The Exclusivity Of Government Incompetence And Conspiracy Theories

Cognitive dissonance is no stranger to conservatives.  Conservatives might war against genuine feminism because they misperceive feminism as something that is sexist towards men, all while pressuring men to conform to rigid stereotypes and hardly ever calling attention to true sexism against men.  They condemn "big government," and rightly so, only to fail to be consistent: a consistent proponent of small government will be a libertarian!  There is yet another fundamental incoherence in prominent conservative ideas.

Conservatives characterize almost all of government as inefficient and incompetent, using this claim as a basis for opposing "big government," but then they often simultaneously believe in conspiracy theories that, if true, characterize at least some in government as ruthlessly manipulative and powerful.  It is not inherently contradictory to assert that the inefficient and manipulative members of a government are separate people, not that conspiracy theories would be any more epistemologically defensible with this distinction, but conservatives scarcely attempt to bring up nuance.

On one hand, government is said to represent the height of incompetence in the face of seemingly basic operations; on the other hand, government is said to be a bastion of careful, thorough, precise scheming against the wellbeing of American citizens.  The exclusivity of these two possibilities when the majority of a government is characterized in such a way is blatant.  For a government to be mostly one, it cannot be mostly the other.  Conservatives cannot have it both ways at the same time.

They will usually appeal to one idea or the other as it benefits them to do so in various circumstances.  If fostering a sense of fear is an ideal move in a given scenario, conservatives will insist that they must fight the "deep state" or some other alleged conspiracy.  If trivializing a particular government action is desired, they can criticize the government for its real or perceived inefficiency.  The two can be alternated back and forth as needed, and many conservatives will refuse to push back against other conservatives as long as their general goals overlap.

As members of the party that is allegedly concerned with rationality more than liberals--though liberal ideology is philosophically asinine in its own ways--conservatives are ironically oblivious to the many contradictory ideas they tend to hold at the same time.  If a conservative was willing to forgo assumptions, it would be relatively easy to avoid an inconsistent worldview.  Of course, given conservatism's fallacious foundations, a conservative who forgoes assumptions would give up conservatism altogether.

Game Review--Smite: Battleground Of The Gods (Switch)

"See your fears recognized."
--Cthulhu, Smite


Smite, a "freemium" online multiplayer game, is one of the only games to allow players to control deities from numerous pantheons and ideologies, its roster of gods and goddesses pulled from places other than Greek mythology.  Egyptian and Norse mythology, for example, are heavily emphasized.  Even Cthulhu of Lovecraftian lore is a playable character, albeit if one spends in-game currency, spends actual money, or uses a free character chest to unlock him (Cthulhu's inclusion is actually what made me interested in playing the game in the first place).   This vast set of characters is the game's greatest strength.

Production Values

Smite's mostly smooth animations and clear textures--however, videos saved from the game to one's Switch might appear more pixelated than the actual in-game engine does--hold up consistently across hours of gameplay.  If anything, internet connection issues are tied to the worst performance offenses, as the game otherwise runs well.  Dialogue may not be a major part of the game, but each god, goddess, or pseudo-historical figure has numerous voice tracks that will play during certain events, like that respective character's death.  This more limited form of voice acting is still competent and fits into the world of the game easily.

Gameplay

The various player-versus-player modes of Smite all involve teams of deities that must fulfill a set of objectives.  In one mode, teams escort non-player units across the battlefield; in one of the others, the two teams attempt to destroy each other's titans.  Upon starting a game, players level up from level three as they gain XP that only pertains to that match.  Leveling up increases one's HP and unlocks additional special attacks or abilities--again, these are only unlocked for one round, as they must be earned again each subsequent time one plays.

In all modes, non-player units spawn in and can be used to distract or overpower enemy units, such as when trying to attack an enemy tower.  Towers target opposing units, and allowing CPUs to walk into their range before entering means the CPUs will serve as temporary bait.  Killing enemy CPUs helps take away reserve troops from the other side in Arena Mode, but in other modes, like Conquest, killing them is only useful for clearing the battleground so that one's own allied CPUs can advance.  A team's non-player units can even be used as a shield during escapes.

Story

There is no unified storyline, at least not one that is directly told, but the setting is plainly one in which a diverse set of deities, pseudo-deities, and legendary warriors are thrust into combat with each other.  Beyond this, there is no overarching story at all.


Intellectual Content

Despite the sheer lack of philosophical depth in the way the game itself is structured--after all, there is no grand story--the casual way that so many deities and other powerful figures of history and myth are included acknowledges the influence that these various theologies have had on human civilization.  Of course, not all of these beings are even deities in their own respective historical religions or frameworks!  Unless a being has always existed without a beginning and is responsible for starting the chain of causality, it is not truly a deity.


Conclusion

Smite blatantly lacks thematic and narrative depth, as is so often the case with free-to-play online multiplayer games.  At the same time, it is not a game without depth of progression, although players willing to spend actual money will be able to use unlockable skins and deities faster.  At the very least, anyone who has wanted to play as Cthulhu, Freya, the World Serpent, or Ares can do so for free on the Switch platform (and on others).  That is something that few games, if any at all for some of these figures, can offer.  If a deeper gaming experience is desired, games like God of War and Call of Cthulhu are much better choices that deal with some of the same characters.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  Mild, bloodless violence is a fundamental part of the gameplay.  There is nothing graphic about it whatsoever.

If Bikinis Were Sexual

Somehow, the fact that bikinis are nonsexual is actually brought up far less in refutations of evangelical modesty teachings than other things that are in some ways far less central, like the sense of shame that modesty teachings aimed at women only can instill in its targets.  While the potential consequences modesty teachings aimed at one gender can have psychologically need to be addressed, they are not the reason why modesty teachings are irrational and Biblically invalid (in being legalistic, they are themselves sinful).  This shifts discussions away from the actual nature of bikinis and other clothing.

It is very important to point out the stupidity of treating something nonsexual as sexual because of perceptions that are often conditioned by culture in the first place.  However, even if everyone's perceptions of bikinis were sexual (and they are not) or if bikinis truly were sexual (again, they are not), bikinis would still not be sinful on the Christian worldview because sexual feelings and expression are not immoral by default and because it still would not follow from any Biblical command that the exposure of either the female or male body is vile.

Even if bikinis were sexual, and it is objectively true that they are not, this alone could not make wearing or looking at someone wearing them morally wrong within a Christian framework, as if the potential beauty of the female body--and the male body by logical extension--are somehow offensive to the deity who made it!  Whether something is sexual or nonsexual by nature or if someone perceives it sexually are separate topics from whether the thing in question is sinful.

The very first two chapters of the Bible are all that is necessary to show that Yahweh is no enemy of the human body, even in its original state of full nudity.  If nudity is not morally wrong because there is nothing Biblically problematic about exposing or viewing any part of the human body, it cannot be immoral to expose even less of the body!  Of course, Deuteronomy 4:2 also confirms this with its command to add to its instructions, as there is no demand to cover either the male or female body to a random extent.

Bikinis are not sexual.  If they were, though, no other logical or theological facts about them would change.  This is why evangelical modesty teachings would not be validated even if bikinis or other forms of sensual clothing were somehow themselves sexual in nature.  Women would still be Biblically free to wear revealing swimwear in public, just as men would still be free to bare their torsos in the sight of others.  There is nothing shameful, sinful, or otherwise inappropriate about the body irrespective of its relationship to sexuality.

Will And Necessity

Grasping the laws of logic is the most foundational and important requirement for having coherent thoughts, and a functioning memory is the second most foundational requirement.  It is memory, along with a grasp of reason, that allows someone to build on thoughts that are not the immediate focus of their mind during a certain moment.  Moreover, it is only for a small handful of phenomenological reasons that certain memories are kept, even if there are certainly other mental phenomena at play when it comes to other types of memories.

There are two primary reasons why one's memory preserves miscellaneous kinds of information when some degree of effort is involved.  In many cases, a person remembers something other than sheer trivialities (such as what they remember eating earlier in a given week) either because they directly wish to remember it or because memorizing it is a necessity for their survival or lifestyle.  Without willpower and necessity, the phenomenological landscape of memory would be drastically different.

The former is why people can remember extensive details about issues or things that they are interested in, even if those interests are very niche, unimportant, or foreign to the general populace.  The latter is why people can remember something that they depend on in order to succeed in their jobs or in other practical pursuits even though they would otherwise not be concerned about the matter whatsoever.  The vast majority of conscious attempts to memorize will fall into at least one of these categories.

Some memories of experiences or facts may accumulate without any direct, active effort, even if it is no accident that their contents were memorized.  Other memories may be formed against a person's wishes, such as in the case of a pivotal but deeply traumatic experience.  For at least a great deal of memories that are not phenomenologically formed in these ways, though, will and necessity are what dictate which things will be committed to memory and which things will be excluded.

Intellectual Redemption

A life of slavery to assumptions can dull a person's response when they bump into reason because of their own thoughts or because of conversation with someone else.  Assumptions can feed a desire for familiarity, comfort, and social acceptance that in turn drives a wedge between their adherent and truth--but this is not some inevitable fate.  No one is beyond intellectual redemption, even if someone has lived for decades in philosophical apathy or even hostility towards true rationalism.

Anything can serve as a starting point to a person's unflinching rejection of assumptions, as any issue can be the thing that alerts someone to the fact that all assumptions are epistemologically invalid, which can lead to a thorough analysis of a person's ideological framework.  There is no single subject or psychological event that must be responsible for a person embracing rationalism.  Rather, everyone who genuinely embraces rationalism will arrive at several fundamental truths, no matter what variables motivated them to abandon assumptions in the first place.

Every thought and experience is an opportunity for those who have not systematically evaluated their worldviews or thoroughly reflected on the nature of reality to align with reason.  The opportunities are plentiful, yet acknowledgment of reason--not of social norms, psychological traits, or scientific laws, but reason itself--is a rare thing.  The many people who live without ever contemplating anything beyond matters of immediate practicality or emotional concern will remain unaware of the true nature of reason until they seek it.

In spite of the improbability of many people actually coming to rationalism on their own unless some personal trial forces them to reconsider their priorities, there is basis for hope that they will change, albeit not for expecting them to change.  Even this knowledge, however, can make it easier for a rationalist to endure the presence of non-rationalists.  No matter how irrational, inconsistent, or apathetic someone has been, there is always the possibility that he or she can turn away from darkness and assumptions to reason.

What Free Will Is Not

Clarifying what a concept is and clarifying what it is not focus on different aspects of the same truths, but they are still distinct enough to both be called for in some cases.  Controversy is often accompanied by misunderstanding, and thus controversial ideas often need to be addressed in a way that does not leave out vital details about what something is and is not.  Every idea cam be controversial.  There is nothing that stupidity and emotionalism cannot poison in the arbitrary perceptions of the public.  Some ideas are still more foundational or controversial than others, with the existence of free will being one example of a philosophical issue that is widely misrepresented.

Any person can know with absolute certainty that they have free will through reflecting on logic and introspection, but I have established this previous in multiple cases (here is one such case [1]), and anyone can know that the concept of free will could be misunderstood to describe absolute freedom, or the ability to do anything at all that one wishes.  However, this is demonstrably false.  For example, no one could choose to both exist and not exist at the same time or to render sound logical deductions invalid even if they sincerely wished for such things to happen, nor could a human choose to be free of gravity on a mere whim.  To have freedom of the will is not freedom from the metaphysical presence of logic or even from the contingent laws of nature.

Free will does not mean that someone can do whatever they want, for they can never do that which is logically impossible by its very nature, and they will also be subject to whatever additional limitations are brought by scientific laws.  Nevertheless, it does mean a person is free to wish to do anything at all, no matter how impossible, stupid, or immoral it is.  It still does not follow that they can do or should do any specific thing they wish, but it does mean that no other person or natural force can wholly control their will in an ultimate sense.

Free will is nothing other than autonomy of choice, a thing necessary for intellectual autonomy and moral responsibility (though proving that one has free will does not prove moral obligations exist, one cannot be morally responsible for any thought or deed apart from the ability to choose at least some thoughts and actions).  It is not a control of one's circumstances or core metaphysical nature; it is what allows a person to decide how to live in light of their circumstances and metaphysical nature.  Free will can be used to react to certain variables in a self-guided manner when when there is no way to change them.

That external objects, events, and beings have no way to completely control a being with free will is all that free will automatically entails.  If anyone arguing against free will (which is fallacious by default due to the non sequiturs that must be used) thinks that an inability to do all things is the same thing as the absence of free will, they are too unintelligent to understand the difference between the ability to make autonomous choices and absolute control over all of reality--something not even a deity could have, as logic is inviolable no matter what a being of any kind wills.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/refuting-assumption-about-free-will.html

The Four Fundamental Fources

Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force (also termed the strong interaction), and the weak force (weak interaction) together constitute the four fundamental forces, or what are collectively regarded as the four most foundational scientific phenomena pertaining to matter at this time.  As such, understanding the concept of each is vital to understanding the overarching framework of contemporary physics.  What almost no scientist seems willing to explore, address, or admit, however, is the epistemological difference between half of these forces.

Of these four fundamental forces, only two can be directly observed at the macroscopic level by ordinary people, meaning that only two can be observed during normal sensory experiences.  The most blatantly evident of the four, gravity, is constantly observed in everyday life as objects fall down to the ground and eventually come to remain in place, and electricity, one side of the electromagnetic force, can be directly observed in something as simple as plugging a phone charger into a wall socket.  The same is not true of the other two forces categorized as "fundamental."

The strong force, however, because it is what is said to hold the nucleus of atoms together, is epistemologically different.  The existence of atoms is itself philosophically unproven [1], as scientific evidence only proves information about perceptions of the external world, and the average person has little to appeal to besides hearsay from scientists who themselves claim only that the idea of atoms has explanatory power (though this does not mean either atoms or the strong force do not exist).  Thus, a strong force that holds the subatomic particles that constitute an atom together are also not truly observable.

Like the strong force, the weak force has to do with particles that cannot be seen macroscopically, meaning that these particles cannot be seen be simply looking at a tree, car, or other familiar object with one's unaided sense of sight alone.  Rather than holding neutrons and protons together to form an atom's nucleus, however, the weak force is responsible for the decay of certain subatomic particles.  Since this also has to do with the components of atoms, no one can truly know if it is an actual force from watching or analyzing scientific events at the macroscopic level.

Pointing to events in the external world that are directly observable and believing in unobservable scientific phenomena are very distinct epistemological approaches to science.  The former is nothing more than acknowledging one's sensory perceptions, but the latter is merely an assumption-based leap into the dark under the guise of knowledge.  There are fools who might consider this distinction hostile to science, yet this is not the case.  It is only hostile to assumptions, intellectual blindness, and the elevation of science over reason.  A thoroughly rational person who is aware of contemporary scientific models can understand them without accepting or dismissing them due to unprovable premises.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-existence-of-atoms.html

The Pattern Of The Sabbath

As part of the moral core of Biblical law, the Sabbath is not a trivial thing that can be separated from other Biblical commands about capital sins like murder, slave trading, sorcery, rape, and kidnapping, as if the Sabbath was of no moral or theological significance whatsoever.  It is certainly of lesser importance than such things, all of which harm or can be used to harm the only beings the Bible describes as bearing the image of God.  All the same, the Bible does attach the death penalty to violating the Sabbath (Exodus 31:15), just as it does to its other capital offenses.

The Bible does clarify that performing a task that involves physical effort does not automatically violate the Sabbath, or else Jesus would never have exempted any actions taken on behalf of the safety of humans or animals on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14).  Now, it is not the case that Yahweh undergoes a moral metamorphosis in the New Testament period (Malachi 3:6), and if his moral character does not change, the moral obligations related to justice in the Christian worldview cannot have changed.

Ancient Jews may have held the Sabbath on what the Western world would call Saturday, but there was no divine prescription to hold the Sabbath on any particular day of any calendar.  All that the Bible commands is that people follow the pattern of resting from work one day for every six days of work.  The pattern is about a ratio of one day of rest for every six days on which "work" is permitted, not about adhering to any specific calendar or even having one's own Sabbath on the same day every week.

A person could hold their Sabbath on a different day of the Western calendar every week, moving it from a Saturday to a Sunday to a Thursday as his or her schedule and preferences dictate.  The purpose of the Sabbath is to imitate, in a loose sense, God's acts of creation and rest.  Just as there is no Biblical obligation to abstain from all physical activity on the Sabbath (this is a misleading straw man that even many Christians foolishly perpetuate), and there is also no Biblical obligation to rest on the same day of each week.

It is typical for many Christians and non-Christians to misunderstand Biblical ethics, with the tenets of Mosaic Law being the most misunderstood.  The Sabbath, like Lex Talionis [1], is just one example.  It is not something that vanishes from one's Biblical obligations based on the geographical circumstances and era of one's birth.  However, it is not something meant to restrict a person's every action and thought on the same rigid day of the week across their entire lifetime.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-many-biblical-exceptions-to-lex.html

Reacting To Entrenched Philosophical Errors

Reactionary worldviews, or worldviews that are constructed mostly or exclusively as a response to another person's worldview, stand on fallacious grounds [1].  It is folly to never engage in any wholly self-prompted contemplation of philosophical issues, whether or not one has already been exposed to true claims about those issues by happenstance or out of curiosity.  Intellectual autonomy is necessary for a sound worldview.  At the same time, reacting to the fallacious claims of others is still a vital part of life as a social being in the midst of the many people who might never stop to consider matters of ultimate truth on their own.

Different cultures and eras have their own dominant fallacies and heresies that need to be addressed, and responding to expected and unexpected cultural errors is a task of great significance that any rationalist can equip themselves for via reflection.  In fact, most conversations about philosophical subjects like morality and politics that happen to be points of popular discussion tend to focus on attempts to correct misconceptions.  Ignoring the prominent philosophical errors of a given community can even be an indication that someone does not care about truth enough to challenge denials of it.  Moreover, it can even be beneficial to a person's understanding of a culture or idea to seek out conversations with irrational people for the sake of reacting to popular errors.

While reacting to the often random false positions that one might encounter in social experiences can sometimes lead to the discovery of new aspects of some truths, it is still at best haphazard and intellectually lazy to intentionally seek out information from others about a philosophical matter before considering it to, at a minimum, some small extent.  At least the basic logical facts governing a certain subject or part of reality are immediately accessible to anyone who simply tries to look to them!  For example, no one needs to ask or listen to others to realize that logic is distinct from physics or that theology and secular ethics are inherently exclusive frameworks.

Even someone who might casually, thoughtlessly say that they "know absolutely nothing" about a matter does actually know something about it, even if it is only self-verifying, axiomatic truths about it.  Everyone can directly recognize that politics is not the same as anything that falls outside the category of politics, whether or not they are familiar with the conceptual or experiential aspects of politics.  There are specific misconceptions about politics and practically every other category of philosophy that would not necessarily ever occur to the minds of rational people if it was not for social encounters with the irrational, but there are logical truths encompassing all of reality that should be directly, personally grasped by all.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2020/06/reactionary-worldviews.html

"I Did Not Come To Bring Peace, But A Sword"

It is foolish to claim that the Bible portrays Jesus as someone who emphasizes peace above all else, for he is said to have done precisely the opposite.  In Matthew 10:34, he is literally quoted as saying that his coming was not something that would foster immediate peace between even members of the same family: "Do not think that I came to bring peace to the earth.  I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."  He continues to say that his coming would turn parents and their children against each other to the point of the members of the same household being enemies.

There are also other comments of Jesus that go beyond affirming the inevitability of conflict between sincere Christians and hostile outsiders.  The Jesus of the New Testament even affirms the divine command to execute children who incorrigibly indulge in destructive or hedonistic lifestyles (see Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and Matthew 15:3-9), so he cannot rightly be said to be opposed to all killings.  The Biblical Jesus here and elsewhere is neither a pacifist nor an Ares; he is clearly a more multifaceted figure than the misleadingly simplistic conceptions of him put forth by many conservative and liberal theologians.

In Revelation 19, Jesus appears as a warrior, a sword coming from his mouth and his robe exhibiting a red color after being dipped in blood.  Even if Revelation 19 described theological truths or eschatological events in a mostly nonliteral way, it would still be the case that Revelation presents Jesus as willing to shed the blood of his enemies.  The Jesus of Revelation, once again, is perfectly consistent with the Jesus of Matthew 10:34 who denies that he came to bring peace to the world.

It is nonetheless true that God is not said to hope for people to remain his enemies, nor is he said to delight in the damnation of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11).  Yahweh prefers for all people to voluntarily turn to him (2 Peter 3:8-9).  Jesus, who claims to represent Yahweh, would not contradict this preference, but he never says anything even suggesting that the absence of conflict is therefore worth striving for above all else.  If he did, he would only be advancing a major non sequitur fallacy.

All the same, it is asinine to regard the Biblical Jesus as a pacifist, for he is openly associated with relational conflict, animosity within families, and the killing of those who commit the capital crimes of Mosaic Law.  Peace is the end on the Christian worldview, as it will be inevitable when morally purified individuals populate New Jerusalem and the unsaved have been reduced to nonexistence in hell [1].  However, peace is not the means.  It is at best something to be tossed aside when it is necessary to correct those who care for nothing that infringes on their sense of emotional security and stability.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-truth-of-annihilationism.html

A Straw Man Of Macroevolution

Evolution may not be of enormous philosophical significance in the way that many of its adherents and detractors insist, but misrepresentions of basic macroevolution still need to be rejected by anyone who encounters them.  Straw man fallacies are easy to find, and evolution is not a concept exempt from misunderstandings or ideological slander.  Just as evolution has nothing to do with atheism, much less with the far broader (and demonstrably false) ideology of naturalism, evolution has nothing to do with some of the popular types of change those in the church describe it as.

The concept of macro-evolution does not entail, as some evangelicals might put it, "butterfly to buffalo" transformations.  Even though the adherents of an idea do not necessarily understand the idea itself, there are seemingly few evolutionists, if any at all, who would say there is evidence that one species abruptly produced a separate species without warning or precedent.  Modern conceptions of macroevolution merely involve gradual changes as creatures adapt to different environments.  Fortunately, evolutionists themselves seem to recognize this to some extent.

Variations within a given species can be passed onto offspring, and it is entirely possible in both a logical and scientific sense for a prolonged series of increasing variations to change certain aspects of a whole species over time.  However, this is not the same as claiming that a lizard would give birth to a cat, or vice versa.  Accumulated variations within a similar group of creatures is far from the straw man that evangelicals hold up as the basic form of evolution.

Macroevolution is ultimately unprovable and unfalsifiable, but this is not because of any characteristic of macro-evolution in particular: science is incapable of doing anything more than providing information about immediate sensory perceptions.  Historical matters, which past evolution would at least somewhat reduce down to, and matters of perception-independent truths (truths about logic and metaphysics) are outside the scope of the scientific method.  Thus, no one can prove or disprove the idea of past macroevolution occurring for the same reason no one can prove that various laws of physics were identical in the past to what they are today.

Even if macroevolution is true, of course, there is nothing about logic, core metaphysics, theology as a whole, or ethics that changes!  At most, evolution is just a particular mechanism by which taxonomic groups of biological creatures change with the passage of time; rationalism and theism are still true either way [1].  Evolution is not even an all-encompassing scientific paradigm, but it is rather a particular idea that falls under the category of biology and does not have any ramifications for certain other parts of science.  Evangelical fear of evolution is unsound all around because of the very limited scope of evolution to begin with!

Game Review--Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (Switch)

"With an army of Master Hands under its control, Galeem sought to create a new world."
--Text in opening cinematic (World of Light), Super Smash Bros. Ultimate


Likely one of the most anticipated video games of the past decade, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate contains even more content than the 3DS/Wii U Smash Bros. game and introduces many new playable characters like Dark Samus, Cloud, Ridley, and Rosalina.  There are many options to choose from when playing the game, but this is probably not surprising to anyone who thoroughly played Brawl, a game noteworthy for its wealth of content alone.  In addition to the campaign and classic mode, Ultimate allows for bot-based matches, Mob Smash modes, and various multiplayer modes that even casual players could spend dozens of hours trying out.

Production Values

Like many other peak Nintendo games for the Switch, Super Smash Bros. Ultimate has great graphics that demonstrate the technical advancements of an undocked Switch over the 3DS.  I only noticed slowdown during certain online matches, and not even online multiplayer seemed to suffer from any glitches.  Though there is no spoken dialogue, the sounds of battle keep up with the frenetic activities onscreen very well and reflect the iconic nature of any franchises they are pulled from.  The production values as a whole and in their individual components are excellent.

Gameplay

The combat of Ultimate is, of course, bound to be the main draw for many players, and it is preserved from previous entries in all of its chaotic glory.  The final smashes of various characters have been altered, providing a somewhat new side of returning characters, but several of the newcomers have final smash attacks that go far beyond many familiar final smashes present in the series.  Unique to the "World of Light" story mode, a skill tree adds RPG elements to combat by reducing vulnerabilities to specific attacks, increasing the power of certain player attacks, and offering other benefits that can make a significant difference in the single player Adventure Mode when skills are purchased with points.

The campaign itself easily lasts more than 20 hours, and all spirits unlocked from a series of revolving, optional challenges found in the Spirit Board can be used to progress in the main story.  Spirits can even be used in multiplayer, albeit not online quick matches with random players, only in local Smash mode.  They can be used to boost the effectiveness of one's preferred characters, but some playable characters are far easier to control and far more powerful than others.  The new customizable Mii characters are actually some of the strongest fighters in the game, and several of the Mii swordfighter's cheapest moves helped me overpower otherwise challenging enemies.

Unfortunately, even the most useful characters can be hindered by an issue with the responsiveness of the left and right controls.  Turning left or right mid-combat only works part of the time, leaving players with very hit or miss success when trying to turn before a quick attack.  Spirit abilities and skill can help minimize the negative effects of failing to dodge or prevent an incoming attack due to this control difficulty, but these issues still arise from time to time.  Thankfully, one can practice with the controls and fighting styles of each character in Smash Mode before jumping into the campaign or online multiplayer, so it is not as if there is no opportunity to adjust to any control problems.

Story

Spoilers are below, but there is at best a bare bones story present.

In the World of Light campaign, a being called Galeem, also referred to as the "lord of light," invades the universe inhabited by Nintendo's pantheon of playable characters.  Kirby alone escapes Galeem's attack, and he begins battling mind-altered fighters and restoring them to their normal state.  Defeating Galeem proves to only end the first part of the adventure.


Intellectual Content

Other than rewarding the use of potential strategies, none of the Super Smash Bros. games have never showcased thorough intellectual elements.  Even so, several mild puzzles do come up far into the story mode.  They are unlikely to offer a serious challenge to many players, and one could always solve them by happenstance, but they must be solved in order to complete Adventure Mode.


Conclusion

Super Smash Bros. has enjoyed immense popularity since its introduction, and Ultimate deserves even more praise than its predecessors for its new spirits and expanded character and map rosters, which are now at unprecedented levels.  Moreover, it brings back what the previous installment for the 3DS and Wii U left out: a single player campaign with mechanics that tie into features outside of Adventure Mode.  Thus far, no Super Smash Bros. game has been more deserving of the title Ultimate.


Content:
 1.  Violence:  Attacks that could be vicious in real life (such as sword attacks) are portrayed without blood or gore.

Keeping Women's Visuality In Mind

Erotic media and entertainment in general have done relatively little to directly challenge gender stereotypes unless the cultural context encourages it, so male appreciation of female beauty (in a sexual manner) has been portrayed as normal far more than the reverse.  This harms both genders, but there is a simple solution: entertainment, whether it falls into the category of erotic media or not, is not created with gender stereotypes motivating the creators.  There is nothing difficult or damaging about simply yielding to reason and reality when it comes to portrayals of sexuality and sexual expression.

Sexism against men in entertainment--of the kind relevant to the subject at hand--entails the association of selfish, aggressive expressions of sexuality with men and the dismissal of the male body's beauty and sensuality, whereas the sexism against women in entertainment entails the dismissal of women's visual nature and the belief that women's sexualities have no context or significance apart from pleasuring men.  The more accepting of women's visual aspects of sexuality those behind erotic media, cinema, and gaming are, the more women can feel represented as heterosexual beings and the more men can feel accepted as attractive.

There is a need for erotic media in all of its forms to emphasize more than female beauty and male attraction to the female form; in order to truly reflect reality, female visual attraction to men needs to be celebrated, and the same is true of the sensuality of the male body.  If this objectified men in the way that fools think emphasizing the sensuality of the female body sexually objectifies women, then it would follow that portrayals of women and men in erotic media are immoral if objectification is morally wrong.  Of course, objectification goes far beyond even intense sexualization, and there is a great deal of ignorance over what even makes something sexual.  What truly constitutes erotic media is not a matter of subjective perception or speculation.

Sensuality is not sexuality, and thus treating an emphasis on sensuality as "sexualization" is a false equivalence.  Moreover, sexualization is not objectification, as emphasizing or dwelling on someone's sex appeal (which is subjective, in contrast to the objective nonsexual nature of the clothed or nude body of either gender [1]) does not automatically mean everything else about a person is being actively disregarded.  Men and women can and need to be featured in movies, video games, erotica, and other kinds of entertainment in ways that sometimes emphasize the sensuality of both.  Keeping women's and men's visuality in mind is an easy way to avoid overlooking this.

Using entertainment as a whole and erotic media in particular to acknowledge that the male body can be sexy and that women are no less visual than men does not require trivializing female beauty or the visuality of some men.  It does not mean that any of the sexist norms surrounding how Western culture treats sexuality would be inverted, but this would mean that neither men nor women would be treated as mere objects of no use except for providing sexual pleasure to the opposite gender, as beautiful or unattractive simply for being one gender or the other, or as hypersexual or asexual by default.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/lingerie-is-not-sexual.html

John 14:15

There is little ambiguity in the statement of Jesus in John 14:15.  "If you love me, you will keep my commands," he says.  While several other comments of Jesus might be intentionally vague, such as some of his parables, the contents of John 14:15 are not.  Thus, he blatantly says that following his instructions is what demonstrates that someone who claims to be committed to Christianity truly loves him.  There is little to no depth in anyone's professed love of Christ or Christianity if they do not even comply with the clear things that Jesus prescribed.

Since Jesus explicitly affirms particular punishments in Mosaic Law (such as in Matthew 15:3-9), it follows that anyone who refuses to follow these commands or regards them as contrary to New Testament ethics--as if there is any distinction between the two in terms of ideology, and as if the foundation of the New Testament is not more important than the vague moral teachings of much of the New Testament--does not love the Biblical Jesus in any thorough, genuine, or consistent sort of way.

Even if Jesus, Paul, or any other New Testament figure did contradict the Old Testament's laws about criminal punishment while using them as a theological foundation, it would only mean that it is the New Testament rather than the Old Testament that is in error.  The Old Testament can be true even if the New Testament is not; however, the New Testament, given that it hinges on the Old Testament, cannot be true if the Old Testament is not and cannot be true if it contradicts the Old Testament.

In light of this, it is folly to treat the later books of the Bible as if they somehow displace Mosaic Law or have more ethical authority and broader theological significance than the Old Testament.  Many teachings of Jesus would fall into a philosophical vacuum or, worse yet, into a state of contradiction if any true disparity existed between each "Testament."  A foundation can stand without a building above it, but a building without a foundation is unstable and therefore potentially dangerous.

Rather than admit that this is the case, of course, conservative and liberal Christians alike almost always hold up the utterly ambiguous New Testament comments about love as if they somehow invalidate Mosaic Law despite the latter expanding on what it means to love God and others more than any other part of the Bible.  Still, the Jesus of the gospels is clear: if someone loves him, they will keep his commands.  There is no such thing as a sound, consistent Christian who rejects the very Mosaic Law upon which many of the most important parts of Christian theology are built.

Rationalism Is Not Anti-Science

Rationalism encompasses all of reality, as nothing is outside of reason.  Contrarily, the scientific method is incapable of providing absolute certainty or revelation about the core of metaphysics, meaning it is inescapably, sharply limited in both its epistemological and metaphysical scope.  Some who are emotionally attached to the scientific method for philosophically invalid reasons would regard reason as usurping the place of science, holding that strict rationalism is opposed to the scientific method.  This straw man fallacy persuades them that rationalism is some insidious ideology to be rejected.

Skepticism of the correspondence of scientific observations with the true external world and the future constancy of scientific laws is not only not irrational, but it is the only valid epistemological stance to hold on the matter.  Anyone who truly believes that they are certainly seeing external stimuli exactly as they are is a self-deluding fool, especially if they have been told about the logical disconnect between perceptions and many kinds of stimuli despite not realizing anything about it on their own.  The sense of touch can at least prove the existence of physical matter [1], but the senses are only useful for intaking perceptions beyond this.

Nevertheless, this in no way means that someone who sees the glaring limitations of science and rightly sides with reason over science is anti-science.  At most, it means they reject self-contradictory epistemological stances and recognize that science, unlike reason, cannot prove anything about the external world other than that one perceives it in a certain way.  It is entirely possible to toss scientism aside and even mock its adherents while still experiencing a deep fascination with science.  Whether that fascination is born out of curiosity, respect for practicality, or simply a foundational love of the sensory world, it is fully compatible with rationalism.

That science cannot verify the truth of scientific concepts does not mean it is absolutely useless.  It is indeed epistemologically useless for discovering truths that transcend perception, but it is rather useful for the practicalities of daily life.  Toothpaste, magnetism, computers, and engines are still of great practical value, even if most of these specific examples have no intrinsic philosophical significance.  It is still inevitably the case that practicality tells someone nothing about truth other than their mere perceptions, yet practicality is a necessity if one wants to survive and to do so comfortably.

Those who love practicality have reason to appreciate the scientific method, even if they have no personal concern for whether specific bodies of matter like stars or trees even exist in the first place.  However, appreciation is subjective, having nothing to do with the objective epistemological value of a thing.  Science, unlike logic, is inherently limited: all limitations on the human use of reason are epistemological limitations of humans themselves rather than of reason, which governs all things, while science hinges on reason, phenomenology, and other aspects of metaphysics and epistemology by its very nature.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.


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

The Conservative Hypocrisy Around Prison Rape

Prison rape is one of America's most normalized, overlooked atrocities, something referenced often enough in entertainment that many people would have heard of it and yet something that is often dismissed or defended when brought up.  Part of the problem is that it is not brought up in a condemning way very often, which is consistent with both America's leftover prudery and general lack of concern for any idea of justice that contradicts popular attitudes or personal feelings.  Since prison violence, sexual or otherwise, is usually acknowledged as male-male or female-female, this leaves many conservatives in a state of total hypocrisy.

Most conservatives either seem to not be aware of the common trivializing of prison rape--as they tend to ignore or mock male victims of sexual assault or somehow consider it just, and they would probably never even think women would sexually assault each other in prison--or they are content to encourage, joke, and dismiss it.  In doing any of these, they betray their own stupidity and hypocrisy, for they are often the same people who oppose consensual homosexual acts in the name of objective morality.  They might harshly object to mild, nonsexual displays of affection among homosexual couples, only to turn around and consider nonconsensual homosexual behaviors deserved and amusing.

No matter which of these categories they fall into, conservatives almost unanimously act as if prison rape is hardly worth mentioning when discussing ethics and political changes, especially when justice is concerned.  The same conservatives who revere the American Constitution conveniently forget that the 8th Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," and the same evangelicals that claim to care about Biblical justice when murder is concerned (capital punishment for murder is one of the only moral-political stances they acknowledge the Bible on) treat prison rape as a non-issue through their silence and mockery.

When the evangelicals who joke about or tolerate prison rape are pressed, it becomes clear that, although female victims of sexual assault in prison are practically ignored by them altogether, they hate rape more when women are victims--perhaps because this attitude fits better with complementarian assumptions about men and women.  Consequently, sexual assault of men is considered a mild offense, if it is considered one at all.  A heinous misunderstanding of the scope of Lex Talionis may even be invoked by alleged Christians in defense of prison rape.  However, the Bible is inescapably, blatantly opposed to all forms of rape, calling for the execution of all rapists regardless of gender (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) and execution for homosexual intercourse.

The reason why so many political and theological conservatives would have such cognitive dissonance is because they, like sincere liberals, aren't concerned with truth, reason, and morality.  They are at best concerned with upholding a set of arbitrary and sometimes conflicting assumptions that are often wrong in the first place--not that any assumption is ever more than an epistemologically unjustifiable belief based on preference or intellectual laziness.  A genuine seeker of truth does not care about conserving traditions or utilitarian social structures, but pursues reason, consistency, and justice.

An Extra-Biblical Prayer Tradition

There is nothing about consistent prayer before meals that is contrary to Christian theology, but praying before meals is in no way a requirement of Biblical morality.  In fact, it is contra-Biblical to treat these prayers as morally mandatory (Deuteronomy 4:2), as if the Bible does not repeatedly emphasize that it is erroneous to add to God's commands.  To say otherwise is to say that God intentionally did not provide sufficient moral revelation in the Bible, not that the Bible ever even suggests that God is displeased if someone does not pray out loud before starting a meal in the first place.

Somehow, prayer before eating, especially in a public place or in the presence of others, has nevertheless become seen as a core expression of commitment to Christianity by many inside and outside of the church.  It is not only pointless and asinine to consider these prayers an expression of Christian life, but it there is also hardly anything bold about this kind of prayer (unless a person is subjectively anxious about doing so) in the way that some seem to imply.  Few show any signs of disapproval or hostility to such prayers, after all!

Many pre-meal prayers are formulaic, repetitive, shallow, and gratuitous as it is, for there is neither much to say that is of any relevance in that context nor any reason to pray at such times other than personal preference or a desire to appease others.  Even Christians mired in the fallacies of evangelicalism have likely at least heard of what Jesus says about performing acts like prayer in order to be accepted by others.  Such displays are hollow when they are motivated by this desire and are entirely irrelevant to Biblical morality.

No Christian needs to be aware of anything other than the fact that Christian morality is solely tied to the moral obligations revealed in the Bible (mainly in Mosaic Law) and the logical extrapolations that strictly follow from those commands to see that mealtime prayer is not morally obligatory.  It is certainly supererogatory to pray at meals, but even this cannot justify the legalistic slander of looking down on those who abstain from such unnecessary acts because they know that traditions, preferences, and feelings have nothing to do with being upright.

If a Christian feels spiritually fulfilled or benefited by specifically praying before eating, either alone or with others, he or she is free to do so.  If a Christian does not feel any desire to pray in this way, he or she has not sinned by forgoing it.  These feelings are a subjective matter and do not reflect a person's moral and spiritual standing.  However, it is fallacious, legalistic, and superficial to demand that someone else choose to pray or abstain from praying in this particular context.

Movie Review--Sucker Punch

"Everyone has an angel, a guardian who watches over us.  We can't know what form they'll take.  One day an old man, the next day a little girl.  But don't let appearances fool you.  They can be as fierce as any dragon."
--Sweet Pea, Sucker Punch


Zach Snyder is a very hit or miss filmmaker, with movies like 300 at the high quality end of his more popular films and Batman v Superman far closer to the other side.  Sucker Punch is nearer to 300 than Batman v Superman.  300, Watchmen, and, to a lesser extent, the DCEU's Man of Steel and Batman v Superman are all adaptions of material from graphic novels or comics, but Sucker Punch steps away from this pattern.  It is an original film that is not connected to any prior work of any medium.  Moreover, it is a far better movie than it has often received credit for thanks to its imaginative settings and action choreography.


Production Values

Snyder's signature style is on full display throughout the entire runtime, though it is particularly evident in the action sequences, many of which are rather unique in their components and execution.  A giant Samurai-like figure brandishing a machine gun is featured in the first one, for example, and a mech suit appears in the second action scene despite its World War I setting.  Slow motion is used at strategic moments, just like in 300--though it is used far less in this case.

The action might be the best part of Sucker Punch, but its performances are not weak.  Emily Browning's lead role sees her speak only in her imaginary escapades from the hellish asylum her character is taken to early on, but she speaks and acts confidently in this private mental landscape.  This nuance adds depth to a performance that would otherwise be very limited.  Emily Browning's cover of Sweet Dreams even plays in the opening scene!  The supporting cast also manages to give competent performances, with Jena Malone, Carla Gugino, and Oscar Isaac being some of the performers who make appearances.


Story

Several spoilers are below!

A young woman is brought to a mental institution after she threatens an abusive stepfather with a gun and runs away, where she is scheduled for a lobotomy.  As she waits for the arrival of the doctor who will perform the lobotomy, she carries out a plan to escape with the help of several other female inmates.  However, almost none of this is shown; the focus is instead on an imaginary alternate story in her mind that parallels her situation in the institution.


Intellectual Content

Sucker Punch is an overtly philosophical film, exploring the potential of the human mind to experience a sophisticated series of events that do not correspond to any external stimuli and the personal ramifications of such an experience.  Ultimately, Baby Doll's imagined experiences are manifestations of self-empowerment that bring her to celebrate how her attempt to escape the institution instead led to someone else receiving the opportunity for their own freedom.  The imaginary sequences are not specifically used to suggest that the external world is an illusion (which is demonstrably false [1]), nor are they used to expose the epistemological limitations of the senses, but they are used to illustrate the philosophical distinction between the mental plane and the sensory plane all the same.


Conclusion

Those who complain about the perceived oversaturation of cinema with sequels and reboots--neither of which are negative in themselves whatsoever--need to celebrate films like Sucker Punch even if the style is too niche to appeal to the entire group.  It is movies like this that exemplify the potential creativity of storytelling that is not based on previously established works (not that franchises have no similar potential).   Zach Snyder may be behind some very mixed or mediocre projects, but Sucker Punch is not one of his lesser offerings.  Its creativity and visual flair easily surpass those of many other contemporary films.


Content:
 Violence:  Numerous characters are killed onscreen with bladed weapons, gunfire, or other means (like the mech suit).
 Profanity:  A handful of words like "shit" and "bitch" are used.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/matter-is-not-illusion.html

Variants Of Pacifism

The kind of pacifist that is sometimes held up as a representative of the ideology is weak-willed, naive, and eager to trivialize the issues behind serious conflicts.  This characterization of pacifists might be true in some cases, but it is overly simplistic, ignoring the variations that can occur within the same branch of philosophy.  The issue of truth and epistemology aside, different pacifists could hold to somewhat distinct ideas without abandoning pacifism itself.  Some variations of pacifism are not as naive or riddled with assumptions as others.

Not all pacifists necessarily endorse non-violence to the same extent, just as they might not all adhere to pacifism for the same reasons.  A pacifist might claim their ideology simply out of ignorance about the need for self-defense and justice--or they might sincerely believe that even violent actions taken in self-defense or the defense of others are immoral.  Of course, there are also degrees of pacifism.  One pacifist might hold to a staunch condemnation of all violence, including self-defense, but another might condemn all violence that falls outside of the context of self-defense.

As with theism, empiricism, political libertarianism, and many other ideologies, true or false, there is not merely one possible form of pacifism.  It follows that it is unsound to think that the most blatantly assumption-based variants of pacifism represent all forms of the philosophy.  One does not need to be a pacifist to understand why distinguishing between different forms of an epistemological, metaphysical, or moral concept can mean that not all variations can be treated identically.  Not all types of pacifism are equally fallacious.

However, almost all forms of pacifism are impractical, and all of them are rooted in mere assumptions about the nature of ethics (unless a pacifist only holds to a subjectively preferred pacifist lifestyle as opposed to a moral pacifism that treats all violence as evil).  There is not a single variant of pacifism that can emerge from a rationalistic analysis as a valid philosophical stance.  Pacifism even becomes deeply ironic when someone, often due to confusion about the words of Jesus in the New Testament, thinks that the Bible supports pacifism [1].

To argue for pacifism on the grounds that the moral nature of Yahweh--and therefore the moral obligations of his followers--change depending on one's time of birth is to argue for cultural relativism, something that only a fool would suppose is compatible with the Bible.  Left without an at least partially relativistic foundation, a Christian pacifist must simply ignore the obvious commands of Yahweh (whom Jesus claimed to represent) to enact specific forms of capital punishment in select cases and to engage in combat under certain circumstances.  Rationalism and Christianity thus both reject pacifism.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-incompatibility-of-christianity-and.html

The Illogicality Of John Piper's 50 Reasons Why Jesus Came To Die

One of John Piper's most renowned books in the evangelical world, 50 Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die, ironically serves as a blatant expression of Piper's irrationalistic theology.  Every chapter has two pages devoted to it, and a statement in capitalized letters introduces each chapter as the header, with one chapter addressing each of Piper's supposed reasons why Jesus died.  Before reading even to the tenth chapter, any rationalistic reader can see that the book fails to truly list the 50 reasons its title mentions.  The purposes for Christ's coming and death are often shallow attempts to split one claim into multiple independent assertions.

For example, as a Trinitarian, Piper is merely restating his fifth reason why Jesus died in stating his sixth reason.  If Jesus is Yahweh and the death of Jesus occurred in part to show God's love of humanity, then it is absolutely redundant, unnecessary, and unhelpful to treat the love of Christ for humans as a distinct theological fact.  There is simply no possible way to derive 50 separate reasons for or ramifications of Christ's death from the contents of the Bible.  Soteriological points about the death of Jesus inevitably reduce down to a rather small handful of motives or implications.

There are other repetitive claims of Piper.  Reason 29 is "To Free Us From The Slavery Of Sin" is restated by reason 30, which says "That We Might Die To Sin And Live To Righteousness."  Reasons 32 and 36 likewise are simply different aspects of reason 29, and yet they are held up as if they are separate, mostly self-contained points that need to be made.  There are certainly different aspects of specific statements or facts that can be explored, but to treat these aspects as if they constitute anything more than different truths about the same fact(s) is asinine.

Piper's errors extend far beyond mistaking the same theological idea for multiple ideas, however.  The introduction of the book plainly says in its first sentence that there is no greater question in the 21st century than "Why did Jesus come and die?"  Given the evidence in favor of Christianity, and the handful of Christian doctrines that overlap with metaphysical truths that can be proven in full by reason [1], this is indeed a question of philosophical importance, but it is not the ultimate question of any era.

This is because Jesus, whether or not he existed (although there is strong evidence that he did thanks to writers like Josephus and Tacitus), cannot be the most foundational thing in existence, nor does whether or not he had a divine nature lift humans out of their epistemological limitations.  The collective laws of logic are the most foundational, all-encompassing, and illuminating thing in existence; it could not be any other way.  The existence and divinity of Jesus are far from self-evident.  If Jesus did not exist or was not divine, truth would still exist: it would therefore be true that the Biblical conception of Jesus is objectively false.

However, reason is self-evident, necessary, and the one thing all other things in existence metaphysically depend on, as only that which is logically possible can even exist in the first place.  Objective truths exist whether or not Jesus is divine, as there must still by necessity be logical truths that define and conform to reality regardless of human consensus or awareness.  Moreover, the existence or divinity of Jesus is far from obvious and can only be validly supported by a rationalistic analysis of historical evidence and the Bible itself.

This is one of Piper's ultimate errors.  In focusing on Jesus to the point of regarding reason as secondary, he has rejected the true nature of reality and shown that his commitment to Christ is rooted in nothing more than ignorant impulses, random assumptions, or emotional experiences.  Every non-rationalistic belief reduces down to one of these things.  John Piper seldom lands on the right side of the truth in any matter, but logically invalid premises and an irrational type of emphasis on Christology (even if his Christology was not mistaken) are some of his gravest philosophical failures.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.


[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/01/christianity-and-skepticism.html

The Appeal Of Reading

When I first became a rationalist shortly over five years ago, I regularly read online articles about certain philosophical matters (and I later read several works by historical philosophers).  I did not do this because articles or books influenced my worldview--as rationalism is antithetical to revering academia--or because they were necessary for me to even discover many philosophical concepts in the first place, as neither was the case.  I read because I enjoyed reading about concepts I had in many cases already thought of and investigating how aware of rationalism others are.

The epistemological irrelevance and ultimate futility of books (futility if they are aimed at matters outside of pure rationality, that is) needs to be acknowledged if a society is to be rationalistic [1], but this does not mean books are useless for practical or personal means.  The West's irrational elevation of books over personal contemplation/reasoning and direct empirical observations has enormous cultural consequences for worldview formation, yes; it would nonetheless be irrational to think that just any desire to read books or any motive behind that desire is problematic.

A person can read philosophical articles, books, and other writings simply because they derive pleasure from doing so, without ever being reliant on them in the sense that they would struggle to reason out almost every single logical truth about philosophy on their own.  It is entirely possible for philosophical reading to be merely an exciting or pleasant pastime even for those who neither need nor look to books for their worldview formation, as they look to pure reason and introspection instead.  As long as the true epistemological nature of reading is understood, there is nothing philosophically erroneous about reading out of a subjective desire to do so.  The appeal of reading is not a dangerous thing.  It is not even irrational for certain people to look for sound philosophical help from some books when they truly need it.

Those who read philosophical works must certainly never think of books as a necessary epistemological tool if they wish to be rational--or as a tool that is even capable of introducing a person to any demonstrable truths about metaphysics and epistemology that cannot already be reasoned out with the aid of reason alone.  Nothing about this truth means that it is irrational to enjoy reading about familiar or unfamiliar subjects, nor does it follow that a person who regularly reads about philosophy is not or has not actively, autonomously reasoned out numerous logical facts on their own, without any external pressure or prompting.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/philosophy-is-not-about-books.html

Crediting Newton With Too Much

Unlike many other scientific laws, gravity is directly observable from the perspective of any person at the macroscopic level.  No one has to read about gravity or be told about it in order to realize its presence in daily life.  Isaac Newton is credited with formally investigating gravity after seeing an apple drop down from a tree in the 1660s, yet some go beyond crediting him with this: they word their statements as if Newton discovered gravity for the first time in human history.  This is not to say that Newton himself ever made such a claim, but that many people speak or write as if they believe this claim in the present time.

If this idea was sincerely, directly affirmed by someone, it would scarcely be difficult to refute it.  Anyone at all who observed objects falling to the ground before Newton's reported encounter with the apple tree would have experienced gravity firsthand.  It is foolish to think that Newton was the first person in the historical record to notice gravitation, as if gravity went unnoticed by all of humanity until the 1660s.  There may have been no research or reflection on the nature of gravity beyond the everyday examples of it that anyone is capable of seeing, but this in no way means that gravity did not exist or that it was not noticeable.

Scientific phenomena that can be observed at the macroscopic level without modern equipment do not have to be revealed by scientists (which would only be an appeal to authority as it is).  By their very nature, they are directly observable.  It is completely up in the air whether many details of one's sensory perceptions correspond to the actual external world, but it is easy to realize that one's sensory perceptions do  feature laws of nature, otherwise called scientific laws.  Perceptions of gravity cannot be legitimately denied.

It is impossible to merely watch an apple--or any other object--fall to the ground and know if outer space features zero gravity, if quantum gravity differs from macroscopic gravity, or what the exact cause of gravity is.  However, absolutely no one who even slightly reflects on their everyday experiences would be surprised by Newton's observation of the apple falling from a tree.  Anyone whose body does not float above the ground is experiencing gravitational attraction.

Basic scientific information is not above the reach of any "layperson" who is willing to assess the perceived nature of their sensory experiences.  All it takes to understand the aspects of gravity that can be immediately perceived is the ability to contemplate that which the sense of sight reports on a regular basis.  Newton may have done much to advance theories of gravitation, but he neither invented nor discovered the fundamental law of gravity.  Every person who witnessed an object fall to the ground before the 1660s would have been quite aware of gravity.