Bajerden, Bavadin, and Beyond

[stormbourne]

4 minutes ago, Ripheus23 said:

I understand that my tone might make it sound like I'm accusing Sanderson of lying or something, except I then explained my actual point, so...

regardless of what you think your presentation gives the air that your main point is this that at some point we will have every question or at least this one answered, i don't believe we will, this doesn't rule out that we might, but i doubt we will. since your are making this claim, inadvertently or otherwise, the burden of proof is on you to show that there are hints about this, and i can't remember any being present in any of the books

[Ripheus23]

So instead of what I said being debated, my supposed tone is? Doesn't that seem finicky and irrelevant?

[Ixthos]

Here is something we can all agree on. Brandon probably will have characters in the setting discuss the Beyond, experiment with the Beyond or attempt to do so, and maybe even think they come up with a solution or explanation for the Beyond (such as, for example, Kelsier noting the look on the faces of those who travel to the Beyond, which could be said to be them seeing a place of joy, but which also could be argued to them seeing the threshold of the Beyond, not the Beyond itself, and once they pass through it they evaporate, so no conclusions drawn).

 

However, no character will at the end know the answer and state it to be as such, with no-one else contradicting them with sound arguments - in the end, if any characters do think they have the solution, it either won't be told or it will be argued their belief is not proven. Hoid likely does have goals involving the Beyond, maybe to bring someone back, but then even if he can "bring something back?", that doesn't mean he actually has - it could be like in the Emperor's Soul, and Hoid will realise he didn't actually bring them back but rather made a copy of them, or imitation.

 

Basically the idea of the Beyond will be explored, but no answer will be given and stated to be the case with no room to question it.

[Ripheus23]

5 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

Here is something we can all agree on. Brandon probably will have characters in the setting discuss the Beyond, experiment with the Beyond or attempt to do so, and maybe even think they come up with a solution or explanation for the Beyond (such as, for example, Kelsier noting the look on the faces of those who travel to the Beyond, which could be said to be them seeing a place of joy, but which also could be argued to them seeing the threshold of the Beyond, not the Beyond itself, and once they pass through it they evaporate, so no conclusions drawn).

 

However, no character will at the end know the answer and state it to be as such, with no-one else contradicting them with sound arguments - in the end, if any characters do think they have the solution, it either won't be told or it will be argued their belief is not proven. Hoid likely does have goals involving the Beyond, maybe to bring someone back, but then even if he can "bring something back?", that doesn't mean he actually has - it could be like in the Emperor's Soul, and Hoid will realise he didn't actually bring them back but rather made a copy of them, or imitation.

 

Basically the idea of the Beyond will be explored, but no answer will be given and stated to be the case with no room to question it.

This is what I think likely, though IRL I wonder if we can know answers to transcendent questions and if so, whether we would know so in time for Sanderson to, too. I tend to agree with Kant here but I still wonder, like sometimes it seems as if God might have "spoken" to people, so what if *they* know? But then again that would be private knowledge (another subtle option: the Beyond is knowable but only privately, so no public proof is possible as such).

[stormbourne]

1 minute ago, Ripheus23 said:

So instead of what I said being debated, my supposed tone is? Doesn't that seem finicky and irrelevant?

"It is not the destination that matters, but how one arrives there" in this case it more how you present your argument is more important then what you believe it to be about. in a true argument both sides must strive to ensure that the two are the same

[Ixthos]

1 minute ago, Ripheus23 said:

This is what I think likely, though IRL I wonder if we can know answers to transcendent questions and if so, whether we would know so in time for Sanderson to, too. I tend to agree with Kant here but I still wonder, like sometimes it seems as if God might have "spoken" to people, so what if *they* know? But then again that would be private knowledge (another subtle option: the Beyond is knowable but only privately, so no public proof is possible as such).

I have my own beliefs, which I think are founded on solid ground, with proof and logic, but I know several people who would argue with me about them, and tell me that they aren't convinced. We live on a planet which is round, but there are - so I've heard - people who think it is flat, even though there is so much one can do even without getting into space to show the planet is round. There will always be people who doubt, even when the evidence is right in front of them. Brandon is not likely to change his stance on this issue because he came to this argument - the argument of letting people choose and guess and wonder - from something at his core. For that to break, the entire foundational logic of the Cosmere would likely break too.

[Ripheus23]

My main ? has to do with ethics, here. I could see Sanderson trying to straddle the divide Kant did when trying to say "we know we have free will in the strong sense" alongside "but free will in itself goes beyond knowledge," along with whatever moral rules might or might not be derivative of this paradox. At least, Sanderson seems sensitive to the details of abstract ethics debate to outline an approach to the topic or something.

[Ixthos]

46 minutes ago, Ripheus23 said:

My main ? has to do with ethics, here. I could see Sanderson trying to straddle the divide Kant did when trying to say "we know we have free will in the strong sense" alongside "but free will in itself goes beyond knowledge," along with whatever moral rules might or might not be derivative of this paradox. At least, Sanderson seems sensitive to the details of abstract ethics debate to outline an approach to the topic or something.

Forgive me if this seems like a strange question, but how does the concept of free will factor into either the Beyond - which is about the ultimate fate of those who die, as well as the idea of the Cosmere having something greater that encompasses it - or Brandon's own stated goals, where he has stated something according to his nature, his nature being what defines the properties of the Cosmere, and one's nature being the only thing that can touch free will without destroying it? 

[Ripheus23]

9 hours ago, Ixthos said:

Forgive me if this seems like a strange question, but how does the concept of free will factor into either the Beyond - which is about the ultimate fate of those who die, as well as the idea of the Cosmere having something greater that encompasses it - or Brandon's own stated goals, where he has stated something according to his nature, his nature being what defines the properties of the Cosmere, and one's nature being the only thing that can touch free will without destroying it? 

The three Realms remind me of Kant's remark that went something like, "Thus all knowledge begins with perceptions, goes to concepts, and ends with ideas, beyond which, however, we cannot go." This would be why, appearances notwithstanding, the Spiritual Realm is not the Beyond. Kant puts free will, the afterlife, and God into his Beyond of noumena, and Sanderson said something in a WoB once that almost sounds like an inside joke about Kant's writing style, so...

EDIT: okay he didn't say "beyond which we cannot go" in that passage but something like "for us nothing is higher than the ideal"

EDIT 2: But the section of the first Critique that goes over the phenomena/noumena difference is akin to what Sanderson says about "inside"/Beyond, although not stipulated for the narrative. However, I'm pretty confident that an LDS writer with a knowledge of abstract philosophy has special reasons for deciding not to try to encode an absolute proof of God or a Savior or what, into the cosmere's story. (There's also a weird tangent connecting the LDS with Kant's doctrine of grace: both say that grace comes after all that we can do [of virtue].)

Edited August 16, 2019 by Ripheus23