Sanderson's Philosophy on Invention

[Ammanas]

So this isn't really a theory, but more of a observation. It seems that Sanderson feels very strongly that inventors are overrated because we look past all the people that that either created the stepping stones for their achievement or we overlook all the other people that were working on the same idea in different parts of the world and just missed out on getting it out first. Perhaps he is also saying the impotant events that happen in society is based upon the Zeitgeist of the particular era and not through the solitary actions of individuals? 

My evidence for this in Shadows of Self Ch 10 where the girl accosted Wayne (in disguise) for stealing her fathers invention and taking credit for it.

Also the end of Way of Kings:

"In this, as in all things, our actions give us away. If an artist creates a work of powerful beauty—using new and innovative techniques—she will be lauded as a master, and will launch a new movement in aesthetics.  Yet what if another, working independently with that exact level of skill, were to make the same accomplishments the very next month?  Would she find similar acclaim?  No.  She’d be called derivative.

Intellect.  If a great thinker develops a new theory of mathematics, science, or philosophy, we will name him wise.  We will sit at his feet and learn, and will record his name in history for thousands upon thousands to revere.  But what if another man determines the same theory on his own, then delays in publishing his results by a mere week? Will he be remembered for his greatness? No.  He will be forgotten.

Invention.  A woman builds a new design of create worth—some fabrial or feat of engineering.  She will be known as an innovator. But if someone with the same talent creates the same design a year later—not realizing it has already been crafted—will she be rewarded for her creativity? No.  She’ll be called a copier and a forger.

And so, in the end, what must we determine?  Is it the intellect of a genius that we revere?  If it were their artistry, the beauty of their mind, would we not laud it regardless of whether we’d seen their product before?

But we don’t.  Given two works of artistic majesty, otherwise weighted equally, we will give greater acclaim to the one who did it first.  It doesn’t matter what you create.  It matters what you create before anyone else.

So it’s not the beauty itself we admire.  It’s not the force of intellect.  It’s not invention, aesthetics, or capacity itself.  The greatest talent that we think a man can have?  Seems to me that it must be nothing more than novelty."

So this isn't really a groundbreaking theory or anything, but I just wanted to share.

[Pattern he/him]

1 hour ago, Ammanas said:

"In this, as in all things, our actions give us away. If an artist creates a work of powerful beauty—using new and innovative techniques—she will be lauded as a master, and will launch a new movement in aesthetics.  Yet what if another, working independently with that exact level of skill, were to make the same accomplishments the very next month?  Would she find similar acclaim?  No.  She’d be called derivative.

Intellect.  If a great thinker develops a new theory of mathematics, science, or philosophy, we will name him wise.  We will sit at his feet and learn, and will record his name in history for thousands upon thousands to revere.  But what if another man determines the same theory on his own, then delays in publishing his results by a mere week? Will he be remembered for his greatness? No.  He will be forgotten.

Invention.  A woman builds a new design of create worth—some fabrial or feat of engineering.  She will be known as an innovator. But if someone with the same talent creates the same design a year later—not realizing it has already been crafted—will she be rewarded for her creativity? No.  She’ll be called a copier and a forger.

And so, in the end, what must we determine?  Is it the intellect of a genius that we revere?  If it were their artistry, the beauty of their mind, would we not laud it regardless of whether we’d seen their product before?

But we don’t.  Given two works of artistic majesty, otherwise weighted equally, we will give greater acclaim to the one who did it first.  It doesn’t matter what you create.  It matters what you create before anyone else.

So it’s not the beauty itself we admire.  It’s not the force of intellect.  It’s not invention, aesthetics, or capacity itself.  The greatest talent that we think a man can have?  Seems to me that it must be nothing more than novelty."

This is Wits/Hoids answer to the question "What is it that men value in others?"

Anything coming from Hoid has to be taken with care, so I would not reflect his words directly on Brandon. Another example is Brandon writing Jasnah's atheistic reasoning. The implication that Brandon is an atheist from that would be simply wrong.

Furthermore, in the conclusion of the epilogue in WoK, Hoid names timeliness as what men value most and that Taln - or the person naming himself Taln - is too late. This obviously is a cliffhanger for what is yet to come (and even a book later we are not really better informed about "Talns" role in the greater picture). So all the philosophical talk is a buildup to the cliffhanger. First of all, this is good writing (in my opinion) and less expression of Brandons own philosophy.

[Thanatos]

Ive seen dozens of Brandons lectures.

One of his main point is, 'ideas are cheap. Its how you use them that that matters.' 

Meaning, theres no original thoughts. Only your interpretation and way of tackling said 'idea'.

He also has physicists and scientists friends helping him in his 'fantasy' stories.

Edited July 15, 2017 by Thanatos

[Oversleep]

4 hours ago, Ammanas said:

My evidence for this in Shadows of Self Ch 10 where the girl accosted Wayne (in disguise) for stealing her fathers invention and taking credit for it.

That's more of a jab at that thief Edison. You know, the one who supposedly "invented" lightbulb.

It's probably not a coincidence that "Tarcsel" resembles "Tesla".