise of the Machines, Salvation, and Genysis, and it still manages to squander them.  Both feature antagonists that amount to modified versions of the hostile Terminator from the second film.  Both emphasize the supposed inevitability of Judgment Day.  A sort of fatalism (or at least seeming fatalism) hangs over the events in both, but Dark Fate is clearly the superior script, action film, and philosophical mouthpiece.  Terminator 3 simply lacks the sophistication and nuanced characterization of the best the franchise has to offer.

Content:

 1.  Violence:  Most of the fighting is bloodless, but several scenes show intense physical brawls, and some blood is shown at times.  The T-101 (Arnold's Terminator) cuts its torso open onscreen in one scene, peeling away its artificial skin to remove a damaged power cell.

 2.  Profanity:  "Shit," "fuck," "damn," and "bitch are used.

 3.  Nudity:  The Terminator sent to kill John Connor once again is shown naked from behind when it first arrives in the past.  Likewise, the Terminator sent to protect him also is shown naked, this time from a crouched profile perspective.  This second android is later seen from behind before it obtains clothing.

 4.  Sexuality:  The man Arnold's Terminator takes clothes from is a stripper performing at a bar.  While the context is explicitly sexual, the stripper and his crowd of eager, admiring women are shown clothed.

The Rebellious Angels Of 2 Peter 2 And Jude

Two places in the New Testament speak of specific fallen angels confined before they are deposited in hell for their misdeeds.  The two passages in question are 2 Peter 2 and the brief book of Jude, and they seem to address the standing of the same rebellious angels who are kept in chains in "Tartarus" as they await their transition to hell (the lake of fire, sometimes called Gehenna).  Some translations substitute the word hell for Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4, but the Greek word is not the same as words like Hades or Gehenna that denote other ideas or realms associated with the Biblical afterlife.  Jude forgoes naming their current location while conveying some of the same other information.

Since the gospel accounts and Revelation describe other demons as being quite active, the two aforementioned passages seem to refer to a subcategory or demons guilty of some special offense against Yahweh or humankind.  What exactly this offense is does not get revealed, but both of these New Testament books share clear similarities when it comes to what they do say.  In fact, the very structure and content of both chapters is similar to the point of both mentioning other things like Sodom and Gomorrah and fools who slander celestial beings.  Only 2 Peter 2, however, is the only one that directly talks about Tartarus.

2 Peter 2:4 states as follows: "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment . . ."  This suggests that these fallen angels committed some sin that separated them even from other fallen angels.  Modern translations often omit the word Tartarus except in a footnote, but the word hell here does not speak of the lake of fire.  Jude 1:6 (there is only one chapter of Jude) adds additional details: "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day."  From this verse, it is clarified that these specific demonic beings are manifested in corporeal forms that are chained as they await an eschatological day of judgment.

Jesus says in Matthew 25 that it was actually the devil and other fallen angels for whom hell was created in the first place, so the lake of fire is the ultimate destination of the angels mentioned in both 2 Peter and Jude.  The fallen angels of 2 Peter 2:4 are specified to reside in a realm called Tartarus before their punishment in hell itself begins.  At the grand judgment described in Revelation 20:11-15, just after verse 10 mentions the eternal suffering of Satan and two other figures, unsaved humans are cast into the lake of fire (hell), and it is likely that this is when the demons of 2 Peter 2:4 and the book of Jude will also be moved into hell.

The obscure and short nature of the only references to this subcategory of demons means that what exactly the Biblical "Tartarus" entails is mostly uncertain, even if the physicality of it is emphasized just like the physicality of New Jerusalem and the lake of fire are in other passages.  It is also apparent that, in using a word for Tartarus in the original language, 2 Peter is not legitimizing extended Greek mythology in the context of Christian theology.  It is using a word that happened to have other connotations in the era it was first written in.  At the very least, 2 Peter and Jude both separate themselves from the stories of Greek-style pantheism by explicitly referring to fallen angels and their punishment from Yahweh, not Titans punished by Zeus after losing the Titanomachy.

The Depth Of Rationalism

No ideological transformation is as foundational, all-encompassing, or vital as going from non-rationalism to rationalism, not even the decision to commit to Christianity.  Personal flourishing is tied to philosophical standing, and therefore personal desires and experiences inevitably have a distinct relationship with one's worldview.  One's personal life does not dominate or dictate one's worldview unless it is specifically allowed to, whether by stupidity, self-imposed ignorance, or sheer ideological apathy, but one's worldview will always mold one's personal life, even if inconsistently due to a lack of sincerity.

Since literally everything about epistemology (and metaphysics) hinges on reason, it would be impossible for even other genuinely important issues to ever have the same weight as the veracity of logic and whether one has chosen to fully align with it.  However, it would be both fallacious and mistaken to think that rationalism does not provide a deeper context of absolute certainties and immutable ideological footing that can actually allow one to more deeply, freely experience other parts of life as well.  Reason has the power to make life generally stable outside of explicitly philosophical confirmations.

In this way, rationalism brings or reveals depth even to very familiar things someone might not have once even recognized as having personal significance in any sort of ultimate existential sense, things that might be very trivial by comparison to core truths about logic and ultimate reality.  Simple pleasures of everyday life can stand out merely because of the stability rooted in reason.  This, in turn, permits an ever-deepening self-awareness that can envelop one's whole personal life.  With a philosophical foundation laid that everything in one's life stands on, every conscious moment can be heightened and savored.

It is even true that people would not have to necessarily learn something new about an aspect of themselves or their life in order to benefit from how rationalism brings depth.  After all, just understanding reason itself and the parts of reality it exposes means that potential fulfillment and security in philosophical knowledge could spill over into more casual, "practical" matters.  There is a vast difference between understanding a component of one's own mind accurately but by happenstance and appreciating it all the more because one's entire worldview is formed by reason.  Something does not have to be outwardly philosophical in an obvious way (though everything is philosophical) for rationalism to impact how one thinks or feels about it.

There is not an aspect of a non-rationalist's life that reason and therefore rationalism cannot deepen.  Reason allows everyone to understand any knowable truth that they wish to grasp, and this includes truths about personality, introspection, hobbies, and personal goals.  Becoming a genuine rationalist is certainly the grandest point in someone's life in a sense, but no one has to shy away from certain things that are trivial on their own when compared to the nature of reason.  One of the consequences of rationalism is the ability for certainty or excitement in one area of a person's worldview to filter how they experience things that might seem completely unrelated.

The Self-Perpetuating Trap Of Poverty

Poverty can ensnare someone for many different reasons which could range from discriminatory exploitation to lack of resolve to pursue more profitable jobs to self-perpetuating aspects of some financial circumstances.  The last of the three, in my experience, receives the least attention even though it is quite significant in its scope.  When poverty is sometimes severe enough, it can impose its own limitations that often ensure someone is unable to climb to better financial stability without the circumstances themselves changing independent of their own approach to handling their personal finances.

A key example would be that a poor person has little to no money, or at least less money than some people, to spend on smaller products that could sustain their health and thus prevent potentially massive, unexpected healthcare costs later on.  Because they did not have enough spare money to use for such a purpose earlier, their poverty actually traps them in situations that can lead to enormous expenses that they, of course, cannot necessarily afford when needed if at all.  In either vase, there is very little a poor person could do to alleviate their financial standing without either the cost of necessities lowering dramatically or someone specifically helping them by covering important expenses.

Another example involves education beyond high school.  Education is not intelligence, and it is entirely possible for someone to intentionally or reluctantly avoid going to college for the sake of a degree and still excel in the workplace.  Rationalism is within the autonomous reach of every person regardless of economic and social class.  Only a fool sould ever deny these things to themselves or others.  The poorest person is capable of deep philosophical, introspective, and financial awareness, but being locked out of economically manageable college attendance could hinder them from obtaining better job opportunities.

Consequently, this could keep them locked out of better wages or salaries.  This might also prevent them from receiving advanced benefits tied to their job, which could also cost them dearly in the case of eventual health needs of a severe kind.  Once again, lacking money at one point in life could easily trap someone in a position of having less money to direct towards important personal needs later on.  Poverty can thus serve as a self-perpetuating condition that does not equip people with the financial ability to climb out of the pit on their own.  On the contrary, it can sometimes shackle people to their economic trials no matter how intelligent or careful they are.

It is entirely possible for some people to only deal with poverty because they are genuinely unintelligent, lazy even in the face of dire circumstances, or simply not observant or fast enough to exploit opportunities.  People who choose to distance themselves from rationalism or even economic pragmatism or who just do not care enough about financial advancement to do much about their circumstances cannot legitimately blame "capitalism" or outside forces for their own problems.  However, this does not account for every possible reason why someone might remain trapped in poverty.  Sometimes poverty itself is the reason why some people cannot escape poverty.

Contradicting Social Conditioning

There are multiple ways to demonstrate with absolute certainty that social conditioning is not what epistemology and belief ultimately reduce down to.  Few facts about societies of any size are as important as this, for arbitrary, unexamined, inevitable ideas would otherwise be what awaits every individual person who does not live a life of isolation.  Communities are only philosophically clueless and incorrect if the individuals in them latch onto errors, but individuals also have the power to look to reason for epistemological liberation.  Never once does social conditioning, direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional, have to triumph when a person proves to himself or herself that they are not doomed to perpetuate the fallacies of their culture.

One way to prove this is as simple as just realizing that it does not logically follow from living in any particular community that one must therefore share that community's most widespread beliefs.  Any person can reason out that no one has to believe anything at all because of social pressures or influences.  Even people who allowed themselves to embrace popular philosophical stances could at some point rescue themselves from social conditioning and ideological blindness by voluntarily, thoroughly becoming aligned with reason.  The deepest social conditioning can always be identified and either sidestepped or cast aside.  Now, there is another way that social conditioning could have no effect on someone's worldview.

Suppose a person grew up without ever really paying deep attention to what someone else has to say about matters of worldview, and as a result, whether or not they are autonomous thinkers and thereby willing to look to reason instead of collective beliefs, they simply avoided absorbing their culture's philosophical ideas almost by accident.  It is entirely possible for this to be how some people might deviate from the ideologies that dominate a given culture, even if they do not do so out of rationality or self-awareness.  This is perhaps unlikely for some people to have experienced, but it remains a legitimate possibility that few acknowledge.  There is still another way to demonstrate that cultural influences are neither all-encompassing nor unavoidable when it comes to determining one's worldview.

Even aside from purely logical proof that people can both discover ideas and embrace them without enslavement to cultural norms, one can use examples of everyday people to disprove the notion, just in a less immediate way.  If culture truly did dictate everyone's beliefs, then no one at all would ever clash with their culture.  There could be no disputes or changes within a society at any level, and about any topic, if no one could ever resist, avoid, or reject cultural conditioning!  Of course, it is rather easy to find examples of people who do not completely agree with relatively common societal stances on various issues.  What person is likely to pretend as if there is no such thing as an ideological disagreement they have had with some other person?

The truth is that anyone could autonomously align with reason, but few will ever care enough about truth to do so in any significant or thorough sense.  Reason proves this on its own, yet the very fact that anyone can perceive ideological disagreements--whether about logic itself, epistemology, perception, sexuality, theology, or science--as others interact or as one interacts with others oneself also disproves the asinine claim that cultural forces triumph over sincere private reflection and the laws of logic.  Social conditioning does not have any true power unless it is treated as if it does by people who do not understand why looking to social conditioning has no relevance to exercising rationality.

God And Mammon

The warning of Jesus in Matthew 6:24 that no one can serve two masters could have many applications, yet the context sees Jesus immediately bring up God and "mammon," or money, as the two masters he is immediately speaking of.  Referring to these two things, he states rather clearly that trying to serve God and money as equal masters will lead to trying to put one over the other.  It is not that one cannot have affection for two things, but that treating two incompatible things as masters of one's life is inevitably disastrous for moral resolve.  It is folly to think that a person can base their life around any moral obligations rooted in God's nature and still prize money as their highest concern, or even as a concern equal to that of reason, truth, God, and morality.  What this does not mean deserves attention for the sake of conceptual clarity.

From a strictly logical standpoint, it is clearly true that having money and extended wealth is not the same as being driven by greed, covetousness, or any other kind of materialistic selfishness.  A person could have great wealth and not have a trace of greed in their mind or could not even have clothing and a home and be wildly consumed with greed.  A person with great wealth could also be seized with deep greed, and vice versa.  Money is something a person inherits or owns, while greed is a mental state characterized by a desire for personal gain at the expense of concern for truth, moral obligations, or other people.  All of this said, there is a way to distinguish between money and greed on a purely conceptual basis.

There is also a way to distinguish them in the context of Christian theology.  When God sometimes provides material wealth as an intentional sign of favor, as is the case at the end of Job, the Bible automatically contradicts the idea that wealth itself, whether it takes the form of money or broader material possessions, is a mark of wickedness.  Matthew 6:24's declaration that no one can serve God and money is therefore not a denouncement of money, but of prioritizing money over matters of truth and morality or prioritizing them equally.  The very nature of a deity with a moral nature deserves a far higher role in one's life than mere wealth.

It would therefore be contrary to Christianity to either treat money as an inherent sign of divine blessing or as something to be fearfully avoided.  It is not Biblically sinful to pursue money, use it for the sake of necessity and pleasure, or excitedly think about possessing or obtaining it.  Living in this way would not be an attempt to "serve" the two masters of God and money/mammon.  Instead, this does not have to involve anything more than displaying love of God by complying with his commands while still engaging in nonsinful pursuits one subjectively gravitates towards.  The issue arises when money is revered as the focal point around which life revolves.

It is possible to be devoted to God and love money for the practical security and benefits it can provide, but it is impossible to be a slave to the pursuit of money and truly be committed to God.  There would then always be conflict, or at least potential, perhaps imminent conflict, between the overemphasis on a mere social construct used to measure arbitrary financial power.  Moreover, it would already be philosophically invalid to place devotion to the only being whose nature could ground moral obligations with a social construct that involves arbitrary monetary values.  Understanding and reacting to the former deserves to be a higher priority than something of comparatively utter triviality.

Shallow People And Deep Aspects Of Philosophy

Depth manifests intellectually or personally in several ways, with precision, autonomy, and philosophical significance being among the markers of intellectual depth and passion, complexity, and sincerity being among the potential markers of a more personal kind of depth.  Small flashes of either kind of depth are scattered throughout the lives of most people, yet only a rare person wholeheartedly possesses the depth of consistent rationality and authenticity.  This is not because only a few people have the chance to identify or cultivate depth.  No, deep truths are always accessible to any being capable of reasoning out logical truths, and expansive inner life is within the grasp of any being capable of introspection.  The issue is a failure to rationalistically understand and pursue depth of any kind.

It is entirely possible for very philosophically deep issues--deep in the sense that they are metaphysically/epistemologically important, precise, or both--to be misunderstood by shallow people.  Indeed, this happens all the time.  Since every aspect of reality and therefore every aspect of life has a philosophical nature, every person who trivially or incompetently handles an issue like epistemology (in all of its applications), moral concern, and the inescapable scope of truth has done exactly this: they have approached or recognized that which possesses great depth with halfhearted and random intentions at best.  They have squandered the plentiful opportunities to embrace depth that have already come their way.

Each person is surrounded by philosophical truths and issues at every moment of their life.  While all truths are part of reality, some aspects of reality are either more foundational or central or have more extensive, philosophically important ramifications than others.  This means no one is truly isolated from matters of immense depth even if they fail to acknowledge them, search them out, or eagerly reflect on them.  Depth is within everyone's grasp and yet almost no one consistently understands what depth even is or tries to pursue it for the sake of aligning with reality.  At best, this kind of typical non-rationalist latches onto several personally appreciated concepts that they do not even explore thoroughly.

People who have never displayed any signs of looking beyond mere perceptions, whims, and preferences to see things as they are have the potential to understand things of great depth, yes, but they have either scarcely developed their own intellectual and personal depth or they have consciously fled from doing so.  Both intellectual and personal depth are not part of their lives in any consistent sense as long as they refrain from orienting their lives around genuine rationalism.  It is therefore delusional to believe or sincerely act as if every person has immense depth just by being a person.  Otherwise, everyone would brim with philosophical and introspective depth rather than sporadically display hints of their ultimate potential for pursuing depth.

Rationalism, the cure for avoidable ignorance, inconsistency, and intellectual aimlessness, is of course the cure for superficiality and stupidity as well.  There is nothing more superficial and stupid than living an entire adult lifetime without even dedicating any thorough thought to matters of truth and how to respond to various truths.  A rationalist can go far beyond those who remain adrift in shallow priorities and worldviews that reflect nothing more than asinine preferences.  Yes, even people with the most irrationalistic beliefs possible (those entailing an outright, direct rejection of reason as inherently true) inevitably brush up against issues of great depth, but blind, happenstance contact with truth does not indicate anything deep about the people in question.