CameronUluvara

alright. Brandon said SM contained spoilers for SA5, so we know at least some of what Sigzil did happened during this next book. In RoW, Kaladin said he thought several members of Bridge 4 were close to the 4th, but were holding back out of some weird deference to him. So I'm assuming several Windrunners will have Plate almost immediately into KoWaT, and among them Sigzil. We know he has to reach the 4th before switching over to Skybreaker (if he even did switch) because he had two plates to intermingle, so this significantly shortens the timeline. He can switch/take the dawnshard at any time. The dawnshard leaves Wit incapable of causing physical harm to any one else. However, Wit has been gathering magic systems and is now quite powerful outside of the dawnshard power. So my theory is that something happens in KoWaT that convinces him he really needs to get involved, and he gives away the dawnshard to Sigzil so that he can interfere in the Contest of Champions. Thus, Sigzil "saved the cosmere" in Wit's perspective by helping Wit keep Todium contained. Sigzil no longer holds the Dawnshard. He gave it away after a short time. I'm assuming he gave it to someone on Roshar. I'm also assuming that this someone is Kaladin. (Kaladin is also the other member of Bridge 4 that Brandon describes as "hoid-touched") Sigzil has been running for like, a hundred years at this point. But he briefly thinks he sees Kaladin on Canticle, which would be impossible unless Sigzil knew that Kaladin was also long-lived and had the ability to travel around because of the Dawnshard. I also think its real dumb that Kaladin would be able to do anything to help Ishar help Dalinar with his new therapy knowledge, or even by swearing the 5th ideal (which he probably knows and is probably some variation of "Sometimes I have to protect myself) but with a Dawnshard he probably could help with Ishar's Spiritual problems. Alternatly, Sigzil gave the Dawnshard back to Hoid or to someone else and Kaladin got spiked by the Night Brigade. I saw the theory somewhere, can't remember, that the Night Brigade must have spiked someone close to Sigzil to gain a Connection that allows them to always follow him everywhere. This also feeds into Sigzil never going back to Roshar because he's afraid the Night Brigade will hurt the people he loves. Either Kaladin got spiked a bunch and is controlled somehow, and Sigzil thought he saw Kaladin on Canticle because Kaladin has been chasing him this whole time, or they spiked and killed him, and Sigzil's just being wishful. And, if the Night Brigade killed Kaladin, then Sigzil would be in charge of the Windrunners, and in SM he talks about how some disaster happened while he was in charge of the Windrunners. And if that was just him being melodramatic about the Urithiru invasion, I'll eat my hat. Another thing is, Sigzil doesn't seem to have abandoned his Windrunner oaths for Skybreaker oaths. I think, in KoWaT, Honor got hurt real bad, like maybe Splintered or Shattered, so bad that Windrunners don't exist anymore, because there's no more surge of Adhesion, or all the Honorspren got killed. If Sigzil had simply Recreanced his honorspren, he'd still have the Blade. But he doesn't. He only has his windspren plate and Auxiliary. I think somehow all the Windrunners got poofed and they had to go join other orders or other spren started trying to fulfill the honerspren role. In SM, we never see Auxiliary encouraging Sigzil to fulfill some ideal of justice or the law; it's always about protecting people. And he talks about highspren changing. So I think, even though Auxiliary is a highspren, he's acting kind of as Sigzil's honorspren. Another thing for this is that Sigzil never tries to use or even thinks about how useful it would be to have Division or Adhesion-he's only worried about Gravitation. Because he's still a Windrunner, not a Skybreaker, so he never had access to Division and Adhesion went poof somehow. wow I don't know if any of that makes sense. So what I'm thinking for SA5 is Sigzil swears his 4th, gains the dawnshard, Wit uses his new freedom to do something probably terrible and he "watches the world burn to get what he wants", Sigzil gives the dawnshard away, Honor is broken/Adhesion is gone/the honorspren all die(or are turned in humans via Ishar's experiments-remember, they lasted the longest), then other true spren start trying to replace the honorspren, somehow through swearing Windrunner oaths, they bond the old Windrunners to keep the order alive, Auxiliary bonds Sigzil, the Night Brigade shows up on Roshar and kills someone Sigzil loves/spikes someone Connected to him, and Sigzil starts skipping.

Hey you’re in the wrong topic. Try the Reading Excuses forum.

Because he has an ulterior motive that means he doesn’t care if she dies as long as he gets what he wants. Personally, I don’t think that matters because she knows that and doesn’t care. They’re both using each other, which isn’t the healthiest relationship, but not the worst either.

I don’t think this is a spoiler, just a little cultural quirk that Brandon only answers outside of the books. It’s not really addressed, just one offhand comment in a much later book, so I’ll just tell you—it’s just a human habit of attributing deity to natural forces. Like the Greeks with Gaia and the Egyptians with Ra. The Stormfather is the Stormfather. Jezerezeh is different, but it’s all mostly myth by now, so sometimes the lower, uneducated classes take the most powerful force in their lives and attribute it to the most powerful being they’ve heard in stories. It confused me too for a long time.

I always saw it as more of a rejection of the lighteyes, which he associates with shardblades. To him, refusing the shardblade is a refusal to treat life with callousness, not about rejecting power.

There turn out to be some other reasons that make rejecting the blade a good idea.

But they’re exact opposites in every physical description.

Catholicism does teach a personal relationship with God. But on the scale, it falls a lot closer to Judaism than, say, Puritanism. It’s gotten better since the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, but there’s still a lot that goes through the priests. I point this out simply because Vorinism is supposed to mirror, in some ways, Catholicism, especially around the time of the Crusades. Throughout Sanderson’s books, you can find a representation of almost any kind of religion.

Christian doctrine teaches that when Jesus died on the cross, the temple veil between the holy place and the holiest of holies was torn completely in half from top to bottom. This is symbolic of the way all can now come before God because Jesus died as sacrifice for the world’s sins, and humanity is now no longer too impure to stand in God’s presence. Because of this, most Christian sects focus on the idea of a personal relationship with God by talking to him directly (through prayer), but you’ll find this idea much more common among Protestant and Apostolic denominations, not Catholic or Mormon.

Gaz just owes him money; it’s not a bribe.

Didn't time the others, but I read Oathbringer in six hours. Got it Christmas morning and didn't put it down.

How can you say that murder is bad if you haven't first established that life is good? Your position does require us to talk about the worth of a soul and a bunch of other metaphysical things. But the point of the parable is to look at like a king. To take the ultimate authority into your hands and make a decision that best for your country, not wash your hands of the matter and sit back. It's not a moral dilemma. It's a problem that demands a solution, and you're the one responsible. It's insulting in the sense that your words mirrored the "religious people mindlessly follow a cult leader" insult. And as for your views on religion, how can you say that it isn't about trying to discover the big whys of life just like everything else? What do you think religion is, seriously? And on that note, who taught you philosophy? How can you say that philosophies aren't about focusing on the results of actions while talking about Consequentialism in the same breath? What philosophy that's applicable to this parable doesn't determine the morality of actions by their effect on others? Nihilism and Existentialism are irrelevant. Stoicism is an individually focused way of life. In Hedonism we see the roots of Utilitarianism, and in that are the roots of Consequentialism. And if you're fond of Relativism, then there's no reason for this debate at all! If you're make a claim like that, I'd sure like some evidence. No, of course not. I'm not talking about 'shopping around.' What I mean is....uh...for example, if, after great study and debate of John 3, you come to the conclusion that Jesus' response is a clarification of his first answer, you're likely Baptist. But, if you believe it's in answer the Nicodemus's questions, you're more likely Presbyterian or Episcopalian. It's not about choosing what you like the most, it's about people examining the same facts and coming to different conclusions. And people will always come to very different conclusions from the same facts. What I'm saying is that religion is more organized than philosophy. With a single label, you can communicate your views on your most important beliefs, while the name of a philosophy still open to individual interpretation. Like the Util controversy I mentioned before. I know most people think it's opposite, but just because there's more religions doesn't mean they aren't organized and thoughtful and logical, especially in their disagreement. Returned, I turn the question back to you, because I've answered it. What guides you? Do you believe that there is an ultimate authority or objective morality and what is it? If your assertion is that my solution is immoral because it punishes an innocent, tell me what you judge morality by besides your own feelings. You say morality applies to this parable. You say morality exists outside of religion. You say nothing is more important to a moral framework than the question of why. So what (besides your own feelings, as you've acknowledged that if nothing but feelings were expressed, there would be no room for meaningful debate) is the why that makes you believe you believe your path is moral?

…what? I thought we were talking about philosophical morality versus religious morality. One is 'practical' and deals with the actions that must be taken to fulfil the morality of whatever that philosophy has set forth as the ultimate good, and the other has to have long-winded debates over a lot of metaphysical things like the worth of a soul before eventually deciding that no one has the authority to do anything. You said that about judging between them: No, never said we couldn't debate over gods. I majored in debating over gods. It's fun and a lot more fruitful than morality. Just like any other framework, the highest moral good is established and then actions are weighed and debated over accordingly. Religion is a lot easier than philosophy because it's a lot more definable and structured. The major issues are set out, and you if you disagree, you go to a different religion. None of this "John Locke Utilitarianism or Jeremy Bentham?" The reason I say morality can't be judged except by religion is because of stuff like that. Philosophical morality is so individual that at the very end of it all, every debate will boil down to "I feel differently than you." That's why I say any morality or philosophy that isn't extremely practical and concrete doesn't have a place in an argument over law and punishment. If you want to make it really fun, I'll take a religious side in this argument instead of a philosophical one. Yes, I'm kidding. Mostly. Okay...insulting to religion and religious people, but okay. I understand that argument too, though I strongly disagree. In fact, I'd say it's the opposite: Religion focuses on the why of what we do and what we should do while Philosophy is man-centric and focused on judging the results of actions based on how they affect others. Thought this proof was more widely known and used. Oh well.

Now you've switched arguments. You're giving the same 'practicality' you didn't like from me. But then again, you've undermined the whole point of this discussion by saying there is no objective morality. In that case, if the Lord believed he did right by his own subjective morality, he's moral, and that'd be the end of it! Without at least a belief that objective morality exists, all debate of morality would be meaningless. By the way, I could prove that objective morality necessitates the existence of a higher being, but it'd be a lot of ask-and-answer that's really not suited to either the point of this thread or the style of online debate. I find Consequentialism to be close-minded. And yes, I did establish 'the good of the whole' as the frame by which I was judging, and explained why all others are far more difficult to tie down. Any others we'd spend more time arguing about the definition of the framework than how to fulfill it. What makes you say we can't judge within religions, or between them? And when I use the word religion, I do intend it with all of its baggage and connotations. I understand your argument at the same time that I think it's ignorant of the workings of theology and of the philosophies that attempt to explain or dictate morality. But since we both agree that we should establish a frame by which to judge morality, what frame would you have?

Whoa, whoa, whoa! How does that become Nihilism? No, forget it, That's not a question. The idea of morality only being able to be judged when the method of judgement ( the 'religion') is agreed upon is a perfectly sound idea and in no way insinuates that nothing matters. But the existence of morality does automatically prove the existence of a higher being of some kind. There's a logical proof for that. It doesn't mean that if you don't believe in God, you don't believe in morality, but it does mean that if you believe in objective morality, you believe something judges this or knows the ultimate right and wrong. I'm simply saying that things like 'what is a life worth?' or 'who has the power to punish who?' aren't questions that can be answered without first establishing a frame by which to judge. That's why, unless you're in a uniformly religious society, or, have the power to exert your personal religious beliefs over the others, the solution that's the most practical or dare I say, Utilitarian, is the one that's best for the society. That's why morality has no real bearing on this situation.