Character Design in Survival Horror Games (Survival Horror Series Part 3)

Fear relies on a sense of helplessness; a dread that you have little to no power to overcome the hellish obstacles in your way. In survival horror games this means most of the time the characters the player plays or encounters is the every man/every woman. Compared to action horror where the characters tend to have lots of combat experience in their past. Because survival horror tries to create an atmosphere of fear built upon subtle things that eat away at the players sanity, effective character design for both the player character and non-player characters is vital.

Who am I?

When playing a video game with narrative the player places themselves into a character much the same way an actor places themselves into a role that has been written. The more substance that has been given to the character the easier it is to immerse yourself into that character and what is happening to them. A poorly written or thin character can break the immersion and atmosphere of fear as the player is finding it to hard to fit into the character’s ill fitting skin.

One of the failings of Silent Hill 4 was the design of the player character Henry Townshend. He is presented as a quite and stoic loner with no real relationships. Throughout the game he is shown to be willing help those in the nightmarish events taking place, yet no personal motivation is ever conveyed. He also has no real emotional connections to anything taking place and really is just involved by complete accident. It is hard to experience fear through Henry because he doesn’t feel real enough to immerse yourself in. The game has to rely on other aspects to help create a dreadful atmosphere of fear.

Not only should a player character be fleshed out they should also be ordinary. It does no good in creating a sense of fear if you feel like your character can kick all the monsters’ asses. Action horror games like The Suffering, Doom 3, or the F.E.A.R series don’t create fear through their player characters which is why they often seem to be generic combat type characters.

The first three Silent Hill games all have ordinary and relatable characters. Harry is just trying to find his daughter. James is trying to figure out how he received a letter from his dead wife. While Heather is on a quest to avenge her father. The Fatal Frame games all have females as the main player characters. Fatal Frame 2 and 4 make their player characters younger adding to the atmosphere of fear; the young are even weaker than ordinary men and women . The Siren series and Eternal Darkness relies on a whole cast of ordinary characters. Rule of Rose and Haunting Ground, like Fatal Frame, use younger female player characters to try and create a sense of helplessness and fear.

Another important aspect for the player character is their emotional involvement in what’s happening in the narrative. It can be easier for a player to immerse themselves into a character if that character is connected to the events taking place. Except for Silent Hill 4 all the player characters throughout the series have deep emotional ties to the events taking place. The first two Fatal Frame games have the player character seeking out a lost sibling. The third installment drags the player character in emotionally by having her capture a picture of her dead fiance. And the fourth Fatal Frame the player characters are on a quest to recover lost memories.

We’re All Crazy Here

Non-player characters are just as important in creating an atmosphere of fear as the player characters. Non-player characters should ultimately be as weak as the player character. Even Maria who is a creation of Silent Hill is shown to be weak against it’s power. Over and over she dies as punishment towards James. As the town taunts Angela she is constantly seeking a way to die. Eddie eventually crumbles before the town’s treatment of him. Even though the cultists throughout the series believe themselves protected even they succumb to the town’s nightmarish powers.

Helplessness is essential to creating an atmosphere of fear. It does no good to have the player character seem weak against the nightmares if another character seems to cope just fine. Those characters that stand in the player character’s way have to fall before the resolution takes place or else a little hope might rise. If even the characters that were supposed to be working with the nightmares fall to it what hope do you have.

And just like the player character should have emotional investment in what is going on non-player characters should too. The cultists of the Silent Hill series are emotionally invested because they believe what they are doing, the suffering they are causing will bring their god into the world. In Silent Hill 4 Walter believes he will bring back his mom.

Any video game could be improved with better character design but for survival horror games it is essential. Survival horror games rely heavily on characters and narrative to help create an atmosphere of fear. The player characters have to be relatable and fleshed out enough for the player to immerse themselves in that character and experience the fear of the nightmare. If there is distance between the player and the character there is distance between the player and the fear. The same goes for non-player characters. What is to fear if you’re standing in a room of superheroes? Any character opposing the player character should be shown to be just as powerless. Only the nightmare and its monsters should be left standing when it’s over.

World Building in Survival Horror Games (Survival Horror Series Part 2)

I’ve said before survival horror games are like slow burning candles. The world of the game slowly creeps into your mind, instilling a sense of dread, something more than an adrenaline rush, something that shakes your very core with fear. One of the ways survival horror games achieve this is by presenting the player with a world that is more than darkened hallways, flickering lights, ominous sounds, or spectral figures. The world in which the player walks and the enemies he/she faces are imbued with meaning, they represent something, and as the player thinks more about what they represent the more it helps to eat away at the sanity of the player.

Not Just any Old Haunted House

One of the most recognizable locations for anyone who has dabbled in survival horror games is the ghostly town of Silent Hill. But the town is so much more than a truckload of fog and creepy sounds. The town constructs itself based on the sins and fears of the unfortunate souls who become trapped within.

The area on which Silent Hill was built is filled with its own rich history that is colorfully strung throughout the series. The land was a holy site to Native Americans known as “The Place of Silenced Spirits.” After forcing the indigenous people off the land, the first colony was abandoned after a epidemic killed most of the colonists. When colonists returned to the land it would be used first as a penal colony and then as a POW camp during the Civil War. By the time we get to the first game the town has been transformed into a resort town. But existing alongside the beautiful scenery is the nightmarish shadow that the players find themselves in.

While the history goes a long way to explain the nature of Silent Hill it doesn’t always explain the town the player interacts with. The town likes to take a peek inside its victim’s minds to create a more frightening experience.

In Silent Hill 2 it is hinted the town one sees is crafted from one’s own mind. While most of the locations James visits seem like just twisted versions of the real world Silent Hill the hotel he visits at the end has special meaning because it’s where he and Marry stayed. Angela implies that the Silent Hill she sees is one that is always on fire while Laura seems impervious to the town’s effects.

The world that the player experiences in Silent Hill 4 The Room is a reflection of the mind of Walter Sullivan. As the player progresses through the game the player learns more about Walter’s past, learning about his suffering at the hands of the Silent Hill cult.

While I don’t consider The Suffering survival horror it does share a lot of the design philosophies that make for a good survival horror game. The game takes place on a prison island filled with a bloody history that has infected the very land with an evil presence. The island has the power to corrupt and influence those that inhabit its land. As the player runs around the island they are not just running around a creepy environment but an environment that itself is pulsating with evil.

Zombies Are Overrated

Just as the environment the player finds him/herself in can be imbued with meaning the monsters the player faces can be something more than grotesque monstrosities. It’s one thing to face mutated monsters but it’s another thing to face something crafted from the personal demons of an individual or the depravity of human nature.

In the Silent Hill games the monsters the player faces come from within the minds of those caught up in the town’s influence. The creatures the player faces in the first game are manifested from Cheryl/Alessa’s mind. Except for the abstract daddies, which represent the abuse Angela suffered from her dad and brother, the monsters in Silent Hill 2 represent parts of James. Pyramid Head represents his desire to be punished while Maria is idealized representation of Mary. And again in Silent Hill 3 the monsters represent the mental scars of Heather/Alessa caused by her history with the Order. While the monsters faced in Silent Hill 4 are representative of the madness bred in Walter by the Order.

The design for the creatures faced in The Suffering didn’t come from the scarred minds of the individuals that found themselves on the island but simply drew upon the depravity of human nature. Each of the creatures represents a form of execution or specific deaths on the island. The slayers and marksmen represent beheading and firing squads while monsters like the noosemen represent COs who were lynched as revenge for letting inmates die in a collapsed mine.

In the Fatal Frame series the ghosts faced aren’t representations of a character’s mind or human depravity but they do represent something else that can frighten the player: death. The form in which the ghosts are presented is how they died. If a woman died of a broken neck that is how she is presented to the player. You are not only facing something might that might be seen to represent death but something that represents all the ways death can take you.

Bringing it all together what does this mean for designing a truly frightening survival horror game? It means that you should consider imbuing the creatures and environment you present the player with twisted meanings. Not all survival horror games implement what I have talked about here, or implement such design decisions to varying degrees. In the early Resident Evil games the monsters and environment don’t carry any metaphorical meaning but through other methods creates tension and fear in the player. The Silent Hill games tend to place more focus on the symbolism of the monsters while the environments of the Fatal Frame games tend to not mean much, instead opting for a more traditional Gothic feel. Choosing to add meaning to the environment and monsters adds something more than the flickering light in the hall or the strange sounds in the forest. A deep sense of fear and disgust comes from not just realizing that you have to survive the onslaught of a deformed creature but realizing that creature is formed from the dirt and grime of reality. That its shape comes from the depravity and terror humans inflict on each other. That the ground you walk wasn’t made evil from the beginning but because of the blood that was spilled upon it. These things eat away at a person even if they survive the nightmare because the things that gave form to those nightmares are still out there walking the streets.

Introduction to Horror Video Games (Survival Horror Series Part 1)

The first real horror game I ever played was Silent Hill 2. I was just starting to really get into video games and I had recently purchased an Xbox. I enjoyed horror literature and movies so I was looking for something special to get my fright on with my new console. All the game had to do was entice me with its cover art (the Xbox Platinum Hits edition). I knew nothing about horror video games; nothing about Resident Evil, Fatal Frame, or Alone in the Dark. Absolutely nothing. With nothing to go on except the surreal images plastered onto the game case I entered the world of horror games.

Since that time I have more than enjoyed my time with horror video games, playing and studying them. This article is meant to provide a brief history of horror video games and a breakdown of its sub-genres, one of which I will concentrate on in future articles.

Back in the earliest days games were text games. These were games where the game provided you with text explaining what was happening in the setting and you choose what to do by typing it. The game then provided you with result of your typed action. What we know of as adventure games evolved out of these text based games ^1,2.

Adventure games (think Myst) are games where the narrative is advanced through puzzle solving. There is little to no action and failure or death is the result of a deliberate choice, rather than failing to hold off a horde of enemies because you ran out of ammo. Because of this adventure game design has to rely heavily on world building, strong characters, and compelling narrative to pull the player in.

When graphics started to get thrown into horror games the games were still mostly adventure games. But then Resident Evil and Silent Hill came along adding a bit of action to the games along with popularizing the term survival horror. Survival horror games are simply action adventure horror games with a different label.

Action adventure games still retain the puzzle solving aspect of adventure games but inject some action into the gameplay allowing the player to combat the monsters around him/her. The action is restricted either through the scarcity of combat supplies or frequency of combat. While the player can fail the game by being killed by a monster it is not the utter destruction of the enemy that advances the narrative. Puzzles still have to be solved. In fact one could go through the early Silent Hill games without killing much and still beat the game but if you couldn’t figure out a puzzle you were screwed (thank god for online guides).

Silent Hill 2 Music Box Puzzle — What the fuck do I do now?

For years action adventure horror or survival horror games dominated the horror game genre but then things started to change as horror games moved towards pure action horror. Action games are characterized by the need for combat to advance the narrative and finish the game. The Resident Evil and Silent Hill franchises both started producing entries that were action horror compared to the earlier entries that were action adventure. New video game series, such as F.E.A.R, Dead Space, and Condemned, came along leaving their mark on the horror video game scene.

Until recently action horror games are what dominated. In the last couple of years a new sub-genre of horror games has risen. Another shoot off like survival horror I will simply call escape horror. It is a return to action adventure style games but instead of combat the player has to run and hide. Games like Outlast and Amnesia fall into this category. Puzzles still have to be solved to advance the narrative but the player has to learn how to indirectly face his/her enemies unable to confront them directly. Survival horror games have you directly face the enemy while escape horror has you indirectly face them.

My preference out of all of these is survival horror. That doesn’t mean I won’t dabble in the others. The only one I don’t have much experience in is escape horror which really isn’t my cup of tea. If I’m forced to face my enemies I would rather face them head on than run and hide. The different sub-genres have different methodologies when comes to trying to scare the player. The games that lean toward the adventure side tend to rely more on a slow burn that subtly creeps into your mind, eating away at your sanity while the games that lean towards action rely on jump scares and keeping you in a constant state of adrenaline fueled panic.

The sub-genres tend to shift around in terms of what is popular at any given moment but you should always be able to find something that suits your taste. Below is a list of some recommended games to play based on sub-genre. These are only games I have had experience with. There are a ton more out there I haven’t had a chance to play yet.

Pure Adventure Horror: Sanitarium, Scratches, I Have No Mouth and Must Scream, Doorways
Survival Horror: Silent Hill 1-3, Resident Evil 1-3, Fatal Frame Series
Action Horror: Alan Wake, Silent Hill 4-5, Resident Evil 4-6, F.E.A.R Series, Condemned Series, The Suffering
Escape Horror: Amnesia and Outlast

1. There weren’t just text adventure games. There were other types as well like text RPGs but today’s adventure games still carry a lot more of the design philosophy of the text days compared to other genres.

2. If you want a more detailed and personal history of the early days of horror video games check out this article.

Finally here is my favorite song from the Silent Hill franchise:

What is a Worthwhile Life?

At least once in their lifetime most people ask themselves questions such as “What is the meaning of this?”, “What is the meaning of life?”, “Is there any meaning?”, “What do I do if there is no meaning?” Even if as a fleeting thought that is quickly disregarded, these questions in some form or another passes through most of our minds. It can be a daunting task to tackle such a question. Tolstoy recalls his own experiences in confronting the difficulties of trying to answer the question. He writes, “The questions were not waiting, and I had to answer them at once; if I did not answer them, I could not live (8)”. Later when describing the difficulties in his quest for an answer he describes himself as a man in an endless forest who comes across a clearing and climbs a tree. Climbing the tree and looking out over the forest he sees nothing but the forest. He then climbs down from the tree returning to the darkness of the forest (10). Tolstoy observes how people react to the question. Tolstoy mentions the two most common responses: people either ignore the issue or come to the conclusion that life is meaningless (16). Neither of these options seems desirable as it amounts to giving up. Most would seem reluctant to approach the question in any serious manner while those that do cause themselves a good amount of pain looking for an answer. First this article will examine what we mean when we use the term “meaning,” finding what we really desire is not a meaningful life but a worthwhile one. I will then briefly comment on the theistic argument. Finally I will examine how to achieve a worthwhile life and how happiness plays a role in such a life.

When we ask the question “What is the meaning of life?” we are grasping at more than what is stated. Ideas about purpose or worth always seem to get involved. So what do we mean when we refer to “purpose,” “meaning,” or “worthwhile,” or rather what should we have in mind?

When speaking about purpose we can use it in two senses. In his essay “The Meaning of Life” Kurt Baier outlines these two senses. The first sense is used when we speak of the purpose of things. When we ask a question like “What is the purpose of that device?” this is the sense we are using (100). Kurt Baier asserts to use this sense of purpose in relation to human beings is insulting (101). Such questions reduce him to the “level of gadget” or “domestic animal” (Baier 101). Outside of certain theistic arguments we can disregard this sense of purpose because based on our current understanding of the universe we have no general purpose. We were not created for anything.

The second sense of purpose is related more to human behavior. It is this sense of purpose we are using when we ask questions like “Why did you go running this morning?” or “Why did you go out today” (Baier 100). This is the sense of purpose we want to use when we discuss meaning. It is this sense which brings order to our lives. It is the setting of goals that moves our lives forward. When we wake up in the morning we set ourselves a series of goals. We plan on taking a shower, eating breakfast, and going to work. For the morning this is our purpose, to complete these goals. This sense of purpose is even more important than the first sense because the first sense of purpose has no effect unless it becomes the second. For even if we did have a purpose in the first sense, assuming we have freewill, we have the option to disregard it and go on with our own purposes in mind. The second sense of purpose is what we want to keep in mind when speaking about meaning. If there is a way to achieve a meaningful life it cannot be done aimlessly we must have structure to succeed, structure that is provided by the second sense of purpose.

Having a purpose does not equal having a meaningful life. Purpose is a condition to achieving meaning but not sufficient. Moritz Schlick in his essay “On the Meaning of Life” writes, “In truth, we shall never find an ultimate meaning in existence, if we view it only under the aspect of purpose (63)”. This idea becomes clearer as Baier speaks of learned men who have abandoned Christian ideas of purpose, “They have become convinced that the universe and human existence in it are without a purpose and therefore devoid of meaning (84)”. Purpose does not equal meaning. All far too often people think that if there is no purpose there is no meaning, though they are usually thinking of the first sense of purpose when they come to this conclusion (Baier 101-102). We should remember to keep purpose in mind but not make it the defining feature of a meaningful life.

So what do we mean when we refer to “meaning?” Paul Edwards gives two conditions for meaning in his essay “The Meaning and Value of Life.” The first is that one’s life should have some over-arching goals and the second that these goals are carried out with “a special zest” (124-125). Edwards also states a meaningful life does not equal a life that had a positive effect on others (125). Richard Taylor in his essay “The Meaning of Life” says a life has meaning if the activities of one’s life lead to a significant culmination that has some lasting end (137). Taylor is skeptical of achieving an objective sense of meaning but believes we can achieve a subjective sense (137). Both Edwards and Taylor make an error in how they think about meaning.

Edwards’ error is assuming goals must be undertaken with “zest.” Regardless of how we feel about our actions or the frame of mind we are in this does not subtract from the meaning they may have. Taylor’s argument suffers from the assumption that our actions must have a lasting effect. People would think it absurd if we said a life was meaningless simply because one’s actions did not affect the lives of every person on the planet so why would we make the same claim about time. Simply because the actions of one’s life does not have a lasting effect that lasts far into the future or even forever does not take away from the meaning they had. A life has meaning if it significantly affects the lives of others. These effects can be positive or negative. This means a life like Hitler’s had meaning but in a negative sense. Many suffered because of him; he meant something to those people if only as an agent of suffering. On the other hand the life of Martin Luther King Jr. had a positive meaning because his actions helped others and reduced suffering. A meaningful life is one that has an effect on others, positive or negative.

It seems like we have come to the end of our quest. Of course when we ask the question “What is the meaning of life?” we mean much more than that. We are really asking things like “How should I live my life?”, “What way of living is worthy of my time?”, “What things are worthy of attainment?” When it comes down to it when we ask “What makes a meaningful life?” we are really asking “What makes a worthwhile life?” Kai Nielsen’s writes, “Instead we may be asking ‘Is anything worth seeking?’ ‘Does it really matter finally what we do?’ Here, some may feel, we finally meet the real tormenting ‘riddle of human existence.'” (209). There are lives that were meaningful but brought about a lot of suffering. When we speak of a life that is worthwhile we speak of a life that should continue because of its positive effects on others. Edwards defines a worthwhile life as one that is “attached to certain goals which are both attainable and of positive value (127).” So a worthwhile life is the ultimate goal, not just a meaningful one. But how do we live a worthwhile life? Some would say we should consider a theistic argument because it involves a creator who might have had some criteria in mind to make our lives meaningful or worthwhile.

It is natural to turn to a theistic argument for a worthwhile life. It makes things much easier. Appeal to the force that created us and save ourselves a lot of thinking. Several others have attacked the theistic position and I do not want to rehash their criticisms here so I will simply drop in my two-cents and leave it at that. It would be wrong of me to outright deny the possibility of some deity that played a part in our creation but there is very little proof to assert there was. If one did exist and had in its mind its own ideas about what makes our lives worthwhile, and assuming such a thing is important to it, it has not done a very good job in conveying such a message to the human race. Basically what I am saying is we should go on our merry way acting like he did not exist because he is not making a very good effort in getting our attention. So any further discussion on a worthwhile life will disregard the theistic argument.

Some may want to stop here, believing that without the existence of a divine being that there really is no point to anything. Without the theistic argument we are left with what science can currently give us concerning the universe and to some it is a bleak and pointless existence. Both Quinn and Nagel state that if nothing lasts it loses meaning (38, 143). Without a divine being to extend our existence beyond this world and to create a permanent record of our actions it is too easy to want to say that none of it really matters. But this is wrong. We will see that even without a divine being we are all still connected and that our actions do matter. It is important to reaffirm these things because to give up on them would decrease any motivation to live a meaningful or worthwhile life.

In his essay “Religion Gives Meaning to Life” Louis Pojman states it is because of God that we should feel a sense of love and connection towards each other (28-29). One may think that without God these things are lost but this is not true. It is amazing to think we come from stardust (Primack and Abrams 270). It may seem odd as we look up in the sky and see all of the stars to think that we really are that rare. We along with the rest of the visible matter in the universe only make up 0.6% of our universe and it all started with exploding stars in the early universe (Primack and Abrams 278-279). This not only links us together as human beings but also with everything else in our world. Our universe, in the grand scheme of things could be a rarity in of itself and we are a rarity in that rarity (Primack and Abrams 271). It can be easy when only looking at the scientific picture of the universe to turn towards pessimistic thoughts but by doing that you are only looking at part of picture (Primack and Abrams 273-274). Even if we are a random splotch in the pattern of existence we are a spectacular splotch that simply needs to learn to live up to its potential (Primack and Abrams 298).

At the moment it might be safe to say humanity as a whole is not really living a worthwhile existence. Our ignorance or denial of the consequences of our collective actions as a species is damaging the environment and spreading suffering to those capable of feeling it. Our actions for the moment are relatively confined to our little place in the universe but already our influence is spreading. Since we started space exploration we have created a field of space junk that surrounds our own planet. Essentially we have made the space around our own planet a junkyard. Not only are there dangers involved in this debris falling back to the surface to inflict more damage on the planet but imagine if the debris were knocked out of orbit and survived a crash onto another planet. If the planet were in the process of developing life the debris could contaminate the environment. This could cause irrevocable damage to that developing life. It is even more frightful to think of the consequences of what might happen when we actually do start to move out into space. What we are doing to our own planet we could do to others. Even though our actions may seem overly negative at the moment it does not mean we are not capable of more positive actions. If humanity as a whole can come to live a more worthwhile existence we could do so much to alleviate whatever suffering there might be wherever our feet touch throughout the universe. We do have an effect on the universe at large. That role may seem small at the moment but it will grow. With these facts in mind we must remember that even if this is it, this life and this universe, that there is a point to pursuing a worthwhile life beyond our own subjective feelings.

So what is the best way to achieve a worthwhile life? The answer may be closely linked to Mihaly Csikszentmihaly’s idea of flow. In his book Finding Flow he describes flow as any activity that produces a state of mind in which there is no room for “conflicts or contradictions.” It is a state of extreme focus that provides a sense of “effortless action” (29). Csikszentmihalyi outlines a number of activities that produce flow such as studying, sex, or even driving. Of course different activities can produce flow for some and not others (29-31). You can also have different levels of flow (33). But the thing about flow is that it is a neutral form of psychic energy. He describes flow as a source of psychic energy that can be used for “constructive or destructive purposes” (140). His advice on a worthwhile life is, “Thus in creating a good life it is not enough to strive for enjoyable goals, but also to choose goals that will reduce the sum total of entropy in the world (Csikszentmihaly 140).” He provides a way to distinguish between goals we should pursue and those that we should not by providing his own definitions of good and evil.

Evil are those things that, “causes pain, suffering, disorder in the psyche or the community.” Good is the, “creative overcoming of inertia, the energy that leads to the evolution of human consciousness(146).” He also states that whether we like or not our actions do affect everyone around us and that we should keep these things in mind when we are deciding how we should live our lives (131). Csikszentmihaly takes his ideas even further by forming the concept of the autotelic personality.

Csikszentmihaly believes that a worthwhile life is filled with complex flow activities (116) and this is one of the things he uses to characterize what he calls the autotelic personality. Autotelic persons are those that engage in activities for their own sake (117). Csikszentmihaly imagines two people playing chess. The players are not playing for any kind of reward or to win a competition, they are simply playing the game for the game’s sake (117). Csikszentmihaly admits that there can never be a fully autotelic person because there are always going to be things we do not enjoy doing and do not want to do for their own sake. Just as there are different levels of flow there are different levels of autotelic personalities. From those that feel that very little of what they do is worthwhile to those that find much of what they do worthwhile (117). It is these people who do many things for their own sake that require very little to sustain themselves. They need less material possessions and do not seek fame or power because so much of what they do already brings them enjoyment (117). They also produce the most amount of psychic energy that can be molded to benefit others (123). Autotelic persons genuinely care about what they are doing. There also seems to be an increase in a desire to solve problems (124-125), which of course can have a positive effect on others. It is this positive effect that is important to a worthwhile life.

So how do all these ideas relate to a worthwhile life? Remember that we defined a worthwhile life as one that not only achieves meaning but one that achieves meaning in a positive way. A worthwhile life is one that deserves to live because of the positive effects it has in reducing suffering. By living as an autotelic person we can live a worthwhile life. While it is up to each individual to discover what it is that makes them this way at least the end goal has been provided.

Some may look at everything discussed so far and may be puzzled by something. They may be puzzled that little has been said about individual happiness. There is reason why it has not been discussed and that is because the happiness of an individual does not affect whether a life was worthwhile or not. How we view ourselves or our actions does not change the effect we have on others. An action can have negative consequences even if we do not believe it is negative. Think of religious fanatics that kill believing they are doing good when in reality their actions are bad because they cause unnecessary suffering. Also a person who believes their lives to be meaningless or worthless may be mistaken because their actions have a positive effect on others even if they do not think so. While we have provided an answer on how to live a worthwhile life it should be noted that the pursuit of happiness in the context of a worthwhile life does enhance it. You do not need happiness to lead a worthwhile life but by living a worthwhile life you can increase your chances of achieving happiness.

Not only do Csikszentmihaly’s concepts of flow and autotelic personalities give us a way to live a worthwhile life but it us gives us a way to live a happy life. While being in a state of flow does not guarantee happiness, activities that produce flow have a higher chance of producing happiness afterwards (Csikszentmihaly 32). Also if you are happy and are doing something that produces flow you increase your own state of flow (Csikszentmihaly 101-103). So while it may not be necessary to be happy to live a worthwhile life they do have an odd effect on each other. By seeking to live a worthwhile life you can increase your chances of being happy and by being happy you can work to live an even more worthwhile life.

Living a worthwhile life is not about finding a particular set of conditions and fulfilling them. We all cannot make the world a better place in exactly the same way but we can all make it better in different ways. Living a worthwhile life is about living in accordance with a certain philosophy, striving to improve the world and people around you. How you do so really is not something I can answer. It is up to you to discover your own skills and how to use them to increase your flow, develop as an autotelic person, and live a worthwhile life.

Works Cited

Baier, Kurt. “The Meaning of Life.” Klemke and Cahn. 82-113. Print.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life.New York: Basic Books, 1997. Print.
Edwards, Paul. “The Meaning and Value of Life.” Klemke and Cahn. 114-133. Print.
Klemke, E.D., and Steven M. Cahn, eds. The Meaning of Life: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Nielsen, Kai. “Linguistic Philosophy and ‘The Meaning of Life’.” 203-219. Print.
Pojman, Louis P. “Religion Gives Meaning to Life.” 27-30. Print.
Primack, Joel R., and Nancy Ellen Abrams. The View from the Center of the Universe: Discovering Our Extraordinary Place In The Cosmos. New York: Riverhead Books, 2006. Print.
Quinn, Philip L. “The Meaning of Life According to Christianity.” 35-41. Print.
Schlick, Moritz. “On the Meaning of Life.” Klemke and Cahn. 62-71. Print.
Taylor, Richard. “The Meaning of Life.” Klemke and Cahn. 134-142. Print.
Tolstoy, Leo. “My Confession.” Klemke and Cahn. 7-16. Print.

Judgment and the Hidden God of Apocalyptic Literature

A common image of God in the West is one of a loving and forgiving God, a caring but stern father. Looking at apocalyptic literature we see a different side of God. God’s darker side is often seen when passing judgment and what greater judgment is there than the judgment of the end times. While this darker side of God is seen more often in the Hebrew Bible, over time this side of God has been pulled out of non-apocalyptic texts and formed into separate evils, such as Satan, Baal, or others (Tremmel 56). But this separation does not appear in apocalyptic literature. The authors have found it necessary to keep the darker side of God present to destroy the evils of the world. To take a look at this vastly different God we need to first take a look at how God commands his followers to judge others. Next we look at God’s actions of judgment. Then we examine the differing characterizations of God between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Finally we look at how apocalyptic texts we have found it necessary to keep the darker side of God in apocalyptic literature for the final judgment.

In the Hebrew Bible, God calls for an immediate judgment when his commandments are broken. When the commandments are broken judgment does not come directly from God, instead the judgment comes from the community of believers. In a roundabout way these judgments are coming from God because he is dictating which judgments should be carried out for breaking certain laws.

One of the more horrible is the judgment of death. Yet God expects the community to carry out the judgment of death against those who his commandments. Examples of crimes that are punishable by death include speaking blasphemy against God (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Lev. 24.16), not keeping the Sabbath, and several others (Ex. 19.13; 21.12; 21.14-17; 21.29; 22.19; Lev. 20.9-16; Num. 1.51; 3.10; 3.38; 25.5; Deut. 13.5). These judgments are not rash though. God demands more than one person’s testimony for conviction. He demands the testimony of at least two or three witness to pass the judgment of death (Num. 35.30; Deut. 17.6). But that does not eliminate the horror of executing someone. The purpose of these judgments is to “purge the evil” from the community (Deut. 22.22). The immediate nature is meant to deal with the physical presence of evil among the community. These evils are something that can be dealt with physically and God commands these evils be purged when detected.

The New Testament God, in stark contrast with the God of the Hebrew Bible, does not expect humans to be his instruments of justice. There is an emphasis on not passing judgment on others (Mt. 7.1; Lk. 6.37). Evil is not dealt with in the same way as it is in the Hebrew Bible (Matthew 5.39-41; 44-45). It is not something human beings can accomplish. There are two reasons why humans cannot carry out a judgment to get rid of evil. One is that evil comes from within humans (Mk. 7.21) and two everyone one is guilty of something (Matthew 7.1-5; John 8.7). Because of these flaws human beings are not good candidates to act as judges when it comes to God’s commandments. God wants people to forgive each other instead of judge one another (Mt. 18.21-22). Compared to the Hebrew Bible there are no instructions for physically dealing with evil in the community. Instead there is a call for forgiveness between fellow human beings (Mt. 6.15; 18.21-22; Mk. 11.25; Lk. 17.3; Jn. 20.23). Humans are not meant to be judges in spiritual matters.

The God of the Hebrew Bible is a much more active God than the God of the New Testament. The belief was that “God protected and punished immediately” (Tremmel 44). As long as the people of Israel followed his commandments and worshiped him God would provide his protection. But if they did not keep his commandments his protection would be withdrawn (Tremmel 44). In the Hebrew Bible God was much more proactive, he interacted with the physical world. The earliest example of God’s judgment can be found in Genesis. Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden of Eden for defying God (Gen. 3.8-24). The next major judgment is the flood (Gen. 6.11-13). God causes the flood because he judges the world to be corrupt. God is swift with his judgment. When he sees corruption he deals with it. One of the greatest examples of God’s judgment in the Hebrew Bible is the plagues of Egypt (Ex. 7.8-12.50). God brings his judgment against those who oppress his people. Anyone who defies him or his commandments are dealt with quickly (Num. 16.27-35; 21.4-6), even his own people (2 Kings 17.14-20). God is more involved with history in the Hebrew Bible and his judgments are swift when he sees corruption.

In the New Testament God does not act immediately. Jesus performs miracles through the power of God but these are not acts of judgment. In fact one of the major teachings of the New Testament is to not judge others (Mt. 7.1; Lk. 6.37). This is not a lasting command for God himself though. God reserves his judgment for the “end of this age. ” At that time there will be a separation of the good and the bad (Mt. 13.49). Those that are found to be worthy are ushered into the glory of Heaven, the unworthy are left out in the cold (Mt. 8.11-12; 13.41-42; Lk. 13.28). While the judgments of God are not a part of the physical present in the New Testament there is the promise that he will carry out his final judgment.

In the Hebrew Bible “good” and “evil” are not defined or separated. God caused both the bad and good things in the world. If one obeyed God and his commands one was rewarded but disobedience brought judgment (Tremmel 18). God gives and takes. As long as the people of Israel follow the laws of God they will be protected but if they turn away from him God gives power to their enemies and allows them to conquer Israel (2 Kings 17.14-20). This idea of God in the Hebrew Bible causing both the good and the bad in the world would be a problem in the future for those who believe in a loving God who protects his people.

By the time of the New Testament, God is no longer responsible for the evils of the world. Instead Satan is responsible. The dark side of God we glimpsed in earlier texts is now weeded out and personified as a separate being. He is the enemy of God (Tremmel 69). He was an angel who was thrown out of Heaven for his pride and disobedience (Tremmel 71-72). Satan is responsible for inflicting pain onto people and for tempting people to do bad things (Tremmel 70). He is ruler of this world (Tremmel 72-73) and the one who introduced sin into it (Tremmel 70). God is no longer responsible for the negative things, Satan is.

But why the transition? Why did the idea of God as the sole actor in history change to God and Satan as the movers of history? In his judgments we saw a darker side of God. In the Hebrew Bible God is more active so we see this side of him more often. This creates a problem. Believers in a loving God did not want to think about him being responsible for the bad in the world (Capetz 18). To help deny this dark side of God authors removed things which showed us that side of him. But sooner or later someone would have to deal with the evils of the world. Humans are inadequate in this respect. Only God can deal with it but the only way to destroy evil is to “fight fire with fire. “

One of the most defining characteristics of apocalyptic literature is the final judgment. But the entire process is usually drawn out. Apocalyptic texts describe the suffering of believers then move on to describe the evils of God’s enemies. Finally there is a battle between good and evil. Those who are evil lose and are punished while those who are good win and are rewarded. The darker side of God we saw in non-apocalyptic texts of the Hebrew Bible is now thrown full force into our faces to deal with the evils of the world.

In early apocalyptic literature those who are punished are not truly evil, at least not in the way we would think of evil. It is about wiping out those who are different and oppressing the followers of God. Early Jewish apocalyptic literature views almost all gentiles as unworthy and that they should be punished by God (Capetz 15). Because they do not worship the God of Israel they should be wiped out. In Daniel the people of Israel should hold fast to the Lord while they wait for him to come punish their enemies (Dan. 12.1-13). The War Scroll from the collection of the Dead Sea Scrolls depicts the community of believers as the only righteous while everyone else is unworthy (1QM1). There is no personified evil force acting in the world. God’s judgment comes down on those who oppress his people (Tremmel 44-46). The final judgment of God is a bloody battle which ultimately leads to the defeat of God’s enemies. God wins through war. In the final judgment the ends always justifies the means. The enemies of God must be eradicated.

The main apocalyptic text of the New Testament is the Apocalypse of John also known as Revelation. By this time the idea of a personified evil has formed, Satan. This personified evil is responsible for all the woes in the world not God but God still allows them to happen (Tremmel 67-76). Some compare the horrific imagery displayed in Revelation grotesque horror movies such as Psycho or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Pippin 83). The actions of God in Revelation are ethically lacking (Hedley 66). For God anything goes. He is responsible for several natural disasters that shake the world (Rev. 8.5-12). In the end the unworthy are thrown into a lake of fire and left out in the darkness, separated from the rest of existence (Rev. 20.10; 20.14-15). We clearly see God’s darker side in this text and his willingness to do anything to destroy his enemies.

The major problem with a monotheistic faith is how much is God responsible for? If you believe that God is the ultimate mover of history and you are one of his followers what conclusion do you come to when nothing but bad happens to you? There are two possibilities. Either God is causing your misfortune or there is a separate force acting in the universe. There may have not been a clear definition of good and evil in the Hebrew Bible early on but there certainly was a sense of it. God acted as the bringer of both good and evil. Though at times he did seem like a loving and protecting God, when it came to his judgments he would commit atrocities that were required to wipe out the evils of the world. This did not change with the God of the New Testament. His judgments may not be quick but instead he bottles up the horrors for the final judgment. The ultimate judgment presented in apocalyptic literature is a compilation of the horrors of the darker side of God. It is impossible to eliminate evil without turning unsavory methods. As long as it is for the greater good it is okay (Reichenbach 7). The God of apocalyptic literature is our divine Mr. Hyde. We see glimpses of him outside of apocalyptic literature but nowhere else is this side of him needed more than in apocalyptic literature to rid the world of its evil.

Works Cited

Capetz, Paul E. God: A Brief History. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Print.
George, Hedley P. “Apocalyptic: Wrong and Right.” Journal of the National Association of Biblical Instructors, 2.2 (1934) 66-68. Print. Pippin, Tina. Apocalyptic Bodies. New York: Routledge, 1999. Print.
Reichenbach, Bruce. Evil and a Good God. New York: Fordham University Press, 1982. Print.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible: With the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, New Revised Standard Version. Michael D. Coogan, editor. New York: Oxford UP, 2007. Print.
Tremmel, William C. Dark Side: The Satan Story. St. Louis: CBP Press, 1987. Print.