There is an idea that I do not completely dislike: that human consciousness was a mistake. When I talk about consciousness here, I specifically refer to our ability to self-reflect, to think recursively, and to introspect.

The idea is that a large part of our thinking has little to do with what is happening in the present moment, and that this kind of thinking is not necessarily conducive to happiness. We could call this stimulus-independent thinking: thoughts that arise independently of whatever we are currently doing or experiencing. This includes thinking about future plans, replaying past events such as conversations we had with other people, reliving insults or embarrassing moments, wondering what we will eat for our next meal, thinking about what we are going to do tomorrow, and so on.

The reason why this is supposedly not conducive to happiness is that whenever we are doing an activity, if we are not wholeheartedly engaged in it, stimulus-independent thinking appears. In some way, it binds us. It makes us less carefree, constantly worrying or thinking about something else. We then look at animals, with the dog being one example that illustrates this idea, and admire how they seem to engage with the world with their whole being. They are focused on one activity, wholeheartedly and fully, without something else constantly happening in the background.

And then we look at the evolutionary tree and wonder where it all went wrong. Was it when the monkey turned into a human?

But I now wonder whether this is the wrong way to look at it. Yes, the monkey or dog is free in the sense that it can be wholeheartedly focused on its task without anything else tying its mind down. But in a way, it is not really free. Its wholeheartedness does not come from choice; it is, to some extent, necessary. That is simply the degree to which its brain is developed.

With the dogs wholeheartedness comes a certain degree of ignorance, both about its environment and surroundings and about its inner world. Its full engagement with an activity comes together with a lack of introspection.

So maybe we should not reject the abilities that make us unique among animals. Instead, perhaps we should embrace and combine both ideals: achieving a kind of aware, introspective wholeheartedness that exists out of choice.

Straightforward action spectacle that feels way shorter than it actually is. Great massacres, great sword fights, one mission, one goal. I love the set design. The camera was maybe a bit too hectic at times.

Shinzaemon Shimada: He who values his life dies a dog’s death.

Among all the same Hollywood comedy slop movies, I think this is one of the better ones. John Cena plays his role surprisingly well and is probably the highlight of the movie, while the rest of the cast is just meh. I hate this classic Hollywood ending where every movie has to have some kind of moral lesson. If you turn your brain off, this movie can be fun. 6/10

Summerhayes: Circumcision parties are my go-to when I need to relax.

Indonesian movie. Like always, it’s interesting to watch movies that don’t come from Hollywood. Everything just feels different: the acting, cinematography, set design, and so on. Besides that, it doesn’t have that much serious horror, so don’t expect something like Hereditary. It’s more silly fun. The focus on Islam is interesting, but it also makes sense given Indonesia’s high percentage of Muslim population. Yeah, just silly fun. 6.5/10

If you don’t have religion, where will you go when you die?

I’ll send him to hell myself.