Suppose that a hypothetical person named Simon suffers periodic hallucinations of angelic or demonic figures. Psychiatric consultants and the common layperson would likely declare that these perceptions do not involve anything that is actually supernatural, as the images are simply projections of his mind that have no correspondence to external spiritual entities. Furthermore, it might be difficult to find anyone who would dispute this contrast between hallucinations and supernatural phenomena.
However, distinguishing the two in the sense of treating hallucinations as if they are not supernatural in any way is ultimately erroneous. This might sound very bizarre to those who have not contemplated the fact that consciousness and the body are not identical. Nevertheless, it becomes apparent upon rationalistic analysis that consciousness, if it is nonphysical, cannot be a part of the natural world, even if it is caused and sustained by physical processes. Rationalistic analysis also makes it clear that consciousness--the ability to perceive and all of the thoughts, emotions, and perceptions therein--is indeed strictly immaterial.
A neuron is not a thought; a brain is not the ability to perceive; an external object is not a sensory perception. Intangible and nonphysical, consciousness (and its contents) transcends nature, even if it is ultimately the product of nothing but a certain arrangement of matter. If something is not made of matter, it is by definition immaterial--but anything that is not a part of nature is also by definition supernatural, even if that thing is not a divine, angelic, or demonic being. Nonetheless, when pressed, many people seem to define something as supernatural only if it is explicitly theological.
It is this ignorance of what actually qualifies as supernatural that keeps many people from acknowledging that anything immaterial cannot be part of nature. The popularity of phenomenology among philosophers and scientists in the present day has not encouraged the general public to openly reflect on the immaterial--and therefore supernatural--nature of consciousness, no matter how basic that consciousness is. One of the largest misconceptions in modern phenomenology is the idea that human consciousness is not a supernatural thing, although it is not uncommon for people to admit that consciousness is irreducible to the physical brain and extended nervous system.
The supernatural remains far more readily demonstrable than most realize in spite of this. Recognition that one's own conscious mind exists is all that is necessary to establish the existence of something supernatural, even though that mind is contained within a physical shell. No one needs to witness divine miracles or a disembodied spirit to know that the supernatural is logically verifiable. Even when the immaterial (and therefore supernatural) natures of logic, space, and time are set aside, reflection on one's own consciousness is all that is needed to prove this.
Friday, September 27, 2019
A Mistaken Approach To Feminism
As Western culture becomes more ourwardly egalitarian, women are consequently being encouraged to defy stereotypes and express their individuality. This often puts them at odds with conservatives, who tend to support practices that do objectively restrict women. However, these same practices often restrict men just as much, sometimes penalizing them even more--something that even the most vocal liberals almost always fail to acknowledge as well. Despite identifying with egalitarianism (which is all that legitimate feminism is), people who condemn sexism that is imposed on women are often reluctant to condemn sexism imposed on men. In fact, they might actually oppose sexism against males because of how it hurts women, as if the wellbeing of men is an afterthought at best.
For example, the pressure for men in particular to put themselves in physically dangerous situations for the sake of heroism or for the sake of earning social respect is sometimes rightly identified as a discouragement to heroism on the part of women. However, more importantly, this attitude treats men as if they are expendable, as if there is something wrong with them if they do not wish to be in a clowe proximity to danger or violence, and as if the physical suffering of men specifically is a natural and perhaps even good thing--whereas women are even now often treated as if they must be sheltered from physical difficulties so that men can face them instead. This misadrist sexism is hardly opposed even by Christians who identify as staunch egalitarians.
Another obvious example is the asinine idea that men are helpless slaves to mythical hyper-visual and hyper-sexual impulses. This notion has obvious disadvantages for women, as they are then often told they must cover their bodies to some arbitrary extent or else men will sexually objectify or even sexually assault them. There are heinous ramifications for men as well, though. Because men are widely assumed 1) to have strong sexual desires and 2) to have an innate gravitation towards aggression and violence, they are usually treated as if each individual man is a time bomb when it comes to rape and as if they could never be sexually victimized by a woman. Despicable myths associated with the latter are the ideas that women are not strong enough to rape men or that men simply invite any sexual attention from women. Only a fool does not understand the thorough, deep misandry in such a position.
When it comes to dating, there is yet another blatant set of social expectations placed on men that only tend to be criticized for how they hinder women. Men are expected by most people to always initiate, plan, and pay for dating activities. One one hand, this does produce a barrier to women expressing their romantic or sexual interest in individual men (which also contributes to ignorance of the fact that men often want to be romantically/sexually desired and to feel desirable). On the other hand, it also makes many men gratuitously feel insecure and selfish if they do not intentionally, blatantly invest more financial resources into dating relationships than their partners do. It is obvious that it is sexist and harmful to pressure men into such roles, and yet these practices are still largely targeted only for the misogynistic side effects.
The various cultural biases against men, the social limitations imposed on them, and the forms of egregious outward discrimination against them are not Biblically immoral because women are hurt by them as well. They are contrary to Biblical egalitarianism (which is the same as consistent secular egalitarianism) simply because sexism against men is just as much of an abomination as sexism against women is. Any true egalitarian or feminist will not despise sexism against women while tolerating discrimination against men on the level of stereotypes or behavior. Indeed, the mark of true consistency in matters of social justice is an utter refusal to condemn some manifestations of sexism, racism, or classism while allowing others to go unchallenged.
For example, the pressure for men in particular to put themselves in physically dangerous situations for the sake of heroism or for the sake of earning social respect is sometimes rightly identified as a discouragement to heroism on the part of women. However, more importantly, this attitude treats men as if they are expendable, as if there is something wrong with them if they do not wish to be in a clowe proximity to danger or violence, and as if the physical suffering of men specifically is a natural and perhaps even good thing--whereas women are even now often treated as if they must be sheltered from physical difficulties so that men can face them instead. This misadrist sexism is hardly opposed even by Christians who identify as staunch egalitarians.
Another obvious example is the asinine idea that men are helpless slaves to mythical hyper-visual and hyper-sexual impulses. This notion has obvious disadvantages for women, as they are then often told they must cover their bodies to some arbitrary extent or else men will sexually objectify or even sexually assault them. There are heinous ramifications for men as well, though. Because men are widely assumed 1) to have strong sexual desires and 2) to have an innate gravitation towards aggression and violence, they are usually treated as if each individual man is a time bomb when it comes to rape and as if they could never be sexually victimized by a woman. Despicable myths associated with the latter are the ideas that women are not strong enough to rape men or that men simply invite any sexual attention from women. Only a fool does not understand the thorough, deep misandry in such a position.
When it comes to dating, there is yet another blatant set of social expectations placed on men that only tend to be criticized for how they hinder women. Men are expected by most people to always initiate, plan, and pay for dating activities. One one hand, this does produce a barrier to women expressing their romantic or sexual interest in individual men (which also contributes to ignorance of the fact that men often want to be romantically/sexually desired and to feel desirable). On the other hand, it also makes many men gratuitously feel insecure and selfish if they do not intentionally, blatantly invest more financial resources into dating relationships than their partners do. It is obvious that it is sexist and harmful to pressure men into such roles, and yet these practices are still largely targeted only for the misogynistic side effects.
The various cultural biases against men, the social limitations imposed on them, and the forms of egregious outward discrimination against them are not Biblically immoral because women are hurt by them as well. They are contrary to Biblical egalitarianism (which is the same as consistent secular egalitarianism) simply because sexism against men is just as much of an abomination as sexism against women is. Any true egalitarian or feminist will not despise sexism against women while tolerating discrimination against men on the level of stereotypes or behavior. Indeed, the mark of true consistency in matters of social justice is an utter refusal to condemn some manifestations of sexism, racism, or classism while allowing others to go unchallenged.
Thursday, September 26, 2019
Centrism's Fatal Error
Centrism as a codified approach to contemporary Western politics emphasizes distancing oneself from the popular stances held by major parties in favor of options in the "center." In other words, if conservatives make claim A and liberals make claim B, centrists tend to reject both in favor of claim C. While the bipartisan giants are often indeed guilty of numerous and egregious fallacies, it is also fallacious to reject an idea simply because it is associated with one of them. This type of non sequitur approach reduces political worldview choices down to criteria other than consistency, logical soundness, and logical or evidential validity.
There are certainly issues where the left and right alike have incomplete or erroneous stances (the size of government and the use of prisons for criminal punishment are two examples), but this does not mean that the correct stance is always in between liberal and conservative ideas. The left is sometimes entirely correct, like with regards to pointing out the idiocy and dangers of nationalism; likewise, the right is sometimes entirely correct, like with regards to emphasizing the murderous nature of abortion. To merely denounce a position simply because it happens to be connected with a mainstream, contemporary political movement is a flawed approach.
Of course, both main parties stand on enormously inconsistent and illogical premises. Each is adrift in a sea of arbitrary goals ("progress" and the preservation or slow change of traditions respectively), platform-based hypocrisy, and a general unwillingness to operate outside of party norms. Many citizens who identify as liberal or conservative have the same ideological flaws, and American society suffers precisely because it is common for people to swear allegiance to one party or the other without regard for its mistakes. Centrism might be held up as the alternative to this petty, irrational, and destructive attachment many have to either liberalism or conservatism, but the specific claims associated with each party call for a more nuanced position.
The avoidance of assumptions will certainly lead one away from the two largest parties in American politics, but it also leads one away from a default gravitation to conclusions that are not affiliated with either party. It is not the case that everyone who rejects liberal and conservative fallacies does so out of a genuinely rationalistic concern for truth. Some might distance themselves from both major political parties for no reason other than to avoid certain relational difficulties, put off serious investigation of political matters, or make themselves gratuitously feel intelligent when they have done nothing worthy of those feelings. When used in these ways, centrism is a fallacious shield that is used to simply deflect problems and serious intellectual investigations away.
There are certainly issues where the left and right alike have incomplete or erroneous stances (the size of government and the use of prisons for criminal punishment are two examples), but this does not mean that the correct stance is always in between liberal and conservative ideas. The left is sometimes entirely correct, like with regards to pointing out the idiocy and dangers of nationalism; likewise, the right is sometimes entirely correct, like with regards to emphasizing the murderous nature of abortion. To merely denounce a position simply because it happens to be connected with a mainstream, contemporary political movement is a flawed approach.
Of course, both main parties stand on enormously inconsistent and illogical premises. Each is adrift in a sea of arbitrary goals ("progress" and the preservation or slow change of traditions respectively), platform-based hypocrisy, and a general unwillingness to operate outside of party norms. Many citizens who identify as liberal or conservative have the same ideological flaws, and American society suffers precisely because it is common for people to swear allegiance to one party or the other without regard for its mistakes. Centrism might be held up as the alternative to this petty, irrational, and destructive attachment many have to either liberalism or conservatism, but the specific claims associated with each party call for a more nuanced position.
The avoidance of assumptions will certainly lead one away from the two largest parties in American politics, but it also leads one away from a default gravitation to conclusions that are not affiliated with either party. It is not the case that everyone who rejects liberal and conservative fallacies does so out of a genuinely rationalistic concern for truth. Some might distance themselves from both major political parties for no reason other than to avoid certain relational difficulties, put off serious investigation of political matters, or make themselves gratuitously feel intelligent when they have done nothing worthy of those feelings. When used in these ways, centrism is a fallacious shield that is used to simply deflect problems and serious intellectual investigations away.
Tuesday, September 24, 2019
The Selective Moral Focus Of Evangelicals
Superficiality and hypocrisy have been the norm for all of recorded church history, with conservative and liberal Christians blatantly continuing that trend in contemporary times. Liberals might insist they their tenets consistently align with those of Christian ethics, but conservatism is more widely equated with Christianity itself, however, and thus it is vital to clarify that the two seldomly overlap at most. Conservative Christians may be vocal, but they mostly focus on such a small handful of moral issues that they fail to be consistent in any broad sense. Their general rejection of Mosaic Law inevitably results in a highly selective engagement with Biblical ethics.
In fact, only a select few matters are even brought up by the representative evangelical, with homosexual activities and abortion being the two primary things that conservative Christians consistently discuss and condemn. It is not that the Bible does not condemn these two deeds; it takes only minimal reading comprehension skills and rationalistic analysis to see that it does. The problem is that so many Christians are completely silent on a large number of other moral issues that sometimes deserve even more attention--the sexual abuse of men and women always deserves more attention than sexual sins that do not have that element, for instance, and murder is far from the worst thing that one human could inflict on another on its own.
There is nothing particularly deep about merely establishing that the Bible does indeed condemn homosexual behaviors and abortion, although there might be a personal struggle involved in reaching that point. Nevertheless, far too many Christians act as if they have lived out the pinnacle of Christian ethics in opposing these two sins, as if Biblical ethics reduces down to a defense of these two points! Ironically, evangelicals have no problem visiting the Old Testament when it comes to these two specific sins (as they should), but they pretend like most of the surrounding commands no longer apply. Anyone who has read the Bible beyond the most superficial level has seen that the Bible plainly prescribes moral obligations that go far beyond targeting homosexual actions (there is nothing sinful about simply having homosexual feelings, as the Bible only unilaterally condemns homosexual behaviors) and murder.
What about anti-intellectualism? Intellectual hypocrisy? Prison rape (it is especially asinine that many Christians are very vocal about opposing consensual homosexual behaviors while ignoring homosexual assaults in prisons)? Female-male sexual assault? Domestic abuse? The epidemic of leftover sexism that continues to harm men and women? The host of legalistic constructs the church is enamored with? One could continue to list offenses that Christians largely overlook. The church fails to uphold its collective obligations as long as it does not oppose these things at least just as fiercely, and perhaps even more fiercely, than it does things such as consensual expressions of homosexuality and abortion that are immediately popular in Western culture.
Biblical morality encompasses so much more than two individual stances could ever summarize. Most of it, of course, is not even found in the New Testament. To the frustration of many Christians, the New Testament is not the primary source of moral revelation in the Bible; much of New Testament ethics is at best only a vague commentary on Mosaic Law on its own. It is Exodus and Deuteromomy (and Leviticus to a lesser extent) that contain the bulk of Biblical moral doctrines. The gospel writings and epistles do not bring up moral issues that Mosaic Law avoided. New Testament ethics is contingent on the prior moral instructions in the Bible, not the other way around.
In fact, only a select few matters are even brought up by the representative evangelical, with homosexual activities and abortion being the two primary things that conservative Christians consistently discuss and condemn. It is not that the Bible does not condemn these two deeds; it takes only minimal reading comprehension skills and rationalistic analysis to see that it does. The problem is that so many Christians are completely silent on a large number of other moral issues that sometimes deserve even more attention--the sexual abuse of men and women always deserves more attention than sexual sins that do not have that element, for instance, and murder is far from the worst thing that one human could inflict on another on its own.
There is nothing particularly deep about merely establishing that the Bible does indeed condemn homosexual behaviors and abortion, although there might be a personal struggle involved in reaching that point. Nevertheless, far too many Christians act as if they have lived out the pinnacle of Christian ethics in opposing these two sins, as if Biblical ethics reduces down to a defense of these two points! Ironically, evangelicals have no problem visiting the Old Testament when it comes to these two specific sins (as they should), but they pretend like most of the surrounding commands no longer apply. Anyone who has read the Bible beyond the most superficial level has seen that the Bible plainly prescribes moral obligations that go far beyond targeting homosexual actions (there is nothing sinful about simply having homosexual feelings, as the Bible only unilaterally condemns homosexual behaviors) and murder.
What about anti-intellectualism? Intellectual hypocrisy? Prison rape (it is especially asinine that many Christians are very vocal about opposing consensual homosexual behaviors while ignoring homosexual assaults in prisons)? Female-male sexual assault? Domestic abuse? The epidemic of leftover sexism that continues to harm men and women? The host of legalistic constructs the church is enamored with? One could continue to list offenses that Christians largely overlook. The church fails to uphold its collective obligations as long as it does not oppose these things at least just as fiercely, and perhaps even more fiercely, than it does things such as consensual expressions of homosexuality and abortion that are immediately popular in Western culture.
Biblical morality encompasses so much more than two individual stances could ever summarize. Most of it, of course, is not even found in the New Testament. To the frustration of many Christians, the New Testament is not the primary source of moral revelation in the Bible; much of New Testament ethics is at best only a vague commentary on Mosaic Law on its own. It is Exodus and Deuteromomy (and Leviticus to a lesser extent) that contain the bulk of Biblical moral doctrines. The gospel writings and epistles do not bring up moral issues that Mosaic Law avoided. New Testament ethics is contingent on the prior moral instructions in the Bible, not the other way around.
Game Review--Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3: The Black Order (Switch)
"There is no escaping destiny."
--Thanos, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3: The Black Order
Disregarding the storylines of the first two Ultimate Alliance games, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 brings a large host of Marvel characters to the Switch as they attempt to prevent Thanos from obtaining the Infinity Stones. Ultimate Alliance 3 retells elements of Infinity War in a way that features a far broader range of characters. Although very little attention can be given to each character outside of specific scenes, Avengers, mutants, Inhumans, Asgardians, and others are present. While the premise of the story seems particularly familiar in the wake of Phase 3 of the MCU, major deviations from the plot of Infinity War and the opportunity to play as both popular and obscure Marvel characters still make the game fairly unique.
Production Values
The MCU is definitely known for having lighter colors than the initial films of the DCEU, but Ultimate Alliance 3 showcases even more vibrant, diverse colors in both its environments and character models. In some cases, the costumes look like they came right out of the MCU, but some costumes are distinct enough to be entirely new to players who have only seen the ones used in the recent films. There are alternate costumes for some heroes. However, they can only be obtained by completing optional Infinity Trials outside of the main story, and they have no ability to affect stats.
Competent voice acting complements the visuals well, and some of the more popular characters even sound like their counterparts from the MCU or some of the Fox X-Men movies. The version of Magneto in the game sounds like Ian McKellen is reading his lines! Considering the fact that there are so many characters, that the voice acting is not problematic is a very noticeable success of the game. After all, there are well over 50 Marvel heroes, villains, and anti-heroes that make appearances. In short, the overall production values are excellent, even if the gameplay is far more simplistic than that of many other modern games.
Gameplay
The most foundational aspect of the game, of course, is the cast. Some of my favorites (as my screenshots sometimes evidence) are Captain Marvel, Ghost Rider, Psylocke, Spider-Man, Venom, and Elsa Bloodstone, but there are 32 characters unlocked in the campaign alone. The cast is large, but the very limited number of attacks per character (each one has only a light attack, a heavy attack, four special abilities, and an ultimate attack) mean that the hack-and-slash gameplay is very repetitive. Those who don't care about repetition will probably find the combat very enjoyable, but anyone who wants variety in the gameplay will need to switch out characters frequently to lessen the impact of the sameness.
Alternate costumes for some characters, as well as some characters like Elektra, are locked behind Infinity Trials, optional missions with criteria like time limits or dwindling health. Some of these trials are first accessed by finding dimensional rifts in the levels of the story mode, while others are unlocked by simply progressing through the story. The addition of Infinity Trials does allow for some additional replay value once the main game has been completed, but the potential allure of alternate costumes can't change the fact that the game is rather simple and repetitive.
It is worth mentioning that various character combinations are elgible for helpful bonuses that enhance team stats, like a strength bonus for having two or more anti-heroes active at one time. The effects aren't always particularly noticeable, but they are still very beneficial during certain boss fights. The bosses themselves range from human-sized foes like Mystique and Green Goblin to massive entities like Ultimo. The move sets themselves are limiting and repetitive, as previously clarified, but the bosses are about as diverse as the playable characters. Some are more challenging than others, but upgrades that apply to all team members simplify matters, as do equippable crystals and the aforementioned team configuration bonuses.
Story
Much of Ultimate Alliance 3 is just a series of encounters strung together into a quest to find the six Infinity Stones before they are acquired by Thanos and his Black Order. This will sound very familiar to anyone who remembers the plot of Infinity War. Despite the obvious similarities to the most recent Avengers films, the story goes in very different directions after the opening. I will withhold major plot details to minimize spoilers for readers (yes, some of my screenshots do reveal things about the narrative, but these is no context, and these random reveals are just fractional parts of a game that is full of surprises).
Intellectual Content
Several key MCU films have at least touched on very crucial philosophical matters, but the constant juggling of the numerous primary and secondary characters in the game leaves no opportunity for any thorough exploration of any particular theme or character. Anyone expecting this Thanos to have motivations or a worldview that are anywhere near as deep as they are in Infinity War will be very disappointed. Actually, Thanos and the Black Order have very little time onscreen. Environmental puzzles do occasionally await players in some areas, yet they are extremely simple, and I could see many players wondering why they are present to begin with.
Conclusion
Ultimate Alliance 3 is far from a flawless game, but it still manages to bring a very unique experience to the Switch. The kind of person who would most thoroughly enjoy this game is someone who loves Marvel's many characters, as the major attraction here is not ultimately the gameplay or story, but the roster of playable characters and the references to the vast lore of the comics. While the fact that the game is a Switch exclusive does limit the audience, anyone who owns a Switch and loves Marvel will likely enjoy the spectacle.
Content:
1. Violence: The gameplay heavily involves non-graphic violence. One of the most "brutal" scenes shows a Sentinel's head get torn off of its body.
--Thanos, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3: The Black Order
Disregarding the storylines of the first two Ultimate Alliance games, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 brings a large host of Marvel characters to the Switch as they attempt to prevent Thanos from obtaining the Infinity Stones. Ultimate Alliance 3 retells elements of Infinity War in a way that features a far broader range of characters. Although very little attention can be given to each character outside of specific scenes, Avengers, mutants, Inhumans, Asgardians, and others are present. While the premise of the story seems particularly familiar in the wake of Phase 3 of the MCU, major deviations from the plot of Infinity War and the opportunity to play as both popular and obscure Marvel characters still make the game fairly unique.
Production Values
The MCU is definitely known for having lighter colors than the initial films of the DCEU, but Ultimate Alliance 3 showcases even more vibrant, diverse colors in both its environments and character models. In some cases, the costumes look like they came right out of the MCU, but some costumes are distinct enough to be entirely new to players who have only seen the ones used in the recent films. There are alternate costumes for some heroes. However, they can only be obtained by completing optional Infinity Trials outside of the main story, and they have no ability to affect stats.
Competent voice acting complements the visuals well, and some of the more popular characters even sound like their counterparts from the MCU or some of the Fox X-Men movies. The version of Magneto in the game sounds like Ian McKellen is reading his lines! Considering the fact that there are so many characters, that the voice acting is not problematic is a very noticeable success of the game. After all, there are well over 50 Marvel heroes, villains, and anti-heroes that make appearances. In short, the overall production values are excellent, even if the gameplay is far more simplistic than that of many other modern games.
Gameplay
The most foundational aspect of the game, of course, is the cast. Some of my favorites (as my screenshots sometimes evidence) are Captain Marvel, Ghost Rider, Psylocke, Spider-Man, Venom, and Elsa Bloodstone, but there are 32 characters unlocked in the campaign alone. The cast is large, but the very limited number of attacks per character (each one has only a light attack, a heavy attack, four special abilities, and an ultimate attack) mean that the hack-and-slash gameplay is very repetitive. Those who don't care about repetition will probably find the combat very enjoyable, but anyone who wants variety in the gameplay will need to switch out characters frequently to lessen the impact of the sameness.
Alternate costumes for some characters, as well as some characters like Elektra, are locked behind Infinity Trials, optional missions with criteria like time limits or dwindling health. Some of these trials are first accessed by finding dimensional rifts in the levels of the story mode, while others are unlocked by simply progressing through the story. The addition of Infinity Trials does allow for some additional replay value once the main game has been completed, but the potential allure of alternate costumes can't change the fact that the game is rather simple and repetitive.
Story
Much of Ultimate Alliance 3 is just a series of encounters strung together into a quest to find the six Infinity Stones before they are acquired by Thanos and his Black Order. This will sound very familiar to anyone who remembers the plot of Infinity War. Despite the obvious similarities to the most recent Avengers films, the story goes in very different directions after the opening. I will withhold major plot details to minimize spoilers for readers (yes, some of my screenshots do reveal things about the narrative, but these is no context, and these random reveals are just fractional parts of a game that is full of surprises).
Intellectual Content
Several key MCU films have at least touched on very crucial philosophical matters, but the constant juggling of the numerous primary and secondary characters in the game leaves no opportunity for any thorough exploration of any particular theme or character. Anyone expecting this Thanos to have motivations or a worldview that are anywhere near as deep as they are in Infinity War will be very disappointed. Actually, Thanos and the Black Order have very little time onscreen. Environmental puzzles do occasionally await players in some areas, yet they are extremely simple, and I could see many players wondering why they are present to begin with.
Conclusion
Ultimate Alliance 3 is far from a flawless game, but it still manages to bring a very unique experience to the Switch. The kind of person who would most thoroughly enjoy this game is someone who loves Marvel's many characters, as the major attraction here is not ultimately the gameplay or story, but the roster of playable characters and the references to the vast lore of the comics. While the fact that the game is a Switch exclusive does limit the audience, anyone who owns a Switch and loves Marvel will likely enjoy the spectacle.
Content:
1. Violence: The gameplay heavily involves non-graphic violence. One of the most "brutal" scenes shows a Sentinel's head get torn off of its body.
Monday, September 23, 2019
The Christian Stance On String Theory
Some Christians might find themselves intimidated by references to very precise scientific concepts, as many non-Christians might, and there is certainly no shortage of scientific phrases and ideas that the general public is unfamiliar with, one of them being string theory. Much of quantum physics is perceived as inaccessible to the average layperson, but, in actuality, the difficulty and importance of quantum physics is often dramatically overemphasized. Regardless, it is important for people to be familiar with the terminology of quantum physics, even if only to navigate conversations with those who misunderstand it to be more philosophically grand than it is.
In light of this, Christians who are interested in the most modern or precise scientific developments might wonder about the relationship between quantum physics, philosophy, and Christianity. What would the Christian response be if string theory was somehow verified at a future time? To clarify an important point, I do not mean "Christian response" as in the actual reactions within the church, but I am referring to the sound response to string theory according to Christian theology. There is and has often been an enormous difference between the claims of Christians, both genuine or alleged, and the claims of Christianity, although the two would likely be fairly close in this case.
A brief summary of string theory is called for before many people would be able to deduce the Christian stance. According to string theory, the subatomic particles that contribute to atoms can be further broken down, with some of them reducing to quarks. Quarks themselves then reduce down to vibrating strings of immaterial energy. There is the associated notion that there are 10 dimensions, but there is nothing about strings of energy sustaining matter that logically requires 10 dimensions, regardless of what non-rationalistic physicists claim. Ultimately, it is the tenet that energy is at the foundation of matter that is most relevant to the issue at hand.
As logic, not science, reveals, the uncaused cause (God) created the universe--or, at the very least, it started the causal chain that eventually led to the creation of the universe [1]--which means that there would be no subatomic particles without the existence of the uncaused cause. Since string theory posits that strings of energy are the foundation of quarks and therefore of material objects, whatever created matter would have created the strings of energy that matter reduces down to. God would therefore be responsible for the existence of the energy strings and the minute particles they form. There is nothing about string theory that even slightly challenges mere theism, and the existence of an uncaused cause is a logical fact even without regard for whether Christianity is true.
Of course, string theory is far from verified or verifiable, and there is thus no need for any Christian to feel threatened by it even if there was a discrepancy between string theory and some aspect of Biblical theology. Christianity agrees with basic theism that a preexisting entity created matter, and basic theism is affirmed by the logical facts that establish the existence of an uncaused cause. If string theory is ultimately true, it is entirely consistent with theism, and the metaphysical ramifications for the nature of matter would be quite paradoxical [2]. While the notion of strings of energy forming material particles at a subatomic level might seem very foreign to some, it is absolutely irrelevant to the veracity of theism in itself and has only minimal implications within Christian theology at most.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-pseudoscience-of-string-theory-part_3.html
In light of this, Christians who are interested in the most modern or precise scientific developments might wonder about the relationship between quantum physics, philosophy, and Christianity. What would the Christian response be if string theory was somehow verified at a future time? To clarify an important point, I do not mean "Christian response" as in the actual reactions within the church, but I am referring to the sound response to string theory according to Christian theology. There is and has often been an enormous difference between the claims of Christians, both genuine or alleged, and the claims of Christianity, although the two would likely be fairly close in this case.
A brief summary of string theory is called for before many people would be able to deduce the Christian stance. According to string theory, the subatomic particles that contribute to atoms can be further broken down, with some of them reducing to quarks. Quarks themselves then reduce down to vibrating strings of immaterial energy. There is the associated notion that there are 10 dimensions, but there is nothing about strings of energy sustaining matter that logically requires 10 dimensions, regardless of what non-rationalistic physicists claim. Ultimately, it is the tenet that energy is at the foundation of matter that is most relevant to the issue at hand.
As logic, not science, reveals, the uncaused cause (God) created the universe--or, at the very least, it started the causal chain that eventually led to the creation of the universe [1]--which means that there would be no subatomic particles without the existence of the uncaused cause. Since string theory posits that strings of energy are the foundation of quarks and therefore of material objects, whatever created matter would have created the strings of energy that matter reduces down to. God would therefore be responsible for the existence of the energy strings and the minute particles they form. There is nothing about string theory that even slightly challenges mere theism, and the existence of an uncaused cause is a logical fact even without regard for whether Christianity is true.
Of course, string theory is far from verified or verifiable, and there is thus no need for any Christian to feel threatened by it even if there was a discrepancy between string theory and some aspect of Biblical theology. Christianity agrees with basic theism that a preexisting entity created matter, and basic theism is affirmed by the logical facts that establish the existence of an uncaused cause. If string theory is ultimately true, it is entirely consistent with theism, and the metaphysical ramifications for the nature of matter would be quite paradoxical [2]. While the notion of strings of energy forming material particles at a subatomic level might seem very foreign to some, it is absolutely irrelevant to the veracity of theism in itself and has only minimal implications within Christian theology at most.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-pseudoscience-of-string-theory-part_3.html
Saturday, September 21, 2019
What Bearing God's Image Does Not Mean
What it means to bear God's image is a theological issue of no minor significance, but very few investigations of the matter touch upon a related fact that is also of no small importance. That the Bible teaches that all humans bear God's image in no way means that the Bible teaches that every human is of equal moral and metaphysical value. While this statement is very jarring for many people, it is rather apparent from a rationalistic standpoint that any opposing claims could never be supported even if it was possible for them to be true.
To discriminate against someone on the basis of gender, ethnicity, nationality, or class is abominable by Biblical standards, especially when it comes to judging their metaphysical value on these grounds, as Mosaic Law and the New Testament books make clear. There is no moral advantage to being a man, a woman, a Jew, a Gentile, a person of wealth, or a person of poverty; all humans bear God's image irrespective of these physical or social factors.
It would nonetheless be a severe mistake to conclude that all people must possess equal value. While gender, race, and class are of no relevance to one's moral character, intelligence, talents, or standing before God, the same cannot be legitimately said of personal choices to align with or avoid reason and morality. The person who ignores or does not pursue rationality and justice--not perceptions of justice, but justice itself--has lesser value than someone who actively does the contrary. If moral obligations exist, intentional alignment with morality brings with it a metaphysical superiority to those who do not have this alignment.
The Bible never says that all beings that bear God's image are of completely, inflexibly equal value. Instead, Mosaic Law merely teaches that all humans have the same baseline rights and obligations. It does not follow from this that moral superiority does not entail metaphysical superiority. The two are inseparably intertwined. A person who lives without regard for reason and morality distances himself or herself from that which is meaningful on the Christian worldview, and thus cannot have as much value as someone who does the opposite.
Moral superiority is inevitably a kind of metaphysical superiority. There are those who would resent or fear this fact, but no one needs to forfeit potential metaphysical value by failing to correct glaring moral errors. Whether or not the ramifications of moral superiority are comfortable to a given person, it should not require monumental effort to admit that incorrigible moral differences between individuals mean that not all individuals can have equal value. Any moral system entails such ramifications, and Biblical ethics is no exception.
To discriminate against someone on the basis of gender, ethnicity, nationality, or class is abominable by Biblical standards, especially when it comes to judging their metaphysical value on these grounds, as Mosaic Law and the New Testament books make clear. There is no moral advantage to being a man, a woman, a Jew, a Gentile, a person of wealth, or a person of poverty; all humans bear God's image irrespective of these physical or social factors.
It would nonetheless be a severe mistake to conclude that all people must possess equal value. While gender, race, and class are of no relevance to one's moral character, intelligence, talents, or standing before God, the same cannot be legitimately said of personal choices to align with or avoid reason and morality. The person who ignores or does not pursue rationality and justice--not perceptions of justice, but justice itself--has lesser value than someone who actively does the contrary. If moral obligations exist, intentional alignment with morality brings with it a metaphysical superiority to those who do not have this alignment.
The Bible never says that all beings that bear God's image are of completely, inflexibly equal value. Instead, Mosaic Law merely teaches that all humans have the same baseline rights and obligations. It does not follow from this that moral superiority does not entail metaphysical superiority. The two are inseparably intertwined. A person who lives without regard for reason and morality distances himself or herself from that which is meaningful on the Christian worldview, and thus cannot have as much value as someone who does the opposite.
Moral superiority is inevitably a kind of metaphysical superiority. There are those who would resent or fear this fact, but no one needs to forfeit potential metaphysical value by failing to correct glaring moral errors. Whether or not the ramifications of moral superiority are comfortable to a given person, it should not require monumental effort to admit that incorrigible moral differences between individuals mean that not all individuals can have equal value. Any moral system entails such ramifications, and Biblical ethics is no exception.
Thursday, September 19, 2019
Anti-Rich Classism
Anti-rich sentiments can be quite overt in American culture, and the motivations behind these sentiments are often plainly stated--the rich tend to be seen as a class of selfish individuals who overlook or prey upon the poor. What is not always openly mentioned is the fact that the motivations behind statements that treat wealth as an indicator of moral corruption and a symbol of classism, discrimination based on social class, are often thoroughly hypocritical. Does classism harm the poor? Of course! However, in criticizing classism against the poor, some politicians and laypeople make classist statements of their own against the rich.
Many people are not intelligent or morally aware enough to condemn one form of classism without committing the inverse error or offense in the process. Displaying their hypocrisy so that any observant person can see it, the people in question act as if one cannot care for the poor without directing anger towards the rich, thereby showing that they despise or suspect those in possession of significant wealth (whatever arbitrary amount they deem "too much") on the basis of class. The idea that classism can only target the poor is far from true.
Unfortunately, classism against the poor and rich is not difficult to find. Classism of the former kind can be easily found in the words of the political right, and classism of the latter kind is easily found in the words of the political left. It is likewise common to see this same type of incompetence in fights against certain manifestations of sexism or racism: relatively few fight all manifestations of sexism or racism, no matter who they are leveled against, just as few fight all manifestations of classism without regard for whether the poor or rich are being illicitly discriminated against.
Recognizing different forms of classism should be a simple affair. Anyone who hates or opposes the rich simply because they have significant personal wealth is guilty of classism just as much as a rich person who regards poor people as inferior is. Since assumptions about a person's moral character or personality traits on the basis of class are fallacious (as are all assumptions)--and only an imbecile would refuse to admit that they are--then the rich and poor alike can be the victims of classism. As logic easily reveals, irrational and unjust forms of discrimination can always go both ways.
Many people are not intelligent or morally aware enough to condemn one form of classism without committing the inverse error or offense in the process. Displaying their hypocrisy so that any observant person can see it, the people in question act as if one cannot care for the poor without directing anger towards the rich, thereby showing that they despise or suspect those in possession of significant wealth (whatever arbitrary amount they deem "too much") on the basis of class. The idea that classism can only target the poor is far from true.
Unfortunately, classism against the poor and rich is not difficult to find. Classism of the former kind can be easily found in the words of the political right, and classism of the latter kind is easily found in the words of the political left. It is likewise common to see this same type of incompetence in fights against certain manifestations of sexism or racism: relatively few fight all manifestations of sexism or racism, no matter who they are leveled against, just as few fight all manifestations of classism without regard for whether the poor or rich are being illicitly discriminated against.
Recognizing different forms of classism should be a simple affair. Anyone who hates or opposes the rich simply because they have significant personal wealth is guilty of classism just as much as a rich person who regards poor people as inferior is. Since assumptions about a person's moral character or personality traits on the basis of class are fallacious (as are all assumptions)--and only an imbecile would refuse to admit that they are--then the rich and poor alike can be the victims of classism. As logic easily reveals, irrational and unjust forms of discrimination can always go both ways.
Individuality Within The Intimacy Of Marriage
Individuality, regardless of its detractors, is not in any sort of inherent conflict with relational intimacy. Many people do profess to appreciate individuality, but only up until it results in their discomfort. It is in such circumstances that some will pretend as if the integrity of interpersonal relationships like marriages is weakened by individual uniqueness, as if spouses that ignore or distort their individualities are in any way contributing to a healthy relationship. Since many Christians are complementarians, it is no surprise that they view individualism as a threat to marital unity, but the Bible says no such thing.
Genesis 2:24 certainly does describe an ideal marriage as a relationship where the husband and wife become "one flesh" (this does not preclude polyamory, of course [1]), and yet such a high degree of intimacy does not mean that a given husband and wife are identical persons. The two are not only metaphysically/logically distinct, but they also have their own respective personalities, talents, and desires. Even Christians who do not regard individuality as an enemy of relational closeness do not overtly emphasize this enough.
A Biblically sound marriage can only be sustained by a commitment on the part of both parties to genuine unity in the truth, but marital unity never requires the dismissal of either partner's individuality. Both partners can enjoy deep intimacy without sacrificing their talents, their autonomy, and any of their non-selfish aspirations. Nothing about a thriving marriage encroaches upon the individualistic elements of life, and only a misinterpretation of Genesis would regard the first few chapters of the Bible as rejecting individualism in marriage.
Indeed, a strong marriage, like a strong friendship, can be one of the best places to explore and develop one's individuality. A rational husband or wife would never regard their spouse's basic personality traits as something poisonous that must be kept far from the relationship, and a rational spouse would in fact encourage an individualistic emphasis within their marriage. The Bible might call for spouses to become one flesh, but intimacy does not hinge upon a sameness of personalities. Instead, it hinges upon a mutual commitment to openness and honesty--and no one can be truly open with their spouse while they hide their own individuality from them.
The Christian ideal of unity in marriage does not conflict with the truths of individualism on any level. Moreover, given that Christianity is a thoroughly individualistic religion [2], it is unintelligent to demonize individualism, as if it will stop being true simply because it is not regularly addressed by the church or because some Christians mistakenly think it is contrary to the Bible. Individuality is an inevitably vital part of self-development, friendship, and marriage; to deny this is harmful and asinine.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/genesis-does-not-prescribe-monogamy.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/individualism-in-christianity.html
Genesis 2:24 certainly does describe an ideal marriage as a relationship where the husband and wife become "one flesh" (this does not preclude polyamory, of course [1]), and yet such a high degree of intimacy does not mean that a given husband and wife are identical persons. The two are not only metaphysically/logically distinct, but they also have their own respective personalities, talents, and desires. Even Christians who do not regard individuality as an enemy of relational closeness do not overtly emphasize this enough.
A Biblically sound marriage can only be sustained by a commitment on the part of both parties to genuine unity in the truth, but marital unity never requires the dismissal of either partner's individuality. Both partners can enjoy deep intimacy without sacrificing their talents, their autonomy, and any of their non-selfish aspirations. Nothing about a thriving marriage encroaches upon the individualistic elements of life, and only a misinterpretation of Genesis would regard the first few chapters of the Bible as rejecting individualism in marriage.
Indeed, a strong marriage, like a strong friendship, can be one of the best places to explore and develop one's individuality. A rational husband or wife would never regard their spouse's basic personality traits as something poisonous that must be kept far from the relationship, and a rational spouse would in fact encourage an individualistic emphasis within their marriage. The Bible might call for spouses to become one flesh, but intimacy does not hinge upon a sameness of personalities. Instead, it hinges upon a mutual commitment to openness and honesty--and no one can be truly open with their spouse while they hide their own individuality from them.
The Christian ideal of unity in marriage does not conflict with the truths of individualism on any level. Moreover, given that Christianity is a thoroughly individualistic religion [2], it is unintelligent to demonize individualism, as if it will stop being true simply because it is not regularly addressed by the church or because some Christians mistakenly think it is contrary to the Bible. Individuality is an inevitably vital part of self-development, friendship, and marriage; to deny this is harmful and asinine.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/genesis-does-not-prescribe-monogamy.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/individualism-in-christianity.html
Wednesday, September 18, 2019
The Sensuality Of The Human Body
The legalistic shunning of the human body in the evangelical world has resulted in nothing but harm to individual Christians, endorsed in the name of preserving conservative social norms that equate sensuality with sexuality. Sensuality is not only nonsexual in itself, but it is also something that Christians have significant Biblical reasons to embrace. While the personal, subjective enjoyment of the human body is reason enough to not flee from its sensuality (because sensuality is not sinful on its own), the first two chapters of Genesis not only portray the human body in a very positive light, but even imply that God prefers the naked body to a clothed one.
Yes, Genesis 1-2 certainly does suggest that God might actually prefer the unclothed human form to its alternatives. His choice to create men and women in a state of open and full nudity was intentional, after all; there is nothing logically impossible about the creation of clothed beings, and yet God did not create humans in this way. The mere fact that God created humans in the state of nudity means that God not only approves of the exposure of the human body in social contexts, but that he also very likely prefers it in one sense.
God's exact motivations for creating humans naked are not outlined in Genesis--or elsewhere in the Bible--and yet we do not need to know them in order to realize that the sensuality of the human body is not something that God opposes. On the contrary, a Biblical theology embraces the sensuality of the body, emphasizing that the subjective pleasure many people derive from it directly complements the fact that Genesis treats the human body as God's ultimate physical creation.
Within the Christian worldview, there is nothing shameful about embracing one's physicality or admiring the physical bodies of others. It is, at the very least, Biblically erroneous to scorn sensuality as if it is beneath a committed, sincere Christian. The human body is designed to experience sensual pleasure, but the human body--both one's own body and the bodies of other people, whether naked or clothed to various extents--is itself also a rich source of pleasure. Only an invalid understanding of the Genesis creation account pits righteousness against sensuality, as if the two are inherently exclusive on any level.
It is one thing to subjectively dislike the public sight of the naked or "scantily clad" body, and there is nothing Biblically immoral about merely experiencing a sense of aversion to such displays of the unadorned human body. Subjective preferences are amoral on their own. However, to oppose public nudity--or bikinis or male or female shirtlessess--on ideological grounds is inherently contrary to Biblical metaphysics and ethics. The Christian who cannot shed an emotional aversion to the human body (if he or she has one to begin with) needs to learn how to live with it in light of the spiritual significance of sensuality.
Yes, Genesis 1-2 certainly does suggest that God might actually prefer the unclothed human form to its alternatives. His choice to create men and women in a state of open and full nudity was intentional, after all; there is nothing logically impossible about the creation of clothed beings, and yet God did not create humans in this way. The mere fact that God created humans in the state of nudity means that God not only approves of the exposure of the human body in social contexts, but that he also very likely prefers it in one sense.
God's exact motivations for creating humans naked are not outlined in Genesis--or elsewhere in the Bible--and yet we do not need to know them in order to realize that the sensuality of the human body is not something that God opposes. On the contrary, a Biblical theology embraces the sensuality of the body, emphasizing that the subjective pleasure many people derive from it directly complements the fact that Genesis treats the human body as God's ultimate physical creation.
Within the Christian worldview, there is nothing shameful about embracing one's physicality or admiring the physical bodies of others. It is, at the very least, Biblically erroneous to scorn sensuality as if it is beneath a committed, sincere Christian. The human body is designed to experience sensual pleasure, but the human body--both one's own body and the bodies of other people, whether naked or clothed to various extents--is itself also a rich source of pleasure. Only an invalid understanding of the Genesis creation account pits righteousness against sensuality, as if the two are inherently exclusive on any level.
It is one thing to subjectively dislike the public sight of the naked or "scantily clad" body, and there is nothing Biblically immoral about merely experiencing a sense of aversion to such displays of the unadorned human body. Subjective preferences are amoral on their own. However, to oppose public nudity--or bikinis or male or female shirtlessess--on ideological grounds is inherently contrary to Biblical metaphysics and ethics. The Christian who cannot shed an emotional aversion to the human body (if he or she has one to begin with) needs to learn how to live with it in light of the spiritual significance of sensuality.
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
How To Cheapen Mercy
Mercy is one of the most misunderstood aspects of Biblical morality that is not shied away from by the typical evangelical spotlight. Its prominence in evangelical philosophy, though, does not mean that evangelicals understand it accurately. While the relationship between mercy and justice is vital enough to deserve another summary below, the best way to cheapen mercy receives almost no attention. Of course, grasping the nature of mercy and justice is a prerequisite to comprehending why mercy can be so easily cheapened by those who advocate it.
By definition, mercy cannot be earned or legitimately equated with justice, as only someone who intentionally forgoes justice after being wronged shows mercy. There is no such thing as a right to mercy, and there is thus no obligation to show any interest in mercy towards anyone guilty of an actual offense. No one can legitimately say that mercy is owed to anyone. Those who prefer mercy over justice (a destructive set of priorities) are reluctant to admit this in any thorough or consistent sense, but they also are prone to overlook another detail.
What few who love mercy realize is that mercy is belittled when everyone receives it without exception. The best way to cheapen mercy is by showing it to all people by default. If mercy is granted even when it is not rooted in an established relationship, strategic benefit, or likelihood of impacting a given person's moral trajectory, it loses at least a significant amount of whatever potency it might otherwise possess. Mercy has a greater potential to transform a life when it is used more sparingly than many Christians profess to use it.
Beyond this, to show mercy by default is to disregard justice, but more selective displays of mercy do have the genhine potential to make deep impacts on the lives of specific individuals. This impact is inevitably lost or diminished when mercy is offered indiscriminately to all people. Every individual is free to show mercy or withhold mercy from any specific person at their own subjective whims, but no one can be morally sound while defaulting to mercy in all cases.
By definition, mercy cannot be earned or legitimately equated with justice, as only someone who intentionally forgoes justice after being wronged shows mercy. There is no such thing as a right to mercy, and there is thus no obligation to show any interest in mercy towards anyone guilty of an actual offense. No one can legitimately say that mercy is owed to anyone. Those who prefer mercy over justice (a destructive set of priorities) are reluctant to admit this in any thorough or consistent sense, but they also are prone to overlook another detail.
What few who love mercy realize is that mercy is belittled when everyone receives it without exception. The best way to cheapen mercy is by showing it to all people by default. If mercy is granted even when it is not rooted in an established relationship, strategic benefit, or likelihood of impacting a given person's moral trajectory, it loses at least a significant amount of whatever potency it might otherwise possess. Mercy has a greater potential to transform a life when it is used more sparingly than many Christians profess to use it.
Beyond this, to show mercy by default is to disregard justice, but more selective displays of mercy do have the genhine potential to make deep impacts on the lives of specific individuals. This impact is inevitably lost or diminished when mercy is offered indiscriminately to all people. Every individual is free to show mercy or withhold mercy from any specific person at their own subjective whims, but no one can be morally sound while defaulting to mercy in all cases.
Saturday, September 14, 2019
Game Review--Ratchet And Clank (PS4)
"Blaming yourself and taking responsibility are two very different things."
--Clank, Ratchet & Clank (2016)
The Ratchet & Clank series does not have the same contemporary popularity as Sony's God of War and Uncharted franchises, but it has still received some relatively recent attention thanks to the 2016 game that bears the exact name of the series. A reboot and reimagining of the original 2002 title, the PS4 Ratchet & Clank game is an amalgam of excellence, mediocrity, and incompetence: different aspects of the game possess wildly different levels of quality. This becomes apparent within the first few "levels" (planets), but there are still potential reasons to try the game regardless of this inconsistency.
Production Values
The production values of this PS4 reboot are quite mixed, as the visuals are stellar (with some very occasional frame rate drops), but the dialogue and characterization are weak at best. Since the game is affiliated with a 2016 movie of the same name, the story of the former is confined to that of the film. The overlap is more significant than some might expect. Some of the cutscenes in the game are actual scenes from the movie--the uniqueness of this overlap does not excuse the poor quality of the writing, but it is an achievement that few, if any, other games have reached.
One of the worst aspects of the writing is the sheer lack of depth in the characters. Only a single character actually has a somewhat overt arc over the course of the game, and he is a side character who mostly shows up in scattered cutscenes. Neither Ratchet nor Clank grows because their starting points leave them with no specific weaknesses or flaws for them to identify or overcome. The two characters that should have received the most attention on a storytelling level make it through the entire game with their personalities, worldviews, and behaviors essentially remaining static. Not even the attempts at comedy truly salvage the characterization, but the gameplay does an admirable effort of rescuing the game from utter blandness.
Gameplay
Indeed, it is the combat and (limited) exploration that mark the best aspects of Ratchet & Clank. The weapons, in contrast to the story, are unique, some of them being new additions to the franchise. One weapon turns enemies into sheep (this gun, called the Sheepinator, is featured in the animated companion film), while another gun called the Pixelator literally turns enemies into pixelated forms that can be obliterated in a burst of pixels. A flamethrower, rocket launcher, disco ball, and grenade model are among the other combat options, so there is an abundance of variety.
Platforming elements do periodically appear in the course of finishing the main story, as do vehicle sections, but both take an obvious backseat to the emphasis on action. There are also set pieces where Clank must navigate an environment on his own, using other bots for various purposes (like forming bridges or powering doors). While the shooting is a bigger element of the game, some of Clank's puzzles provide a respite from fighting that complements the majority of the gameplay well. However, there is only a small handful of these sections. Clank is often situated on Ratchet's back.
For players seeking greater challenges, a new game plus mode is unlocked upon initial completion of the story objectives, which contains a bolt multiplier mechanic, new opportunities for weapon upgrades, and access to all of one's current weapons from the start of the playthrough. The enemies become tougher, but the additional upgrades are quite useful--although the ability to purchase the "Omega" variations of weapons, a requirement for obtaining those new upgrades, depends on whether players have found all holocards in a specific set.
Story
Some spoilers are below!
An alien named Ratchet meets a small robot called Clank following the latter's escape from a war factory and crash landing, the two of them becoming members of the Space Rangers, a group of galactic pseudo-superheroes led by the consistently selfish and lazy Captain Qwark. The task at hand is the destruction of a superweapon called the Deplanetizer, which is intended for use by the owner of a dangerous corporation. Relatively little actually occurs in the story beyond this other than a revelation about a secondary character.
Intellectual Content
There are collectibles for completionists to hunt down, but mandatory puzzles must be completed while playing as Clank during specific parts of the game when he is separated from Ratchet. These puzzles involve using other robots for specific purposes as mentioned in the gameplay section. Some of them might require some trial and error on the part of players; not all of them are solvable after several moments of observing the layout of the room and the available robots.
Conclusion
Ratchet & Clank offers excellent gameplay without a quality story to ground it, but the former is all that many players need to enjoy the game. The weapons, gadgets, and environments are clearly the best parts of this reboot. While following the plot of the film ultimately limits and hurts the game, it is not as if there is nothing worthwhile in the PS4 version of Ratchet & Clank.
Content:
1. Violence: Some enemy types burst out of existence when killed, but most of the shooting and deaths are bloodless.
--Clank, Ratchet & Clank (2016)
The Ratchet & Clank series does not have the same contemporary popularity as Sony's God of War and Uncharted franchises, but it has still received some relatively recent attention thanks to the 2016 game that bears the exact name of the series. A reboot and reimagining of the original 2002 title, the PS4 Ratchet & Clank game is an amalgam of excellence, mediocrity, and incompetence: different aspects of the game possess wildly different levels of quality. This becomes apparent within the first few "levels" (planets), but there are still potential reasons to try the game regardless of this inconsistency.
Production Values
The production values of this PS4 reboot are quite mixed, as the visuals are stellar (with some very occasional frame rate drops), but the dialogue and characterization are weak at best. Since the game is affiliated with a 2016 movie of the same name, the story of the former is confined to that of the film. The overlap is more significant than some might expect. Some of the cutscenes in the game are actual scenes from the movie--the uniqueness of this overlap does not excuse the poor quality of the writing, but it is an achievement that few, if any, other games have reached.
One of the worst aspects of the writing is the sheer lack of depth in the characters. Only a single character actually has a somewhat overt arc over the course of the game, and he is a side character who mostly shows up in scattered cutscenes. Neither Ratchet nor Clank grows because their starting points leave them with no specific weaknesses or flaws for them to identify or overcome. The two characters that should have received the most attention on a storytelling level make it through the entire game with their personalities, worldviews, and behaviors essentially remaining static. Not even the attempts at comedy truly salvage the characterization, but the gameplay does an admirable effort of rescuing the game from utter blandness.
Gameplay
Indeed, it is the combat and (limited) exploration that mark the best aspects of Ratchet & Clank. The weapons, in contrast to the story, are unique, some of them being new additions to the franchise. One weapon turns enemies into sheep (this gun, called the Sheepinator, is featured in the animated companion film), while another gun called the Pixelator literally turns enemies into pixelated forms that can be obliterated in a burst of pixels. A flamethrower, rocket launcher, disco ball, and grenade model are among the other combat options, so there is an abundance of variety.
Platforming elements do periodically appear in the course of finishing the main story, as do vehicle sections, but both take an obvious backseat to the emphasis on action. There are also set pieces where Clank must navigate an environment on his own, using other bots for various purposes (like forming bridges or powering doors). While the shooting is a bigger element of the game, some of Clank's puzzles provide a respite from fighting that complements the majority of the gameplay well. However, there is only a small handful of these sections. Clank is often situated on Ratchet's back.
For players seeking greater challenges, a new game plus mode is unlocked upon initial completion of the story objectives, which contains a bolt multiplier mechanic, new opportunities for weapon upgrades, and access to all of one's current weapons from the start of the playthrough. The enemies become tougher, but the additional upgrades are quite useful--although the ability to purchase the "Omega" variations of weapons, a requirement for obtaining those new upgrades, depends on whether players have found all holocards in a specific set.
Story
Some spoilers are below!
An alien named Ratchet meets a small robot called Clank following the latter's escape from a war factory and crash landing, the two of them becoming members of the Space Rangers, a group of galactic pseudo-superheroes led by the consistently selfish and lazy Captain Qwark. The task at hand is the destruction of a superweapon called the Deplanetizer, which is intended for use by the owner of a dangerous corporation. Relatively little actually occurs in the story beyond this other than a revelation about a secondary character.
Intellectual Content
There are collectibles for completionists to hunt down, but mandatory puzzles must be completed while playing as Clank during specific parts of the game when he is separated from Ratchet. These puzzles involve using other robots for specific purposes as mentioned in the gameplay section. Some of them might require some trial and error on the part of players; not all of them are solvable after several moments of observing the layout of the room and the available robots.
Conclusion
Ratchet & Clank offers excellent gameplay without a quality story to ground it, but the former is all that many players need to enjoy the game. The weapons, gadgets, and environments are clearly the best parts of this reboot. While following the plot of the film ultimately limits and hurts the game, it is not as if there is nothing worthwhile in the PS4 version of Ratchet & Clank.
Content:
1. Violence: Some enemy types burst out of existence when killed, but most of the shooting and deaths are bloodless.
The Whole Of Physics Is Probabilistic
When summarizing the differences between standard and quantum physics, a common claim is that standard physics is predictable, while quantum physics is shrouded in unpredictability and general uncertainty. It is often said that quantum physics is probabilistic (with exact particle locations at a given time being unknown), whereas "normal" physics is referenced as if it is not. Although this description of the gap between the two scales of physics is popular, it usually has the consequence of thoroughly misrepresenting the nature of science as a whole to the average person.
Placing explicit emphasis on the probabilistic nature of contemporary models of quantum physics can be highly misleading because the unspoken but implied premise is that scientific occurrences at the macroscale are not probabilistic. Many examples of the probabilistic nature of "ordinary" science can be cited. Can anyone prove that the sun will rise tomorrow morning? Can anyone prove that the next rock to fall into a lake will sink? Can anyone prove that the laws of electromagnetism will persist beyond the next five minutes? While many people would find these questions odd and perhaps even somewhat alarming, it is impossible to prove that any of these things will or must happen. In one sense, all of science is as probabilistic as quantum physics!
We are simply more familiar with sensory experiences at the scale of the macroworld than we are with hypothetical or actual particle behaviors at the quantum scale, but this does not mean that "ordinary" scientific events are not just as probabilistic as alleged quantum events. On the contrary, the only reason one can anticipate what will happen if a book is dropped is recalled experiences of previous events: it seems most probable that what happened before in the same circumstances will happen again. There is and can be no guarantee, short of absolute omniscience about the matter, that any scientific laws will remain constant even a moment into a future. As such, it is not as if quantum physics is the only area of science surrounded by uncertainty.
Whether a given scientific law still applies at the current time is discovered on a moment by moment basis, and this is as true of the macroworld as it is of quantum physics. In this regard, there is simply not much of a distinction between reported phenomena at the subatomic level and everyday phenomena that are experienced by the typical person. The only place that one can obtain absolute certainty is the realm of logic, which governs all of our experiences, from the most banal, everyday occurrences to the most abstract or introspective contemplations; the whole of science is derived from probabilistic premises, and that includes every branch of physics.
Placing explicit emphasis on the probabilistic nature of contemporary models of quantum physics can be highly misleading because the unspoken but implied premise is that scientific occurrences at the macroscale are not probabilistic. Many examples of the probabilistic nature of "ordinary" science can be cited. Can anyone prove that the sun will rise tomorrow morning? Can anyone prove that the next rock to fall into a lake will sink? Can anyone prove that the laws of electromagnetism will persist beyond the next five minutes? While many people would find these questions odd and perhaps even somewhat alarming, it is impossible to prove that any of these things will or must happen. In one sense, all of science is as probabilistic as quantum physics!
We are simply more familiar with sensory experiences at the scale of the macroworld than we are with hypothetical or actual particle behaviors at the quantum scale, but this does not mean that "ordinary" scientific events are not just as probabilistic as alleged quantum events. On the contrary, the only reason one can anticipate what will happen if a book is dropped is recalled experiences of previous events: it seems most probable that what happened before in the same circumstances will happen again. There is and can be no guarantee, short of absolute omniscience about the matter, that any scientific laws will remain constant even a moment into a future. As such, it is not as if quantum physics is the only area of science surrounded by uncertainty.
Whether a given scientific law still applies at the current time is discovered on a moment by moment basis, and this is as true of the macroworld as it is of quantum physics. In this regard, there is simply not much of a distinction between reported phenomena at the subatomic level and everyday phenomena that are experienced by the typical person. The only place that one can obtain absolute certainty is the realm of logic, which governs all of our experiences, from the most banal, everyday occurrences to the most abstract or introspective contemplations; the whole of science is derived from probabilistic premises, and that includes every branch of physics.
Friday, September 13, 2019
The Connectedness Of Humanity And Nature
Specific causes and effects in the external world cannot be linked together with absolute certainty, and physical effects in the environment might even have causes that are ultimately supernatural in nature [1], but it is still true that there are obvious correlations between environmental factors and human flourishing. There is a clear connection between humanity and nature, even if it cannot ultimately be demonstrated to be anything beyond a series of very strong and persistent correlative relationships that impact both sides. It should be easy for anyone to grasp a fundamental fact about the matter: since humans live in their environment, any connection between the two is vital to the former.
Humans do not flourish when their physical surroundings are dangerous, inconsistent, or likely to deteriorate faster than they can adapt to. What person who values their wellbeing and comfort would live in a home expected to collapse on them at any time without putting any effort into either trying to find a new home or repair the current one? In all likelihood, very few, if any, would opt to simply ignore the problems with their habitation! As soon as the house is replaced by the even grander scope of the broad environment, however, there are many who would adopt a stance that entails apathy, delayed reaction, or minimal concern.
It is destructive to trivialize the aforementioned correlations between the wellbeing of humankind and kf the planet, as the integrity of human civilization itself hinges on these connections, regardless of where a given society resides geographically. Despite this, some Christians do not deeply consider the fact that treating the environment well can make the planet a better home for human life. Going beyond this, some are not even interested in contemplating the subject at all! This is an ironically unbiblical stance to hold. Genesis does place humans in a category above animals and inanimate aspects of the natural world (neither animals nor the environment is made in God's image), and yet to fail to impact the environment in a neutral or positive way is detrimental to the quality of human life.
It is irrational and damaging to misinterpret the Biblical emphasis of humanity over the environment to mean that ignoring the environment is somehow an indicator of moral correctness--or that it is somehow respectful to the contents of the Bible. If one cares about the humans made in God's image, one of the most asinine things to do is disregard the very world that contains them. At best, to do so reveals an incomplete concern for humans and the deity responsible for the material world to begin with. While learning about the specific correlations between human and environmental events might be challenging, there is no intellectual or Biblical excuse for denying the importance of the environment's role in human life.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/08/physical-effects-do-not-require.html
Humans do not flourish when their physical surroundings are dangerous, inconsistent, or likely to deteriorate faster than they can adapt to. What person who values their wellbeing and comfort would live in a home expected to collapse on them at any time without putting any effort into either trying to find a new home or repair the current one? In all likelihood, very few, if any, would opt to simply ignore the problems with their habitation! As soon as the house is replaced by the even grander scope of the broad environment, however, there are many who would adopt a stance that entails apathy, delayed reaction, or minimal concern.
It is destructive to trivialize the aforementioned correlations between the wellbeing of humankind and kf the planet, as the integrity of human civilization itself hinges on these connections, regardless of where a given society resides geographically. Despite this, some Christians do not deeply consider the fact that treating the environment well can make the planet a better home for human life. Going beyond this, some are not even interested in contemplating the subject at all! This is an ironically unbiblical stance to hold. Genesis does place humans in a category above animals and inanimate aspects of the natural world (neither animals nor the environment is made in God's image), and yet to fail to impact the environment in a neutral or positive way is detrimental to the quality of human life.
It is irrational and damaging to misinterpret the Biblical emphasis of humanity over the environment to mean that ignoring the environment is somehow an indicator of moral correctness--or that it is somehow respectful to the contents of the Bible. If one cares about the humans made in God's image, one of the most asinine things to do is disregard the very world that contains them. At best, to do so reveals an incomplete concern for humans and the deity responsible for the material world to begin with. While learning about the specific correlations between human and environmental events might be challenging, there is no intellectual or Biblical excuse for denying the importance of the environment's role in human life.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/08/physical-effects-do-not-require.html
Monday, September 9, 2019
Human Exceptionalism And Biblical Animal Rights
Far too many Christians only seriously contemplate Biblical animal rights if they are in a fairly close proximity to obvious or gratuitous brutality to an animal species they are especially fond of. A more proactive framework is called for by several passages in the Old Testament, the part of the Bible often misrepresented as teaching cruelty and selfishness. Contrary to this misconception, the Old Testament has a very high view of animals in general! While Genesis 1-2 plainly elevate humans above animals, it does not logically follow from the tenets of human exceptionalism that animals should be neglected, abused, or exploited, and the Bible certainly makes it clear that the superior value of humans does not mean that animals can be treated in any way at all.
There are several specific verses that deserve the attention of anyone interested in Biblical animal rights. Exodus 23:4-5 goes so far as to demand that one not ignore the plight of a donkey or ox that belong to one's enemies, with Deuteronomy 22:1-3 extending this command to apply to any animal belonging to one's neighbor. Later in Deuteronomy 22, Mosaic Law even commands that one not take both a mother bird and its children simultaneously (22:6-7). It is also worth noting that Proverbs 12:10 overtly says that one sign of moral character is how one treat's one's animals. These passages alone establish that the Bible regards animals as having the right to not be ignored, neglected, or treated with gratuitous harshness, especially if they are a farm animal or pet that belongs to someone nearby. It is an enormous mistake to think that the Biblical God is unconcerned with how animals, both domestic and wild, are treated.
It would likewise be a mistake, however, to conclude that the Bible's explicit condemnations of animal abuse mean that the abuse of humans and that of animals are morally equivalent, as if there is no distinction in the metaphysical value of each category of beings (yes, animal can be defined to include humans, but here I use the word animal to refer to non-human biological creatures). Mosaic Law clarifies that to equate the two is indeed erroneous. Only humans bear the image of God, after all. For instance, the needless killing of an animal is not prescribed the same punishment assigned to the murder of humans (Exodus 21:12-14). Furthermore, stealing an animal is punished by financial means or by temporary servitude (Exodus 22:1-3), whereas the abduction of a person is to be followed by capital punishment (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7).
The only major example of the same punishment being given to a specific abuse of either humans or animals is the death penalty being attached to the rape of a human (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) and to bestiality (Exodus 22:19), which is ultimately the rape of an animal that cannot verbally provide consent. That is not to say that the nonconsensual nature of bestiality (in at least most cases) is the only reason why it is Biblically immoral; it is simply the case that it is a major aspect of bestiality that needs to be acknowledged. When it comes to nonsexual forms of physical abuse or mistreatment, though, Mosaic Law clearly distinguishes between the severity of crimes against animals and those against other humans, including in the aforementioned examples of theft and murder.
There is a nuance to the Biblical stance on animal rights that is so often ignored by many who identify as Christians. On one hand, conservative Christians are usually not consistent or thorough in their positions on animal treatment, tending to take a reactive stance on animal abuse; on the other hand, liberal Christians tend to overestimate the significance of animals within the Christian worldview. Animals, like other humans, seem to be sentient beings (with Biblical ethics revolving around phenomenology [1]), and the Bible's prohibition of certain forms of animal treatment demonstrate that the Christian stance on animal rights is that animals do indeed have rights--but rights that are distinctly not as important as those of the only species that bears God's image.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-relationship-between-consciousness.html
There are several specific verses that deserve the attention of anyone interested in Biblical animal rights. Exodus 23:4-5 goes so far as to demand that one not ignore the plight of a donkey or ox that belong to one's enemies, with Deuteronomy 22:1-3 extending this command to apply to any animal belonging to one's neighbor. Later in Deuteronomy 22, Mosaic Law even commands that one not take both a mother bird and its children simultaneously (22:6-7). It is also worth noting that Proverbs 12:10 overtly says that one sign of moral character is how one treat's one's animals. These passages alone establish that the Bible regards animals as having the right to not be ignored, neglected, or treated with gratuitous harshness, especially if they are a farm animal or pet that belongs to someone nearby. It is an enormous mistake to think that the Biblical God is unconcerned with how animals, both domestic and wild, are treated.
It would likewise be a mistake, however, to conclude that the Bible's explicit condemnations of animal abuse mean that the abuse of humans and that of animals are morally equivalent, as if there is no distinction in the metaphysical value of each category of beings (yes, animal can be defined to include humans, but here I use the word animal to refer to non-human biological creatures). Mosaic Law clarifies that to equate the two is indeed erroneous. Only humans bear the image of God, after all. For instance, the needless killing of an animal is not prescribed the same punishment assigned to the murder of humans (Exodus 21:12-14). Furthermore, stealing an animal is punished by financial means or by temporary servitude (Exodus 22:1-3), whereas the abduction of a person is to be followed by capital punishment (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7).
The only major example of the same punishment being given to a specific abuse of either humans or animals is the death penalty being attached to the rape of a human (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) and to bestiality (Exodus 22:19), which is ultimately the rape of an animal that cannot verbally provide consent. That is not to say that the nonconsensual nature of bestiality (in at least most cases) is the only reason why it is Biblically immoral; it is simply the case that it is a major aspect of bestiality that needs to be acknowledged. When it comes to nonsexual forms of physical abuse or mistreatment, though, Mosaic Law clearly distinguishes between the severity of crimes against animals and those against other humans, including in the aforementioned examples of theft and murder.
There is a nuance to the Biblical stance on animal rights that is so often ignored by many who identify as Christians. On one hand, conservative Christians are usually not consistent or thorough in their positions on animal treatment, tending to take a reactive stance on animal abuse; on the other hand, liberal Christians tend to overestimate the significance of animals within the Christian worldview. Animals, like other humans, seem to be sentient beings (with Biblical ethics revolving around phenomenology [1]), and the Bible's prohibition of certain forms of animal treatment demonstrate that the Christian stance on animal rights is that animals do indeed have rights--but rights that are distinctly not as important as those of the only species that bears God's image.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-relationship-between-consciousness.html
Sunday, September 8, 2019
Exclusion From Eternal Life
Despite the many stupidities involved in doing so, the general evangelical world continues to trivialize the idea that eternal death is a deterrent to sinful inclinations or worth referring to as a punishment at all. Other annihilationists have refuted many of the contradictions, fallacies, and errors this trivialization entails, but some of the ramifications are never explicitly brought up. Those who mistakenly believe the Bible teaches eternal conscious torment for all unsaved beings display enormous disparities between their actions and their professed theological claims not only with regard to the punitive nature of death and annihilation, but also with regard to the nature of pleasure.
Evangelicals might say that a relationship with God grounds the greatest pleasures while treating annihilation--and the inherent banishment from these pleasures within annihilation--as if it is hardly a punishment for sin. Moreover, they might even selectively live in appreciation of morally legitimate pleasures, only to not even consider the connection between a spiritually fulfilling life and the prerequisite of existence. I scarcely ever see an emphasis on the relationship between existence and pleasure get explored in the specific context of conditional immortality and annihilationism, much less in the broader context of hell and divine punishment.
This is hardly surprising to a rationalistic Christian, of course. Christians have historically tended to reject the positivity of pleasure according to a Biblical worldview and have even more overtly rejected the Biblical doctrine of conditional immortality, making it unlikely that contemporary Christians with a gratuitous respect for church history would ever connect these dots on their own. Even for such Christians, it should take hardly any time for them to admit, when pressed, that the lasting death of one's consciousness means a permanent exile from even the most basic or important pleasures.
While bodily pleasures can be quite powerful, one could experience at least some pleasures as a disembodied consciousness--in other words, all pleasure requires a mind to experience it, but not all pleasure requires a body. Pleasure cannot be experienced without conscious existence. The permanent death of consciousness is the exclusion from not only eternal life, but also from whatever joys eternal life might contain and the chance to ever experience those joys again. Never again to experience intellectual, spiritual, social, or sensual pleasures, an annihilated person is exiled from existence itself, cut off from Yahweh, the source of all contingent minds (Acts 17:25 and 17:28, 1 Timothy 6:16). There is no opportunity for life to be savored; there is no chance to mend one's relationship with the being that sustains all life.
What person who has experienced or craved genuine pleasure would so casually dismiss the loss associated with eternal death? What Christian who understands the potential depth and pleasure a restored relationship with God allows for would so casually pronounce the second death a trivial punishment? It is stupidity that keeps most Christians from embracing conditional immortality, not a love of truth or Scriptural doctrines. Any Christian who truly desires to have a deep relationship with God or to relish legitimate pleasures of other kinds would never scoff at the thought of annihilation. No intelligent Christian pits Biblical Christianity against the mere pursuit of pleasure, and no intelligent Christian would trivialize the pleasures of a sincere relationship with God by pretending like the second death is of little to no consequence unless it entails endless torment.
Evangelicals might say that a relationship with God grounds the greatest pleasures while treating annihilation--and the inherent banishment from these pleasures within annihilation--as if it is hardly a punishment for sin. Moreover, they might even selectively live in appreciation of morally legitimate pleasures, only to not even consider the connection between a spiritually fulfilling life and the prerequisite of existence. I scarcely ever see an emphasis on the relationship between existence and pleasure get explored in the specific context of conditional immortality and annihilationism, much less in the broader context of hell and divine punishment.
This is hardly surprising to a rationalistic Christian, of course. Christians have historically tended to reject the positivity of pleasure according to a Biblical worldview and have even more overtly rejected the Biblical doctrine of conditional immortality, making it unlikely that contemporary Christians with a gratuitous respect for church history would ever connect these dots on their own. Even for such Christians, it should take hardly any time for them to admit, when pressed, that the lasting death of one's consciousness means a permanent exile from even the most basic or important pleasures.
While bodily pleasures can be quite powerful, one could experience at least some pleasures as a disembodied consciousness--in other words, all pleasure requires a mind to experience it, but not all pleasure requires a body. Pleasure cannot be experienced without conscious existence. The permanent death of consciousness is the exclusion from not only eternal life, but also from whatever joys eternal life might contain and the chance to ever experience those joys again. Never again to experience intellectual, spiritual, social, or sensual pleasures, an annihilated person is exiled from existence itself, cut off from Yahweh, the source of all contingent minds (Acts 17:25 and 17:28, 1 Timothy 6:16). There is no opportunity for life to be savored; there is no chance to mend one's relationship with the being that sustains all life.
What person who has experienced or craved genuine pleasure would so casually dismiss the loss associated with eternal death? What Christian who understands the potential depth and pleasure a restored relationship with God allows for would so casually pronounce the second death a trivial punishment? It is stupidity that keeps most Christians from embracing conditional immortality, not a love of truth or Scriptural doctrines. Any Christian who truly desires to have a deep relationship with God or to relish legitimate pleasures of other kinds would never scoff at the thought of annihilation. No intelligent Christian pits Biblical Christianity against the mere pursuit of pleasure, and no intelligent Christian would trivialize the pleasures of a sincere relationship with God by pretending like the second death is of little to no consequence unless it entails endless torment.
Saturday, September 7, 2019
Clarifying The Nature Of Vulture Capitalism
The core tenets of capitalism, like those of basic communism, are often misrepresented by a society that would rather distort or deny facts than concede that it is largely ruled by its emotions. Capitalism is often described as an inherently predatory system, and sometimes even its proponents might describe it in such a manner, only to embrace what they perceive to be its predatory aspects as long as they can benefit from them. A particular strategy for wealth-building called vulture capitalism even bears a title that many might regard as negative. However, vulture capitalism is not an intrinsically unethical approach to business.
Venture capitalism entails the purchase or financial support of companies with a high potential, with venture capitalists receiving some sort of returns for their investment. Vulture capitalism, more specifically, is a subset of venture capitalism that pertains to the purchase of struggling firms with the intent of rescuing them from bankruptcy or dissolution--for personal profit, of course. Due to the vulnerability of the acquired companies and the aggressive tactics some purchasers employ, vulture capitalism tends to have a distinctly negative reputation even in the Western world.
Some who otherwise like capitalism might criticize vulture capitalism due to some of its exploitative applications, especially when the emoyees of an acquired firm are tossed aside without regard for their futures or for any company loyalty on their part. Is firing unnecessary employees immoral, though? Of course not! It is only the reasons for the firing, the execution of the firing, or the motives behind the firing that can be unethical. There is neither a corporate benefit nor moral obligation to keeping unneeded employees in a firm's workforce.
Even vulture capitalism does not have to be executed with a predatory lack of concern for the wellbeing of employees in the acquired firms. Reputations can be heinously deceptive, and the general reputation of capitalism can be quite misleading, as those who love capitalism often treat it as a moral or practical necessity (sometimes only because they particularly benefit from it, rather than because they have sound arguments in its favor), while those who despise capitalism are often reacting to the actions of specific self-proclaimed capitalists that are irrelevant to the nature of capitalism as an ideology.
Both an intense love or hatred of capitalism are nothing but subjective states of mind that have nothing to do with the morality of the system. Loving or hating the potential consequences of an economic stance is irrelevant to the issue itself, and yet many conservatives and liberals alike exaggerate the moral aspects of foundational economic ideas in order to appease their emotions. Neither capitalism nor communism (which can be entirely voluntary), contrary to common myths, is oppressive in itself. The ways in which the two are implemented determine whether or not a given application of either is morally flawed. Capitalism can be pursued without greed or disregard for others, and communism can be applied in a voluntary manner.
Like technology, capitalism--even vulture capitalism--is amoral on its own, although it does certainly have the potential to enrich the lives of those who participate in it. The idea that capitalism is an inherently benevolent or malicious economic system is logically false; it is the people who engage in capitalistic practices who decide if they do so in a selfish manner or one that benefits others--or at least does not exploit them. Baseline capitalistic ideas do not have any intrinsic gravitation towards one moral idea or another, but there are many fools eager to proclaim otherwise. Most claims about economics, like most claims about philosophy, politics, and ethics in general, are nonsense.
Venture capitalism entails the purchase or financial support of companies with a high potential, with venture capitalists receiving some sort of returns for their investment. Vulture capitalism, more specifically, is a subset of venture capitalism that pertains to the purchase of struggling firms with the intent of rescuing them from bankruptcy or dissolution--for personal profit, of course. Due to the vulnerability of the acquired companies and the aggressive tactics some purchasers employ, vulture capitalism tends to have a distinctly negative reputation even in the Western world.
Some who otherwise like capitalism might criticize vulture capitalism due to some of its exploitative applications, especially when the emoyees of an acquired firm are tossed aside without regard for their futures or for any company loyalty on their part. Is firing unnecessary employees immoral, though? Of course not! It is only the reasons for the firing, the execution of the firing, or the motives behind the firing that can be unethical. There is neither a corporate benefit nor moral obligation to keeping unneeded employees in a firm's workforce.
Even vulture capitalism does not have to be executed with a predatory lack of concern for the wellbeing of employees in the acquired firms. Reputations can be heinously deceptive, and the general reputation of capitalism can be quite misleading, as those who love capitalism often treat it as a moral or practical necessity (sometimes only because they particularly benefit from it, rather than because they have sound arguments in its favor), while those who despise capitalism are often reacting to the actions of specific self-proclaimed capitalists that are irrelevant to the nature of capitalism as an ideology.
Both an intense love or hatred of capitalism are nothing but subjective states of mind that have nothing to do with the morality of the system. Loving or hating the potential consequences of an economic stance is irrelevant to the issue itself, and yet many conservatives and liberals alike exaggerate the moral aspects of foundational economic ideas in order to appease their emotions. Neither capitalism nor communism (which can be entirely voluntary), contrary to common myths, is oppressive in itself. The ways in which the two are implemented determine whether or not a given application of either is morally flawed. Capitalism can be pursued without greed or disregard for others, and communism can be applied in a voluntary manner.
Like technology, capitalism--even vulture capitalism--is amoral on its own, although it does certainly have the potential to enrich the lives of those who participate in it. The idea that capitalism is an inherently benevolent or malicious economic system is logically false; it is the people who engage in capitalistic practices who decide if they do so in a selfish manner or one that benefits others--or at least does not exploit them. Baseline capitalistic ideas do not have any intrinsic gravitation towards one moral idea or another, but there are many fools eager to proclaim otherwise. Most claims about economics, like most claims about philosophy, politics, and ethics in general, are nonsense.
Friday, September 6, 2019
Movie Review--It: Chapter Two
"I am the eater of worlds."
--Pennywise, It: Chapter Two
It: Chapter One may not have been a frightening experience for many viewers, but it proved to be one of the most ambitious and well-executed horror films of all time, shattering expectations for child acting in the process. While It: Chapter Two does not have the same consistency of quality that is so prominent in its predecessor, the stellar performances, scattered revelations about Pennywise's nature, and sporadic but brutal killing scenes will almost certainly leave many fans of the first movie satisfied enough to enjoy the film.
At almost three hours, it rivals Avengers: Endgame in length, but most of the scenes truly do contribute something worthwhile to the overall structure of the movie. There are long stretches with relatively little action, and yet these periods develop onscreen confirmation of the fact that adult life can be just as terrifying as that of a child--for reasons that sometimes have nothing at all to do with Pennywise and his legion of illusions. Ultimately, It: Chapter Two is at its best when the relationships shared by the grown members of the Loser's Club are at the forefront.
Production Values
I often start the production values section by addressing the visuals and audio of a film (which are largely great here), but the strongest aspects of the production values here are definitely the writing and acting. The older members of the Loser's Club interact with an open intimacy and vulnerability that are missing from far too many adult friendships, all thanks to excellent acting on the part of each member of the adult cast. Bill Hader specifically stands out for a very comedic but sentimental performance, while James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain, and the other adult actors very capably step into their own roles. McAvoy does not get the chance to display the same wide range that he does in Split and Glass, but he does not need to in order for his character to convey his guilt over the death of his brother and eventual acceptance of the matter.
The returning child actors likewise offer excellent performances that complement those of their adult counterparts very well. There is much to praise about the individual representations of the young Beverly, Bill, Ben, Eddie, and other kids, with the scenes that feature some or all of the young members of the Loser's Club tying into the present day struggle to stop Pennywise from ever killing again. An even greater sign of production talent, though, is the fact that the children and adult versions of each character are superb matches. The adults often physically look exactly like what one might expect the children to grow into and carry on the personalities already established in It: Chapter One. This consistency benefits the drama, but it also benefits the comedy.
Since the runtime of the movie has already been directly compared to that of Endgame, one of the only movies this year with a scope that eclipses that of this film, it is worth mentioning that It: Chapter Two handles its comedy far better than Endgame does. There is more genuine humor than many viewers might expect; nevertheless, it never overpowers the drama or urgency of the final attempt to kill Pennywise. Scenes that call solely for regret, despair, or sadness are left unravaged by attempts to make audience members laugh. Between Ready or Not, It: Chapter Two, and (to some extent) the reboot of Child's Play, 2019 has showcased some great examples of how to merge horror with comedy without having to pit one against the other!
Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise, as one might expect, deserves his own paragraph. His clown form is reserved for only a small handful of scenes, but the actor is still phenomenal when he does appear. The Loser's Club encounters alternate creatures more frequently than they do Pennywise himself, and it is unclear if these apparitions are other forms of "It" or merely illusions, but Pennywise is more vicious than in the first film when he does directly kill or attack people (especially children). One scene with a young girl is particularly effective at showing how he can manipulate kids into a state of vulnerability so that he can consume them, alluding to his conversation with Georgie at the beginning of It: Chapter One. Pennywise might not have a lot of time onscreen, but he is utilized very well nonetheless.
Story
Some spoilers are below!
As a new wave of Pennywise killings strikes the town of Derry, the only member of the Loser's Club that never left the area after childhood calls the ones that left the town, informing them that they need to return to confront "It." Since he has remained in Derry, he remembers the traumatic events of his childhood rather well, but the other members of the Loser's club experience a deep amnesia about their relationship with the town and with Pennywise. As the others return, they begin to recall the horrors they once faced, hoping to engage in a ritual that could kill "It."
Intellectual Content
Few films truly emphasize sensory illusions in a way that intentionally or unintentionally highlights how one can only use one's senses to prove that some sort of matter exists [1] and that one is perceiving a given set of stimuli. There is nothing more that one's senses can ultimately reveal about reality. Given the overt uses of grand illusions throughout the film, it was very fitting for It: Chapter Two to go beyond this and allow a failed attempt to kill Pennywise with a sharp object to affirm that belief does not dictate truth. Before the final confrontation, Beverly gives Eddie a weapon, telling him that it can kill monsters if he believes it can, but it does not do anything more than briefly slow Pennywise. Ultimately, it is truth that defeats Pennywise, not belief--a thematic point that is long overdue in the world of entertainment. Belief is worthless unless it aligns with reality, after all, and it is time for cinema to finally acknowledge this on a consistent basis.
Conclusion
It: Chapter Two will probably disappoint many viewers with its unusual length, but fans of the 2017 adaption willing to invest the time required will likely love the acting and continuation of the first half of the story. Either way, this does not seem to be the last competent movie based on a Stephen King novel for 2019: I eagerly await the release of Doctor Sleep, the sequel to The Shining, in November! Since Stephen King himself had a Stan Lee-like cameo in It: Chapter Two and since the novelizations of The Shining, Doctor Sleep, and It all occur in the same universe, the sequel to It might be using the cameo to foreshadow a larger cinematic universe of Stephen King screen adaptions. We will be able to find out fairly soon!
Content:
1. Violence: There are relatively few killings, but the occasional deaths of children often involve more viciousness than os typical of movie deaths. One scene shows dismembered bodies of children floating out of Derry's sewers.
2. Profanity: "Mild" to "strong" profanity is used throughout a great deal of the film.
3. Nudity: Blurred male nudity is shown in the background of an early scene. In another scene, a demonic apparition taking the form of an old, naked woman is shown.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/matter-is-not-illusion.html
--Pennywise, It: Chapter Two
It: Chapter One may not have been a frightening experience for many viewers, but it proved to be one of the most ambitious and well-executed horror films of all time, shattering expectations for child acting in the process. While It: Chapter Two does not have the same consistency of quality that is so prominent in its predecessor, the stellar performances, scattered revelations about Pennywise's nature, and sporadic but brutal killing scenes will almost certainly leave many fans of the first movie satisfied enough to enjoy the film.
At almost three hours, it rivals Avengers: Endgame in length, but most of the scenes truly do contribute something worthwhile to the overall structure of the movie. There are long stretches with relatively little action, and yet these periods develop onscreen confirmation of the fact that adult life can be just as terrifying as that of a child--for reasons that sometimes have nothing at all to do with Pennywise and his legion of illusions. Ultimately, It: Chapter Two is at its best when the relationships shared by the grown members of the Loser's Club are at the forefront.
Production Values
I often start the production values section by addressing the visuals and audio of a film (which are largely great here), but the strongest aspects of the production values here are definitely the writing and acting. The older members of the Loser's Club interact with an open intimacy and vulnerability that are missing from far too many adult friendships, all thanks to excellent acting on the part of each member of the adult cast. Bill Hader specifically stands out for a very comedic but sentimental performance, while James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain, and the other adult actors very capably step into their own roles. McAvoy does not get the chance to display the same wide range that he does in Split and Glass, but he does not need to in order for his character to convey his guilt over the death of his brother and eventual acceptance of the matter.
The returning child actors likewise offer excellent performances that complement those of their adult counterparts very well. There is much to praise about the individual representations of the young Beverly, Bill, Ben, Eddie, and other kids, with the scenes that feature some or all of the young members of the Loser's Club tying into the present day struggle to stop Pennywise from ever killing again. An even greater sign of production talent, though, is the fact that the children and adult versions of each character are superb matches. The adults often physically look exactly like what one might expect the children to grow into and carry on the personalities already established in It: Chapter One. This consistency benefits the drama, but it also benefits the comedy.
Since the runtime of the movie has already been directly compared to that of Endgame, one of the only movies this year with a scope that eclipses that of this film, it is worth mentioning that It: Chapter Two handles its comedy far better than Endgame does. There is more genuine humor than many viewers might expect; nevertheless, it never overpowers the drama or urgency of the final attempt to kill Pennywise. Scenes that call solely for regret, despair, or sadness are left unravaged by attempts to make audience members laugh. Between Ready or Not, It: Chapter Two, and (to some extent) the reboot of Child's Play, 2019 has showcased some great examples of how to merge horror with comedy without having to pit one against the other!
Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise, as one might expect, deserves his own paragraph. His clown form is reserved for only a small handful of scenes, but the actor is still phenomenal when he does appear. The Loser's Club encounters alternate creatures more frequently than they do Pennywise himself, and it is unclear if these apparitions are other forms of "It" or merely illusions, but Pennywise is more vicious than in the first film when he does directly kill or attack people (especially children). One scene with a young girl is particularly effective at showing how he can manipulate kids into a state of vulnerability so that he can consume them, alluding to his conversation with Georgie at the beginning of It: Chapter One. Pennywise might not have a lot of time onscreen, but he is utilized very well nonetheless.
Story
Some spoilers are below!
As a new wave of Pennywise killings strikes the town of Derry, the only member of the Loser's Club that never left the area after childhood calls the ones that left the town, informing them that they need to return to confront "It." Since he has remained in Derry, he remembers the traumatic events of his childhood rather well, but the other members of the Loser's club experience a deep amnesia about their relationship with the town and with Pennywise. As the others return, they begin to recall the horrors they once faced, hoping to engage in a ritual that could kill "It."
Intellectual Content
Few films truly emphasize sensory illusions in a way that intentionally or unintentionally highlights how one can only use one's senses to prove that some sort of matter exists [1] and that one is perceiving a given set of stimuli. There is nothing more that one's senses can ultimately reveal about reality. Given the overt uses of grand illusions throughout the film, it was very fitting for It: Chapter Two to go beyond this and allow a failed attempt to kill Pennywise with a sharp object to affirm that belief does not dictate truth. Before the final confrontation, Beverly gives Eddie a weapon, telling him that it can kill monsters if he believes it can, but it does not do anything more than briefly slow Pennywise. Ultimately, it is truth that defeats Pennywise, not belief--a thematic point that is long overdue in the world of entertainment. Belief is worthless unless it aligns with reality, after all, and it is time for cinema to finally acknowledge this on a consistent basis.
Conclusion
It: Chapter Two will probably disappoint many viewers with its unusual length, but fans of the 2017 adaption willing to invest the time required will likely love the acting and continuation of the first half of the story. Either way, this does not seem to be the last competent movie based on a Stephen King novel for 2019: I eagerly await the release of Doctor Sleep, the sequel to The Shining, in November! Since Stephen King himself had a Stan Lee-like cameo in It: Chapter Two and since the novelizations of The Shining, Doctor Sleep, and It all occur in the same universe, the sequel to It might be using the cameo to foreshadow a larger cinematic universe of Stephen King screen adaptions. We will be able to find out fairly soon!
Content:
1. Violence: There are relatively few killings, but the occasional deaths of children often involve more viciousness than os typical of movie deaths. One scene shows dismembered bodies of children floating out of Derry's sewers.
2. Profanity: "Mild" to "strong" profanity is used throughout a great deal of the film.
3. Nudity: Blurred male nudity is shown in the background of an early scene. In another scene, a demonic apparition taking the form of an old, naked woman is shown.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/matter-is-not-illusion.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)