Objections To Dark Entertainment

Modern Western entertainment is dominated on one hand by a desire to make things realistic, morally complex, and somber, all while it is also dominated on the other hand by the desire to make things generally comedic and appealing to the broadest audiences for the sake of money.  These two trends pulling in opposing directions is what hinders the quality of many films in particular when a project is supposed to unite them both, with gaming, literature, and television being less affected by some of the incoherent tones (not that a combination is always incoherent to start with).  Each general tone is better for some stories than others, but it is darker entertainment that predictably gets accused of unnecessarily grim ideas and being more financially risky.

Given that a more lighthearted work is more likely to appeal to a wider audience and bring in more money, darker, more explicitly artistic or philosophical films truly can be riskier, especially since there is more probability of thematic misrepresentation as well.  Rather than superficially lighthearted stories getting criticized as lacking substance, darker stories are also more likely, in today's culture, to be misunderstood as shallow even if they never betrayed important artistic and intellectual foundations.  At least part of this is due to false or fallacious moral ideas about what should and should not be explored or portrayed onscreen.

Far from every work of entertainment needing to be lighthearted or dark, some stories are great fits for either general tone, and both do genuinely illustrate possible sides of life and various important concepts that the other might not highlight.  There is a need for both.  However, the objections of emotionalistic parents, conservative and liberal ideas that form broad cultural attitudes, and the deification of personal preference make it more difficult for dark entertainment to be made and understood enough to achieve financial success.  In all three cases, it is a lack of philosophical competence behind the attitudes towards dark films that motivates the pushback.

Realistic entertainment will certainly sometimes be humorous or light, because humor and peace and lightheartedness are or at least can be parts of life.  Some people are not content to acknowledge that their preference for lighter entertainment does not give them moral authority and does not make light entertainment better than its dark counterpart.  Inside and outside of the church, the only core reason someone would object to dark entertainment because it is dark, as opposed to objecting to specific darker films because of artistic or thematic shortcomings, is because of personal preferences and assumptions about morality and art made on the basis of those preferences.

Aside from the stupidity of philosophical objections to dark entertainment in itself, without this kind of film (or game, book, or show), art tends to shy away from almost any issue pertaining to something that poses a serious threat to human flourishing or deep philosophical examination of the very foundations of epistemology and metaphysics.  After all, most people will not think rationalistically or sincerely about almost anything beyond trivial matters, if anything at all, until unwanted, uncomfortable life circumstances force them to.  It can be personally jarring for some viewers when a dark film is unapologetically committed to its points, but it can also be very culturally helpful.

An Unproven Hierarchy Of Consciousness

Creatures from cockroaches to octopi to dogs to horses to other people all act as if they are independently conscious, having their own awareness and ability to think, act, and react to sensory perceptions.  Since some of them might display a broader range of behaviors or behaviors that appear to have more understanding of humans behind them, some people come to the unproven idea that certain creatures are not conscious even though they act as if they are, while others are.  They might even arrive at a whole arbitrary hierarchy of animals they think have lesser or greater consciousness, as if something is not either conscious or inanimate as opposed to more or less conscious.

However, a totally rational person will not make the assumption that other minds for any creature or being exist just because it seems like they do, and neither will he or she make the assumption that no other minds exist because is it possible that their own mind is the only mind in existence.  Logical possibility and proof will be what they cling to; they will reject logical impossibilities while not believing beyond what can be proven.  Their own consciousness is directly before them, proven by reason and immediate experience.  Its existence is a necessity as long as one experiences anything at all.  The possible consciousnesses of other beings, in contrast, is ultimately uncertain, no matter how much it might seem other minds do or do not exist.

One of the ramifications of this that might never need to be thought of except as a response to a fallacious thinker is the idea that some animals which act as if they are conscious are somehow more likely to be conscious than other animals that also act as if they are sentient.  Especially in light of the lack of absolute certainty that other minds are or are not there in the first place, there is no reason to think that an ant is not conscious and a dog is.  Both creatures outwardly act as if they are inwardly conscious, regardless of how deep their grasp of reason or tendency to self-awareness might be if they do have their own minds.  There is neither evidence suggesting nor proof confirming that one is conscious but not the other.

These random, supposed hierarchies of consciousness are the product of mere fallacies and leaps into unverified--and unverifiable--belief.  A cockroach and a spider might have the same intellectual and introspective nature as humans, but one could never know this by observing its outward behaviors.  A dog might be an inanimate thing with no thought, perception, intention, or emotion.  There is no way to prove anything more about the matter than that things like this are possible and that certain conclusions logically follow from other ideas about other minds that could be true.  When the consciousness of a fellow human might an illusion, animal consciousness could be as well, but the greater relatability of seemingly conscious humans does not mean other creatures are less conscious than us.

Adultery's Severity

There are so many ways to act sexually in a Biblically legitimate way without betraying one's spouse or dating partner, even when one's partner is not involved--of course, Deuteronomy 4:2 is a very relevant verse.  Masturbation, some forms of erotic media, extramarital flirtation, polyamorous relationships, and sexual thoughts about certain other members of the opposite gender are all objectively nonsinful by Biblical standards, and I have addressed them all individually at length [1].  With so many Biblically valid options to choose from if a married person truly does wish to act on sexual attraction to someone beyond their spouse, it is not just sinful on the Christian worldview for someone to commit adultery, but so easily avoidable.

In spite of this, none of these various non-adulterous actions being nonsinful actually means that adultery itself is trivial, anything but a severe breach of a relationship.  Adultery, after all, is still a capital offense by Biblical standards, as anyone who reads Deuteronomy 22:22 can see.  Especially when it involves betrayal of a mutual commitment to monogamy, extramarital sex when a person is already married can be a psychologically devastating act that erodes the relationship.  For a couple who have never discussed the Biblically permissible kind of polyamory or expressed interest in it beyond intellectual exploration, it is especially selfish and has the potential to be far more hurtful.

For those who subjectively feel as if execution for adultery is too severe even if they think adultery is immoral, the fact that values are not true or even likely to be obligatory based on how comfortable they make any particular person or group.  In truth, you can never prove that an ideology is untrue by pointing to its values unless the values are contradictory; the broader ideology itself must otherwise be proven true or false to prove that its values are true or false.  Whether Christianity is true or false, then, is what makes adultery deserving of execution or not--unless some other theistic moral system is true that also entails adultery being both immoral and deserving of death.

It can be easily proven by looking to reason for only several moments that adultery, while it is not right alongside something like rape in its injurious nature, can be immensely painful and destructive.  Whether this makes it evil, much less worthy of criminal status, completely depends on whether certain more foundational philosophical ideas are true, but it is clear that the Bible does not condemn things like extramarital flirtation or sexual attraction as adulterous and that it does condemn adultery specifically as a capital offense.  The fact that almost no Christians have recognized this across approximately two millennia shows how intellectually sluggish and inept most people truly are.

[1].  For example, see the following:

 A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-truth-about-erotic-media-part-2_19.html

 B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-morality-of-flirting.html

The Lack Of Soteriological Advantage In Being A Jew

Being Jewish is not the same as having a specific skin color or being born in a specific country, but misconceptions of how God is said to have interacted with the ancient Jews are relevant to how racism and nationalism are understood in relation to Christian morality and soteriology.  Just as some people might falsely think themselves to have a more genuine connection to Christianity because they are white or black, some might think themselves closer to God by virtue of being Jewish or non-Jewish, despite the New Testament and the Old Testament both rejecting this stance.  From Genesis 1 onward, the Bible makes it clear to those who do not make assumptions about its contents that the Jews did not receive anything more than others beyond than the initial moral revelation from Yahweh--something vital in Christian theology, but not something that gave them a culture-based shortcut to salvation or moral superiority.

Never did the Biblical deity ever truly withhold salvation from non-Jews, for being a Jew was never enough to ensure someone's moral character or secure them salvific redemption from the divine consequences of sin.  You would have to either never sin or become restored to God for that to happen, and being a Jew does not mean one will do either.  No one even needs a specific verse stating otherwise to realize that the opposite of this would contradict foundational ideas in the Bible; thankfully, this can be easily proven.  Choosing a group of people to serve a special role as religious ambassadors of sorts does not mean that God cares about Jews or non-Jews more or less than the other.  This can be shown to not logically follow whether or not certain comments that are in the Bible were included.

There are still passages that affirm this.  The first chapter of the Bible speaks of how all humans bear God's image, something that is relevant over and over in examining Christian theology here and elsewhere.  Genesis 1:26-27 specifically mentions gender as it relates to having the image of God, but, by logical extension, people in all human groups, including Gentiles, must bear God's image according to Genesis as well.  While Yahweh is described as giving specific moral revelation to the Jews, in no way does it logically follow that Gentiles are automatically inferior, barred from salvation, or unable to conform to the moral obligations outlined in Mosaic Law and the New Testament.

When it comes to particular affirmations of this in the Old Testament and New Testament, though, examples can indeed be found.  Isaiah 56:3 blatantly acknowledges that even non-Jews, called "foreigners" in the verse, are not excluded from following God because of the circumstances of their birth or lineage.  Even if nowhere else in the Bible addressed this issue, the Bible would still have rejected Jewish spiritual superiority, but there are other verses that speak of this, including one with more mainstream recognition.  In Galatians 3:28, Paul writes that there is no "Jew or Greek" when it comes to salvation.  Of course, this does not mean that there are no Jews or Gentiles that can be saved, or else no one could be saved since all humans fall into one of those two categories, but that being a Jew or Gentile does not give one a soteriological advantage over others.

Galatians 3:28 also expands this to include men and women and slaves and free people, showing that when it comes to salvation, gender and social class are also not relevant factors in the slightest way--and if no one is granted or denied salvation moreso than others based on these things, it is because of a baseline metaphysical equality in that gender, social status, and lineage do not make one person superior to another.  This verse in Galatians 3 does not contain a lot of detail, but the ideas and other verses that it stands on (such as the aforementioned Genesis 1:26-27) are explicitly, inescapably egalitarian: salvation is not the only aspect of Christian theology in which factors like being a Jew or Gentile never gave someone metaphysical superiority.

Developing Romantic Intimacy Over Time

There is no amount of time at which someone automatically knows another person well enough to marry them.  Learning if someone is intellectually and emotionally compatible, even aside from lesser compatibilities involving something like geographical location, is not about some set amount of time, but the sincerity and depth of each person as they reveal their true selves.  The people make all of the difference; imposing some artificial expectation for how long two people must or should talk before transitioning from dating to marriage is a sure way to damn a relationship to superficiality or, ironically, prohibit organic growth.

Two people who have known each other for three months could bond deeply over a shared worldview, intellectual and emotional openness, and their appreciation of each other's willingness to invest time and effort into the relationship.  Within a handful of months, they could know each other better than some people do after decades!  Contrarily, two people who have known each other for two years might not have shared much about themselves, discussed important philosophical issues, or even tried to fully communicate whatever affection they might have for each other.  Any logically possible level of intimacy and multi-faceted connection could be reached quickly or avoided for long periods of time.

At no point is someone intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally ready for marriage just because they have known someone past some arbitrary timeframe.  In actuality, a relatively short period of time is not necessarily too little of an opportunity for two willing and sincere people to deeply connect with each other, either platonically or romantically.  By far the most crucial variables here are the worldviews, personalities, and levels of interest of the people involved in the relationship.  Rationality, authenticity, and mutuality can always make the most of even new friendships or romantic partnerships.  No amount of time will make two shallow or unwilling people actually share themselves to the extent needed to best gauge marital compatibility.

A person who is eager to get married needs to focus on reason (the key to understanding themselves and all other things), understanding themselves, and bonding with a partner on a deep, holistic level.  Focusing on an arbitrary amount of time past which they expect or hope to get married is never conducive to intelligent decisions or truly connecting with someone based on the only criteria that ensure a stable and deeper relationship.  It is asinine that Christians of all people are often willing to rush from dating to marriage for the sake of social expectations as they supposedly support strong marital relationships.  A romantic relationship hurried along for the mere sake of speed is left without a worthy or secure foundation.

Novelty: An Incomplete Quality Of Ideas And Experiences

Fools might cry out for the familiarity of tradition or the surprise of novelty, thinking that there is something special about either in and of itself.  A rational person, in contrast, wants truth instead of just what is familiar or new.  Sometimes a truth will overlap with a common belief or something that has long been familiar to an individual or culture, but plenty of truths do not.  Sometimes a truth is new to a person or culture, but there are still plenty of times when practically everybody walked right into certain truths and ignored them.  There are more foundational, vital, and sometimes clearer aspects that need consideration.

Is an idea true?  Is it verifiable?  Both of these things are far more important than whether an idea is new to a person, a culture, or the world.  There is such a thing as negative originality: a previously undiscovered idea that is false, fallaciously believed, or unimportant is original, but it is not significant [1].  Even if a person come up with it separately from or before all others or believed in it without relying on its popularity, it would either be untrue or trivial.  By default, this kind of expression of originality is inherently stupid or meaningless (except, in the case of a trivial truth, as an expression of using reason on one's own).

There is still so much to discover, savor, revisit, and live out when it comes to philosophical truths even aside from novelty as long as an idea is true and important.  In fact, very few ideas or experiences are truly discovered for the first time even when individual people come to them on their own, which is its own form of universally accessible originality--that of autonomous reasoning, whether or not social prompting initiated it.  It is neither negative nor sub-optimal that so many things are not fully new to humanity, whether ideas or experiences.  No one could ever reflect fondly on a cherished philosophical truth or redo any experience if novelty was all there is to existence.

There are even many ways that non-rationalists might already live out the fact that novelty is an incomplete criteria for embracing or doing something.  Looking at an attractive member of the opposite gender more than once, eating a favorite kind of food, or rewatching an excellent film are all examples of how something does not have to be new in order to be enjoyed.  Ultimately, it is both impossible and damaging to only desire new things.  The same is true when it comes to explicitly philosophical matters.  Whether an idea is new or previously discovered is of secondary or, in some cases, almost no concern; whether it is true and logically provable is always more important.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2020/02/negative-originality.html

Relationships Built On Rationalism

No relationship with something besides rationalism at its foundation will survive or deserve to survive--or at least it will not survive intact in all the ways it needs to, not survive stronger on the other side of various trials, and not survive because of anything more than chance and shallow ties between two people.  Rationalism does not just unveil necessary truths and absolute certainty; it very literally lets people understand themselves and others free of the assumptions and pettiness that could so easily take hold as time passes.  It frees people to introspect deeply and bond with others on a wholehearted level that spans the intellect and emotions.  No, rationalism and foundational devotion to philosophical truths is not something that does anything but enhance the best relationships.

With rationalism and reciprocal affection, a relationship can flourish even during periods where circumstances allow for little to no communication or when making a transition from friendship to dating or vice versa.  Even when a friend or romantic partner does something irrational or selfish, no one but a rationalist will be more sincere if they decide to show mercy instead of turning on someone who was or even then is still a cherished companion.  In joyous or painful times and in times of community or separation, there is nothing that rationalism and its child qualities of honesty, firmness, and self-awareness bring that weakens friendships or romantic partnerships, given that those relationships are not founded on superficiality or emotionalism.

Instead, deep, genuine relationships are only strengthened or savored by rationalists, especially when they find others whom they can relate to on a holistic level.  To find someone dedicated to truth, sincere in their relationships with other people, honest about themselves, and willing to stand together with those they love despite personal trials and ideological opposition is to find one of the greatest treasures in all of human life!  Other than reason, philosophical truths, and whatever moral obligations there might be, there is nothing that could be as psychologically life-giving and even pragmatically beneficial than strong, authentic relationships with others who share a love of truth and relational unity.

Examples are not necessary to prove any of the above-mentioned truths, but there are many examples that could be thought of or experienced.  Rationalism will inevitably help people reject gender and racial stereotypes, which make them better able to connect with and be authentic around people in general.  Then there is the fact that rationalists are far less likely to let pettiness and basic misunderstandings put a blight on their relationships.  What of the boys and girls or men and women who would find themselves free to befriend each other without making assumptions about the other wanting something romantic or sexual out of the relationship?  What of the spouses who avoid so much of the stupidity and superficial nonsense that poisons weak marriages?

Honesty, mutuality, sincerity, openness, and shared love of truth are all qualities that bind two rationalists together more than non-rationalists could ever experience in any type of relationship.  The rich depths of friendship and romantic relationships are not things that fall outside the domain of rationalism.  All things are governed by and revealed by reason, including truths about the social and emotional sides of humans!  Even aside from a clear, proof-based understanding of sociality and one's own self for the sake of knowing reality, there is much to gain when it comes to how one can bond with others who are not undeserving of personal openness and intellectual effort.  Rationalism brings knowledge of truth and greater stability in all aspects of life, and the deepest relational intimacy is there to enjoy because of it.

A Myth About Identifying Deception

The very expressions on someone's face as they speak, observe, and react in everyday life are never a sure epistemological guarantee of anything more than that one can see a specific facial expression on display.  It is always possible for someone's true thoughts and emotions to be intentionally concealed or even unwittingly obscured by facial expressions.  In other words, there is no such thing as knowledge of what another person is thinking or feeling just by looking at their face.  The most blank face could mask deep reflection, and the most expressive face could be a facade.  The gap between minds, if other minds even exist, cannot be bridged by mere bodily observation.

It remains popular for some people to pretend like they can tell if someone is lying just by looking at them, especially if they display some specific "sign" like looking to the right or left of whenever they are supposedly lying to.  Anxious expressions, abnormal body language, and so on might also be pointed to as alleged proof (when they are not even automatic evidence of deception, much less actual proof).  There is no body language or look in someone's eye that betrays whether they are lying to someone else.  No matter how observant a person is, they can never prove to themselves that someone is or is not trying to deceive by analyzing their outward appearance or behavior.  They must instead start with a mere assumption and let it guide them to some logically unrelated conclusion.

Someone might regularly feel anxious and have their body display outward signs of this internal panic, like sweating or darting eyes, with or without any conscious effort to lie.  Someone who intentionally, knowingly lies about some philosophical or practical matter could seem very confident, very genuine, and not at conflict with himself or herself.  In no situation does it logically follow from lying that one must exhibit some visual "sign" of deception.  The truth is that outward bodily reactions to making any statement could arbitrarily seem suspicious to others, although there is no default connection between lying and giveaways other than conveying incoherent concepts.  A myth about identifying deception will still have its appeal to those willing to make assumptions.

There is also the fact that when it comes to the most important claims of all--claims of explicitly philosophical truth that are rationalistically verifiable--many people are too irrational, uninterested, and incompetent to actually realize whether they are actually lying or not about what is true and what can be known.  As such, someone could inwardly believe or verbally state the grandest lie of all (that logical axioms are not inherently true) without any physical signs that might accompany their verbalization of other lies.  Again, there is simply no absolute certainty in the assumed connection of accidentally stating something false or intentionally lying and having some physical reaction betray the telling of the lie.

Depending on the exact thing a person communicates, it is either impossible to prove someone is lying (sensory perceptions and memories could be misleading, and confirming many claims would require fully verifiable sensory perceptions and memories) or possible to prove they are lying only by recognizing a contradiction or assumption within the claim.  This, of course, is far more difficult for a typical non-rationalist to accept than the idea that they can somehow "just know" that someone else is lying because they feel a certain way or can point to an irrelevant physical reaction like sweating.  Epistemological limitations and red herrings are just not convenient for those eager to make assumptions.

The Destructiveness Of Jealousy In Dating Or Marriage

There is no rational excuse for someone to ruin a friendship or romantic relationship because of personal insecurities about opposite gender friendships, flirtation, or sexual attraction to multiple people.  It is one thing to have subjective pain when a dating partner or spouse has opposite gender friends (which is still asinine unless it is not related to fallacious ideas about relationships) or flirts with others, and it is one thing to give a partner time to become intellectually and emotionally accepting of opposite gender friendships or extra-marital flirtation.  Having a distorted understanding of friendship, dating, and marriage, though, is philosophically erroneous and will forever prevent either romantic relationships or friendships from blossoming into the greatest forms they could have--or it will hinder them from having the same quality they had before.

A person who tosses aside or trivializes strong friendships built on mutual openness, emotional intimacy, and, most foundationally, rationalistic awareness and love of truth does not necessarily deserve to have the friendship continue.  Since mercy cannot be obligatory, it is up to the trivialized friend to decide if he or she wants to remain in a friendship with someone who has treated them in this way.  However, for the sake of what the friendship was and could be again, it is always possible that the hurt friend will still cherish the person they are close to and not turn aside from them.  All of this is true whether the friendship was jeopardized by a dating relationship or something else, as well as regardless of whether the friendship is between people of the opposite or same gender.

A person who is unwilling to celebrate their partner's friendships (given that the friendships are not shallow or exploitative) with men and women is undeserving of their romantic partner, especially if they are the kind of person who would flirt with someone who is separately dating--which is not sinful on its own by any means--and then object to their partner having a platonic friendship with someone of the opposite gender.  Hypocrisy such as this is a major indicator that someone thinks their relationships, romantic and non-romantic, are nothing more than a means to express an irrational selfishness, as if their feelings and desires dictate how others should live.  Of course, this is entirely contrary to reason and Biblical commands.

The fact that even now it is fairly normal for people to express jealousy and controlling impulses in their romantic lives shows that Western society has still not completely embraced the freedom of accepting opposite gender friendships as the life-giving and crucial part of sociality that they are.  Until no default objections to opposite gender friendships inside or outside of the church are present, people might think that there is something wrong with them for wanting non-romantic, nonsexual intimacy with the opposite gender or that it is somehow morally good to let jealousy poison strong platonic and romantic relationships.  Jealousy, by definition, is wanting what someone else is shown or given because one thinks it belongs to them, but affection is not a scarce resource that can only be given to a handful of people.  Loving a friend or romantic partner does not mean one cannot or should not love anyone else with the same sincerity and passion.

Neither friendships (with the same gender or the opposite gender) nor romantic relationships force someone to choose one over the other.  If someone cannot understand this on their own or at least with help from others, they do not deserve either the strong friendships they might disregard or the romantic partnership they falsely elevate over all other relationships, instead of treating them both as important but somewhat different.  Even inside of a romantic relationship, the irrationality behind letting most cases of jealousy become driving forces and objections to how one's partner lives (unless actual adultery is occurring) will lead to devastation or weakening of intimacy when openness between partners suffers.  Nothing rational, Biblically obligatory, or even pragmatically helpful comes from most kinds of jealousy.

Superficial Populism

The division of a country into "the people" and "the elites" is one I have encountered many times in the last few years, and perhaps this kind of language has become even more common in the wake of COVID-19 and the affiliated nonsense from all across the Western political divide.  The concepts behind these words are the heart of populism, a political philosophy that emphasizes the distinctions between these two sometimes vaguely described groups.  Not all elements of basic populism are inherently irrational.  One such part is populism's tenet that an upper class of the wealthy or of politicians (though the two often overlap quite a bit) does not deserve to trample on lower classes just because of the difference in wealth and power.  The strands of truth in populism can be rationally affirmed, but it is when the so-called people are given unconditional endorsement that problems arise.

What if "the people" want contradictory, unjust things to happen?  What if "the elite" have not done anything truly abusive?  If a populist would still say that the masses deserve allegiance and ideological support without regard for the truth, consistency, and justice of what they want, he or she only wants to appease the emotions of a multitude.  There is no ambiguity if this is the case that the populist in question is not an intelligent person.  They simply let their feelings and those of others pull them along politically no matter how invalid what the people think and hope for might be.  It is not that the wealthy and the politicians have some special epistemological or moral advantage over the lower classes, but that the validity of what the people believe is just as irrelevant to their social standing as that of the elites.

"The people" do not deserve any more automatic approval than "the elite"; that is to say, no one's social or political class defines the veracity of their worldviews.  Their worldviews, in turn, influence their actions, however inconsistent those actions might be, so it should be rather obvious why just yielding to the "people" or "elites" by default shows a disregard for truth, the only thing that could make political stances valid to begin with.  Besides this, populism can so easily reduce down to appeals to popularity and thus hide behind the brittle shield of just giving people what their own consensus demands.  In this way, it amounts to little more than an emotionalistic, superficial misunderstanding of issues that could actually have philosophical significance.

Calling out to "the people" without any sort of more specific ideas in mind is just a clear appeal to emotion to stir up useful political passion.  The moment the passion of the masses leads them to irrationality, it does not matter what the elites do.  When it comes to whatever idiocy the elites might embrace, it does not matter what the people do.  Both the populist and the aristocrat ironically have to appeal to non sequitur fallacies, emotion, or popularity in order to have any sort of direct attempt to prove the validity of their political stances.  Each person might despise the other, but the fallacious basis of their ideas is a common ground that spans any sort of philosophy which treats the members of either the masses or a ruling class as deserving loyalty by default.

Social Ills And Social Solutions

Most problems arise because of other people and persist because they will not address the very problems they tolerated or even created.  The social side of human life can be both a source of reinforcement of relentless stupidity for non-rationalists, who bow to social conditioning and are lulled into a baseless sense of ideological contentment and apathy when others generally do not force them to do otherwise, and a source of extended strength and motivation for people who are rationalistic, introspective, and willing to form mutual bonds with others for the sake of unity in the truth.  Instead of just admitting this crucial fact, so many people contrive pathetic excuses for why people who are not rationalists are still rational, people who are hypocritical are moral peers of the consistent, and those who prioritize preferences are actually in the right.

Non-rationalists would usually rather blame anything from genetics to God to social conditioning for problems that literally anyone could recognize or stop contributing to if only they sincerely wanted to, but it is the people who are actually responsible for believing or doing such things who are the problem.  In fact, short of some hypothetical, unprovable mind control, things other than the minds of people themselves are never the real issue.  Social problems--not mere personally inconvenient social interactions or cultural factors that people dislike on emotionalistic grounds--only exist because more people are not rationalistic.  There would be no problems originating from society itself if everyone was rationalistic in their worldviews and actually sincere in living them out.

All the same, social ills often require social solutions.  Reason is of course the only indispensable part of every epistemological, abstract, or practical solution, but a community full of rational, self-aware individuals is sometimes a necessary part of escaping from the injustices or other problems that ironically come from human communities.  Social pains might need social healing, and one person might not be able to make changes outside of their own beliefs, priorities, and attitudes without the help of other people.  The only kind of community that truly could have significance is a group of rationalistic allies or perhaps even friends who are jointly concerned with truth above all else.  

It needs to be understood that people are still not worthy of admiration by default and, without full alignment with reason, are just haphazard slaves to selfishness and arbitrary beliefs which make them causes of flawed social systems.  From abusive relationships to large-scale cultural problems (which inevitably reduce down to people irrationalistically prioritizing assumptions or preferences over logical truths), interpersonal relationships might be an enormous part of resolving the problem, but it must never be forgotten that it is people and their false or unprovable ideas that are at the heart of all stupidity, injustice, and gratuitous harm.  People do not deserve kindness by default or deserve forgiveness at all; they need to be scrutinized as individuals and never given anything but firmness and encouragement to be rational and just.

Looking Past People To Ideas

No one intelligent fails to look past the messenger to the actual ideas being communicated, regardless of the gender, skin color, age, tone of voice, or personal history of the person conveying information.  No one intelligent even believes that purely logical truths cannot be discovered and grasped without the help of social prompting, but this does not mean there is no need for or benefit to actually talking with others about even the most basic, foundational facts that verify themselves (logical axioms and the fact that one exists as a conscious mind).  Anyone who does not look past the identity of the person communicating with them to ideas when affirming or rejecting them does not deserve to have their thoughts shared with others.

There are many ways a person might persuade themselves to act like whoever is making a claim is more important than the claim itself.  Some parents dismiss things simply because their children said them; some children might do this with their parents as well.  Some people think having a certain skin color or certain genitals literally makes you unable to even merely understand or relate to human beings who happen to have different skin colors or genitals.  Some people are shallow enough to assume that another person must be right or wrong based on some irrelevant factor like age, wealth, fame, or social backing, or perhaps whether they are perceived to be "normal" or not by some arbitrary personal or societal standard.

One does not have to go far in modern Western life to see many examples of this all across many cultural divides.  Conservative parents, for example, tend to pretend that a child's tone of voice--or perceived tone of voice--somehow validates or invalidates the ideas behind whatever words are being spoken.  Liberals are potentially likely to denounce claims (and more importantly, ideas themselves as opposed to just the words that communicate them) from men or whites, just as conservatives might dismiss ideas from women or non-whites.  It takes great intellectual intentionality and philosophical intelligence for such a person to shed this asinine reaction style, and these qualities are precisely what very few people have.

This is the kind of discrimination irrelevant to the truth of ideas that almost everyone objects to when they are on the receiving end, yet almost every non-rationalist very overtly engages in the same thing they would selectively oppose.  The world will never leave fallacies of personal or cultural appeal behind while failing to separate ideas from people who truthfully or deceptively, sincerely or insincerely, or rationally or emotionalistically hold to them.  In turn, since all sin and errors are ultimately rooted in a denial or neglect of rationality, there will never be a time when the world will be without its legions of avoidable problems until people at large stop focusing on people over ideas.

People are not rationalistic until they can reason out miscellaneous facts or ideas on their own or simply look to ideas instead of fixating on the identity of the people mentioning those ideas.  Communication is about conveying concepts and experiences--it is not about letting petty personal prejudices or other red herrings get in the way of having conversations.  There is no such thing as a rational person who thinks the identity of a someone has anything at all to do with the veracity of a claim he or she makes.  No matter who delivers a message, the conveyed ideas (or ideas intended to be conveyed) are what matters.  Their age, gender, race, social standing, and interpersonal history are secondary or of no relevance at all.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.

An Overlooked Aspect Of Psalm 139

Emotions are not sinful; not all emotions are voluntary, and it is logically impossible to be morally responsible for involuntary experiences.  Wanting to act on them in immoral ways or believing false things about them are Biblically sinful.  Just experiencing hatred, and even strong hatred, cannot be inherently sinful.  While this does not prove that the Bible does not condemn all hatred, it is enough to disprove the idea--whether or not the Bible is true--that anyone who feels hatred for someone else is automatically a vile, abusive, or selfish person.  There can be no sin where there is no choice, and hatred is not always something that can be willed away.

However, there are plenty of verses in the Bible that do present some hatred in a positive or permissible light.  How many people have heard or read of how Psalm 139's author praises God for forming the human body or telepathically knowing their thoughts?  In contrast, how many people are familiar with the later part of Psalm 139 where the author openly admits to hating certain people and presents it in a distinctly positive light: "Do I not hate those who hate you, Lord, and abhor those who rise up against you?"  Both parts are in the same chapter and yet the statement about hatred is conveniently not mentioned by many evangelicals.

The hatred spoken of by David in Psalm 139 is not a hatred of an entire group of people because of some happenstance feature like skin color or gender, something that people cannot simply will away.  It is also not because of economic class or social standing, things that have nothing to do with the rationality, righteousness, or sincerity of a person.  This hatred is directed towards people who hate the uncaused cause out of emotionalistic or otherwise ideologically fallacious sources of rage--the only reason why anyone would actually hate the uncaused cause.  Left to itself, this kind of hatred is morally pure, just as hating people for some of the others reasons mentioned in Psalms is morally pure on its own.

Yes, Psalm 139 is not even the only chapter in its respective book of the Bible which teaches that hatred is not always sinful, destructive, or useless.  Psalm 5:5-6 and 11:5 very directly say that God hates certain people and nothing about the context does anything other than put this forth in an accepting, even affirmative way.  That God hates those who love violence is not a negative thing on the Christian worldview, but a positive thing that some people will be subjectively uncomfortable with.  It would actually be irrational to think that hatred of evil always needs to be separated from hatred of evildoers given that hatred is not the same as malice, arrogance, or any other attitude that involves injustice.

Tradition and other superficialities will keep evangelicals content enough with vague assumptions from ever realizing that hatred is not automatically sinful by Biblical standards or destructive inside or outside the context of Christian theology.  It is just ironic that Psalm 139 is predictably popular when it talks things culturally perceived to be optimistic, like the awe of being known by God, and almost never referenced when it plainly talks about hatred of those who hate God.  Whether or not Christianity is true, almost no one has a thorough, holistic grasp of what Christianity even is.  No one can understand the Bible fully without comprehending that love and hatred are not inherently opposed to each other and that God and people can love and hate simultaneously--without any automatic ideological or psychological conflict between the two.

Movie Review--Scream (2022)

"You live in Woodsboro, and you don't know Stab?"

--Ghostface, Scream

"I'm Sidney fucking Prescott.  Of course I have a gun."

--Sidney Prescott, Scream

What a damn excellent movie January of all months brings to 2022 with Scream, or Scream 5.  The absolutely masterful blend of drama and clever or subtle comedy on display shows a level of writing talent that is rarely seen.  The cast of new and returning characters, with Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, and David Arquette doing a superb job of reclaiming their roles from the previous movies, make practically every already well-crafted line all the more potent.  Even the cinematography has some very well choreographed or unusual shots that elevate this aspect of the film as well.  At its heart, this 2022 sequel is very literally an in-universe celebration of the horror genre in typical Scream fashion and an affirmation of just how much of an impact the genre can have on its fans.

Production Values

Everything from the blood effects to the cinematography to the dialogue and acting screams (that seemed like such a fitting verb to use here) that the creators of this sequel actually tried to make a film of high quality.  While never having as much gore as some of the later Saw movies, Scream revels in its great shots of Ghostface as victims meet their end--and even defies the cliche of musical cues indicating the killer is nearby right before jumpscares.  In one brilliant scene, the music and camera angles and events onscreen suggest multiple times that, were this another film, a jumpscare is moments away, but the door closes or the character moves only for the music to stop and the audience to see that Ghostface is not standing right there.  So much about this movie is clever and needed in today's horror environment.

The new characters, played by Melissa Barrera, Jack Quaid (who I was introduced to through The Boys), Mason Gooding, Mikey Madison, and so on, are right at home in their roles, and their chemistry with each other makes it almost unfortunate that not every newcomer will survive to a possible sequel so that viewers can see them interact all over again.  On top of this, the organic diversity of the cast once again showcases how to include diversity without anything seeming forced.  Returning cast members Neve Campbell, David Arquette, and Courteney Cox also make the most out of their lines and scenes in a perhaps flawless passing of the torch from renowned classic characters to new ones.  One specific scene even lets Courteney Cox do such string acting with her eyes and expressions alone that the personal stakes are made more apparent just from her face.  The new and old characters' in-film comments on nostalgia, sequels, and storytelling patterns are also perfectly at home in the cinematic climate of the last 10 years as reboots are increasingly pursued and hated all at once.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

An attack by a Ghostface on a young woman in Woodsboro brings her older sister to the area, and the two, along with the older sister's boyfriend, begin desperately investing a renewed series of murders that eventually get the attention of Sidney Prescott, Dewey Riley, and Gale Weathers.  This Ghostface seems particularly focused on the secret connection of the sisters to a previous killer.  Friends of the victim begin exploring trends within horror to expose possible ways to stop Ghostface, which culminates in the sisters deciding to simply leave Woodsboro, something that they realize almost never happens in horror when the victims stay in the same place as they await their fates.

Intellectual Content

The epistemology of identifying a masked killer is actually given a fittingly serious exploration even amidst the humorous and yet very intelligent dialogue.  A character says they are "almost 100% certain" that another character is not Ghostface right in front of them, and yet it is impossible for someone to have anything near absolute certainty about, as a non-telepathic being would never know if other minds even exist, much less what they are specifically thinking or what secrets they might be hiding.  It is this inability to know other minds that allows Scream to do a great job of emphasizing how it is logically possible for the killer to be one of multiple core characters.  As they talk about things like reboots and nostalgia and Mary Sue characters, the protagonists are mouthpieces for the very culturally and narratively attuned writer(s) of this film, as well as grander philosophical ideas that they might not even fully grasp.

Conclusion

If this turns out to be an indicator for the quality of theatrical release movies in 2022, then this will be a great year for films and moviegoers.  Scream continues the trend of contemporary horror sequels or reboots in major franchises that are excellent to the extent that in some cases they are even better than the originals that started the series.  Perhaps this is even the best recent example of a sequel to an old franchise using and honoring its legacy characters well.  After the likes of Star Wars and Terminator have received much criticism for how the latest main series films have handled the original characters, whether the criticisms were accurate or irrational, Scream provides an example of how to use such characters in a way that builds off of their former appearances and serves the new story.  The classic meta-analysis of horror storytelling in the movie is a great pillar alongside the other pillars of excellence like the acting.

Content:

 1.  Violence:  A knife gets stabbed through a hand, a neck, and other body parts onscreen, and several shots include lots of blood as characters take gunshots or knife wounds.

 2.  Profanity:  "Shit," "fuck," and "bitch" get used in dialogue on multiple occasions.

 3.  Sexuality:  A man and woman and two women are separately shown kissing in a sexual manner for a short period.

Lies About Testosterone And Gender Stereotypes

The connection between testosterone and the supposed male "obsession" with sex is often mentioned by people who think appealing to fallible sensory experiences instead of pure reason is the ideal approach to epistemology.  Unsurprisingly, because they are less focused on logical deductions without any assumptions at all than they are on agreeing with popular ideas gained from something other than reason and introspection, they knowingly or unknowingly accept fallacies when they think about scientific ideas.  They assume that testosterone must affect men and women differently just because it is an entrenched tradition for people to say so.

Reason exposes their assumptions to anyone who thinks soundly.  Beyond the typical issues with hearsay and stereotypes that automatically render them epistemologically invalid, there is a scientific assumption that could easily go unmentioned.  It is just assumed that the same amount of testosterone affects men and women the same, and then the reported greater amount of testosterone in men is used as an excuse for assuming someone is more violent and more sexually-minded just because they are a man, which motivates sexist people to think less of physical and sexual abuse of men--and motivates people to trivialize female sexuality in general.

What if a miniscule amount of testosterone in women and a greater amount in men have the same phenomenological impact?  How can one know by looking at the quantity of something if women are not more sensitive to a smaller amount?  After all, men and women are equally sexual beings (with the way a person experiences and expresses their sexuality being a matter of individuality and not an issue of being a man or a woman).  It is clear from both an analysis using pure reason [1] and the honest expression of true individuality that gender stereotypes are false.  It is not even that one must approach gender stereotypes from a biological standpoint first, as one can come to truths about how stereotypes are false without ever even bothering to think about or investigate biology; the issue is that people who are fixated on hearsay and appeals to authority do not even ever appear to wonder if men and women do not need the same amount of testosterone to have similar effects.

Despite the very strong social encouragement of or even hostility towards certain behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs specifically when attributed to a man or woman, people act in ways that do not align with stereotypes--fully or in part.  Men still develop sexual connections based on the emotional side of a relationship and women still find themselves attracted to the male body on a visual basis.  All of the stupidity and social conditioning in the world have not driven this out of men and women because individuality still shows masculinity and femininity are myths.  Nothing beyond logic and introspection is necessary to prove the lies of gender stereotypes, with testosterone being misunderstood in order to preserve the social power of the stereotypes.

Ultimately, there is nothing but assumptions and extrapolations that a person can appeal to if they wish to stereotype others (on the basis of being male or female or for some other reason).  It is possible for anyone to reason out that it does not follow from being a man or a woman that one must have or is even more likely to have certain personality characteristics.  One could prove that men and women have no gender-specific traits beyond the appearance and functioning of their anatomy.  As long as Western culture as a whole pretends like social experiences manipulated by cultural conditioning are about something more than superficial perceptions, perceptions which could be misleading or incomplete, it will not look to reason first and foremost.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-lies-of-femininity-and-masculinity.html

Holistic Self-Awareness

It is never rational or truly beneficial to regard oneself in an incomplete way through reductionism or denial of entire parts of one's person.  One of the most harmful consequences of non-rationalism is precisely this: a distorted or incomplete understanding of one's own self.  In actuality, many people are content to avoid thinking abstractly or deeply about themselves because they might be scared of what they might find.  It takes the intentionality of a rationalist to realize the truth without assumptions, but it also takes the strength of sincerity and humility to look within oneself and not misperceive.  Thankfully, introspection provides an infallibly certain glance into one's mind and is never without its benefits.  To not engage in rationalistic introspection is to leave oneself open to a host of avoidable difficulties.

Ignorance of one's self in the sense of failing to explore one's desires, emotions, and beliefs while submitting to reason always closes off chances to be more stable.  It will never be helpful for a person to ignore the fact that they are a mind-body composite or a sexual or individualistic being, to name just a handful of examples.  Perhaps it will seem convenient or necessary to some to pretend like they are something other than what they truly are, but no one has to fall prey to the fallacious lies of reductionism, to a lack of self-awareness, or to a philosophical fog surrounding their identity and recognition of that identity.  Only to someone under the sway of assumptions, misperceptions, or social conditioning will something besides the knowable parts of the true nature as a conscious being and an individual person seem valid.

Not only is it philosophically invalid and erroneous to believe false things about one's nature and its interlocking components that span the mind and body, but it is personally disastrous, or at least it is either objectively harmful or dooms one to a lesser understanding of oneself.  A lesser understanding of oneself, in turn, limits one's self-acceptance (not that everything about every person needs to or should be accepted as it is), restricts one's range of intellectual and emotional flourishing, and always has the potential to spawn some additional misunderstanding that will wreak havoc on one's life.  Misunderstandings are erroneous and dangerous.

Each component of a person connects with at least some other components, making a holistic self-awareness necessary for the best understanding of what it means to be an individual being.  How much one is willing to face and understand spirituality will impact how one looks to and understands sexuality, which in turn impacts the extent one understands individuality and sociality, which connects with how a person treats other people, and so on.  Starting with the foundation of rationalism, putting together the various provable truths about one's nature as a conscious being is vital to both philosophical unity and the deepest kind of personal fulfillment.

Holistic self-awareness is also necessary to understand as much of reality as can be logically proven.  One's own mind and all of its contents are still a part of reality even if there is a difference between perceptions and logic and the world itself.  As such, self-awareness is not just a helpful knowledge of oneself; it is also literally a pathway to one of the only kinds of knowledge that is truly certain.  Other people might be illusions of perception and the external world might be very different from how it appears, but thoughts and perceptions cannot themselves be illusions.  Looking into one's own mind and firmly confronting whatever it might hold with the light of reason is, along with focusing on reason and using it to illuminate itself, one of the only ways one can know things with absolute certainty, regardless of life circumstances.

Every Law Reflects A Philosophical Idea

Every political law or stance involves treating one ideology as if people should or must live under it.  There is no such thing as a political system that does not favor one worldview over others, or else there would be no laws, no vision for governmental operations, and no concern for what happens to a region.  It is folly to want a political system that prioritizes either freedom or conformity over ideology, since those themselves are ideological priorities.  People who want politics to not elevate one philosophy over another so that they can live as they please are ironically overlooking the fact that all political ideas are ultimately philosophical ideas.

Even if it is only egoism or utilitarianism on the part of rulers or relativism on the part of the governed, there is always a philosophical framework from which politicians act and from which those under them assess local, national, and global events.  Politics without emphasizing at least some philosophical ideas that are the basis of laws backed with the force of a governing body is a non-existent state of affairs.  This is far from being a negative thing.  Since all political ideas are philosophical ones and all ideas are true or false, it is only possible for true ideas to deserve to be elevated by a political body.  Untrue and assumed ideas have no authority by virtue of not being true and verifiable, so there is nothing to make them deserving of belief.

There are two primary flaws with the idea that politics is about not forcing one ideology on a population.  First, if there are moral obligations that should be codified into law, they should be translated into laws regardless of how offended or even terrified anyone is of such a thing.  Without moral obligations that should be represented in laws, there is nothing but personal preference to support a law, which is an inherently meaningless part of life.  Second, it is impossible to not have beliefs (though it is possible to have not a single erroneous or assumed belief): there is always a philosophical stance being treated as authoritative by a political system.

Only a fool would think that any political framework is at its core about something other than a belief (or set of beliefs) being acted upon as a motivation to arrange society in a certain way, discourage people from doing absolutely whatever they wish, and held up as a reflection of reality.  Only a fool would think that belief is automatically an invalid foundation for a stance on politics with ramifications for how people should live, for to believe otherwise is to believe something about politics!  Mere belief without logical proof, of course, is an unsound foundation for anything, but no belief has to take this form.  That every law reflects a philosophical idea makes it all the more vital on the level of consequences to not retreat into apathy or stupidity.

Intellectual And Personal Discussions About Masturbation

Masturbation can be openly talked about in an intellectual or personal sense without any sort of personal anxiety on the part of anyone involved in the conversation.  All belief that this is an impossibility originates from assumptions based on prudery, as one can disprove ideas to the contrary with sheer logicality or even just one actual example.  In spite of the seeming popularity of the practice in private, relatively few people seem willing to discuss the topic openly except when it comes to jokes or largely limited statements made among friends, perhaps out of fear of social disapproval or out of shame.

Talking about masturbation does not have to be this restricted or subjectively shameful, though.  Openness about masturbation both frees one to enjoy it all the more while undermining some of prudery's influence across communities.  This can be recognized on not just an individual level, but on a social level as well.  When one person decides to discuss masturbation seriously as the important issue that it is, others might be emboldened to talk or not talk about it based on factors other than cultural pressures, whether or not they actually engage in masturbation at all.

Masturbation can be discussed without a sense of prudery or social shame.  So, too, can masturbating to someone, even if the person conversing about self-pleasuring is also a person to whom one masturbates.  This is true even when the one hearing about how they are masturbated to is not a significant other, but a friend of the opposite gender and not a dating partner.  Moreover, this would not make the other person uncomfortable by default, and it would certainly not be guaranteed to make women in particular uncomfortable as gender stereotype proponents would probably assert.

Comfort with their own bodies, a rationalistic intellectual understanding of sexuality, emotional self-awareness, and intimacy between the friends are the key factors that will determine how willing someone is to discuss their masturbation habits and preferences with anyone at all, much less friends of the opposite gender.  However, rational, open people can discuss masturbation in a natural way without being prudish, fallacious, or sexist (choosing to speak about masturbation with people of the same gender but intentionally avoiding the subject with the opposite gender is sexist) altogether.  The assumptions that such a thing is worthy of discouragement are just that: petty assumptions.

It is always the case that assumptions are asinine and damaging, even if only damaging to an individual's embrace of knowable reality, and assumptions about sexuality as a whole abd masturbation in particular lead to detrimental ideas about morality, oneself, and other affiliated things.  Christian rationalists who either do or do not enjoy masturbation can recognize the benefits for discussing masturbation in an intellectual and personal sense without anxiety, fear, or discomfort.  Masturbation is a Biblically valid way to express, develop, and explore one's sexuality with or without the aid of external stimuli or thoughts about external stimuli like select opposite gender friends or coworkers [1], and nothing about it needs to be aggressively hidden from friends.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/09/masturbating-to-mental-imagery.html

The Myth Of Knowing Without Absolute Certainty

Scientists and theologians, instead of admitting that entire categories of ideas cannot be proven to be true or false and distinguishing awareness of a concept and what logically follows from it from knowing if that idea is actually true, often ignore the issue of logical proof altogether and try to hide behind the asinine belief that something can be known without truly being known.  This leaves them stranded in a place where they must both believe various ideas that they themselves confess are not verifiable and speak as if they really do know their assertions are correct.  While a more rational and thoughtful person will forsake this nonsense altogether, most people are not rational, and that includes plenty of more culturally visible scientists and Christian apologists.

Rationalistic commitment to living as if certain scientific or religious notions are true is about identifying consistency, evaluating probabilistic evidences, and admitting the evidential weight certain concepts have without actually believing they are true.  Of course, this is exactly what is too abstract and too specific to be embraced by more than a minority of thinkers, and the popular Christian apologist William Lane Craig is among the majority of haphazard philosophers who appeal to personal perceptions and preferences as a basis for believing in things that are supposed to not be a matter of perception and preference.  For example, his commitment to Christianity is not about proof or evidence (the two are far from identical) at all, as he says he would be a Christian no matter what evidences there are because of the supposed inner confirmation of the Holy Spirit.

One of the many consequences of his assumption-based worldview is that he has to both argue against absolute certainty (which is self-defeating, since you would need absolute certainty to know that absolute certainty is impossible to achieve) and still say that he can know that a plethora of miscellaneous philosophical ideas are true.  In fact, William Lane Craig directly says that knowledge does not require certainty, which ultimately would mean that someone could "know" something without actually knowing it, a completely contradictory stance that refutes itself.  Not only does he claim that one can know things that are unknowable given human limitations--even something as relatively "simple" as the idea the world has existed for more than a few seconds--but he also simultaneously claims it is impossible to truly know anything in the first place!

This stance is far more common than some might think.  Since most people are not rationalists and have never thought thoroughly about anything other than random practical issues of daily life or consistently thought without making assumptions, when cornered, they will almost always either say that nothing is knowable despite the inherent contradictions in saying so or they will say that one can know things without truly knowing them.  What else is there for a non-rationalist to believe?  When a person rejects or misunderstands reason itself, which they are ironically still using to analyze reason and every other thought or experience they have (just not intelligently or sincerely), they thrust themselves into contradictions and a lack of foundation that leaves them without any justified beliefs.

A person who deeply cares about truth will either not ever believe that an impossible thing is possible or will eventually leave such stupidity behind after recognizing it for what it is.  Knowledge without certainty--and absolute certainty is only found through reason and introspection--is an impossible thing.  It is a myth which motivates fools to embrace other myths.  It is one of the more irrational myths at the heart of so many fallacies, assumptions, and preference-based dismissals of logical truths, the grand lie that people of many worldviews appeal to so that they can sound justified in claiming to know something they themselves, rightly or wrongly, classify as unknowable.  Whenever this lie is believed, a rejection of the inherent veracity of logical axioms is at hand or imminent.

So-Called "Scientific" Racism

To understand the concept of racism, one must look to reason instead of science.  Racism is a fallacious concept that sits on mere assumptions about someone based on an irrelevant fact about outward appearance (some people call discrimination based on skin color colorism, while others call it racism, and it is the concept rather than the word that matters) or family descent.  Even as racism is at last taken more seriously by some on a societal level, it is becoming more prominent for others to point to supposed biological or psychological authorities in those of one skin color or another, such as assumed differences in intelligence between white and black people.  I have even had one of the latter claim (in person) to not be racist moments after they asserted that black skin is a likely indicator of lesser intelligence.

Such fallacious thinkers, who inevitably must make assumptions about a person based on their skin color or the validity of some irrelevant social study and the often red herring ideas drawn from it, might try to say they are not actually being racist, but any discrimination against someone--including hypothetical discrimination one supports in making assumptions about someone's intelligence based on the color of their skin or family background--is inherently racist.  Rather than "benevolently" thinking more less of someone because of their skin color, they in their idiocy have embraced pseudoscientific beliefs in the name of science, further compounding their fallacies by mistaking scientific hearsay or social experiences for proof which only comes from pure reason.  Science is secondary to rationalistically understanding the concepts of racism and race from the beginning.

All it takes to logically prove that skin color and intelligence have nothing to do with each other is reflect on the nature of each without making assumptions.  Intelligence is just the awareness of reason and the use of reason to become aware of other things.  Grasping reason is partly innate, because even someone who has never thought deeply or directly about issues of metaphysics and epistemology already relies on reason to even understand on the most miniscule, halfhearted level that they exist, are having experiences of some kind, and yet all it takes it genuine effort to develop one's intelligence beyond this to systematic, intentional rationalism.  Identifying patterns, understanding experiences, and weathering all other aspects of life, which do not show a direct comprehension of the laws of logic on their own, cannot be done without at least indirectly relying on reason--which is inescapable because only things that are true are logically possible or necessary.  That is, they are true because logic makes them true in the sense that one fact or idea must follow or not follow from another.

Having any particular skin color, as is easy to demonstrate, does not logically necessitate that one is rational or irrational in one's philosophical and practical thinking.  Unlike how it is logically impossible for something to be true because someone disliked it no matter what anyone wishes was the case, it is never impossible for someone with black, brown, white, or some other shade of skin to be perfectly rational if they look to reason instead of assumptions.  Most people, not just people of one culture or skin color or family line, are stupid because they go about their lives believing things like the existence of an external world or moral obligations (or their absences) on faith, when every idea can be directly proven to be true, false, or unknowable with the light of reason.  Being rational, which is all that having intelligence amounts to, is about one's mind coming into alignment with reason beyond the bare minimum required to have awareness of anything at all.  It is thus irrational to think of someone as having this quality for any reason other than their actual intellectual alignment with the laws of logic like genetics or skin color.

All empirical experience is neither necessary nor involved in proving these facts.  A misunderstanding of the epistemological nature of genetics that in part entails mistaking potentially misleading social and sensory perceptions with logical proof--and that confuses identification of random, trivial patterns in IQ tests for something that truly reveals core rationality--is not only erroneous, but devastating in its ramifications.  Discrimination on grounds that a person cannot change or does not need to change (aka on grounds besides philosophical competency and moral character) always brings or at least softens the societal landscape for physical and sexual abuse, neglect, and further stereotypes that only make unjust or selfish acts of violence against them more likely to occur.  It is hardly unusual for someone who is not a rationalist to eventually think of someone as unintelligent for some irrelevant factor if they did not already have this belief, and skin color just happens to be something irrational people might gravitate towards here.

Even if their were past genetic issues that led to people of one skin color or descent generally having an easier time grasping reason than others, it is not as if someone's skin color literally makes them have a lesser ability to grasp reason or as if it serves as an epistemological indicator of their intelligence (which is literally nothing more than how well a person grasps and wields reason, something not determined or signified by their education level, articulation, professional accomplishments, or memory recall).  Only a fool would, ironically, be so irrational as to think such a thing about intelligence is true.  People who mistake science for reason, perceptions for reality as it is, and intelligence for something other than rationality are highly unintelligent themselves and cannot deserve to be protected from mockery in the name of rationalism.

The Liberating Nature Of Divorce In The Right Circumstances

Jesus addresses divorce in Matthew 5 and 19, but there are other equally reverent passages on divorce that might go unnoticed amidst the anti-theonomist focus on the mostly incomplete, ambiguous moral teachings of the New Testament.  What of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which only allows divorce for indecency, a term which would naturally refer to unspecified genuinely sinful habits as defined by Mosaic Law, rather than any circumstances at all as some might think?  Just what indecency might be in this context is partially clarified by other verses.  For example, what of Exodus 21:10-11, where wives (and by logical extension and egalitarian consistency, husbands as well) are owed, at least in some circumstances, sexual affection and material provision?  What of 1 Corinthians 7:12-15, where Paul says an abandoned spouse is free from their marriage bond if they wish?  Paul's allowance of marital dissolution for abandonment is even found in the New Testament, contradicting the idea that the New Testament forbids marriage except for adultery.

Abuse, neglect, abandonment, and sexual infidelity are all Biblical grounds for divorce, despite only the last of these three (and the second to a far lesser extent) getting recognized in the church at large.  Since the Bible and the deity is describes are not said to despise divorce itself, but casual or unjustified divorce, the hatred and shock surrounding divorce that the modern church tends to have is a great overreaction based on misunderstandings of the Biblical text.  If only more people would read the actual places in the Bible where divorce is mentioned, especially the places giving moral prescriptions, the overreaction and misunderstandings could be avoided entirely.  Yahweh's allowances for divorce are meant to protect victims of predatory or noncommittal wives and husbands.

Divorce is in no way evil by default on the Christian worldview.  It needs to be pursued only in situations that involve a genuine offense against a spouse--hence every example of a Biblically justifiable divorce serving as a reaction to genuine abuse or something else that violates the most important obligations a wife and husband have to each other--but it is far from a "necessary evil."  There are no necessary evils in Christian morality.  The very concept itself is a contradiction: moral obligations are what one should do no matter the circumstances or personal desire, and nothing that is evil needs to be done except in very rare cases where a person sins no matter what they do or do not do.  This is not the nature of divorce.

In the right context, divorce liberates men and women from abusive or unfaithful spouses.  Like anything, it could be misused out of selfishness or pettiness and sought for utterly trivial or irrational reasons, yet it is a perfectly valid option for victimized husbands and wives.  Marriage, like close or deeply sincere non-marital, non-romantic friendship, is one of the only kinds of relationships that merit more than a casual dismissal when they become difficult, and divorce, Biblically speaking, should not be sought over minor miscommunications, smaller expressions of stupidity, and relatively miniscule hurtful words or attitudes.  The Biblical grounds for divorce are the opposite.  They are the gravest, most damaging or selfish kinds of treatment a spouse could show to their partner.

Divorce is the permissible escape route for those in a relationship consumed by the worst kinds of marital betrayals, like adultery, rape, attempted murder, patterns of neglect and physical abuse, and total abandonment without warning or just cause.  Remaining with a partner who has engaged in these things is at best a personal choice that is merciful, and thus a supererogatory commitment, or one that has elements of moral goodness but that no one is obligated to do.  Staying can put the victim in danger of more exploitation and give the false perception to the abuser that their spouse will always remain with them regardless of how severe the abuse becomes.  A deity concerned with justice and that condemns all rape, adultery, and spousal neglect as unjust in Mosaic Law (but ironically not the often vague New Testament moral commands) would not force someone to keep themselves in such dangerous situations.

Platonism And Christianity

Just as individuals do not need other people to say something to think of a host of logical and conceptual truths about everything from reason itself to sexism, like in the examples above--in fact, only an irrational person thinks truth and knowledge hinge on other people instead of reason--groups who collectively embrace an idea are not necessarily doing so because of someone else or another group.  They might have either come to it themselves, whether or not they were rational in doing so, or heard it from someone else and come back to it later on without supporting it due to its affiliation with another person.  No one needs to either hear certain ideas and truths from others first or rely on the fallacies of appeals to authority.

I do not know that reason provides absolute certainty because someone who lived before me realized this, but because I reasoned it out myself, as literally anyone could.  I do not perceive gravity because of anything said or done by Isaac Newton hundreds of years ago.  Likewise, I am not a rationalist because Descartes or any other popular figure before me was one (not that they were purely rationalistic anyway), and I do not reject the tenets of sexism because someone else did generations before me.  The possibility of this sort of disregard for or lack of focus on other people in evaluating philosophy is what means entire groups of people can still be comprised of individuals that are not just intentionally mimicing someone before them.

The claim that early Christians borrowed ideas from Greek Platonism and either tried to merge them with Christianity or act as if Christianity always overlapped with Platonism is relevant in this context.  Similarities between two philosophies does not mean one borrowed from the other, nor does it mean that either of them are true or false.  Whatever differences there are between them must still be taken into consideration, and even if the similarities were enormous, only an assumption would convince someone that one was meant to have literally been derived from the other.  However, the similarities between Greek Platonism and Christianity are greatly exaggerated and irrelevant to core Christian ideas as derived from the Bible using reason.

Platonism as put forth by Socrates has little in common with Christianity.  The notion of the inherent immortality of the soul is perhaps the most popular supposed similarity, but this is not an idea the Bible actually teaches.  It says people must pursue immortality (Romans 2:6-7), that God alone, as the uncaused cause, is the conscious being that inherently lives forever (1 Timothy 6:16), and that eternal life must be received by fallen humans (John 5:24, 39-40)--something that would never need to be given if people already had it simply by being human.  Even when it comes to other aspects of platonism like the idea of perfect conceptual archetypes from which things like physical chairs or perceived colors come forth as pale imitations of the perfect chair or the true color green, the Bible either says nothing on the matter or contradicts them.

Even if Christian ideas aligned with those of Greek Platonism, that would not invalidate or prove either worldview; individual ideas and philosophical systems would still have to be assessed on their own.  Nevertheless, there is little to no grand overlap between the two except on matters that literally any worldview that does not refute itself at the start entails, like when it comes to the objectivity of truth.  An example of further similarities would be that both hold that something other than matter exists.  More relevant to epistemological verification, Platonism in its purest Socratic form can be refuted with reason alone (archetypal "forms" of something like colors or various physical objects cannot exist because there is not even one shade of a color or one specific kind of chair that is more of a chair than other kinds of chairs, for instance), while Christianity as proposed in the Bible is far more complex due to its interlocking parts, even if Platonism is more abstract as a whole, meaning it has more logically possible doctrines which need to be reflected on independent of Platonism.

Scientific Evolution Is Not Social Darwinism

Of course it is true that certain physical or mental traits will make it easier for a creature to stay alive under specific circumstances.  This is true whether or not one species slowly gives way to another in an evolutionary cycle.  Someone who thinks the idea of physical evolution, whether it is true or false, entails social Darwinism, or the idea that those with the strength or will to survive deserve to survive and are justified in trampling on others for the sake of success, has succumbed to an obvious non sequitur fallacy.  Progression as a creature adapts to or thrives in its environment and morality are two very different things.  Morality, if there are real moral obligations, is about what beings should strive for and carry out no matter their physical, social, or introspective envionments.

Fitness for certain living conditions does not mean a being deserves to exist at all, and the fact that the latter does not follow from the former is the refutation of social Darwinism as a supposedly valid moral system.  For someone to deserve a thing, there must be some obligation they have fulfilled or some value they have by virtue of their existence.  If there are no moral obligations and thus no states of existence morally better than others, nothing at all is deserved by anyone because there is no such thing as any true standard of justice.  There would only be wishes and feelings, both for those who are biologically "fit" to prosper and those who are not.  Whether or not morality exists, which moral obligations are logically possible, and what obligations are even likely are all issues far beyond the philosophical scope of science.

Social Darwinism is thus an extension of a scientific idea into a more specific philosophical category "survival of the fittest" is irrelevant to.  Either there are moral obligations that could make some people more deserving of life than others or there are no obligations and no being deserves anything no matter how much they wish they did.  In either case, fitness of survival is irrelevant to ethics and only a fool would believe otherwise.  Since most people think that the natural world or some other thing besides pure reason is what grounds reality and knowledge of reality, it is hardly surprising that this moral misapplication of evolution is popular in some circles when science is already placed on a philosophically erroneous pedestal.

Epistemologically, almost everything about the past is unknowable even though everyone can realize that only logically possible things could have happened (as opposed to the idea that God or scientific laws deviated from metaphysical logic as they shaped the past).  Evolution is no exception.  In an ultimate sense, even a being trapped in the present moment who thinks they know with absolute certainty what happened only four seconds earlier is foolish.  There is no such thing as a thoroughly intelligent person who goes beyond the mere sensory evidence and insists they have logical proof evolution did or did not happen in the sense of one species evolving into another.  There is, though, such a thing as logical proof that evolution is amoral and neither conflicts with the possibility of moral realism nor conflicts with moral nihilism.

Intrinsic Impossibilities

Not even a deity could make me both be asleep and awake at once.  No act of the cosmos could render a conclusion that follows from a correct idea anything short of infallibly true.  There is nothing that could ever make it true that there is not an external world if its existence can be proven.  No degree of forgetfulness, ignorance, disinterest, or hatred of truth could possibly change the the slightest fact about logic.  Intrinsic possibilities and impossibilities are fixed due to the immutable nature of logical truths no matter what someone realizes or wishes.

Even so, many people go about their lives believing or at least saying that anything is possible.  There are almost always just three reasons why someone might do this.  They have never thought deeply about the philosophical things that are impossible to escape from (they are still there even when one is ignorant of them), they derive a sense of empowerment and inspiration from the idea that nothing at all is impossible, or they have thought about philosophical matters somewhat and are truly stupid enough to think logical truths could change, disappear, or be metaphysically sidestepped.

This kind of error means their epistemological framework will also have the most foundational flaws: inherent contradictions that refute themselves.  Ideas that are in conflict with themselves, like the idea that reason refutes reason (the laws of logic are epistemologically, totally certain and metaphysically binding either way), falsify at least the reasons why someone believes the notions that stand atop them, if not disprove those ideas that stand on the foundations entirely.  Everyone could come to these truths with nothing more than rationalistic thought, yet a denial that certain things cannot be true--that some things are intrinsic impossibilities--is easy to find.

Moreover, the inflexible truth of logical axioms and logical facts is often denied in a way that makes it sound positive.  Such people think they are freeing themselves from something, only to be omnipresently shackled to the most asinine ideas that are untrue by default.  They have submitted to the most escapable prison in a house of cards that they could reside in!  For the sake of emotional excitement or social or self-acceptance, they pretend like it was ever a possibility for nothing to be impossible, when they are almost never even willing to admit that they think nothing is impossible at the mention of something they dislike being true.

Other than the most shallow and erroneous kind of emotionalism or sheer stupidity, there is no reason why someone would say that anything at all is possible as is becoming more and more popular in entertainment and everyday life.  The pursuit of personal inspiration at the cost of alignment with reality, a desire to cling to some irrational idea, and an apathetic dismissal of philosophical awareness are the only reasons why anyone who pretends like everything is possible would do do.  This is the illusory refuge of the greatest of all fools who deny the only things that have to be true no matter what else is.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.

The Inherent Philosophical Bent Of Cosmic Horror

Even before I became a rationalist and shed the legalistic ideas within the church that discourage watching certain genres, I appreciated horror on a personal and philosophical level.  As a rationalist, I now understand why.  Horror is always at its core about self-awareness, epistemology, and metaphysics, about facing some aspect of reality even if it is only part of the reality of how one perceives things (as opposed to the reality of a separate entity).  In other words, it is more overtly philosophical from the start than many other genres are because it is more prominently about things like the nature of what exists, how one would know of such things, and how one might respond to confronting metaphysical terrors.

Cosmic horror even more directly embraces this philosophical bent by making the terror specifically about uncertainty, nihilism, miniscule ability to control events, or something rooted more in the nature of reality or the fictional world than simple pursuit by a murderer or onscreen darkness.  Lovecraftian cosmic horror is the predominant example of this subgenre, not that every later cosmic horror storyteller was specifically responding to or referencing Lovecraft--as if a subgenre must always be contributed to out of direct influence by a prior storyteller's work!  There is cosmic horror inspired by Lovecraft and cosmic horror that might not be.

In fact, while some of the following examples were reportedly inspired by the ideas behind Lovecraft's writings, some of them have little to do with Lovecraft.  The Empty Man from the movie of the same name, Pennywise from the book It, and even Darkseid of DC Comics in his more cosmic forms are all eldritch-like, supernatural entities that transcend the physical cosmos and have their goals that humans can scarcely relate to in terms of their scope (though It was inspired by Lovecraftian horror according to Stephen King).  There are either shades of cosmic horror or fullblown existential horror in the use of these figures, as all of them embody some enormous metaphysical distinction from humanity that makes them closer to deities--though only the Empty Man of the movie bearing its name, rather than the the graphic novel it is loosely based on, is described as the uncaused caused.

Lovecraft is in no way the only storytelling presence in the cosmic horror subgenre within horror at this point.  This philosophical approach to horror (even though Lovecraftian metaphysics is riddled with key errors [1]) has appeared in plenty of other works, highlighting the truly abstract potential for horror that often goes unacknowledged by those who are not appreciative of the genre.  To even understand a book like It or a film like The Empty Man, much less the original Lovecraftian writings like Call of Cthulhu, a person must be somewhat directly thinking about philosophical concepts that go far beyond the kind of themes and events featured in many stories.

You can watch, read, or play general horror without specifically thinking about anything besides the plot.  The same is not true of cosmic horror, where the plot inherently involves themes of existentialism, metaphysics, and epistemology, or else it would not be cosmic horror.  An audience might not specifically think about whatever grander concepts are brushed up against or openly embraced in the story (whatever its medium) without using the story as a crutch to do so, but at least thinking about cosmic horror tales inevitably brushes up against such things.  For most genres, this is not the case: people can consume the entertainment without ever thinking beyond a more thematically basic kind of art.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2021/06/lovecrafts-cosmicism.html