A Philosophical Overview Of Particle Physics

There is an external world even though this is only believed on faith, whether it is realized or not, by all but a few.  It is impossible for basic perceptions to come anywhere near the only logical proof that matter of any sort exists, yet absolute certainty of the existence of an external world is attainable [1], just not when it comes to whether the vast majority of one's sensory experiences pertain to anything beyond one's immaterial consciousness.  Even ordinary sensory experiences, however, do not so much as hint at microscopic structures of matter like molecules and atoms, which cannot be observed with the unaided eye and thus are subject to epistemological limitations beyond those affecting almost the whole of sensory experiences.  After all, at least one can look around and see buildings and rivers and vegetation, even if the sense of sight proves only that the perceptions exist.  One cannot just suddenly look at an object and see its increasingly small particles.

All the same, even if there was no such thing as molecules or atoms or any material unit smaller than them, the entirety of science reduces down to the composition and behavior of physical matter, including how material things interact with immaterial things like consciousness (correlations between the various functions of the body and mental experiences are still somewhat scientific in nature although this transcends physics into broader metaphysics).  Physics, in spite of all the limitations that prevent people from knowing whether hearsay or speculation about microscopic particles or even basic everyday sensory experiences are even accurate, can be known with absolute certainty to encompass everything physical.  Even biological phenomena concerning the growth or nature of living tissue and cells are within the domain of physics, though this is connected with phenomenology in the case of all conscious but embodied creatures.

The living matter of a body is still a matter of physics and particle physics more specifically, the only core difference being that this matter belongs to a living being.  Physics does not stand on other philosophical branches of science; chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, and so on.  No, it is these other branches that stand on physics, for all of them would only deal with various specific manifestations of physical matter.  Of course, then there are other metaphysical existents that must exist prior to or more fundamentally than matter for there to even be a universe, great or small.  There must be metaphysical space for matter to exist, and if matter is to be perceived, there must be consciousness to experience it, even if its perceptions cannot be proven to be accurate or illusions.  More importantly, there is the uncaused cause without which a cosmos could not have existed (the universe having an eternal sequence of events, creating itself, or coming into existence uncaused are all logical impossibilities [2]), and then there are the necessary truths of logic that not only exist in the absence of all things and cannot not exist, but that dictate what is possible, so that it is only possible for a universe have existed at all because there is no logical contradiction in this.

One does not need to hear or think about various particles and organic chemicals, which, like most things in the perceived external world, cannot even be proven to exist beyond perceptions, in order to realize that there are many different logically possible forms for matter to take.  When it comes to current scientific paradigms, there is posited to be an increasingly smaller and smaller set of particles, some of which are perhaps the final particles in their metaphysical chain: in other words, they would be fundamental/elementary particles that do not break down into smaller physical components, not that it is verifiable that they would be elementary.  All of these fundamental particles, if there is such a thing (and as long as there is a fixed starting point at the macroscopic level, there might be a one-way infinite set of smaller and smaller particle types, much like how there could be a future set of infinite events, just not a past-eternal sequence or else the present moment and its events could never arrive), would be the true "building blocks" of matter, unlike atoms.

Despite the personal awe that the different scales of the universe can provoke, all of which can be triggered or savored by far more philosophically central or weighty things than the nature of particle physics, it is vital to realize that there is nothing particularly foundational about particle physics to the absolute core of reality except as it pertains to the smallest aspects of the external world, which is not the core of all things.  It is the necessary truths of logic, the nature of morality (if obligations exist and not just preferences), and other aspects of metaphysics like the uncaused cause that underpin or transcend the material world altogether, and even on an epistemological level, the fact that things like the laws of logic and the uncaused cause are both absolutely certain, unlike the very existence of tables or fellow humans that one casually perceives in daily life.  The universe, from the largest celestial objects like stars to the smallest subatomic particle, is incapable of having utter metaphysical and epistemological primacy, and it could not have been any other way.

Setting aside the fact that it is not by pure logical necessity that the universe exists in any form or that it is logically possible for there to be/have been fundamental particles, current scientific paradigms, though ultimately unverifiable, do entail a chain of physical structures and particles that contribute to macroscopic items.  Living things with cells only add another level to this chain.  Cells are made of proteins, which are themselves made of amino acids, which are composed of molecules, which are formed by atoms--which then reduce to a trio of subatomic particles, with neutrons and protons in a nucleus and electrons in orbit around the nucleus.  Of the three particles at the next level below the atomic scale, two of them break down into even more miniscule particles called quarks, though quarks and electrons are seemingly elementary particles that are not divided into still smaller particles.  Still, perhaps some sort of indirect evidence will surface suggesting that even particles like these are composed of even more miniscule subatomic particles.

There is already string theory, a proposed form of quantum physics where quarks and electrons are the smallest particles, and yet there are underlying "strings" of energy that these particles are made of.  These strings would give rise to every unit of matter above it, literally forming matter out of the immaterial.  Strings of energy that do not even have a physical form are indeed a logically possible thing, as paradoxical as it would be for matter to be sustained by quantum energy that itself is not made of matter.  If string theory or this rendition of it is true, then not only is it already true by necessity that the laws of logic, the uncaused cause, and metaphysical space must exist apart from and prior to the universe in order for matter to exist, but the universe itself would reduce to the immaterial at the quantum level.  The cosmos already relies on the nonphysical by default: if the existence of a universe was not logically possible, it could not have existed, the uncaused cause must create the universe or at least start a causal chain that leads to it, and then without metaphysical space (not the outer space with its stars and planets and nebulas, but the otherwise empty space that holds matter), there is nowhere for matter to exist.

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

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html

Game Review--Metroid Prime Remastered (Switch)

"Disaster struck suddenly.  We had a vague, dark foreboding, and it became truth.  A meteor appeared from nowhere, casting a shadow of debris over the land with the violence of its impact . . . A Great Poison burst forth into the land, a strange energy that clawed at natural life with a ferocity."

--Chozo log, Metroid Prime Remastered

"Throughout our living nightmare, as we battle with this unyielding darkness, we Chozo see a light.  This light glows with promise, chasing the shadows cast by the Great Poison and purifying that which has grown toxic.  It is strange, though--at times it looks to our eyes as if the light coalesces into the figure of a woman."

--Chozo log, Metroid Prime Remastered

It has been 21 years since the debut of Metroid Prime on the GameCube, with its lock-on shooter mechanics and its mostly horizon-leveled aiming.  First-person games have shifted towards a different control scheme.  Different iterations of Metroid have come, from more side-scrolling games to a third-person game (Other M) to a handheld Prime spinoff for the 3DS.  Metroid Prime Remastered takes the first major evolution of the series in the sense of gameplay style and brings it to a portable system just over 20 years later.  Better graphics, portability, and the Switch's screenshot capabilities make this by far the best way to play this game that is deserving of its reputation as a classic.

Production Values

Even remastered, as improved as the graphics are, the game is still 22 years old, with occasional textures still looking like they are from a previous console generation with their lack of detail.  The age of the base game just makes the rest more of a visual triumph.  The colors, smoothness, frame rate, and environmental design are incredible accomplishments that hold up well more than two decades after the original release.  Metroid Prime has never looked better thanks to graphical enhancements.  The diverse environments on Tallon IV showcase the splendor of the art style and graphics well as Samus travels between the surface overworld, a snowy area, a subterranean volcanic region, ruins of the former Chozo inhabitants, an expansive mine, and even underwater sections.

With such a sometimes serpentine set of interconnected areas, the game's hint system can be helpful in streamlining playthroughs.  You can take screenshots using the designated button on the Switch to help remember which rooms to revisit or where in them to return to, but periodically, Samus receives vague map data that could highlight new or familiar rooms with an exclamation point.  Many times, finding a new ability will also position you fairly close to a room where you can use it.  There are many crevices to look in and many rooms to revisit, each region having its own musical theme--concept art and soundtrack and model viewers, unlocked by completing the game and by optional scanning achievements or item collection, exhibit these elements nicely.

Gameplay

The GameCube-style controls are replaced with a default configuration where the left analog stick controls walking or jumping direction and the right analog stick controls aiming, much like with Metroid Prime 3 and the Metroid Prime Trilogy.  This smoother, freer setting makes navigating the varied landscapes of Tallon IV, shooting at enemies, and solving puzzles much easier than the first time.  In standard Metroid fashion, Samus loses many of her abilities early on and has to gradually reacquire them.  More fundamental tools like missiles, a double jump function, the charge beam, and the Varia Suit (which protects against environments with high heat) are obtained one by one, with each allowing access to more rooms, more puzzle solutions, or more enhancements like missile expansions and energy tanks. 

There is much backtracking, and new players can find themselves remembering areas where they can utilize newly gained capabilities.  Further in the game, upgrades like the plasma beam, which can scorch enemies, and the X-ray visor, which can see otherwise invisible platforms or entities, are found and help Samus get closer and closer to defeating the poisoning creature in the heart of the planet.  Scanning items, animals, computer terminals, and more provides additional, optional details about the history of Tallon IV, such as how a great meteor fell and introduced a substance that makes living things it contacts more aggressive or how a humanoid species sealed it away underground.  Some unlockables in the main menu can only be attained by scanning everything or finding every collectible, so there is an incentive--beyond familiarity with the lore and upgrading Samus respectively--to carefully search out each item or scan.

Story

Some spoilers are below, though the story is largely communicated without dialogue, by cutscenes or by optional scan logs.

Samus Aran investigates a derelict vessel above Tallon IV after she receives its distress signal, finding a Space Pirate presence and discovering that Ridley has been reformed as a biomechanical organism.  As the ship explodes, she chases Meta Ridley to the surface of Tallon IV in her ship, but not before losing many suit capabilities in the escape.  The planet once was a Chozo-inhabited world, colonized by the same species that raised her as a child.  Their technology, armaments, and structures aid her as she works her way to a crater where the Chozo sealed away a poisoning substance from a meteor crash.  

Intellectual Content

As Samus uncovers more about the past Chozo inhabitants of Tallon IV, she reads of their great affinity for general philosophy, spirituality, and science (yes, spirituality and science are subsets of philosophy).  Their dealings with the spiritual nature of consciousness and the evolution she observes in the planet's creatures are not even falsely treated as if they conflict: spirits free of their bodies and evolutionary divergences are simultaneously affirmed in this game, with Phazon accelerating genetic evolution to within a single generation without reproduction.  The Space Pirates, with their more scientism-esque philosophy and their utilitarianism, seek to use Phazon for whatever malevolent ends would benefit them.  In contrast, the Chozo of Tallon IV lived in harmony with nature while not believing in the metaphysical errors and epistemological fallacies of naturalism.  They believed in prophetic foresight, for example, an extrasensory premonition that does not correspond to the immediate condition of the physical world, but to its future state.  They also became disembodied spirits after shedding their physical forms altogether.

The game mishandles some descriptions of its metaphysics, such as when scanning Chozo ghosts says they are phasing out of existence when they vanish before the combat visor.  However, they are not phasing out of existence as their scan log states, just phasing out of unaided visible perception (the X-ray visor continuously tracks them even when they would blink out of visibility).  The contrast between the Chozo and the Space Pirates inevitably leads to differences in the logs they leave behind.  One from the Space Pirates addresses how puzzled they are that the life force energy absorbed by Metroid from the victims is immaterial.  It is as if they had not realized beforehand that it is at least logically possible for immaterial things to exist (and hell, the necessary laws of logic are and could only be nonphysical, being true in the absence of a material world).

Aside from things like this, the puzzles and exploration of Metroid Prime are preserved excellently and offer intellectual content of a kind other than the directly ideological.

Conclusion

Metroid Prime Remastered is a stellar example of how to update a game and bring it to a contemporary console, all more than two decades after the original release.  Improved graphics modernize the aesthetic, which was already very strong to begin with, without encroaching upon the gameplay's structure or execution.  Already, Metroid Prime brought its franchise from the side-scrolling style to a first-person exploration shooter in a gloriously handled evolution.  The remaster of this title is a triumph of its own.  General gaming norms have changed since 2002; quality, nonetheless, is fixed forever, objectively reflecting how well a game succeeds in its aspirations or reaches artistic heights given the technological limitations of its day.  This is how to do a remaster well!

Content:

 1.  Violence:  Gunfire and biological attacks are for the most part non-graphic, with some blood appearing at times and missiles blowing some organisms into pieces.

The Diversity Of Artistic Genres

There is no single possible human experience, even if a given person has or will not experience the full spectrum of logically possible experiences such as the various emotions, physical conditions of the body, moral dilemmas, sensory perceptions, and personal trials--and the full spectrum of how they might overlap.  Even a much longer lifetime than modern medicine affords would not necessarily give a person enough time to think of, observe, or directly experience every psychological or physical situation someone could find himself or herself in.  Without any expectation or probability of getting the chance to taste this variety and complexity, people can still find examples of them in the numerous fictional stories that have been created.  This is perhaps why entertainment is so popular.  It provides people the chance to indirectly feel, see, and dwell on scenarios that might be far removed from any point in their life.

There are genres and subgenres of everything from paintings to cinema to gaming to literature and more that reflect these different experiences.  For every emotion and every philosophical truth that transcends experiences and entertainment itself, there is a genre or the possibility for a work of art to tackle that very thing--drama, horror, romance, action, comedy, erotica, and beyond, each with their own subgenres or ways to overlap with other genres.  Just as humans can have multi-faceted experiences, art can blend multiple genres, as horror, comedy, and more do not logically exclude each other, though genres can be layered in tonally inconsistent ways.  Artistic quality and the philosophical themes of a given work could be very focused on specific possibilities for human experiences, or they could cast a wider net and tackle multiple issues at once.  This can be done and it can be done well.  Artists just have to be careful to not allow one aspect of their work, especially in media like film that involves multiple senses, to suffocate or conflict with another one.

Horror, as one of many examples, can stand on its own, but it can be paired with action (Resident Evil 4), science fiction (Alien), comedy (Ready or Not), or existentialist drama as with cosmic horror (The Call of Cthulhu).  There are more thematically, narratively precise versions of these subgenres, such as erotic cosmic horror (Lust for Darkness).  This is all for one genre and its subcategories, and there are still more ways horror can branch out into narrower or more complicated subgenres!  The diversity of artistic genres is indeed massive.  Since art is created to entertain, inspire, or stir up thought or emotion of some kind, each combination of stories and themes touches upon the human capacity to experience different things.  Intertwining genres and subgenres only testify to the potential for people to have broad, complicated experiences that, while they all share metaphysical similarities (they must all be logically possible, they can only be experienced through consciousness, and so on), can differ enough that some of them seem shocking, bizarre, overwhelming, or intriguing.

Logical truths and worldviews, the latter of which is valid only to the extent it aligns with the former, are of course more important than the emotional and sensory experiences of entertainment, yet art can touch upon all of these things at once, with some mediums offering higher levels of psychological and sensory engagement than others and thus different potential for specific genres.  Music and literature only engage one of the senses on their own, while movies engage more senses and still retaining the same intellectual potential and much of the same stimulation for imagination, and video games in turn engage more of a person than films thanks to interactivity.  This puts each artistic medium and genre within that medium in a special position to address something about conscious experience (though the deepest aspects of reality, logical truths, do not depend on experiences).  Art cannot escape its connection to things that are not fiction.  Because there is no single aspect to human existence, the art we create inevitably mirrors this.

"I Don't See Color"

In a literal sense, no one could be honest in believing that they "Don't see color" unless they cannot perceive the spectrum of colors experienced with sensory objects.  That is not what they mean when this phrase is brought up in conversations about racism, however.  The intended idea there is that someone is saying they do not harbor any biases for or against anyone because of the color of their skin.  Of  course, not thinking of people as having any differences because of their race other than the colors of their skin is the rational way to approach interactions with people of one's own skin color and those who do not look the same in this sense as oneself; skin color has nothing to do with anything about a person's humanity, core metaphysical nature, moral character, ideological standing, personality, or talents.  In some cases, the only thing it means other than that their skin is a certain shade is that a specific kind of person might erroneously look down or up to them on an invalid basis.

"I don't see color" is supposed to convey how little someone cares about race.  As far as not adhering to racial stereotypes goes, there is nothing wrong with the idea behind this statement, given that someone does not actually mean that they do not notice the difference between the skin tones of various people when that is not the case.  This is just not the same as ignoring examples of racism or refusing to rationalistically analyze the issue in favor of incomplete or assumed concepts.  At least people will say this phrase in order to seem like racism would not even enter their mind, no matter how genuine or feigned it is.  Almost no one seems to say "I don't see gender" (gender stereotypes hypocritically remain popular even with most conservatives who are openly hostile towards racism).  For whatever reason, it is race that people claim to not "see."

Even if certain people really do avoid stereotypes, though, they might still think that this statement, or the idea it expresses more importantly, exempts them from the need to understand or oppose racism rather than simply not believing in it and yet still almost never devoting any attention to it, either in personal contemplation or in conversations with other people.  This kind of person might say "I don't see color" and also mean "I wish none of us ever had to talk about racism because I am uncomfortable with it/because I dislike confrontation."  Their claim about themselves would thus be made more to preserve their fragile sense of internal stability than for any other reason.  He or she might be of any skin color, but they only use this phrase as a way to try to express opposition to racism in the most lackluster, uninvolved, non-precise way possible, focusing on their own alleged comfort or reluctance rather than on logical truths about race or on how normal it actually is for others to also know or celebrate these truths.

People who use statements like this tend to be conservative, quickly using the phrase as if it was a shield for any sort of belief, action, or inaction they have regarding the subject of racism.  This one can be evasive or vague when made by them even if the intentions are not entirely irrational.  Not every conservative is automatically racist or is even hypocritical specifically when it comes to racism (though no holistic conservative could possibly be gender egalitarian), but they are more likely than not to be less aggressive in attacking any kind of racism other than perhaps racism against white people, and thus anytime they use these words, it is likely either to verbally distance themselves from racism while being as mild as possible or to try to deflect attention away from any real racism they might harbor.  Whichever case it is or even if they are not strictly misusing the phrase, no one except people who cannot experience color perception is truly unable to see the diversity of human appearance.  It is not noticing differences in skin color that is racist, but believing anything more about a person on this basis than that they simply have the skin color they possess.

Every Idle Word

It is not just every word that intentionally conveys malice or selfishness that Jesus says will demand an account in Matthew 12:36, but every idle word.  Misspeaking when one meant to say something else is not irrational or otherwise sinful (Deuteronomy 4:2), so that could not be the issue at hand.  Idle does not mean accidental; it means something more like careless here, as in every carelessly spoken word that violates actual moral obligations.  What are some of the Bible's condemnations when it comes to speech?  First of all, profanity is wholly nonsinful by Biblical standards unless it is directed at a person with the intention to degrade them (James 3:9 would apply here), as the aforementioned verse from Deuteronomy would necessitate given that the Bible nowhere condemns profanity, so casually uttering expletives without paying much attention to one's words in the moment would not at all be what Jesus is warning against in Matthew 12.

As for actual verbal sins, which are of course in general far lesser than sins that involve the greater kinds of physical harm of the beings made in the image of God, things like cursing God (Leviticus 24:16) and cursing one's parents (Exodus 20:17) are two examples of verbal sins that are prescribed the death penalty, meaning they are particularly depraved by comparison to many other verbal sins like minor slander or lies.  Of course, all slander is condemned fairly early in Mosaic Law in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:16), and then there is the universal prohibition of lies (Leviticus 19:11).  Moreover, the same reason why degrading physical treatment--either treatment with the intent to dehumanize or that goes beyond a fixed point specified in Deuteronomy--is Biblically evil (Deuteronomy 25:1-3) would apply to words as well.  Lastly, since one's gender, race, descent, age, and physical wholeness or beauty have nothing to do with a person's status as a bearer of God's image (Genesis 1:26-27), any sexist, racist, or ageist comments would be sinful by default as well, though this overlaps with lies and slander since such comments are used as if it was true that these things determine a person's worth, character, or philosophical competence.

With these verbal sins of the Bible actually recognized, then it becomes clear which words Jesus would be condemning even if one only speaks them idly, the term otherwise being carelessly or apathetically.  Exhaustion, emotional distress, extreme desire, and harsh situations might make the difference between purely malicious, selfish, or irrational intentions and careless words spoken out of lesser self-awareness, but they do not exempt someone from whatever moral obligations they have with their words, motivations, beliefs, and deeds.  To commit verbal sins is still immoral even if a person almost thoughtlessly (yes, all decisions, perceptions, intentions, and other mental activities are thoughts in the broadest sense of the word, but I mean by thoughtless that there is a lack of rationalistic care) indulges in them.

Every malicious, slanderous, degrading, or deceptive word would be the kind condemned by the Bible, and thus idly speaking such words would be the sin in view by Jesus in Matthew 12.  What makes a word malicious or degrading or so on is not how the recipient feels, though--not only is a subjective feeling not an indicator of the objective nature of something else and the concept of harshness not always the same as the concept of injustice, but Jesus himself, the very person promising that every idle word will be enough to condemn humans, speaks harshly to some in the gospel accounts, with very direct, controversial tirades against hypocrisy, distortion of Mosaic Law, and the arrogance and stupidity of looking to tradition.  The Jesus of the actual Bible is neither verbally abusive nor in any way someone who practices tolerance of selfish people in word or deed.

What his own point in Matthew 12:36 would be is not that all harsh or subjectively unpleasant words are evil, but that there is no excuse for even the slightest of verbal sins, trivial though they might be in comparison to others.  The entire category of verbal sins is almost always of a lesser depravity than physical mistreatment, yes.  It is just that being less immoral does not make something justifiable or good.  Throughout a person's life, he or she might experience moments or even much longer periods where it is easier to say words, even ones that might be morally charged, without caring about or reflecting on (prior or in the moment) the intended meaning, or how applicable that intention is to a situation or other person.  There is never a time when not sinning is beyond anyone's ability, contrary to evangelical ideology, even with something as simple as words.  The comment of Jesus in the verse after his caution with idle words even predicts quite the stakes for this (Matthew 12:37): "For by your words will you be acquitted, and by your words will you be condemned."

More To Life Than Sexuality

At the other end of the error spectrum from the ideas that sexuality should not be acknowledged and is not worth serious philosophical examination is the idea that sexuality is what everything in life reduces down to, or at least the most foundational, high, or otherwise important thing about the whole of reality.  The objective truth about this subject lies in between these two logical impossibilities.  The only parts of reality that must be true, logical axioms, have nothing to do with sexuality in themselves because they are true regardless of what else is and dictate and reveal all truths, truths about sexuality included; they must thus be more foundational and transcendent than sexuality could ever be.

More than just dwelling on the laws of logic and logic itself is nonsexual, though.  Contemplating the broad scope of philosophical truths and ideas, observing environments in the external world, looking after one's children if applicable, and things such as the mere consumption of food, friendship, simple artistic expression, exercise, cooking, basic introspection, and so on are not sexual in nature.  There are logical truths about sexuality, and sexual behaviors can be seen in nature, and people can do any sort of activity misperceiving it as something sexual or wishing it was, but there is not only nothing sexual by default even about these things that could brush up against sexuality in some cases, like friendship or introspection, there are also entire layers of objective reality that things about sexuality are only true in light of instead of the other way around (like logical axioms).

There are obviously truths about metaphysics and epistemology that underpin or transcend sexuality and thus could not reduce down to sexuality, but when it comes to how people interact with each other, the idea that people only have dealings with other people for the sake of sexual expression is also demonstrably untrue.  All moral and broader ideological motivations aside, which could already steer people away from the stupidity of hedonism, not everyone experiences sexual feelings towards everyone else, even attractive people of the opposite gender, or has sexual feelings at all; not every heterosexual person is attracted to every member of the opposite gender and not every homosexual or bisexual person is attracted to everyone of the gender their orientations push them towards.

That it is possible for someone to be asexual and that not every non-asexual craves the thought of having sex with everyone--or actually acts on this if they did have such desires--is only another reason why it cannot possibly be true that sexuality is all there is to human-human interactions, much less all of reality, as if every logical truth and philosophical dimension of reality pertains to sexuality in the first place.  Friendship with the same or opposite gender that is free of sexual feelings or behaviors is not just possible, but already lived out at least by rationalists bold enough to resist societal pressures.  Even if friends of the opposite or same gender did have sexual feelings for each other, or if people experience sexual attraction to strangers, they are not fated to ignore the philosophical fact that there is more to a person with all of their worldview their capacity for emotions, their personality, and their linguistic communication than just sexuality.

In fact, anyone who truly does believe the blatantly false, easily refutable ideology that everything reduces down to sexuality believes that sexual objectification of practically everyone, or at a minimum every person that one is sexually attracted to (but not being sexually attracted to everyone else already proves that even one's subjective desires and perceptions are universally sexual), is either a necessary, inescapable part of life or perhaps even morally or practically good.  This is likely not what people who believe this outright error would necessarily want others to think they hold to, but it is what would logically follow from this ideas and any motivations derived from it.  More foundationally than just risking immense unpopularity and hostility in this regard, the concept of everything being sexual or directly, strictly having anything to do with sexuality at all is logically impossible.

Counterproductive Corporate Strategies

It might be astonishing to some people just how much corporations can shoot themselves in their feet right out in the open.  Businesses do not have to be run in accordance with asinine ideologies, but some very popular choices or allowances on the part of whoever has the greatest say in the organizations evidence that many firms are run poorly, with little thought put into truths and likelihoods, much less rationalistic thought.  There are at least a handful of very common examples of this, of irrational or entitled business leaders either authorizing counterproductive measures or being so detached from their own companies that they do not even notice how certain details are getting handled.

Not paying workers better than the norm will discourage many employees and pressure or force them to quit, which only loses the company more money to find and rehire new people who might leave for the same reasons than simply paying a superior wage/salary would.  Not letting someone use a company website easily because of constant or intrusive attempts to redirect them to the app is only likely to annoy people in general.  Not handling genuine consumer complaints well only discourages repeat customers.  These and other major decisions could be easily avoided plenty of times, but they in some cases remain normal parts of interactions with companies as either an employee or a consumer outside of the company.

They are nothing but counterproductive corporate strategies that hinder the potential success of the firm in a short term and long term sense, even if there might also be some short term benefits at the same time.  For instance, paying workers low wages might briefly save the company money, but it could also show employees that they have no reason to put anything more than the minimum effort to keep their jobs into their work even in the short term.  Of course, if they leave, the company has to pay all over again to select applicants or go out of its way to find them, train a new group of employees, and hope they stay despite not doing anything at all to resolve the genuine issue that led to previous employees leaving in the first place.

What about the less severe but still somewhat significant problems like companies making it intentionally, unnecessarily difficult just to use its own website?  In the push for consumers to use apps instead of websites that have already been established, all a company accomplishes is making it more challenging to use a website that might be otherwise helpful for the sake of fitting in with arbitrary current trends and supposedly tracking consumers better.  However, this is also clearly counterproductive unless securing positive customer attention and simplifying consumer use of company virtual resources is not also the goal.  Hell, even then, it would still be counterproductive when it comes to actually getting the company the loyalty and convenience that would benefit it.

Only stupidity and selfishness would blind corporate leaders to the point where they do not understand this before they actually implement these strategies.  It is not as if putting more obstacles in the way of consumers or trying to pay employees as little as possible is ever likely to go well by default!  Consumers and employees might be able to see this, but they have little of the power necessary to immediately change the circumstances.  For the sake of rationality and sidestepping very gratuitous difficulties with making a business function smoothly with as few problems as possible, counterproductive corporate strategies need to be avoided altogether.

Those Inside And Outside The Womb

Abortion is not the supreme moral issue liberals and conservatives idiotically assume it is, yet the ramifications of human rights for the unborn and people outside the womb are a great example of where both parties wallow in hypocrisy.  Supposedly, they all want to be in alignment with reason and justice, grasping the truth and living not according to their own personal preferences or cultural norms, but according to the way reality is.  Even a single major hypocrisy or assumption would necessitate that neither is rational or just.  From epistemology to economics to criminal justice, they make either inverse errors or the same errors they (sometimes rightly) accuse the other side of.  One of the most significant ways that they do this is by selectively affirming and supporting the humanity and moral rights of different groups of people.

With liberalism emphasizing updates to the status quo even when none are morally necessary, it is of course the case that liberals who are consistent with this philosophical tenet would be in favor of moving away from the historical American norm of condemning abortion.  Conservatives, taking the opposite error, oppose abortion primarily because it is a tradition, especially among American Christians.  This is a popular conventional stance that in its basic form happens to actually overlap with Biblical ethics; it is just that the main reason why conservatives believe or do almost anything is not because of logical proof or metaphysical necessity or anything but conscience and consensus as they relate to tradition.  They are right that their political adversaries think little of the unborn unless they are emotionalistically compelled to do so--but they do the same, just with people who have already been born.

Liberals often disregard the unborn for the convenience or preference of those outside the womb--and celebrate that they do so.  Theirs is the untrue notion that opposing abortion could only be about warring against women's bodily autonomy (as if violating the bodily autonomy of the unborn is not hypocritical here) or the false idea that an unborn child is subhuman, or at least subhuman enough to not be concerned about when they are killed for convenience.  Conservatives do not treat abortion casually as most liberals (for it is possible to be a pro-life liberal) would have people do, but they do pretend like no moral issue matters as much or more than abortion, and they do usually disregard the misery most people face after they have been born--and celebrate that they do so.  Fiercely clamoring for the survival of the unborn, they almost always lose interest in changing irrationalistic, unjust social norms or devastating economic conditions that make life hell for humanity as a whole, including for those who wish to raise children.

Each group tends to think they are the champions of the true human rights, having the consistency, depth, and devotion to justice that the other lacks.  Tragically, each group has made it clear that it is really just interested in affirming the humanity of select categories of humans while directly or indirectly discriminating against or unjustly hurting the rest.  Collective liberals and conservatives are eager to sacrifice, ignore, or condemn people inside or outside of the womb respectively in order to feel as if they have done enough by focusing on one group of people at the expense of others.  This selective support for other humans is not even exclusively manifested in their philosophy and treatment of the unborn.  

How liberals and conservatives--the culturally visible and dominant ones, at least--respectively treat men and women and white people and black people (or people of other skin colors) reflects this same inverted dehumanization, where each political party generally gravitates towards harming people in specific categories, as they all loudly proclaim that they are only trying to be just.  Abortion has simply become an especially volatile subject for them.  "I am just trying to help women," a liberal might think, pretending like killing a human being in an early stage of development is legitimized by convenience (unless the mother's life is endangered, this is sheer emotionalism).  "I am just trying to help the unborn, who cannot help themselves," a conservative might think, totally ignoring the Biblically heinous treatment they endorse if only someone is outside the womb and neglecting other, larger moral issues than any kind of mere murder.  There might be flashes of rationality and philosophical accuracy within the worldviews of such imbeciles, but assumptions, hypocrisy, and intentional ignorance about logical/moral consistency are errors shared by both major political factions.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.

On Strangeness

It might seem strange to some that the core, intrinsic, all-encompassing nature of reality is logical axioms and the other immaterial, abstract truths that follow from them, underpinning all things and revealing knowledge of necessity to willing beings.  However, this could not have been any other way, as the laws of logic are inherently true.  It might seem strange that of all the logicallly possible sights, for consistency with logical axioms is the prerequisite to possibility, scientific phenomena like the aurora borealis, bioluminescence, or the regeneration of reptile limbs can be observed in the natural world.  Though all of this is only perceived through the senses and might not even be there outside of the nonphysical consciousness perceiving it, it is not what many people might expect.  It might also seem strange that someone cannot know from past or current events what will happen in the future.

Why does it take as long as it does for baby humans to develop or for a given kind of plant to die?  Though these are due to the uncaused cause and laws of nature, they could have been shorter or longer.  There is a strangeness to them on one level.  Furthermore, it is in a sense strange that, while there is an external material world that is very difficult to prove [1], all of the sights and sounds of the cosmos we see might be illusions implanted by a technological simulation or a manipulative spirit.  Many people who are not rationalists will specifically be confused, terrified, or dismissive of the various logically possible ways that most sensory perceptions could be illusions, and this is precisely because these irrational people find them strange!

I have even had non-rationalists tell me of particular concepts they personally perceived to be bizarre.  Someone once told me that the Biblical doctrine of God resurrecting the wicked only for them to die the "second death" in hell (Revelation 20:11-15)--to cease to exist as a consciousness--is strange.  Then there are all the things supposedly taught in the Bible or even the Quran that many people would be shocked to discover are either not taught or directly, wholly denied by the actual words of the respective book, the notion of hell more popular than the aforementioned second death in the Bible being among them.  Moreover, if extraterrestrial life of any kind was/is to exist, some people would perceive it to be odd, while others would perceive it to be more bizarre if there is no extraterrestrial life.

These are all just some of the examples of concepts that some people find strange, perhaps sometimes just because they are not used to confronting them.  Strangeness is of course not a necessary part of truth or falsity.  Perceived strictly through subjectivity on the level of perception, the kind of strangeness that deters many people from contemplating and embracing rationalism and Christianity is not something that grounds, proves, or disproves any philosophical stance.  There is only objective strangeness in the sense that one thing could be majorly unlike another and subjective perceptions of strangeness that have nothing to do with the nature of reality beyond those perceptions.

The perception of strangeness does not keep anyone from discovering or focusing on a given philosophical truth: that is their own fault if they do not look past feelings and perceptions to logical necessities.  Yes, the kind of strangeness (either of the objective metaphysical kind or the subjectively perceived kind) I am focusing on goes far beyond the randomness of different mealtime customs around the world or minor habits that might differ from person to person.  It is possible all the same for people to not be held back by a fear or fixation on that which is or seems "weird" and to then voluntarily align with all knowable philosophical truths.  What strikes someone as odd might be an arbitrary, involuntary thing, but core truths, as precise, complex, or subjectively unexpected as they can be, are unaffected.

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

Movie Review--Hellboy (2019)

"The year is 517 AD, known as the Dark Ages, and for fucking good reason.  An endless war between the armies of man and the creatures of darkness has raged across Britain.  And in retribution for man's injustices to creatures, the immortal witch Vivienne Nimue had spread her deadly plague, threatening to wipe mankind off the face of the Earth."

--Trevor Bruttenholm, Hellboy

Lifted up by its R rating and the way that it actually utilizes it, the complicated relationship between Hellboy and his father, and the sarcasm of the titular character, the 2019 Hellboy has its shortcomings but still does a lot right.  This happens to be one of the most recent movies from the director of The Descent, an excellent horror film that lacks some of the lesser aspects of the Hellboy reboot.  Somewhat disjointed and rushed all at once, the story and its pacing are the weakest links of the chain, but David Harbour's performance, the other characters, most of the effects, the action, and even the humor are all very strong.  As far as the movie's financial failure goes, there was the unfortunate timing of it being released among major MCU films in early 2019.  As far as the public's seemingly negative reaction goes, perhaps many were ensnared by nostalgia for the Guillermo del Toro Hellboy movies, but perhaps the more extreme violence drove them away.  In either case, the 2019 Hellboy is far from awful, and indeed only needed a better structure and pacing.

Production Values

On the level of cinematography and aesthetic style, there are numerous bursts of creativity and excellence.  For instance, in the black and white opening scene set in the Dark Ages, only the red clothing Nimue is wearing is in color in the introduction--yes, black and white are colors, but I am speaking of the broader range of colors here.  The prolonged shot of Hellboy killing the final giant in England is another example, as the unbroken movement of the camera has it switch angles but never cut to another position.  The entire scene inside the Baba Yaga's house is perfect in its effects (with perfect being without flaws as opposed to something that could never be improved upon, which is almost nothing in cinema)--and writing.  Then, the massive demonic beings released briefly at the end are creative both in their appearance and in the ways they kill humans.  Even with all of this, the best parts are the portrayals of key characters.

David Harbour is absolutely right at home in conveying the inner conflict of Hellboy, as well as in the humor the character uses as a way to help cope with his deep pain.  This movie belongs to him.  Ian McShane might have had similar roles to the one he has here multiple times before, but he is also very talented here, and when he interacts with David Harbour's Hellboy, some of the best moments of the film result.  Hellboy even puts Milla Jovovich in one of her better roles.  She has a better character here than in Monster Hunter or the 2002 Resident Evil, both directed by her husband.  Hellboy himself and his immediate companions get more screen time, but Jovovich takes the role of Nimue seriously and, like the rest of the cast, including Sasha Lane and Daniel Dae Kim, helps avoid making Hellboy mixed on the side of performances.  A rushed and at times incomplete story does not decimate the entire film thanks to the cast and secondary things like the action.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

To end a massive conflict between humans and monsters led by the witch Vivienne Nimue, the Blood Queen, King Arthur had Nimue cut into pieces and then had the still-living pieces scattered to prevent her from reforming.  many years later, an organization devoted to fighting monsters and supernatural entities finds a demon summoned from Hell by the Nazis at the end of World War II as a last resort.  This creature grows into Hellboy, a humanoid monster torn between his job as someone who fights malevolent monsters and someone feared and mistreated by humans.  In the process of completing an assignment, Hellboy finds himself the target of one monster's wrath and Nimue's affection.  He is then tasked along with an old friend with preventing the apocalyptic return of the Blood Queen to her full power.

Intellectual Content

Hellboy is constantly caught between monsters that have a malevolent attitude towards humans and humans who would assume he must be cruel and worthy of hatred or automatic fear just because of his appearance.  Entrenched by the very lengthy history of conflict between the two broad groups, some members of each side want to commit genocide on the other without even realizing or caring that many of the objections they have towards how the other group behaves would not apply to the whole.  Stereotyping humans and monsters is an ordinary part of life for many characters, and Hellboy has to constantly withstand misunderstandings from both kinds of creature.  It is in this context that Nimue's offer to make him her king has appeal for him (and there are subtle ways that her emphasis on how similar they are is actually valid, such as how both of them trick another monster into doing something only to point out that they never specified a core detail about their own end of the bargain).  Hellboy is ultimately about a character having to confront his individual nature in defiance of the masses of beings that will hate or misunderstand him for it--a very socially relevant idea at almost any point in recorded history.

Conclusion

Hellboy was in some ways a foretaste of 2021's The Suicide Squad.  They share some of the same successes.  Both are unapologetically R-rated.  Both actually develop the core characters.  Both are based in characters from prior comics.  Also, both of them failed financially despite having many excellent aspects.  Though Hellboy as a character is rooted in neither Marvel nor DC, the lore of the reboot (and its course material) has so much potential that it is unfortunate that the release timing and unjustified dismissal of the film ensured that a sequel will likely never be created.  The plot threads pointing to a continuation might never be resolved, and David Harbour might never again play a character he handled so masterfully.  Adapting a comic character for a movie is still a risky venture unless he or she comes from Marvel or DC, but Hellboy is, although its common reputation might not represent it this way, a very good film with some problems instead of being a terrible film with a handful of positives.

Content:

 1.  Violence:  Humans and monsters are dismembered or impaled repeatedly in this fairly graphic (for a mainstream film) action movie.  Yes, there is actually blood, and plenty of it.

 2.  Profanity:  "Fuck" and "bastard" are among the profanity included.

 3:  Nudity:  For a very short time, a woman's uncovered chest is seen from the side.  This is not true nudity, I know, since it is not total nakedness, and of course there is nothing that makes female breasts as opposed to male breasts worth singling out, but I am including this is in response to asinine culturally popular ideas about nudity in entertainment.

Dissociation In Hell

Would dissociation from torment be a refuge in the Biblical hell before annihilation or even in any of the unbiblical, evangelical distortions of hell, where all unsaved humans are tortured without end?  A detachment from sensory experiences or select mental experiences (not all, as all experiences are already mental and thus so are dissociative ones), dissociation can rescue people in earthly troubles from some of the horrors they have faced or are facing, and if someone was to be in an unpleasant afterlife, Biblical or not, it could serve as a coveted escape from the full scope of their suffering.  However, a supernatural being like God could have the power to nullify all purposeful or incidental dissociation--both dissociation in hell (or any other unwanted afterlife) and supernatural prevention of dissociation are logically possible.

Of course, some people might have immense trouble dissociating, or they might not be personally able to control it, so the fact of a supernatural being not forcing an undiluted, immediate experience of terror and pain on them would not mean that dissociation in an afterlife would be an easy escape.  It could be a less agonizing state of mind to be in, but the circumstances beyond that dissociation would remain either way.  Should a person suddenly break free from their dissociation for even a moment, whatever unpleasant mental and physical experiences are there would greet them once again.  It is just that the true Biblical penalty for humans in hell is eventual death, the nonexistence, of the soul, no matter if torment is suffered beforehand.  Whatever pain is experienced would not last forever because unrepentant humans would not last forever.

As such, there would be no need to dissociate for eternity anyway unless the likes of the demonic beings hell was intended for (Matthew 25:41) suffer forever, unlike humans.  The need for perpetual dissociation would arise in alternate versions of hell that are sometimes inspired by popular misconceptions about the Bible.  In the video game Agony, for instance, there are plenty of damned men and women who seem to have genuinely dissociated from their surroundings in hell to some extent.  They sometimes wear coverings over their heads or walk in a small area muttering things to themselves.  By no means do they seem to be enjoying their condition, but they might not be suffering as much as a perfectly alert person would if they were placed in the unbiblical hell of the game.

Dissociation would ultimately be more beneficial in such afterlives, including versions of hell, that are very different from the experience the Bible says is in store for those who will receive the second death.  If the Bible is true and hellfire lasts forever (Matthew 18:8), it has already been specified that humanity is not collectively destined for eternal suffering with or without dissociation.  The soul that sins will die (Ezekiel 18:4).  The contents of hell are not the same as the realm itself and would not be necessity also be eternal.  As unwanted as any torment before the death of the soul might be, it is almost certainly to be minor compared to the pain that so many humans maliciously wish on each other for trivial things.

The Environment

It has become more and more common to see misanthropic comments about humanity and the environment, as if it was true, probable, or anywhere near demonstrable that the world and the universe as a whole have some special moral value in the absence of a specific kind of theistic context, a value that makes humans insignificant by comparison.  However, why would the universe matter in this sense when it is neither the very core of metaphysics nor capable of being anything more than lifeless array of matter unless consciousness lives within it?  The only way there could be a universe at all is because of the uncaused cause (self-creation of the universe, an infinite causal chain leading to the current universe, the universe having always existed, and the universe coming into existence uncaused are all logical impossibilities, with sensory perceptions and ideological preferences being irrelevant here).  Even so, the uncaused cause could not exist unless it was logically possible and necessary, so it is of course the laws of logic that are inherently at the very core of why the universe can and does exist, not matter itself.

There could be no universe if it was not logically possible and if the uncaused cause did not create it or at least set in motion the causal chain that led to its existence.  The necessary truths that make some things possible (if they do not contradict logical axioms) exist without the physical cosmos, just as the uncaused cause had to exist prior to the universe to bring it into being.  There is also the fact that the nonexistence of objective moral values is required for the universe to matter, and more specifically, moral values that make it so that the universe is valuable and deserves to be honored or cared for.  The existence or nonexistence of morality, of course, hinges on whether the uncaused cause has a moral nature.  It is plain that the laws of logic, the uncaused cause (God), and morality are prerequisites to the universe existing at all and having objective value.

Beyond the metaphysically secondary nature of the cosmos and the fact that it relies on other things to exist in any form, even when it comes to just knowing matter exists at all, the existence of the universe is not obvious: what is obvious is that one has sensory perceptions that make it seem as if a material world exists, not that they correspond with an actual external world.  It is possible to know with absolute certainty that an external world exists [1], but this is not something that is easily demonstrable like the necessary nature of reason and the fact that one exists as a conscious being.  Even on a epistemological level, the universe is secondary to other things.  Many people who believe it exists only believe because of mere assumptions and emotional awe of nature, not the sole logical proof that can reveal its existence to humans--which parallels how many environmentalists really just believe the environment has moral value because they feel like it does or because they just want it to.

To think that the universe exists by logical necessity in the sense that it could not have not existed, that the universe matters by default and in itself, and it is epistemologically obvious that there is such a thing as matter is to dive into glaring irrationality.  To think that humans have a moral obligation to protect the environment on the basis of conscience, preference, or the practical utility of environmental efforts is folly.  Since the misanthropic kind of environmentalism at best is believed because of assumptions or an unmerited degree of love of the universe, as if it is the very foundation of all things (it is intrinsically impossible for this to be anything other than the laws of logic), and at worst is believed even in the context of atheism (which, if it was true, would necessitate that there are no moral obligations and nothing with true value), it takes an utter irrationalistic fool to believe that humans are meaningless or lesser compared to the universe as opposed to the other way around.

The existence of the universe is not a necessary truth that could not have been any other way in the sense that it is inherently true that some things by necessity follow or do not follow from a truth or concept.  The value of the universe is likewise neither self-evident nor a necessary truth in itself.  The uncaused cause is more foundational than the whole of the universe, and the laws of logic which ground all truth and possibility are even more foundational than God, so the natural world in its entirety (the whole universe with its different galaxies and any other universes that might exist) is not as metaphysically central as the God or logical truths it depends on.  Just a large mass of matter with no value unless the uncaused cause's moral nature is such that the cosmos is good, the environment cannot have the all-encompassing moral and central metaphysical status that so many people seem to believe it has.

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

The Justice Of Love

No one could possibly be owed mercy, for it is by nature the undeserved suspension of just punishment, of a just but perhaps unwanted treatment that a person deserves because of their beliefs or actions.  Whether it is shown by God or fellow humans, mercy cannot ever be what one should by default offer to anyone.  It is offered, at least by God and anyone other than emotionalistic people, out of sadness over the evil that requires justice, out of the redemptive hope that someone will change for the better, or perhaps even out of manipulative intentions (on the part of people).  As transformative as it can be and despite the fact that it is morally good (but not obligatory) on the Christian worldview, mercy cannot be anything other than wholly undeserved.

It is justice that is always obligatory.  Short of showing mercy for non-emotionalistic or otherwise non-irrationalistic reasons, justice is how a person should treat others because they deserve it.  Justice is indeed broader than only giving people the right punitive treatment, which is an enormous issue itself, as it is impossible for all the different, conflicting ideas about what punishment people deserve to be true at once.  Punishments like prison, crucifixion, or decades-long enslavement are all evil treatments that no one deserves according to Mosaic Law.  However, beyond just punitive justice, there is also the justice of honoring philosophically and morally upright people as they deserve, of acknowledging the human rights of all people, or of treating one's spouse, children, or friends correctly.

There is also the justice of love.  Love is at its strongest not an emotionalistic attachment stirred up by happenstance situations or subjective psychological desires.  It is the caring for others as full humans with whatever human rights that entails.  Even if this does not always involve personal affection such as that towards a cherished friend, it is actually a part of justice in at least the sense of not being apathetic or dismissive with regards to how they deserve to be treated.  This is not tolerance or superficial affection.  It is a deep caring for and commitment to the moral wellbeing of all people, no matter their gender, race, class, age, health status, appearance, or deeds.

Directed towards God, love can transcend subjective affection as well.  The most significant love of God is not about feeling happy about the entire state of the world or mustering a shallow fondness for him.  It is about recognizing that a deity with a moral nature deserves respect, honor, and submission, for no other being's very character could make something obligatory.  In Christianity, since humans are created in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27), there is a kind of love that they deserve by sharing similarities with God, though angelic beings would share some of these similarities, perhaps to a lesser extent.  It would be unjust to be unloving, not by happening to not experience personal affection towards everyone, but by trivializing them in thought or deed.

This is the true philosophical context of Paul's charge in Romans 13:8-9, where he says that people owe each other the unrelenting "debt to love."  No one is obligated to treat someone in a given way, on the level of behavior, words, or attitude, unless they deserve it.  Love is deserved by both God and other people on the Biblical worldview.  No one can perfectly love someone else without treating them as Mosaic Law deserves: by not carrying out slander (Leviticus 19:16), murder (Exodus 21:12), rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27), physical assault (Exodus 21:18-19), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), abusive punishments (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), and so on.  Love without the desire for, recognition of, and practice of what is just is truly dead.  To do these righteous acts only to benefit oneself or out of irrationalistic, insincere motives, nevertheless, is to live without the love of reason, God, and morality that is demanded by the Christian God.  Love without just deeds is an illusion or meaningless emotionalism; just deeds without love are very much incomplete.

The Arbitrariness And Irrelevance Of Formal Workplace Attire

There are ways that clothing could be regulated in a workplace setting that go beyond something like the sexism of forcing women to cover their bodies to an arbitrary extent.  Indeed, this is not the only arbitrary way employers can force workers to wear or not wear clothes of a specific kind.  The completely random degree of formality in workplace attire expected by so many companies is really rooted in how some people with power subjectively feel at home wearing/seeing some clothing but not other kinds, with that dividing line inevitably being arbitrary to their random feelings or perceptions.  Nothing but the entirely meaningless, invalid allure of traditions and subjective approval is there to stand on for anyone supportive of this norm (with the very rare exception where formal clothing might be an actual necessity, such as if someone's job involves fitting in with other people already wearing formal clothing).  If someone wants to dress formally for any job they have, they can do so simply to do it out of sheer preference, and that is that is not irrational.  Penalizing others for not doing the same or requiring them to is a betrayal of reason and makes someone a slave to an assumption that was likely just prompted by societal traditions or subjective whims.

This also of course provides another pointless barrier to the poor--they might not have the money and time to find the perfect clothing to satisfy the arbitrary whims of corporate leaders, which locks them out of many jobs that could ironically enable them to easily purchase such clothing to begin with.  Many people love to at least pretend to want to help the poor, when measures like this, merely doing away with arbitrary social norms that are irrational to embrace as anything more than the meaningless preferences of certain people and thus are irrational to enforce, would do far more to help the poor find employment more easily than giving them a one-time gift of food or water ever could.  Now, excluding the poor is not at all necessarily the intention behind the very widespread cultural phenomenon of mandating work clothes of arbitrary formality, but this is a consequence either way and the entire tradition is philosophically asinine as it is.

Is the clothing an employee is wearing safe for the job?  Does it have words on it proclaiming some sort of erroneous ideology?  These are the only objectively relevant or significant reasons to forbid very specific types of clothing at all workplaces.  More importantly, there is no logical necessity in the idea that formal clothing is necessary for the vast majority of jobs to be worked, so it is neither a self-evident logical axiom nor something that logically follows from any other necessary truth of reason, nor is there any reason to think there is any moral significance to making a workplace unnecessarily formal other than preferences and assumptions; that is to say, there is no basis whatsoever for even believing that formal clothing is on any level necessary.  Moreover, it is objectively unrelated to workplace efficiency, and this is not grounded in personal experience or hearsay about how some random business ran just as well or better without enforcing more formal attire: it is a logical fact that is true independent of all specific examples and experiences.  People can be productive or unproductive with or without formal clothing.

No study or personal preference as expressed in a person's experience can possibly invalidate a strictly logical truth such as this.  People who already have assumed that this is morally or otherwise required for most businesses might suddenly feel strange to the point of lessening productivity if such norms were to ever be lifted, but they are stupid enough to have made an assumption in the first place and based their chosen reaction around that assumption.  Even if it was true, it would have been an error to believe it without proof, and hearsay, preference, tradition, and consensus are not proofs of anything beyond that hearsay, preference, and so on exists.  Of course, it is conservatives who are most likely to preserve this tradition precisely because conservatism is largely about preventing or slowing change away from how things are or have been, yet the idea that this convention is logically necessary for productivity is false and whatever moral weight conservatives might think this has is just assumed.

Pursuit Of Eternal Life In Prometheus

An early scene in Prometheus shows a hologram of the supposedly dead corporate giant Peter Weyland, who explains to those on the spacecraft of the same name as the film what exactly he hopes to accomplish with their investigation.  The creation of humanity, the purpose of humanity, and what happens when humans die are what he says wants to discover.  His allusion to the issue whether of whether there is life after death is a significant background aspect of the movie's themes.  Certainly, the metaphysics of the uncaused cause (which Elizabeth Shaw hints at) and subsequent cycles of creation are more at the forefront.  The connection of existential meaning, if it exists, to human origins is valid and inherently theistic.  Death and an afterlife are still very important and recurring themes in the film.

An important character despite being far removed from a primary role, Weyland hopes to extend his life or perhaps entirely sidestep his death that his appearance suggests could strike at any moment.  The Christian and Olympian references paralleled with various plot points foreshadow that his pursuit will not end well, as deep as the issue is and as sincerely as he hopes to find deliverance.  Whether or not he has any motivation deeper than emotionalistic desperation (though desperation itself in the face of death is not a shallow thing whatsoever), Weyland is revived from stasis to obtain what he seeks.

Just before his death, he gets what he wishes for: he meets a living Engineer, a member of the extraterrestrial species that appears to have created humans, and attempts to communicate his desire for eternal life (or at least longer life) using his android David as a translator.  As an android, David is an artificial version of a human being.  Prometheus in fact heavily implies over and over that he is far more similar to humans than either he or general humanity would be comfortable with, experiencing emotions, desires for unhindered autonomy of the will, and existential pangs of longing and disappointment (by Alien: Covenant, he has become irrationalistically genocidal and assumes that he is superior to his creators and to their creators as well).  Viewers are not told what David specifically says, but there are suggestions that he might have pointed to himself as an example of how Weyland is like the Engineers, since both can create a kind of life.

The Engineer does not display hostility towards any of the visitors until David conveys an initial message from Weyland through ancient Mesopotamian language for the alien to understand.  The Engineers created humans and were involved in some early civilizations, so old languages were the most likely way to communicate, and yet the lone extraterrestrial does not as much as give a verbal reply before becomes wildly upset and tears David's head from his torso.  Just as the Titan Prometheus of Greek mythology stole fire from the Olympians and was punished for it, the humans are here treated by the Engineer as if they are trying to steal the "fire" of creation and life extension from their creators.

Weyland himself is targeted and harshly pushed to the ground, an attack that is all the more potent because he is so close to dying.  "There's nothing," he whispers next to David's head as life is about to depart from him.  His misanthropic and yet helpful android replies, "I know.  Have a good journey, Mr. Weyland."  Weyland could not have known if there was no experience after biological death, if that is what he is referring to as very much seems to be the case, because he was not yet dead. A fading consciousness could suddenly reawaken or depart after the death of its body to find an afterlife, pleasant or unpleasant.

Without actually having a character put this into words, Prometheus only illustrates how a living being with human limitations, even moments from death, cannot know if there is an afterlife or which logically possible experiences it would consist of.  Weyland dies on a distant planet, all of his wealth and his plans unable to do anything more than delay the arrival of death, passing away to see if immediate nonexistence of his immaterial consciousness (in which case all of his experience would cease) or if some kind of continued spiritual existence awaits him.  In reaching for salvation from biological decline, he received precisely what he wanted to escape.  Never have the Alien films touched on such matters of core metaphysics as they do in this movie, the possibility of eternal life and an afterlife included.  Death, eternal life, and an afterlife are indeed major but background issues in Prometheus.

Christ's Slave

Paul is very direct when he states that to do that which is right after finding redemption is to become a slave to righteousness (Romans 6:18), something all people should strive to be, for it is not only obligatory, but it is also within everyone's reach (Deuteronomy 30:11).  With some early Christians living as literal slaves--and pagan civilizations were prone to practice the predatory, unbiblical forms of slavery--he says elsewhere that "he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave" (1 Corinthians 7:22).  All who turn to God and Christ, for they are not identical beings as evangelicals pretend, become in one sense the opposite of whatever their cultural standing is at that time.

Someone who comes to God while they are a servant to humans, whether justly or unjustly (and there are very clear, emphasized distinctions between the two in Mosaic Law), is indeed free in a manner greater than any social hierarchy allows for.  Inversely, someone who commits to Christ in repentance while he or she is a free person in their society is now to be a slave to God, to Christ, to righteousness (again, see Romans 6:15-18), and by logical extension to all of the philosophical truths that make this possible.  There is submission of the greatest kind to be found in bowing to reason, to God and Christ, and to morality, and there is freedom of the deepest kind to be found and enjoyed in wholehearted devotion to such things.

Slavery and freedom are mingled together here as a committed follower of Yahweh and Christ is both bound to that which is good and also liberated from that which is evil, as well as from the final consequence of evil in the second death.  Whichever social status a person is in, there is a contrasting way in which they can relate to God.  Both forms of relating are always taken on by Christians to some extent even if they have not realized this fully or at all.  No matter the circumstances of just or unjust servitude a person might be in whenever they come to God, they are in every case not slaves to another person in any kind of ultimate sense (1 Corinthians 7:23).

There is surrender to God and there is also freedom in surrendering to God.  Paul admits that it is worthwhile to gain one's societal freedom if one can (7:21), though failing to do so in no way affects the simultaneous freedom in and "slavery" to God.  In ancient Jewish society, Yahweh acknowledged the human rights of slaves in many ways as early as Exodus 21, demanding the death penalty for slavery initiated by kidnapping (21:16) and requiring that slaves be released if injured through abuse (21:26-27).  Slavery to Christ and to the Father who sent him is likewise not a forced, exploitative position; it is one to be voluntarily embraced and that entails, as Jesus puts it in John 10:10, life "to the full."