Rasha

I feel that we don't have the same definition of compassion then. Compassion is a virtue by which an individual is prone to percieve or feel a stranger's pain, and is pushed to remedy it. There is no compassion when there is no bridging of the divide between oneself and the unknown. And there is no compassion without actions to actually solve what is causing pain. There is a difference between pity and compassion. For Shallan, she simply apologize because she realize that she was wrong, and then offers an apology. That's it. It's an every day act that requires no compassion. For Taravangian, she only have access to his kind side, and doesn't see the atrocities he has committed. She knows he is not a fool, because of the discussion they had in Karbranth. She know his reputation and actions in Karbranth, which all paint him as a Kind man. Of course she is going to describe him as a kind man, that is the projection that mister T. sends to the world. It doesn't take compassion to consider T. a kind mind. As for Renarin, how could would you have to be to kill your own cousin, kneeling before you and crying because he thinks he is a vector of evil ? Jasnah changes her mind only when she sees that Renarin is willing to die, so that humanity has a better chance of surviving. Wanting to save humanity when one is human is not an act of compassion. What would be compassion would be wanting to save the Parshendi while being human. It takes an action to bridge the divide to an unknown, considering how things stand for them, feeling what they feel and then acting on it. Jasnah is not compassionate. No compassionate person would have killed the tugs in Karbranth like she did. What she did was a very logical solution, but it was not compassionate. A compassionate person would have acted on what caused these men to become robbers / murderers, tried to solve the problems leading to criminality, offered reinsertion into society after the purging of a sentence. Jasnah tried nothing to solve the problem, but directly tried the fastest way. Efficency and necessity are cold and harsh mistresses, but in this case, necessity was a lie. How can you call yourself compassionate when you use murder as a lesson to your ward ? At least Nalan knows what he is doing and purposedly rejects compassion as a virtue. Do not mistake me, I love Jasnah. Because I am drawn to selfless extremist personalities that know what they are doing, and that are able to justify their extreme actions coherently. I love Taravangian too. Because it takes an amazingly strong person to see that the end of world is coming and deciding to salvage most of what you can. They both are very selfless persons, that act not to further their gain, but on behalf of others. But there is a differance between being selfless and compassionate. One can commit atrocities while being selfless.

Jasnah is not compassionate. Yes, she spared Renarin, but only because it was Renarin, who she had known her entire life. If it wasn't someone of her family, crying and kneeling before her, I would say that Jasnah wouldn't have hesitated. She has other qualities though, she is intelligent, logical and resolute. But she doesn't possess an ounce of compassion.

Hello, This is an update on a theory I built in a previous post. The goal of this theory is to analyze the Shin society, based on their relation to Stone or their inherent pacifism. For those not willing to click the link I posted, I will just quote the theory into spoilers. The first part of the update is the most obvious, as we get new shiny text evidence that establishes a link between the Heralds and the Shin, which is a pretty nice confirmation that there was at least relation of worship between the Honorblades as a symbol and the Shin. Note that the Shin walking up to the Honorblades and kneeling happens after Jezrien announces that the Desolation is over. The second part is more tenuous. With Oathbringuer, we didn't get many insights into the Shin society. There was a post postuling that Stone was holy for the Shin, because it was a reliquat of the era when Parshendi forbid the Shin to walk out of the mountains. I like this a lot, as it is a phenomen that exist in our world. For exemple, the prohibition to eat pork stemed from the fact that pork spoils very fast when you can not refrigerate it. Other reasons may include the fact that unlike many other forms of livestok, pigs are omnivorous scavengers, eating virtually anything they come across, including carrion and trash. This restriction on pork carries still into our modern day, when most Muslim and Jews don't eat pork. Even in countries where the sanitory reasons are moot, the religious tabou is still strong, and the rule is still obeyed as an absolute unbreakable rule. What is the link with the Shin ? Well it is simple. Being prohibited to walk out of the mountain, they decided that the most effective and simple way to respect the agreement with the Parshendi was to create a religious interdiction to walk out of the mountains. With time, this degraded to an interdiction to walk into the mountains, and as the mountains are pretty much the only thing made of stone in Shinovar, it soon began to be seen as forbidden to walk on stone. Now, the initial reason of the prohibition has disapeared, as humanity is all over Roshar, but the tabou and religious beliefs are still present in the Shin society. As an aside, I wonder if the propention of the Shin to keep to their agreement flawlessly is what drove Honor to the humans.

I'm getting my copy on the 21-22th. So until then, I'm off the 17th Shard. Enjoy your reading!

Gardens of the Moon symptom. Well, if we arrive to it with the Stormlight Archive, it would mean that Brandon has done a fantastic job, I have no complaint about that.

I knew I should have gone to my local library, instead of relying on Amazon who will send it to me two weeks late. Curse you Amazon.

Utilitarianism is not very useful here. The basic tennet of utilitarianism, is that good actions are actions that maximize utility. Expecting utilitarism to define what is moral is a circular argument. What is moral is what maximize utility. How to maximize utility ? Well that depends of what you value above all else. What do you value ? Well that depends of your morality. Mill has a view of Utility that is one of a liberal (and I mean a 19th century liberal, not a US democrat). For Mill, to maximize utility, you have to maximize individual interest. For him, the public interest is no other than the sum of all the private interests. Thus, according to Mill an ideal utilitarist society is an individualist society. Of course, we now know that maximizing individualism in the hope of greater common utlity is utter rubish. If everyone only acts upon his personal utility, then society is globally screwed. Plus this theory was rebutted by both Kant and Arendt, with very convincing arguments. Kant argued that the human mind creates the structure of human experience and that reason is the source of morality. He argued that hypothetical moral systems cannot persuade moral action or be regarded as bases for moral judgments against others, because the imperatives on which they are based rely too heavily on subjective considerations. Kant is a bit the Father of Moral Relativism. He develops an exemple of the deontological theory, which states that the rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill our duty (Categorical Imperative). On what is duty: Ethical Essentialism, is the basis of the position adopted by monotheistic religions on Morality. The view of Morality by Chrisitanism dates back to the 13th century by Aquinas and Augustus. These two authors found the Basics concepts of Essentialism, created by Aristotle and Plato and attempted to reconcile Christian Theology with the theory. I think there is a divide between the two positions that we will not be able to gap with rationnal arguments. Beside, refuting Essentialism is well outside my capacities. But if Aquinas and Augustus never existed, we probably would not have this debate as the Christian view on Morality may have been very different and may even not have been based on Divine Essence. You phrased with much tact what I have not been able to say for fear of not being polite. Thanks. If it is not too touchy a subject, could you elaborate on that point ? Of course you are free to tell me to storm off with my (very) unpolite request, but I am curious. I had some thoughts in the past, but managed to get rid of them, hopefully permanently. I am glad that for you Religion has been a positive influence. Although we could debate that "better or worse person" is a matter of morality and... No, I am kidding, and it is a bad jest, Congratz on your progress. As for paradise, I would like to say that I do not want to commit my actions in view of getting a higher reward once I am dead. I find the notion of acting good to expect divine rewards profoundly cynical (careful now I don't say that every Christian or monotheist does that), and I would rather like to find out that Paradise doesn't exist. I would be perfectly happy to slide into nothingness. Of course this is my personal view and as such it is subject to subjectivity (ah!).

Does identity need a human to be created or change ? The stick was persuaded to be a sick, and I doubt many humans saw it in a lost part of the Frostland. It didn't need humans to persuade him that it would stay a stick, it just was a stick because its form and essence matched one of a stick. If Identity is an innate attribute, it should be able to change on its own, reguardless of human presence. When the Physical form doesn't match the Cognitive Identity there is a conflict and I would hazard that after long enough, the Cognitive Itentity changes to match the Physical form.

It could be interpreted as such: the 9 Unmade are all active on Roshar just before a Desolation, before the 10 Heralds return. That is what happened on Roshar this time: the Thrill and Death Rattles were all active way before the Desolation started, and way before Taln returned from Damnation. If we haven't seen the other Unmades, it may be because like Re-Shephir, they are hidden or biding their time before accomplishing their purpose.

The forum ate my previous response, and so I am 2hours late, and the debate on morality moved on to Shalan. I will post it regardless, but in spoiler so it will not derail too much the topic:

Well, I slept through the whole morality debate, but that may be a good thing, given that Calderis advanced similar views in a fashion that is far more tactful than I managed to be on the same subject in the past. @Scriptorianthe blind zealot accusation, as harsh as it is, is a valid criticism in this case. Accepting one's morality as unquestionable is a slippery slope that leads to unquestionable actions. On the other hand, one needs to hold himself to a moral code that is a minimum static. If your (general you, not you personally) moral code changes every two weeks, it is not a moral code anymore, but a paved road to hypocrisy to justify your actions. That's why I think a lot of the religious people on the thread have a issue with our moral relativism. But accepting that morality is a product of our time and society doesn't mean that we are ready to change our morality to suit our actions. It just mean that if someone commit an act that is anathema to what we perceive as moral, we may (not every one does it) take the time to judge him by taking into account the circumstances and pressures that led him to act. It is the principle of saying that murder is not always wrong, for example when it is committed according to the principles of self defense (which include the necessity of a proportional response: you don't shoot someone with a gun because he threatened you with a stick, it's not proportional). Absolute rules avail us nothing, which is why when you are judged by a tribunal, the judges will examinate the circumstances of your actions, instead of automatically applying a sentence to a crime. I think that the most important thing to keep in mind is to value compassion above all in our relationship with others. Because compassion is independent of the moral compass of a society or an individual. Reading fiction or fantasy is a wonderful thing to develop empathy and compassion. It takes us to unfamiliar settings, in the head of people that act strangely according to a bizarre and unknown moral compass. And somewhere along the way, we say to ourselves "hey, maybe they have a point there, maybe I should do things differently. Maybe spiking someone in a Dark Alley is acceptable. Well, tomorrow I will change."

These books have spent centuries being in a dust/blank state. I doubt they have retained enough of their Identity to the extent that a Radiant could even restore partially the text.

Oh, I am not criticizing any of the theorycrafting, as I am aware most people (me included) are on the 17th shard to have fun building theories and discussing things. As for the theory, I think I read it somewhere, but I don't think I have the Realmatic Knowledge to judge if it is sound or not. I was just saying that building theories based on a previous theory is shaky at best. That doesn't mean that I judge it strictly forbidden, it was just a reminder that a theory built on fact is more sound that a theory built upon a previous non verified theory. But please, continue to have fun and build theory, it is why we are all around here

After centuries decaying in the Library, the Identity of the books is probably dust, or blank pages with holes in them. Thus Regrowth may not be that useful. As for the surges, we never had any confirmation in-world or per WoB that they can be divided as your theory states it, and I would take it with a grain of salt until official confirmation.

There is also the classic three questions / three answers that sends the protagonist into her hero's journey. It's the Rule of Three, and it's very common in popular myths. Everything worth saying must be said thrice, because it can be denied twice. It is also a reliquat of the old times, were tales were told by voice, and never written. The Rule of Three allowed an easier memorization, which is why it is present in all the old myths, and still used now as a reference. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfThree There, I send you on a TVtropes journey, may the Allmighty save you from spending your whole day on it.

I dont think he will fight with the Voidbringuers. Returning the Heralds and the Vorin Church has no value if humankind is extinguished. The KR are servents of the Heralds. He would not impede them, I think.

Above the Storms, the pavement.

@thejopen27 You are missing the whole point I make. I think you should read again carefuly what I wrote, without trying to think I have an hidden agenda to promote slavery or whatever. Of course I am not saying that slavery is a good thing, because I belong in the 21th century, and I belong in a civilization that holds for primary belief that all men are born equal in rights. Slavery has no place in our modern society, and it is a good thing that it is going extinct (although it still exists in a myriad of forms, which saddens me to no end). Why am I able to make this judgement ? Because others before me have make the work of developping the core beliefs of our society. Before me, there was multiple philosphers doing the heavy lifting of creating new ideals, like Rousseau creating the idea of Social Contract (The Society should provide at least the minimum for all its participants). And before Rousseau, there was a whole movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism ) dedicated to create the idea that all humans should be treated equally. Before that, these ideas did not exist, and people of the ancient time would probably mock us, if we were to bring the idea of equality for all into a discussion. To be accepted into common morality, these ideas had first to be created. Then, they had to be propagated, and they had to win the battle with all others idea circulating at the time. In the ditch of lost battles you would find ideas such as eugenics that we find totally abhorrant now. And when these idea won the idealistic battle, they still had to be applied on the society. Which did not go easily For exemple, the idea "all men are born and remain equal in right" was not implemented on a large societal scale until the French Revolution. And even then, Monarchies and Empires in Europe tried to repress it in blood. You can not judge people from the Middle Age for not acting upon our modern beliefs, for they did not have the tools to do so. You are able to claim your morality as a good thing because you stand on the shoulder of giants (and ven then, I would say that claim is dubious). Just take a moment to look back and appreciate how far we have travelled. Morality change. And I would like to think it is a good thing. I hope someday, humans of the future will look back on the 21th century in disgust (like you to to the antic times,where slavery abounded), for it would mean that humanity as a whole has progressed, and left behind things such as racism, bigotry and hatred, or letting people die of hunger because doing otherwise is not profitable in terms of monetary gains. Hold no morality as absolute, and always question why things are. Doing otherwise is to risk intransigeant rightousness, and there is nothing more dangerous than that. I am sorry if I offend you, for I do not want to be rude, but if you are not willing to question why you deem your actions moral then you are no better than a fanatic zealot.

Do we even know that Kalladin know he killed Shallan's brother ? He knows he killed a Shardbearer with the Shardblade Amaram now possess. He knows she Shardbearer has red hair and is probably Veden, but I don't think we see him connect the dots on screen. There is many red-haired Veden running around, and Kaladin has probably not spared some thoughts on the identity of the Shardbearer, viewing only as a bearer of abominations that killed his men. Oh, sure, we as the audience are privy to these details, and Adolin, being a smart guy and being told by Shallan that her brother used to possess the blade connected all the dots. But Kaladin had neither the inclination nor all the necessary info to do so. So if it comes up, it will be Shallan that will initiate it.

Oh rust, thank you, I had completely forgotten. Just edited it by C/Cing the relevant part, and suppressing the offending thread. Will be more careful in the future.

Not being American or from the UK, with no Amazon premium account, I will probably not get delivered before the 21-22th. Or even later, who knows with the postal service around here. So I will probably be very happy when I see it finally arriving. Then I will be probably a bit disapointed because the UK version does not have the amazing inside cover art, but it will quickly be stiffled as I open the book and start to turn the pages. Then two days later, I will slowly emerge, as a junkie awakening in an unknown crack house, wondering what the storm do I do here, and what are those unknown people around me ?

Morality is not an absolute. It depends on the society in which you live, and is a product of the time and customs of a civilization. I will link a comment I made last week about slavery, when people were debating if the enslavement of the Parshendi was morally justified (because I am a lazy piece of rust that doesn't want to redact properly again on the same topic): It has no sense to judge actions in Stormlight by our modern laws and standards. Actions are not absolute, you have to know what gave them birth, and the circumstances of their executions. Necessity is a strange thing. I view the Terror and the Comittee of Public Safety in the French Revolution as a necessity, birthed by the dire circumstances, and Robespierre as a virtuous man led to terrible actions to save his country and the Revolution. Does it mean that I would welcome Robespierre as the French president in 2017 ? storm no. Circumstances have changed, and the Comittee would have no place in our modern society. Yet I am glad it happened in 1792.

Seing how things are made does not necessite to take them apart. One approach in science when you have an unknown system, and you don't know how it works, is to do Black box tests. You feed things into the box (inputs), and watches what it does to these things. You note the results (outputs), then feeds it different inputs until you figure out what the friggin black box does. Malata does that in every interaction she had on screen so far: she acted smiley and flirty on Dalinar, a ruthless Alethi warlord to see what would stick. Not so much apparently, and I have the feeling she knew after her try that she spooked Dalinar. So she tries something else with Shallan: she tries to act all sisterly with her, but Shallan, being the con artist she is, seems to see that it's just an act and is spooked. Of course she keeps the smile every time, as it is a kind of automatic reflex she has when interacting with people. Poor Malata. All that doesn't mean that Malata is going to be evil or whatever, it's just that people in general don't like being put to test by others wanting to know what they are made of. If this is how dustbringuers interact with the world, I see why they make people uneasy. I just see a character arriving into an unknown setting and trying to understand the mechanics of how it works. And I just love her way of doing it, I am impatient of seeing her next different approach and how it will inevitably make her locutor uncomfortable. Because Malata is unable to see that the problem lies with her method, which makes people uncomfortable. I think I can say that I already fell in love with the concept of her character (if I got it right).

Even if this thing is not a Kandra, I would guess it possess similar properties : being able to copy bodies and faces seems well within his range of abilities. Similarly, it is also drawn to mimetism : it never initiated the murders or stabbing, but only replicated them on a 1:1 scale, without being interested in mass reproduction, even if it would not be a stretch to say that it is within its capacity. It kinda reflects the old behavior of Kandra often using bones that belong to dead people, and do not murder people to obtain bones (Paalm excepted). Sure it is a lot faster than a Kandra to change forms, but if it was active during previous desolations, it had more than 4500 years to hone its craft. I would be betting that at this point, it is far more deadly than any Kandra we have seen, even if it seems (so far) to be bounded by rules or a mindless instinct.

I started a thread last week with this theory, you will find it here : You will find very strong and swaying arguments and counter arguments in the thread. Even if it is a tragic theory, I am glad I am not alone in thinking it could become true. Edit: You also have an alternative theory, stating that Dalinar was healed by his painrial: