Time travel has been featured in many stories of fiction, sometimes to the intense puzzlement and confusion of readers, moviegoers, and gamers! Today, I start a mini-series on what distinguishes logically possible scenarios of time travel from scenarios that are objectively impossible. Although I suspect that many readers of mine already know what time travel is, I will define my terms anyway. Time travel is the process of migrating from one point in time to another that is not the usual method of moving through time--living in the present as future moments become the present and fade into the past.
The past, of course, refers to moments and durations of time that have already elapsed; the present, to the current moment of time that is just about to become part of the past; the future, to moments and durations of time that have not yet elapsed. Time travel is often utilized in stories in ways which render the stories incoherent and self-contradictory. To demonstrate what it means for time travel to form a contradiction, I will address the infamous grandfather paradox before inspecting an example of logically-impossible time travel from a popular movie. In the sequel to this post, I will explain an example of time travel that does not create a contradiction. Now, onward to the grandfather paradox!
The grandfather paradox refers to a hypothetical scenario where someone travels back in time and kills his or her grandfather. Let's say that Amanda travels backward in time and kills her paternal grandpa before he helped produce her father. This would mean that since her father no longer exists, she can no longer exist as well. Thus Amanda could not have traveled back in time to kill her grandpa. Though it is called a paradox, it really becomes a contradiction. Amanda cannot perform the action she went back in time to enact without nullifying the very biological basis for her existence, preventing her from being able to travel back in time because she does not exist. The deductive reasoning here is simple. A variation of this would be me going back in time to kill myself as a baby or young child, ending my existence because I could never have existed in the present to go back in time to kill myself.
Now, for a time travel contradiction that is utterly impossible, I will reference one of my favorite movies. In James Cameron's film The Terminator, soldier Kyle Reese is sent from the year 2029 to 1984 to protect Sarah Connor, whose son John will lead a human resistance against a faction of robots called Skynet. As he guards Sarah, the two eventually become romantically involved and have sex, with Kyle impregnating Sarah. She gives birth to John Connor, who goes on to fight Skynet and send Kyle back in time to protect his mother. The contradiction lies in the fact that had John Connor not already existed in the future to send Kyle Reese into the past, Kyle would never have existed alongside Sarah, meaning she would not have become pregnant and given birth to John. Since in this instance what happened in the year 1984 could not have occurred without something having already happened in the future year of 2029, and since the past must by necessity occur before the future, the time traveling scenario in The Terminator is logically impossible. This scenario is not a paradox, where something seems to be a contradiction but on a closer examination is actually possible or true; it is an impossible contradiction. It could never happen.
While the time travel plot in The Terminator is inescapably impossible, in the next post in this series I will examine an instance of time travel from the future to the past in a popular video game that does not violate logic. At that point I will elaborate on what makes the time travel from the video game in question possible as opposed to the incoherent nonsense from The Terminator. Yes, I love The Terminator and I love its immediate sequel even more, but the contradiction at the heart of its premise does not vanish because of my appreciation for the movie. But not all time travel is logically impossible!
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Monday, June 26, 2017
A Sacrifice In The Name Of Truth
Truth demands sacrifices of us all. It may contradict our desires, our preferences, our conveniences, or our expectations, but until we embrace truth with absolute devotion it will demand that we sacrifice a part of ourselves in order to pursue it. Whether that sacrifice involves surrendering false notions, learning to yield to reality instead of preference, or adjusting our priories until they conform to reality, we may indeed need to sacrifice. One thing I have had to learn to sacrifice during this process is dependence on other people. At large, they will not join genuine seekers of truth, and may even oppose them. I, however, have no problem sacrificing relationships with humans that obstruct my pursuit of truth.
One who pursues knowledge of how things are and not how they seem--one who walks in the light of reason and not the darkness of error--will likely find before long that most people do not share such a priority and can even be quite hostile towards it. And, towards those who consistently, incorrigibly fail to share that priority even after being shown the futility and stupidity of their mindset, I have a deep indignance. I am not only able but willing to walk away from them and metaphorically abandon them to some degree. Oh, I still prefer for such people to reform their minds and embrace truth and reason. I want a fallacious mind to shed its erroneous ways far more than I want to have a target for my intellectual ferocity. I want to see irrationality and sin get exchanged for rationality and morals.
But I would sacrifice practically any human relationship for the sake of my own understanding of truth. There is a handful (a very small handful) of relationships I have that I would without hesitation do absolutely anything short of violating my Christian ethics or silencing my passion for rationalism and truth to preserve--but I would toss aside any other relationship that interferes with my quest for truth and knowledge. If any person becomes an obstacle to that quest (and nothing is even metaphysically capable of objectively mattering besides truth [1]) and if that person does not change when confronted with reason, then I would sever my ties with him or her as far as is possible or necessary to maintain the integrity of that quest. At that point, he or she has become an obstacle to the only quest that can prove meaningful in the end and thus, unfortunately, must be pushed aside to some degree for the quest to continue.
Most people do not seem to care for truth and reason that much--so much so that many of their affections for other humans pale in comparison and are seen as ontologically inferior. Many people do not appear to truly seek reality and reason above all else; they seem to seek gratification and intellectual procrastination in their place. I am walking on a pathway to truth with reason as my guide, and I will welcome any who I happen to encounter and invite them to join me. But if they interfere with that journey, I have no problem pushing them aside so that I can proceed as before. As far as I know, I have met very few who can honestly say the same about themselves.
[1]. If what is true has no meaning or significance, then nothing has intrinsic meaning. A subjective sense of fulfillment or joy does not mean something is meaningful; only objective truth can be meaningful.
One who pursues knowledge of how things are and not how they seem--one who walks in the light of reason and not the darkness of error--will likely find before long that most people do not share such a priority and can even be quite hostile towards it. And, towards those who consistently, incorrigibly fail to share that priority even after being shown the futility and stupidity of their mindset, I have a deep indignance. I am not only able but willing to walk away from them and metaphorically abandon them to some degree. Oh, I still prefer for such people to reform their minds and embrace truth and reason. I want a fallacious mind to shed its erroneous ways far more than I want to have a target for my intellectual ferocity. I want to see irrationality and sin get exchanged for rationality and morals.
But I would sacrifice practically any human relationship for the sake of my own understanding of truth. There is a handful (a very small handful) of relationships I have that I would without hesitation do absolutely anything short of violating my Christian ethics or silencing my passion for rationalism and truth to preserve--but I would toss aside any other relationship that interferes with my quest for truth and knowledge. If any person becomes an obstacle to that quest (and nothing is even metaphysically capable of objectively mattering besides truth [1]) and if that person does not change when confronted with reason, then I would sever my ties with him or her as far as is possible or necessary to maintain the integrity of that quest. At that point, he or she has become an obstacle to the only quest that can prove meaningful in the end and thus, unfortunately, must be pushed aside to some degree for the quest to continue.
Most people do not seem to care for truth and reason that much--so much so that many of their affections for other humans pale in comparison and are seen as ontologically inferior. Many people do not appear to truly seek reality and reason above all else; they seem to seek gratification and intellectual procrastination in their place. I am walking on a pathway to truth with reason as my guide, and I will welcome any who I happen to encounter and invite them to join me. But if they interfere with that journey, I have no problem pushing them aside so that I can proceed as before. As far as I know, I have met very few who can honestly say the same about themselves.
[1]. If what is true has no meaning or significance, then nothing has intrinsic meaning. A subjective sense of fulfillment or joy does not mean something is meaningful; only objective truth can be meaningful.
Saturday, June 24, 2017
A Theory On The Age Of The Universe
 |
| Does the Bible teach that any models of the age of the universe other than young earth creationism (with the earth being around 6,000-7,000 years old) are untrue? |
Unless there are genealogy errors that the Bible neglected to acknowledge, even going so far as to deceitfully represent the number of generations from Adam to Christ or the ages of the main figures in those generations, and unless the creation days are not literal (which could be very difficult to definitively demonstrate), there is only one way that one could interpret the Bible to not mean anything fanciful by the word "day" in Genesis 1 and have that interpretation remain compatible with a universe that is billions of years old.
Here are the first five verses of Genesis:
Genesis 1:1-5--"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light 'day,' and the darkness he called 'night'. And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day."
Now, let us assess this passage. The Bible is unclear as to whether or not the first creation day, where God separated light from darkness (Genesis 1:3-5), occurred within an actual 24 hour day of the initial creation of matter in Genesis 1:1. In this potentially lengthy gap of time during verse two, thousands to billions of years could have elapsed, enabling for both the seven creation days of Genesis to be literal 24 hour days and the universe to be up to billions of years old. By this I mean that there could have been billions of years after God created matter but before God separated light from darkness, at which point a series of 24 hour creation days occurred. Does this theory boast the confirmation of outright Biblical agreement? No, but the fact that Genesis 1:1-5 leave this possibility open means that people cannot dismiss it casually.
 |
| An "old" earth (and universe by extension, since God created both simultaneously according to Genesis) and a literal creation week consisting of 24 hour days are not necessarily logically exclusive. |
Now, let me not be slow to proclaim that all of this is just a theory, a possibility that does not logically contradict itself or any specific passage of the Bible. I am not saying this possibility is undeniably true, only that it is possible! Yes, Matthew 1:17 says explicitly that there were "fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the Exile to Christ". Yes, the Bible provides the lifespans of at least many of the central figures within the genealogy presented in Matthew 1. Still, even if the Biblical genealogies and ages add up to only several thousand years from Adam to Christ, the universe can still be billions of years old. It is possible that the universe is less than 10,000 years old; it is possible that the universe is billions of years old. Neither option is, in a logical sense, impossible, and a literal understanding of Genesis 1-2 is not intrinsically irreconcilable to an "ancient" universe. I only intended to make such a fact clear, not to claim anything more.
The Morality Of Anger
Have you ever heard of Christians condemning all anger as sinful? I have, and ironically I get indignant when I hear about such teachings because they are demonstrably untrue. While proper management of anger is a key necessity to living a righteous life, anger itself is not intrinsically sinful, as I will demonstrate the Bible teaches. As with other areas, some people misrepresent Biblical morality and legalistically condemn anger as if people need to avoid all forms of anger in order to avoid sinning. Since anger is sometimes a natural emotion and reaction, we need to know what divine revelation illuminates about it, lest we misunderstand how we should engage with this feeling or attitude that we find ourselves experiencing sometimes (as an aside, this post marks the one year anniversary of my blog!).
Let's look at a verse from Psalms:
Psalm 4:4--"In your anger do not sin . . ."
This verse explicitly brings to light the fact that not all anger is associated with evil activity or illicit wrath. If one can be angry without sinning, then it is true by necessity that anger in itself is not always sinful. After all, God himself expresses deep anger all throughout the Bible. One must acknowledge this important distinction when analyzing what the Bible actually teaches about anger.
Now, I will examine a quote from Jesus about anger that can seem puzzling at first.
Matthew 5:22--"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."
But doesn't this verse seem to contradict the one I explained before this? First of all, Psalm 4:4 already distinguishes between sinful and permissible anger--anger itself is not intrinsically sinful and does not have to lead to sinful behaviors. Anger is not always the same as a desire for vengeance (which the Bible does condemn: see Leviticus 19:18, Romans 12:19) or a desire to inflict harm on someone. Second, Jesus became externally angry while on earth (John 2), so anyone who says that Jesus was perfectly righteous must concede that anger is not always sinful. Third, even a footnote in the translation I used for Matthew 5:22 here (the NIV) admits that other translations add that the anger being addressed is anger "without cause". The Bible obviously condemns anger without cause, disproportionate anger, or anger that entertains sinful behaviors or thoughts.
When dealing with anger, perhaps ask yourself the following questions:
1). Do I have a reason for my anger? Is it without cause?
2). Am I acting in a manner which the Bible condemns because of my anger?
Such questions and honest answers to them can help us evaluate whether our anger is morally good or destructive and sinful.
Rage of some sort has practically always been a deep part of my personality and identity as a person--rage over perceived moral misconduct and eventually over irrationality. As my blog has evidenced [1], I have embraced that ferocity in no small measure. I experience it often. I consciously allow fury (not malice) to fuel my words and actions. And, as long as that rage is exercised within proper moral guidelines and aimed in legitimate directions, there is nothing sinful about this according to the Bible. I am enraged that most people forsake reason for shallow, inconsistent reliance on fallacies, preferences, and assumptions. I become very irate when Christians condemn or question me for engaging in practices that Biblical morality does not prohibit. I get deeply frustrated and angry when people live as hypocrites. Simply discussing or reading about things like sexual abuse, illicit torture, racism, sexism, and anti-intellectualism has provoked a great deal of both inner and verbalized indignance from me. As I said, such anger is a part of my existential identity. My kind of anger is not opposed by the Bible, nor does it evolve into malice (malice being the active desire to harm someone, anger being a state of heated attitude towards someone).
To teach that God discourages all forms of human anger is to greatly distort the Bible. Until abused, anger is always either neutral or good. The Bible instructs people to imitate the character of God--and anger is one of his characteristics, albeit one not that is necessarily popular in the American church at large at the moment. Anger is not always tainted by sin. In fact, it is morally good by Biblical standards for Christians to express healthy anger towards actual evils like injustice, anti-intellectualism, and legalism. Because of this, we need not always fret over its presence in our lives. Do not allow anger to transform itself into something illegitimate--but do not demonize all anger, as the results of doing so can be devastating.
[1]. I'm not normally subtle in my blog posts at all when I refer to certain people or ideas as asinine, pathetic, intellectually useless, or damaging!
 |
| Anger is not universally condemned by the Bible. The object of anger, the motivation behind it, and the way it is expressed determine the morality of anger. |
Let's look at a verse from Psalms:
Psalm 4:4--"In your anger do not sin . . ."
This verse explicitly brings to light the fact that not all anger is associated with evil activity or illicit wrath. If one can be angry without sinning, then it is true by necessity that anger in itself is not always sinful. After all, God himself expresses deep anger all throughout the Bible. One must acknowledge this important distinction when analyzing what the Bible actually teaches about anger.
Now, I will examine a quote from Jesus about anger that can seem puzzling at first.
Matthew 5:22--"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."
But doesn't this verse seem to contradict the one I explained before this? First of all, Psalm 4:4 already distinguishes between sinful and permissible anger--anger itself is not intrinsically sinful and does not have to lead to sinful behaviors. Anger is not always the same as a desire for vengeance (which the Bible does condemn: see Leviticus 19:18, Romans 12:19) or a desire to inflict harm on someone. Second, Jesus became externally angry while on earth (John 2), so anyone who says that Jesus was perfectly righteous must concede that anger is not always sinful. Third, even a footnote in the translation I used for Matthew 5:22 here (the NIV) admits that other translations add that the anger being addressed is anger "without cause". The Bible obviously condemns anger without cause, disproportionate anger, or anger that entertains sinful behaviors or thoughts.
When dealing with anger, perhaps ask yourself the following questions:
1). Do I have a reason for my anger? Is it without cause?
2). Am I acting in a manner which the Bible condemns because of my anger?
Such questions and honest answers to them can help us evaluate whether our anger is morally good or destructive and sinful.
 |
| Not all anger is abusive or malicious. Since God himself gets angry at certain things (Romans 1:18, Exodus 22:24, etc) and we are commanded to be imitators of God (Ephesians 5:1), we are commanded to express righteous anger as well. |
Rage of some sort has practically always been a deep part of my personality and identity as a person--rage over perceived moral misconduct and eventually over irrationality. As my blog has evidenced [1], I have embraced that ferocity in no small measure. I experience it often. I consciously allow fury (not malice) to fuel my words and actions. And, as long as that rage is exercised within proper moral guidelines and aimed in legitimate directions, there is nothing sinful about this according to the Bible. I am enraged that most people forsake reason for shallow, inconsistent reliance on fallacies, preferences, and assumptions. I become very irate when Christians condemn or question me for engaging in practices that Biblical morality does not prohibit. I get deeply frustrated and angry when people live as hypocrites. Simply discussing or reading about things like sexual abuse, illicit torture, racism, sexism, and anti-intellectualism has provoked a great deal of both inner and verbalized indignance from me. As I said, such anger is a part of my existential identity. My kind of anger is not opposed by the Bible, nor does it evolve into malice (malice being the active desire to harm someone, anger being a state of heated attitude towards someone).
To teach that God discourages all forms of human anger is to greatly distort the Bible. Until abused, anger is always either neutral or good. The Bible instructs people to imitate the character of God--and anger is one of his characteristics, albeit one not that is necessarily popular in the American church at large at the moment. Anger is not always tainted by sin. In fact, it is morally good by Biblical standards for Christians to express healthy anger towards actual evils like injustice, anti-intellectualism, and legalism. Because of this, we need not always fret over its presence in our lives. Do not allow anger to transform itself into something illegitimate--but do not demonize all anger, as the results of doing so can be devastating.
[1]. I'm not normally subtle in my blog posts at all when I refer to certain people or ideas as asinine, pathetic, intellectually useless, or damaging!
Thursday, June 22, 2017
First Principles
In order for knowledge to exist, it must have a set starting point. Otherwise one would have no basis for where to begin, always needing to start at least one step back and never able to make any progress--an inevitably futile manner of seeking knowledge. Thus is the dilemma which foundational truths called first principles deliver us from. First principles encompass axioms and logic, the infallible starting points for knowledge. They are called first because upon them every other facet of human knowledge inescapably hinges. There is nothing more foundational, nor are there any propositions which are self-evident [1] other than those in this class.
Allow me to contrast first principles with a favorite philosophical target of mine: Christian presuppositionalism, a belief system which says that we have to assume that a certain type of deity exists for us to know that truth exists, that logic is reliable, and to even have a coherent worldview at all. It rejects use of the intellect as the pathway to revealing truth (very ironic, since presuppositionalists have to make an intellectual case against the reliability of the intellect!) because doing so makes "humans the judge". One of the great errors of Christian presuppositionalism (alongside the fact that the Bible teaches the opposite of it [2]) is that it assumes something to be true without proof, as opposed to identifying that for which it is impossible to be false and starting knowledge there.
Whereas it is impossible for nothing at all to be true, it is certainly logically possible that murder is not wrong or that God does not love us. The fallacies of presuppositionalists are abundant, yet they routinely demand epistemological answers from other worldviews that they do not give for their own ideologies. While first principles reveal to us what is inescapably true no matter what else is, presuppositionalism denies the self-evident as being true by necessity and fabricates the false premise that the Christian god must be invoked for such first principles to hold.
Only first principles deliver us from total ignorance, for without them we would be adrift in a seemingly infinite fog of unverifiable assumptions, skepticism, and uncertainty. To claim that the Christian god must be assumed for first principles to be reliable is not only demonstrably and laughably incorrect, as things like truth exist even apart from the existence of any deity (although logic proves that an uncaused cause does exist by pure necessity)--it is a claim utterly powerless to falsify the same claim from Muslims and religious people of all other stripes. Why is the same not true about the Islamic deity of the Quran? Why not some other miscellaneous deity?
I have met some who deny the intrinsic veracity of first principles, and no other irrational position could ever surpass the folly, the inconsistency, and the lunacy of such an asinine denial. To my dismay, I have never met more deniers of these first principles in one place than I have at my college, HBU, where an astonishing number of people have called me "too skeptical" (quite possibly because I reject the unverifiable claims they want me to accept) and opposed my total embrace of reason (as they use reason to argue against my rationalism, ironically!).
Many of those who have denied first principles in my presence have also told me either that they would not believe in truth or reason unless they believed in the Christian god or that it is impossible to know practically anything without assuming that such a deity exists. If you deny or doubt first principles but think that assuming a worldview arbitrarily is the solution to skepticism, you cannot help skeptics because you are not seeking to present reality to them, only an illogical assumption you cannot defend rationally. Presuppositionalists and presuppositionalism are useless for any legitimate epistemological investigation about the start of knowledge or the core of reality because of the idiocy and intrinsically fallacious nature of their claims.
[1]. I have addressed axioms, logic, self-evidence, and absolute certainty elsewhere:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-self-evidence-of-logic.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-error-of-presuppositions.html
C. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-truth-of-axioms.html
D. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-problem-of-criterion-reflection-on.html
E. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-nature-of-absolute-certainty.html
[2]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-necessity-of-reason.html
Allow me to contrast first principles with a favorite philosophical target of mine: Christian presuppositionalism, a belief system which says that we have to assume that a certain type of deity exists for us to know that truth exists, that logic is reliable, and to even have a coherent worldview at all. It rejects use of the intellect as the pathway to revealing truth (very ironic, since presuppositionalists have to make an intellectual case against the reliability of the intellect!) because doing so makes "humans the judge". One of the great errors of Christian presuppositionalism (alongside the fact that the Bible teaches the opposite of it [2]) is that it assumes something to be true without proof, as opposed to identifying that for which it is impossible to be false and starting knowledge there.
Whereas it is impossible for nothing at all to be true, it is certainly logically possible that murder is not wrong or that God does not love us. The fallacies of presuppositionalists are abundant, yet they routinely demand epistemological answers from other worldviews that they do not give for their own ideologies. While first principles reveal to us what is inescapably true no matter what else is, presuppositionalism denies the self-evident as being true by necessity and fabricates the false premise that the Christian god must be invoked for such first principles to hold.
Only first principles deliver us from total ignorance, for without them we would be adrift in a seemingly infinite fog of unverifiable assumptions, skepticism, and uncertainty. To claim that the Christian god must be assumed for first principles to be reliable is not only demonstrably and laughably incorrect, as things like truth exist even apart from the existence of any deity (although logic proves that an uncaused cause does exist by pure necessity)--it is a claim utterly powerless to falsify the same claim from Muslims and religious people of all other stripes. Why is the same not true about the Islamic deity of the Quran? Why not some other miscellaneous deity?
I have met some who deny the intrinsic veracity of first principles, and no other irrational position could ever surpass the folly, the inconsistency, and the lunacy of such an asinine denial. To my dismay, I have never met more deniers of these first principles in one place than I have at my college, HBU, where an astonishing number of people have called me "too skeptical" (quite possibly because I reject the unverifiable claims they want me to accept) and opposed my total embrace of reason (as they use reason to argue against my rationalism, ironically!).
Many of those who have denied first principles in my presence have also told me either that they would not believe in truth or reason unless they believed in the Christian god or that it is impossible to know practically anything without assuming that such a deity exists. If you deny or doubt first principles but think that assuming a worldview arbitrarily is the solution to skepticism, you cannot help skeptics because you are not seeking to present reality to them, only an illogical assumption you cannot defend rationally. Presuppositionalists and presuppositionalism are useless for any legitimate epistemological investigation about the start of knowledge or the core of reality because of the idiocy and intrinsically fallacious nature of their claims.
[1]. I have addressed axioms, logic, self-evidence, and absolute certainty elsewhere:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-self-evidence-of-logic.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-error-of-presuppositions.html
C. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-truth-of-axioms.html
D. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-problem-of-criterion-reflection-on.html
E. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-nature-of-absolute-certainty.html
[2]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-necessity-of-reason.html
The Cruciality Of Memory
I do not hear enough people talk about the vital nature of memory regarding knowledge and how to critically assess the epistemology of memory to lead me to think that people truly take the issue as seriously as it demands we do. If our memories are not reliable, then almost all of our alleged knowledge is in jeopardy, either totally uncertain or lost in a fog. All knowledge derived from sense experience, empirical observation, and education is entirely unstable and elusive if our memories do not retain it adequately. The significance of this cannot be overstated. Of course, it is logically possible that I have never subconsciously forgotten anything in my entire life but I am unable to consciously perceive and unlock all of these memories--but I can neither verify nor falsify such a possibility.
While the specific line between short term or long term memory is perhaps only arbitrarily defined, I can identify key differences between certain memories of mine. Although some of my words to follow here will indeed assess the difference between memories of mine having to do with relatively recently events and things in the more distant past, what I mean by "recent" and "old" memories may not totally align with the current consensus on how to classify short term and long term memories. For instance, short term memory is believed to only hold around 5-9 things at once and to hold them for several seconds to around a minute, but when I talk about "recent" memories in this post I am sometimes referring to any memories in the past 24-48 hours, which would involve far more than just 5-9 bits of information. Anyway, here I will show how both recent and old memories are indispensably crucial to my ability to live and function on both a practical and an intellectual level.
Recent memories, or memories from the past 1-2 days, allow me to do things like effectively continue conversations in the present without constantly asking "What are we talking about?", remember where I am walking to, what I might want to cook for dinner this evening, and to recall what I ate earlier in the day. Without these memories I would be lost amid confusion about my plans for the immediate future. Because of its newness, though, such things stored in my memory--like information for a hypothetical exam tomorrow that I only studied last night--are more vulnerable to being forgotten than older memories cemented in my mind.
My older memories are, at the very least, far less susceptible to memory purges due to forgetfulness, more permanent, more expansive, and easier to access than some information in my recent memories. I can recall with exact clarity what I remember doing years ago in 2015 with my best friend on my birthday, but I cannot remember what I ate for lunch exactly two days ago. I can remember intellectual matters like the specific subjects of particular verses in Exodus 21 or how to prove that I cannot know if alien life exists and I can recite these facts without conscious effort, yet I cannot recall what I said when I had an informal conversation with a sibling yesterday. I can easily recall the main plots of my favorite video games, but I cannot recite the function of every button on a controller for a game I played yesterday. These are some ways that the differences between recent and older memories manifest themselves in my own life.
If either my recent or old memories did not work correctly, it is very possible that I would die within 24 hours depending on what I did next. The cruciality of my memory to my everyday survival is something of immense significance. Did my old memories not work, I might not remember that I have seen alligators in a body of water near my house and proceed to swim in that water and get eaten; I might haplessly run into freeway traffic on foot and get hit by oncoming vehicles because I don't know what vehicles are; I might forget what food is and slowly die of starvation. Did my recent memories not work, if I was in a room I knew was filling with invisible but deadly gas, I could not react properly in order to escape because I might forget I was in danger. In other words, a very dangerous situation might spontaneously arise that I could not handle if my memory of very recent events did not correctly function. It is memory that keeps me alive on a day to day basis in these regards.
In matters other than survival, things like the very integrity of my worldview hinge on the quality and reliability of my memory. What do I believe and why do I hold to it? My memory preserves my knowledge of both. Thankfully, a wealth of information about logic, philosophy, and Christian theology is stored in my old memories (in this case, my old memories are synonymous with what others call long term memories). I do not have to struggle to recall this information for longer than a few minutes to a few days; I can remember many of these things perfectly and distinctly.
It is mostly my older memories that are especially crucial to my survival and worldview. Recent memories may survive long enough for my mind to cement them in itself, carrying them over into what is often called long term memory, and thus they can still serve as stepping stones into the deeper recesses of my mind. Both types, though, are necessary to either the formation of preservation of knowledge. In other posts, of course, I have defined memory and proven that the faculty itself is reliable as a mechanism even if not every individual memory corresponds to objective reality [1]. But in relation to survival and epistemology, the cruciality of each of the two types of memory that I explored here is immense, and yet I recall few conversations where people have brought up the great significance of them.
[1]. I have memories--recollections of past events; all I need to do to prove this to myself is think, and to have memories I must by necessity have a memory to hold them. My mind is constantly cycling through a wide variety of specific information. It is not empty, and I know this with absolute certainty by constant and immediate experience. I would be clueless about a great many things--almost everything around me--if my memory did not retain a large amount of information consistently. I am not clueless about almost everything around me. Therefore my memory retains a large amount of information consistently. For more, see http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-reliability-of-memory.html.
While the specific line between short term or long term memory is perhaps only arbitrarily defined, I can identify key differences between certain memories of mine. Although some of my words to follow here will indeed assess the difference between memories of mine having to do with relatively recently events and things in the more distant past, what I mean by "recent" and "old" memories may not totally align with the current consensus on how to classify short term and long term memories. For instance, short term memory is believed to only hold around 5-9 things at once and to hold them for several seconds to around a minute, but when I talk about "recent" memories in this post I am sometimes referring to any memories in the past 24-48 hours, which would involve far more than just 5-9 bits of information. Anyway, here I will show how both recent and old memories are indispensably crucial to my ability to live and function on both a practical and an intellectual level.
Recent memories, or memories from the past 1-2 days, allow me to do things like effectively continue conversations in the present without constantly asking "What are we talking about?", remember where I am walking to, what I might want to cook for dinner this evening, and to recall what I ate earlier in the day. Without these memories I would be lost amid confusion about my plans for the immediate future. Because of its newness, though, such things stored in my memory--like information for a hypothetical exam tomorrow that I only studied last night--are more vulnerable to being forgotten than older memories cemented in my mind.
My older memories are, at the very least, far less susceptible to memory purges due to forgetfulness, more permanent, more expansive, and easier to access than some information in my recent memories. I can recall with exact clarity what I remember doing years ago in 2015 with my best friend on my birthday, but I cannot remember what I ate for lunch exactly two days ago. I can remember intellectual matters like the specific subjects of particular verses in Exodus 21 or how to prove that I cannot know if alien life exists and I can recite these facts without conscious effort, yet I cannot recall what I said when I had an informal conversation with a sibling yesterday. I can easily recall the main plots of my favorite video games, but I cannot recite the function of every button on a controller for a game I played yesterday. These are some ways that the differences between recent and older memories manifest themselves in my own life.
If either my recent or old memories did not work correctly, it is very possible that I would die within 24 hours depending on what I did next. The cruciality of my memory to my everyday survival is something of immense significance. Did my old memories not work, I might not remember that I have seen alligators in a body of water near my house and proceed to swim in that water and get eaten; I might haplessly run into freeway traffic on foot and get hit by oncoming vehicles because I don't know what vehicles are; I might forget what food is and slowly die of starvation. Did my recent memories not work, if I was in a room I knew was filling with invisible but deadly gas, I could not react properly in order to escape because I might forget I was in danger. In other words, a very dangerous situation might spontaneously arise that I could not handle if my memory of very recent events did not correctly function. It is memory that keeps me alive on a day to day basis in these regards.
In matters other than survival, things like the very integrity of my worldview hinge on the quality and reliability of my memory. What do I believe and why do I hold to it? My memory preserves my knowledge of both. Thankfully, a wealth of information about logic, philosophy, and Christian theology is stored in my old memories (in this case, my old memories are synonymous with what others call long term memories). I do not have to struggle to recall this information for longer than a few minutes to a few days; I can remember many of these things perfectly and distinctly.
It is mostly my older memories that are especially crucial to my survival and worldview. Recent memories may survive long enough for my mind to cement them in itself, carrying them over into what is often called long term memory, and thus they can still serve as stepping stones into the deeper recesses of my mind. Both types, though, are necessary to either the formation of preservation of knowledge. In other posts, of course, I have defined memory and proven that the faculty itself is reliable as a mechanism even if not every individual memory corresponds to objective reality [1]. But in relation to survival and epistemology, the cruciality of each of the two types of memory that I explored here is immense, and yet I recall few conversations where people have brought up the great significance of them.
[1]. I have memories--recollections of past events; all I need to do to prove this to myself is think, and to have memories I must by necessity have a memory to hold them. My mind is constantly cycling through a wide variety of specific information. It is not empty, and I know this with absolute certainty by constant and immediate experience. I would be clueless about a great many things--almost everything around me--if my memory did not retain a large amount of information consistently. I am not clueless about almost everything around me. Therefore my memory retains a large amount of information consistently. For more, see http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-reliability-of-memory.html.
Game Review--The Last Of Us Remastered (PS4)
"Remember, when you're lost in the darkness, look for the light. Believe in the Fireflies."
--Firefly woman via radio, The Last of Us Remastered
"I was sure they'd be punished for breaking our code. Instead the boss deemed that they 'procured supplies for the group' . . . He then ordered that all of us take turns, hunting other survivors in the area and bringing their supplies back to the camp . . . I didn't dare lift a finger as the only people to display any sort of morality were killed in front of all of us."
--Trial Note, The Last of Us Remastered
"Swear to me that everything you said about the Fireflies is true."
--Ellie, The Last of Us Remastered
The Road meets The Walking Dead, The Last Of Us Remastered is the optimal edition of an acclaimed post-apocalyptic game that introduces the characters Joel and Ellie. Like The Road in that each features both confrontations with cannibals and an adult and a child traveling to a distant destination, and like The Walking Dead in that each depicts a world largely overrun by infected humans, The Last Of Us injects an impressive amount of realism, maturity, and emotion into the post-apocalyptic video game genre. It showcases detailed graphics, a 10 hour+ gameplay run, and life-like urgency, yet at its heart the game is about its pair of main characters and the intense relational bond they form.
Production Values
This PS3 release and PS4 remaster certainly don't have the degree o graphical detail that God of War III for the PS3 and its own respective PS4 remaster possess, but the graphics still look great. The freckles on Ellie's face, the monstrous growths on bloater and clicker faces and bodies, and the various environments and characters are detailed, excellently-animated things. I did encounter a few visual glitches where, for instance, planks of wood I rested against a brick wall phased through the wall; I found weird physics where bodies sometimes slide much farther along the ground than they would in real life when you punch someone off their feet; I noticed once that enemy AI would run in circles, though I was never fortunate enough to have the enemy AI in question be a clicker instead of a human opponent. The presence of these glitches mars an otherwise great remaster.
On the other hand, the voice acting and characterization brilliantly succeed in crafting a realistic experience that explores human psychology and the human heart amidst the setting of a horrific pandemic. The game features much dialogue, a great deal of it optional, but most of it still great at building character depth and development. Spectacular voice acting (along with engaging and personal lines) allows for immersion into a world of desperation, loss, and despair.
By the way, I spotted Jak and Daxter and Uncharted board games in an in-game toy store! Naughty Dog placed good cameos of their other titles in the game.
Gameplay
If you ever want to see what it would be like to live in a post-infection environment, this game is certainly one of your most realistic options. The game structure divides gameplay into quiet moments where the player searches for items and scenes with inevitable confrontations with human or infected enemies. Exploring for items seems urgent and crucial, especially considering the relative rarity of supplies and ammunition. Every shot matters, so the need to conserve bullets can serve as a great motivation to try to find more at every opportunity.
Players also collect gears for weapon upgrades and vitamin supplements for enhancements to Joel's abilities (health extension, crafting speed, etc). Other collectibles can be found, including training manuals that boost the effects of some of Joel's skills that the supplements don't affect. Shiv doors mark rooms with bounties of gears and other useful objects. By the end of the game Joel acquires a variety of weapons ranging from a bow to Molotov cocktails to a flamethrower, meaning that more weapons and thus more ammunition are available, so using bullets becomes somewhat less of a big deal. But choices about what weapon to use nearer to the beginning of the story can be very significant.
Do you want to explore an area with multiple infected humans knowing that you risk entering a fight with them, but also knowing you might discover some supplies? Or a shiv door with a treasure trove of pick-ups? The infected seem to use hearing as their primary way of detecting your presence, so you'll have to be quiet about it. As in a true post-apocalyptic scenario, choices like sneaking through an area without searching for ammo or upgrade material can affect your ability to get away with doing the same later on, as your very limited ammo will dwindle and your crafting supplies will be used up. Only amplifying the urgency, the crafting screen (crafting is making a new item out of two or more other things) does not pause gameplay, leaving you vulnerable to attack. However, Joel has a listening mode that enables him to detect the sounds enemies make and visualize their positions, even if they are up to dozens of feet away.
A more challenging part of the game is playing as Ellie during a certain segment of the story. She has a much more limited listening mode distance and cannot use the supplement enhancements and boosts from training manuals that Joel can. She can't craft or heal as quickly; her health bar is shorter; she doesn't have access to all of his weapons, etc.
Story
The Last Of Us both opens and ends with quiet moments of conversation between Joel and a young girl--his daughter at first and Ellie later on. In the beginning a tired Joel receives a watch for his birthday from his daughter Sarah. Very quickly it is apparent that Joel loves Sarah, yet their tranquility is shattered as the night continues. Sarah finds her dad's phone with missed eight calls from "Uncle Tommy", a text from whom says he needs to immediately speak with her father. A newspaper found in the the bathroom during the beginning sequence where you play as Sarah says that "ATTENDANCE SPIKES AT AREA HOSPITALS!" and credits a mysterious infection with causing this. A news broadcast on a live TV in her father's bedroom informs her that the "infected" have increased aggression, and an explosion outside confirms that something unusual has occurred.
(SPOILERS ABOUT WHAT OCCURS AFTER THE FIRST FEW MINUTES OF THE GAME AHEAD!)
Sarah's Uncle Tommy brings her and Joel to a nearby city, a place seized by panic as some humans start attacking the others in an animalistic manner, suffering from an infection in the brain. By the end of the night, Joel splits up from Tommy as he holds a door in a near shut position against a group of the infected and Sarah is shot by a soldier who seemingly has orders to kill anyone who approaches.
20 years after the prologue, the meat of the story begins. Joel now lives in a small cluster of buildings protected by aggressive soldiers. Outside this area, a group called the Fireflies has earned a reputation as the faction that can restore hope to North America, and some say the Fireflies are even in the process of finding a cure for the cordyceps infection. Despite the presence of an authoritarian martial law, Joel and a woman named Tess sneak out together to pursue their own goals.
Eventually, Joel follows a wounded young woman named Marlene, a member of the Fireflies. She leads you to a room where you are attacked by a girl wielding a shiv, whose name is Ellie ( who identifies herself as 14). Marlene claims to have known Joel's brother Tommy very well, with him telling her that Joel is reliable. And thus she tasks Joel with bringing Ellie to the Fireflies. The Fireflies view her as highly important to their cause. Soon, the three (Joel, Tess, and Ellie) find themselves held at gunpoint before two soldiers, one of which scans them for infections. They kill the two, but not before all three are scanned . . . and the scanner indicates that Ellie is infected.
Neither Joel nor Tess initially believes Ellie that a bite she shows on her forearm is three weeks old (fallacy of personal incredulity), as Tess says that everyone turns within two days. The Fireflies, according to Ellie, have professionals attempting to find a cure or vaccine for the infection, and Marlene believed that Ellie's unnatural resilience to the bite can unlock the information necessary to make a vaccine.
The journey onward brings Joel and Ellie to meet individuals like Bill, an old friend of Joel's, the brothers Henry and Sam, Tommy, and a leader of a cannibal clan named David. By the time they finally reach the Fireflies they have witnessed a friend turn into an infected host, a companion commit suicide, and other chilling horrors. The cordyceps inside Ellie has mutated, rendering her immune to the infection; Firefly doctors prepare to engage in a surgery that will kill her but remove the fungus in order to create a vaccine. Joel kills numerous Firefly members and extracts an unconscious Ellie from the surgery, fleeing with her and returning back to Tommy's place.
At the end Joel tells Ellie that they found the Fireflies, but the group no longer needed her for a vaccine because they found someone else like her. "Turns out, there's a whole lot more like you, Ellie". He adds that "They've stopped looking for a cure" because such methods of finding a vaccine have proven unfruitful. Ellie asks for him to swear that he is telling her the truth, and Joel swears he is.
LEFT BEHIND DLC
In the main story, when winter arrives and Ellie is hunting with the bow, you can view all her items, and one is a dog tag-type necklace with the name "RILEY ABEL 000129". A DLC included in the remastered edition of The Last Of Us explores the relationship between the two in the final hours of Riley's life.
(SPOILERS)
It ends with Riley and Ellie being bit by the infected. Of course, players of the main game know that Ellie will survive, but Riley will not make an appearance in the main story.
Intellectual Content
During a bleak scenario like a severe pandemic such as the one featured in the game, would you remain generous and empathetic or would you become cruel, selfish, and indifferent? Joel's friend Bill recounts how he lost a partner he looked after and then he "wisened" up and realized that anything other than solo operations would get him killed; he views attachment as a dangerous weakness, although the conclusion of the story seems to suggest otherwise. At one point Ellie says "I feel sick" after shooting a man who was attacking Joel with the intent to kill him. Despite Joel's hardened exterior, she consistently says things that indicate her relative innocence amidst the catastrophes around her. Really, Joel seems no morally better than David the cannibal in most ways. Joel and David each mention at times how they have no other choice when it comes to some of their more controversial moral decisions, yet when Marlene tells Joel that Ellie will have to die for a vaccine to be engineered and that she has no other choice, he tells her "You keep telling yourself that bullshit". It seems that at his core, Joel doesn't really seem to believe his own justifications for many of his actions. Of course, moral obligations and truths do not change because circumstances do; they remain fixed and we are unable to alter them, regardless of our preferences or our experiences. Although the game doesn't try to provide an actual answer to many of its moral dilemmas, it does show with brutal honesty just how difficult our moral decisions can be.
During one part of the game Bill leads you into an abandoned church. I explored the second floor, finding light flooding in through beautiful windows around an organ and furniture decorated with a cross. But the emptiness of the building was significant. Where was God during this tragedy? As you stumble upon ransacked former business buildings, street ambushes of helpless strangers, and childless cribs with toys in them, the absence of distinct divine activity is noticeable. Sam and Ellie even converse about whether or not the infected humans have gone to heaven, and Ellie replies, "I go back and forth. I mean, I'd like to believe it". An unfortunate side effect of an apocalyptic infection like the cordyceps fungus would be a loss of intellectual accomplishment--formal academic studies would stop and most people would be too busy attempting to survive to sufficiently think about certain matters of philosophy (although I'm sure some forms of existentialism would be quite prevalent among survivors). The truth is that a cordyceps infection would greatly hinder the ability of the living to even find a framework by which to answer questions about whether or not the infected go to heaven, among many other things. In such an environment, the epistemological limitations of humanity would be heightened and far more difficult to overcome.
Joel and Ellie converse about the world before the pandemic, leading to some interesting observations about how and why people judge some things as "strange". The two, for instance, find an image of a girl that Ellie calls "so skinny", provoking her to question if everyone had enough food before the outbreak--and Joel says they didn't eat "for looks", abstaining from food for the sake of appearance. And Ellie scoffs at this obviously unnatural attitude! Ellie not only scoffs at pictures of skinny models, but reacts with surprise upon hearing how universities were places where people slept and studied and upon hearing about the concept of ice cream trucks. She hasn't been in forests until early on in the game and is taken aback by the first one she enters. Upon hearing about ice cream trucks, Ellie says to Joel, "Man, you lived in a strange time". The game brings to attention in subtle ways how perceptions of what is "normal" are entirely subjective. It may be that if we saw reality objectively we would all realize that some things are inherently weird and others normal, but our perceptions of what is weird and normal are entirely dictated by arbitrary internal reactions and/or our upbringing--familial or social experiences.
One of the game's central themes is the tendency of human nature to get attached to something. Everything from the way Ellie becomes a surrogate daughter to Joel to the fact that Joel saves Ellie from the operation and destroys the Firefly's chance at creating a cordyceps vaccine reinforces this theme of attachment, and throughout the story they share many emotional moments that emphasize the tenderness of our social relationships. One example of a very personal, intimate moment between the two is when they watch giraffes from the top of a building. Joel tells Ellie at one point that, despite the tragedies of the world they inhabit, "No matter what, you keep finding something to fight for". What I find interesting about the narrative of the story is that, at the same time, it tries to display the deep connections two humans can develop as it shows as a defining characteristic of humans (or at least the two humans in question), even as the same two "protagonists" act in ways that are unavoidably selfish and amoral.
Again, similar to The Order: 1886, the end of the game shows a character decide to suppress the truth--and even to tell a very untrue tale--for the sake of another person. Even the synopsis of the last collectible comic book you find in the final portion of the game--while appropriately playing as Ellie after Joel drives her away from the Fireflies--tells of someone keeping a secret truth from others for the sake of an illusionary peace. Ellie blankly says to Joel, "Swear to me that everything you said about the Fireflies is true." And Joel responds in the affirmative. He lies, hiding from Ellie the fact that he forcibly interrupted the surgery (and the fact that there was a planned surgery) and gunned down many Fireflies. Ironically, concealing the truth from others can end up causing immense hurt later on, the very thing people sometimes seek to avoid by hiding what is true. Joel and Marlene both make morally hazy decisions near the end of the game, both doing what they think is right--with one adhering to utilitarian ethics and the other possibly condemning the human race to the cordyceps infection indefinitely.
I wrote the following in my review of The Order: 1886:
"Sometimes truth seems unbearable--after all, it can shatter our preferences, deny us our longings, and contradict our hopes. Truth has the power to devastate us or to liberate us. Sometimes it can seem easier or even morally right to conceal the truth in the name of bringing comfort and hope to others, but we must remember during those moments that there is ultimately no such thing as an escape from the truth. Eventually, in one way or another, it will hunt us down and force us to acknowledge its existence and its inescapability" [1].
Conclusion
I spent just short of 17.5 hours beating the game on normal difficulty and about an additional 2.5 hours completing the Left Behind DLC on the same difficulty. This is certainly the most impactful and masterful post-apocalyptic genre game I have ever played. Its greatest strengths are twofold: (1) its focus on the human emotion and drama that comes from attachment and (2) the realistic urgency of scavenging ammunition and crafting supplies. Developer Naughty Dog designed a game with desperation and heart, and many players may find themselves touched by the relationship that Joel and Ellie come to share.
Perhaps Ellie alone is the one character who retains some innocence. The Fireflies, the alleged last beacon of hope for a decimated world, were willing to operate on a young girl without her consent and kill her in the process in order to deliver mankind from the infection, and Joel was willing to perhaps damn humanity for the rest of its existence by killing the doctors and Marlene in order to escape with Ellie's unconscious body. Joel also maliciously tortured two men and then killed them afterward, even confessing that he had participated in ambushes of unsuspecting people earlier in his life--one of the only things that seems to separate him from someone like David or his men, in a sense, is that Joel does not cannibalize the bodies of his victims. Every time players express disgust at someone like David, they might remember that Joel is very much like him in many ways. Joel is no hero and is not a morally good person, yet Ellie seems to remain unchanged for the majority of the game. The Last Of Us definitely shows how trauma can change people, dissolving their moral resolve until they pursue courses of action they otherwise never would have.
Yes, the post-apocalyptic landscape is realistic and bleak, with warring factions, cannibals, moral dilemmas, and decaying remnants of an extinguished society. But the settings fade into the background as the relationship between Joel and Ellie intensifies, the bond between them eclipsing everything else. Ultimately, their relationship is the core of the narrative, and players will likely remember it for decades as one of the finest in recent gaming history.
Content
1. Violence: A lot of shooting and brutal fist fights, with gore resulting from using certain weapons or attacks. In one scene a member of David 's faction chops off body parts from a corpse for his group to consume later.
2. Profanity: F-bombs and lesser profanity galore.
3. Sexuality: Ellie steals an erotic magazine and, looking inside, comments on what seems to be the large size of a man's penis. In the Left Behind DLC, Ellie and her close friend Riley kiss, implying that their relationship either had or was moving towards lesbian dimensions.
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/game-review-order-1886-ps4.html
--Firefly woman via radio, The Last of Us Remastered
"I was sure they'd be punished for breaking our code. Instead the boss deemed that they 'procured supplies for the group' . . . He then ordered that all of us take turns, hunting other survivors in the area and bringing their supplies back to the camp . . . I didn't dare lift a finger as the only people to display any sort of morality were killed in front of all of us."
--Trial Note, The Last of Us Remastered
"Swear to me that everything you said about the Fireflies is true."
--Ellie, The Last of Us Remastered
The Road meets The Walking Dead, The Last Of Us Remastered is the optimal edition of an acclaimed post-apocalyptic game that introduces the characters Joel and Ellie. Like The Road in that each features both confrontations with cannibals and an adult and a child traveling to a distant destination, and like The Walking Dead in that each depicts a world largely overrun by infected humans, The Last Of Us injects an impressive amount of realism, maturity, and emotion into the post-apocalyptic video game genre. It showcases detailed graphics, a 10 hour+ gameplay run, and life-like urgency, yet at its heart the game is about its pair of main characters and the intense relational bond they form.
This PS3 release and PS4 remaster certainly don't have the degree o graphical detail that God of War III for the PS3 and its own respective PS4 remaster possess, but the graphics still look great. The freckles on Ellie's face, the monstrous growths on bloater and clicker faces and bodies, and the various environments and characters are detailed, excellently-animated things. I did encounter a few visual glitches where, for instance, planks of wood I rested against a brick wall phased through the wall; I found weird physics where bodies sometimes slide much farther along the ground than they would in real life when you punch someone off their feet; I noticed once that enemy AI would run in circles, though I was never fortunate enough to have the enemy AI in question be a clicker instead of a human opponent. The presence of these glitches mars an otherwise great remaster.
On the other hand, the voice acting and characterization brilliantly succeed in crafting a realistic experience that explores human psychology and the human heart amidst the setting of a horrific pandemic. The game features much dialogue, a great deal of it optional, but most of it still great at building character depth and development. Spectacular voice acting (along with engaging and personal lines) allows for immersion into a world of desperation, loss, and despair.
By the way, I spotted Jak and Daxter and Uncharted board games in an in-game toy store! Naughty Dog placed good cameos of their other titles in the game.
Gameplay
If you ever want to see what it would be like to live in a post-infection environment, this game is certainly one of your most realistic options. The game structure divides gameplay into quiet moments where the player searches for items and scenes with inevitable confrontations with human or infected enemies. Exploring for items seems urgent and crucial, especially considering the relative rarity of supplies and ammunition. Every shot matters, so the need to conserve bullets can serve as a great motivation to try to find more at every opportunity.
Players also collect gears for weapon upgrades and vitamin supplements for enhancements to Joel's abilities (health extension, crafting speed, etc). Other collectibles can be found, including training manuals that boost the effects of some of Joel's skills that the supplements don't affect. Shiv doors mark rooms with bounties of gears and other useful objects. By the end of the game Joel acquires a variety of weapons ranging from a bow to Molotov cocktails to a flamethrower, meaning that more weapons and thus more ammunition are available, so using bullets becomes somewhat less of a big deal. But choices about what weapon to use nearer to the beginning of the story can be very significant.
Do you want to explore an area with multiple infected humans knowing that you risk entering a fight with them, but also knowing you might discover some supplies? Or a shiv door with a treasure trove of pick-ups? The infected seem to use hearing as their primary way of detecting your presence, so you'll have to be quiet about it. As in a true post-apocalyptic scenario, choices like sneaking through an area without searching for ammo or upgrade material can affect your ability to get away with doing the same later on, as your very limited ammo will dwindle and your crafting supplies will be used up. Only amplifying the urgency, the crafting screen (crafting is making a new item out of two or more other things) does not pause gameplay, leaving you vulnerable to attack. However, Joel has a listening mode that enables him to detect the sounds enemies make and visualize their positions, even if they are up to dozens of feet away.
A more challenging part of the game is playing as Ellie during a certain segment of the story. She has a much more limited listening mode distance and cannot use the supplement enhancements and boosts from training manuals that Joel can. She can't craft or heal as quickly; her health bar is shorter; she doesn't have access to all of his weapons, etc.
Story
The Last Of Us both opens and ends with quiet moments of conversation between Joel and a young girl--his daughter at first and Ellie later on. In the beginning a tired Joel receives a watch for his birthday from his daughter Sarah. Very quickly it is apparent that Joel loves Sarah, yet their tranquility is shattered as the night continues. Sarah finds her dad's phone with missed eight calls from "Uncle Tommy", a text from whom says he needs to immediately speak with her father. A newspaper found in the the bathroom during the beginning sequence where you play as Sarah says that "ATTENDANCE SPIKES AT AREA HOSPITALS!" and credits a mysterious infection with causing this. A news broadcast on a live TV in her father's bedroom informs her that the "infected" have increased aggression, and an explosion outside confirms that something unusual has occurred.
(SPOILERS ABOUT WHAT OCCURS AFTER THE FIRST FEW MINUTES OF THE GAME AHEAD!)
Sarah's Uncle Tommy brings her and Joel to a nearby city, a place seized by panic as some humans start attacking the others in an animalistic manner, suffering from an infection in the brain. By the end of the night, Joel splits up from Tommy as he holds a door in a near shut position against a group of the infected and Sarah is shot by a soldier who seemingly has orders to kill anyone who approaches.
20 years after the prologue, the meat of the story begins. Joel now lives in a small cluster of buildings protected by aggressive soldiers. Outside this area, a group called the Fireflies has earned a reputation as the faction that can restore hope to North America, and some say the Fireflies are even in the process of finding a cure for the cordyceps infection. Despite the presence of an authoritarian martial law, Joel and a woman named Tess sneak out together to pursue their own goals.
Eventually, Joel follows a wounded young woman named Marlene, a member of the Fireflies. She leads you to a room where you are attacked by a girl wielding a shiv, whose name is Ellie ( who identifies herself as 14). Marlene claims to have known Joel's brother Tommy very well, with him telling her that Joel is reliable. And thus she tasks Joel with bringing Ellie to the Fireflies. The Fireflies view her as highly important to their cause. Soon, the three (Joel, Tess, and Ellie) find themselves held at gunpoint before two soldiers, one of which scans them for infections. They kill the two, but not before all three are scanned . . . and the scanner indicates that Ellie is infected.
Neither Joel nor Tess initially believes Ellie that a bite she shows on her forearm is three weeks old (fallacy of personal incredulity), as Tess says that everyone turns within two days. The Fireflies, according to Ellie, have professionals attempting to find a cure or vaccine for the infection, and Marlene believed that Ellie's unnatural resilience to the bite can unlock the information necessary to make a vaccine.
The journey onward brings Joel and Ellie to meet individuals like Bill, an old friend of Joel's, the brothers Henry and Sam, Tommy, and a leader of a cannibal clan named David. By the time they finally reach the Fireflies they have witnessed a friend turn into an infected host, a companion commit suicide, and other chilling horrors. The cordyceps inside Ellie has mutated, rendering her immune to the infection; Firefly doctors prepare to engage in a surgery that will kill her but remove the fungus in order to create a vaccine. Joel kills numerous Firefly members and extracts an unconscious Ellie from the surgery, fleeing with her and returning back to Tommy's place.
At the end Joel tells Ellie that they found the Fireflies, but the group no longer needed her for a vaccine because they found someone else like her. "Turns out, there's a whole lot more like you, Ellie". He adds that "They've stopped looking for a cure" because such methods of finding a vaccine have proven unfruitful. Ellie asks for him to swear that he is telling her the truth, and Joel swears he is.
LEFT BEHIND DLC
In the main story, when winter arrives and Ellie is hunting with the bow, you can view all her items, and one is a dog tag-type necklace with the name "RILEY ABEL 000129". A DLC included in the remastered edition of The Last Of Us explores the relationship between the two in the final hours of Riley's life.
(SPOILERS)
It ends with Riley and Ellie being bit by the infected. Of course, players of the main game know that Ellie will survive, but Riley will not make an appearance in the main story.
Intellectual Content
During a bleak scenario like a severe pandemic such as the one featured in the game, would you remain generous and empathetic or would you become cruel, selfish, and indifferent? Joel's friend Bill recounts how he lost a partner he looked after and then he "wisened" up and realized that anything other than solo operations would get him killed; he views attachment as a dangerous weakness, although the conclusion of the story seems to suggest otherwise. At one point Ellie says "I feel sick" after shooting a man who was attacking Joel with the intent to kill him. Despite Joel's hardened exterior, she consistently says things that indicate her relative innocence amidst the catastrophes around her. Really, Joel seems no morally better than David the cannibal in most ways. Joel and David each mention at times how they have no other choice when it comes to some of their more controversial moral decisions, yet when Marlene tells Joel that Ellie will have to die for a vaccine to be engineered and that she has no other choice, he tells her "You keep telling yourself that bullshit". It seems that at his core, Joel doesn't really seem to believe his own justifications for many of his actions. Of course, moral obligations and truths do not change because circumstances do; they remain fixed and we are unable to alter them, regardless of our preferences or our experiences. Although the game doesn't try to provide an actual answer to many of its moral dilemmas, it does show with brutal honesty just how difficult our moral decisions can be.
During one part of the game Bill leads you into an abandoned church. I explored the second floor, finding light flooding in through beautiful windows around an organ and furniture decorated with a cross. But the emptiness of the building was significant. Where was God during this tragedy? As you stumble upon ransacked former business buildings, street ambushes of helpless strangers, and childless cribs with toys in them, the absence of distinct divine activity is noticeable. Sam and Ellie even converse about whether or not the infected humans have gone to heaven, and Ellie replies, "I go back and forth. I mean, I'd like to believe it". An unfortunate side effect of an apocalyptic infection like the cordyceps fungus would be a loss of intellectual accomplishment--formal academic studies would stop and most people would be too busy attempting to survive to sufficiently think about certain matters of philosophy (although I'm sure some forms of existentialism would be quite prevalent among survivors). The truth is that a cordyceps infection would greatly hinder the ability of the living to even find a framework by which to answer questions about whether or not the infected go to heaven, among many other things. In such an environment, the epistemological limitations of humanity would be heightened and far more difficult to overcome.
Joel and Ellie converse about the world before the pandemic, leading to some interesting observations about how and why people judge some things as "strange". The two, for instance, find an image of a girl that Ellie calls "so skinny", provoking her to question if everyone had enough food before the outbreak--and Joel says they didn't eat "for looks", abstaining from food for the sake of appearance. And Ellie scoffs at this obviously unnatural attitude! Ellie not only scoffs at pictures of skinny models, but reacts with surprise upon hearing how universities were places where people slept and studied and upon hearing about the concept of ice cream trucks. She hasn't been in forests until early on in the game and is taken aback by the first one she enters. Upon hearing about ice cream trucks, Ellie says to Joel, "Man, you lived in a strange time". The game brings to attention in subtle ways how perceptions of what is "normal" are entirely subjective. It may be that if we saw reality objectively we would all realize that some things are inherently weird and others normal, but our perceptions of what is weird and normal are entirely dictated by arbitrary internal reactions and/or our upbringing--familial or social experiences.
One of the game's central themes is the tendency of human nature to get attached to something. Everything from the way Ellie becomes a surrogate daughter to Joel to the fact that Joel saves Ellie from the operation and destroys the Firefly's chance at creating a cordyceps vaccine reinforces this theme of attachment, and throughout the story they share many emotional moments that emphasize the tenderness of our social relationships. One example of a very personal, intimate moment between the two is when they watch giraffes from the top of a building. Joel tells Ellie at one point that, despite the tragedies of the world they inhabit, "No matter what, you keep finding something to fight for". What I find interesting about the narrative of the story is that, at the same time, it tries to display the deep connections two humans can develop as it shows as a defining characteristic of humans (or at least the two humans in question), even as the same two "protagonists" act in ways that are unavoidably selfish and amoral.
Again, similar to The Order: 1886, the end of the game shows a character decide to suppress the truth--and even to tell a very untrue tale--for the sake of another person. Even the synopsis of the last collectible comic book you find in the final portion of the game--while appropriately playing as Ellie after Joel drives her away from the Fireflies--tells of someone keeping a secret truth from others for the sake of an illusionary peace. Ellie blankly says to Joel, "Swear to me that everything you said about the Fireflies is true." And Joel responds in the affirmative. He lies, hiding from Ellie the fact that he forcibly interrupted the surgery (and the fact that there was a planned surgery) and gunned down many Fireflies. Ironically, concealing the truth from others can end up causing immense hurt later on, the very thing people sometimes seek to avoid by hiding what is true. Joel and Marlene both make morally hazy decisions near the end of the game, both doing what they think is right--with one adhering to utilitarian ethics and the other possibly condemning the human race to the cordyceps infection indefinitely.
I wrote the following in my review of The Order: 1886:
"Sometimes truth seems unbearable--after all, it can shatter our preferences, deny us our longings, and contradict our hopes. Truth has the power to devastate us or to liberate us. Sometimes it can seem easier or even morally right to conceal the truth in the name of bringing comfort and hope to others, but we must remember during those moments that there is ultimately no such thing as an escape from the truth. Eventually, in one way or another, it will hunt us down and force us to acknowledge its existence and its inescapability" [1].
Conclusion
I spent just short of 17.5 hours beating the game on normal difficulty and about an additional 2.5 hours completing the Left Behind DLC on the same difficulty. This is certainly the most impactful and masterful post-apocalyptic genre game I have ever played. Its greatest strengths are twofold: (1) its focus on the human emotion and drama that comes from attachment and (2) the realistic urgency of scavenging ammunition and crafting supplies. Developer Naughty Dog designed a game with desperation and heart, and many players may find themselves touched by the relationship that Joel and Ellie come to share.
Perhaps Ellie alone is the one character who retains some innocence. The Fireflies, the alleged last beacon of hope for a decimated world, were willing to operate on a young girl without her consent and kill her in the process in order to deliver mankind from the infection, and Joel was willing to perhaps damn humanity for the rest of its existence by killing the doctors and Marlene in order to escape with Ellie's unconscious body. Joel also maliciously tortured two men and then killed them afterward, even confessing that he had participated in ambushes of unsuspecting people earlier in his life--one of the only things that seems to separate him from someone like David or his men, in a sense, is that Joel does not cannibalize the bodies of his victims. Every time players express disgust at someone like David, they might remember that Joel is very much like him in many ways. Joel is no hero and is not a morally good person, yet Ellie seems to remain unchanged for the majority of the game. The Last Of Us definitely shows how trauma can change people, dissolving their moral resolve until they pursue courses of action they otherwise never would have.
Yes, the post-apocalyptic landscape is realistic and bleak, with warring factions, cannibals, moral dilemmas, and decaying remnants of an extinguished society. But the settings fade into the background as the relationship between Joel and Ellie intensifies, the bond between them eclipsing everything else. Ultimately, their relationship is the core of the narrative, and players will likely remember it for decades as one of the finest in recent gaming history.
Content
1. Violence: A lot of shooting and brutal fist fights, with gore resulting from using certain weapons or attacks. In one scene a member of David 's faction chops off body parts from a corpse for his group to consume later.
2. Profanity: F-bombs and lesser profanity galore.
3. Sexuality: Ellie steals an erotic magazine and, looking inside, comments on what seems to be the large size of a man's penis. In the Left Behind DLC, Ellie and her close friend Riley kiss, implying that their relationship either had or was moving towards lesbian dimensions.
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/game-review-order-1886-ps4.html
Monday, June 19, 2017
The Vastness Of The Cosmos
New atheists have proposed some viciously dumb arguments before--but I have chosen one in particular to target here. I have previously encountered the claim that the universe is so vast that its size either certainly or possible indicates that God does not exist. After reflecting on the stupidity of this argument which I remember hearing earlier in my life, I had to post on why the magnitude of the universe is totally irrelevant to the issue of theism. Now, time for the definition of a key word. When I refer to the "cosmos" I refer to the totality of the material world, which might encompass a possible multiverse, a plurality of universes of which our universe is but a single unit of.
First of all, the argument rests on a total non sequitur. It does not follow at all from the proposition "the cosmos is large" [1] that God does not exist. Really, one only needs a quite basic grasp of reason to realize this. The size of our universe, or of any possible multiverse, has utterly nothing to do with whether or not God exists; the size of the cosmos, whatever it actually amounts to, has no relevance or connection whatsoever to the issue of theism's veracity. Anyone who uses this as an argument against theism has nothing but a major non sequitur and a blatant red herring to ground his or her case. Again, the conclusion that God does not exist does not follow from the premise "the universe/cosmos is vast" and that very premise has no relevance to the conclusion anyway.
Secondly, one can prove logically that an uncaused cause exists by pure necessity [2]. No, proving an uncaused cause exists is not the same as proving that a being with a moral nature who wants a personal relationship with humans exists--as I have explained before. When I use the word God in this paragraph I refer to an uncaused cause, not the specific deity of any organized religion. But I have addressed this point before in other places where I have written about the concept of the uncaused cause, so I will not elaborate on such a point here any longer.
Now, someone could say that, although the size of the cosmos has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, the scope of the cosmos and our minuscule size by comparison shows that the human race does not ultimately possess any cosmic or existential significance. True, the latter can be correct despite the falsity of the claim about God's nonexistence based on the same observation about the universe/cosmos' size. But even that does not logically follow at all. The furthest someone could get with that argument is that it is possible that the scale of the universe and our comparatively puny size reflects some meaningless status of humanity, and that it is possible that we are indeed still of great inherent value. After all, whether or not humans have intrinsic dignity, purpose, and moral obligations has nothing to do with the relative immensity or smallness of the cosmos!
The argument for atheism (or, indeed, for agnosticism regarding God's existence) based on the perceived size of the cosmos represents perhaps one of the most asinine arguments against ordinary theism that I have ever seen. It is logically invalid, since the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It relies on a red herring. It is, quite simply, an argument that only an untrained or unsound mind would ever judge to be correct. Only a fallacious person would ever treat it as anything but the erroneous argument it stands as.
[1]. Nothing is objectively "large" or "small" in and of itself, only objectively larger or smaller in comparison to something else. Compared to a human, the cosmos is enormous, but without reference to some specific object or thing words referring to size have a purely arbitrary meaning.
[2]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
First of all, the argument rests on a total non sequitur. It does not follow at all from the proposition "the cosmos is large" [1] that God does not exist. Really, one only needs a quite basic grasp of reason to realize this. The size of our universe, or of any possible multiverse, has utterly nothing to do with whether or not God exists; the size of the cosmos, whatever it actually amounts to, has no relevance or connection whatsoever to the issue of theism's veracity. Anyone who uses this as an argument against theism has nothing but a major non sequitur and a blatant red herring to ground his or her case. Again, the conclusion that God does not exist does not follow from the premise "the universe/cosmos is vast" and that very premise has no relevance to the conclusion anyway.
 |
| The universe may inspire in some people a sense of awe or a sense of insignificance--yet the enormity of our universe, or, indeed, the hypothetical multiverse, does not falsify the claim that a deity of some sort exists. |
Secondly, one can prove logically that an uncaused cause exists by pure necessity [2]. No, proving an uncaused cause exists is not the same as proving that a being with a moral nature who wants a personal relationship with humans exists--as I have explained before. When I use the word God in this paragraph I refer to an uncaused cause, not the specific deity of any organized religion. But I have addressed this point before in other places where I have written about the concept of the uncaused cause, so I will not elaborate on such a point here any longer.
Now, someone could say that, although the size of the cosmos has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, the scope of the cosmos and our minuscule size by comparison shows that the human race does not ultimately possess any cosmic or existential significance. True, the latter can be correct despite the falsity of the claim about God's nonexistence based on the same observation about the universe/cosmos' size. But even that does not logically follow at all. The furthest someone could get with that argument is that it is possible that the scale of the universe and our comparatively puny size reflects some meaningless status of humanity, and that it is possible that we are indeed still of great inherent value. After all, whether or not humans have intrinsic dignity, purpose, and moral obligations has nothing to do with the relative immensity or smallness of the cosmos!
The argument for atheism (or, indeed, for agnosticism regarding God's existence) based on the perceived size of the cosmos represents perhaps one of the most asinine arguments against ordinary theism that I have ever seen. It is logically invalid, since the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It relies on a red herring. It is, quite simply, an argument that only an untrained or unsound mind would ever judge to be correct. Only a fallacious person would ever treat it as anything but the erroneous argument it stands as.
[1]. Nothing is objectively "large" or "small" in and of itself, only objectively larger or smaller in comparison to something else. Compared to a human, the cosmos is enormous, but without reference to some specific object or thing words referring to size have a purely arbitrary meaning.
[2]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
Sunday, June 18, 2017
On Dating
During recent months, for the first time in years I have considered dating--and, of course, that means I had to ensure that I revisited my thoughts on the topic of dating as a Christian rationalist. Dating represents a subject that seemingly occupies at least the partial attention of a great number of minds on a regular basis. Because of these two facts, I have compiled my recent thoughts on the matter. First, as usual, I must explain what I mean by the word dating!
Simply going on a date with someone is not the same as engaging in the process of consistently or exclusively dating them. It is also not the same as a man and woman who are friends hanging out, whether casual friends or BFFs. For instance, someone can meet with and hang out with members of the opposite gender all the time, yet never go on a date with any of them or have any desire to do so. Going on a date is a possible first step into the consistent process of dating, a time to contemplate possible romantic compatibility, a thing which may or may not lead to subsequent dates or a further desire to meet not as friends but as romantic partners. It seems to me that romantic exclusivity usually occurs around the point that a couple moves from merely going on dates to dating. By this definition, one could even go on multiple dates with the same person without having dated them in a more formal sense.
Of course, the morality of dating must be addressed, especially since certain evangelical legalists have constructed beliefs about extra-Biblical fallacious bullshit regarding dating. By Christian standards dating is not sinful, for nowhere does the Bible prohibit this practice and both the Old and New Testament explicitly condemn adding to revealed moral commands [1] (Deuteronomy 4:2, Matthew 15:3-9). Any Christian who objects to what I have just said must rely on logical fallacies like appeals to emotion, authority, tradition, novelty, and popularity to support his or her case, or commit a variety of other fallacies like non sequiturs, begging the question, circular reasoning. And contrary to what some Christians may have asserted, dating does not intrinsically involve a sexual component (not that premarital sex is inherently wrong; see the footnote). Dating does not "train people to divorce" their spousal partners. People may train themselves to accept gratuitous divorces, but dating itself is an amoral practice which at worst is used irresponsibly by fallible humans--the fault for such irresponsibility has nothing to do with the system and everything to do with the people who use it. Legalistic guidelines like not dating alone are not moral necessities; logic and the Bible oppose those who claim otherwise. A Christian who claims that extra-Biblical morality is either necessary or obligatory does not represent Christian ethics accurately and has replaced reason with preference and Scripture with tradition.
Now, there is more to a truly committed romantic or marital relationship than merely physical attraction. A romantic relationship that acknowledges the fullness of both partners will not be fueled solely by physical attraction--though there is certainly nothing wrong with allowing that to flourish. There are other dimensions to personhood and humanity than merely the romantic and sexual, and a thoroughly Christian approach to dating (and marriage) will acknowledge each of these aspects of human nature instead of ignoring some selectively. To be made in the image of God is to have more than just a single characteristic or dimension.
Also, though the Bible has no moral objections to dating, pointless dating can create emotional problems. Dating that is aimless, gratuitous, and not intended to actually lead to a more committed, intimate relationship has no real long-term point and thus people who want to not waste their time will avoid such dating as much as they consciously can. To constantly date one person and then another may become quite exhausting and draining, as the level of emotional intensity involved in romantic relationships is not always easy to casually invest with no intention to go anywhere with it. Such relationships and the complexities that surround them can demand much focus and elicit much excitement. In short, pointless dating can be very emotionally unhealthy, not to mention existentially meaningless and a waste of time for committed Christians. However, dating a person that will not become one's spouse does not in and of itself have to be a wasted time at all. A person can use the time invested in a romantic or dating relationship (even if it ultimately goes nowhere) to develop communication skills, empathy, attentiveness, generosity, and a host of other virtues and abilities. Dating can provoke a great sanctifying energy that shifts affections and love from inward to outward.
Dating is not something to fear, as some Christians treat it, but it is also not something to venture into without forethought or intentionality. Time spent dating can be squandered--but doesn't have to be. Although it is untrue that everyone needs or wants to get married or be in a romantic relationship, many people do indeed seem to desire to date, and thus dating ranks as an important issue on a personal level for many. And Christians do indeed need to address the subject in a way that does not invent an extra-Biblical moral system, use loose definitions, neglect the merits of dating, or commit logical fallacies. They will need to do so to both stay relevant to cultural issues and to pursue truths that they may personally long to know.
[1]. There is a handful of things that are evil which the Bible does not condemn, yet only a purely logical extension of a Biblical command or principle can identify something that is sinful which the Bible does not specifically condemn. I addressed this point in the footnote of another post:
"By purely logical extension I mean something that follows logically without resorting to any fallacies. For example, consider pedophilia. The Bible does not mention pedophilia specifically in Mosaic Law, but it condemns rape and bestiality, both forms of non-consensual sex, as capital crimes (Deuteronomy 22:25-27 and Exodus 22:19 respectively). It also says that unengaged and unmarried singles who have sex should get married (Exodus 22:16-17; no, premarital sex is not sinful in and of itself--see http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/on-exodus-2216-17.html) and married people are forbidden from having extramarital sex (Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 22:22). Based on these various passages, it is explicitly clear that the Bible condemns sex that is forced and that does not either lead to or occur in a committed relationship. Thus, although the Bible does not condemn pedophilia by name, pedophilia is condemned by a purely logical extension of explicit Biblical commands."
--http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/misrepresented-harshness-deuteronomy_28.html
Simply going on a date with someone is not the same as engaging in the process of consistently or exclusively dating them. It is also not the same as a man and woman who are friends hanging out, whether casual friends or BFFs. For instance, someone can meet with and hang out with members of the opposite gender all the time, yet never go on a date with any of them or have any desire to do so. Going on a date is a possible first step into the consistent process of dating, a time to contemplate possible romantic compatibility, a thing which may or may not lead to subsequent dates or a further desire to meet not as friends but as romantic partners. It seems to me that romantic exclusivity usually occurs around the point that a couple moves from merely going on dates to dating. By this definition, one could even go on multiple dates with the same person without having dated them in a more formal sense.
Of course, the morality of dating must be addressed, especially since certain evangelical legalists have constructed beliefs about extra-Biblical fallacious bullshit regarding dating. By Christian standards dating is not sinful, for nowhere does the Bible prohibit this practice and both the Old and New Testament explicitly condemn adding to revealed moral commands [1] (Deuteronomy 4:2, Matthew 15:3-9). Any Christian who objects to what I have just said must rely on logical fallacies like appeals to emotion, authority, tradition, novelty, and popularity to support his or her case, or commit a variety of other fallacies like non sequiturs, begging the question, circular reasoning. And contrary to what some Christians may have asserted, dating does not intrinsically involve a sexual component (not that premarital sex is inherently wrong; see the footnote). Dating does not "train people to divorce" their spousal partners. People may train themselves to accept gratuitous divorces, but dating itself is an amoral practice which at worst is used irresponsibly by fallible humans--the fault for such irresponsibility has nothing to do with the system and everything to do with the people who use it. Legalistic guidelines like not dating alone are not moral necessities; logic and the Bible oppose those who claim otherwise. A Christian who claims that extra-Biblical morality is either necessary or obligatory does not represent Christian ethics accurately and has replaced reason with preference and Scripture with tradition.
Now, there is more to a truly committed romantic or marital relationship than merely physical attraction. A romantic relationship that acknowledges the fullness of both partners will not be fueled solely by physical attraction--though there is certainly nothing wrong with allowing that to flourish. There are other dimensions to personhood and humanity than merely the romantic and sexual, and a thoroughly Christian approach to dating (and marriage) will acknowledge each of these aspects of human nature instead of ignoring some selectively. To be made in the image of God is to have more than just a single characteristic or dimension.
Also, though the Bible has no moral objections to dating, pointless dating can create emotional problems. Dating that is aimless, gratuitous, and not intended to actually lead to a more committed, intimate relationship has no real long-term point and thus people who want to not waste their time will avoid such dating as much as they consciously can. To constantly date one person and then another may become quite exhausting and draining, as the level of emotional intensity involved in romantic relationships is not always easy to casually invest with no intention to go anywhere with it. Such relationships and the complexities that surround them can demand much focus and elicit much excitement. In short, pointless dating can be very emotionally unhealthy, not to mention existentially meaningless and a waste of time for committed Christians. However, dating a person that will not become one's spouse does not in and of itself have to be a wasted time at all. A person can use the time invested in a romantic or dating relationship (even if it ultimately goes nowhere) to develop communication skills, empathy, attentiveness, generosity, and a host of other virtues and abilities. Dating can provoke a great sanctifying energy that shifts affections and love from inward to outward.
Dating is not something to fear, as some Christians treat it, but it is also not something to venture into without forethought or intentionality. Time spent dating can be squandered--but doesn't have to be. Although it is untrue that everyone needs or wants to get married or be in a romantic relationship, many people do indeed seem to desire to date, and thus dating ranks as an important issue on a personal level for many. And Christians do indeed need to address the subject in a way that does not invent an extra-Biblical moral system, use loose definitions, neglect the merits of dating, or commit logical fallacies. They will need to do so to both stay relevant to cultural issues and to pursue truths that they may personally long to know.
[1]. There is a handful of things that are evil which the Bible does not condemn, yet only a purely logical extension of a Biblical command or principle can identify something that is sinful which the Bible does not specifically condemn. I addressed this point in the footnote of another post:
"By purely logical extension I mean something that follows logically without resorting to any fallacies. For example, consider pedophilia. The Bible does not mention pedophilia specifically in Mosaic Law, but it condemns rape and bestiality, both forms of non-consensual sex, as capital crimes (Deuteronomy 22:25-27 and Exodus 22:19 respectively). It also says that unengaged and unmarried singles who have sex should get married (Exodus 22:16-17; no, premarital sex is not sinful in and of itself--see http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/08/on-exodus-2216-17.html) and married people are forbidden from having extramarital sex (Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 22:22). Based on these various passages, it is explicitly clear that the Bible condemns sex that is forced and that does not either lead to or occur in a committed relationship. Thus, although the Bible does not condemn pedophilia by name, pedophilia is condemned by a purely logical extension of explicit Biblical commands."
--http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/05/misrepresented-harshness-deuteronomy_28.html
Friday, June 16, 2017
The Genius Of Dawkins
Despite his numerous asinine claims about, well, almost everything about philosophy [1], I have to give Richard Dawkins credit for one brilliant thing--creating the word "meme"! Dawkins reportedly introduced this term in his book The Selfish Gene--I say reportedly because I have not actually read this book myself. Of course, now people often use the word meme to refer to an (often humorous) image with comedic text shared on the Internet, not the more intellectual concept of one idea spreading from one person or geographical area to others that Dawkins originally intended. I find great delight in seeing how the word for a concept meant to represent a legitimate reality has come to embody comedy for Internet users!
Yes, this is a much more lighthearted post than many of the others on my site. After appreciating some quality Star Wars memes this morning, I happened to reflect on how I have Dawkins to thank, at least in part, for the name of this phenomenon! As of the moment of writing this I am still basking in the humor of memes. Remember, not everything funny to come about from new atheist material has to do with the philosophical positions of new atheists! This is one case where I will unashamedly call Dawkins an unintentional genius.
Yes, I am aware of the high level of sarcasm embedded in this post.
[1]. Including ethics, epistemology, science, and theology. He has said some VERY dumb things!
Yes, this is a much more lighthearted post than many of the others on my site. After appreciating some quality Star Wars memes this morning, I happened to reflect on how I have Dawkins to thank, at least in part, for the name of this phenomenon! As of the moment of writing this I am still basking in the humor of memes. Remember, not everything funny to come about from new atheist material has to do with the philosophical positions of new atheists! This is one case where I will unashamedly call Dawkins an unintentional genius.
Yes, I am aware of the high level of sarcasm embedded in this post.
[1]. Including ethics, epistemology, science, and theology. He has said some VERY dumb things!
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
God Did Not Create Everything
Have you ever heard Christians say that God created everything? I'm going to prove that such a proposition is inescapably incorrect--impossible even! I will present three examples that refute this notion regardless of Christianity's veracity and one specific additional example from Christian theology.
God did not create the following:
Logic.
The three laws of logic existed before God created the universe. Before creation, God was still God, God did not both exist and not exist at the same time (because he existed), and the fact that God existed meant he did not not exist. Without the three laws of logic, none of these things would have been possible. God did not create logic because it is impossible for its three laws to not exist and be binding, even in an atheistic universe.
Truth.
Truth exists by pure necessity regardless of the specific details about how the world is. Even if no material world existed at all, it would be true that no material world exists and thus truth would still exist. If God did not exist, it would be true that God does not exist [1]. The existence of truth as an abstract, necessary immaterial concept has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.
Himself.
The uncaused cause, what I mean by God (when talking about God as a concept and not as the specific Christian deity Yahweh), does exist by pure logical necessity also--all I have demonstrated so far is that the existence of logic and truth do not rely on the uncaused cause for their own existence; they exist independent of it. For something to be an uncaused cause, it (obviously) must be uncaused--meaning it always existed [2], and thus it did not create itself. Now, whether the uncaused cause is the Christian deity is a totally unrelated issue to whether or not the uncaused cause exists.
Morality.
The first two premises and the first conclusion are true regardless of the veracity of Christianity or the Bible, but every statement in the syllogism after those is true if Christian theology is true.
God did not create the following:
Logic.
The three laws of logic existed before God created the universe. Before creation, God was still God, God did not both exist and not exist at the same time (because he existed), and the fact that God existed meant he did not not exist. Without the three laws of logic, none of these things would have been possible. God did not create logic because it is impossible for its three laws to not exist and be binding, even in an atheistic universe.
Truth.
Truth exists by pure necessity regardless of the specific details about how the world is. Even if no material world existed at all, it would be true that no material world exists and thus truth would still exist. If God did not exist, it would be true that God does not exist [1]. The existence of truth as an abstract, necessary immaterial concept has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.
Himself.
The uncaused cause, what I mean by God (when talking about God as a concept and not as the specific Christian deity Yahweh), does exist by pure logical necessity also--all I have demonstrated so far is that the existence of logic and truth do not rely on the uncaused cause for their own existence; they exist independent of it. For something to be an uncaused cause, it (obviously) must be uncaused--meaning it always existed [2], and thus it did not create itself. Now, whether the uncaused cause is the Christian deity is a totally unrelated issue to whether or not the uncaused cause exists.
Morality.
The first two premises and the first conclusion are true regardless of the veracity of Christianity or the Bible, but every statement in the syllogism after those is true if Christian theology is true.
1. Anything that never had a beginning was never created.
2. God never had a beginning.
3. Therefore God was not created.
4. Anything that is a part of God's nature was not created.
5. God has a moral nature.
6. Morality is grounded in God's moral nature.
7. Therefore morality never had a beginning and was not created.
God always existed and since God's nature does not change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17), God was always just, loving, and always possessed his other moral attributes the Bible reveals about him. He did not invent moral commands, as if he merely fashioned nonsensical and incoherent moral demands to impose on humans, for true moral propositions merely reflect his own inherent character. And since he has always existed and his nature does not change, morality has always existed.
God created the material world and all initial life forms (Genesis 1), but he certainly did not create everything--logic, truth, and himself were not part of his creation because they are by necessity uncreated things. Since morality reflects his own character, morality too was not created. No, God did not create everything, and to say so is to contradict reason and the Bible!
[2]. I have proven that what I call the uncaused cause exists in a different post:
Monday, June 12, 2017
The Fallacious Mind
I was told a few days ago that a certain act is immoral--because, according to those I argued with, if it was wasn't immoral, more people would do it in the presence of others! As a result of this laughably unsound argument, I began to contemplate the nature of a fallacious mind. When I mentioned that agreement does not affect moral truths, my two ideological opponents told me that the point was not debatable. I protested--because they were objectively in logical error. I did this not only because reason proves my objections correct; I did this because were the issue at hand abortion or some other important topic to today's moral debates, these people would very likely have immediately affirmed that consensus does not determine moral truths. Fallacies are errors in reasoning; a fallacious mind is one that uses or believes fallacies; therefore the people I conversed with had fallacious minds.
Just as others have asked what makes otherwise moral people lapse into evil behaviors, I now ask what makes otherwise sound people collapse into fallacies? What produces this cognitive dissonance that can go undetected by the very people experiencing it? The fallacious mind is disconnected from reality; it is intellectually diseased at the most fundamental, basic level. It has exchanged truth for error, actually believing its own demonstrably false delusions. To do so it must try to extinguish or flee from the light offered by consistency and reason. Of course, consistency [1] and reason still have authority even where unacknowledged--nothing can stymie them. Reason is self-evident despite denial [2]. The erroneous assumptions, claims, contradictions, and stupidity of individuals who do not grasp this do not affect or alleviate this truth. Refusing to confront actual reality, the fallacious mind has succumbed to identifiable errors. Reason, which I am using synonymously with the word logic in this case, is the great light, the source of knowledge that illuminates the pockets of truth we can discover with other things like sensory perceptions [3], divine revelation [4], and general experience.
The fact that people can align themselves with reason or refrain from doing so means that people can indeed, within certain boundaries, actively resist reason. Some people take this to signify that reason itself is unreliable, but this represents a self-refuting misrepresentation of what actually takes place when people reject reason--after all, if reason is unreliable then we could never have any basis for claiming it is unreliable! Logic still exists and is reliable by pure necessity. From the standpoint of Christian theology, just because the Fall darkened the human intellect by enabling humans to come to false conclusions and succumb to fallacies does not mean that reason itself lost its innate reliability, a thing impossible to come about.
But the fallacious mind, at best, suppresses this knowledge or tries to evade it; at worst, it loses its desire or ability to recognize truth as real and falsities as the lies they are. It has an inner condition that I neither can relate to nor understand beyond mental awareness of its nature and its results. Such a mind serves as an example of the contradictions that one lapses into when one deviates from the illumination of reason. Compartmentalized surrender to fallacies can be very damaging as well despite its more limited range of errors, for a person who remains sound in some areas yet resorts to fallacies in others may have great difficulty realizing this disparity.
There is only one hope for the fallacious mind--that it recognize its intellectual blindness, whether this be by its own internal reflection or with the assistance of divine intervention (not that one excludes the other). What causes otherwise sound people to become selectively fallacious? Nothing more than their own fantasies and delusions. The fallacious mind can seem a lost cause; a wholly fallacious mind is a thing incorrigible, useless, and deeply frustrating to those who seek truth.
[1]. Consistency alone does not mean something is true. I could invent my own false religion tomorrow and make it internally consistent, but that would not change its lack of veracity; it would still be false regardless of its consistency with its own tenets. However, if a belief is true it MUST be consistent internally and with external truths.
[2]. See here:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-self-evidence-of-logic.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-error-of-presuppositions.html
[3]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-reliability-of-senses.html
[4]. No matter what people say, reason is what ultimately enables us to understand a religious text like the Bible to begin with. Some information needs to be revealed by God in order for humans to access it (example: truths about his character), but reason is what allows us to correctly interpret and comprehend the Bible.
Just as others have asked what makes otherwise moral people lapse into evil behaviors, I now ask what makes otherwise sound people collapse into fallacies? What produces this cognitive dissonance that can go undetected by the very people experiencing it? The fallacious mind is disconnected from reality; it is intellectually diseased at the most fundamental, basic level. It has exchanged truth for error, actually believing its own demonstrably false delusions. To do so it must try to extinguish or flee from the light offered by consistency and reason. Of course, consistency [1] and reason still have authority even where unacknowledged--nothing can stymie them. Reason is self-evident despite denial [2]. The erroneous assumptions, claims, contradictions, and stupidity of individuals who do not grasp this do not affect or alleviate this truth. Refusing to confront actual reality, the fallacious mind has succumbed to identifiable errors. Reason, which I am using synonymously with the word logic in this case, is the great light, the source of knowledge that illuminates the pockets of truth we can discover with other things like sensory perceptions [3], divine revelation [4], and general experience.
The fact that people can align themselves with reason or refrain from doing so means that people can indeed, within certain boundaries, actively resist reason. Some people take this to signify that reason itself is unreliable, but this represents a self-refuting misrepresentation of what actually takes place when people reject reason--after all, if reason is unreliable then we could never have any basis for claiming it is unreliable! Logic still exists and is reliable by pure necessity. From the standpoint of Christian theology, just because the Fall darkened the human intellect by enabling humans to come to false conclusions and succumb to fallacies does not mean that reason itself lost its innate reliability, a thing impossible to come about.
But the fallacious mind, at best, suppresses this knowledge or tries to evade it; at worst, it loses its desire or ability to recognize truth as real and falsities as the lies they are. It has an inner condition that I neither can relate to nor understand beyond mental awareness of its nature and its results. Such a mind serves as an example of the contradictions that one lapses into when one deviates from the illumination of reason. Compartmentalized surrender to fallacies can be very damaging as well despite its more limited range of errors, for a person who remains sound in some areas yet resorts to fallacies in others may have great difficulty realizing this disparity.
There is only one hope for the fallacious mind--that it recognize its intellectual blindness, whether this be by its own internal reflection or with the assistance of divine intervention (not that one excludes the other). What causes otherwise sound people to become selectively fallacious? Nothing more than their own fantasies and delusions. The fallacious mind can seem a lost cause; a wholly fallacious mind is a thing incorrigible, useless, and deeply frustrating to those who seek truth.
[1]. Consistency alone does not mean something is true. I could invent my own false religion tomorrow and make it internally consistent, but that would not change its lack of veracity; it would still be false regardless of its consistency with its own tenets. However, if a belief is true it MUST be consistent internally and with external truths.
[2]. See here:
A. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-self-evidence-of-logic.html
B. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-error-of-presuppositions.html
[3]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-reliability-of-senses.html
[4]. No matter what people say, reason is what ultimately enables us to understand a religious text like the Bible to begin with. Some information needs to be revealed by God in order for humans to access it (example: truths about his character), but reason is what allows us to correctly interpret and comprehend the Bible.
Saturday, June 10, 2017
Game Review--Injustice: Gods Among Us Ultimate Edition (PS Vita)
"I can say without a doubt that there are an infinite number of universes.
Some are just like our own... but for one or two significant events, exactly the same."
--Lex Luthor, Injustice: Gods Among Us
"I feed on conflict. Until today I've been starving."
--Ares, Injustice: Gods Among Us
In honor of both the release of Injustice 2 and Wonder Woman, I chose to review the port of Injustice: Gods Among Us for the PlayStation Vita, one of Netherrealm's two Vita fighting games. I had barely touched the game since I purchased it almost exactly a year ago, but after spending some time with it I am glad I did so. All photos below were taken by myself using the screenshot function of the Vita.
Production Values
Outdated graphics, especially during story mode cutscenes (they sometimes look like PSP cutscenes), definitely prevent Injustice from having the most detailed or vibrant graphics for the PS Vita system. I'll just say, nothing here quite compares to the best visuals the Vita has produced on titles like Killzone Mercenary or Uncharted: Golden Abyss. The character models during fight gameplay have lower resolution than the console version that preceded the port and sport a noticeable lack of detail, but at least the frame rate generally holds a consistent pace.
The audio holds fairly well also, with my favorite part of the sound being the little jokes and quips the characters hurl at each other before and after fights. Every crunch, explosion, and kick sounds appropriate. Sound in itself is usually not what allures people to fighting games, but at least it wasn't neglected here.
Gameplay
A lot of fights in this game! The story mode consists of a multitude of (mostly) timed one on one single player fights, with sporadic touch screen minigames. The game style is neither wholly original nor entirely copycat, but it still offers an experience some will certainly enjoy. Players must inflict a flurry of small move combinations or receive damage to build up a four-part meter, the filling of which allows the use of spectacular super moves that add more visual impact to the attacks and remove large amounts of health from opponents.
An "armory" contains additional costumes, a character model viewer, concept art, a soundtrack listener, and new backgrounds for purchase, all of which become progressively available as players level up and thus acquire armory keys and access cards. Quite a bit of material awaits unlocking. Completionists have a lot to tackle!
Several bonus modes also prolong replay value and introduce a broader gameplay variety. For instance, S.T.A.R. LABS missions attach three specific objectives to each of 300 fights and award stars for the completion of each objective. Sometimes these missions simply involve brief minigames; sometimes they demand more elaborate actions. Classic characters like Killer Croc and Scarecrow appear here, but are absent from the main campaign and the playable character list (although at least Scarecrow made it into the sequel as a playable character). Bringing more coherency to this mode, groups of these missions collectively tell their own story arc.
As the Ultimate Edition, this handheld Vita port of Injustice includes a wealth of DLC--including an impressive 60 extra S.T.A.R. LABS missions and 30 character skins, according to the back of the case. At least the Vita boasts the most complete version of the game to my knowledge!
Story
Though the beginning of the story is straightforward, it may confuse some around the middle due to the presence of different versions of the same characters. It starts with the Joker using a bomb to destroy Metropolis, with Batman attempting to interrogate him until Superman busts into the room. Furious over the death of Lois Lane and the child they shared--and to Batman's dismay--Superman kills the Joker.
Elsewhere, in a different universe, DC heroes like Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, and Hawkgirl fight a group of villains including Ares and Sinestro; in a different location in the same universe Raven, Nightwing, and Cyborg fight a group that includes Lex Luthor and Bane. As Luthor is captured, he says he gave Joker a bomb. Both universes share certain events, and the alternate DC heroes actually end up preventing the detonation. But they suddenly they are transported to an alternate universe: the one where Superman killed.
The alternate Aquaman who was teleported to a new dimension visits the other Atlantis and learns about Superman--in the universe where the bomb detonated he became the tyrannical (here I mean tyrannical in the classical sense, a tyrant being one who rules through fear) dictator of an authoritarian group called One Earth Regime. Unlike in Batman vs. Superman, this time Superman is the questionable figure and Batman the more heroic one, with Superman implicitly executing most criminals and terrorizing the populace. Regime universe Batman uses "Kryptonian nanotech" to enhance bone and attack strength; Regime Lex Luthor is not a criminal and funds Batman's Insurgency. Combined, their skills and resources have preserved the Insurgency's revolt against the Regime.
Eventually, after battles that include the Themyscirian Amazons, Atlantans, the tyrant Superman's Regime soldiers, and both versions of a plethora of DC figures, the Regime is conquered by the Insurgency and its members imprisoned. Of course, the recent Injustice 2 shows what follows . . .
Intellectual Content
Injustice features a concept often utilized in superhero comics: the multiverse. The game's story opens with a quote by Lex Luthor about how he knows without any doubts that a multiverse with an infinite number of individual universes exists. In and of itself, the concept of a multiverse does not have to include an infinite number of universes, just more than a single universe. But if an infinite number of universes do exist, then an infinite number of timelines exist that possess similar or identical events up until a point--in this case, the Joker's Metropolis bombing plan. Events could overlap perfectly in two or more universes until they deviate at a specific time and drastically alter the fates of each world, hence the Regime universe and its counterpart.
Alongside its inclusion in comic stories, the multiverse has become more popular in modern inquiries and debates about science, apologetics, and philosophy. Plato's Timaeus raises the question of whether one or multiple universes exist, so the concept itself is not a recent hypothesis. But human epistemological limitations forbid us from actually confirming or disproving the existence of any universes outside of our own.
Another concept that the game somewhat tackles is the issue of justice itself (as the name implies). Representing the two opposing extremes regarding capital punishment, Regime Superman and Insurgency Batman exercise vastly different approaches to their pursuit of justice. Batman abhors all who kill as murderers, and (it is implied that) Superman executes most criminals. Christian theonomy condemns both ideologies, of course. Not that the solution to choosing between two "extreme" ideologies is as simple as merely adopting a middle or syncretistic position.
Regime Superman's total devotion to the execution of his opponents eventually leads him to kill his own Regime universe versions of Lex Luthor and Shazam, whereas his Batman refuses to kill even him. During the Insurgency invasion of Stryker's Island, Superman says his loss of Lois and their child justifies his actions, leading Batman to remind him that he lost his family too and that he did not resort to killing afterwards. Despite the sincerity of both parties, logical flaws exist in their moral reasoning. Superman (Regime) basically only grounds his utilitarian and authoritarian philosophy of justice on his personal wishes and regrets about his past, not in moral revelation or attempts at sound moral arguments. Batman fails to demonstrate why killing is always morally abominable. Any deviation from justice is injustice, and by theonomist standards both Superman and Batman falter.
Conclusion
Injustice succeeds as both a fighting and a DC game--DC has a better record with their games than their movies (couldn't resist)! Fans of either will very likely enjoy this title, and Vita owners can rejoice because the only version available to them is the Ultimate Edition with free DLC included. If you don't like memorizing a plethora of specific combos or the fighting genre, though, I wouldn't recommend this. But for those who appreciate fighting, DC, and loads of unlockables, Injustice offers a fun time!
Content
1. Violence: Bloodless brawls are featured in every fight and several non-graphic deaths are shown in story mode.
2. Profanity: Characters occasionally use mild profanity.
Some are just like our own... but for one or two significant events, exactly the same."
--Lex Luthor, Injustice: Gods Among Us
"I feed on conflict. Until today I've been starving."
--Ares, Injustice: Gods Among Us
In honor of both the release of Injustice 2 and Wonder Woman, I chose to review the port of Injustice: Gods Among Us for the PlayStation Vita, one of Netherrealm's two Vita fighting games. I had barely touched the game since I purchased it almost exactly a year ago, but after spending some time with it I am glad I did so. All photos below were taken by myself using the screenshot function of the Vita.
Production Values
Outdated graphics, especially during story mode cutscenes (they sometimes look like PSP cutscenes), definitely prevent Injustice from having the most detailed or vibrant graphics for the PS Vita system. I'll just say, nothing here quite compares to the best visuals the Vita has produced on titles like Killzone Mercenary or Uncharted: Golden Abyss. The character models during fight gameplay have lower resolution than the console version that preceded the port and sport a noticeable lack of detail, but at least the frame rate generally holds a consistent pace.
The audio holds fairly well also, with my favorite part of the sound being the little jokes and quips the characters hurl at each other before and after fights. Every crunch, explosion, and kick sounds appropriate. Sound in itself is usually not what allures people to fighting games, but at least it wasn't neglected here.
Gameplay
A lot of fights in this game! The story mode consists of a multitude of (mostly) timed one on one single player fights, with sporadic touch screen minigames. The game style is neither wholly original nor entirely copycat, but it still offers an experience some will certainly enjoy. Players must inflict a flurry of small move combinations or receive damage to build up a four-part meter, the filling of which allows the use of spectacular super moves that add more visual impact to the attacks and remove large amounts of health from opponents.
An "armory" contains additional costumes, a character model viewer, concept art, a soundtrack listener, and new backgrounds for purchase, all of which become progressively available as players level up and thus acquire armory keys and access cards. Quite a bit of material awaits unlocking. Completionists have a lot to tackle!
Several bonus modes also prolong replay value and introduce a broader gameplay variety. For instance, S.T.A.R. LABS missions attach three specific objectives to each of 300 fights and award stars for the completion of each objective. Sometimes these missions simply involve brief minigames; sometimes they demand more elaborate actions. Classic characters like Killer Croc and Scarecrow appear here, but are absent from the main campaign and the playable character list (although at least Scarecrow made it into the sequel as a playable character). Bringing more coherency to this mode, groups of these missions collectively tell their own story arc.
As the Ultimate Edition, this handheld Vita port of Injustice includes a wealth of DLC--including an impressive 60 extra S.T.A.R. LABS missions and 30 character skins, according to the back of the case. At least the Vita boasts the most complete version of the game to my knowledge!
Story
Though the beginning of the story is straightforward, it may confuse some around the middle due to the presence of different versions of the same characters. It starts with the Joker using a bomb to destroy Metropolis, with Batman attempting to interrogate him until Superman busts into the room. Furious over the death of Lois Lane and the child they shared--and to Batman's dismay--Superman kills the Joker.
Elsewhere, in a different universe, DC heroes like Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, and Hawkgirl fight a group of villains including Ares and Sinestro; in a different location in the same universe Raven, Nightwing, and Cyborg fight a group that includes Lex Luthor and Bane. As Luthor is captured, he says he gave Joker a bomb. Both universes share certain events, and the alternate DC heroes actually end up preventing the detonation. But they suddenly they are transported to an alternate universe: the one where Superman killed.
The alternate Aquaman who was teleported to a new dimension visits the other Atlantis and learns about Superman--in the universe where the bomb detonated he became the tyrannical (here I mean tyrannical in the classical sense, a tyrant being one who rules through fear) dictator of an authoritarian group called One Earth Regime. Unlike in Batman vs. Superman, this time Superman is the questionable figure and Batman the more heroic one, with Superman implicitly executing most criminals and terrorizing the populace. Regime universe Batman uses "Kryptonian nanotech" to enhance bone and attack strength; Regime Lex Luthor is not a criminal and funds Batman's Insurgency. Combined, their skills and resources have preserved the Insurgency's revolt against the Regime.
Eventually, after battles that include the Themyscirian Amazons, Atlantans, the tyrant Superman's Regime soldiers, and both versions of a plethora of DC figures, the Regime is conquered by the Insurgency and its members imprisoned. Of course, the recent Injustice 2 shows what follows . . .
Intellectual Content
Injustice features a concept often utilized in superhero comics: the multiverse. The game's story opens with a quote by Lex Luthor about how he knows without any doubts that a multiverse with an infinite number of individual universes exists. In and of itself, the concept of a multiverse does not have to include an infinite number of universes, just more than a single universe. But if an infinite number of universes do exist, then an infinite number of timelines exist that possess similar or identical events up until a point--in this case, the Joker's Metropolis bombing plan. Events could overlap perfectly in two or more universes until they deviate at a specific time and drastically alter the fates of each world, hence the Regime universe and its counterpart.
Alongside its inclusion in comic stories, the multiverse has become more popular in modern inquiries and debates about science, apologetics, and philosophy. Plato's Timaeus raises the question of whether one or multiple universes exist, so the concept itself is not a recent hypothesis. But human epistemological limitations forbid us from actually confirming or disproving the existence of any universes outside of our own.
Another concept that the game somewhat tackles is the issue of justice itself (as the name implies). Representing the two opposing extremes regarding capital punishment, Regime Superman and Insurgency Batman exercise vastly different approaches to their pursuit of justice. Batman abhors all who kill as murderers, and (it is implied that) Superman executes most criminals. Christian theonomy condemns both ideologies, of course. Not that the solution to choosing between two "extreme" ideologies is as simple as merely adopting a middle or syncretistic position.
Regime Superman's total devotion to the execution of his opponents eventually leads him to kill his own Regime universe versions of Lex Luthor and Shazam, whereas his Batman refuses to kill even him. During the Insurgency invasion of Stryker's Island, Superman says his loss of Lois and their child justifies his actions, leading Batman to remind him that he lost his family too and that he did not resort to killing afterwards. Despite the sincerity of both parties, logical flaws exist in their moral reasoning. Superman (Regime) basically only grounds his utilitarian and authoritarian philosophy of justice on his personal wishes and regrets about his past, not in moral revelation or attempts at sound moral arguments. Batman fails to demonstrate why killing is always morally abominable. Any deviation from justice is injustice, and by theonomist standards both Superman and Batman falter.
Conclusion
Injustice succeeds as both a fighting and a DC game--DC has a better record with their games than their movies (couldn't resist)! Fans of either will very likely enjoy this title, and Vita owners can rejoice because the only version available to them is the Ultimate Edition with free DLC included. If you don't like memorizing a plethora of specific combos or the fighting genre, though, I wouldn't recommend this. But for those who appreciate fighting, DC, and loads of unlockables, Injustice offers a fun time!
Content
1. Violence: Bloodless brawls are featured in every fight and several non-graphic deaths are shown in story mode.
2. Profanity: Characters occasionally use mild profanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)