Cinemorphosis

Tag: philosophy

  • The Blurred Line Between Mental Illness and Evil (college essay prompt)

    The Blurred Line Between Mental Illness and Evil (college essay prompt)

    When people encounter shocking acts of cruelty, manipulation, or obsessive behavior, they often reach for two explanations. One explanation is psychological: the person must be mentally ill. The other explanation is moral: the person is evil. These explanations offer a kind of comfort because they simplify the problem. If destructive behavior is the result of mental illness, it can be understood through psychology and possibly treated. If the behavior is evil, it can be condemned and punished. However, many real-life cases resist these simple categories. Some individuals appear both irrational and calculating at the same time. Their actions may show signs of psychological instability while also involving deliberate choices that harm others.

    The documentaries The Perfect Neighbor and High School Catfish explore this unsettling territory. In both films, individuals behave in ways that disturb viewers because their actions seem both obsessive and intentional. Conflicts escalate beyond reason. Deception and manipulation play central roles. At the same time, the people involved often feel deeply wronged, isolated, or misunderstood. Their sense of grievance becomes a powerful narrative that justifies their behavior in their own minds. As the stories unfold, viewers are left asking a difficult question: Are these individuals primarily suffering from mental illness, or are they morally responsible for destructive actions that reveal something darker about human nature?

    These documentaries also highlight the role of loneliness, resentment, and social alienation. Individuals who feel rejected or humiliated may develop a deep sense of grievance toward others. Without meaningful relationships or healthy outlets for frustration, those grievances can intensify over time. Emotional pain can slowly transform into anger, suspicion, and obsession. In some cases, people begin to see themselves as victims of a hostile world. When this happens, harmful behavior may feel justified to them—even when it appears shocking or cruel to outsiders.

    At the same time, manipulation and deception complicate the psychological explanation. In High School Catfish, elaborate lies and fabricated identities are used to control and emotionally manipulate others. In The Perfect Neighbor, conflicts escalate through a pattern of hostility and retaliation. These behaviors often appear strategic rather than purely irrational. This raises an important question: when someone carefully constructs deception or escalates conflict, does that suggest deliberate moral wrongdoing rather than mental illness? Or can manipulation itself be a symptom of deeper psychological disturbance, such as narcissism, obsession, or a need for validation?

    Write a 1,200-word argumentative essay that explores the blurred line between mental illness and evil as it appears in The Perfect Neighbor and High School Catfish. Your essay should develop a clear thesis that explains how these documentaries challenge the simple distinction between psychological disturbance and moral responsibility.

    Your introduction must include a thesis with mapping components. This means your thesis should clearly state your main argument and identify the key reasons that will organize your body paragraphs.

    Example thesis with mapping:

    The disturbing behavior portrayed in The Perfect Neighbor and High School Catfish demonstrates that the boundary between mental illness and evil is often blurred because intense loneliness can distort perception, personal grievances can justify cruelty, and deliberate manipulation allows individuals to transform emotional pain into calculated harm.

    In this example, the mapping components are:

    ● loneliness and social isolation

    ● grievance and resentment

    ● manipulation and deception

    Each of these would become a body paragraph in the essay.

    Your essay should include the following elements:

    • A clear thesis with mapping components
    • Analysis of both documentaries
    • Specific examples from the films that support your argument
    • A counterargument that challenges your thesis
    • A rebuttal defending your position
    • A concluding paragraph that reflects on what these cases reveal about human behavior and modern society

    Possible directions for your argument include:

    • destructive behavior may emerge from both psychological disturbance and moral choice
    • loneliness and grievance can transform emotional pain into cruelty
    • manipulation and deception suggest deliberate moral responsibility
    • society sometimes labels disturbing behavior as mental illness in order to avoid confronting the reality of evil
    • disturbing actions may result from a complex mixture of psychological vulnerability, social isolation, and moral failure

    Your goal is not simply to summarize the documentaries but to analyze what they reveal about the complicated relationship between mental illness, moral responsibility, and destructive human behavior. In your conclusion, reflect on what these stories suggest about how society should understand and respond to actions that appear both psychologically disturbed and morally troubling.

    Helpful Definition: “The Hero Delusion.”

    It’s the phenomenon in which people commit harmful acts while believing they are the protagonist in a moral drama. Both documentaries actually illustrate that pattern remarkably well.

    Personal Engagement Building Block 3

    For your first paragraph, write a 200-300-word profile of someone you know—or a friend of a friend—whose behavior could reasonably be described as morally troubling, destructive, or reprehensible. Begin by vividly describing the person’s actions and their impact on others. While it may be tempting to condemn the behavior outright, the purpose of this paragraph is not simply to judge the individual but to explore the difficulty of explaining why they behave as they do.

    As you develop the profile, consider competing interpretations of the person’s conduct. Some observers might view the individual as fundamentally immoral or “evil,” arguing that their actions reflect selfishness, cruelty, or a conscious disregard for others. Others might suggest that the behavior is rooted in psychological disorders, trauma, personality pathology, or mental illness. Use specific details to illustrate why the person’s actions resist simple explanations and raise difficult questions about moral responsibility, free will, and human behavior.

    Your paragraph should ultimately establish the central tension of your essay: whether certain forms of harmful behavior are better understood as evidence of moral corruption, psychological dysfunction, or some combination of both. The goal is not to resolve the debate but to introduce a complex case that invites further analysis.

    Argumentative Engagement Building Block 3

    Write two paragraphs: a thesis paragraph and a counterargument-rebuttal paragraph.

    Your thesis paragraph should present a clear, arguable, and defensible claim that answers the central question of your essay. The paragraph should not merely announce a topic but establish a position that reasonable people could debate. After stating your thesis, include mapping components that identify the major points your body paragraphs will use to support your argument. These mapping components should provide readers with a clear roadmap of your essay’s structure and reasoning. Your thesis paragraph should be approximately 200 words.

    Your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph should address a legitimate objection to your thesis. Begin by clearly and fairly explaining a viewpoint that challenges your argument. Demonstrate why thoughtful readers might disagree with your position and how their concerns complicate your claim. After presenting the counterargument, write a rebuttal that responds to those objections. A strong rebuttal may concede valid points made by the opposing side while demonstrating that, on balance, your argument remains more persuasive. It may also alleviate concerns by clarifying misconceptions, introducing additional evidence, or identifying important information that the opposing side overlooks. The goal is not to dismiss opposing viewpoints but to engage them thoughtfully and strengthen your overall argument. Your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph should be between 200 and 250 words.

  • The Performance Trap: Online Identity, Narcissism, and the Collapse of the Real Self (college essay prompt)

    The Performance Trap: Online Identity, Narcissism, and the Collapse of the Real Self (college essay prompt)

    In the Netflix documentary The Crash and the Black Mirror episode “Joan Is Awful,” audiences witness characters whose lives become consumed by spectacle, performance, surveillance, and the relentless pressure of online visibility. While the two works differ in genre—one a real-life tragedy and the other a satirical dystopian drama—both raise disturbing questions about how modern digital culture reshapes identity, distorts reality, and erodes the boundary between authentic selfhood and online performance.

    In The Crash, the documentary suggests that Mackenzie Shirilla’s compulsive online self-curation reflected a deeper psychological unraveling in which image management, attention-seeking, and social media validation became inseparable from her sense of identity. Meanwhile, in “Joan Is Awful,” Joan discovers that her life has been transformed into a grotesque entertainment product streamed to millions of viewers, forcing her to confront the horrifying possibility that her real self has become secondary to a digitally manufactured persona designed for mass consumption. In both works, online visibility functions less as a tool for communication and more as a vortex that pulls individuals toward narcissism, performative behavior, emotional instability, and estrangement from reality itself.

    Write a 1,200-word argumentative essay in which you compare The Crash and “Joan Is Awful” to examine the claim that maintaining a constant online presence can suck people into a vortex of unhinged narcissism and madness that makes them unrecognizable from their authentic selves.

    Your essay should analyze how both works depict:

    ● the transformation of identity into performance;

    ● the addictive pursuit of attention, relevance, and validation;

    ● the psychological consequences of constant self-curation and surveillance;

    ● the collapse of the boundary between private life and public spectacle;

    ● and the dangers of confusing online visibility with genuine human worth.

    You should also address the broader cultural implications of these works. What do these texts suggest about the modern relationship between technology and identity? Do social media platforms merely reveal narcissism already present in human nature, or do they actively manufacture and intensify it? At what point does self-expression become self-erasure?

    A strong essay will move beyond summary and develop a clear argumentative thesis that makes an original claim about the psychological and cultural dangers presented in both works. Your thesis should be supported by detailed analysis of scenes, dialogue, imagery, characterization, and thematic parallels between the documentary and the episode.

    You must include:

    ● a clear and debatable thesis;

    ● detailed comparison of both works;

    ● at least one counterargument and rebuttal;

    ● analysis of specific scenes and examples;

    ● and thoughtful commentary about the relationship between technology, identity, and modern culture.

    Possible directions for argument include:

    ● Social media transforms ordinary narcissism into pathological self-obsession.

    ● Constant online performance erodes authentic identity and emotional stability.

    ● Digital culture rewards outrage, exhibitionism, and emotional extremity.

    ● Online validation creates a dopamine-driven cycle that destabilizes mental health.

    ● Surveillance culture turns human beings into entertainment products.

    ● The internet encourages people to construct marketable personas rather than genuine selves.

    You may agree, disagree, or complicate the prompt’s central argument, but your essay must directly engage the idea that online self-curation can psychologically deform individuals and distance them from reality.

    Requirements:

    ● Approximately 1,200 words

    ● MLA format

    ● Clear introduction, body paragraphs, counterargument-rebuttal section, and conclusion

    ● Use evidence from both The Crash and “Joan Is Awful”

    ● Include a Works Cited page

    The strongest essays will avoid simplistic “technology bad” arguments and instead explore the more unsettling possibility that modern digital culture rewards the most performative, narcissistic, and emotionally unstable versions of ourselves until the performance eventually consumes the person behind it.

    Personal Building Block 2

    For your first body paragraph, write a vivid profile of someone you know—or a friend of a friend—whose constant online presence has placed significant strain on their mental and emotional well-being. Describe how this person became absorbed in documenting, sharing, and curating nearly every aspect of their life for an online audience. How much time do they spend on social media? What kinds of content do they post, and what motivates them to seek attention, approval, or validation online?

    Analyze how this behavior has affected other areas of their life, including school, work, family relationships, friendships, or romantic relationships. Have they experienced anxiety, insecurity, loneliness, or an unhealthy dependence on likes, comments, and online engagement? Did they eventually recognize the negative effects of their behavior and take steps to change, or do they remain trapped in the cycle of constant self-presentation and digital validation?

    Your profile should include vivid details that capture the person’s personality, habits, and social environment. More importantly, it should illustrate how algorithm-driven platforms can influence behavior by rewarding attention-seeking, emotional intensity, and perpetual self-disclosure. Use the individual’s experience to show how a life increasingly organized around online performance can distort identity, damage relationships, and contribute to feelings of unhappiness, alienation, or loss of self. Your paragraph should be between 200 and 300 words.

    Argumentative Building Block 2

    You will turn in two paragraphs, your thesis and conclusion. 

    Your thesis paragraph should present a clear, arguable, and defensible claim that answers the central question of your essay. The paragraph should not merely announce a topic but establish a position that reasonable people could debate. After stating your thesis, include mapping components that identify the major points your body paragraphs will use to support your argument. These mapping components should provide readers with a clear roadmap of your essay’s structure and reasoning. Your thesis paragraph should be approximately 200 words.

    Your conclusion paragraph should move beyond the specific events of The Crash and “Joan Is Awful” to explore the broader cultural significance of your comparison. What do these texts reveal about the relationship between technology, identity, and human behavior in the digital age? Do social media platforms merely expose narcissistic tendencies that have always existed, or do they actively encourage and amplify them? At what point does self-expression cease to be authentic and become a performance shaped by algorithms, audiences, and the pursuit of attention? Consider whether modern technology has blurred the distinction between reality and representation to such an extent that people increasingly struggle to distinguish genuine experiences from curated personas. A strong conclusion should not simply summarize your argument but explain why it matters. Ultimately, your paragraph should demonstrate how The Crash and “Joan Is Awful” illuminate larger concerns about identity, authenticity, technology, and the future of human relationships in a world increasingly shaped by digital platforms. Your conclusion should be approximately 150 words.

  • Why Communities Prefer Scapegoats to Self-Examination (college essay prompt)

    Why Communities Prefer Scapegoats to Self-Examination (college essay prompt)

    Sources

    Use Weapons, Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery,” and at least two outside sources.

    Length

    1,200 words minimum

    Assignment

    Both Weapons and Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” depict communities confronted by fear, uncertainty, and social dysfunction. In both works, people search for explanations when confronted with suffering. Yet rather than critically examine themselves, their values, or the systems they inhabit, they often seek simpler solutions: preserving familiar assumptions, defending established customs, and identifying convenient targets for blame.

    As a result, innocent individuals become scapegoats while deeper problems remain unresolved.

    At the center of both works are characters who appear to reinforce the beliefs and behaviors of their communities. Old Man Warner in “The Lottery” fiercely defends tradition, while Aunt Gladys in Weapons exercises influence through manipulation, vanity, and control. However, neither character acts alone. Their power depends upon a community willing to accept their assumptions and participate in harmful social rituals.

    In a well-developed essay, analyze how Weapons and “The Lottery” explore the relationship between conformity, scapegoating, and self-deception. Consider whether both works suggest that communities often prefer familiar lies to uncomfortable truths. Ultimately, evaluate what these works reveal about the human tendency to preserve harmful systems rather than confront the deeper causes of social problems.

    Questions for Consideration

    You do not need to answer every question, but they may help guide your analysis:

    • Why do communities often seek scapegoats during periods of fear or uncertainty?
    • What psychological comfort do traditions and social rituals provide?
    • When does tradition become an obstacle to justice or truth?
    • How do ordinary people become complicit in harmful systems?
    • What roles do Old Man Warner and Aunt Gladys play in sustaining the beliefs of their communities?
    • How do fear, tribal loyalty, and groupthink influence decision-making?
    • What do both works suggest about the dangers of refusing self-examination?
    • Why are innocent people often sacrificed to preserve social stability?

    Counterargument Requirement

    Some readers might argue that traditions, social norms, and communal rituals are necessary because they provide stability, identity, and social cohesion. Without shared customs, communities can become fragmented and directionless.

    Address this argument.

    Then evaluate how Weapons and “The Lottery” distinguish between traditions that strengthen communities and traditions that perpetuate injustice, cruelty, or self-deception.

    Sample Thesis Statements

    Thesis 1
    Although Weapons and “The Lottery” take place in very different settings, both argue that communities often protect familiar beliefs and social rituals even when those practices produce injustice and suffering.

    Thesis 2
    Both works suggest that scapegoating is attractive because it allows communities to avoid confronting deeper problems within themselves.

    Thesis 3
    Through their portrayals of conformity, fear, and collective self-deception, Weapons and “The Lottery” reveal that the greatest threat to a community is often its unwillingness to examine its own assumptions.

    Thesis 4
    Old Man Warner and Aunt Gladys are influential not because they possess 

    Why Weapons and “The Lottery” Work So Well

    Both works are fundamentally about:

    • Collective guilt
    • Scapegoating
    • Social conformity
    • Moral cowardice
    • Communities protecting themselves from self-examination
    • The weaponization of consensus

    In both stories, the community desperately wants an explanation for its suffering.

    The explanation must:

    • Be simple.
    • Be emotionally satisfying.
    • Preserve the group’s self-image.

    The real enemy is not a monster.

    The real enemy is a community’s refusal to confront itself.

    That is exactly why Old Man Warner and Aunt Gladys feel comparable. Both are defenders of a diseased social order. They differ in personality, but they perform similar functions.

    What Makes the Comparison Rich

    One of the most interesting comparisons is that both works ask:

    What happens when a community becomes more invested in maintaining a narrative than discovering the truth?

    That question can sustain an entire essay.

    In fact, I think the strongest thesis isn’t about tradition.

    It’s about narrative preservation.

    Both communities preserve comforting narratives even when those narratives require innocent people to suffer.

  • Retiring the Satyr

    Retiring the Satyr

    I grew up in the 1960s and 1970s, an era that treated recreational sex not merely as pleasure but as a pathway to transcendence. Television, movies, music, magazines, and bestselling novels all sang from the same hymnal. Liberation was the new gospel. Desire was the new sacrament. Happiness, we were told, awaited those bold enough to cast aside restraint and pursue every appetite without apology.

    The adults around me absorbed the message. Parents and their friends attended parties where alcohol flowed freely, clothes disappeared, and the soundtrack from Hair supplied the liturgy. Men’s magazines sat openly on living room coffee tables like decorative centerpieces. Nobody hid them. Nobody seemed embarrassed. They were advertisements for a particular vision of the good life.

    As a teenage boy with raging hormones and a vivid imagination, I absorbed the lesson completely.

    The images and stories convinced me that fulfillment lay in becoming a brazen sexual adventurer. I wanted the muscular body, the effortless charm, the magnetic confidence. I wanted admiration. I wanted conquest. What I did not understand was love. I knew little about devotion, sacrifice, responsibility, or the quiet dignity of caring for another person. Society’s vision of transcendence involved acquiring experiences, not serving people. Other human beings existed primarily as supporting characters in the drama of one’s own desires.

    The consequences of such a worldview are predictable. When people become instruments for self-gratification, hurt feelings, disappointment, alienation, and moral confusion inevitably follow. The bill always arrives, even if it arrives years later.

    Yet even after I grew older and recognized the folly of that outlook, a small part of that younger self remained alive inside me. The fantasy did not simply disappear. It lingered like an old song whose melody still occasionally drifts through the mind. The grand vision of endless Bacchanalian delights never entirely surrendered the stage.

    The challenge became learning not to romanticize it.

    There is a temptation to keep looking backward, to imagine that fulfillment was hiding somewhere in those abandoned fantasies. But looking backward can become its own form of captivity. The story of Lot’s wife endures because it captures a permanent human weakness. We long for the places we have outgrown. We become attached to identities that no longer serve us. We mistake fixation for vitality.

    In reality, selfishness, entitlement, and obsession are forms of death. They narrow the soul. They reduce the world to a mirror.

    I suspect this realization is familiar to anyone who has spent time in an addiction recovery program. Every day counselors sit across from people trying to understand the forces that shaped them decades earlier. The challenge is not simply breaking a habit. It is excavating an entire philosophy of life. Somewhere beneath the addiction lies a vision of happiness that proved incapable of delivering what it promised.

    The task of replacing that vision must be overwhelming.

    I cannot speak for addiction counselors. I can only speak from experience.

    A life devoted to unrestrained hedonism eventually exhausts itself. Chaos has a seductive glamour when viewed from a distance, but living inside it is another matter entirely. The endless pursuit of stimulation becomes tiring. The pursuit of novelty becomes repetitive. What initially feels like freedom gradually resembles bondage.

    Eventually reality intervenes.

    You have a career.

    You have a spouse.

    You have children.

    You have obligations and people who depend on you.

    Maintaining a double life becomes increasingly difficult. You cannot simultaneously inhabit the stable world of family and responsibility while pursuing the perpetual turbulence of adolescent fantasy. Domesticity and satyrhood occupy different planets.

    The older I became, the more I understood that fear has its proper place. Not fear of pleasure itself, but fear of the destruction that follows when pleasure becomes life’s highest value. The consequences are not merely moral. They are practical. Relationships fracture. Finances collapse. Trust evaporates. Even those fortunate enough to avoid financial ruin often leave behind a trail of emotional wreckage.

    Such people are not role models.

    They are cautionary tales.

    The challenge, then, is not merely abandoning an old identity. It is discovering a new one.

    The philosopher Kierkegaard wrote that hope is like finding a new garment. I have always loved that image. A garment shapes how we present ourselves to the world. It signals who we believe ourselves to be.

    When the costume of the satyr no longer fits, something else must take its place.

    That search becomes the next great adventure.

    Not the search for another thrill.

    Not the search for another conquest.

    The search for a life worth inhabiting.

  • The Greatness Trap

    The Greatness Trap

    At fourteen, after watching Pumping Iron, I stared at Arnold Schwarzenegger’s physique with the reverence medieval peasants reserved for cathedral stained glass. His muscles seemed less like anatomy than a supernatural event. I concluded, with the confidence available only to teenage boys, that all men should look like Arnold. Failure to do so was a form of degradation. You were not a man so much as a tomato with four toothpicks sticking out of it, wobbling through life in a state of preventable mediocrity.

    The disease did not stop with bodybuilding.

    In college, I encountered Franz Kafka and Vladimir Nabokov. Their prose represented another form of muscularity. Their sentences flexed. Their imaginations performed feats of strength. Later, listening to Sviatoslav Richter play Sergei Rachmaninoff, I experienced the same sensation. Arnold had built impossible muscles. Kafka built impossible stories. Richter built impossible beauty. All of them seemed to occupy a realm beyond the ordinary, and they inspired me to believe that I must do the same.

    Thus I spent much of my life trapped in what I call The Greatness Trap: the belief that happiness, self-respect, and fulfillment can only be earned through exceptional achievement. Under its spell, ordinary life appears not merely insufficient but vaguely shameful. A quiet existence becomes a form of failure. Every accomplishment must lead to a larger accomplishment. Every summit reveals another mountain. Every victory quickly curdles into dissatisfaction.

    Like Arnold, who once spoke of wanting to be remembered thousands of years after his death, I wanted to leave a mark. I wanted my existence to strike the world with such force that its impact could be called Clout Fist: the invisible power exerted by a person, institution, or cultural force that shapes the thoughts and behaviors of others. Without such influence, I feared my life would dissolve into obscurity. If I was not spectacular, what was I?

    This anxiety lies at the heart of Joshua Rothman’s essay, “Why Is It So Hard to Be Ordinary?” Rothman observes that excellence and ordinariness coexist uneasily because modern society relentlessly pressures us toward optimization. We are told to maximize everything: our careers, our bodies, our relationships, our finances, our hobbies, our personal brands. Existence itself becomes a self-improvement project. Unless we leave a mark, we fear we do not count.

    The result is a culture of hype. Everything must be bigger, faster, richer, more influential, more disruptive, and more unforgettable. We become trapped in an endless escalator of status. Climb one rung and another immediately appears above it. Achievement ceases to satisfy because satisfaction would end the game.

    Rothman points to philosopher Avram Alpert, who describes this condition as greatness thinking—the belief that greatness can somehow cure the disappointments and imperfections of life. Yet greatness, by definition, is rare. If everyone could be extraordinary, the word would lose its meaning. The pursuit therefore condemns most people to a perpetual feeling of insufficiency. We become disappointed not because our lives are inadequate but because our expectations are delusional.

    What, then, is the exit sign?

    Alpert’s answer is to abandon the obsession with being spectacular and embrace Aristotle’s concept of arete—the fulfillment of one’s potential. Under this view, the goal is not to transform yourself into someone else. It is to become the best version of the person you already are. You cultivate your moral and rational faculties. You seek integrity rather than applause. You pursue excellence not because you crave admiration but because you wish to live well.

    These ideas animate Alpert’s book The Good-Enough Life, though his argument collides with a long tradition of thinkers who demand more. Immanuel Kant viewed human beings as obligated to develop their capacities as fully as possible. Friedrich Nietzsche urged us to stretch ourselves toward the Übermensch, a higher form of human existence. Compared to these visions, Alpert’s philosophy can sound almost suspiciously modest.

    Yet Rothman points out that the greatness-oriented philosophies of Kant and Nietzsche often collide with our intuition that ordinary life possesses genuine value. What if greatness is not required? What if a life marked by decency, moderation, friendship, competence, and love is enough?

    I suspect the answer lies somewhere between these extremes. We should not surrender our aspirations. Human beings are built to grow, create, test themselves, and pursue excellence. Yet neither should we allow a culture saturated with dopamine, hype, vanity, and status anxiety to convince us that greatness and fame are synonymous. Alpert is correct that being “good enough” is often a worthy goal. But I am not convinced that the choice is binary.

    Perhaps the real challenge is to cherish ordinary life while still striving toward extraordinary achievement. Perhaps we can enjoy a family dinner and write a great novel. Perhaps we can appreciate a quiet walk and pursue ambitious goals. Perhaps we can cultivate arete without becoming addicted to applause.

    In that case, the true enemy is not greatness. The true enemy is the delusion that greatness alone can save us.

  • When Evil Goes Viral

    When Evil Goes Viral

    In “Andrew Tate’s Empire of Abuse,” Heidi Blake examines the disturbing world built by influencer Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan from their base in a wealthy enclave north of Bucharest known as the American Village. What emerges is not merely a pornography business but an entire ideology. According to Blake’s reporting, the Tate brothers are accused of recruiting and exploiting women while simultaneously constructing an online empire designed to sell young men a vision of unrestrained power. Through a private network called the War Room, Tate promises liberation from what he describes as the imprisonment of conventional morality. In its place, he offers a creed of domination in which women become trophies, commodities, or servants to male desire. One woman’s experience illustrates the cruelty of this worldview. After recruiting her, Tate reportedly subjected her to humiliation, financed cosmetic procedures, and had the words “Tate Owned” tattooed on her body, branding another human being as though she were property.

    Tate’s worldview is so grotesque that it often feels less like reality than an abandoned screenplay rejected for lacking subtlety. Hollywood villains are usually granted complexity, vulnerability, or redeeming traits. Tate seems determined to eliminate all such nuances. He openly cultivates the image of a man who views empathy as weakness and domination as virtue. Yet what makes him truly alarming is not the extremity of his beliefs but the enthusiasm with which he markets them. Tate does not hide from accusations of evil. Instead, he recasts himself as a prophet. To his followers, he presents himself as a shepherd leading lost men toward a promised land of wealth, sexual conquest, and absolute freedom from moral restraint.

    The nightmare grows darker when one considers the size of his audience. Tate possesses what our culture increasingly values above wisdom, character, or integrity: clout. He commands a vast social-media following and uses it to promote a lifestyle assembled from luxury watches, cigars, supercars, conspicuous wealth, and an aggressively performative version of masculinity. His genius, if one can call it that, lies in understanding the mechanics of attention. In an age where visibility often substitutes for virtue, influence itself becomes evidence of success. The result is that millions of young men encounter Tate not as a fringe extremist but as a glamorous symbol of aspiration.

    Tate is also intensely political. He boasts of shifting the Overton window, expanding the boundaries of what can be publicly said and tolerated. In his telling, this is a triumph. In reality, it often resembles an effort to normalize ideas that were once regarded as beyond the pale. The objective is not simply to win arguments but to redefine the moral landscape itself, widening the escape hatch through which cruelty, misogyny, and contempt can pass into public life disguised as courage or authenticity.

    When Tate faced arrest on human-trafficking charges, he was defended by a collection of prominent allies and media figures who viewed him as useful to broader political and cultural battles. In a polarized age, alliances are increasingly forged not through shared principles but through shared enemies. The question ceases to be whether a person is decent and becomes whether that person can help advance a cause. Under such conditions, moral judgment is replaced by strategic calculation.

    It has often been said that shamelessness is a superpower. There is truth in that observation. Shame restrains. Conscience hesitates. Moral reflection slows us down. The shameless suffer from none of these inconveniences. They can say anything, excuse anything, and justify anything. But if shamelessness is a superpower, it is one purchased at a tremendous cost. To embrace figures like Tate is to announce that power matters more than virtue and influence more than decency. It is to make one’s bargain with the devil publicly visible.

    What Blake’s article ultimately reveals is not merely the story of Andrew Tate but the story of a culture increasingly intoxicated by clout. In a society obsessed with metrics, followers, engagement, and influence, visibility itself becomes a moral credential. The result is a world in which people who openly celebrate cruelty can become celebrities while those who practice humility and integrity are rewarded with obscurity. Tate thrives because he understands this reality better than most. He has discovered that in the attention economy, notoriety often pays better than goodness. The tragedy is not simply that men like Andrew Tate exist. The tragedy is that so many people have decided he is worth following.

  • Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism in the Age of OnlyFans (college essay prompt)

    Moral Absolutism vs. Moral Relativism in the Age of OnlyFans (college essay prompt)

    The subscription platform OnlyFans has become one of the most controversial features of the digital economy. Supporters argue that it gives creators greater control over their labor, income, and personal brand while allowing consumers to purchase content from consenting adults. Critics argue that the platform commodifies intimacy, encourages emotional manipulation, weakens traditional moral norms, and profits from loneliness and social dysfunction.

    One way to understand this debate is through the conflict between moral absolutism and moral relativism. Moral absolutists argue that some actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of circumstances, consequences, or cultural changes. From this perspective, OnlyFans is morally problematic because it encourages the commercialization of sexuality, undermines values such as fidelity and honesty, and profits from emotional and relational vulnerabilities. Moral relativists, however, argue that moral judgments must be understood within specific social, economic, and cultural contexts. From this perspective, creators and subscribers are autonomous adults making voluntary choices in response to changing economic realities, technological developments, and evolving social norms.

    In a 1,200-word argumentative essay, develop a thesis that evaluates whether the moral absolutist or moral relativist perspective provides the more convincing interpretation of OnlyFans. You may defend one position, critique one position, or argue that the reality is more complex than either framework fully captures.

    As you develop your argument, consider questions such as: Is OnlyFans primarily a form of exploitation or a form of economic empowerment? Does the platform provide meaningful opportunities for autonomy and entrepreneurship, or does it encourage the commodification of intimacy and human relationships? To what extent are creators and subscribers exercising free choice, and to what extent are their decisions shaped by loneliness, economic pressures, social isolation, or broader cultural forces? Should morality be grounded in timeless principles, or should moral judgments adapt to changing social and economic conditions?

    Your essay should present a clear thesis, analyze the assumptions behind both moral absolutism and moral relativism, address at least one counterargument, and explain why your interpretation offers the most persuasive understanding of the ethical questions raised by OnlyFans and the modern digital economy.

  • Who Controls the Story Controls the People (college essay prompt)

    Who Controls the Story Controls the People (college essay prompt)

    The documentary We Beat the Dream Team suggests that history is not merely a collection of facts but a contest over narrative power. The film explores how individuals and groups compete to shape public memory, define legitimacy, claim symbolic victory, and control the stories that future generations will remember. Although the documentary focuses on sports, it demonstrates that struggles over narrative ownership extend far beyond athletics into race, education, art, film, and cultural identity.

    Using this idea as your conceptual framework, write a 1,200-word argumentative essay comparing two of the following works:

    • Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass
    • “Learning in the Shadow of Race and Class” by bell hooks
    • Summer of Soul directed by Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson
    • Is That Black Enough for You?!? directed by Elvis Mitchell

    In your essay, analyze the claim that controlling narrative, memory, and representation is one of the most powerful ways dominant groups maintain authority and one of the most important ways marginalized groups resist erasure.

    As you develop your argument, examine how the works portray struggles over literacy, education, historical memory, cultural visibility, artistic representation, and identity. How do powerful institutions shape public understanding of reality? How do marginalized individuals and communities reclaim the right to tell their own stories? To what extent do autobiography, education, music, film, and art function as tools of resistance against cultural invisibility?

    You should also analyze the rhetorical and artistic methods used by the creators. Consider how autobiography, storytelling, archival footage, music, imagery, editing, voice, and narrative structure influence audience perception and challenge dominant narratives.

    As part of your essay, address at least one counterargument. For example, some critics may argue that representation and cultural visibility are insufficient forms of resistance because they do not necessarily produce economic equality, political power, or institutional change. Others may argue that dominant cultures eventually absorb and commodify resistance movements, transforming them into marketable products. Evaluate these criticisms and explain the strengths and limitations of cultural expression as a form of resistance.

    As you conclude, consider the broader implications of narrative control. Why do individuals, institutions, and societies fight so fiercely over memory, legitimacy, and representation? What happens when people lose the ability to preserve and narrate their own histories? Finally, consider how social media, AI, and algorithm-driven platforms continue to shape who gets to tell the story and whose stories are forgotten.

    Requirements:

    • 1,200 words minimum
    • MLA format
    • Compare two of the four works
    • Include a clear thesis with mapping components
    • Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
    • Analyze specific scenes, passages, or examples rather than merely summarizing
    • Develop a focused argument about narrative ownership, cultural memory, identity, and power
  • Can Philosophers Keep Their Souls in Silicon Valley?

    Can Philosophers Keep Their Souls in Silicon Valley?

    In “Someone Finally Wants to Hire Philosophers,” Lila Shroff reports what would have sounded like a punchline only a decade ago: philosophy majors may finally be getting the last laugh. For years, philosophy occupied an awkward place in the public imagination—a discipline associated with coffee-shop debates, existential handwringing, and the noble art of explaining to relatives why you were unemployed. At best, the philosopher was a thoughtful gadfly. At worst, a professional overthinker. But the rise of artificial intelligence has suddenly transformed philosophy from an intellectual curiosity into a marketable skill. Major technology companies are hiring philosophers. Universities are recruiting scholars who specialize in both AI and philosophy. The old joke about philosophy leading nowhere is beginning to age badly.

    As Shroff notes, this development should not surprise us. Philosophers have been wrestling with questions about intelligence, consciousness, morality, and the possibility of artificial minds for centuries. Long before Silicon Valley executives promised to change the world, philosophers were already asking whether a machine could think, reason, or possess something resembling a mind. Today, thinkers such as Nick Bostrom have become influential voices in the AI conversation. His book Superintelligence warned more than a decade ago that humanity might create machines whose capabilities outstrip our ability to control them. What once sounded like speculative science fiction now reads more like a boardroom agenda.

    The marriage between AI and philosophy arises from a practical concern. Technology companies want their products to appear ethical, trustworthy, and safe. A machine that accidentally promotes fraud, discrimination, or social chaos is difficult to market. Consumers are more likely to embrace AI systems that project wisdom, fairness, and restraint. In the increasingly crowded AI marketplace, virtue has become a product feature. Safety, ethics, and responsibility are not merely moral concerns; they are branding opportunities.

    Yet Shroff’s essay leaves several uncomfortable questions lingering in the air.

    First, philosophers disagree about nearly everything. That is practically the job description. If ethical questions routinely produce competing schools of thought, which philosophers do AI companies choose to hire? A utilitarian, a virtue ethicist, a libertarian, and a nihilist might evaluate the same problem and arrive at wildly different conclusions. When an AI company claims to be guided by philosophy, whose philosophy is it talking about?

    Second, corporations do not operate in a vacuum. They pursue growth, market share, influence, and profit. Given those incentives, it seems unlikely that technology companies will eagerly recruit philosophers whose views fundamentally conflict with corporate objectives. The philosopher who questions the legitimacy of the enterprise may not receive the same warm welcome as the philosopher who helps polish its public image.

    Third, what happens to philosophy itself when it becomes a lucrative career path? If technology firms reward certain ethical frameworks and ignore others, philosophers may gradually adapt their views to become more employable. Intellectual independence has always been easier to defend when no one is writing the check. Once prestige, influence, and six-figure salaries enter the picture, even the most principled thinkers may find themselves sanding off inconvenient beliefs.

    This is why I remain skeptical of any celebration of philosophy’s new status in the AI economy. There is no such thing as pure philosophy floating above human ambition. There are only human beings, complete with incentives, blind spots, loyalties, and self-interest. The partnership between AI and philosophy may produce genuinely useful ethical guidance. Or it may become an elaborate exercise in corporate virtue theater—a dazzling display of moral concern performed beneath bright lights while the machinery of profit hums steadily backstage. Whether philosophers become the conscience of artificial intelligence or merely its public relations department remains an open question.

  • Voyeurs of Violence: Media Spectacle and the Commodification of Crime

    Voyeurs of Violence: Media Spectacle and the Commodification of Crime

    Few crimes provoke stronger public outrage than the exploitation of children. In the digital age, however, the pursuit of justice has increasingly merged with the logic of entertainment, viral media, and online spectacle. Social media platforms, livestreams, YouTube channels, and reality-style investigations now allow audiences to consume criminal exposure as a form of emotional entertainment. While many of these productions claim to protect vulnerable victims and raise public awareness, they also raise troubling ethical questions about voyeurism, vigilantism, humiliation, and the commodification of suffering.

    The 2025 documentary Predators and the film Nightcrawler both explore societies increasingly addicted to turning pain, fear, scandal, and criminality into spectacle. Predators examines the culture surrounding online predator stings, public exposure, and internet vigilantism, asking whether these efforts genuinely serve justice or merely transform human tragedy into viral entertainment. Nightcrawler similarly critiques a media culture in which violence and suffering become profitable content consumed by emotionally detached audiences. Together, these works suggest that modern media systems often blur the line between public service and exploitation.

    Write a 1,200-word argumentative essay responding to the following claim:

    The transformation of crime, suffering, and public humiliation into entertainment ultimately corrupts justice by encouraging voyeurism, emotional exploitation, and spectacle-driven morality.

    In your essay, you may defend, challenge, or complicate this claim. As you develop your argument, consider questions such as: Does public exposure deter criminal behavior and raise legitimate awareness, or does it encourage reckless vigilantism and mob psychology? At what point does crime reporting become entertainment? Can media exposure serve justice responsibly, or does the pursuit of ratings, clicks, and viral attention inevitably distort moral judgment? Why are audiences drawn to spectacles involving humiliation, revenge, fear, and public punishment?

    You should also analyze how both works critique audience complicity. To what extent are viewers themselves participating in the commodification of suffering? How do modern media systems reward emotional extremity, outrage, and voyeuristic curiosity? Does the public consume these stories out of genuine concern for justice, or because tragedy and scandal have become emotionally addictive forms of entertainment?

    In addition to analyzing the themes of both works, examine the rhetorical and cinematic methods used by the filmmakers. Consider how tone, imagery, editing, suspense, emotional manipulation, interviews, satire, and spectacle shape the audience’s reaction. How does Nightcrawler especially critique the relationship between media consumers and those who profit from violence and tragedy?

    You must also include at least one counterargument and rebuttal. For example, some critics may argue that aggressive public exposure is necessary because traditional institutions and law enforcement often fail to protect vulnerable victims. Others may argue that disturbing media coverage serves an important social function by forcing society to confront uncomfortable realities. Respond to these objections by evaluating the ethical responsibilities of media creators and audiences alike.

    As you conclude your essay, consider the larger cultural implications of these works. What do Predators and Nightcrawler suggest about modern society’s relationship with violence, humiliation, revenge, and spectacle? What happens to a culture when entertainment and morality become increasingly inseparable?

    Requirements:

    • 1,200 words minimum
    • MLA format
    • Use evidence from both works
    • Include a clear thesis with mapping components
    • Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
    • Analyze specific scenes, quotations, or examples rather than merely summarizing
    • Develop a focused argument about media spectacle, voyeurism, justice, and audience complicity