A Possible Sister Blog concerning Gaming

    A long time ago, you might recall I wrote a few pieces about video games. I like to play video games and I consider them very useful for gathering insights for philosophy. However, this week's major video game conference, E3, has shown had bad the community can be at times. On the other hand, it's also useful to be able and see the good writers who are able to keep a cool head and thoroughly analyze things. Hence I came up with an idea
     I want to make a site, beginning small with a blog, that features cool headed writers to share their opinions and even reviews. I'm still thinking about the details of how it will work but I think it will be nice to see of a bunch of blog posts that are able to give well-founded opinions not based on rage. If you want to participate in this idea or have suggestions, leave a comment below.

Pondering the Five Proofs for the Existence of a God

To the Religious and Atheists,
    "There is no God" is a claim I philosophically can never claim. For all I know, that could be true, but as I pointed out in my essay about A Higher Power Through Technology, it can't be proven. It is far easier to prove that there is such a thing as a god than there isn't. The most famous of these are the Five Proofs which actually don't make the claim that the god(s) they are about is the same that different religions claim to exist. I will describe a quick summary but this is actually more to prep for my next "letter" in which I will speculate based off a few premises.
     So each of the Five Proofs concludes with "and this is what we refer to as a god." The capital "G" God is what I would refer to as the One that encompasses all five of the proofs but that itself requires some extra logic to connect them all. The first proof is the idea of motion and how nothing in the universe is able to move without having some start. Even in our bodies there is movement when we are still and perhaps that is the best explanation for why we can "stop" and move freely. So in that sense, the idea of a god is the "First Mover" which by definition means it is the first thing that causes motion. Yes, people ask "but who moved him?" but that is an invalid question as it goes against the definition of First. Perhaps the best explanation for understanding this concept is the one I gave in the essay I shared above.
    The Second proof is similar to the first one but is described as the Cause of All Things. After all, the one who puts everything in motion is not necessarily the creator. For example, someone can create a game, but I'm the one who starts it by pressing "play".
    The Third proof is the presence of miracles. Miracles by definition cannot be explained by science and there are still events that fit that criteria such as incorruptible bodies and instant disappearance of 20 pound tumors. Does this mean I believe the world was created in 7 days as described in the Bible? No, because our definition of a day back then revolved around the rising and setting of the sun which did not "exist" until like the 4th "day" according to that same Bible. Hence that was obviously literary (unless the concept of "day" refers to a "day in god's time" which is technically possible). However, I cannot wholly accept the theory of evolution without at the same time accepting the concept of a god because of how we evolved. The big question I have is "Why in the world where all organisms originated from a single cell would 'evolve' into something that requires two of us? Why would we do that especially for a species that takes 9 months to procreate and then years before we are even able to survive on our own?" We may control the earth now, but it certainly didn't start that way.
    The Fourth proof was the concept of a perfect good (or various degrees of things). This requires a few premises such as that "Evil is the absence of Good." I recall this as dependent on the fact that we can put things in order of goodness like the freedom of speech is better than an ice cream cone. While there are things that are subjective, there is a general order of goodness in the world. This proof also uses the premise "One cannot give what one does not have (or at least has the potential to give)" and since there is various degrees of goodness, there must be a highest good and proof calls that "what we refer to as a god."
    The Fifth I needed to look at Wikipedia to recall. But after I saw it, then I could see how it would made sense. I will just copy and paste what I found there

• Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist and are all finite. Such things are called contingent beings.
• It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, for then there would be a time when nothing existed, and so nothing would exist now, since there would be nothing to bring anything into existence, which is clearly false.
• Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being or beings.
• We call this being God.

     So I actually originally thought the Fifth proof was that there is Order in the Universe. That may be more linked to the Fourth one I relayed but it is something to ponder. If there is no order, then everything should be in chaos and not exist. But since there is an order to things such as the Laws of Physics that we still have not perfectly understood, there must be a being outside of the universe with the power to establish an order. So yeah, I think my analogy about technology actually really helps explain all of these "proofs."
      Now something I will point out is that I don't think any of these can prove that the ultimate superior being we collectively call "God" is the next level up, just that it is very reasonable that there is one. This is because we could theoretically create a virtual world that has the capacity to create their own stories and virtual worlds. This is the interesting thing about infinite because it can go one direction, but it can also have a start.

N. D. Moharo

The Secret of Loneliness

To the Lonely Hearted,
    I think I just realized the cause of loneliness. Loneliness isn't the feeling of being alone but rather the feeling of not having anyone close to talk with. This is why Facebook, though has the potential to cure it, usually actually makes it worse. It grants this idea that it should be easier to communicate with friends, but you begin to doubt how close your friendship is when you don't see replies. Because of this concept that Facebook makes it easy to communicate, the more so that it that not seeing a reply hurts. That doubt is the seed that you can't find anyone who truly cares. When you look at the number of "friends" it's made worse because the higher the number, the more you think that you have failed to find someone close. Even more so is when you see that number decrease.
    This is also the reason why people tend to feel lonely without their love interest. It's because that person tends to become the "close one" and depending on the level of intimacy, it's hard to match. Perhaps that is another reason why breaking up is so hard to bear and why some people turn suicidal in such a case. It's not a question of bi-polarism but rather the betrayal and mental closure. So what can we do to make things better? It's a actually as simple as letting a friend know that waking you up at 3 in the morning may be annoying, but you'll do it anyways. That's when you show that you do care.

With Care,

N. D. Moharo

P. S. As for the people who really don't feel like they have anyone to turn to, go ahead and leave a me a comment with an email address to communicate with.  I believe it is set up so that it requires moderation before it gets posted. Hence no one but me should be able to see it. I can't guarantee since I haven't seen any comments yet to test this theory. Just realize I normally only log in about once every two weeks, though I will do more if I find the need. I'm personally one of the people who cares about anyone who needs help. I think it's a requirement if you want to be an ideal friend.

Twitter Plans

Hello Everyone!
    Some of you may have noticed I started a Twitter account. In some respects, I was using Facebook like a twitter account by occasionally posting thoughts I had as well as links to my new blogs. However, I started to feel like Facebook was not the right place to post so often. While I will still post links to my new blogs, I've decided Twitter was better for doing more frequent posts. The only thing I am not a fan of is the 180 character limit. I had in my plan to start tweeting riddles but I'm not so sure if that would be a good idea or not. It might just be that I'll post the riddles on Facebook and leave the Tweets to daily quotes and ideas.
     Yes, I do hope that Twitter does in fact help attract more attention to my two blogs. However, I also see it as the other part of my goals for having this blog in the first place. One, I can communicate more easily with others. Second, I post quick and simple ideas as soon as I have them instead of developing to what I feel is appropriate for a blog. Third, it hopefully makes it easier for me to find other thinkers to help me develop new or old ideas. So if you want to follow me, you can find me at @ND_Moharo . Don't be afraid giving me suggestions on who to follow either.

N. D. Moharo

Movie Review: Little Boy

It is not often I write movie reviews. In fact, you might find it weird to see me post one on this blog. This film is an exception as it addresses a philosophical understanding. Not only that, but its themes cover the everyday social life and proper response in today's racist and anti-poor world. I do believe many critics will unjustly hate in their own form of racism on the basis of it being a "Christian movie," but if that's the case, any movie that merely has a Christian in it should be considered a Christian movie because this does no evangelizing. In fact, they never tell you which denomination this movie has. Instead, it uses your cultural knowledge to realize that this is a realistic setting and story. Anyways, I should get on with the review.

The movie is set in WWII California. Within the first few minutes you learn of most of the main cast and its themes. The main one advertise is Faith. One thing I love about this film is that it not only addresses the misunderstandings of the concept, but it uses them to its advantage. The childish innocence of the main character is perfect and was well-performed. the beauty of childhood, as this movie subtly reveals, is the hopefulness. The movie does a great job contrasting how people act with hope and how those without cope.

Another theme is the love between a child and his father. This actually ends up being the catalyst for everything. This too is shown through the actions of various characters, some of whom you may not realize until you sit back and then it hits you. No two people give the exact same response in any of these themes and so helps convince the audience that it's a real story.

You might have some tears due to the powerful performances concerning this love

The last theme is actually two concepts linked together and those are Racism and Friendship. In this movie, you can't talk about one without understanding the other. Like I said, the main advertisements focus on faith, but I think they would do well to advertise the racial elements as well. After all, how many movies do you know that talks about how the U.S. treated Americans of Japanese descent during the war? This movie covers it very well and focuses not only on the Japanese character's humanity, but also how he is a good friend.

As I mentioned before, the love between a child and his father is what prompts the developments of the whole movie. As the father goes to war, this little child, portrayed beautifully by Jakob Salvati, hears about the well-known saying about the "Faith of a mustard seed." Believing that if he has enough faith, he can bring his father back, he begins his quest to grow it. His given task by the local man of influence, befriend the Japanese man whom the entire town, including titular Little Boy, hates simply because of his heritage.

To do this, he is tasked with doing acts of human kindness, known to some as Corporal Acts of Mercy. This list includes Feeding the Hungry, Shelter the Homeless, Visit the Sick, etc. As he performs these actions, the audience gradually witnesses he and the Japanese man becoming friends. Hence, the truth of being humane on both sides overcomes racism and leads to friendship is portrayed and certainly something we need to learn in today's society. (A bit of trivia: it's a really quick glimpse so I am not entirely sure, but in typical directorial fashion, inside the Japanese man's house, there's a banner with the Japanese characters for Friendship, 友情).

The element of faith is shown throughout the film and how one event spurs different responses from different people. In general, these lead up to some of the humorous scenes or small bits of dialogue. While it is indeed predictable, the quality of the acting makes it enjoyable to watch anyway. I saw the movie twice (the first being quite a while now) and while I did not laugh as much as the first time, I did feel some strings on my heart pulled watching the solid performances.

It also shows how comics and heroes inspire children

As I mentioned before, Jakob is the real star among the cast though his name is not recognizable. Likewise, I doubt many have heard of Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa but his performance also is phenomenal as the agnostic man who doesn't let his victim hood degrade his humanity, just like Jakob in his bullying situation. Emily Watson, who plays a character named Emma (that must have been a joke about the typical confusion between the two actresses), portrays the typical 1940's mother who is capable of knocking some sense into her teenage son. David Henrie also does a great job of playing the older brother named London and the dynamic that results from all of the events. By the end, despite the hair color difference, that he is a brother to the little boy named Pepper. As the priest, Tom Wilkinson was perfect both vocally and visually.

Now when you have all of these famous names, that might affect how you judge their acting. Believe me though when I say that I didn't know any of these celebrities that I just mentioned. I thought some looked familiar but that was more thinking they looked like some old friends. The two actors I knew of, I missed their performances due to their very small roles. Hence, you could say I have very little bias in judging their performances. Now whether my critical eye is so great is another story.

The end result is what I consider to be a timeless story. While the action sets might not be perfect to the typical action fans, when you consider them from the eye of a child, they are just as they should be. The overall glow of some scenes help sell the nostalgia effect of a man reflecting on his life. Now is there anything that might offend people? When it comes to the racism, the film does not hold back but it also never encourages it. If you want to talk to your child about racism, this is a good place to start. The result is that we realize we were not perfect in the 1940's and how war causes unjust pain on the homefront. However, the presence of this evil makes it all the more sweeter when it is overcome by the innocence of a small child.

Tips on Dating: First Impressions

To the First Dater

    A year ago, I wrote a letter on the mentality for beginning a relationship and an explanation why the ideal method of starting off as friends first does not work as often as we like. This piece assumes you have already overcome that first obstacle and are preparing for a first date.
    In my letter from last year, I hinted that using "friendship" as a means to obtaining a romantic relationship is dishonest and fake. It is psychologically better for both parties if you are honest about your intents from the beginning or make up your mind about reality. Likewise, on the honest front, your first impression should be an honest one as that will save a lot of time and trouble.
    One time I went on a first date, I figured at some point that it wouldn't work out due to the impressions I was getting of her. While I believe we were both honest, I had a glimpse of her personality and saw that it didn't fit with mine. There is no second chance in making a first impression. As a tightly budgeted boy, I saw her never finish anything I bought for her in terms of food. While you can debate that love is more valuable than money, respect for another's income is also highly valuable. It's the worker's paradox that he wants to make money for his family and spend time with them but the family keeps spending all of the income so he has to work more and as a result is never with his family. Likewise, I hate seeing food wasted especially when I consider the poor who would have gladly eaten it.
     The funny thing about this whole experience was that I felt like I was being tested. Tests are important while dating. However, they should never be disrespectful. Showing up 5 minutes late by accident is a great way of judging how they react, but it's only valuable when it's not your fault. If you purposefully waited 5 minutes to show up, then you are revealing more about your own character than you are learning about your date. I personally highly value that people keep their word or have some valid explanation rather than finding out they were simply testing me. It's a dishonest trick and disrespectful and not a good way to begin a first date.
    So what are reasonable tests? Simply letting things happen. On the date I mentioned earlier, everything I got her either broke or was never finished. Yet I was still willing to give her a shot if she was too. As much as I had gathered we were not compatible, I also gathered she wasn't a bad person and so I was willing to go on a second date to see if it was just the circumstances of a horrible double-date. Needless to say, things happen and you can take into account the reactions later. If some item breaks and the accusation immediately comes that it was on purpose, then you probably aren't compatible. Either because the accusation was quick or because it really was on purpose. The only thing you should do on purpose is be respectful.

Have Fun,

N. D. Moharo

Test for How you View Sex

To the People in the Middle,    When a controversial subject arises, things tend to get divided into two but most people actually fall somewhere in the middle. For many cases, this is the right place to be, but that depends on what you consider are the extremes. Concerning the Indiana Law that fueled so much anger, though in my opinion was unjust anger taken to an extreme, the "controversy" was caused by extremists. The law itself was very much in the middle as it paved way for business rights. As Rick Santorum pointed out, though if you just read headlines, you probably just thought it was hate speech, that it would make it so gays running companies would be forced to produce something they would consider "anti-gay". Likewise, it would allow other restaurants to refuse to cater a KKK ceremony on moral grounds. If you read the law, you should realize that there is nothing against tolerance but rather being tolerant of business owners' morals and opinions. In this case, you either support the law or not, there's no middle ground. It's a shame that the non-supporters have done such a poor job of trying to get rid of hate due to their own hate crimes.
    Now I pointed out in a previous letter that the whole root for gay marriage debate is how you view sex. Here I will provide what must follow based off your choice. If you do not agree with any of the results, then you need to consider how you truly view sex and the reasoning behind it.

If you view sex to be as nature intended:

• You cannot use birth control or any sexual action that does not lead to connecting the two parts as nature designed. This means no to oral sex, anal sex, and no masturbation
• Pornography is a big no-no.
• You should be concerned with modest clothing
• Bestiality is definitely wrong

If you view sex primarily as a tool for pleasure

• You cannot have a problem with porn or prostitution
• You must have no qualms with adultery or cheating.
• Statutory rape is no problem. Whether or not Roman Polanski raped that 13 year-old girl or if she was consenting, there was nothing wrong. After all, he had the support of so many celebrities such as Penelope Cruz. Oh! That means there was nothing wrong with all of those cases we have been hearing about lately. And those Catholic priest scandals mean nothing.
• You have to accept gay sex as legitimate as well as incest and bestiality
• If you approve of gay marriage on the basis of "love", what logical argument could you possibly have against polygamy and incestuous marriages? There also is no point to marriage existing as a practice either. Perhaps that's why you never hear of any prior cultures ever attempting to approve the idea of "gay marriage" even in cultures where gay sex was abundant.
• Rape could be argued as an okay or acceptable practice. Especially if you are okay with dismissing some groups rights such as the case to refuse business to something they find objectionable. It would certainly only become more common. The more a mind is focused on gaining his own pleasure, the less he will care about others displeasure. Consider the boy in the U. K, who raped his younger sister just to "try it out" after watching porn. Likewise, that Roman Polanski case (though I don't dare dive into whether it was rape or not. He apparently acknowledged that he at least had sex with her even though she was 13). With so many celebrities supporting him, what can you expect?

Something I find interesting was to learn that many sexual diseases exist because the sexual act was not done as nature had prescribed. Now whether my sources were correct is another question, but it does warrant investigation. If they are true, does beg the question, why don't we simply do it properly and then the diseases will die out?

N. D. Moharo