Common Misconception in the Cosmere

[Karger]

I got this idea watching Rshara post for the thirteenth time that Odium is not Passion.  This thread exists so that you can put proof that something people think is true is not and just link them here instead of saying everything every time it comes up.

 

[ZenBossanova]

But the literal Devil said he was. 

Doesn't that count for something? 

[RShara]

2 hours ago, Karger said:

I got this idea watching Rshara post for the thirteenth time that Odium is not Passion.  This thread exists so that you can put proof that something people think is true is not and just link them here instead of saying everything every time it comes up.

 

I feel like you are underestimating the number of times I have said that My topic thread is in the works, somewhere alongside the Ti s a plant topic that I also mean to write (again) one day.

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by RShara

[Scion of the Mists]

15 hours ago, Karger said:

I got this idea watching Rshara post for the thirteenth time that Odium is not Passion.  This thread exists so that you can put proof that something people think is true is not and just link them here instead of saying everything every time it comes up.

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to put your argument/theory in it's own thread, and then link people to that thread?  

Also, I think you are overestimating the number of things that have proof (vice just being theories).  

[The Sovereign]

People constantly equate Fortune in the Cosmere to Luck. STOP DOING THAT.

Edited July 26, 2019 by The Sovereign
Grammar is important.

[Karger]

1 hour ago, Scion of the Mists said:

Also, I think you are overestimating the number of things that have proof (vice just being theories).  

Odium is not Passion.  Brandon was going to name him hatred.  Also their are still a great number of widespread misconceptions that we do have evidence or even proof are wrong.

[Karger]

14 hours ago, RShara said:

I feel like you are underestimating the number of times I have said that My topic thread is in the works, somewhere alongside the Ti s a plant topic that I also mean to write (again) one day.

I never said you only wrote it thirteen times.  I said I saw it thirteen times.

[Genesis]

@RShara to play devil's advocate, you can't trully hate something without being quite passionate about it first. 

[Pathfinder]

That Jasnah killed the four murderers just to teach Shallan a philosophy lesson. That is not the reason. Shallan assumed that. Jasnah responded and spelled it out clear as day from her own lips. People can feel free to have an issue with the morality of the action, but the fact of the matter is that was not Jasnah's reason for doing it. 

 

Way of Kings page 530

 “Philosophy in action. An important lesson for you.”

“You did all this just to prove a point,” Shallan said softly. “You did this to prove to me that you could. Damnation, Jasnah, how could you do something like that?” Jasnah didn’t reply. Shallan stared at the woman, searching for emotion in those expressionless eyes. Stormfather. Did I ever really know this woman? Who is she, really?

Jasnah leaned back, watching the city pass. “I did not do this just to prove a point, child. I have been feeling for some time that I took advantage of His Majesty’s hospitality. He doesn’t realize how much trouble he could face for allying himself with me. Besides, men like those …” There was something in her voice, an edge Shallan had never heard before. What was done to you? Shallan wondered with horror. And who did it? “Regardless,” Jasnah continued, “tonight’s actions came about because I chose this path, not because of anything I felt you needed to see. However, the opportunity also presented a chance for instruction, for questions. Am I a monster or am I a hero? Did I just slaughter four men, or did I stop four murderers from walking the streets? Does one deserve to have evil done to her by consequence of putting herself where evil can reach her? Did I have a right to defend myself? Or was I just looking for an excuse to end lives?”

“I don’t know,” Shallan whispered.

“You will spend the next week researching it and thinking on it. If you wish to be a scholar—a true scholar who changes the world—then you will need to face questions like this. There will be times when you must make decisions that churn your stomach, Shallan Davar. I’ll have you ready to make those decisions.”

Edited July 30, 2019 by Pathfinder

[Karger]

On 7/27/2019 at 2:45 AM, Genesis said:

 to play devil's advocate, you can't trully hate something without being quite passionate about it first. 

And you can't destroy something without changing it but that does not make Ruin the shard of change.  Also I find that the realy scary kinds of anger are the calm kinds not the I am off the rails kinds.

3 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Shallan assumed that. Jasnah responded and spelled it out clear as day from her own lips

You should add the quote to this post for clarity.

[Pathfinder]

11 minutes ago, Karger said:

And you can't destroy something without changing it but that does not make Ruin the shard of change.  Also I find that the realy scary kinds of anger are the calm kinds not the I am off the rails kinds.

You should add the quote to this post for clarity.

Updated to include quote for reference. 

[Genesis]

19 hours ago, Karger said:

And you can't destroy something without changing it but that does not make Ruin the shard of change.  Also I find that the realy scary kinds of anger are the calm kinds not the I am off the rails kinds.

I totally agree with your comparison, but disagree with the ruin not being about change part, that is exactly what he is, he is essentially the shard of entropic change. He is change, just focused in one direction, by the same token Cultivation is about change too.

[Karger]

18 minutes ago, Genesis said:

I totally agree with your comparison, but disagree with the ruin not being about change part, that is exactly what he is, he is essentially the shard of entropic change. He is change, just focused in one direction, by the same token Cultivation is about change too.

Sure.  But calling him the shard of change is still a misnomer. 

[Elegy]

1 hour ago, Genesis said:

I totally agree with your comparison, but disagree with the ruin not being about change part, that is exactly what he is, he is essentially the shard of entropic change. He is change, just focused in one direction, by the same token Cultivation is about change too.

Following this train of thought, could Odium and Devotion, in a similar manner, be two opposite directions of passion?

[Genesis]

2 hours ago, Karger said:

Sure.  But calling him the shard of change is still a misnomer. 

I'm not calling him THE shard of change, just saying that he is A shard of change, in the same way preservation is very much not a shard of change.

 

39 minutes ago, Elegy said:

Following this train of thought, could Odium and Devotion, in a similar manner, be two opposite directions of passion?

Yeah I can see that working to some extent, but anything dealing with the emotional side of things could be lumped into this category, as you generally don't have emotional responses to things you literally don't care about.

 

I'm not arguing that odium IS passion, just that he does have a tenuous link to passion through his intent, Just as devotion and ambition would too.

Edited July 31, 2019 by Genesis

[Karger]

3 hours ago, Genesis said:

I totally agree with your comparison, but disagree with the ruin not being about change part, that is exactly what he is, he is essentially the shard of entropic change. He is change, just focused in one direction, by the same token Cultivation is about change too.

But no one would call him "the shard of change" anymore then I would call a shard of joy Party shard.  Remember when you name something you are to some degree defining it.  If you name Odium the shard of passion then that means to you that anger is passion and you should also seek out a therapist.

1 hour ago, Genesis said:

I'm not arguing that odium IS passion, just that he does have a tenuous link to passion through his intent, Just as devotion and ambition would too.

If you want to go this path why not throw in Autonomy and Honor?

On 7/27/2019 at 2:45 AM, Genesis said:

 to play devil's advocate, you can't trully hate something without being quite passionate about it first. 

Tell that to my attitude on NeoNazis.  I realy do hate them but at the same time I don't get passionately angry about their existence.  Its more of a cold disgust(this is just an example of something I realy hate I am not trying to be inflammatory).  

Edited July 31, 2019 by Karger

[Pathfinder]

Here's another one. People saying that Dalinar went to the Nightwatcher to forget Evi. That did not happen. Dalinar went to ask for forgiveness, which confused the Nightwatcher. Then when Cultivation stated she would have to remove the memories of Evi, Dalinar at first refused, but then accepted because he felt he was not worthy of her. People can feel free to dislike that Dalinar accepted the terms, but that does not change the specifics of the event. I will update this post as well with the quote in a bit. 

 

Oathbringer page 1077

"What would you like?" she asked "Renown? Wealth? Skill? Would you like to be able to swing a sword and never tire?"

"No" Dalinar whispered

"Beauty? Followers? I can feed your dreams, make you glorious."

Her dark mists wrapped around him. The tiny tendrils tickled his skin. She brought her face right up to his again. "What is your boon?"

Dalinar blinked tears, listening to the sounds of children dying in the distance, and whispered a single word

"Forgiveness"

"Perhaps it is possessions you wish" she said "Spheres, gemstones. Shards. A blade that bleed darkness and cannot be defeated. I can give it to you"

"Please" Dalinar said, drawing in a ragged breath "Tell me. Can I.... can I ever be forgiven?"

 

"A boon and a curse" the Mother said "That is how it is done. I will take these things from your mind. And with them, I take her"

"I..." Dalinar tried to speak as plant life engulfed him "Wait!"

"Speak"

"You'll take...." He spoke with difficulty. "You'll take Evi from me?

"All memories of her. This is the cost. Should I forbear?

Dalinar squeezed his eyes shut. Evi..... He had never deserved her.

"Do it." he whispered. 

Edited August 1, 2019 by Pathfinder

[agrabes]

19 hours ago, Karger said:

But no one would call him "the shard of change" anymore then I would call a shard of joy Party shard.  Remember when you name something you are to some degree defining it.  If you name Odium the shard of passion then that means to you that anger is passion and you should also seek out a therapist.

If you want to go this path why not throw in Autonomy and Honor?

Tell that to my attitude on NeoNazis.  I realy do hate them but at the same time I don't get passionately angry about their existence.  Its more of a cold disgust(this is just an example of something I realy hate I am not trying to be inflammatory).  

I think you're getting a little overboard on this.  Anger is a passion, the same as joy, sadness, sexual desire, etc.  Passion just means strong emotion, it doesn't have to be positive or negative.  The first definition of hate when you google it is "intense or passionate dislike."  Hate requires passion.

Is Odium just "Passion"?  Probably not, but on screen so far he hasn't shown that he is just "hate" either.  There's a good chance in the next book or two we will see that everything he has done is to lay the groundwork for increasing the hate in the world, but as of right now he's shown relatively little hate on screen.

 

But to the main topic of this thread: misconceptions.  I think the biggest misconception people have is that they are way too quick to tie things into grand schemes with world hoppers, shards on other planets, and the cosmere at large.  If anything seems slightly unusual it must be a worldhopper.  People are forgetting that there are a lot of mysteries left just on Roshar or Scadrial that are internal to that planet and its own story.  The other world hopping stuff is just in the background right now.  I don't think Sanderson is planning to bring that to the forefront for another 5-10 books in the cosmere based on what he's said on his blog or other posts.

[Karger]

1 hour ago, agrabes said:

Hate requires passion

Thing is it does not.  Hate can often by a profound lack of emotion and that is often when it is at its most dangerous.

 

1 hour ago, agrabes said:

If anything seems slightly unusual it must be a worldhopper.

There actually are a large number pf worldhoppers.  Some confirmed and some suspected.  While we do often go overboard we have no actual evidence that in any way proves or even demonstrates a lack of otherworldly involvement in many cases.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Karger

[Genesis]

3 hours ago, agrabes said:

I think you're getting a little overboard on this.  Anger is a passion, the same as joy, sadness, sexual desire, etc.  Passion just means strong emotion, it doesn't have to be positive or negative.  The first definition of hate when you google it is "intense or passionate dislike."  Hate requires passion.

Is Odium just "Passion"?  Probably not, but on screen so far he hasn't shown that he is just "hate" either.  There's a good chance in the next book or two we will see that everything he has done is to lay the groundwork for increasing the hate in the world, but as of right now he's shown relatively little hate on screen.

Totally agree with you here, you've put into words what I was struggling to explain! 

 

2 hours ago, Karger said:

Thing is it does not.  Hate can often by a profound lack of emotion and that is often when it is at its most dangerous.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, it's gonna cone down to your beliefs and understanding of psychology, but let me just say this, at no point in my life have I EVER hated something that I have a 'profound lack of emotion' for. I think some people delude themselves into thinking they don't care about something they hate, but as far as I'm concerned, if you give the time and energy it takes to hate something, you care about it in one way or another, or to put it in other words, you are passionate towards or against it. To use your example from before, the fact that you 'hate neonazis' tells me that you care about the plight of those they oppose, or you strongly disagree with their beliefs (or both) but the fact that you have given the matter enough thought to be able to state you hate them shows that you are at the very least compassionate. See what I did there?  

[Karger]

3 hours ago, Genesis said:

I EVER hated something that I have a 'profound lack of emotion' for.

Then you are quite fortunate. 

3 hours ago, Genesis said:

'hate neonazis' tells me that you care about the plight of those they oppose

Thats the problem.  During a realy bad day it can be hard or even impossible to care about the victim even if I can recognize intellectually that they deserve it.  Remember the other thing they call Odium?  The void who sucks in emotion?  He actually tends to make people feel less.

[agrabes]

On 8/1/2019 at 9:03 AM, Karger said:

Thing is it does not.  Hate can often by a profound lack of emotion and that is often when it is at its most dangerous.

 

There actually are a large number pf worldhoppers.  Some confirmed and some suspected.  While we do often go overboard we have no actual evidence that in any way proves or even demonstrates a lack of otherworldly involvement in many cases.

I think I understand what you are saying regarding hate as a lack of emotion from your reply to Genesis.  In my opinion, you are confusing hate the emotion with "hate" as in "hate crimes".  If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that if a person has a lack of emotion (in particular, empathy or sympathy) they are more likely to commit what society would call a hateful act against another person.  For example, if a military dictator believes a certain group of people are subhuman, then he/she is more likely to commit genocide or other atrocities against that group.  Or in a less extreme example, two people talking online don't see each other as real people so they are more likely to be mean to each other (i.e. Twitter, Youtube comments, etc).

If that is what you are saying, I agree with you in the sense that lack of emotion can cause bad things to happen.  However, I disagree that this is (necessarily) hate.  Hate is an emotion.  Lacking positive emotions (sympathy, empathy) does not mean that you lack negative emotions (anger, negative biases, prejudice).  So in many cases while a person might claim to be acting without emotion, they are not.  They are just acting without positive emotion.  Also, if a person truly is acting based on what they think is objectively right based on pure logic, without any negative or positive emotion, then what they do is not hateful.  It appears to people on the outside to be hateful and they will definitely be labelled as hateful, but it is not.  It is still (probably) morally wrong, but you can do things that are morally wrong without hating the victim.  You can commit a crime classified as a "hate crime" even if you don't actually hate the victim.

Am on the right track here?  I think it just comes down to the definition of hate.  In terms of Odium, I am thinking in terms of the feeling/emotion of hate.  Imo, this lines up with the in world intent based on Odium calling himself "passion".  Yes, he is trying to spin things his way, but he's clearly basing it in the expectation that his intent is an emotion.  If Odium is intended to represent hate in the "hate crimes" sense of the word, then you are probably right.

In terms of worldhoppers, I'm not saying it's unfair to speculate about where they might be or even that there aren't any out there.  And this is the Cosmere board so this is the appropriate place to do it.  But, it gets tiresome to me that there are a lot of people who like to create grand cosmere-wide schemes out of things that are (imo) better as mysteries related to one particular planet or book series rather than the whole cosmere.  For the most part, the people who are worldhoppers are almost beyond the edge of any of the main stories.  The one exception being (if they do turn out to be worldhoppers, seems likely) the Ghostbloods.  Otherwise, I think people are making a lot out of a little.  That's just my opinion though.  This stuff is fun for some people and I don't want to shut them down, but also want to point out that these are wild guesses that are unlikely to be true so don't act like it's proven fact.

 

 

[Karger]

8 minutes ago, agrabes said:

Am on the right track here?  I think it just comes down to the definition of hate.  In terms of Odium, I am thinking in terms of the feeling/emotion of hate.  Imo, this lines up with the in world intent based on Odium calling himself "passion".  Yes, he is trying to spin things his way, but he's clearly basing it in the expectation that his intent is an emotion.  If Odium is intended to represent hate in the "hate crimes" sense of the word, then you are probably right.

Not realy.  I meant that it feels like a lack of emotion.  Humans are emotional beings not Vulcans.  They realy can't separate themselves from their feelings as their is no difference in the mind between a purely cognitive and an deeply emotional analysis.  This is why I do not think Jasnah's goal of creating an objective history is possible.  Even the most thoughtful and objective individuals do have feelings and those feelings do bias them no matter what they do.  When humans "stop feeling" they often do impulsive dangerous or hateful things in order to try and feel again.  This is the kind of hate that is defiantly not defined as passion and I do not realy think of as an emotion.

[Mistcloaked Mountains]

On 7/27/2019 at 2:45 AM, Genesis said:

@RShara to play devil's advocate, you can't trully hate something without being quite passionate about it first. 

The opposite of love is indifference.

[agrabes]

18 hours ago, Karger said:

Not realy.  I meant that it feels like a lack of emotion.  Humans are emotional beings not Vulcans.  They realy can't separate themselves from their feelings as their is no difference in the mind between a purely cognitive and an deeply emotional analysis.  This is why I do not think Jasnah's goal of creating an objective history is possible.  Even the most thoughtful and objective individuals do have feelings and those feelings do bias them no matter what they do.  When humans "stop feeling" they often do impulsive dangerous or hateful things in order to try and feel again.  This is the kind of hate that is defiantly not defined as passion and I do not realy think of as an emotion.

Fair enough.  I do agree with your point that there is no such thing as "pure logic" - David Hume's philosophy taught me that.  I don't agree that what you are describing in your second to last sentence is hate though.  You might call it a hateful act and be correct in terms of how people speak using the English language, but a "hateful act" does not necessarily result from hate.  It's called a hateful act because it's such a terrible act that people looking at it from the outside can't believe it would have been done unless the person who did it hated the victim.  But what you've described is not a person who does hate, or have any feelings toward the victim.  Instead, it sounds like a person who is experiencing depression or other mental illness trying to regain what they see as a normal mental state through whatever means they can.  That's not hate, its desperation.  A lot of "hateful" acts could be done out of desperation.  For example - think of the drowning man who clings to his rescuer, tangling them up so both drown.  He's killed someone who was trying to save him.  If you describe it like that, it sounds like a very hateful person, but when you give it context you realize it was not a hateful act at all.

Anyway, I don't think either one of us will bring the other around on this topic since it comes down to what we each fundamentally believe hate is defined as.  It was interesting to learn your perspective though.