Eggdogg

Anarchism in the cosmere

75 posts in this topic

I feel the cosmere is ripe for an old school anarchism movement. Not the violence/chaos that is now associated with the word anarchism but the philosophy of freely associated individuals. “No metal, no shards” or “no raidiants, no fused”. Off the top of my head here are some examples of anarchism creeping through in the cosmere (please correct me when I get something wrong).

Hoid. A lot of hoid is anarchist. He seems very free of power influence and the fact that he doesn’t have a shard (by choice I believe) is very anarchist.

Kelsier has a strong Bakunin vibe at the start. Bakunin went around the world (real world) and whipped the poor people into a mob directed against their current leader. Bakunin was kicked out of almost every country he went to, back when they would walk you to the border and leave you. He would then go and find the poor people of the new country he was in and do it again. However Kelsier’s ego quickly takes him from a Bakunin type to a Marx type (ultimate leader of all). Anarchists would love then hate Kelsier in the same way they love Bakunin but not Marx. Kelsier is a great mash up of both and in the real world Bakunin and Marx hated each other. Bakunin actually publicly dressed Marx down for being an ass and egomaniac. 

Wayne has the right attitude but lacks the mental drive while Jasnah has the mental drive but the wrong attitude. 
 

I have very high hopes for Relain and Renarin.


Autonomy is not quite right.


Sazed would and could be very anarchist except that he holds a lot of power and anarchism seeks to redistribute power and destroy things or institutions that accumulate power…at the very least an anarchist would demand a justification for the existence of shards.

 

Dalinar is similar to Sazed, in that he is a leader and has accumulated way too much power. However a lot of Dalinar’s thoughts and actions post “blackthorn” seem to be very empathetic to anarchism. In particular, the way he questions everything he does. 

 

Are there any anti shards?


Everyone in the cosmere is getting swept up and carried towards something and most don’t know what it is (I don’t know what it is) but where are the characters who are saying “no”? The power accumulation in shards/vessels is immense and IMO there should naturally be an anarchism push back that is not aligned with a shard but rather the individuals within that region…like the undertow after a wave.

Edited by Eggdogg
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Arcane Arts kind of hinder anarchism by undermining the equality aspect in the ideolgical underpinning of anarchism. I guess what you will get is a kind of independence movement, which Kelsier stands for. It would seek to emancipate man from the Shards, but that is not real anarchism.

EDIT:

I am afraid the term you are looking for would be secularism. In the Cosmere religion is partially a matter of empirical and natural sciences. They cannot have what we would term freedom of religion. If you pray to Odium on Roshar, if you are human you are a traitor and the other way round. But while the existance and commandments of the deities are a matter of science, the question whether humans should heed Shardic commandments is political.

The key difference between us and the Cosmere is that the consequences of sins to us are either highly debatable or deferred to an unverifiable afterlife. That is just not true in the Cosmere. Cosmere atheism is not the same as our atheism. You may refuse to worship or obey Shards, but if you say that they do not exist, you are just wrong.

However, these considerations do not tell you which men you should obey. And here the question of relative power arises. Basically how is a government supposed to work against people who have the powers of demigods and potentially god on their side?
Sanderson's answer is basically in White Sand and it is bleak: You cannot. They could move against the Sandmasters only because somebody had assassinated most of them, even though Sandmastery is one of the weaker Arcane Arts.

Edited by Oltux72
more thoughts
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

However, these considerations do not tell you which men you should obey. And here the question of relative power arises. Basically how is a government supposed to work against people who have the powers of demigods and potentially god on their side?
Sanderson's answer is basically in White Sand and it is bleak: You cannot. They could move against the Sandmasters only because somebody had assassinated most of them, even though Sandmastery is one of the weaker Arcane Arts.

Though the interesting thing in there is that the Shard is potentially on their side against the mastrells, depending on the exact nature of the Sand Lord and their goals...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LewsTherinTelescope said:

Though the interesting thing in there is that the Shard is potentially on their side against the mastrells, depending on the exact nature of the Sand Lord and their goals...

Yes, people becoming dependent on each other to make their group more autonomous. How shall I put this? Autonomy seeming to be the oddest among the Shards is no accident.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2021-08-16 at 7:48 PM, Eggdogg said:

Hoid. A lot of hoid is anarchist. He seems very free of power influence and the fact that he doesn’t have a shard (by choice I believe) is very anarchist.

And yet he posits that Dalinar might be a nessecary tyrant.

He also doesn't exactly balk at getting himself ever more superhuman powers.

 

Kelsier is the man who set himself up as a god multiple times and who might not have had an actual idea/philosophy for what government should look like, barring that it shouldn't feature the Lord Ruler.

 

On 2021-08-16 at 7:48 PM, Eggdogg said:

Wayne has the right attitude

Could you expand on this?

On 2021-08-16 at 7:48 PM, Eggdogg said:

Jasnah has the mental drive but the wrong attitude. 

Yes, Jasnah is a reformer.

On 2021-08-16 at 7:48 PM, Eggdogg said:

I have very high hopes for Relain and Renarin.

Why? I just can't see why they in particular would turn to anarchism.

On 2021-08-16 at 7:48 PM, Eggdogg said:

Sazed would and could be very anarchist except that he holds a lot of power and anarchism seeks to redistribute power and destroy things or institutions that accumulate power

He holds actual power from his very position, but I don't think he has any political power.

Or do anarchists have a problem with people being differently strong as well?

On 2021-08-16 at 7:48 PM, Eggdogg said:

at the very least an anarchist would demand a justification for the existence of shards.

Why, does the anarchist need to justify stars as well? Shards are just things that exist.

As for the idea of a justification for the Vessels holding their positions, there isn't one, it's right of conquest.

On 2021-08-16 at 7:48 PM, Eggdogg said:

However a lot of Dalinar’s thoughts and actions post “blackthorn” seem to be very empathetic to anarchism. In particular, the way he questions everything he does. 

The man who is a king and argues that absolute monarchy is the right way to do things is an anarchist at heart?

I also find the ascribing the virtue of questioning yourself to a single ideology to be iffy at best.

On 2021-08-16 at 7:48 PM, Eggdogg said:

Everyone in the cosmere is getting swept up and carried towards something and most don’t know what it is (I don’t know what it is) but where are the characters who are saying “no”?

Most people don't even know that the Shards exist, much less if they are part of any plans of theirs.

On 2021-08-16 at 7:48 PM, Eggdogg said:

The power accumulation in shards/vessels is immense and IMO there should naturally be an anarchism push back that is not aligned with a shard but rather the individuals within that region…like the undertow after a wave.

By what mechanism could this happen? Shards seem to be rather all or nothing.

If you leave them alone you risk someone else Ascending to them or them developing their own sentience.

You'd need to kill all Vessels and splinter all Shards, somehow.

On 2021-08-16 at 10:59 PM, Oltux72 said:

The Arcane Arts kind of hinder anarchism by undermining the equality aspect in the ideolgical underpinning of anarchism.

In that case does people being of unequal physical and mental ability not undermine anarchism as well?

On 2021-08-16 at 10:59 PM, Oltux72 said:

I am afraid the term you are looking for would be secularism. In the Cosmere religion is partially a matter of empirical and natural sciences.

I feel that this is wrong, there is empirical proof of some objects of worship, not of their actual divinity.

On 2021-08-16 at 10:59 PM, Oltux72 said:

They cannot have what we would term freedom of religion.

Sazed would like a word.

On 2021-08-16 at 10:59 PM, Oltux72 said:

If you pray to Odium on Roshar, if you are human you are a traitor and the other way round.

And yet Thaylenah is in the coalition.

On 2021-08-16 at 10:59 PM, Oltux72 said:

But while the existance and commandments of the deities are a matter of science, the question whether humans should heed Shardic commandments is political.

Are they deities though? Power does not make a god.

On 2021-08-16 at 10:59 PM, Oltux72 said:

Cosmere atheism is not the same as our atheism. You may refuse to worship or obey Shards, but if you say that they do not exist, you are just wrong.

What makes a Shard a god?

They are a natural (for a given value of natural) part of the cosmere, one that has immense power, but not one that, by definition, is divine.

There is no requirement that these existences are gods, any more than there are requirements that gravity or stars are gods.

Thus one can deny the existence of gods while accepting the existence of Shards.

Non-belief in a thing's divinity is not the same as denial of the thing itself.

For a real life example, I can accept that around the start of the first century CE there was a Jewish preacher who was persecuted by the secular and religious authorities of the time, without accepting that he was the son of God.

In the same vein, one can deny the divinity of Shards without denying their existence.

 

I do agree that an anti-Shard or even anti-Invested movement looks futile without some equaliser, but there's also no rule that Invested people must become tyrants.

Also, there are Shards that don't actively intervene, Sazed's personal philosophy seems to be one of mostly non-intervention, at the human level. He does not wish to lead the peoples of Scadrial and would presumably allow them to experiment in a lot of ways (society, politics, technology, etc.) before he'd feel moved to intervene.

I could see him trying to avert things that are very likely to be a threat to the population of the planet, like all out nuclear war, but he's obviously made peace with conflicts that don't threaten extinction of Scadrian humanity. 

He allows for self-determination outside of extreme circumstances, even when that self-determination leads to results he wouldn't want happening.

 

 

On 2021-08-16 at 7:48 PM, Eggdogg said:

Bakunin went around the world (real world) and whipped the poor people into a mob directed against their current leader.

Which is amusing, because that would be him asserting authority over other people.

IMO it also sounds like an absolute waste of people, as he's responsible for any damage the mob inflicted, as well as any injury by the mob or to the mob from people defending themselves and theirs from the mob.

What a disregard for the wellbeing of people!

On 2021-08-16 at 7:48 PM, Eggdogg said:

Bakunin was kicked out of almost every country he went to, back when they would walk you to the border and leave you. He would then go and find the poor people of the new country he was in and do it again.

Remind me, what's the definition of insanity?

 

 

¤_¤

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Kelsier is the man who set himself up as a god multiple times and who might not have had an actual idea/philosophy for what government should look like, barring that it shouldn't feature the Lord Ruler.

He also came to the conclusion that knowledge and power are good things to seek. You will not get classical liberalism from him.

20 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

He holds actual power from his very position, but I don't think he has any political power.

Well, he will not look on as another Shard moves in on Scadrial.

20 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Or do anarchists have a problem with people being differently strong as well?

Yes. Anarchism is problematic as it has trouble saying how anarchism is to be maintained against people who oppose it and why people should not seek to unify to impose their will to their advantage.

20 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

The man who is a king and argues that absolute monarchy is the right way to do things is an anarchist at heart?

Dalinar used to be a nihilist. See his comments on why people go to war shortly before he got engaged. Related, but not the same.

20 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

You'd need to kill all Vessels and splinter all Shards, somehow.

That is indeed a political goal some in the future of the Cosmere may pick.

20 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

In that case does people being of unequal physical and mental ability not undermine anarchism as well?

It does. Being weak implies that you better seek strength in numbers, which in turn implies that you need rules and enforcement. There is a good reason the few places which do have something close to anarchism are called failed states.

20 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

I feel that this is wrong, there is empirical proof of some objects of worship, not of their actual divinity.

They do claim divinity based on verifiable facts though. This question has an extreme likelihood of decaying into semantics.

20 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Sazed would like a word.

The same Sazed who works to keep the competition out?

20 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Are they deities though? Power does not make a god.

What else? What other objective attribute would define a divinity? Just a divinity, not a divinity worthy of worship, mind you.

20 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

What makes a Shard a god?

They make worlds. They exist outside of time and space. Just to list the obvious candidates.

20 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

For a real life example, I can accept that around the start of the first century CE there was a Jewish preacher who was persecuted by the secular and religious authorities of the time, without accepting that he was the son of God.

That is talking around the thing. You basically say that his basic claim was false. Can you deny the reality of god once you accept that he has a son?

20 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

I do agree that an anti-Shard or even anti-Invested movement looks futile without some equaliser, but there's also no rule that Invested people must become tyrants.

Tyrants? No. There is a regretable tendency to divide politics into democracy and tyranny. It is just that one man - one vote is unrealistic.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any characters could be described as anarchist. Kelsier - and the Parshendi - are the only ones who have any revolutionary perspective, though I would say it's hard nationalism on the Parshendi question.  And if anything I think Kelsier and his crew are Marxist-Leninist Maoists with a strict command structure building coalitions of workers and peasants, even if the criminal element has the veneer of Bakunin's perspective on the lumpenproletariat. Otherwise most of the characters at best represent aristocratic reformers.

However there might be hope with Venli in her redemption. A group of refugees that have rejected their god and are swearing oaths alongside fugitive Enlightened spren seems as good a basis as any for anarchism.

Edited by Proletariat
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

He also came to the conclusion that knowledge and power are good things to seek. You will not get classical liberalism from him.

Indeed, the man's an autocratic demagogue, he builds things out of charisma and willpower.

35 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Well, he will not look on as another Shard moves in on Scadrial.

I believe the current situation is a result of him feeling that the intrusion of another Shard is a threat to the world under his care or the people of said world.

38 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Yes. Anarchism is problematic as it has trouble saying how anarchism is to be maintained against people who oppose it and why people should not seek to unify to impose their will to their advantage.

So, basically the same problem as right-libertarian ideas?

41 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Dalinar used to be a nihilist. See his comments on why people go to war shortly before he got engaged. Related, but not the same.

Fair enough, though I mostly wanted to highlight how preposterous I found the idea of the man who argues for an absolute monarchy being an anarchist. 

I'm not sure how nihilism is related to anarchism. Is it simply a nihilistic approach to power structures? Something like "social hierarchies lack intrinsic value?"

49 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

That is indeed a political goal some in the future of the Cosmere may pick.

Fair enough.

I don't find it to be a realistic goal with our current knowledge, nor nessecarilly a desirable goal, but not one that's entirely unlikely as such.

52 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

It does. Being weak implies that you better seek strength in numbers, which in turn implies that you need rules and enforcement. There is a good reason the few places which do have something close to anarchism are called failed states.

This might be pedantic, but wouldn't a society that achieves anarchism by definition be a non-state?

54 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

The same Sazed who works to keep the competition out?

The same Sazed who has no problem with Survivorism, Sliverism, the Southern faith(s) or any of the religions recorded in the Words of Founding.

I don't think he's motivated to defend against Trell on grounds of Trell stealing Sazed's worshipers, but something more akin to Trell coming into his house and smashing all the furniture.

Trell is a threat, or at least an unkown power, who is messing with the world Sazed feels responsible for, the beliefs of the people on that world are not a factor.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

They do claim divinity based on verifiable facts though. This question has an extreme likelihood of decaying into semantics.

 

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

What else? What other objective attribute would define a divinity? Just a divinity, not a divinity worthy of worship, mind you.

 

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

They make worlds. They exist outside of time and space. Just to list the obvious candidates.

You say they claim divinity based on verifiable facts, I can't see it. (And you're likely right that this may descend into infinite quibble territory.)

What is the measure of divinity?

The way I see it, power alone can not define what is divine.

If power alone defines it, is a bear divine? It is more powerful than you.

Is the Sun divine? It has a lot of power.

How about the Universe? It is infinite and contains everything.

In fact, I don't think I can give an objective criterion for godhood.

That would require finding something that all people would universally agree makes a god.

Unless you went with the infinitely recursive; the property of being a god is being a god. Which isn't helpful.

I'll readily agree that the Shards are godlike, but not that they're gods.

I don't think that is knowable.

I'm not arguing that no-one would or should term them gods, I'm just arguing that denying their divinity isn't unreasonable.

As for the last part, there are many real religions where neither the attribute of creator nor space/time independence are categorical attributes of godhood and while they might both be true of the Abrahamic god, that doesn't mean they are automatic divine qualities.

Space/time independence is just a matter of physics in the cosmere, there's a perfectly adequate naturalistic explanation, the Spiritual Realm workslike that.

And as for being creators, the only known time Shards made a world is Scadrial. Also, they are beings with access to functionally infinite energy, there's very little that's theoretically beyond them.

On which note, if humanity manages to construct a Dyson Sphere, would that make us gods, by the amount of power we could wield?

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

That is talking around the thing. You basically say that his basic claim was false.

Yes, so as to illustrate that I can believe that there was at least a historical person who inspired the Jesus that shows up in the Bible, without believing any of the supernatural claims about him.

That is, I can believe that there was a Jesus without believing that there was a son of God.

In the same way someone in the cosmere can say that Preservation is real, but Preservation isn't god.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

Can you deny the reality of god once you accept that he has a son?

Well, no, as one requires the other. If God has a son, then God has to be real, otherwise God couldn't have a son.

But nothing makes me inclined to believe God had a son.

If God is real, but Jesus not his son, then there's no logical problem.

If God isn't real and Jesus not his son there's no logical problem.

If God is real and Jesus is his son there's no logical problem.

If God isn't real and Jesus is his son there's a logical problem.

I don't understand your question, as it seems to presuppose that I accept "Jesus is God's son" as true.

If I don't accept it then claiming "Jesus, not son of God" is still internally consistent.

And I suppose to be vaguely on topic, (and as I was trying to say) to me godlike does not equal divine and a claim to non-divinity is not the same as a claim of non-existence, so I would sit in the camp of affirming the existence of these entities, Jesus/Shards, but denying the claims to goodhood made for either.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

Tyrants? No. There is a regretable tendency to divide politics into democracy and tyranny. It is just that one man - one vote is unrealistic.

Ah, what you wrote seemed to imply that people with powers would use those powers to claim, err, power for themselves, thus tyranny.

 

 

¤_¤

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not expecting such a long response like @Inquisitor #5 gave, thanks for the time and thought. I’m not a multi quoter but there are a few things I feel the need to respond to. I was not arguing that Dalinar was an anarchist, merely that his post blackthorn thought process was empathetic to anarchism especially in terms of how quick he accept characters for who they are, breaking customs, redefining roles. I am also not arguing for or against anarchism, just that the cosmere seems ripe for an anarchism. 
 

in terms of Wayne having the right attitude…the way he trades for things based on his own sense of value and his neglect at recognizing any authority. Wayne’s brain seems somewhat free of outside coercion via his unique set of values or maybe circumstance.
 

in terms of justification, “do anarchists need to justify the stars?”…not if they just twinkle from far away. Demanding justification is just an academic way of saying reaction, probably just me wanting to sound smart. Kelsier’s reaction at the start Secret History is a demand for justification. A demand for justification is also not exclusive to anarchism neither are Dalinar’s thoughts. I think one of Brandon’s strengths as a writer is bringing in voices and perspective, outside of his being, in a meaningful and rational way. I would never expect to see some anarchist manifesto within cosmere. I do think he has created enough strife and chaos in the cosmere for there to be a rational response that is anarchist, especially in the more developed planets. 
 

there is a lot of irony in Bakunin. 
 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Proletariat said:

I don't think any characters could be described as anarchist. Kelsier - and the Parshendi - are the only ones who have any revolutionary perspective, though I would say it's hard nationalism on the Parshendi question.  And if anything I think Kelsier and his crew are Marxist-Leninist Maoists with a strict command structure building coalitions of workers and peasants, even if the criminal element has the veneer of Bakunin's perspective on the lumpenproletariat. Otherwise most of the characters at best represent aristocratic reformers.

However there might be hope with Venli in her redemption. A group of refugees that have rejected their god and are swearing oaths alongside fugitive Enlightened spren seems as good a basis as any for anarchism.

I like this post a lot. Don’t know if we can talk Venli in this forum so I didn’t bring her up or Raboniel. I also just got caught up with mistborn so I’ve been out of stormlight. I ripped through RoW, it’s kinda a blur. I’ve been writing songs for bridge 4 in the way of kings era. Everything is melting together in my head. Might be time to start my first stormlight re read. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Eggdogg said:

Don’t know if we can talk Venli in this forum so I didn’t bring her up or Raboniel.

Spoiler period just ended yesterday, actually, so perfect timing :D

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, LewsTherinTelescope said:

Spoiler period just ended yesterday, actually, so perfect timing :D

Sweet

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoid is enough of a blank slate that it's hard to tell... the problem with Hoid is we know nothing of his goals for the Cosmere itself, while knowing a lot about his more personal goals and viewpoints. Extrapolating from how free a person wants to be for themselves is a little bit of a stretch from understanding how they would want to world to be governed. Because of our lack of knowledge about his goals for the universe he becomes a very easy person to ascribe any number of radical viewpoints to (because all we really know is that he'll let planets burn to reach whatever his goal might be)

15 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

And yet he posits that Dalinar might be a nessecary tyrant.

Many Non-revolutionary anarchists believe that Anarchism can only be achieved through progressive change that deconstructs unjust hierarchical power structures over time. Most people who subscribe to that philosophy tend to have a harm-reduction approach when it comes to most governments and leaders. It's obviously arguable based on some of his other viewpoints but I'd say Hoid is a good candidate for a more "Left-Libertarian" approach to Anarchism... that probably goes back to the fact that he's sort of a blank slate for this stuff though.

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Indeed, the man's an autocratic demagogue, he builds things out of charisma and willpower.

I would say that Kelsier is the likeliest head of the "splinter them all" camp (Harmony aside). The Ire may also hold that attitude.

16 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

I believe the current situation is a result of him feeling that the intrusion of another Shard is a threat to the world under his care or the people of said world.

Technically that is likely correct. However, every other Shard would fit that description to him. So ...

16 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

So, basically the same problem as right-libertarian ideas?

Yes

16 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Fair enough, though I mostly wanted to highlight how preposterous I found the idea of the man who argues for an absolute monarchy being an anarchist. 

I am afraid you are misrepresenting young Dalinar. He does not argue for absolute monarchy. His brother is an absolute monarch. Dalinar supported that position because it suited him. He saw no need to justify it. Indeed he likely saw a need to justify a form of government as a weakness. To him this is like discussing the moral aspect of putting pineapple on a pizza and he is one of those disgusting people who see this act as morally irrelevant.

16 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

I'm not sure how nihilism is related to anarchism. Is it simply a nihilistic approach to power structures? Something like "social hierarchies lack intrinsic value?"

Yes

16 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

This might be pedantic, but wouldn't a society that achieves anarchism by definition be a non-state?

Yes, but that does not preclude calling it a state.

16 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

The same Sazed who has no problem with Survivorism, Sliverism, the Southern faith(s) or any of the religions recorded in the Words of Founding.

As folklore basically. Every serious religion acknowledges Harmony. They just see his role differently.

16 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

I don't think he's motivated to defend against Trell on grounds of Trell stealing Sazed's worshipers, but something more akin to Trell coming into his house and smashing all the furniture.

I'd say Shards are territorial rather than in need of worshippers.

16 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

If power alone defines it, is a bear divine? It is more powerful than you.

Only in a single aspect. I, wielding an AK-47, am more powerful than a bear, while I have ammunition. This is because I am sapient allowing my species to create tools like that. Yes, I left out the requirement of sapience. But other than that, what but power can define a deity?

16 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

In fact, I don't think I can give an objective criterion for godhood.

Miracles. And those boil down to extraordinary abilities. Which in turn you may call a specialised form of power. But miraculous abilities may be a better definition.

16 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Space/time independence is just a matter of physics in the cosmere, there's a perfectly adequate naturalistic explanation, the Spiritual Realm workslike that.

True, but imposing the other woud amount to denying gods or causality. Once gods are a part of the universe they must obey its laws or you sacrifice causality.

16 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Yes, so as to illustrate that I can believe that there was at least a historical person who inspired the Jesus that shows up in the Bible, without believing any of the supernatural claims about him.

That is, I can believe that there was a Jesus without believing that there was a son of God.

Yes, but thereby you deny the veracity of part of the claims. What if he really resurrected the dead, created food out of nothing and healed the sick?

16 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Ah, what you wrote seemed to imply that people with powers would use those powers to claim, err, power for themselves, thus tyranny.

They would claim power for themselves, but not all power.

Elantris will always rule Arelon. That does not mean that the Elantrians will not be ready to grant the muggles in the satellite cities the right to make some regulations and elect mayors and respect their decisions within their limits. But Arelon still won't be a democracy, but neither will it be a tyranny with Elantrians lording over slaves.

15 hours ago, Eggdogg said:

I like this post a lot. Don’t know if we can talk Venli in this forum so I didn’t bring her up or Raboniel.

You mean the same Venli who brought doom on her people by acting without and against the wishes of her government and promised to not repeat her past errors?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Yes. Anarchism is problematic as it has trouble saying how anarchism is to be maintained against people who oppose it and why people should not seek to unify to impose their will to their advantage.

...

It does. Being weak implies that you better seek strength in numbers, which in turn implies that you need rules and enforcement. There is a good reason the few places which do have something close to anarchism are called failed states.

 

I think it's worth checking out Malatesta, and propositions by the Friends of Durruti for the Spanish revolution as there's some definitional problems here in your post.

One of the fundamental principles of socialist thought is that people are generally cooperative and do not have a vested interest in cruelty toward one another when separated from hierarchical systems like capitalism (including state capitalism as implemented by Stalin). The idea is then to have a socially transformative that is ongoing in the dismantlement of that system, and that means the oppressed classes (workers, peasants, those completely excluded from the economy) overthrowing the ruling class as part of it.

This is an imposition of will by the masses against the ruling classes. Where anarchism differs from other schools of revolutionary socialism in terms of force is not expressing this in a central state structure that has a layer of police, politicians etc. but this doesn't mean that there wouldn't need to be (rotating and democratic) militia in the short term to deal with fascists or whatever. In fact one of the most effective militia during the Russian revolution involved the leadership of Nestor Makhno, an influential anarchist.

And the inequality of skills and capacity is not really a thing that undermines anarchism. Arbitrary inequalities like wealth or gendered restrictions etc. would cease to exist in communism (and anarchism is a theory of how you get there), but anarchism is not counter-posed to rules. Nothing about anarchism is connected to chaos. It's hyper-structured. But it comes back to the idea that you don't need cops to guarantee diversity in ability - cops actually over police and over-incarcerate disabled people - when you could just have a disability support system that's collectively run.

There's also no anarchist state, failed or otherwise. Do you have any examples?

3 hours ago, Lunu’anaki said:

Many Non-revolutionary anarchists believe that Anarchism can only be achieved through progressive change that deconstructs unjust hierarchical power structures over time. Most people who subscribe to that philosophy tend to have a harm-reduction approach when it comes to most governments and leaders. It's obviously arguable based on some of his other viewpoints but I'd say Hoid is a good candidate for a more "Left-Libertarian" approach to Anarchism... that probably goes back to the fact that he's sort of a blank slate for this stuff though.

 

I would also softly challenge this as well. Non-revolutionary anarchism is just radical liberalism, or libertarian strands of democratic socialism. Anarchism is by its very nature revolutionary as a school of thought.

Being revolutionary also doesn't really mean you don't support reforms. Reforms, not reformism, is a common slogan. The issue though is that Hoid thinks genocide is justifiable in certain circumstances which isn't well, at all principled if he's any kind of left libertarian.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/08/2021 at 7:48 PM, Eggdogg said:

Hoid. A lot of hoid is anarchist. He seems very free of power influence and the fact that he doesn’t have a shard (by choice I believe) is very anarchist.

I don't see how Hoid being the only same person among the 17 makes him an anarchist

Quote

I have very high hopes for Relain and Renarin.

I wouldn't imagine people with future sight gunning for an inherently unstable type of government

Quote

Autonomy is not quite right.

There might be one of them that would be pro anarchy, but most of them definitely are not

Quote

Are there any anti shards?

Probably not currently

On 18/08/2021 at 8:51 AM, Oltux72 said:

Yes, people becoming dependent on each other to make their group more autonomous. How shall I put this? Autonomy seeming to be the oddest among the Shards is no accident.

Partially because Autonomy is more than one person

Quote

You'd need to kill all Vessels and splinter all Shards, somehow.

And preferably to avoid creating a dozen of Sels in the process

Quote

And yet Thaylenah is in the coalition.

Passionists are not worshippers of Odium

20 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Remind me, what's the definition of insanity?

Experimental physicists and IA researchers would like to have a word with Einstein.

Quote

Yes. Anarchism is problematic as it has trouble saying how anarchism is to be maintained against people who oppose it and why people should not seek to unify to impose their will to their advantage.

So basically Anarchism is contrary to one of Adonalsium's four command?

19 hours ago, Oltux72 said:

Tyrants? No. There is a regretable tendency to divide politics into democracy and tyranny. It is just that one man - one vote is unrealistic.

Yes, but is it more unrealistic than anarchy?

18 hours ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

The same Sazed who has no problem with Survivorism, Sliverism, the Southern faith(s) or any of the religions recorded in the Words of Founding.

Don't forget Trellagism

19 hours ago, Proletariat said:

However there might be hope with Venli in her redemption. A group of refugees that have rejected their god and are swearing oaths alongside fugitive Enlightened spren seems as good a basis as any for anarchism.

They're not among the Enlightened sprens they're among the Reachers

Honestly I doubt any knights of Honour and Cultivation will become anarchism

Quote

Technically that is likely correct. However, every other Shard would fit that description to him. So ...

No. For example if Devotion came to Scadrial and asked nicely to settle with him it'd be a very different situation.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

I am afraid you are misrepresenting young Dalinar. He does not argue for absolute monarchy. His brother is an absolute monarch. Dalinar supported that position because it suited him. He saw no need to justify it. Indeed he likely saw a need to justify a form of government as a weakness. To him this is like discussing the moral aspect of putting pineapple on a pizza and he is one of those disgusting people who see this act as morally irrelevant.

We're not talking about young Dalinar we're talking about current day "I expected a king to be a king" Dalinar

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

I would say that Kelsier is the likeliest head of the "splinter them all" camp (Harmony aside).

Fair enough.

36 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

The Ire may also hold that attitude.

I could see the Ire taking that position as an alternative to trying to get themselves a Shard, yes.

39 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Technically that is likely correct. However, every other Shard would fit that description to him. So ...

I think we interpret Sazed differently then, I think he'd be fine with open, mutual cooperation.

41 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

I am afraid you are misrepresenting young Dalinar.

That is probably true, as I'm not trying to represent young Dalinar at all, I'm trying to represent RoW Dalinar.

His reaction to Jasnah's proposed reforms is that limiting the power of the monarch is a bad thing and he thinks that queen Fen is held back by the Thaylen system as she can't just make a decision and see it carried out.

The man's not just a proponent of monarchy, but absolute monarchy. Or at the very least a de jure absolute monarchy, if not a de facto one.

51 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Yes, but that does not preclude calling it a state.

Fair enough.

I did say that it might be pedantic.

52 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

As folklore basically. Every serious religion acknowledges Harmony. They just see his role differently.

Question, which are the serious religions?

This is another point where I think we've interpreted the text differently.

We also know too little about the prevalence and view of minority faiths to make declarative statements about them. 

I believe the best we get is in Alloy, when Wax being Pathian comes up in the context of the engagement to Steris, with Lord Harms, IIRC, calling it a "respectable faith" or something similar.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

I'd say Shards are territorial rather than in need of worshippers.

Would you not be if an unkown entity, with unknown goals, tried to get into your house without you noticing? Sazed has every reason to be distrustful of the unknown entity taking unprovoked action with no warning.

In any case, none of these things contradict the possibility of freedom of religion.

Sazed's actions aren't motivated by people renouncing worship of Harmony, nor is he responsible for how Scadrian religions have evolved since his Ascension, he does not mandate from on high that Harmony must be worshipped, nor that Trell must not be.

Sazed's motivation is not to keep another god out, it's to keep a possible threat out.

And looking to real life again, a state can have freedom of religion enshrined in its constitution, but still take umbrage with a different state supporting armed insurrectionists within their territory, being territorial is not the same as not having freedom of religion.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

Only in a single aspect. I, wielding an AK-47, am more powerful than a bear, while I have ammunition. This is because I am sapient allowing my species to create tools like that. Yes, I left out the requirement of sapience. But other than that, what but power can define a deity?

Hmm, mostly fair.

I have already said that I feel unable to find an objective criterion of godhood.

If power is the measure of divinity, where's the line between god and non-god? During the Cold War, were the leaders of the US and USSR gods? They held the power to end modern human existence.

I think I just hit on why this doesn't work for me, and please correct me if I've misunderstood you, but this implies to me that divinity is a function of power.

Under such a reading, any sufficiently powerful being is divine, which is a problem to me.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

Miracles. And those boil down to extraordinary abilities. Which in turn you may call a specialised form of power. But miraculous abilities may be a better definition.

Then what is a miracle?

Is not our modern world filled with miracles?

We can do things with the press of a button that would have been unexplainable 2000 years ago.

As it goes, is there a difference between sufficiently advanced technology and magic?

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

True, but imposing the other woud amount to denying gods or causality. Once gods are a part of the universe they must obey its laws or you sacrifice causality.

Then space/time independence can only be a property of gods within an existence where space/time independence is broadly possible?

You can also solve this by saying "gods are not part of the Universe."

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

Yes, but thereby you deny the veracity of part of the claims.

Yes?

I don't understand why this is a problem.

I'm not saying "the Bible is true but Jesus is not the son of God," I'm saying "Jesus is not the son of God."

My illustration hinges on that I can deny the divinity of Jesus, just like I can deny the divinity of Shards, without denying their existence.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

What if he really resurrected the dead, created food out of nothing and healed the sick?

Well, that's unverifiable, if that is true he could obviously do some things that were beyond the people of the time, but even if it's true I don't have to chalk it up to divinity.

Me being ignorant of the mechanism is not cause to immediately say it's divine.

Or are you trying to say that Shards do verifiable things that would look divine to us? Because in that case I've been missing it the whole time.

In that case I'd say that Shardic "miracles" are perfectly consistent with the rules of the cosmere, there's no need to ascribe to them divinity.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

They would claim power for themselves, but not all power.

Elantris will always rule Arelon. That does not mean that the Elantrians will not be ready to grant the muggles in the satellite cities the right to make some regulations and elect mayors and respect their decisions within their limits. But Arelon still won't be a democracy, but neither will it be a tyranny with Elantrians lording over slaves.

Ah, thank you for explaining. 

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

You mean the same Venli who brought doom on her people by acting without and against the wishes of her government and promised to not repeat her past errors?

I think they might mean the Venli who's trying to build a new future away from the war and the fused, the Venli who wants freedom for her kin, the Venli who's trying to be better.

17 hours ago, Eggdogg said:

I was not expecting such a long response like @Inquisitor #5 gave, thanks for the time and thought.

Aww, thanks.

I hope I didn't come across as too snappy.

17 hours ago, Eggdogg said:

I was not arguing that Dalinar was an anarchist, merely that his post blackthorn thought process was empathetic to anarchism especially in terms of how quick he accept characters for who they are, breaking customs, redefining roles.

Ah, I misunderstood then.

17 hours ago, Eggdogg said:

in terms of Wayne having the right attitude…the way he trades for things based on his own sense of value and his neglect at recognizing any authority. Wayne’s brain seems somewhat free of outside coercion via his unique set of values or maybe circumstance.

Oh, OK, I can see where you're coming from.

 

17 hours ago, Eggdogg said:

Kelsier’s reaction at the start Secret History is a demand for justification. A demand for justification is also not exclusive to anarchism neither are Dalinar’s thoughts.

OK, thanks for clarifying.

 

 

¤_¤

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Question, which are the serious religions?

This is another point where I think we've interpreted the text differently.

We also know too little about the prevalence and view of minority faiths to make declarative statements about them. 

I believe the best we get is in Alloy, when Wax being Pathian comes up in the context of the engagement to Steris, with Lord Harms, IIRC, calling it a "respectable faith" or something similar.

Survivorism, Pathism and Beyondism are definitely serious religions. No idea whether Sliverism, Trellism or Trellagism would count.

By the way, the Trell in Trellism is implied not to be the same one as in Trellagism, the fact that someone is impersonating the person who helped Sazed set Scadrial back in it's original orbit might be slightly annoying to him.

Quote

Would you not be if an unkown entity, with unknown goals, tried to get into your house without you noticing? Sazed has every reason to be distrustful of the unknown entity taking unprovoked action with no warning.

Entity whose last known words were "let's blow this planet up"

Quote

Sazed's motivation is not to keep another god out, it's to keep a possible threat out.

To keep an imidiate threat out actually

Quote

Under such a reading, any sufficiently powerful being is divine, which is a problem to me.

Personally I don't take any power lower than Omnipotent as enough to declare someone/thing divine.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

I think we interpret Sazed differently then, I think he'd be fine with open, mutual cooperation.

He is. As long as you stay on your world. He is happy to stay on his. He cooperates with Hoid, but he'd still be much happier if he went through "customs".

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

That is probably true, as I'm not trying to represent young Dalinar at all, I'm trying to represent RoW Dalinar.

Very well.

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

His reaction to Jasnah's proposed reforms is that limiting the power of the monarch is a bad thing and he thinks that queen Fen is held back by the Thaylen system as she can't just make a decision and see it carried out.

The man's not just a proponent of monarchy, but absolute monarchy. Or at the very least a de jure absolute monarchy, if not a de facto one.

I'd see him having less of an issue with a republic plainly overthrowing and executing their monarch than with a figurehead monarch. His reaction to the former would likely be to state that the weakling has gotten what he deserved.

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Question, which are the serious religions?

Survivorism (which we see hints as being the majority), Pathism, on the borderline Sliverism.

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Would you not be if an unkown entity, with unknown goals, tried to get into your house without you noticing? Sazed has every reason to be distrustful of the unknown entity taking unprovoked action with no warning.

Yes. I am not saying that Shards are unjustified in being territorial. I am plainly stating that they are.

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

In any case, none of these things contradict the possibility of freedom of religion.

But they do. Allowing people on your wold to give allegiance to other Shards would give those Shards agents in your home base. You cannot allow that.

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Sazed's actions aren't motivated by people renouncing worship of Harmony, nor is he responsible for how Scadrian religions have evolved since his Ascension, he does not mandate from on high that Harmony must be worshipped, nor that Trell must not be.

The former, yes, the latter, no.

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

If power is the measure of divinity, where's the line between god and non-god? During the Cold War, were the leaders of the US and USSR gods? They held the power to end modern human existence.

No, for they did not have that power. The armed forces of the country had (and have) that power.

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Is not our modern world filled with miracles?

No, for none of these miracles are specific and personal to those who create them. But as far as we know there are things only a Shard can do, like changing the Initiation of an Arcane Art.

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

As it goes, is there a difference between sufficiently advanced technology and magic?

No and I had actually considered that one of the centerpieces of the Cosmere.

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Then space/time independence can only be a property of gods within an existence where space/time independence is broadly possible?

You can also solve this by saying "gods are not part of the Universe."

Gods then are part of a multiverse, whose different parts have different laws of nature. That merely makes laws of nature be not fundamental. We merely would invent a new natural science concerned with understanding what determines the different laws in different parts of the multiverse.

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Well, that's unverifiable, if that is true he could obviously do some things that were beyond the people of the time, but even if it's true I don't have to chalk it up to divinity.

That is the key difference. In the Cosmere they are verifiable.

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Me being ignorant of the mechanism is not cause to immediately say it's divine.

Yes.

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

Or are you trying to say that Shards do verifiable things that would look divine to us? Because in that case I've been missing it the whole time.

Not fully. They do powerful things that you verifiably need to be a Shard to do. I must confess the my thoughts on this were a bit unclear and I did not formulate the point well.

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

In that case I'd say that Shardic "miracles" are perfectly consistent with the rules of the cosmere, there's no need to ascribe to them divinity.

That I am afraid is a fallacy.

9 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

I think they might mean the Venli who's trying to build a new future away from the war and the fused, the Venli who wants freedom for her kin, the Venli who's trying to be better.

Let's be honest. If Odium ever takes over Roshar, Venli and her people will be toast, just on general principle of eliminating traitors.

Her neutrality means that she lets other people do the dirty work she benefits from. Not very honorable.

44 minutes ago, mathiau said:

Partially because Autonomy is more than one person

That is a perfectly rational response to a difficult position. Her Intent is against giving up autonomy to join an alliance. But her survival depends on allies. So she goes and makes allies, literally.

44 minutes ago, mathiau said:

And preferably to avoid creating a dozen of Sels in the process

Personally I'd say the "Selish Solution" is preferrable to having the Cosmere ruled by Shards.

44 minutes ago, mathiau said:

So basically Anarchism is contrary to one of Adonalsium's four command?

Common sense I'd have said.

44 minutes ago, mathiau said:

No. For example if Devotion came to Scadrial and asked nicely to settle with him it'd be a very different situation.

The same Sazed who refuses to help even innocent children?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, mathiau said:

Survivorism, Pathism and Beyondism are definitely serious religions. No idea whether Sliverism, Trellism or Trellagism would count.

 

44 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Survivorism (which we see hints as being the majority), Pathism, on the borderline Sliverism.

See, I find it a bit problematic to label some religions "serious" and others "folklore." It can too easily be used to disregard the minority simply for being the minority.

I'll happily agree that several of the mentioned are the major or majority religions of the North, just not that that makes the rest "not religions" or unworthy of consideration.

53 minutes ago, mathiau said:

By the way, the Trell in Trellism is implied not to be the same one as in Trellagism, the fact that someone is impersonating the person who helped Sazed set Scadrial back in it's original orbit might be slightly annoying to him.

I had not considered that angle, I like it.

50 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

He is. As long as you stay on your world. He is happy to stay on his. He cooperates with Hoid, but he'd still be much happier if he went through "customs".

I think that's an unfair comparison, Hoid is not a Shard, the dynamic between him and Sazed is going to be different than that of Sazed and another Vessel.

He might have happily hosted Bavadin if she rang the doorbell, introduced herself, etc. instead of sneaking into his garden to pour weedkiller on the roses.

56 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

I'd see him having less of an issue with a republic plainly overthrowing and executing their monarch than with a figurehead monarch. His reaction to the former would likely be to state that the weakling has gotten what he deserved.

This is quite possible, yes.

I'd still argue that he's an autocrat at heart.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

But they do. Allowing people on your wold to give allegiance to other Shards would give those Shards agents in your home base. You cannot allow that.

How so?

Dalinar shared what he'd heard directly from Honor and instead of all of Vorinism bending to him immediately it got him excommunicated.

Vorinism, a religion deifying Honor, did not end up as agents of Honor.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

The former, yes, the latter, no.

I'm sorry, I can't quite follow exactly what parts of what you quoted you're saying what to.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

No, for they did not have that power. The armed forces of the country had (and have) that power.

Are they then divine?

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

But as far as we know there are things only a Shard can do, like changing the Initiation of an Arcane Art.

And this makes them worthy of being called gods in your eyes but not in mine.

I don't think we'll ever see eye-to-eye on this, but it sure is a lot of fun to debate.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

No and I had actually considered that one of the centerpieces of the Cosmere.

Is it then not resonable to think that any miracle is just something that I don't yet understand, but that falls wholly within the laws of the natural world, rather than thinking it to be outside those laws?

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

Gods then are part of a multiverse, whose different parts have different laws of nature. That merely makes laws of nature be not fundamental. We merely would invent a new natural science concerned with understanding what determines the different laws in different parts of the multiverse.

Physics of the gods would be one heck of a title.

So, what makes these extradimesional beings gods rather than sufficiently advanced aliens or things beyond mortal ken?

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:
Quote

Me being ignorant of the mechanism is not cause to immediately say it's divine.

Yes.

I honestly can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing. :lol:

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

That is the key difference. In the Cosmere they are verifiable.

In the cosmere there's also an understood mechanism by which such miracles can be wrought, just pull some investiture from the Spiritual, convert it to energy, perform multiplication of bread and fish, or whatever.

There's nothing here that contradicts known laws of the cosmere, while Jesus performing the same multiplication has no understood explanation, physics doesn't work like that in reality.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

Not fully. They do powerful things that you verifiably need to be a Shard to do.

As I said earlier, I don't find their unique capabilities to make them divine.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

I must confess the my thoughts on this were a bit unclear and I did not formulate the point well.

No harm, no foul. We're debating fairly complicated things on the internet and having to keep our thoughts straight as all the words fly. :)

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

That I am afraid is a fallacy.

Oh? I genuinely don't know why.

How so?

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

Let's be honest. If Odium ever takes over Roshar, Venli and her people will be toast, just on general principle of eliminating traitors.

No arguing that, though I don't believe that's the point.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

Her neutrality means that she lets other people do the dirty work she benefits from. Not very honorable.

It's not a debate over whether her actions (or inactions) are honourable, but if she leans toward anarchism.

In any case, she wishes that the Singers had the option to not serve Odium, they were healed and pressed into service pretty much immediately, no-one asked them how they wanted to live, they just had Odium's rule thrust upon them.

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

The same Sazed who refuses to help even innocent children?

He's spent 300-odd years with mental capacity far beyond a human and with a different perspective on time than we have, I think he's had ample opportunity to think about his approach.

I'm not saying I agree with him, but I think I understand him.

Should he have made Scadrial a world of no consequences?

Should he have elliminated free will?

Should he have taken control of all the kandra, koloss and of Marsh and spoken through them, installing himself as the most enlightened despot, God-Emperor Sazed the Harmonious?

I don't know the right thing to do in his position and I'm not sure there is a right thing to do, nor do I know what I'd do in that position.

If he eliminated all disease anything from the outside could become a pandemic, made worse by the fact that the people would never be pressured to develop medical science before this point.

If he healed all wounds medical science would be similarly stunted.

He already worries about the rate of innovation in the Basin, thinking he made life their too good, limiting pressures to change things.

And keep in mind that he knows that his position is not a safe one, other Vessels have died before him, Vessels of his very powers in fact.

If he were to die, having prevented all disease, having healed all wounds, having held everyone's hand all through their lives, Scadrial would be unprepared and exposed to whatever came their way.

I don't mean this to be moralising, I'm not sure either path is moral.

 

 

Phew, that took a lot out of me...

 

2 hours ago, mathiau said:

Entity whose last known words were "let's blow this planet up"

Which, to be fair, we don't know if Sazed knows.

2 hours ago, mathiau said:

To keep an imidiate threat out actually

Yeah, fair enough. Maybe I should have said an unknown threat or something.

3 hours ago, mathiau said:

Don't forget Trellagism

I believe that one's in the category of "in the Words of Founding" as, if I recall, that's the dump of what was in Sazed's copperminds.

 

 

 

¤_¤

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

He is. As long as you stay on your world. He is happy to stay on his. He cooperates with Hoid, but he'd still be much happier if he went through "customs".

There are customs on Scadrial? I know there are some on Nalthis but I don't remember anything about customs on Scadrial.

Anyway the issue Sazed has with Hoid hiding himself is he sees it as Hoid distrusting him

Quote

Survivorism (which we see hints as being the majority), Pathism, on the borderline Sliverism.

Beyondism is spreading on Scadrial, both Wayne and Lessie are beyondists

Quote

The former, yes, the latter, no.

He doesn't mandate that Trell must not be worshiped, he mandate that being a part of Trell's rebellion is forbidden.

Quote

No, for they did not have that power. The armed forces of the country had (and have) that power.

The people with the nukes had that power to be exact

Quote

That is a perfectly rational response to a difficult position. Her Intent is against giving up autonomy to join an alliance. But her survival depends on allies. So she goes and makes allies, literally.

Definitly

Quote

Personally I'd say the "Selish Solution" is preferrable to having the Cosmere ruled by Shards.

If having a giant mass of investiture in the CR didn't cause time dilation in the PR I'd agree, but it does and I believe having time flow roughly at the same speed in all of the Cosmere is very important to the Era 4 balance of power

Quote

Common sense I'd have said.

I don't understand this sentence

Quote

The same Sazed who refuses to help even innocent children?

Exactly. The reason Sazed don't help innocent children is because he has trouble acting at all (remember Harmony is the fusion between the eventual end of all things and the concept of stasis, acting to give short term help to people is very hard to him). If he can help by not acting he will not act (especially if he think the Shard he's taking in will help the children).

36 minutes ago, Inquisitor #5 said:

I believe that one's in the category of "in the Words of Founding" as, if I recall, that's the dump of what was in Sazed's copperminds.

I know but with Trell attacking Scadrial it felt wrong to me not to remind people that it is one of the religions in the WoF

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2021 at 11:18 PM, Eggdogg said:

Dalinar is similar to Sazed, in that he is a leader and has accumulated way too much power. However a lot of Dalinar’s thoughts and actions post “blackthorn” seem to be very empathetic to anarchism. In particular, the way he questions everything he does.

A ruler questioning their decisions does not make that ruler an anarchist. Dalinar repeatedly complains about Azish bureaucracy and talks with Jasnah about having a single unified leader.

Is Hoid an anarchist? I dunno. Maybe he'd be sympathetic to the idea but it doesn't really feel like he'd care. He wouldn't like dictatorships much but he seems more into maintaining his own free agency than trying to overthrow establishments. I imagine his views would be more nuanced given his advanced age.

Sazed, huh... I could kind of see that with the old him. No idea about Harmony.

 

The broader Cosmere setting and magics might look good for anarchism, I guess but I don't think any character or event is pushing towards that quite yet. We might see something like that in era 4, perhaps with the Sixth of the Dusk storyline, that seems plausible

Edited by Honorless
typo
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had another thought on this subject... Brandon enjoys political intrigue and the flawed machinations of rulers as jumping off points for storytelling... That's very hard to do in a system which lacks any sort of hierarchy and is, fundamentally... well... fair. Fairness doesn't often make a good story. I'm not saying there's no chance of this happening in the cosmere... but if it does I think it would be in the form of the conclusion of a story, or as an ancient past in a worlds history.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ This.

He kind of spelled this out with Kelsier's attempted overthrow of the ruling class on Scadrial, and then Vin and Elend just became the new ruling class. If Scadrial transitioned to communism after that, then it would've been hard to tell much of a story.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.