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

Okay, part 3 -The Loopholes chapter was pretty satisfying, both as storytelling as well as showing what I think the correct behavior of Skybreakers should be. Szeth did not find loopholes, he simply followed the rules, but that is so minor a quibble it can basically be ignored. -The thing that Skybreakers seems to actually care about is not law or justice, but power. They serve whatever or whoever is powerful enough to force their own arbitrary desires on others. Someone with a commitment to procedural justice would not serve power blindly, but sometimes defy it on the grounds that those holding positions of authority were in defiance of the law. A Skybreaker is someone who should be concerned that the ultimate legal authority correctly interprets the law, not merely that they claim to do so. -I don't think Sanderson has a genuine understanding of the position he is attempting to portray, as it does not match what I have encountered in myself or others who actually hold the beliefs that Nale advocates. I applaud him for trying, and recognize that creative work involves trying to portray an incredible number of people who hold positions and ideals that you do not truly understand. -Szeth saying an oath to follow Dalinar is pretty much the most horrifying thing a person can do. It is a complete betrayal of law and order, and a devotion only to people wielding powerful influence. Szeth and the Skybreakers are not lawmen, they are toadies.

I am not saying you are nonsensical. I am stating my argument in strong terms because I think the strong position I am taking is correct. I am sorry if this came across as a personal attack, it was not meant that way. I don't intend to hide my true meaning behind soothing words, but I also don't intend to be a jerk. I will endeavor to present my argument more carefully though, if that helps

Yeah, there is precedent. To an extent, its easy to understand this is being an extension of Nale's madness, since he clearly has something messing with his sense of right and wrong, and this affects his ability to be just. And the Skybreakers follow him, so they will reflect his flaws to a degree. I think things don't actually go off the rails too badly until this book. Here, we have Nale and other Skybreakers give a reasonably good description of the commitment to procedural justice, and a justification for why someone would want to do that. But the cases where it is supposedly applied are all bizarrely off the mark. It no longer looks like they have a corrupt form of justice, but that what they say is unconnected to what they do.

Cool, I'll stop telling you my opinion

Thats nonsensical. Are you saying that this country has a law so badly written that if any prisoner escaped, for any reason, the administrator would be guilty and subject to execution? At the very least, we aren't told this is the case, so assuming it is a big stretch. But even making this assumption, this points to a bigger problem. Heres a hint: Suppose a country passed a law saying that if a person urinates in public, all foreign dignitaries are to be executed. Would a skybreaker be upholding the law if they started executing random foreign dignitaries on such an occasion? (Extra hint: What makes something a law, as distinguished from an arbitrary proclamation issued by someone with a high opinion of themselves?)

Part 2 The second case I want to examine is that of Singers vs. Voidbringers. When it becomes public knowledge that the Singers are just trying to reclaim land that was once theirs, Nale (and by extension most of the Skybreaker order) reasons that they have to serve Odium now, because he leads the singers, and they have a right to their ancient lands. To their credit, Nale does at least try to reason by way of analogy to determine that ownership is legally due to the Parsh. And further, Nale is definitely crazy, so its okay if we find gaping holes in his logic. But there is still a massive flaw here. The parsh do not have a legal claim. They have a moral, or ethical, or sentimental claim. But it never rises to the level of a claim that has legal establishment. Laws are super messy. You can have all sorts of laws that are arbitrary, or unjust, or just weird. But its not an actual law until its actually established. I do in fact think the Parsh deserve a good bit of what they are fighting for. But this misses the legal side of the question, which is not about what should happen, but about resolving disputed claims. The humans also have a claim to the same land on the very practical principle of "we've been holding onto it for a while, so that makes it ours". It is not a morally satisfying position, but in terms of purely procedural justice, it is a position that has to be respected to a certain degree. And this is where I think the Skybreakers completely betray any commitment to procedural justice they claim to support. Someone who is committed the law in a procedural sense does not care if they think their client is guilty. In fact, they are bound by oaths to completely disregard their opinion on whether or not their client deserves to be sentenced or not. The only thing that matters is representing them fairly in a purely procedural manner. Any advocate who abandoned a client and joined the opposing side because conclusive evidence showed wrongdoing on the part of their client would be a traitor to justice. They would not only be scorned by their friends and allies, but even the opponents that they sought to join would reject them completely for such a crass abandonment of justice. And yet, the order of Skybreakers does this almost to a man. The laws of the kingdoms of men are their clients, which they have sworn to represent dispassionately, without regard to whether those laws are wrong or right. And yet when evidence comes out that those laws have a poor foundation, they abandon them completely. Now of course, all justices, all officers of the law, and all advocates will interpret the laws differently. It is not a failure of procedural justice that two well informed and intelligent people can see the same set of laws in the same circumstances, and arrive at very different ideas of how those laws should be applied in the purely procedural sense of "should". So of course, if some Skybreakers reasoned that they should be advocates of Parsh laws, I'd respect that, and even consider it a good portrayal of the Skybreaker cause. But the fact that they all as a unit make this decision shows that they are actually being guided by a separate principle, one that is not based on justice. And I will discuss that next.

Okay, but that falls under case B, where it was unlawful for them to execute the administrator. The best case I can make on behalf of the Skybreaker position is: Letting prisoners be malnourished and poorly managed is lawful, up until the point where such neglect gives them the opportunity to escape. The escape is not a case of the administrator breaking the law, but it does constitute evidence that his prior actions crossed the line. This is iffy, but can work. The problem is that we have to assemble this scenario from our own fanciful interpretations, rather than facts as they are presented. But it might be fine. Sanderson did a poor job of presenting the scenario in a way that made sense, but thats an issue of presentation and not the underlying scenario

Oathbringer is amazing, but I am disappointed by how the Skybreakers were portrayed throughout the book. We are told that they only care about following and enforcing the laws, because they cannot let their own personal opinions guide their course. In essence, they are supposed to be champions of a purely procedural type of justice, sometimes to the point of madness. Instead, they turn out to be pretty false in this regard. And I don't think this is a case of an intentional contrast. I think Sanderson just failed to portray what a commitment to procedural justice is actually like. There are two parts that illustrate this fairly well. The first is the test that the apprentices are given with the escaped prisoners. The twist is supposed to be that the guy in charge of the prison is the most guilty. This is messed up in a number of ways, and thats actually fine, because it is clear that its supposed to show us the way that pure devotion to procedural justice is perverted. The Skybreakers don't care about the suffering that has been caused, they just care about the follow through that they execute as a result of that suffering. They aren't really interested in good or evil either. But the details of this case are perverse in exactly the wrong way. In spite of how they justify themselves, this is not a defense of procedural justice, but arbitrary cruelty in defiance of procedure. The problem is that the administrator is not executed for breaking a law. Case A: The administrator's neglect of the prison is unlawful, and merits legal intervention. In which case the lawman who knows ahead of time of the administrators malfeasance, but allows it to continue to make his own job easier later on, has become complicit in that neglect, and has abandoned the law. The after the fact execution of the administrator does not resolve this, but compounds the legal injustice. Wanton cruelty has been tacitly allowed not to uphold the law, but to subvert it. Case B: The administrator, though evil, is not doing anything illegal in the technical sense. Which is the only sense that matters from a zealot of pure procedure who does not do compromise. His execution does not serve a legal purpose, but rather an extra-legal moral one. The Skybreakers would only have the fact that the admin was evil and that his actions caused a great deal of harm as their reason for killing him. But again, this is not what their oaths tell them to do. In fact, they would be bound by those oaths to protect the admin, at least legally, in spite of the loathing they feel about him. In my next post, I'll go over the second case that shows the Skybreakers don't care about Justice, which is the stronger example in my mind. In my third post, I'll examine what I think Sanderson got right, what I think the Skybreakers are really about, and ask a few pointed questions aimed at the writer and proofreaders who apparently all missed this.

More or less. I'd say Investiture is a bit more generalized than that. If I have it correct, its something along the lines of being all manifestations of a shards power across all 3 realms. Spiritual realm is kinda sorta the platonic heaven of ideas, whereas cognitive realm is where those ideas are mediated and reflected back by the minds perception of the physical realm. I have no idea what to make of "visiting" the cognitive realm, since that would seem to create a regress (is there a realm that has the ideas formed by people perceiving in the cognitive realm? A meta cognitive realm?)

I was blown away by this book. So satisfying on a number of levels. I honestly had forgotten how much fun it was to follow Kelsier's exploits. Maybe we'll get secret history part 2, because he is honestly way more interesting than any character in the alloy series (yes, even Wayne). @Bruhsam: Don't let being alone get you down. I'm pretty sure I'm the only sharder that thoroughly hated Shadows of Self. Its cool to have a dissenting opinion, this place gets annoying when everyone is busy agreeing with each other.