Game Review--Lego The Incredibles (Switch)

"Superheroes are illegal.  Whether it's fair or not, that's the law."

--Elastigirl, Lego The Incredibles

"So now, I'm in deep trouble.  I mean, one more jolt of his death ray, and I'm an epitaph.  Somehow, I manage to find cover, and what does Baron von Ruthless do? . . . He starts monologuing!  He starts like this prepared speech about how feeble I am compared to him, how inevitable my defeat is, how the world will soon be his!"

--Frozone, Lego The Incredibles

As more movie franchises get a Lego video game made in their honor, it is fitting that something like The Incredibles and The Incredibles 2 would receive a Lego game adaption of its own.  Lego The Incredibles lets you play through both films and defeat additional villains in its open world.  Syndrome and Screenslaver are just the two main villains--Bomb Voyage from the first movie and newcomer Brainfreezer also have entire optional missions dedicated to them.  Also, Pixar fans will very likely love the references to other films by the same animation group, like Dory from Finding Nemo appearing as a playable character.  For those who appreciate The Incredibles on a comedic, character, or thematic level, the game should be easily understood to be a welcome look into the lore and characters of the series.

Production Values

Just like other recent Lego games based on movies, Lego The Incredibles uses actual lines and (seemingly) exact voice performances from the films--but it also sometimes adds dialogue, providing context to some familiar lines that is completely missing in the movies.  The levels faithfully recreate the iconic settings and characters of the movies, albeit in Lego form, without any pervading visual glitches or deformities.  One of the most inconvenient parts of the game is actually just the load screens.  The initial loading times to start the game from the main menu lasted multiple minutes almost every time I closed and restarted the game.  Very rarely, I also encountered issues like a glitch that kept me from using the relevant characters in the open world prelude to a specific story mission, but most of the game does not have these flaws.  The production values are generally either excellent or sufficient to keep the game running smoothly without any graphical or audio oddities.

Gameplay

In an unusual inversion of how Lego games normally progress, only missions from The Incredibles 2 are available at first, but this does nothing to affect the gameplay mechanics and overall story.  Some of the character abilities and mechanics have small changes from other Lego games, just not because of the mission order.  For example, Mr. Incredible can destroy objects and walls just by running into them and can literally pick up and throw minifigures offensively or defensively (perhaps some other Lego games has similar features for a character, but I have neither played nor heard of one).  Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl are even accompanied in the story missions by side characters for the sake of co-op play in parts of the story where the movie shows them alone, like when Gazerbeam helps Mr. Incredible explore Syndrome's island.

Each region on the open world map has a "crime wave" in which the player can complete a handful of specific missions that pit them against villains like Bomb Voyage, unlock new characters, and even let them earn icons that mark all remaining collectibles on the map.  There is no way to actually achieve 100% completion of the content outside of the main missions until after beating every level, at which point a certain villain takes the stage of the open world.  The ability to switch between any characters that have been unlocked at this point (and at any point one is in the non-story segments of the open world) is what allows for villains like this one to be defeated, as the abilities of the characters are diverse and each category of their powers is needed at least once or twice.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

Even though the missions start with the second film, the story missions follow the major plot points of the movies, incorporating classic dialogue and even expanding on it (a great example is that Frozone explains who he was talking to and what situation he was in when he got an old supervillain to monologue, something he only hints at in The Incredibles).  The game just begins by having the Parr family deal with Screenslaver and only afterward unlocks the levels pertaining to the first film's golden age of superheroes, the crackdown on superhero activities, and the eventual villainy of Syndrome.

Intellectual Content

Some of the themes of both films, like the Screenslaver's combination of anti-superhero ideology (ironic given that she is a supervillain, different from them in little besides her moral alignment) and complicated stance on technology, naturally make it into the game because of their relevance to the core plot.  For the most part, though, the most thoroughly intellectual aspects of Lego The Incredibles predictably have to do with finding collectibles.  However, in this case, many of them are actually right out in the open in the hub world.  Plenty of them can be found by simply wandering around aimlessly on foot, and I merely used the police chopper vehicle to obtain numerous airborne or rooftop items.  The intellectual side of this game is both very overt and less challenging than it could have been.

Conclusion

Lego The Incredibles is a particularly good fit for anyone who appreciates the genuine quality in Lego Marvel Super Heroes 2.  The former is indeed a much shorter game.  While Lego Marvel Super Heroes 2 could take upwards of 50-70 hours to complete everything, Lego The Incredibles only has 12 story missions total and is not as difficult to explore once the right characters and vehicles are unlocked.  It is the world of the movies and the way the game both replicates and expands on it that makes Lego The Incredibles one of the better recent Lego games.  Here is a fine example of how a game could very blatantly appeal to both children and adults at the same time!

Content:

 1.  Violence:  The conventional violence of Lego video games has no gore, blood, or brutality.

The God Of This World

When pressed, whether or not they truly believe this or have even personally thought about the issue of choice and responsibility, many people are quick to mention some sort of excuse for their beliefs, behaviors, and the inconsistencies they might have therein.  Perhaps they will say God, social pressures, neurochemistry, overwhelming emotion, or something else "made" them do or believe something they are trying to absolve themselves of (an inescapable error on their part because the nonexistence of free will could never be logically proven if it was true and because free will can be proven to exist [1]).  Another possibility is that certain people, if they are Christians, will claim Satan influences others in such a way that he is responsible for their actions even though it is they who carried them out.

The issue of whether Christianity is true or probable (for only fools think they could know if the whole of Christianity is outright true or false) aside, those who blame a demonic figure like Satan for human actions are still engaging in the same kind of infantile blameshifting that they think will make a person seem innocent of that which they have done.  Unless literal mind control or possession is involved, though, one being cannot actually control the will of another being.  There is a specific passage in the Bible that is perfectly consistent with this despite the potential for some people to mistakenly think it teaches a form of Satanic determinism with regard to non-Christians.

2 Corinthians 4:4 does say that the "god of this world" has blinded non-Christians to the full nature of the gospel, but it would be impossible for anyone to truly not understand anything at all about something--at least on a vague level, they are aware that the concept or issue is that concept or issue and not something else (the logical "law of identity"), even if they misunderstand what they think its exact qualities are.  However, if this verse did teach that non-Christians have no free will thanks to Satanic interference, this would only mean that any Christian who gets irate with non-Christians for this reason has reacted as if they have control over their worldviews when they do not; there would be no point in either objecting or punishing them with words for literally anything they believe, do, or say.

Whether or not Christianity is true, it is not as if people can rationally blame all of their thoughts, behaviors, or hypocrisies among these on some other being, supernatural or not.  That Satan--or at least a figure very much like the conventional description of Satan--is called "the god of this world" is a mere reference to how the egoistic, distorted values of the world do not align with Yahweh's will.  No sort of override of free will or shifting of moral responsibility is as much as hinted at.  At most, 2 Corinthians 4 says that the god of this world has obstructed some people from orienting themselves towards God, but even then, it is not as if people cannot contemplate their worldviews and pull themselves out of any error or assumption by sheer rationality and determination.

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

The Worldview Of Cletus Kasady: Diluting A Film's Themes And Characters

Not every film dealing with dark or deep subject matter (on the conceptual side of things, even if not on the side of how those ideas are presented) has to be aimed specifically at adult audiences or receive an R rating to be successful as a work of artistic expression or critically or commercially.  Financial success for films has still in many cases hinged on their mass popularity, which, because of the shallow preferences of many people, is something that does not always have anything to do with quality.  Sometimes movies that are better suited thematically and in terms of the plot by an R rating are edited or intentionally designed from the start to receive a rating that might appeal to both simpletons and sincere audience members alike.  The intention in many cases is to cast as wide a net as possible with as little effort as possible.

Venom: Let There Be Carnage is set to soon introduce the serial killer Cletus Kasady and his Klyntar symbiote Carnage, and it has been announced for some time that the movie would be PG-13.  This does not automatically damn a project to mediocrity or abysmal quality, of course.  An MPAA rating is an arbitrary classification of potentially unsettling content instead of an indicator of thematic and artistic quality.  Just as a movie having an R rating does not mean it is deep, unique, or executed well, a movie having a lower rating does not mean it is intended for broad family viewing, not that there is anything morally or intellectually special about being "family friendly" in the first place.  The reasons for pursuing an MPAA rating and the execution of the film determine if this is an asinine or competent approach in that case.

However, with the sequel to Venom, it is very unclear as of right now if its PG-13 rating has only been obtained at the expense of any sort of authentic portrayal of its lead villain.  Diluting the themes of a work of entertainment for the sake of money means the creators are superficial and do not deserve the recognition, approval, and money they might crave.  With Carnage, the aforementioned movie is centered on a human villain known for his sincere but irrationally assumed nihilism, personal brutality, and affiliation with an alien symbiote with a similar love of brutality.  It would be a betrayal of the very character and themes the creators are supposedly trying to adapt to include him while turning him, like the first film turned Venom into a comedic figure, into someone who makes jokes in serious moments.

A person who embraces nihilism, something that can only be done on faith instead of by logical proof, and engages in a string of murders driven by the assumption that the victims are being liberated from a meaningless reality is far from a character that needs to be aimed at bringing in as much revenue from as broad an audience as possible.  I do not mean that there is anything morally problematic about allowing young children to watch very violent, dark, or existential stories; children need philosophical awareness just as much as adults do.  I mean that trying to dilute the philosophies and personality of a character that is bent on spreading carnage, as the name of his symbiote suggests, could easily become a stupid goal if it is not done very carefully.  When his character is tied to the issues of psychopathy, an analysis of the concept of morality, and the distinction between perceptions of meaning and objective meaning, he stands for ideas of greater substance than mass appeal for the sake of mass appeal.

Unfortunately, in an entertainment world where themes and characters are routinely underdeveloped and used only as means to the end of getting audiences to pay, it would not be unusual for Venom: Let There Be Carnage to do almost nothing to explore the issues raised by characters like Cletus Kasady and their worldviews.  Diluting the philosophical and artistic integrity of a film for the sake of money only means that the film does not truly merit the kind of praise and success that it would if it had remained deeper in its construction, truthful in its themes, and authentic in its execution on a creative level.  Until it is actually viewed, there is no way to know if Venom: Let There Be Carnage has a terribly shallow or inefficient portrayal of a villain like Carnage, but studios comfortable with making money on projects with little to no true intellectual or artistic depth forfeit the ability to deserve praise.

The Ethics Of Nepotism

In the name of avoiding nepotism, the act of appointing family members to job positions out of favoritism, some people might even avoid making decisions for jobs or contests that might superficially appear to favor someone in their family.  Contrarily, a rational person does not make decisions based on concern for the uncontrollable emotions or perceptions of others except with the goal of manipulating them.  A fear of public perception is ironically one of the most asinine reasons to treat something as immoral.  Reluctance to hire family over non-family members even when there is no favoritism due to the perceptions of others is just a symptom of irrational priorities.

If by nepotism one means hiring family members over strangers for important positions within a company without simply hiring them by default because they are family, then of course nepotism is not some disastrous, discriminatory practice.  The perceptions of other people have no role to play in making something morally acceptable or not, so objecting on the grounds that some might subjectively feel excluded or overlooked when this was not the case amounts to a mere emotionalistic objection.  Personal preferences do not shape or reveal reality.

Now, if by nepotism one means hiring someone just because they are family, then of course this concept is one of discrimination on an irrelevant basis, just like choosing people for a job because they are men, women, white, black, and so on discriminates against others on some irrelevant basis.  The issue is not that other people might misperceive hiring family members over strangers as favoritism, but that there is an actual bias in favor of family despite whatever ineptitudes or insincerity they might bring.  Nepotism cannot be committed without a scenario where someone is selected for a job regardless of qualifications because their employer or hiring manager intended to side with family by default.

This means that some situations that certain observers might assume involve nepotism could have nothing to do with it after all.  What if multiple equally qualified candidates apply for a job someone oversees and one of the candidates is their child, sibling, or parent?  Would it be discriminatory to simply pick the family member because they are familiar, not because of favoritism in spite of other applicants having greater skills or a more compatible personality?  In this scenario, there is no reason to choose one over the other as far as skills and intellect go, making a personal preference of hiring the family member a non-discriminatory factor.

Discriminating against non-family members in the workplace is one of many irrational ways to prioritize an irrelevant characteristic of a person over genuine talent and suitability.  Not everything that seems biased or unjust truly is, however.  As with other controversial job-related behaviors like workplace dating [1] or bribery [2] (bribery that is not aimed at an immoral goal, that is), appointing family members to important or prestigious work positions is not automatically a sign of discrimination even when other candidates are available.  Whether the word nepotism refers to something discriminatory hinges entirely on the precise details of what a person means by the word.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2020/04/workplace-romances-slippery-slope.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/understanding-bribery.html

Ideological Brothers And Sisters

Biological family is more often praised as central to a person's life in ways that friendships of all kinds cannot be.  At its core, this idea rests on the assumption that family ties have some inherent moral value that other relationships do not.  Family is claimed to be more important than friends by default.  In actuality, friendships of a specific kind are inevitably more socially foundational and philosophically important than the involuntary connection shared with blood relatives.  The specific kind of friendship in question is, of course, one centered on mutual recognition of philosophical truths and mutual commitment to personal intimacy.  Friendships, even with one's family members, built on shared true philosophies are by far the more stable, impactful, and existentially comforting type of relationship.

The happenstance connection to biological family members has nothing to do with their standing as intellectual and moral beings.  To believe that unwavering loyalty to family is deserved by nature of being family is to believe that family deserves honor no matter how foolishly, hypocritically, or ineptly they act in an ideological sense.  It is to bestow personal affection that goes beyond a respect for human rights no matter what family members do or fail to do.  In other words, it is the grand facade of pretending like someone can deserve unconditional acceptance and love without having actually done anything at all to deserve such a thing.  This is understood as the idiocy and injustice it is by anyone at all who reflects on the issue without making assumptions for the sake of attempting to salvage personal preferences.

In contrast with biological family members, ideological brothers and sisters are the purest kind of "sibling" precisely because they are chosen, and chosen based on a mutual recognition of and concern for true ideas at that.  Even if one does not know them personally, choosing to embrace a correct idea means one holds to the same foundation as everyone else who rightly embraces that idea, whether or not one will ever meet or hear of them.  Nothing about family entitles someone to special love from their parent, child, sibling, or extended family member simply for being born.  Two rationalists, however, will always have a more significant connection as non-relatives than ideologically opposed siblings and parents have with their actual family.

An unchosen familial connection to someone who is an irrationalistic imbecile is never as ideologically or relationally significant as a shared acknowledgment of truth that unites people despite whatever geographical differences or lack of family ties they might have.  Family is not always a group of people that justly brings out frustration, fury, and rightful indignation, but the examples where family does inspire these things help illustrate why family members cannot deserve to be honored in thought or deed more than their worldviews, actions, and words merit.  Ideological brothers and sisters unified around rationalism and what rationalism leads to, in contrast, have established their superiority to mere blood relatives by having something deeper in common with oneself than biological connections ever could.

Formal And Informal Language

The association of formal language with deeper intellectual communication or greater intelligence is a red herring and a non sequitur all at once, a betrayal of reason that ignores the true nature of language.  Words of both a formal and informal kind have their communicative usefulness at times, even if the most effective category of language is often right between these two ends of the spectrum, but it is rather easy to sway people by bringing about the illusion of intelligence through speech rather than just understanding truths and concepts without errors.  For this reason, formal wording is something many people confuse for a sign of true intelligence, when someone using formal language might be intentionally trying to hide their illogical beliefs with sophisticated words or might be saying things randomly--without premeditated comprehension.

Formal language is only used for at least one of three reasons: a person wants to fit into a group that uses it or please someone else who uses more sophisticated language, wants to sound more intelligent just for their choice of words instead of their conceptual understanding and philosophical beliefs, or simply wants to use it because it linguistically reflects their actual thoughts in a natural way.  Of these reasons to use formal language, only the last is a valid one.  The other two reek of superficiality and fallacious, erroneous beliefs.  In fact, a genuinely intelligent person would see right through this tactic even if they had not thought much about the nature of intelligence and language before.

In the case of the first motivation, one must treat someone else who almost certainly mistakes formal language for intelligence or deep comprehension as if they are worth pleasing and as if their asinine stance has any veracity or significance.  In the case of the second motivation, one must hold to a false idea about intelligence regardless of whether someone else does.  The point is not necessarily about trying to impress a specific group that likewise uses formal language for shallow reasons, but it might be about coming across as more intelligent to random people who are irrational enough to conflate vocabulary with comprehension and ideological soundness.

Both informal and formal language can have their uses, but none of them ever amount to anything more than conveying concepts and truths.  The sole primary purpose of language, after all, is mere communication; language does not ground one's understanding of a concept and is not necessary to think of or about many ideas.  Because of this, any change in the formality or informality of the words a person uses do not reflect changes in the concepts, just differences in how those ideas are supposed to be conveyed.  It would be quite lazy and shallow of someone to truly believe that using arbitrarily more formal words means they are more rational, which is all that intelligence entails.

The Paradox Of Sexuality And Survival

An individual person can go a lifetime without sex and never suffer physically for it, and perhaps they are perfectly content to forgo having sex regardless of their relational/marital status.  Logically and scientifically, sex has nothing to do with personal survival.  No one at all needs to have sex in order to both live and take pleasure in their life.  At times, sex and the far more expansive components of sexuality beyond mere sexual intercourse can add layers of immense satisfaction and excitement to life, but they are not necessities for life in the way that food or water are.  This is not even to say that being nonessential for survival lessens the significance of something, as mere survival is philosophically meaningless on its own; the point at hand is that sexual expression is not vital to stay alive.

When it comes to the human species, sex is, as far as correlative empirical observation suggests (which could all be mere correlation instead of true causation like all other unprovable but seeming causal relationships), actually necessary to survival--never on an individual level for the aforementioned reasons, yet always on a species level.  The survival of humanity via successive generations and the survival of individuals are paradoxically distinct in full.  Thus, if someone believes sexual expression is necessary for survival, they are right only if they mean something very specific.  However, sexuality is far more prominent when it comes to rationalistic self-exploration than it ever is when it comes to survival on an individual level.

One ramification is that this is a way, just one of many, to logically prove that sexuality is not the most foundational or philosophically significant aspect of human existence.  Biologically, it might be imperative to continue the species, but even then, there are numerous aspects of sexuality that are deeper than sex between partners could ever be, like the analysis of logical truths about the nature of sexuality and the great potential for sexual introspection (which, of course, has nothing to do with sensory perceptions and other people on its own).  Sexual reductionism, like naturalistic reductionism, economic reductionism, emotionalistic reductionism, and any other idea that false reduces all or most of human life to something that is but a part of it, is untrue and devastating.

The paradox of sexuality and survival is just one reason why sexual reductionism is false.  Not only is sex and broader sexuality not necessary for individual survival, it is something that cannot change the inherently nonsexual nature of most kinds of relationships, interactions, desires, and thoughts.  Clothing, nudity, friendship, emotional intimacy, physical intimacy, physical beauty, and sensuality are not sexual.  Even survival itself is not a matter of sexuality except at the largest scale of continual human presence.  The paradoxical nature of how sexuality is observational connected with the continuation of humanity as a while even though it is not inherently tied to broad individual flourishing is worth contemplating on its own, yet it also dispels the errors of sexual reductionism.

Movie Review--One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

"I think we can help him."
--Nurse Mildred Ratched, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest's very slow burn plot and fierce performances are its best components, with Jack Nicholson standing out as a particularly energetic and committed actor.  At most, there is a minimal need for effects and varied locations since the acting and wiring takes the lead.  This is a movie driven from start to finish by the plot and its characters; almost every scene hinges on the cast.  This emphasis is unfortunately accompanied by a general superficiality where the philosophical themes are concerned.  Individualism, mental illness, the myth of "normalcy," and the other themes that could have been incorporated very deeply end up getting explored only at a very surface level.

Production Values

The utter lack of need for anything beyond practical effects and physical filming sites leaves the characters to take the spotlight--and take the spotlight they do.  Jack Nicholson's intensity and acting talent is on full display as he plays a character to be evaluated for mental illness, even if his somewhat comparable characterization and performance in The Shining five years later has overshadowed his role in the former in mainstream recognition.  His Randle McMurphy can go from relatively calm to wildly animated in minutes, something that might be completely unsurprising to viewers familiar with some of his other major roles throughout his career.  Despite the wildness and simultaneous stability he brings to the character, there are others who deserve specific praise.  Nicholson is not the only cast member who stands out.

Nurse Mildred Ratched, who has just recently received her own Netflix show entitled Ratched that actually serves as a prequel to this very film, is one of the more noteworthy characters outside of the patient group influenced by McMurphy.  Louise Fletcher brings an indirect aggressiveness to Ratched as she acts what is now an example from the later years of Sarah Paulson's character from Ratched.  Other cast members include Brad Dourif and Danny DeVito, who play other patients besides McMurphy.  Their own strong performances make it clear that the psychological problems of their characters are far less ambiguous than those of Jack Nicholson's.  The actor who plays Dick Halloran in The Shining, Benjamin Crothers, even has a supporting role!

Story

Some spoilers are below.

Randle Patrick McMurphy is brought to a mental institution for psychological evaluation after allegedly committing statutory rape (which is not even rape by default in the first place) and engaging in multiple physical assaults, his strong personality almost immediately surfacing.  It is this intensity that brings him into conflict with Nurse Mildred Ratched.  Ratched's cold, firm leadership inspires McMurphy to develop a plan of escape against her after less extreme measures of pushback fail to budge her.  What Randle does not learn until weeks have passed is that he is one of the only patients who cannot walk away from the institution as soon as the whim strikes: most of his companions voluntarily came here.

Intellectual Content

The conceptual premise of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest has a high degree of promise when it comes to exploring the nature of sanity and mental health, but it forgoes any deeper analysis of the concepts than that needed to get its characters from one scene to another.  No one needs an evaluation from another person to know if they have a specific mental disorder, yet McMurphy does not push back against fallacious epistemological criteria for "determining" if someone has a mental illness or is feigning it, opting to butt heads with Nurse Ratched instead.  McMurphy's insistence that his fellow patients are "no crazier than the average asshole" hints at the often purely arbitrary ways many people would distinguish sanity and insanity.  Ultimately, only pure rationality separates the two, meaning that involuntary sensory perceptions or lack of them (as in seeing things other people do not or vice versa), "odd" behaviors, and forceful personality traits do not logically establish that a certain person truly is insane.  However, denying or contradicting logical truths is the supreme form of insanity, and it is easy to find people who are guilty of this.

Conclusion

With Ratched's debut on Netflix, there has never been a better time for interested viewers who have not seen One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest to watch it for the first time.  Fans of older films will likely enjoy watching Jack Nicholson and Louise Fletcher carry out their roles splendidly, while anyone who appreciates competent filmmaking of any era will find much to admire.  For all of its talented acting, though, it does nothing more than brush up against issues and themes that are much deeper than anything the movie tries to tackle.  That matters of psychology, sociality, and epistemology could have been explored far more directly and deeply means that the film is by no means the philosophical masterpiece it could have been, but it remains a masterpiece of acting and characterization in spite of this.

Content:
 1.  Violence:  A brief fistfight is shown onscreen.
 2.  Profanity:  "Goddamnit," "shit," and "fuck" are heard throughout the runtime.
 3.  Nudity:  A character is shown naked from behind as he runs out of a room, but the shot is not lengthy.

A Peril Of Digital Information And Media Storage

The way technological advances have led to digital media and information storage has many so enamored with this convenience that they might not take the peril of this very seriously.  Given what I have written about before, the title might seem to refer to the peril of mistaking popular information and epistemology for provable facts or for intentionally outsourcing worldview formation to others, but the peril referred to here is of a far more practical, financial kind pertaining to a person's digital possessions.  Since reason and rationalism encompass all things, it is not as if business, economics, and technology are outside of rationalistic philosophy even though none of these things are as abstract, foundational, or otherwise important like more explicitly philosophical matters are.

Holding either general written/typed information or entertainment purchases or databases online means that the content is actually outside of consumer control; they can only access it if there are no technical difficulties and if the company behind whatever cloud service they are using both stays active and does not block their access.  While this does not happen enough to have inspired thorough concern in the words of general consumers, it does mean that the broad shift towards digital sales and use of entertainment (with physical discs and cartridges for media having a smaller emphasis when more people just rely on downloads or cloud services) sets the consumers involved up for a grand vulnerability some of them might not even think about.

If the cloud, streaming, or download service was halted or sabotaged, the digital content of every user is gone--unless they downloaded whatever content they paid for off of the cloud (as with a digital video game download), in which case they will be unable to redownload it upon deleting it.  Obviously, physical media and other items can be destroyed or rendered useless with water, fire, harsh treatment, and sheer neglect, but a physical purchase is safe even if a company and whatever digital services it offered collapse.  There is in one sense a greater safety for consumer purchases where physical belongings are concerned than there is when it comes to a digital item tied strictly to both internet access and a company's services remaining in effect.  Bankruptcy and corporate negligence cannot get in the way of using physical media one has already obtained.

Physical media is objectively more secure for consumers, in spite of the immediate convenience of many digital services, purchases, or rentals.  Not every contemporary trend in business in technology truly benefits consumers as much as it might first appear.  Yes, cloud-based information storage and media have the benefit of holding more than most people's devices--whether computers, smartphones, or game consoles--could on their own, and they can allow for the grand convenience of instant access to a plethora of information and entertainment that one cannot normally use, but this always comes with the risk of losing every part of this service without warning or recovery (unless one hypothetically owned the cloud service in question).

The intersection of trends in business and technology can be subjectively fascinating to the point of making a person grateful he or she was born in the present age.  Sometimes, this fascination might distract someone from the fact that they can prevent digital softwares, apps, and storage from depriving them of the physical items that can outlast the promises and hype behind novel technology and business tactics.  Some people might not realize until after a hypothetical mass loss of digital media and information that they could have done things, some of them not particularly expensive, to ensure they have a more genuine kind ownership over certain things they have bought.

The Doomsday Clock

The infamous doomsday clock is supposed to reflect how close to "midnight"--to technological or environmental destruction, or destruction of the species from things completely beyond our control--humans are.  At specified points in a year, the clock will be moved closer or further from midnight to allegedly show how near to extinction or apocalyptic catastrophe humans stand at the moment.  Just how accurate this kind of "clock" is cannot be determined by appeals to authority or by assuming the accuracy of that a clock adjusted only twice a year with arbitrary measurements for danger converted into times.

The only way to create a system for a doomsday clock is to make assumptions about the precise degree to which certain threats promise to affect humankind or to assign an arbitrary set of "danger values" to a specific amount of time on the clock.  Unlike something like money, the currency value of which is also chosen in a purely arbitrary manner, the doomsday clock's settings have no cultural necessity for everyday life and thus have no role in stabilizing society.  These purely arbitrary measurements of how close humanity is to global disaster are taken seriously by gullible people even though they have nothing to do with proving anything about future events or determining the exact "amount" of danger facing the globe at a given moment.

Then, there is the logical flaws of actually thinking that the exact dangers of the future can be known.  This idea that anyone at all can just reason out what events will happen in the future, regardless of whatever experiences they have had that seem relevant, is asinine because reason is what reveals that anything at all which is logically possible could take place even a moment from now, no matter how much or how little evidence there was for it.  Impending disaster that seems moments away might never come; catastrophes or the apocalypse itself could spring upon us with not a hint of evidence that they are about to arrive.

Now, nothing about these truths means humans should not prepare to weather out various potential catastrophes, especially when they seem more probable than others, nor do these logical truths mean that there is no benefit to trying to rouse the apathetic from their indifference.  The ramifications simply entail that any sort of belief that a doomsday clock is anything more than an unnecessary, imperfect construct is invalid.  Thus, it does not matter what the doomsday clock is set for; disaster will fall if it will fall and can be avoided if it is not inevitable (almost nothing is).

Anything, anything at all, that goes beyond this approach to the matter cannot be a rational stance to hold on constructs like the doomsday clock.  The fear the masses often thoughtlessly have for whatever apocalyptic event others in their country also fear can be used to drive reflection rather than needless panic.  For this reason, the most useful part of having a doomsday clock is nothing other than having someone to motivate some people to sincerely, rationalistically think about the epistemology of the future and the sheer irrelevance of many social constructs to life.

Born Again

A conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3 is where the popular phrase "born again" originates, at least in its Christian usage.  According to Jesus, this second birth is a requirement to enter the so-called "kingdom of heaven."  The concept of this transformative experience of becoming born again actually has more aspects to be discovered than most people ever hint at realizing.  On one hand, it is an integral part of New Testament soteriology; on the other hand, at the same time, no being that cannot see into the minds of others can see how genuine their transformation is and no spiritual transformation proves that a particular religion is true or even likely to be true.

Still, this process of transformation is so thorough and so penetrating that it is as if a person has been born a second time.  Old, flawed characteristics of a person's psyche can be replaced by morally and intellectually healed characteristics.  As 2 Corinthians 5:17 describes a sincere Christian, "the old is gone, the new has come!"  The extent of this change is both of fairly high internal importance within Christianity and yet almost wholly irrelevant to assessing which parts of Christianity (actual Christianity, not what traditions and hearsay pretend like it is) are provably true or probable--except when it comes to one specific point.

What this means and does not mean might seem paradoxical at first, but the nuance of it, despite how it is misunderstood in one way or another by most people inside or outside the church, is rather simple.  Even though a personal experience of psychological and spiritual transformation could never prove the truth of any specific religion to either others or to oneself, rendering experiences like this epistemologically useless and useful for nothing at all but sheer subjective motivation to reflect on philosophy, it is nonetheless true that Christianity could not be true unless it is genuinely capable of triggering a grand change within a person.  Both of these facts are true at once.

As is the case with thorough rationalism, it is impossible for Christianity to not transform a person's life if it is sincerely embraced.  The ramifications of Christianity do not permit someone who truly commits himself or herself to remain unchanged by the worldview they profess.  Again, that someone is deeply transformed by Christianity does not mean anything other than the handful of philosophical ideas in the Bible that are logically provable and that must be true by necessity (like the basic existence of an uncaused cause) are correct, and it does not make Christianity true as a whole.  It just means that at least the parts of the Bible that describe the saved as undergoing a deep personal change are not contradicted by people's actual lives.

Only a fool would believe even after thoroughly seeking reason that any ideology is proven true in full just because someone who claims to adhere to it has displayed signs of change.  This much is true no matter what the Bible says--not that the Bible conflicts with this in the slightest way.  At the same time, there are verses in the Bible which clearly state that the ideas therein, if true, can renovate a person from the inside out, and it would also be folly to think that this kind of doctrine has no relevance to the epistemology of Christian apologetics.  It does have something to do with what would be true about genuine Christians if Christianity is indeed correct.

Personal Authenticity

Personal authenticity starts with the self-awareness that only introspection in the name of rationalism brings and then it spills over into honest, consistent expression of one's personality and worldview.  Outside of this, there is either no authenticity or it is incomplete at best.  Superficiality is all that otherwise will be found.  In an age where "authenticity" is frequently spoken of inside and outside the church as if it is nothing more than a shallow way of outwardly fitting into social groups without any deep introspection or sincerity, personal authenticity needs to be understood if anyone is to be able to intentionally, knowingly express it in the sense that so many people might pretend to.

Self-awareness and expression of one's individual thoughts, struggles, triumphs, joys, and talents is always needed.  Every single person who has not embraced rationalism has much to recognize about themselves that will make their grasp of reality--for the contents of one's mind are as much a part of reality any conceptual truth or physical object--even clearer than it could ever otherwise be.  In turn, this introspective clarity is one component for genuine expression of self that transcends the superficial, halfhearted self-knowledge and self-expression that can so easily be found in most communities.

Irrationalistic hypocrites that they are, many people will say that they prize authenticity up until someone else insists that their true self involves a characteristic that the former group subjectively disapproves of.  What such people truly mean is they like the thought of being themselves up until someone else expresses their individuality even in a a way that is not irrational or sinful.  This is one way to tell that, unless someone is trying to be deceptive about this aspect of their life and is thus already not concerned with truth, a person is only interested in authenticity when it benefits them or does not entail something in others they subjectively do not relate to or prefer.

Wherever rationalism does not have a stronghold, self-awareness is one of the casualties for individuals and cultures alike.  No one can understand and therefore cannot express themselves as they truly are on any consistent level without gazing within themselves while forsaking all assumptions.  Again, there is no authenticity without rationalism because there is no deep self-awareness and intelligence apart from rationalism.  Calling for the former without also sincerely calling for the latter is a sign that a person or culture is deluded to the point of not understanding basic philosophical consistency.

A society which calls for personal authenticity without coupling it with pure rationalism will never be defined either by authenticity or rationality.  It is only individuals who have liberated themselves from fallacious beliefs and the prison of assumptions, both those of personal and social origin, who are free to understand themselves in the light of reason and exhibit true authenticity.  Even then, only others who have done the same are capable of truly understanding and relating to them in the truest sense possible.  Authenticity of the deepest kind is nowhere to be found where someone has not examined themselves without making assumptions, which itself is often nowhere to be found where someone has not systematically aligned with rationalism.

Forsaking Intuition

There are many different ways that intuitions, the spontaneous, personal perceptions strong enough that a non-rationalist is likely to immediately yield to them, can manifest themselves.  One kind of intuition is moral intuition: this is observed inwardly whenever a person who has not rationalistically analyzed their moral emotions feels their conscience flaring up all of the sudden in reaction to certain thoughts or events.  Of course, conscience is epistemologically invalid no matter what, but this is still a crucial example of intuition.  Another type is present when someone has a strong tendency to believe in a sensory phenomena like object permanence without critically assessing the idea.  There are different categories that all share the same fundamental flaws.

The reason why so many people rely on intuition, knowingly or unknowingly, likely reduces down to the ease of doing so.  Instead of reasoning by not making assumptions, starting with what cannot be false (logical axioms), and then seeing what does and does not follow from these truths, a person who looks to intuition as a source of genuine knowledge about things other than their own perceptions has to only experience thoughts and perceptions as they surface and act on them.  With this approach to epistemology, there is no effort beyond perhaps occasionally analyzing how one form of intuition relates to other.  Now, there are plenty of ways to make assumptions, even ones of noteworthy stupidity, without defaulting to intuition, but the less thoughtful someone is, the more likely they are to never go beyond intuition.

Belief in anything based on intuition other than the fact that intuition exists (for experiencing an intuition does prove this much) is a glaring, avoidable folly that everyone is capable of seeing on their own if they only tried.  The absolute certainty of reason obliterates the assumption-based epistemology that honors intuition and regards it as something more than an irrelevant distraction from knowable truths about concepts and experiences beyond one's own sense of intuition.  If someone is concerned with true knowledge instead of the illusion of knowledge, they would either forsake intuition on their own or at least stop looking to it for knowledge, that which it cannot provide, once others rightfully mention how irrational it is to believe in moral, scientific, or other metaphysical stances based on intuition.

However, not only is it logically possible for a person who heavily relied on intuition to recognize their fallacious beliefs and actively stop believing in metaphysical or epistemological ideas based on intuition, but it is also possible to do so without a lasting or prolonged struggle to simply be rational.  Intuition and general assumptions of any kind are an epistemological prison that keeps someone from truth, yet they are a prison that anyone can walk out of by merely choosing to, embracing reason as they cease fallacious beliefs.  The collective assumptions non-rationalists make just happen to be an inviting prison that is easy for someone who does not sincerely care about truth to accept.

Intuition is the refuge of irrationalistic thinkers who are comfortable with making assumptions that appease their arbitrary desires and seem superficially consistent with their experiences.  It is incredibly easy (for a non-rationalist) and almost thoughtless to just believe whatever seems to be true at the moment, especially when something seems to be true because it is what unexamined experience and personal preference jointly point someone to.  A consistent rationalist rises above the petty, worthless pitfall of believing in even a single thing based on intuition.  In forsaking intuition, a rationalist is free to wholly align with reason.

Yahweh Is No Ares

One of the more misunderstood and even feared aspects of Biblical morality is how it clearly permits warfare.  When someone assumes that war inevitably entails cruelty inflicted on the opposing side and perhaps also on neutral parties, this will seem heinous to them.  The entire matter of what makes something cruel or unjust aside (and emotion and consensus are as irrelevant here as they are to all other objective truths about things beyond emotion and consensus existing), it is apparent that warfare does not ever have to be conducted out of sadism or selfishness.  Indeed, this is the kind of warfare allowed by Mosaic Law.  Yahweh, as described by the Bible, is certainly no Ares.

To clarify an important fact up front, issues like rape of enemy soldiers or noncombatant captives actually pertain to how individual soldiers behave, not to the inherent nature of warfare itself.  After all, there is not anything about the fundamental nature of engaging in battles and using physical force, weaponry, or technology to kill enemies that involves rape or other forms of abuse.  All the same, the plain Biblical denouncement of rape as an act that deserves execution (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), homosexual intercourse as an act that deserves execution even when it is not non-consensual (Leviticus 20:13), and immediately having sex with prisoners of war as an exploitative act (Deuteronomy 21:10-14) all prohibit rape of any kind, inside or outside of a war context.

As for actual warfare, Deuteronomy 20:10-12 goes so far as to demand that the Israelites offer peace to an enemy before starting a battle with them.  It is one thing to preemptively attack a bloodthirsty, egoistic enemy force that needs to be stopped before it can spread more gratuitous or unjust destruction.  There is no obligation to be gracious or kind when one's life or safety is at stake.  In other cases, the Bible insists that it is immoral to refuse to offer the other faction a chance to avoid whatever killing might occur on the battlefield completely.  Unsurprisingly, this detail is left out of almost all arguments against Biblical ethics--not that conscience and cultural expectations have anything to do with why something is morally wrong if such a thing as morality exists.

Nowhere in the Bible is the kind of warfare so easily found in historical documentation of nationalistic, imperialist, or otherwise selfish cultures prescribed or defended.  Genocide is not automatically immoral by default just because it involves mass killings, not unless killing itself is inherently immoral (and there is absolutely nothing to believe in this based on other than emotion and societal norms).  By Biblical standards, killing alone is not immoral, so there is no internal justification for objecting to mere killing; since conscience is just emotion and cultural preferences are just social constructs, neither of these has any validity on any matter.  The historical evidence in favor of the Bible's veracity makes Christian ethics the only moral framework that can actually be evidentially supported.

Nevertheless, Biblical morality is utterly opposed to militaristic emphasis of armed might over philosophical and moral soundness.  Yahweh is no Ares no matter how much the Biblical text is misrepresented by imbecilic thinkers inside and outside the church.  The deity of the Bible is neither opposed to all warfare at the expense of self-preservation nor anything but opposed to military conflict beyond specific situations like societal self-defense against unjust invaders.  As in times outside of war, all wartime kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), murder (Exodus 21:12-14), and rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) are capital offenses in Mosaic Law.  It is not as if either cruel abuses of enemies or the violation of the rights of noncombatants are ever tolerated to the slightest extent even when the Bible prescribes or allows for warfare.

Movie Review--Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice Ultimate Edition

"We have always created icons in our own image.  What we have done is we project ourselves onto him.  The fact is maybe he's not some sort of devil or a Jesus character; maybe he's just a guy trying to do the right thing."

--News interviewee, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Ultimate Edition

"But the bell's already been rung.  And they've heard it, out in the dark, among the stars.  Ding-dong.  The god is dead.  The bell cannot be unrung!  It is hungry.  He's found us.  And he's coming!"

--Lex Luthor, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Ultimate Edition

An R rating and extended runtime are not guarantees that a movie will be better than it otherwise would have been--but the "Ultimate Edition" of Batman v Superman very clearly is not only the superior cut of the movie, but it is actually a great film.  The plot points are more coherent because, instead of having random scenes follow each other with little visual or verbal elaboration, the Ultimate Edition shows a host of smaller moments that reveal the true extent of Lex Luthor's villainy and very smoothly move the plot along.  As is also true of Zack Snyder's Justice League, there are even entire characters that only show up in the extended version.  Jena Malone is one such cast member with a character that was cut completely for the theatrical version--and yet her character helps unveil key aspects of the story.  Other minor characters make the story and themes clearer than the truncated theatrical cut did.  Studio interference clearly did not help the reputation and criticism of Batman v Superman in its theatrical form, but it did rob initial viewers of a superior film with a better grasp of its themes and characters.

Production Values

The only changes to the aesthetics of the former cut include the addition of enough blood to persuade the MPAA to say that violence is the reason why it received an R rating, as if the highly arbitrary classifications of the MPAA have any sort of objective weight.  The famous "warehouse scene" where Batman saves Martha Kent from Luthor's brutes is one of the only places where the R rating affects existing scenes on a visual level.  Otherwise, the largely excellent special effects and cinematography are exactly as they were before.  Everything from the fight between Batman and Superman to the shots of Doomsday radiating its increasing power are reminders to even those most critical of Zack Snyder that he is at his "worst" still a superb filmmaker.

Now, some flaws of the theatrical cut unrelated to its rushed plot points still remain.  Lex Luthor's verbal randomness and utterly bizarre interpretation of the character are still there.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson's cameo as himself just reflects more of his miniscule philosophical depth that is oriented around nothing more than scientific perceptions instead of pure focus on the laws of logic and what they reveal (although his appearance is not something that reflects poorly on Zack Snyder or the broader themes of his story).  Characters were only added, after all, not taken away or changed.  The aforementioned Jena Malone is one new cast member, playing Jenet Klyburn of S.T.A.R. Labs in two new scenes that are actually crucial to explaining an early part of both versions of the movie: the relevance of the African massacre blamed on Superman is otherwise just another random, gratuitous section of the theatrical cut.  Malone makes the most of her small role both with the plot impact and her performance.

Story

Some spoilers are below, but the basic plot is the same as that of the theatrical cut.

The Ultimate Edition, just by including a handful of extra scenes, shows that Lex Luthor was maliciously manipulating far more people than seems to be the case in the theatrical edition.  Lex Luthor's involvement in promoting the prison murders of people branded by Batman and Clark Kent's personal investigation of Batman's atrocities are clear necessities to the storytelling in the Ultimate Edition.  The egoistic, irrationalistic desire of Lex to war against the concept of God and the Superman he sees as a stand-in for the theistic entity drives him to even start to conspire with Darkseid's representative.  At the end, a previously deleted scene (revisited from a different camera perspective in the opening of Zack Snyder's Justice League) showing Steppenwolf communicating with Lex Luthor and exhibiting models of the three Mother Boxes directly sets up the then-upcoming Justice League.

Intellectual Content

Batman v Superman is full of philosophically irrational characters, but it does aim for themes of genuine weight, something that is only expanded in the Ultimate Edition.  Intentionally or unintentionally, the Ultimate Edition does a better job of touching on genuine issues like violence in the American prison system and how someone can be feared by the very people they are supposedly protecting.  The sheer emotionalistic fear of power--except when they have it, highlighting their clear hypocrisy--driving Batman and Lex Luthor are still present in full, as well as in extended forms.  Both of these characters and their worldviews, priorities, and objectives are more clearly laid out.  So, too, are their petty inconsistencies in how they regard power.  They fear one of the most benevolent beings in the universe because of his comparatively extreme power while sinking into their own egoism, unjust hatred, and pursuit of personal power at the expense of honoring reality as it is.

Conclusion

Some movies do not need an additional half hour to become coherent stories but still benefit from added scenes.  Each film in the Lord of the Rings trilogy is a towering example of this.  Other movies, like the extended version of Suicide Squad (if only Warner Bros. would release the damn "Ayer Cut" and redeem its greatest theatrical blunder!), are still terribly incoherent or shallow, but less so in their extended forms.  Batman v Superman's Ultimate Edition is in between these two general ends of the possibility spectrum.  However, there has never been a better time to watch the Ultimate Edition for those who have not already seen it than an era where Zack Snyder's Justice League is finally available.  The Ultimate Edition of Batman v Superman sets up the genuine stakes of Darkseid's impending invasion and the upcoming members of the Justice League while doing a far better job of portraying, communicating, and exploring, its own narrative.

Content:

 1.  Violence:  The Ultimate Edition adds blood to fight sequences that are otherwise left as they were in the theatrical cut.  Still, even unaltered, scenes show things like Batman firing his grappling gun into an opponent's flesh and Superman getting impaled by Doomsday.

 2.  Profanity:  "Damn," "shit," "bitch," and the newly added "fuck" are all said at least once.

 3.  Nudity:  Bruce Wayne is shown nude from behind as he takes a shower in a very brief scene before he sees Lex Luthor at the latter's home event, with shadows covering most of his buttocks.

Group Subjectivity

There is a myth exalted in some circles, particularly those full of people who want to fit into a community of others who assume that scientific epistemology gets one anywhere beyond one's own subjective sensory perceptions, that multiple people are more likely to come to the truth about something when together than they are left to themselves.  This is all the more ironic when these "epistemological collectivists" dismiss logical truths accessible to every individual while failing to see that a group of individuals working together to investigate something like the external world or social constructs have not left subjectivity behind.  Objectivity is found in reason and spills over from there; subjectivity of emotions, sensory perceptions, and desires is an inherent feature of these things that can only be understood thanks to the objectivity of the laws of logic.

A group of people cannot overcome even a single epistemological limitation of each individual member; it does not even matter how large or diverse the group is!  Yes, one person can share information about their own thoughts and feelings or about sensory experiences they have had that their companions have not, but not one epistemological limitation has been transcended.  After all, what is unprovable is still unprovable, and the core logical truths (axioms) that any willing person can recognize directly are not made accessible by social experiences, but by reason itself.  Reason is the metaphysical and epistemological source of objectivity, while scientific collaboration does absolutely nothing to escape subjectivity.  Group subjectivity just has more people involved--not that other minds, and therefore experiences other than one's own, can even be proven to exist to begin with.

Logical truths, one's own consciousness and its contents and perceptions, and subjectivity itself can all be understood perfectly as they are by anyone at all who simply looks to reason out of genuine concern for truth--it does not matter how young, old, socially respected, or socially misunderstood they are or how many philosophical mistakes they have made in the past.  Adhering to the laws of logic, not using the scientific method, is the only way to embrace true objectivity.  All else only offers the illusion of objective certainty at best.  Even scientific laws and inquiries, though, are not about what other people say.  The delusion that discussion between different people is necessary for scientific realizations is just that: a delusion.

Not group discussion or psychological unity or scientific collaboration can deliver anyone from their epistemological limitations.  No words or actions of others can change the fundamental metaphysical truths that anyone can immediately reflect on by focusing on logical axioms and their own existence as a mind.  Each individual person must look to reason themselves, taking no aspect of epistemology for granted in the way that anyone who thinks science perceives the external world as it is must do.  Otherwise, at best a person is not only focusing on things that do not pertain to either the core of reality or the most important parts of philosophy, but they are also mistaking group subjectivity for objectivity.

Philosophy In Television (Part 12): Invincible

"This isn't how I wanted to do this, but I don't have a choice.  It's time for you to know where I really come from.  I am from Viltrum, but it's not the planet I've told you about."

--Omni-Man, Invincible (season one, episode eight)

"You're fighting so you can watch everyone around you die!  Think, Mark!  You'll outlast every fragile, insignificant being on this planet.  You'll live to see this world crumble to dust and blow away . . . What will you have after 500 years?"

--Omni-Man, Invincible (season one, episode eight)

Recent years have brought forth multiple mainstream examples of what a hyper-powerful alien or superhuman being could do if it had the whim of destroying numerous human lives.  From the Darkseid-influenced Superman of Batman v Superman and Zack Snyder's Justice League to Homelander of The Boys, these examples have become a more prominent part of popular culture than before.  Only with Invincible's extraterrestrial Omni-Man do viewers see such a being as it rampages across the world casually ending human lives in the name of utilitarian or egoistic ideas.  Invincible starts out as a portrayal of a new hero adjusting to his powers in a world where superheroes, supervillains, and alien visitation of Earth are normal, but the first season ends as a reminder of how looking up to others can lead to crushing disappointment, especially when they have power.

It is not that power cannot be used in a purely benevolent, just, non-selfish manner; nothing about the concept of power logically requires that anyone wielding it is abusive or selfish.  The malevolent Omni-Man's own son Mark, whose superhero alias is the titular Invincible, serves as an example of this in the series (not that any examples in fiction or real life are necessary to prove that power does not have to be used destructively or unjustly).  Invincible does not yet have the experience and strength of his father, but he opposes the erroneous utilitarian ideas of Omni-Man to the point of almost dying for them, refusing to join him even when Omni-Man showed him how pragmatically futile his opposition is.

As a Viltrumite, Omni-Man has extreme power and abilities like flight, and he clearly allowed his strength as a Viltrumite to persuade him to make mere assumptions that he thinks conveniently justify his species's plan to subdue planets beyond Viltrum.  The species seeks to infiltrate other planets and prepare them for Viltrumite rule after having faced a major purge of its so-called weak citizens.  Almost as soon as he starts explaining his true objectives to his son Invincible, however, the self-deception and irrationalistic beliefs reveal themselves.  In the flashback to the massacre on Viltrum, one can even see that some very powerful fighters are killed, which contradicts Omni-Man's insistence that the "weak" had to be removed for the planet to flourish.  In reality, even very strong Viltrumites were killed for the sake of a utilitarian assumption.  This is just one of many delusions Nolan has about Viltrumite history and imperialism, though the genuine conflict within him that spurs him to leave Earth suggests he might have knowingly embraced lies and philosophical assumptions to convince himself to stay committed to his goal of planetary conquest anyway.

Perhaps Invincible was thinking emotionalistically instead of rationally when he objected to his father's goal, because he hardly expresses rationalistic thought elsewhere in the show, but he does at least seem to recognize the invalidity of Omni-Man's claim that the prolonged Viltrumite lifespan means that humans have no moral significance or value and can be used for whatever purpose the Viltrumites wish.  It is objectively true that it does not logically follow from a being living for millennia that whatever they desire is justified.  Omni-Man's philosophical basis, which is just an assumption as it is, can even be disproven.  Utilitarianism is logically false because if moral obligations exist instead of just moral preferences, then an act is amoral, obligatory, or evil because of its nature, not because of whatever consequences it brings about.  If moral obligations do not exist and there are only moral preferences, outcomes still cannot make something morally good.

The utilitarianism inherent in Omni-Man's professed worldview is clearly not rejected by him outright because of its logical errors, but attachment to his human wife and his son dispels his resolve enough that he flies away from Earth.  Nolan's face betrays seeming sadness as he speaks of how he could not share his true nature with his human wife and mentions how Viltrumites outlive other species by thousands of years, watching those they might have loved succumb to the biological degradation of old age.  It is ironic that he only stopped living as if a false philosophy is true, a false philosophy that he could not have used to reason to establish and therefore likely just settled for emotionalism, because he was suddenly overcome by emotion.  This is also what it would likely take to get an irrationalistic thinker (a real person) to stop a destructive quest that they pursue at almost any cost to themselves or others.

Spontaneous emotion drives so many people to and away from worldviews because they rarely think about serious matters until it benefits them.  It is common, after all, for people to never think about moral issues until they have to.  Even then, the only examples of utilitarianism in action that most people, including sincere utilitarians, will ever likely see are either relatively small or do not involve the truly most harmful things people can do, like rape or extreme torture.  Since most people at least talk and act as if they are philosophically incompetent fools, which anyone who refuses or opposes rationalism amounts to, the inherent falsities of utilitarianism will not necessarily be discovered apart from some situation that personally frightens the typical non-rationalist enough to ignite an at least temporary concern for truth.  Sometimes fiction is the only exposure to the more blatant cases of utilitarian actions that people will have.

Intelligence And Humor

Few things can alleviate burdens and lift spirits, even if only for several moments, like humor.  Its potential benefits for mental health by no means make it some central facet of philosophical inquiry, but humor does have a higher philosophical status than is often implied by how it is trivialized outside of specific contexts.  There is more to humor than a brief, futile escape from psychological pains, and there is also more to humor on a conceptual and experiential level than simple recognition of its subjectively amusing qualities suggest on their own.  It would be easy for some people to dismiss humor as something that is always unworthy of sincere, direct philosophical analysis, but this is not so.  One does not have to falsely inflate its importance in order to not regard it as a subject to be perpetually tossed aside in a rationalistic sense.

Something about the issue that is likely to either not be thought of or not be verbally communicated is the fact that, like with all other things, reason is necessary to comprehend humor: in other words, the ability to construct or understand jokes, especially if they contain some kind of philosophical or personal depth, is related to actual intelligence.  Some linguistic and social experiences make certain jokes directly accessible to others, but, whether one is thinking about categories of events or ideas that one subjectively finds comedic or grasping elaborate, abstract, or daring jokes shared by others, a thorough grasp of reason underpins a thorough understanding of comedy as a philosophical subject and a thorough understanding of individual attempts of humor.

Making or understanding a joke that touches upon an issue or experience requires at least a minor comprehension of the nature of that issue or experience.  After all, without this, it would be impossible to even partly grasp the point and nature of the joke as either the creator or the audience.  General audiences are still philosophically dull and incompetent because most people are not rationalists concerned with truth enough to seek it out by looking to reason, yes, but it would be impossible to understand, create, and analyze the concepts behind more thoughtful humor apart from at least halfhearted contact with the laws of logic.  Contemplating the objective nature of comedy and subjective reactions and perceptions regarding it falls inevitably into the domain of rationalism.

Like sexuality, broad emotionality, and introspection, humor is only understood as it truly is thanks to the laws of logic even though it will likely never be thoroughly contemplated in the serious, rational manner it deserves except by people who are already quite rather rationalistic.  It is neither rational nor deep to pretend like humor is not a part of human life that can deserve analysis just like other parts of life.  In light of this, there is nothing shallow about appreciating what reason reveals about the capacity for finding things humorous that could so easily be completely ignored, or even directly belittled, by people who mistakenly think that one cannot be perfectly rationalistic and deeply appreciative of humor at the same time.

The Many Worlds Approach To Quantum Physics And Its Non Sequiturs

The "many worlds" approach to quantum physics posits that when one possible subatomic event happens, alternate outcomes that did not occur in this universe have materialized in alternate, diverging universes with their own timelines.  The epistemology of this metaphysical notion of the universe is at best horrendously unsound, as anyone who believes that any aspect of physics, quantum or macroscopic, supports this idea of many worlds rooted in diverging events has leapt from one idea to another that does not logically follow from it at all.  This non sequitur is blatantly obvious to any sincere, rational thinker, not that any competent. rationalist would ever suppose that a quantum-based multiverse is anything more than one unprovable possibility put of several.

There is also absolutely nothing about quantum physics in particular that makes a "many worlds" concept of the external world a particularly relevant subject.  If different possibilities at the subatomic scale branch off into literally different universes with their own diverging quantum events, what about different possibilities at the macroscopic level?  Why would there need to be a difference?  Thinking about even a single macroscopic example can show just how fallacious any sort of science-based endorsement of the "many worlds hypothesis" always is.  Any example would suffice, but the following one has to do with a basic natural phenomena.

A leaf from a given tree might or might not fall within another few moments.  Either outcome is logically possible at all times, even if one of them is determined by God or nature to occur at a specific time.  It would take the embrace of an enormous non sequitur fallacy to get from recognizing the possibility of a quantum or macroscopic event to believing that each possibility that does not come to fruition takes place in an alternate universe, perhaps in a timeline and cosmos that branches off of something in our universe.  Perhaps there are many worlds in such a manner as this, but it is not because it could not have been any other way.

Is it possible for this conception of a multiverse to be true?  Yes, but only in the sense that anything that does not contradict the laws of logic is possible.  Just as it is possible for the external world to only exist in small fragments as it is perceived or for my own consciousness to be the uncaused cause no matter how much it seems otherwise, it is possible for a specific particle to behave one way in our universe and somehow trigger an alternate behavior, but one still constrained by the same laws of physics present in our universe, in a separate version of the external world.

Logical necessity and logical possibility are distinct from each other and from the epistemologically and metaphysically inferior laws of logic.  Possibility alone does not mean something must be true; they mean there is nothing that would logically render a concept or event incapable of being part of reality either as it is or part of reality if non-necessary truths (necessary truths are purely logical truths like logical axioms) had been different.  No one is staying where reason brings them if they truly believe, especially based on mere hearsay from scientists, that quantum physics in any way requires, evidences, or proves a multiverse where an event that happens in one universe is at odds with the absence of that event in another universe.

The Evangelical Distortions Of God

The evangelical distortions of the Biblical God are as numerous as they are erroneous and damaging.  So widespread are these errors that, inside and outside of the church, they are regularly mistaken for Christianity itself, which anyone with access to a Bible and the willingness to reason out what it does and does not teach is capable of understanding.  Only such a person will see just how thoroughly the evangelical ideas about God deviate from the actual contents of the Bible, especially when combined as they often are.  The typical evangelical misrepresentation of Yahweh is a being that demands that people abstain from things that the Bible ultimately classifies as nonsinful, only to damn those who commit these "sins" to eternal life in hell (an obviously irrational concept since it is the humans who do not have eternal life that the Bible says hell is for), where they are forever unable to either cease to exist as the Bible promises they will or reconcile themselves to God and join him in Paradise after a deep change of mind.

Whether or not the Bible teaches this would not make its theology true or false by default.  However, since there is a great deal of evidence that Christianity is indeed true and there are even parts of Biblical theology, like the uncaused cause and substance dualism, that are objectively true even if the rest of the Bible is false, it is vital to clarify that the Bible never teaches many evangelical ideas about God.  In fact, the very claim that God condemns things like bikinis, profanity, sexual attraction, or alcohol use (or whatever other things Deuteronomy 4:2 and other passages clearly permit) and the claim that he has destined all unsaved humans for eternal conscious torment are heresies of immense destructiveness.  Each one of these stances, like the fatalistic Calvinism some evangelicals would add to them, are outright idiotic abominations that misrepresent the core of Yahweh's character as described in the Bible itself.

This means that anyone who rejects theism or Christianity out of terror at the kind of God evangelicals claim to represent--which is a philosophically asinine basis for rejecting any idea at all, as terror reflects a person's psychological state and not other aspects of reality--has rejected only a straw man version of Yahweh that has ironically been backed by professing Christians rather than ideological enemies of true Christianity.  These heresies that evangelicals and their anti-Christian enemies focus on as if they were acknowledging the true doctrines of the Bible only show how easy it is for non-rationalists to misunderstand their own supposed worldview (in the case of evangelicals) or the worldviews of others which they are supposedly intelligent enough to criticize (in the case of non-Christians).

All philosophies and ideas have consequences, and evangelicals seem particularly blind to the personal and cultural consequences of so deeply misunderstanding the book they are stupid enough to think they truly understand.  The kind of person who holds to such blatantly contradictory and slanderous ideas about the Christian God is not someone who would be pleased to discover their actual ideological state.  Isaiah 29:13 and Matthew 15:8 describe such hypocritical pseudo-Christians who are so psychologically and philosophically blind that the obvious, crucial nature of their relationship with Yahweh eludes them: "'These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.'"  It is one thing to believe something fallacious, logically impossible, or distorted out of sheer ignorance after being raised in evangelical communities for a time.  It is another thing to carry this philosophical blindness about one's own supposed worldview well past the onset of adulthood.