Philosophy Behind Hemalurgy (spoilers)

[Ursus]

First, I'd like to apologize in advance for my shortcomings in knowledge as well as proper forum etiquette I'm fairly new to forums, as well as Sanderson's work.

I read somewhere (if I recall correctly, the dust flap of a hardwood copy of one of the Mistborn novels) that Sanderson stated that hemalurgy isn't inherently evil. This is what I'd like to discuss.

Throughout the Brandonothology I've read that hemalurgy splits a part of the (we'll call him the victim) victim's soul and leeches power from that soul fragment in the form of a hemalurgic investment. Now, realistically I don't know how I'd go about discussing a 'soul-halfling' so I'll discuss what is commonly portrayed in the Mistborn trilogy as 'messy'-- killing of victim A to endow victim B.

How is this not evil? I think most people would agree that the taking of one's life is evil.

However, I do see the point that hemalurgy is simply a tool, like a hammer: it can be used to construct or destroy. From a utilitarian standpoint, if we assume the cost of a law-enforcer is 10 hemalurgic spikes, if that law enforcer uses those powers endowed 'messily' to protect or save more than 10 lives, haven't we done the Good thing? Rather than Evil?

Just some ideas to discuss. Again, I apologize for any infringement upon proper forum posting or the rules of this absurd language we call English.

--That weird guy no one knows anything about, Gemmel.

[FlashWrogan]

Welcome to the forums! It is a good point. The only thing that specifically comes to mind for me is the point that Ruin is not inherently evil. He is chaotic and destructive, and most humans would regard him as evil, but he is kind of necessary for change. In the same way hemalurgy isn't innately evil. A person could voluntarily give up their life to give someone their power, thus making the transfer of power marked by sacrifice and honor as opposed to violent. Another point to consider is whether hemalurgy has become less "messy" in the AoL era. Wayne's interaction with the Path suggests that hemalurgic spikes might have a different nature at this point.

[Kurkistan]

Just a note on Pathians: They're earrings (or at least Wax's) are made from melted down Inquisitor spikes.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Kurkistan

[Ursus]

The only thing that specifically comes to mind for me is the point that Ruin is not inherently evil. He is chaotic and destructive, and most humans would regard him as evil, but he is kind of necessary for change. In the same way hemalurgy isn't innately evil.

Thanks for the constructive reply!

This is what I'm thinking:

If Ruin isn't evil, Ati was evil. I'll discuss how this is a contradiction:

Ati was a human and the original holder of the Shard Ruin.

The corpse of Ati is said to have had red hair.

Ati became the Shardholder for Ruin through unknown means. He was originally a kind and generous person, but over the course of holding Ruin he was twisted into a merciless destroyer of worlds. He was killed by Vin when she sacrificed herself for that purpose. This enabled Sazed to take the shards Ruin and Preservation, becoming Harmony.

Link to Coppermind article.

1. So, it says that (bolded above) that he became a merciless destroyer of worlds. Implying that there could be a merciless as well as a merciful version of Ruin.

(Tell me if this becomes a Slippery Slope Fallacy)

2. If Ati was a kind and generous person before, what made him 'twisted and merciless'? Personally I think within the powers of chaos and destruction there is something inherently evil, even if it is necessary for change. I think that's what made Ati 'twist' into the malevolent destroyer we saw, rather than a generous destroyer.

3. Imagine a kid taking his Lego apart. He can take the apart peacefully or he could thrash them about mercilessly. But, I don't think that at the very principle of Ruin's power he could be merciful, I think that the only way we can see this is through Harmony. I think that Ruin itself, the power, is evil in its very nature.

A person could voluntarily give up their life to give someone their power, thus making the transfer of power marked by sacrifice and honor as opposed to violent.

This is an interesting idea to entertain, I could see Sanderson using this in another religion within AoL.

Another point to consider is whether hemalurgy has become less "messy" in the AoL era. Wayne's interaction with the Path suggests that hemalurgic spikes might have a different nature at this point.

I think you mean Waxillium instead of Wayne, and this is addressed by Kurkistan.

Just some ideas to discuss. Again, I apologize for any infringement upon proper forum posting or the rules of this absurd language we call English.

--That weird guy no one knows anything about, Gemmel.

[Kurkistan]

If Ruin isn't evil, Ati was evil. I'll discuss how this is a contradiction:

Ati was tragically twisted by Ruin's Intent into being destructive. He was not the cause of that "evil," and his version of Ruin was probably one of the "nicer" ones you could have hoped for, since the shardholder does shape the Shard a bit. We know his nature from outside the books you've read, so you'll have to trust me on this.

Link to Coppermind article.

1. So, it says that (bolded above) that he became a merciless destroyer of worlds. Implying that there could be a merciless as well as a merciful version of Ruin.

(Tell me if this becomes a Slippery Slope Fallacy)

That's a summary done by one of us, and exaggerates/simplifies a bit. It's not exactly the firmest basis for spinning out a theory.

2. If Ati was a kind and generous person before, what made him 'twisted and merciless'? Personally I think within the powers of chaos and destruction there is something inherently evil, even if it is necessary for change. I think that's what made Ati 'twist' into the malevolent destroyer we saw, rather than a generous destroyer.

Taking the quote at face value, Ruin has as much mercy as a storm or the law of entropy: he exists outside of the realm of morality, as a force of nature. He is "merciless" because he has no capacity for value-laden actions--is not capable of expressing mercy--not because he actively practices anti-mercy policies.

3. Imagine a kid taking his Lego apart. He can take the apart peacefully or he could thrash them about mercilessly. But, I don't think that at the very principle of Ruin's power he could be merciful, I think that the only way we can see this is through Harmony. I think that Ruin itself, the power, is evil in its very nature.

Mercy: "Compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm." Ruin has no incentive to Preserve the life of something that he can destroy unless that preservation furthers some greater destruction (ala Inquisitors).

As it is, Ruin's agents are somewhat sadistic because he has limited power, and is reduced to constructing a legion of Lego-killing Legos with only the most basic ability to influence their behavior when he is not directly controlling them. Ruin, then, taps into human evil as the easiest way to achieve his goals with limited power.

Just some ideas to discuss. Again, I apologize for any infringement upon proper forum posting or the rules of this absurd language we call English.

--That weird guy no one knows anything about, Gemmel.

Don't worry: You haven't managed to mortally offend me yet.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Kurkistan

[Ursus]

Ati was tragically twisted by Ruin's Intent into being destructive. He was not the cause of that "evil," and his version of Ruin was probably one of the "nicer" ones you could have hoped for, since the shardholder does shape the Shard a bit. We know his nature from outside the books you've read, so you'll have to trust me on this.

Where can I learn more?

Taking the quote at face value, Ruin has as much mercy as a storm or the law of entropy: he exists outside of the realm of morality, as a force of nature. He is "merciless" because he has no capacity for value-laden actions--is not capable of expressing mercy--not because he actively practices anti-mercy policies.

Makes sense, but he is sentient and thus has capability of choice, does that not make his choice of merciless actions a basis for morality?

As it is, Ruin's agents are somewhat sadistic because he has limited power, and is reduced to constructing a legion of Lego-killing Legos with only the most basic ability to influence their behavior when he is not directly controlling them. Ruin, then, taps into human evil as the easiest way to achieve his goals with limited power.

I love this! This is my kind of thinking. +1 But again, by employing evil, does that not make Ruin evil?

Don't worry: You haven't managed to mortally offend me yet.

It will never be my intent to do so, so if I do, let me know.

Just some ideas to discuss. Again, I apologize for any infringement upon proper forum posting or the rules of this absurd language we call English.

--That weird guy no one knows anything about, Gemmel.

[Kurkistan]

Where can I learn more?

Sure you want to know? Spoilers and whatnot.

Makes sense, but he is sentient and thus has capability of choice, does that not make his choice of merciless actions a basis for morality?

...

I love this! This is my kind of thinking. +1 But again, by employing evil, does that not make Ruin evil?

I'll appeal to Blue and Orange Morality on this one. Ruin is sentient, but he's akin to an intelligent AI who's ultimate purpose in life is to create paperclips.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Kurkistan

[Ursus]

Sure you want to know? Spoilers and whatnot.

Don't tell me the answer, but where to find it?

I'll appeal to Blue and Orange Morality on this one. Ruin is sentient, but he's akin to an intelligent AI who's ultimate purpose in life is to create paperclips.

Ah, okay. So because he is ruin, it's 'good' for him to commit acts of Ruin? What I'm getting from your comment is that Ruin's standard of morality is different than ours, right?

Also, thanks for putting up with all of my misunderstandings, I appreciate your patience

--Gemmel

[Kurkistan]

Don't tell me the answer, but where to find it?

That specific bit of intel was gleaned from the epigraphs of a section of The Way of Kings. Link to the full text of the epigraphs here.

Ah, okay. So because he is ruin, it's 'good' for him to commit acts of Ruin? What I'm getting from your comment is that Ruin's standard of morality is different than ours, right?

More like he doesn't have morality, I would say. It's just what he does. Grass grows, birds fly, sun shines, and Ruin, he Ruins people. He's

. If you were from where he was from, you'd be storming dead! (Possibly on that last one, we're not sure what happened when Adonalsium shattered).

Also, thanks for putting up with all of my misunderstandings, I appreciate your patience

--Gemmel

No problem. Better to ask questions than not.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Kurkistan

[Observer]

Don't forget that, though Ati was kind and generous, good intentions can quite often lead to percieved evil. We know very little of personally of AtiRuin, and it's quite possible he was working towards what was once a good motive, but was corrupted for Ruination. You forget, he was on the same planet as his polar opposite. His Shard's intent would be spazzing out trying to get rid of his enemy, and leaving Preservation alone would be beyond Ati's power. Maybe Ati wanted to go find his other shardic buddies, but doing so required killing Preservation? What was once potentially an innocent idea corrupted into the destruction of a world. The power of intent could very possibly block of certain thoughts from every reaching you in order to keep itself going, almost on a Spider Man symbiote level (Super geeky reference, sorry :/).

TL;DR: He might have had good intentions, but the presence of Preservation and the intent screwed it all up.

[Kurkistan]

Don't forget that, though Ati was kind and generous, good intentions can quite often lead to percieved evil. We know very little of personally of AtiRuin, and it's quite possible he was working towards what was once a good motive, but was corrupted for Ruination. You forget, he was on the same planet as his polar opposite. His Shard's intent would be spazzing out trying to get rid of his enemy, and leaving Preservation alone would be beyond Ati's power. Maybe Ati wanted to go find his other shardic buddies, but doing so required killing Preservation? What was once potentially an innocent idea corrupted into the destruction of a world. The power of intent could very possibly block of certain thoughts from every reaching you in order to keep itself going, almost on a Spider Man symbiote level (Super geeky reference, sorry :/).

TL;DR: He might have had good intentions, but the presence of Preservation and the intent screwed it all up.

I think you're applying too much agency/completeness to Ati's personality within Ati!Ruin. It might be something more like how TLR was gradually corrupted, simply becoming a more "ruinous" person through and through, but I don't think that there is any "good" version of Ati rattling around in there with pure motivations trying to make things right.

I can't find a source for the life of me, but I recall that the Intent of a Shard basically warps the mind of its holder completely, to the point where Brandon doesn't even like our term "Shardholder" because he doesn't see a real distinction. If I recall, the Shardholder has a small influence on how the intent is interpretted, but they're consciousness is largely subsumed in the overall Shardic intent. So it's more so Ati changing so that he wants to Ruin things than Ati trying to do something other than Ruining but causing Ruinous results because his mind is being messed with.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Kurkistan

[Ursus]

Don't forget that, though Ati was kind and generous, good intentions can quite often lead to percieved evil. We know very little of personally of AtiRuin, and it's quite possible he was working towards what was once a good motive, but was corrupted for Ruination. You forget, he was on the same planet as his polar opposite. His Shard's intent would be spazzing out trying to get rid of his enemy, and leaving Preservation alone would be beyond Ati's power. Maybe Ati wanted to go find his other shardic buddies, but doing so required killing Preservation? What was once potentially an innocent idea corrupted into the destruction of a world. The power of intent could very possibly block of certain thoughts from every reaching you in order to keep itself going, almost on a Spider Man symbiote level (Super geeky reference, sorry :/).

TL;DR: He might have had good intentions, but the presence of Preservation and the intent screwed it all up.

I'm fairly new to the forums and cosmere as well as Sanderson in general, so here are some questions (I apologize if this is the wrong place to post this, but I feel justified in doing so because this forum topic's topic is slightly shifting towards cosmere.

This leads me to wonder what the objectives of the shards are. Is it the perpetual [insert verb relating to shard ie: preserve, ruin, endow] until there's nothing to [verb]?

When will the shards be satisfied? Never? Perhaps when there is balance established? Ie: Harmony? (This probably sheds some light on my lack of knowledge of cosmere, the nature of the shards and their shattering as well as WoK)

--Gemmel

Edit: removed mistyped exclamation mark.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Gemmel

[Observer]

-snip-

Hum, I guess that's a better idea. As you progress, you can influence the shardic intent, but the longer you hold it the less your interpretation matters and the more general the meanings become. Eventually your entire personality is eroded and all that is left is a force of nature with a mind.

I like it better.

[FlashWrogan]

I'm fairly new to the forums and cosmere as well as Sanderson in general, so here are some questions (I apologize if this is the wrong place to post this, but I feel justified in doing so because this forum topic's topic is slightly shifting towards cosmere.

This leads me to wonder what the objectives of the shards are. Is it the perpetual [insert verb relating to shard ie: preserve, ruin, endow] until there's nothing to [verb]?

When will the shards be satisfied? Never? Perhaps when there is balance established? Ie: Harmony? (This probably sheds some light on my lack of knowledge of cosmere, the nature of the shards and their shattering as well as WoK)

--Gemmel

Edit: removed mistyped exclamation mark.

I really like these questions, and have never really considered it from that perspective. It made me think of homeostasis systems in the body, and therefore made me equate the conflicts in the cosmere with a body that is way out of whack. All the stories are just the restoring of homeostasis . I would say that Shards never stop doing what they are doing, but depending on the intent that can lead to more "balance" or more chaos. Preservation for instance could keep doing what it does unopposed into eternity and no one would really mind. I imagine we might see similar scenarios with Endowment, Devotion, Honor, and Cultivation. I would say in general that the only balancing there is, is that of other Shards.

On the earlier discussion, I would agree with the depiction of Ruin as an intelligent storm. He is an organized chaos-causer and nothing else. He doesn't deal in good and evil, just ruining things.

[Ursus]

I really like these questions, and have never really considered it from that perspective. It made me think of homeostasis systems in the body, and therefore made me equate the conflicts in the cosmere with a body that is way out of whack. All the stories are just the restoring of homeostasis . I would say that Shards never stop doing what they are doing, but depending on the intent that can lead to more "balance" or more chaos. Preservation for instance could keep doing what it does unopposed into eternity and no one would really mind. I imagine we might see similar scenarios with Endowment, Devotion, Honor, and Cultivation. I would say in general that the only balancing there is, is that of other Shards.

On the earlier discussion, I would agree with the depiction of Ruin as an intelligent storm. He is an organized chaos-causer and nothing else. He doesn't deal in good and evil, just ruining things.

Is this a valid enough question/idea to start a thread in the Cosmere forums?

--Gemmel

[Kurkistan]

Is this a valid enough question/idea to start a thread in the Cosmere forums?

--Gemmel

I would heavily suggest that you read every Cosmere book before even thinking of thinking of looking at those forums.

[Thought]

How is this not evil? I think most people would agree that the taking of one's life is evil.

You can steal an attribute from an animal. Is that significantly different than eating meat, which most people don't consider evil?

What if Hemalurgy was used as a form of capitol punishment? Someone's convicted of a particularly heinous crime, and they are sentenced to death by spike, with the resulting tool being used for the good of society.

Hmm... Spike Guns to be used in warfare! Shoot the enemy full of hemalurgic spikes and you might be lucky enough to steal an attribute! All the while protecting the homeland.

Or perhaps hemalurgy as a means of administering euthanasia?

Point being, there's nothing inherent in death that is evil. We see this in other works as well. Tolkein, for example, portrayed it as a great gift given to men that Melkor, The Enemy, corrupted them to fear.

At the end of the day, Ruin is about as evil as Cthulhu or any of the Great Old Ones.

Ruin! Ia! Ia! The Rust in the Blade With a Thousand Koloss!

[Kurkistan]

You can steal an attribute from an animal. Is that significantly different than eating meat, which most people don't consider evil?

What is your source for this one? Don't get me wrong: I think it's very likely, especially given the (presumably non-murdery) use of Hemalurgy pre-Ascension, but I haven't seen a source saying you can take attributes from animals as of yet. All we have so far, that I know of, is that you can give attributes to animals. Feles Regirent!

Edited October 31, 2012 by Kurkistan

[Thought]

What is your source for this one? Don't get me wrong: I think it's very likely, especially given the (presumably non-murdery) use of Hemalurgy pre-Ascension, but I haven't seen a source saying you can take attributes from animals as of yet. All we have so far, that I know of, is that you can give attributes to animals. Feles Regirent!

First, shouldn't that be "Feles Regant"? "Regirent" is modern French, while "regerent" (the closest Latin version that I can think of) would mean something closer to "The cats would reign." "Regant" is the 3rd person plural active subjunctive conjugation of "rego" (a 3rd conjugation verb meaning to rule).

Second, I was basis my statement off the assumption that since hemalurgic spikes take part of someone's spirit web and pin them to someone else's spirit web, the ability to give attributes to animals necessitates that they have a spirit web, and so if that exists, it seems to stand to reason that it could be taken as well. No, no direct evidence.

Which brings up an interesting question: can Nightblood be spiked, or could it serve as a spike for others?

Also, if animals can't have attributes taken, then that speaks against Windrunner's theory about cognitive overlap...

Edited October 31, 2012 by Thought

[Kurkistan]

According to my Classics-major friend, a favorable interpreation of Feles Regirent means "may the cats rule/reign." I don't know any Latin, so I'll just take that at face value.

It may well be likely that animals can have their attributes taken, but it's not necessary. Human-attribute-stealing Hemalurgy takes "the basic pieces of Preservation inside the souls of all men...the spike is pulling out the pure power of Preservation—part of the power of all creation."

Now we know that animals are equal parts Preservation and Ruin, which means that they do have the power of Preservation within them, but it might not be "sticking out" and/or "pure" like in humans. So an animal has a a spirit web, but it's not necessary that any part of that web is really a Hemalurgic hotspot.

We also have that TLR went through the trouble of making human strength spikes for his koloss, which, ethical concerns aside, are probably harder to farm and might even have less "strength" in them than some animals. It might be that Preservation's power in humans is more fully accessible or some other concern stopped the use of animals, but it is a question to be answered.

Once again, I think it likely that Hemalurgy can take from the spiritwebs of animals, but it's not a given thing.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Kurkistan

[Thought]

Fair enough. After all, "noli equi dentes inspicere donati"! But if you are feeling indulgent, and if I might be bold, I'd recommend you double check with your friend. Even if that's a spelling variation I'm not familiar with, it looks for the world to be an imperfect subjunctive, not a present subjunctive.

As for hemalurgy taking powers from an animal, yes, it's not definitively confirmed, but for it to not work would be more unusual than for it to work.

As for why not use animals to create koloss, the answer is probably simply that humans, having more of a shard in them, have more to steal. So an animal might physically have more strength, but spiritually less to take.

Just a Sententia

[king of nowhere]

Sorry if I haven't read all the posts before, this is quite a wordy thread, but I still want to say mine.

I think there's nothing inherently evil or good. it depends on how something is used. True, thyere are things that are more easily used for evil or for good, but still everything can be used for both.

Take for example racism and mercy. You may say racism is evil and mercy is good, and generally it is so.

But you can imagine a racist guy, thinking white men is better than black, who is also a good person, and think that since white are better they have the duty to take care for their lesser brothers. This guy may go to some african village and become a doctor and heal people, because he think he is better than them and therefore he has a duty to take care for them. He'll probably be a bit of a jerk to talk with, and will try to force his own moral values onto other people more than is healty, but overall he would have made something good out of racism.

On the other hand, you may imagine a merciful guy discovering a friend is a phsycotic murderer. he would turn him to the police, but he takes compassion for him believing he's more brain-damaged than evil, and hides him and try to make him repent, all the while turning a blind eye on his deeds and allowing him to perpetrate more killings. So we have something evil coming out of mercy.

That said, let's come to the specific of hemalurgy. yes, generally killing people to steal their powers is bad. Unless you do it to a volunteer that is motivated enough to sacrifice his life. many terminally ill could volunteer, since they are going to die anyway.

"I'm dieing, my son. I'm too old and my heart too frail. But before I die, I want you to spike me hemalurgically and get the spike. You'll be gifted for the rest of yoru life, and I'll be happy to know that a part of my soul will live on in you. Take also that spike I got from my father when he died. You didn't knew? when I said I got my mental clarity from my father, I wasn't talking about genetics"

or

"I'm dieing, my emperor. the surgeon said the wound is too bad. Before I die, take a spike from me. give it to someone you trust. use that power to defend your people"

It's a bit like an organ transplantation. you take away something someone need to live, and give to someone else. only difference is you do it just before natural death instead of just after. In fact, if there was hemalurgy in the real world, I would willingly donate an hemalurgicc spike taken from me to my relatives or even to my closer friends when in point of death. Just as I would give them my breath if there was awakening. Or I would consent to be sacrificed in some dark ritual done for a good purpose if there was a more traditional magic system.

In the books, so far we only saw the evil use of hemalurgy. it would be like abook showing surgeons kidanapping people to steal their organs for transplantation. that would not make transplantation evil, it's just that surgeon that uses a questionable method.

[Observer]

Think of Allomancy and Feruchemy. They can be used for some pretty horrible things, yet we seem to consider them good. Hemalurgy is no different.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Observer

[Thor]

Think of Allomancy and Feruchemy. They can be used for some pretty horrible things, yet we seem to consider them good. Hemalurgy is no different.

True, but Allomancy and Feruchemy don't steal/tear souls apart. In a place with a confirmed afterlife (via Sazed), is ripping a soul into pieces ethical (with the knowledge that stealing a piece of a soul without killing someone will change them)? Hemalurgy brings up some very unsettling questions.

[Ursus]

Discussion ideas I've read/come up with through reading.

1. What could you steal from an animal that would be of value? I think there are some interesting possibilities here

2. Cool fan fiction idea: selling your life or part of your spiritweb upon your death or at X date in exchange for money or other value (perhaps pother investiture related goods or services?)

3. Could you use hemalurgy to save someone's life? I have no idea how, but interesting abstract concept think think about.

True, but Allomancy and Feruchemy don't steal/tear souls apart. In a place with a confirmed afterlife (via Sazed), is ripping a soul into pieces ethical (with the knowledge that stealing a piece of a soul without killing someone will change them)? Hemalurgy brings up some very unsettling questions.

So are you saying it would be more ethical to kill them?

Thanks to everyone contributing! I particularly appreciate the input of Kurkistan and Obsever, so thanks guys.

--Gemmel

Edit:spelling and clarity.

Edited November 1, 2012 by Gemmel