Near-Death Experiences (Part Four)

What does or does not logically follow from a given idea is often incredibly easy to discover once a person has simply thought of the concept.  Nothing is self-evident besides the fundamental, inherent truth of logical axioms and that one exists as a conscious being (though this is only knowable through logic like all else, it is also self-evident because to deny or doubt it, one must rely on it), but it is not especially difficult to realize the logical necessity and absolute certainty of what must or must not be true if a specific thing is correct, even if someone is only discovering some of the relevant truths.  The real roadblock for people who look past assumptions, emotionalism, and laziness is that there are unavoidable epistemological limitations like the inability to know if what one is looking at is really there.

Multiple epistemological limitations prevent us from discovering which logically possible post-mortem state--oblivion of consciousness or any of the logically possible afterlives--is actually there.  There is the inability to know the future, there is the inability to know if most of one's sensory experiences connect with anything outside of one's immaterial mind at all, and there is the inability to glimpse to the other side, if there is one (and even if God or some other supernatural being showed this to oneself, limitations would prevent knowledge of whether this vision is more than a hallucination).  There is also the limitation of memory.  If I died and came back to life, whatever the means of death, I might or might not remember an experience in an afterlife.  If I do, the memories could be false, and if I do not, it would likewise not follow that there is not an afterlife.

For this reason, even if someone was to actually die, be revived, and remember no sort of near-death experience, it would of course not be true by necessity that there is no afterlife.  An afterlife might also await some people and not others, and this person could be one of those who will not receive a continuation of their consciousness in any form.  As unheard of as this is in most mainstream contemplation of the afterlife, it is logically possible.  There is also another possibility.  Like the Bible teaches, its theology very likely true even where its tenets could not possibly be false (for example, that there is an uncaused cause), it could also be the case that people die, enter a period of nonexistence or unconscious sleep of the soul, and then are resurrected at a future time.

Yes, no one is in heaven or hell right now according to the Bible, and Sheol, where it says we all go in the meantime, is not a dimension where we experience anything at all.  All of our very perception, Ecclesiastes (9:5-10), Job (3:11-19), Psalms (88:10-12) and other Biblical books say, ceases to exist until God resurrects our bodies.  The resurrection of the righteous is at the return of Jesus (John 14:1-3, Revelation 20:4-6, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18), and that of the wicked after Satan is thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10-15).  While people could still have misleading near-death experiences even if Christianity is true, as it probably is in light of hordes of historical evidences, those who have been medically revived might report they have experienced nothing when they died because they were not yet resurrected.  Inversely, those who have reported seeing something like the Biblical New Jerusalem could have spent moments perceiving what things would be like after their resurrection, though they were not in existence in all the time that passed before that.

In Sheol, where the righteous and wicked alike "sleep" in oblivion or unconsciousness, there is no joy, longing, anticipation, anger, sadness, hatred, or fear because there is no conscious awareness at all.  There is not even recognition of the only self-evident necessary truths that even Yahweh's existence hinges upon.  If Christianity is true, and once again, it very likely is, then the absence of near-death experiences for certain people who died and were revived could simply be because there is nothing that can be experienced when one is in the soul oblivion/sleep of Sheol.  Christianity is not true by logical necessity in itself because it could be or have been true that it is false wherever it is not logically necessary.  Either option is consistent with the truth of axioms.  However, it almost certainly is as far as evidence suggests, and it promises literal oblivion or sleep before resurrection to eternal life or annihilation of the soul (Daniel 12:2, John 3:16).

An Obligation To Steward The Environment

Only a conscious being can have a moral obligation to treat another conscious being in a given way, and only a conscious being can have moral rights by virtue of its metaphysical status.  It is logically impossible for a rock or a chair, if they are truly inanimate, to deserve to be treated in any particular way because there is no being to be abused, but only an object without a consciousness to mistreat.  Likewise, an inanimate object has no obligation to not harm people or animals.  A genuinely inanimate thing has no perception, no will, no desires, no capacity for motion that is not dictated strictly by external factors, and neither obligations nor rights.  These qualities can only be possessed by conscious beings.  Different categories of conscious beings could have different degrees of rights and obligations, but perception and will are what make a being capable of having a moral standing.

God, humans, and even animals can all deserve a certain kind of treatment because they are all conscious on the Christian worldview, although of course there are epistemological limitations that prevent one from knowing if other minds of any kind exist at all.  Indeed, the Bible speaks repeatedly of the obligations and rights of animals and far more thoroughly on obligations to God and to the humans made in his image.  However, the environment in which humans and animals live is among the things God calls "very good" (Genesis 1:31), and it follows from this that there would be such a thing as immoral treatment of the environment.  How is it that it is a genuine obligation on the Christian worldview to not trivialize or needlessly exploit the environment when it is logically impossible for inanimate things to deserve anything one way or another?

Setting aside the unprovable and unfalsifiable possibility that all matter has its own consciousness (a philosophy called panpsychism that is at least largely compatible with Christianity, as surprising as that might be), the Bible does not teach or hint at human obligation to steward the world is for the sake of the world.  There could be no such thing as moral rights and obligations unless there is a deity with a moral nature, not that there could be a universe in the first place without an uncaused cause to initiate the causal chain that brought physical matter into existence.  If there was no uncaused cause or even an uncaused cause without a moral nature, there would be no such thing as morality because all that there could be is preferences and feelings pertaining to morality.  Like a hallucination of a material object outside of one's mind that is not truly there, moral obligations would at best be something that seems to be there but is not.  An obligation to not trample on the environment would thus be an obligation to God, whose nature is such that makes it morally mandatory to steward creation.

An obligation to protect or not abuse the planet and by extension the universe itself is not because the environment has rights in itself.  No, it would be for the sake of God and for the sake of the beings that live upon/within it.  After all, to think that the universe is something to dispose of or ruthlessly use would be to think little of the creator of matter, which makes anti-environmentalism a direct or indirect assault on God.  Similarly, hostility towards the environment is directly or indirectly hostility towards the humans who bear God's image according to one of the most central Biblical doctrines of humanity.  Not only does neglect or abuse of the environment show disregard for God since the universe is part of his vast creation, but it also shows a disregard for the apex of his creation: humankind.

An obligation to steward the environment has so much more to it than simply tending to an enormous, unliving rock.  As always, since any existing moral obligations are inherently theistic, the morality of how one treats the environment is ultimately about whether one is willing to do that which is good because the nature of the uncaused cause makes it so.  More than just the world is at stake, though an obligation to preserve and care for nature simply because it is the handiwork of God is in part because of the environment itself.  It is impossible for conscience or collective agreement or personal preference to ground morality, if it exists, and there could be no obligation to an inanimate world just for the sake of the world.  At a minimum, there is no morality without a deity's moral nature, and there would be no obligation to steward the environment without a theistic entity to ground this.  Morally valid rather than pragmatically useful environmentalism is about far more than the environment.

Planned Obsolescence

The myth of endlessly increasing sales and revenue might be so appealing that corporate leaders ignore the easily demonstrable fact that any fixed population, including the total amount of people in the entire world at a given time, has a finite number of potential consumers with a finite amount of financial resources, concentration, and time to devote to actually making purchases.  It is logically impossible for there to constantly be an increasing level of revenue from a product or even a company's entire set of products and services, unless there is an infinite number of people with infinite resources--and yet unlimited resources is merely a dream for many.  Many people do not have even enough resources to buy everything they might want, and certain executives nonetheless hope to convince as many people as they can to buy yet another product even if they do not need it, are initially content without it, or do not have the money to immediately purchase it.  Deception or other outright exploitation can be manifested in a very particular way to achieve this goal.

Planned obsolescence is one way that companies ruled by this category of idiot, someone too irrational to see the impossibility of forever expanding profits with a limited range of buyers or too obsessed with profit to care, try to maximize profit at the literal expense of consumers.  This entails designing a product so that after a fixed duration of usage or simply a certain amount of time after it is purchased, it loses much or all of its initial quality, falling apart, no longer working ideally, or needing a total replacement.  Consumers are targeted with the intention of just draining them of their money without regard for the longevity or quality of the product they are supposed to buy, and not just buy once, but buy again for each variation that is released, if the company leader(s) had their way.  Planned obsolescence has many forms, and some of them can be quite easy to notice, so easy that even people who do not think often or thoroughly about business might still recognize them--and despise them.

Hardware of electronic devices might rapidly deteriorate, software might start running slowly or stop require newer hardware, parts on toys might break off, and so on.  Very intricate, delicate, expensive, or rare parts could be used in the making of a product, especially with electronics, so that repairing an item as a consumer is very risky or not financially worth it, with the price of a replacement item perhaps being the same as a replacement part for the defective piece.  Companies furthermore might withdraw support for items after an arbitrary number of years to make it even more difficult to continue using what one already owns.  In doing some of these things or all of them together, there is a great deal of difficulty in not purchasing newer items, or just the increasing likelihood of the product malfunctioning by design.

Entire product categories are especially prone to being created with planned obsolescence at the core of the process.  Apple is a prominent practicer of this, discontinuing support for previous hardware models and aggressively releasing new models of the same basic device every single year, but this is the same company that even shipped phones in 2020 without chargers because the smaller packages "helped the environment"--as if trying to force new buyers to pay more just to have the fucking charger is really ever likely to be motivated by anything but greed!  In general, electronics ranging from smartphones to computers (including laptop computers) commonly develop battery, performance, or screen related issues within less than five years, whether they are an Apple product or not; in fact, one of the only types of electronics not plagued by this is the category of video game consoles.  This is in part because of systematic planned obsolescence.

This approach to business does intrinsically exploit consumers, though depending on the product and the need for or usefulness of it, choosing to purchase something intended to prematurely stop benefiting the user (at least to the same degree) is done willingly.  To be sure, it is also true that not all possible kinds of planned obsolescence are as obvious or petty or greed-driven as others.  In a handful of cases, the persistent push for buyers to continue buying might even put products with genuinely superior features in the ownership of consumers, but this does not justify exploitation of customers if exploitation is immoral.  It is not irrational to recognize planned obsolescence and still desire or purchase something, of course, as long as one does not make assumptions about the matter one way or another or think that personal convenience for those with enough resources to constantly update or replace their belongings justifies the way that planned obsolescence hurts almost every consumer even if they in some other way benefit from it.

Movie Review--Candyman (2021)

"Who do you think makes the hood?  The city cuts off a community and waits for it to die.  Then, they invite developers in and say, 'Hey, you artists, you young people, you white, preferably or only, please come to the hood, it's cheap.'"

--Anthony McCoy, Candyman

"Samuel Evans.  Run down during the white housing riots of the '50s.  William Bell, lynched in the '20s.  But the first one, where it all began, was in the 1890s.  It's the story Helen found.  The story of Daniel Robitaille."

--William Burke, Candyman

The first Candyman is a masterpiece of horror and thematic storytelling, introducing a supernatural villain whose past was marked by racism and who had the unique goal of metaphysically existing as long as whispers and rumors about his presence continue.  Its 2021 sequel of the same name, similar to the 2018 Halloween, ignores the other sequels released in between it and the original, but it does not match the first film's character development or honest exploration of subject matter that has haunted America for so long.  Candyman himself is scarcely in the movie, which would not be a negative thing if the characters that are focused on were developed better.  The performances are not the problem.  It is the lack of storytelling depth, character development, and the philosophically hypocritical condemnation of racism and simultaneous approval of it (black and white characters are sometimes said to have certain psychological characteristics because of their skin color, which is demonstrably false through reason alone) that hinder this movie, and the relatively brief runtime does not help when so little of substance is done with the characters and plot.

Production Values

In spite of its severe lack of deep characterization and, more importantly, its inconsistent approach to the atrocity of racism, Candyman displays a cleverly constructed aesthetic as early as the opening title screens, where the shot of a city is tilted to the inverse of what would normally be seen as it shows buildings and the sky from below, at an angle sharp enough that it is as if it was being viewed inverted, through a mirror, and the words on the logos themselves before this are backwards to capitalize on this mirror reflection.  That style and depth of integration between themes and imagery is for the most part lost afterward, with the characters suffering from a similar blandness or lack of exploration.  Teyonah Parris (WandaVision) plays the girlfriend of main character Anthony McCoy with flashes of greater characterization here and there, but little to showcase outside of those moments, though Colman Domingo's fewer scenes as a secondary character named William Burke who tells Anthony more about the Candyman stories do reflect his grief and frustration.  They give performances of desperation or passion when the story calls for it, but their characters are very much secondary, even with Burke.  It is Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, who has established himself as an excellent actor with HBO's Watchmen alone, who has the lead role, and he is very competent indeed; it is just that his character, while still getting more attention and more development than most of the other characters, is still not revealed all that much beyond him enjoying and creating art, caring about racial injustices against African Americans, and becoming obsessed with Candyman.  Other characters fare far worse overall, though one is involved in a fitting plot twist that was not telegraphed ahead of time.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

Many years after Helen Lyle investigated urban legends of Cabrini-Green for graduate school and became entangled with the "Candyman," a spirit who kills people who summon him and who might literally rely on his legend's popularity to exist, artist Anthony McCoy looks into Cabrini-Green to prepare for an art project.  He creates an art piece about police brutality against a man who was later assumed to be the basis of the Candyman legend, having offered a child some candy before being swarmed and viciously attacked by police officers.  Anthony says Candyman's name five times while looking at a window as a joke to frighten his girlfriend, only for a series of killings to follow that are all in some way related to Anthony's art and the legend it calls attention to.  A bee sting on his right hand also leads to a progressively worse scarification of his body as he learns more about the long line of murdered African Americans who are related to the supposed story of the Candyman.

Intellectual Content

Gentrification, racism against black people, and the artistic expression of ideas and emotions are all tackled here, but with an unnecessarily brief runtime of around 90 minutes, the Candyman reboot needed more time to address them and more time to tell a stronger story.  More significantly, it needed to handle them with with consistency and accuracy.  Viewers see up close why the African Americans of Cabrini-Green might be terrified of both Candyman and the police, as well as how, sincerely or insincerely, the story of Candyman could become a secretive but thriving legend.  Viewers see how easy it would be even today for those with power to wield it in an illicitly discriminatory manner if they wished.  There is also attention brought to how there are some white people who might love what black people can do for them, but not the black people themselves.  When Burke tells McCoy how white supremacists "love what we make, but not us," the story of Tony Todd's Candyman, an artist whose talents were appreciated by white people even if his humanity was not, is echoed anew.

Obviously, the concept behind Burke's statement would only apply to white people who are racist, but the 2021 Candyman makes the mistake of occasionally attributing certain nonphysical traits to black and white people, all while condemning some of the consequences of a society believing stereotypes!  There are no personality traits or philosophical stances or talents a person has because they are black or white, and no one is stupid, haphazard, or impulsive because of the color of their skin, though this Candyman tries to pass off the actions or beliefs of some white characters as coming from their race; even the false stereotypes almost everyone will be forced to confront in cultural upbringing can be perfectly identified, disproven, and rejected for the logical impossibilities they are.  Individuality, worldviews, and social pressures are the only reasons why anyone ever behaves in a certain way, and the color of anyone's skin cannot possibly have a damn thing to do with whether they choose to understand and live for truth.

Conclusion

Horror can be one of the best genres to hold up a mirror to human cruelty when handled correctly, as franchises like Saw reflect.  Done right, horror directly faces the potential for desperation, arrogance, and vulnerability that lies within humanity, showing how various individuals might react to bleak circumstances.  The 2021 Candyman reboot just does so little with this potential that apart from a handful of very excellent lines, it is a disjointed, vague, and at its worst outright hypocritical film that does not do its thematic subject matter or worldbuilding justice.  As a slasher movie, it is not awful, just mediocre.  As a film that addresses not only racism against black people in America, but also the dismissive treatment of the poor that can accompany it, it is somewhat bold in its periodic directness.  The boldness is just not channeled how it needed to be.  Uniquely stylized violence, deeply nuanced characters, and an accurate assessment of issues like racism are not to be found here.

Content:

 1.  Violence:  Most killings occur where the camera does not show them up close or directly, but there are images of a throat that has been slit, the sawing off of a hand, and spurts of blood.

 2,  Profanity:  "Shit," "fuck," and "bitch" are used.

The Only Unavoidable Sins

Supposedly grateful enough for the redemption extended to them that they are willing to change their lives, plenty of Christians, or at least people casually identifying as Christians with no deep philosophical awareness of what Christianity is or how it relates to other concepts, will do either nothing to avoid certain sins, will defend them, or will trivialize them (not in the sense of recognizing they are objectively lesser than other sins, but in the sense of not taking them seriously).  When they do happen to selectively have genuine interest in moral ideas, it is almost always broad cultural norms rather than Biblical obligations or church legalism that drives them to think that innocent or good things are sinful (Deuteronomy 4:2).

There are people who think Christian morality actually condemns things like use of profanity, nudity, anger, or masturbation, still engaging in such things even as they condemn them on the basis of feelings or traditions.  The problem here is not that they do these things, but that they are stupid enough to think they are Biblically immoral (they plainly are not condemned and thus pretending otherwise is itself the moral, and intellectual, error) and that they are stupid enough to apathetically or defensively pursue them.  It is one thing to sometimes succumb to sin without thinking one must have still been in the right to do so.  Regret and moral improvement are likely to follow if this is someone's intentions.

It is another thing to think that something immoral, whatever it might be, is ever obligatory, good, or justifiable.  It is also another thing to think that any particular sin is unavoidable no matter how much everyone strives to abstain from it, or that moral philosophy is not something important enough to dwell on more than matters of mere practicality.  If one observes and converses with the typical evangelical, one of these latter three stances is almost invariably what they base their lives around.  Sin is regarded, of course most often when it benefits someone personally, as an absolutely unavoidable thing that there is no point in fighting or loathing.

Not everyone struggles with or has any interest in entire categories of sins.  What is alluring to one person might be something another person is not captivated by, and it is always possible for someone who partly wants to engage in a specific sin to resist.  Moral perfection, either way, is absolutely achievable for everyone, for something it is impossible for one to do would not be sinful to fall short of, for they cannot have failed in an obligation.  There is no individual sin, class of sins, or situation where it is logically impossible for someone to have acted differently and averted the entire circumstance at hand, including by rejecting all irrationalistic, immoral motivations of any kind.

There is, though, an extremely small set of scenarios where, if a situation was not thwarted beforehand, a person will legitimately be unable to avoid sin by action or inaction.  This can only come about if all people involved did not align with reason and morality enough previously to avoid this fate.  Among these very precise, rare, but still logically possible situations would be the likes of Jephthah's dilemma in Judges 11, where he made an vow to God that he would sacrifice whatever walks through his doors to Yahweh.  His daughter is comes out from behind his doorway.  Breaking a promise to God and human sacrifice are both grave sins, and Jephthah could not avoid both sins at once.

It is not even that the scenarios themselves cannot have been avoided: once a person is already in them by philosophical negligence, apathy, emotionalism, or any other kind of irrationality.  The lesser sin is of course the one any person should enact in this case, not because the thing is itself obligatory, but because, through action or inaction respectively, it would be an even greater sin to make the other choice.  Jephthah should have broken a very careless vow rather than commit a capital sin involving murder, and a murder that echoes pagan human sacrifices at that.  Other than in instances like this, however, there are no sins or philosophical errors at all that are inevitable.  Even then, the only unavoidable sins are ones unavoidable because someone put themselves in a terrible circumstance through decisions that themselves could have been made differently.

Scientific Contingencies

Non-rationalists are too stupid to generally even think of doing anything but assume that what they see could not possibly be an illusion, or even an unverifiable phenomenon, which spurs them to ignore the abstract necessary truths that are the real core of reality in favor of contingent scientific perceptions and laws.  Are scientific laws uniform across the entire cosmos?  Could scientific laws have been different or could they change at any moment?  Such things almost never enter their mind, if they ever do at all.  Of course, scientific laws and perceptions are all contingent on metaphysical factors far deeper than themselves, on logical truths that ground reality and determine possibility, on (when it comes to scientific perceptions and not the laws of nature themselves).  Since scientific laws, the very existence of an external world that laws of nature constrain, and the subjective experience of sensory perceptions are not necessary truths, much less fundamental logical axioms, of course scientific laws could have been different or could suddenly shift without warning as long as whatever happens is logically possible.

Fire could have correlated to sensations of cold and ice with with sensations of heat.  Sugar could have been healthy for teeth.  Various objects could have floated above the surface of Earth if one released them from the hand instead of falling to the ground, and humans could have shed and regenerated limbs as normally as they do other things like falling asleep.  Electrons could have been clustered together in the atomic nucleus and protons and neutrons could have "orbited" them.  Living bodies could have had other fluids inside of them besides blood or could have carried no fluid within them at all, with creatures not requiring blood or any replacement for survival.  Electricity could have been harmless even upon direct touch.  Earth could have had twin suns like certain planets from science fiction, and the periods of time where the sunlight bathes the world could have been much longer or shorter than we are used to.  None of these things are logical necessities like how some things cannot not logically follow from other things or how it is impossible for nothing at all to be true (as that would then be true itself).

Many more hypothetical examples could have been the case.  There is no such thing as a scientific necessity that rivals logical necessity, for scientific laws cannot violate the laws of logic and all their necessary truths, which are the only things that could not have been any different than they are.  It could not be true that a conclusion that follows from its premise--not what someone assumes follows from a premise, but what truly does--is false or that anything else could have logically followed; it is not true that scientific laws could have not have differed from the perceived laws of nature we encounter, though even a different set of physics (all scientific laws are really just different laws of physics) would still have to be consistent with logical truths even if the same scientific phenomena did not occur throughout the entire cosmos.  Because a person can rely on logical axioms and their ramifications without realizing it and yet still assume that the sensory experiences they have must be accurate, so many people regard subjectively perceived, metaphysically contingent scientific laws that could have differed as the core of reality while not even thinking of the true heart of all things: logical axioms and what follows from them.

Contradictions cannot be true.  A thing can only be what it is.  These are other logical axioms beyond the aforementioned examples, and these are things that could not change or have been different.  Whether given laws of nature or even nature itself exist whatsoever is a matter of logical possibility.  Whether logical axioms are true is a matter of intrinsic necessity (and one of the necessary ramifications is that it follows that logical truths are the only thing that has to exist, the only thing that could not have not existed and the only thing that exists without in some way metaphysically relying on something else).  Reason and not science is the foundation of all.  Even God, which transcends the natural world as the uncaused cause, could not have brought logical truths into existence or altered them because they are true by necessity, either making up the small number of self-evident, self-necessary axioms or making up the larger number of truths that follow from some other truth or concept--even if the concept itself is not true.  However, the laws of nature at least depend on the uncaused cause to either create or permit them.  If the uncaused cause willed it, phenomena like gravity or electromagnetism could change or cease to exist altogether.  This is not and could not possibly have been true of the laws of logic.

The Biblical Leviathan

The word Leviathan has been more loosely used to refer to general beasts of the ocean, whether or not they would be literal sea serpents.  Everything from observable creatures like whales to giant squids to fictional monstrosities, like the eldritch spawn in the video game Call of Cthulhu, might be called by this informal name in contemporary culture, and this title is a proper noun in the Bible.  It is a name brought up more than once, yet never with a high degree of clarity about anything more than its association with the sea and that it, like more conventional animals, is a thing that reflects a fraction of God's power and yet is something transcended by the uncaused cause of Christianity.  Is the Biblical Leviathan supposed to be an extinct species?  A singular, exceptional beast?  A veiled reference to something other than an animal altogether, or maybe even a figurative beast that does not even symbolize a particular creation or enemy of God?

Psalm 74:13-14 briefly mentions, whether this is supposed to be literal or figurative, that God crushed the Leviathan's heads and served its flesh as food to desert creatures.  This entity is called a monster of the waters and is specifically said to have multiple heads.  No further clarification is given, including about whether the Leviathan is being presented as an actual sea monster that God directly killed, a symbolic stand-in for some other thing, or a hypothetical example of what God could do to any living thing if he wished.  Isaiah 27:1 also calls Leviathan the "monster of the sea,"a "gliding" and "coiling" serpent that God will eventually kill.  Since Psalm 74 describes the beast as having already been killed and Isaiah 27 is making a then-future prediction, it is possible that the Biblical Leviathan, if a literal ocean creature, is supposed to be a species (though not necessarily a species large in number), and if figurative, a symbol of God's enemies, either demonic or human.

In the book of Job, chapter 41 in particular, the Leviathan is given far more detailed attention than anywhere else in the Bible, however.  God uses the Leviathan as an example of the wonders he is able to create.  The description at first sounds more parallel to creatures many people are familiar with, including extant (non-extinct) animals like crocodiles, but as God proceeds, he references light, flames, and smoke that come forth from Leviathan's mouth and nostrils respectively (41:19-21), adding that it resides in the depths of the sea (41:31), a place where crocodiles are not exactly reported to make their homes.  Perhaps there was intentional linguistic exaggeration on God's part, knowing that the exaggeration of the words is just that, to emphasize the grander metaphysical point God was making in the book of Job: that God is more central and greater than all of his creations, however strong, fearsome, or unique they might be.

Whatever its status as a hypothetical or real/once-living creature, the Leviathan is presented in Job as being overwhelming to merely look at for humans (41:9).  Its actual ferocity and power are stated in more than one way to be futile or very close to utterly futile for beings with human limitations.   "'Nothing on earth is its equal,'" God says (41:33), something that would certainly not apply to crocodiles in the way the book of Job insists.  All the same, Psalm 104:25-26 states that God formed the Leviathan to live and even frolic in the ocean.  It is here acknowledged as just one of many animals intended by God to dwell in the "vast and spacious" sea.  This short reference to Leviathan in Psalm 104 complements Job 41's lengthy description of this ocean life form that reflects God's creative abilities.

As for the exotic nature of an actual creature like this, it is of course logically possible for such creatures to exist or to have existed, so the Leviathan is not something that exists by logical necessity or whose existence is logically impossible.  This is not a particularly central part of Christian theology in any way, including apologetics.  It is just something very precise and often ambiguous that is repeatedly mentioned in the Bible, yet something that is still mentioned primarily to emphasize qualities of God himself rather than those of any marine animal he made, even if among them there was once a literal sea serpent.  That many extant creatures within Earth's oceans almost look outright extraterrestrial or unusual already provides sensory evidence that bizarre creatures live in the ocean even now, and the Leviathan of the Bible, if literal, would have just been a grander animal within the same general category.

To Outlive Death

The laws of physics changing from their current patterns is not logically impossible.  Logical axioms are not contradicted by this, and thus it could happen.  Unless this was to occur, as unlikely as it still appears in light of memories and sensory evidences of consistent natural phenomena, every individual person seems fated to eventually die as their body's vital functions cease their activity.  The epistemology of death is of course vastly different from what many people would expect: I cannot know that I will die because there is no absolutely certain truth I can know from which it follows by logical necessity that I will die.  Even so, there is a great deal of sensory evidence that my body, like other human and animal bodies, is succumbing to gradual decay and will eventually perish.

In fear or awe, some pursue life extension methods like cryogenic freezing, where people are put into a low temperature state that preserves enough neurological functions to correlate to sustained consciousness, though that consciousness might be inactive or at most only dreaming.  Those in cryogenic stasis could supposedly be revived in the future, but even then, unless the laws of physics change, their bodies would still deteriorate at the usual rate once again, and if they were simply left in cryogenic stasis, what if the universe around them comes to an end?  Would they be guaranteed eternal life in that case, as bland as the life in cryo-sleep might be?  There is also exercise and the consumption of healthy foods and liquids, but this leads to an expanded lifetime with hopefully fewer discomforts and ailments that does not even last as long as cryogenic sleep.

To outlive death by scientific means is extremely improbable at best, no matter the advances of medicine and general technology in the present era.  Short of an afterlife of some kind where consciousness is free of the body, there would only be death of the mind and the body that awaits a person, though the exact timing could be postponed intentionally or unintentionally.  In contrast with all of the particular actions that a person can take to promote the health of their body or to otherwise prolong its biological life, there are also many factors that are completely beyond a person's control, including meteorological events that are not stopped by willing them away, the recklessness or malice of other people, and the happenstance shutdown of one's body.

The, in one sense, persistent imminence of death--that at any moment, there are many logically possible ways that we could die which we could do nothing about--is something taken for granted by some people as others might desperately try not to dwell on their mortality.  All at once, there are widespread cultural trends meant to push death further away and behaviors meant to distract people from how death hangs over us from our very births.  As one person obsesses over their health and safety, someone else might drown themselves in hedonism to focus on something other than serious philosophical matters.  Regardless of how much specific people think about the subject, people die young, and people die old, and the technological revolution that has made life extension more attainable has also provided a way to broadcast death on a greater scale.

If death is inevitable despite the progress made in delaying it, then, other than various logically possible kinds of soul-only afterlives for which there is no evidence, the only pathway left to the eternal life as a mind-body unity that so many people seem to crave is not life extension, but resurrection.  The hope of living forever would lie in being restored to life after death instead of in trying to stave off an ever-nearing, constant specter of bodily failure.  Although I cannot logically prove what will happen to my consciousness when I will die or even if I will ever die, the historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ points to an event that Paul calls a foreshadowing of a broader resurrection that will, at last, grant the righteous and redeemed eternal life (1 Corinthians 15:20-26).  The true gospel is this, as put forth in John 3:16: without salvation, the consciousnesses of fallen humans will one day cease to exist, but for those who repent and commit to Yahweh and Christ, there will be eternal bliss.

Living With Preferences (Part Two)

When rationalists struggle with having preferences they might not even wish to have, although they rightly identify them as mere preferences and not as logical truths or moral obligations, they are not succumbing to irrationality.  Reflection, willpower, prayer, and conversation might not change what they feel or desire, but they can still ease whatever psychological torment they might experience over preferring something they know has no truth or moral obligation.  Indeed, telling other rationalists or just being open about their wishes in general can trigger greater contentment with themselves as they live in light of how what they want to be true does not affect logical necessities.

Just as it is not irrational or sinful to have preferences, even if acting on some of them would make one irrational or evil, it is not erroneous to communicate those preferences to others.  Friends, family members, and strangers have not believed in a contradiction or assumption or committed an immoral act by being honest with themselves and with other people about their feelings and desires, however personal, conflicted, or intense they might be.  In fact, communicating preferences can be a cathartic thing that helps someone struggling with the longing for sinful things to be more at peace with not pursuing them, or the sheer existential sincerity could bring the two people closer together.

It cannot be erroneous to convey that which is not irrational or sinful to involuntarily wish for, no matter what the preference entails.  Someone else is not obligated to have those same desires themselves, for their own subjective, involuntary preferences are also not what determines their rationality or moral standing, and yet they cannot be in the right for misunderstanding or abhorring a person for honesty about things that do not reflect their beliefs or actions.  It would be inherently irrational to slander or oppose someone for simply having different preferences when they are not what dictates if a person acts on them improperly. 

Thus, having preferences, reflecting on them, communicating them, and, on the part of the person who is told about the desires, not sharing them can all be done rationally and without moral error.  To ignore or deny ones preferences can be very damaging to one's life even as the emotionalism or relativism of basing one's worldview around preferences destroys lives, and, more importantly, also cuts someone off from alignment with reason and its truths.  To recognize them is not to give in to them.  To discuss them with other people, as vulnerable or emotionally complicated as that could be, is not to demand that they also have the same subjective attitude, feelings, or wishes.

Informing someone engaging in this kind of potentially controversial or challenging vulnerability that one does not share their preferences is also not the same as dismissing them as a person.  It is to admit that one is not experiencing the same subjective perceptions or emotions.  Since preferences do not necessarily involve irrationality or sin unless they are shaped specifically by philosophical falsities, both parties need to embrace that they are not in the wrong unless they choose to believe what is false or assumed.  Each person can still be grateful for aspects of their subjectivity while fully realizing that subjectivity does not stop anyone from aligning with the intrinsic objectivity of reason and never making a single ideological misstep.

Movie Review--Candyman (1992)

"They will say that I have shed innocent blood.  What's blood for if not for shedding?"
--Candyman, Candyman

"I am the writing on the wall, the whisper in the classroom."
--Candyman, Candyman


The original Candyman movie is hardly in the same company as some of the more popular slashers of its century.  This does not reflect poorly on Candyman.  Rather, the film towers above many slasher movies with far more current mainstream recognition.  Whereas other slashers from its approximate time were often riddled with horrendous acting or thematic shallowness, Candyman explores its storytelling premise seriously thanks to quality acting and an honest look at how racism can impact African American lives.


Production Values

For a horror movie from the 90s, Candyman has very good practical effects and performances.  The first Candyman movie has much better acting than that of movies like the original Friday the 13th, setting it apart before the conceptual differences between it and other slasher films even begin to show themselves.  Virginia Madsen is even given a nuanced role that distinguishes her character Helen from other "final girls" in several key ways, and Tony Todd makes the most of his few appearances as Candyman himself.  The core performances are excellent, which makes the interactions between Candyman and Helen all the more well-realized.


Story

Spoilers!

Helen, a professor's wife, gathers information about local stories of a supernatural figure called Candyman, an entity that the residents of a nearby apartment building fear as if he is real.  She goes as far as visiting the location of a murder supposedly linked to Candyman, whom she is later told was a black man who was torturously murdered for having a romantic relationship with a white woman.  As one might expect, she begins to encounter visitations from a figure who identifies himself as Candyman, and she finds herself being placed by Candyman in situations that make her look like she herself is murdering his latest victims.


Intellectual Content

Like several other older horror movies such as The Craft, Candyman is far more progressive--in the true and consistent sense of the word--than the vast majority of modern films.  Not only is Helen a courageous and strong female protagonist who can genuinely stand on her own--and who ultimately sacrifices her life for someone other than a love interest--but other characters around her do not even pay lip service to stereotypes that treat women as if they are have a higher moral standing than men.  When Helen appears to be spiralling into a psychotic and murderous fantasy from the perspectives of other characters, no one claims that she must be innocent because women aren't capable of or likely to commit anything malicious.  It is not just the themes of gender egalitarianism that are handled well, though.

The very origin of the titular villain is rooted in the racist actions of certain in-universe characters, and racial tensions are on full display in multiple scenes.  A seemingly throwaway line from Helen even clarifies that she dislikes how a particular community of African Americans was not investigated by the police until she, a white woman, was assaulted, even though several blacks have been murdered in the area (even if it turns out that Candyman was almost certainly behind the deaths).  When Helen dies from burns received while saving the life of an African American baby, many people from the black community she aided with her heroism appear at her funeral.  Even though there is more to Candyman than themes of racism and racial reconciliation, those themes are prominent and important in the context of the film's lore.


Conclusion

The upcoming Candyman reboot, backed by Jordan Peele, has a grand legacy to honor.  The 1992 Candyman is not just a disposable horror movie that lacks depth.  It is a great example of how sophisticated slasher themes are not a myth, but a reality that could be achieved by modern filmmakers far more frequently if the attempts were made.  Horror does not have to be executed in a halfhearted or unintentionally comedic way, nor does it have to lack a connection with important social.  The best horror stories meet all of these criteria.


Content:
  1.  Violence:  Helen is struck on the face with a hook for looking into Candyman folklore.  Later on, a dog's decapitated head is shown shortly before Helen slashes at a woman's shoulder in self-defense.

  2.  Profanity:  Words like "bitch" are used on occasion.
  3.  Nudity:  Helen is told to remove her clothing by a police officer after her arrest, and her uncovered breasts are seen from the side.  As I have clarified multiple times before, female breasts are not sexual and their exposure is thus not true nudity, but American prudery treats it as such.

Sheol And Hades (Part Two)

In equating the concept behind the New Testament word Hades with that of the Old Testament Sheol [1], the Bible makes it clear that its Hades is not like the realm of of Greek mythology, with its Elysian Fields and Tartarus.  Yes, the New Testament once speaks of a Biblical Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4, but it is only a special prison for select fallen angels until they are sentenced to the lake of fire.  As for the Christian Hades, it is the metaphysical state of either unconscious existence or total nonexistence of the soul that all the human dead share before their resurrection (Ecclesiastes 9:5-10), except when human spirits are briefly revived by means such as sorcery (like with the witch of Endor summoning the spirit of Samuel).  After being restored to life as a mind-body unity, the unrighteous dead of Hades/Sheol, the grave, will be placed in hell to be cosmically exterminated (Revelation 20:13-15).  The Biblical Hades is Sheol, and the Biblical Sheol is not a spiritual realm at all.

There are other scattered verses beyond the more explicit and relevant ones like Job 3:11-19 and Mark 5:35-40, which I repeatedly point to, that either sharply clarify or strongly imply that the dead are without awareness, without memory, and without emotion, as Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 so plainly mentions.  The author of Psalm 88 asks in verses 10-12, "Do you show your wonders to the dead?  Do those who are dead rise up and praise you?  Is your love declared in the grave, your faithfulness in Destruction?  Are your wonders known in the place of darkness, or your righteous deeds in the land of oblivion?"  The Psalmist calls the state of the dead oblivion, a term for unconsciousness or nonexistence, and, just as other verses do, uses the word grave to refer to the condition of the dead.  This parallels what David states in Psalm 6:5 when he says to God, "No one remembers you when he is dead.  Who praises you from the grave?"

Other than the very abnormal, temporary revival of Samuel's spirit before his resurrection in 1 Samuel 28, there are only a handful of verses across the entire Bible that might at first seem to present a conscious intermediate state between the first death and the resurrection--after all, even if Sheol/Hades was a realm where the dead consciously exist in the meantime, it would still not be New Jerusalem or the lake of fire (hell) despite what many people claim.  No, the unrighteous inhabitants of Hades, the collective grave of Earth with its unconscious dead, are thrown into hell (Revelation 20:13-14); they are not in hell currently according to the Bible no matter what Hades is.  A passage that, if it stood alone, would seem to characterize Sheol as a literal underworld of spirits is Isaiah 14:9-11.  Of course, the likes of Ecclesiastes 9 far more directly teach soul sleep/oblivion as the current fate of all humankind.  Something like Isaiah 14 is clarified in light of such verses, which are themselves not as overt as those teaching the fate of the wicked in hell is eventual nonexistence (such as Ezekiel 18:4 and 2 Peter 2:6).

If the dead have no perception, no experience of any kind, as Ecclesiastes says and other passages concur with, then there cannot actually be spirits of the departed waiting before their resurrection to receive the spirit of a dead pagan king like Isaiah 14 describes.  Actually, just a single verse earlier (14:8), Isaiah describes pine trees and cedars as celebrating the demise of the king of Babylon (14:4) and using words to convey that how no one will cut them down any longer.  Immediately after this is when the author says Sheol is roused as spirits greet the fallen king and note how weak he now is.  The context is one of highly figurative wording.  Even if this kind of temporary afterlife was what the Bible taught over soul sleep, then the deceased kings of the world would still have thrones in the conscious realm of the dead and continue to rule or at least formally act as if they are, as verse 9 mentions.  There is no mention of torment like so many imagine.  This is not what evangelicals teach when they say that all people went to Sheol as spirits before the resurrection of Christ "moved" the righteous to heaven while the wicked suffer until their resurrection!  Not only is the rousing of Sheol mentioned right in a figurative context, but it is also really the other, aforementioned verses that repeatedly and explicitly teach soul oblivion or sleep for those who are presently dead.

Luke 16:19-31, though, is the most popular passage proponents of Sheol as an intermediate netherworld for conscious spirits point to.  Since these verses are more numerous than three figurative verses in Isaiah, in a separate post, I will address their irrelevance to what the Old Testament and New Testament alike teach about the intermediate state of Sheol/Hades.  The Biblical Sheol is less important than the Biblical heaven and hell that are even more misunderstood due to assumptions and tradition, yet it is important in its own right.  As mentioned in part one of this series, even the nature of justice is affiliated with this: it would not be just for lesser but unrepentant sinners born early in human history to suffer agony during a longer wait for annihilation in hell than a greater sinner born many years later, not that Isaiah 14:9-11 even speaks of torment of the wicked before they are in hell!  The dead know nothing, the Bible says.  They do not perceive or desire or praise anything, according to the provided verses, for their spirits are in a dreamless sleep or do not exist whatsoever for now.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2023/06/sheol-and-hades-part-one.html

Personality-Based Discrimination

Discrimination according to someone's personality, or perhaps what an irrationalistic outside observer believes someone's personality to be, can be less overt than some other discrimination but still widespread.  In everything from romantic relationships and friendships to business to one-time interpersonal interactions, miscellaneous assumptions, arbitrary traditions, and unverifiable perceptions could fuel active harm.  Aside from this, they are false, so the truth alone makes itself valid no matter what harm errors bring.  Of particular focus here are extroversion, the tendency to gain energy or satisfaction from sociality, and introversion, the tendency to gain energy or contentment from being alone or in smaller social settings.

Extroverts might be misunderstood by irrationalists as being socially intrusive, unable to enjoy time alone, talkative about unimportant things, or uncaring about whether their conversational partners want to talk at all.  These things could be true of individual extroverts, just not because they are extroverts.  Gaining energy from the presence of other people or discussion with them is not the same as being overbearing, egoistic, or unwilling/incapable of identifying signs that those around one are annoyed by one's authentic personality.

With introverts, there are the misconceptions that they are innately shy, uninterested in practically all conversation, lazy, and selfish by supposedly being inwardly focused.  The last of these listed stereotypes is ironically something extroverts might be stereotyped with as well.  In one case, someone is assumed to be selfish because they enjoy socialization and allegedly impose themselves on others, and in the other case, someone is assumed to be selfish because they are not constantly seeking out social stimulation.  Again, introverts do not necessarily possess any trait beyond gaining/regaining energy from solitude--or something close to it.

Introverts can still care about other people.  Extroverts can still care about the personal comfort of other people.  Both the personalities themselves (introversion and extroversion) and the people who have those personality types can be rejected on the basis of stupidity.  For example, extroversion is erroneously expected to be the norm, even a hollow, counterfeit presentation of extroversion, in many corners of the American workplace, where extroverts might be pushed to work harder than introverts or milder ambiverts, while introverts might be penalized for not gravitating towards pointless office talk or giving the "appearance" of investment in a job.

By being encouraged to not understand themselves when reason and introspection are both absolutely certain and universally accessible, people are already pressured to separate themselves from the truth about themselves whenever personality-based discrimination is believed or communicated.  Like all other irrational forms of discrimination (such as by gender, by race, by age, by nationality, by physical beauty, or by economic class) and the associated false philosophies, these concepts are both contrary to reality and very damaging to people in many facets of their lives.  Extroversion and introversion have nothing to do with so many traits that people avoidably use to misunderstand, trivialize, or mock them. 

Living With Preferences (Part One)

Being a rationalist, and someone who unflinchingly recognizes and lives in light of logical necessities, does not necessarily stop someone from feeling discomfort or frustration over specific truths.  Emotions do not cease just because someone is a rationalist, nor would anyone rational wish away their emotions just because they can sometimes be complicated or unwanted in specific cases.  The presence of any emotion at all is not what makes a given non-rationalist irrational in the first place; it is to ignore reason in favor of emotion that constitutes emotionalism.

Though emotions and preferences are not the same thing (the latter does not actually have to involve emotion), neglecting or betraying reason in favor of preferences can be an expression of emotionalism.  Merely having preferences, now, does not mean that someone thinks that they dictate or reveal reality.  Some preferences might be very strong and even be in favor of things that are ultimately logically impossible or epistemologically irrational, but even these do not mean someone flees from reason, makes assumptions, or is anything but perfectly rationalistic about the nature of their preferences.

What, however, of a rational person who still deeply struggles with the fact that they feel an attachment to certain preferences despite knowing that the desired thing in question is false or unknowable?  Some desires or general emotions might weigh down heavily upon a person as they repeatedly dwell on how irrelevant to logical necessities, how morally meaningless, and how subjectively burdensome some preferences can be, particularly over months or years.  It does not follow from someone being flawlessly rationalistic and moralistic that he or she does not face great psychological conflict, perhaps with their emotions refusing to become comfortable with what that person knows or even just otherwise would want to be true.

Once again, preferences are not inherently emotional in nature.  They can exist with or without emotions, but in either case, one can know with absolute certainty what one does and does not want by looking to the inward gaze of introspection while looking to the laws of logic.  As complex as they can be, they are not impossible to identify and understand without error.  It is the general irrationality of assumptions and philosophical apathy, as well as the desperation of personal terror or anxiety over what might be found lurking in a person's mind, that interfere with everyone perfectly knowing the contents of their own heart at any specific time.

If someone's preferences would be contrary to reason if they were to go beyond simply having those preferences to having beliefs based on them, they might be in psychological torment over what they would gravitate towards if it was not for their alignment with the intrinsic, transcendent truths of reason.  A rationalist and a Christian could just as easily be in pain over what they feel or desire as someone who is far from the light of reason and a concern for objective truth.  How are they to handle these burdens on an emotional and holistic personal level, though they can still cling to reason and its truths without falling into emotionalism or irrationality of any kind?  They are not without any possibility of optimism in their suffering even if they feel irrational or evil when they are not.

The Phenomenology Of Focus

There are only so many logically possible things to experience even if factors like psychological perceptions and the laws of nature were to change.  More importantly, there are only so many logical truths that exist and thus there are only so many that can be discovered or revisited.  Indeed, after a point, a person can only revisit, though very few even ever attempt to reach this point.  Whether they maintain or drift away from awe at the philosophical centrality, gravity, or significance of a thing is not something that dictates their worldview.  They could feel less awe due to familiarity with certain things and still have rationalistic knowledge of them, and still live for and be psychologically devoted to them.

The experience of reflecting on long familiar truths, concepts, and experiences in all of their importance or nuance is not one that has to grow less passionate or alluring over time, though.  If it does happen for a given person, diminishing excitement or outright boredom only means that someone has become bored: the thing they are less excited about on an emotional level, or perhaps no longer excited about at all, is no different than its logically necessary nature must be.  There is only a difference in how they are perceived or dwelt on by a particular individual.  Some people speak of how they hope to do all they can to prevent this from happening with a marriage or some other life situation, but there are far deeper, more crucial things than any human relationship.

The same logical truths, the same general introspective states, the same scientific experiences (and the laws of nature behind them, though these cannot be known by humans beyond subjective sensory perceptions), and the same issues can seem new or enthralling long after they are familiar.  As a person revisits and delights in these truths and concepts, whether they are reflecting on them in the midst of shifting life circumstances or just focusing on them in a very precise or different way, he or she in no way is damned to not be captivated by them in deepening ways.  Although only irrationality stops anyone from coming to many logical truths about reason itself and other things no matter their circumstances, these scenarios and how they might change over time can also provide a new psychological context to focus on philosophical truths, first and foremost the inherent, eternal truths of reason.

With or without a dramatic or major life event like a death, marriage, or career switch, the same truths are waiting to be acknowledged and can be returned to or concentrated on as emotions change.  The uttermost depth of logical axioms (and the many logical truths that follow from them) and the immediate experience of introspection can be intentionally savored together day by day as a person's attitude deepens or evolves.  There is no truth or concept of significance that cannot be repeatedly delighted in or clung to as life goes on, whether situations change or remain static.

Emotion can indeed be a great force to keep someone enchanted by logical truths that do not depend on emotion, including truths about God, morality, science, relationships, leisure, and practicality and not just strictly about reason.  How a person focuses on things of an explicitly abstract or more practical kind, especially as they go through their daily personal experiences at the same time, can be at least partly put under the reins of the will.  Trouble feeling emotionally satisfied or elated about the true core, depth, and often complexity of philosophical reality might never strike someone.  Should it strike, there are still things they could do or desire to once again enjoy how multifaceted the experience of coming again and again to the same truths can be.  No one who has thoroughly known the objective veracity or personal urgency of many issues would not also see how regularly dwelling even on the familiar can be empowering, intoxicating, and comforting.

What Is Perfection?

The greatest of perfection, which is amoral and yet governs the truths and possibilities of moral perfection, is that of reason, of the laws of logic.  Logical axioms, such as the fact that some truths follow from other truths, are inherent because they could not be false without still being true, and the other necessary truths that they ground are also true because it could not have been any other way.  All else could perish--in all but the case of empty space, which still could only exist by logical necessity or because of logical possibility, this is something that could hypothetically happen at any time--and it would be intrinsically impossible for the laws of logic and the truths they necessitate to cease to be true by no longer existing, by changing, or by being nullified.  They are a metaphysical existent themselves and not a feature of contingent things.  Mind, matter, morality, time, and all that these entail could have never existed (the exact reason why each of these does or could exist would relate to the uncaused cause), and reason would still have existed in the absence of all else.  It is the supreme existent and that which depends on nothing else even as everything else depends upon it.  This is what its epistemological infallibility stems from, for all intellectual flaws are on the part of people avoidably misunderstanding reason and not reason itself.

Not even God has this very particular, exclusive kind of perfection, for his existence is one of necessity as an uncaused cause in light of things that had to have come into existence.  However, God, at least the Biblical conception of him that is almost certainly the real uncaused cause (which exists either way), has a moral nature, and without this nature, there would be no such thing as good or evil.  There would otherwise be only the moral preferences of lesser beings like humans or whatever other conscious animals or extraterrestrial beings exist.  Thus, if God has a moral nature, it is a morally perfect nature because nothing else could determine if morality exists or what moral obligations there are.  Whatever is just and therefore morally mandatory for all beings with the capacity for full rationality, introspection, and free will is grounded in God, but mercy would not among these moral requirements.  A deity without mercy cannot be in the wrong.  A deity without a nature grounding justice would instead mean there is no such thing as justice to begin with.

For humans, perfection could only matter in specific categories that could only have a moral dimension if the uncaused cause has a nature that makes this so.  The intellectual perfection of intentionally grasping necessary truths, avoiding assumptions, and discovering or at least pursuing the discovery of every important philosophical truth is there and attainable regardless of morality's existence or details.  Moral perfection entails doing everything that is obligatory.  Something can be good and not obligatory, like mercy.  Likewise, mercy is not necessary for perfection in humans, like how it does not logically follow from respect for humans being obligatory that holding the door open for everyone is as well.  Human perfection of other kinds, such as perfection in one's workplace productivity or perfection of observational skills in everyday life, are not required to be perfectly rationalistic or morally perfect (by Biblical standards, the only ones that are likely to be true).  It is not perfection in knowing logical necessities or in doing that which one should do, so it is trivial at best by comparison, if it has any non-pragmatic significance at all.

What of other things like perfection of artistic creations?  Objective quality and perfection in art does not depend on the existence or nonexistence of objective moral values: perfection of art is the state of not having any flaws, which could mean the execution of an intention was flawless or that there is no clash between the different aspects of a work.  Certain qualities could have made a film, video game, book, television/streaming show, painting, or sculpture better without it actually having any deficiencies in its present form.  For example, a movie that could have had one or two more excellent lines is not actually flawed unless its current dialogue, themes, storytelling, and effects (which are heavily era-sensitive, as special effects capabilities can improve with technology, unlike acting) are deficient; to add these lines would only be to include more of an excellent thing, and though this can enhance art all the more in some cases, in others it would jeopardize something else about the unity or smoothness of the work, and it is simply unnecessary in order to avoid problems.  The perfection of art is similar to how a bowl is technically perfect if it can perform its intended task without flaw, with additional forms of perfection other than philosophical accuracy in art being irrelevant to this--a bowl being a perfect fit for someone's life is really not about just the bowl's functionality, but about how it relates to someone's preferences or circumstances.

Perfection entails differing things in various instances from the metaphysically intrinsic truths of reason to the moral perfection of God to the artistic perfection of entertainment, though in all things it involves a lack of flaws pertaining to whatever something's nature is.  Many people seem to chase after perfection of things like bodily beauty or workplace performance that are in themselves meaningless (though still having their own philosophical status and relative depth or lack of it) without connection to one or more of these aforementioned types of perfection.  As for how humans should live, there is no excuse for not striving to be rationalistically and morally perfect no matter how grievous one's past mistakes were.  To be human is not to err.  It is in part to be capable of erring or forsaking error depending on one's worldview, will, intentions, and deeds.

Sheol And Hades (Part One)

The Old Testament uses the word Sheol to describe the condition of all the human dead.  The New Testament gospels use the word Hades, but both refer to the same general destination of the grave that awaits humanity in general.  David says that God would not abandon him to the grave, or Sheol, in Psalm 16:10 (the word Hades is used when this very verse is referenced by Peter in Acts 2:27).  The rebellious Korah perishes after God brings him to Sheol alive in Numbers 16:28-33.  Here, it says that the grave claimed Korah and his belongings while he was still living, and then he perished.  Nowhere does it say that he went to some holding place of torment before actually being placed in hell, the lake of fire that is itself where wicked people will perish again in the second death (Ezekiel 18:4, 2 Peter 2:6, Matthew 10:28).  There is quite a bit about the Christian afterlife that is merely assumed by irrationalistic people or that is entirely contrary to the actual doctrines of the Bible.

Since Revelation 20:13-14 says that death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire, Sheol/Hades cannot be the Gehenna, the hell or lake of fire, which Jesus and John the apostle directly speak of.  The inhabitants of hell cannot be thrown into hell!  However, not only is the state of death in between life and the resurrection described repeatedly as an unconscious sleep or nonexistence (Ecclesiastes 9:5-10, Job 3:1-19, Mark 5:35-40), but this would also mean that the whole of unsaved/unrighteous humanity could either way not already be in hell according to the text of Revelation 20:13-14, which says that the sea and Hades give up the dead in them before they are cast into the lake of fire.

Even in these two verses of Revelation, though, there is already some evidence for what the rest of the Bible teaches: that there is no proto-hell that God's human enemies immediately go to for now when they die.  Why would the sea need to be mentioned as giving up the dead within it alongside a temporary, hellish dimension meant for conscious suffering?  If Hades, as a substitute word for the Hebrew term Sheol, only means the grave as in the collective burial sites of Earth, then it would be very natural to contrast the sea and the ground as they both surrender the dead for resurrection.  Not even the subset of fallen angels in Tartarus referenced in 2 Peter 2:4 are said to be suffering any kind of divine torture before being judged.  No, they are only described as being confined by chains in some sort of cosmic dungeon as they await their judgment and entrance into the lake of fire, which was designed for their kind instead of humans (Matthew 25:41).

There is also the issue of how various sinners would be punished disproportionately if they all joined other deceased wicked people in a short-term hell of sorts, coming to this dimension where others are already suffering as soon as they die as is commonly put forth by evangelicals.  If someone was to immediately enter a realm of punitive agony prior to hell, as they wait for their ultimate destination, then someone who committed the most trivial of sins (no sin is trivial compared to moral perfection, but not all sins are equally severe) but died thousands and thousands of years ago would have been tormented in every moment since then, whereas someone who committed the greatest sins of irrationality, cruelty, and selfishness would be tormented less if only they lived and died at a later point in history.  This is not justice in the sense of punishing people in accordance with their deeds.

In contrast, at the great judgment of Revelation 20, all the wicked and unsaved dead are resurrected together to receive their sentence of eternal punishment--that is, of potential torment that culminates in them no longer existing, a penalty that eternally locks them away from the goodness of God and the pleasures of experiencing bliss.  They are not thrown into hell years or centuries or millennia apart; they are judged and then collectively brought to an end in hell (John 3:16, as well as verses listed in the first paragraph clarify this explicitly), and the degree of their sins would determine the severity or length of any suffering prior to the permanent death of their souls.  The final fate of the wicked is indeed far more clear in Biblical teachings than soul sleep or the other factors relevant to the state between death and resurrection, but the Bible does not teach that people go to hell upon dying right now except in the sense of immediately having their consciousness revived before God at the great white throne after ceasing to have conscious experiences until that time.

Comfort With Nudity

Almost anyone who grew up in an American family claiming to be full of committed Christians and even many people who were exposed to parts of secular culture likely were expected to act as if seeing or engaging in public nudity is an abomination, except perhaps in very specific, arbitrary situations.  Humans are born naked, the God of the Bible created humans naked (Genesis 2:25), and nudity does not even incite people to hedonism or any kind of philosophical delusion or immoral action.  The societal hostility towards nudity is not a religious or secular thing: it is devised and encouraged by irrationalists in their immense stupidity.

A person who realizes the true nature of nudity as revealed by logic and as taught by the Bible is free from philosophical falsehoods in this regard, yet they might be left with a dislike of seeing the nude body.  This is ironic since we all have bodies that are only commonly covered because of practical factors like protection against temperatures or because of sheer ideological idiocy.  Each time someone removes all of their clothing to change what they are wearing or to bathe, they are also experiencing how nudity is nonsexual and liberating though they might not realize or focus on it.  Nudity is indeed very comfortable itself with its lack of material that restricts bodily motion or covers the skin.  It does not follow that someone will react to the physical comfort of nudity by finding it comfortable on a mental level, be it their own nudity or that of someone else.  Inside or outside of social interaction, comfort with nudity could end up coming about anyway if such a person directly experiences the relaxation or bodily freedom of nudity himself or herself.

There are other ways to become psychologically comfortable with nudity besides seeing other people without any clothing in person or forgoing one's own clothes in public settings, of course.  A person could adjust to and enjoy the physical feeling of nudity, along with the emotions this might bring with it, without actually exposing himself or herself to others all in the privacy of their home.  Again, no one has to do this in order to understand or appreciate nudity (including in a nonsexual way), and no one needs to subject themself to this even in the absence of observers if they do not want to; they can avoid assumptions and errors about nudity and believe logically demonstrable truths with or without this kind of direct experience.

There is also the possibility of viewing nudity in entertainment in both nonsexual and sexual contexts in order to be even further removed from doing or seeing anything related to the naked body outside of art.  For those who know nudity is biologically natural, Biblically nonsinful and good, and not harmful in any way, but still struggle with the thought of it, art could be a great pathway to getting used to the unclothed body.  Nudity is often very greatly exaggerated by objectors when it is included entertainment like video games and films, so just because art has nudity does not mean that it is constant, forced into the story, or shown in a sexual setting, though whether it is intended in a sexual way has nothing to do with whether nudity is Biblically immoral or artistically irrelevant.

If someone wishes to not even view visual art from any medium that depicts nudity, no matter how it is portrayed, they are not irrational or evil.  They just have a subjective aversion to nudity that either is a part of their natural attitudes or was implanted by prudish cultural pressures.  He or she would still be able to discover, recall, and appreciate logical truths about nudity pertaining to what it is and is not (for instance, that it is not sexual but can be perceived as such).  Personal perceptions or feelings do not stop anyone from coming to any truth.  They might complicate the desire to know truth and live for it in all things, but they do not thwart it.  This is as true of truths about the naked male or female body as it is of anything else.

Middle Management

Managers that report to higher managers after collecting updates from lower managers or base workers are not exactly an intrinsically beneficial part of business.  A very small business has absolutely no need for middle management to serve as a step between communicating things from the top of bottom of the hierarchy in the other direction.  In many businesses of varying sizes, middle management is at best only a neutral presence that delays processes, albeit without any egoistic or malicious activities, or it is an unnecessary one that siphons money and attention away from crucial things like foundational productivity and direct communication (without an intermediate to receive and pass on information, this kind of communication is impaired).

As for an enormous megacorporations as opposed to small businesses, middle management could still be a waste of resources even though there is a much more complex hierarchy and perhaps far greater communicational distance between those at the bottom and the top of a company--or a single branch within a company.  Whenever possible, utilizing direct communication always saves time and reduces opportunities for distortion of the initial information.  Instead of cutting middle management positions entirely where there is no valid reason to keep them, plenty of larger companies will opt to remove or penalize the workers who do more substantial roles (as far as keeping the business afloat is concerned) for the convoluted or delusional trappings of certain middle managers.   

Pulling middle management out of a hierarchy where, needed or not, it is already an expected part of a specific corporate system might create temporary chaos, but start a hierarchy without including middle management at all, and even this potential problem vanishes.  There is no need to proliferate managerial positions when it is sometimes less expensive and smoother to omit steps involving middle managers completely.  This is not to say that there could not possibly be a helpful or needed kind of middle manager in very particular circumstances.  Factors like the size of a company, the nature of the projects or workers under that company, and how detached the upper echelons are from the bottom of the chain would determine this.

Non-rationalists might think they are the equals of rationalists, lazy or incompetent CEOs might think they are indispensable, and so on.  Inside and outside of a business context, a lot of people assume or ignore things as it is convenient for their arbitrary self-esteem or their social acceptance, as if these are worthy things to live for instead of things that should only be experienced in a society of universally rationalistic people.  As such, some middle managers who are genuinely useless or unnecessary might reject the truth of their irrelevance just because it would hurt their feelings, but this only means they are upset by the truth.

There could nonetheless certainly be situations where some sort of middle management actually facilitates communication or goal completion or some other such thing.  Simply being a middle manager also does not mean that someone misunderstands the true necessity or lack of if in their role, or that they are ego-driven tyrants whenever they get the chance.  It is just the case that for all of the supposed emphasis on efficiency and minimizing costs of business, many companies might leave middle management positions untouched, oppressing lower workers through underpayment while objectively squandering money, time, and attention on an entire set of roles that are very often totally unneeded.

The Illusory Power Of Marketing

Marketing is integral to facilitating consumerism, for people cannot just know by self-evident necessity or by pure logical deduction what products are available and what their features, logistical accessibility, and prices are.  It is of course possible for even capitalist marketing to not have the goal of inspiring consumeristic tendencies, the emotionalistic or blind slavery to constantly purchasing new products and services just to fit in with pointless social trends or out of belief in materialism.  Still, without marketing of some kind, mass consumerism could never seize a region, a country, or the world, and marketing is a major part of technology-fortified business practices under American capitalism.  Marketing is the catalyst of consumerism--and yet its power is much more limited than some would think.

Not all marketing, though, is necessarily about getting people to immediately buy something--or to prompt them to eventually buy something at all.  To intentionally buy a particular product, people have to look for it, and this involves a minimal level of familiarity with a brand, even if only noticing that the brand is there as an option.  As for marketing that is not about selling something, hiring advertisements are still a sort of marketing, though they are not perfectly identical in function to what most people mean by general marketing; it is a job opening instead of a product or service getting promoted.  Some marketing might also be aimed at convincing people to engage in "micro conversions," or action steps that might or probably will lead to a purchase (the "macro conversion"), but are not a sale, such as following a company's social media page or adding an item to an online shopping cart.

In fact, micro conversions are voluntary.  The kind of marketing that can lead to this has no power except in some cases what people allow it to have over them.  In other words, its power is illusory.  No matter how subjectively enticing it might be, no one succumbs to it except by choice.  No one acts upon it because the advertisement forced them to make a purchase or a decision that could bring them closer to a purchase.  It is entirely possible for even people who are very interested in a marketed product or service to restrain their actions and rationalistically remind themselves of higher priorities that demand their immediate attention.  Consumerism has its significant epistemological and moral flaws, but one of its problem is not that of having power over people's actions unless they allow it to, and that "control" can be identified, understood, and resisted at any point in a consumer's life.

There can also be consumers who would have already wanted to purchase or look into whatever it is that an advertisement is promoting, having a predetermined or natural interest in the object of the promotion that exists before the marketing that is meant to prompt this is even noticed.  They already are exercising their capacity for autonomy when it comes to understanding what they actually want out of purchases and are not swayed emotionalistically by a billboard, email, or salesperson to buy some luxury item they do not have the money for or some personally affordable item that they do not truly desire.  It does not matter what other people do.  They do not base their personal financial choices on blindly partaking in trends no matter how prominent marketing is, and they might not rush to make a purchase in spite of relevant, appealing marketing.

Encountering marketing does not force someone to spend any amount of money, much less to become slaves to consumeristic ideas that some businesses would love for their customers to hold to.  Deceptive marketing is problematic, as is marketing created with the intent of ensnaring the poor or the consumeristic into needlessly parting with their money.  Even when it comes to outright deceptions or what was supposed to be an emotionalistic snare in promotional material, the illusory power of marketing is not something that people have to yield to.  American capitalism's multiple significant problems do not include the impossibility of marketing literally holding people as psychological hostages to their own overpowering whims even if they feel manipulated.

The Catharsis Of Tears

Crying is not inherently associated with sadness.  Tears could spring up from pain, sadness, joy, or relief, making them a versatile way to react to emotion.  For all of the emotionalism present in the world, there is still the attitude among some that shedding or showing tears is something negative.  How idiotic it is that there are those who flee reason for emotionalistic beliefs, only to belittle or shun displays of emotion that do not necessarily come forth from enslavement to it!  Tears born out of sadness are perhaps most frequently looked down upon by a certain kind of non-rationalist as if they indicate stupidity or inferiority.

There is nothing irrational about having emotions no matter their objections, since this does not mean that one is emotionalistic or is even tempted to be.  There is nothing weak about showing tears or the specific emotion of sadness in public or private.  In either case, there could be great personal reluctance to express emotion in this way, which would actually require strength to set aside, but in some social settings, there is the added obstacle of irrationalists thinking that to cry is to give in to weakness.  What could be no small amount of psychological strength might actually be necessary to overcome either of these kinds of barriers to crying.

More foundationally than how fools might perceive someone who cries, embracing one's introspective awareness of emotions and the capacity to act on them by shedding tears is a way to pursue the empowerment of knowing and releasing emotion without falling to emotionalism.  In this way, someone can acknowledge their suffering without making assumptions, experience the personal nature of emotion while standing firm against despair, and seek catharsis.  No one has to give in to the real weakness of irrationalism, philosophical apathy, or neglect of the problems that led to sadness by shedding tears.

Unfortunately, many people seem to be deterred from enjoying this kind of catharsis largely because of the vulnerability of crying or because some people might consider it strange.  They might feel as if they are forfeiting some personal dignity or inviting abuse from others if they were to cry, especially in front of other people.  If they believe these things to be true rather than just feel as if they were true (they are not, and truth is not dictated or revealed by emotion), then this is either due to irrationality on their own part or bowing to societal pressures rather than looking to reason and introspection.  For Christians, there are more layers to the issue here, since having and expressing emotion are never themselves sinful and Jesus himself freely cries before others out of sorrow (John 11:35 says he cried over the death of Lazarus).

Some Christians (the more conservative evangelicals and complementarians specifically) denounce tears as useless, stupid, or weak, driven by sexist ideology to target men in particular, but there is no such thing as crying itself being problematic in Christian philosophy or in light of the necessary truths of reason.  The catharsis of tears is within every person's reach, though only some might be open to engage in this cathartic act without shame due to their natural personality or, more importantly, a correct worldview.  Crying out of rationalistic self-awareness can in truth be one of the most accessible and helpful ways to act on the pain or sadness that, sooner or later, is almost certainly going to seize the hearts of every person.

Marital And Extramarital Attraction

Nothing from feeling slight sexual attraction to someone of the opposite gender to delighting in self-pleasuring to numerous people of the opposite gender, even while married, is Biblically sinful.  Outside of what is ultimately a handful of acts or motivations, everything not condemned by God as contrary to his nature is permissible or perhaps even good (Deuteronomy 4:2).  Within a marriage, romantic or sexual attraction to one's partner is ideal.  It of course adds additional layers of pleasure and connection to a human relationship that is only matched in its significance by deep friendships with intellectual and spiritual equals.  Beyond a marriage, there are still many attractive men and women, though, and it is normal and morally innocent to be attracted to multiple people of the opposite gender and not just one.

As difficult as it is for some people to (supposedly) understand these logical truths or emotionally accept them, to recognize, introspectively dwell on, verbally acknowledge, or even act on these feelings (in very particular ways specified below) is not evil.  The Christian objective of marriage is not to not experience or enjoy sexual attraction to other people of the opposite gender outside of the marriage.  It is to be committed to a loving, mutual relationship whether or not such attractions develop--and whether or not one acts on them through flirtation or masturbation, which are objectively nonsinful even in this context.  Short of sins like abuse, neglect, or infidelity [1], the marital bond is to be for life, and neither husbands nor wives have to suppress the depths of their sexual attractions.

A person who thinks their spouse or dating partner must renounce, ignore, or remain silent about the sensuality or perceived sexiness of other people is a selfish fool.  To harbor or even crave either extramarital attraction or acting upon it (through flirtation or masturbation, as aforementioned, not through adultery) does not forsake the partner to whom one is married.  It is neither a mental nor physical betrayal.  To some people, it might subjectively feel like one, but emotion only dictates and reveals emotion.  Nothing else about reality, including logical truths about sexuality and relationships, is made true by anyone's feelings.

Aside from its Biblical permissibility, recognizing and savoring these attractions as nonsinful pleasures that in no way lead to infidelity (the likes of emotionalism, apathy, selfishness, and general irrationalism do) makes relationships flourish all the more.  Honesty about these things, both in the sense of absolutely certain self-awareness in the pleasure and in the sense of communication between the partners, allows people to feel safer in being open and sharing more parts of themselves.  The marital bond can be celebrated more deeply in ways that are otherwise never enjoyed by prudish or insecure couples.  For husbands and wives who do not make assumptions, which includes rejecting all gender stereotypes and slanderous bouts of jealousy, a more holistic, unifying, intense kind of relationship can be had.

To ideologically oppose that which is not irrational or evil is itself irrational regardless of whether moral obligations existed, and if they do, then this is itself evil as well.  God made the human body to be the among the most visually enticing, in a platonic or sexual way, parts of his entire physical creation.  No husband or wife, no boyfriend or girlfriend, has a right to demand that this not be deeply appreciated by their partner, though it will often be expressed through the sensual or sexual admiration of someone outside of the relationship.  The life-giving freedom from legalism and emotionalism does not destroy marriages.  Unnecessary secrets and an unwillingness to discover and live in light of reality can easily devastate romantic partnerships of any duration.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-liberating-nature-of-divorce-in.html