luminos

I can explain it for you but I can't understand it for you. You don't want to know what I am saying. You quoted me and then I assumed I meant the exact opposite of the quote. You aren't even trying. Not even a little bit

Social power derives from society itself. And no, I am not really interested in talking about social power by itself. That would be a different topic, and not one I'd discuss in the present context. I talk about it here merely to say that it is A.) Different from the law B.) That the law is from a deeper foundation that, and therefore cannot be dependent upon social power.

You somehow read what I said and managed to think I said the complete opposite. The law does not derive from social power. I explicitly rejected that.

I am going to go ahead and throw out a rough definition of what I say law is. I know that some of you think this definition is incorrect, you don't need to tell me again. I'm doing this so it can be clear where we contrast. "Laws are the rules and procedures that society uses to determine whether a person is acting appropriately as a member of that society, and correct inappropriate behavior when necessary. " Power and authority play a role in law because they play a role in how society organizes itself, but ultimately, laws come from the same place that social power does. So it is very possible to obtain social power, but you are still relying on the foundation beneath that power and thus law is something that you do not directly control

Laws tend to be enforceable, though there will be exceptions of course. Are you sure you wish to state that anything which is enforceable is a law? That would make it seem that the schoolyard bully who picks on someone weaker is enacting law in doing so. I understand if that was not your argument, but if it is I want to make note of it

Thats... actually an interesting way to look at it. I can see it.

This definition is too general to say which one of us is correct. Can an absolute monarch be in violation of the law? I say yes, others say no. I think the definition can suit either argument. Which is the flaw of using dictionary definitions for philosophical debates. Dictionaries tell us what something is used to mean with enough precision to capture a large range of subtleties. They don't tell us which philosophy has the correct understanding when more precise terms are required

But we are disagreeing on basic premises. If you are denying my conclusions, you haven't advanced an argument, you are just repeating the fact that we disagree. Which I am happy to acknowledge.

This is a fundamental disagreement. Law is not whatever the strongest bully says it is. And I don't think the Skybreakers are the correct order to follow such a vision, if their rationale is that laws must be followed because human discernment is too easily deceived.

I think we just understand their oaths differently. Thats cool. Maybe my opinion is idiosyncratic. Hopefully I've expressed it well enough to say.

It is absolutely a flaw to uphold justice and the law, while neglecting mercy. The Skybreakers lack mercy, and this would be an excellent way to depict the failings of those who only care about the law. The only thing that is missing is that the Skybreakers don't care about the law either. They behave too much like real law enforcers, who swear oaths, but have greater loyalty to fraternity than the oaths they swore

I kind of doubt Sanderson pulled his idea for the Skybreakers out of the aether, without attempting to portray them as a version of a real world ideology. There words show an awareness of this ideology. There actions do not. I am disappointed that no one seems to care about the distinction.

I definitely do not hold the same beliefs that the Skybreakers do. But I do hold the beliefs the Skybreakers espouse. I am trying to show that the two are incompatible

I think the disconnect I'm having with some of these responses is the assumption that law descends from people in positions of power. But this does not work either in the real world or in the context of what the Skybreakers claim to believe. If law is a bulwark against human fallibility, it cannot be the mere whims of a tyrant. It has to be based on principles that derive not just from power or social influence, but something fundamental. If someone follows the law to the point of madness, they might be willing to destroy society for the sake of upholding the conventions that society has agreed to follow for the sake of maintaining order. But they would not be willing to uphold the will of a conqueror who considered conventions to be an obstacle to his rule.

I did not downvote you accidentally or otherwise. I find these Karma systems to be toxic and repulsive. I know you don't believe me, but I posted this topic solely to state an opinion, not to jockey for social status. And I do feel bad that my post came off as being aggressive and aimed to you. I do argue aggressively, but its meant as a rhetorical tool rather than something personal