ParaTulip

To be extremely explicit: using the example of murder as a universal wrong is pointless because the concept of murder contains within it the notion of wrong. This is the meaning of the word as I understand it. To say killing a person is wrong is different from saying murder is wrong. An executioner for works for the state is not seen to be a murderer by that state. A soldier who kills the enemy in war is not seen to be a murderer. A person who kills in self defense is not called a murderer. Thus, the word murder is not useful in discussions of morality, because it is defined as wrong. If the killing is not wrong, it is not murder. Simply saying "that's myopic" or "the alternative is absurd" doesn't make a compelling argument to me. Further, I don't find any meaningful appeal in the reason "s considered bad in basically every culture we know of, hence it is a (nearly) universal moral value." Why does it matter how many cultures believe a certain thing? Also, you stated your views are grounded in "care-based ethics, i.e. behaviours that promote healthy relationships and well-being of individuals, and their interdependance." Why does commonality across cultures matter to you then? If it was common across most cultures to abandon the elderly to the wilderness, would that be meaningful in your grounding? In my own, I see queer relationships as good because they add to the variety of the world. To suppose that romantic and sexual love can only be expressed in a certain way is to limit the potential for the expression. This is thus wrong to me. Further, I am deeply opposed to arguments which suppose actions like sex ought to serve some purpose, the roman catholic line against homosexuality being one of these (I have actually looked to the catechism to get a sense of this), and I am one to agree with Oscar Wilde: What is truly beautiful is utterly useless.

It actually is extremely helpful. Thank you for putting in the effort of explaining it. I have kind of been dreading a sort of "one or the other" outcome to this kind of an arc to the grander narrative, since there is a lot of absolutism around God in the forms of Christianity I have experience with, but the way you explained your understanding of LSD beliefs makes me think there is a way to imagine an outcome of "Yeah, we built a mono-god, but we'll treat that god like a tree from which scions may be drawn or a aspirational figure for others to see as a role model instead of as a sole ruler of the whole cosmos". Honestly, a lot of forms of religion feel like they are yet to process the genuine awe that the scale of the universe effects, being stuck with the impression that the stars and planets are simply decorations of the night sky instead of things comparable to the Earth itself.

I am glad to see someone is trying to make sense of the Unmade. I was personally really disappointed that the making of the Heralds got so much time and attention while their equal counterparts in the Unmade were ignored. It's been kinda weird to have this story with so much interest in the morality of war that gives so little time to the people fighting for theirs liberation. I do find the idea that the Unmade are the Spren of ancient Singer cities interesting. It would explain why they are on the side of the Singers even when they are against Odium. I don't know if there's enough evidence to conclude things about the nature of the fourth moon or supposing it had anything to do with Valor. Since Tanavast's memory doesn't include the event of it crashing, I feel as if it must have done so before the Shattering.

I am not saying this. Society says this. Murder is wrong when a killing is found to be wrong. Perversion or sexual immorality is wrong only when intimacy is found to be wrong. Right and wrong exist outside the acts of killing or loving a human being. If we do try to explain our own perspectives on when a killing is wrong, then all we say when we say murder is wrong is that wrongful acts are wrong. Then what is yours? Mine is simple enough: Morality is just the aesthetics of prideful priests. I desire a beautiful world, and yet I know that my sense of what is beautiful is my own, and thus I do not seek a universal moral reasoning. Utilitarians disgust me as they suppose they can know the desires of others as a mass.

My point is that there's no reason to assume the singular motivation of thinking about racial replacement was the motivation for the shattering because even in a world where Adonalsium was doing such a scheme, there would be plenty of reason to kill Adonalsium without caring about the, again, racist and fascist thinking of replacement. The idea that humanity would be lost because it might mix with another type of person is a kind of xenophobia that our world has clear analogues to in the form of people who speak of conspiracies like "the great replacement". If it turns out Hoid and company were driven by that kind of a motive, it would paint them all as ugly people in a rather bland way.

I have tried to read it, but the graphic novel failed to hold my interest. I recall finding Kenton just impossible to care about for some reason. I also don't think Bavadin's idea of good really seems to care about humans in particular or even sapient life. The impression I have off what I have seen is that she seems more interested in promoting the growth of bacteria and birds than she does the progress of human technology. I think this is an attitude fitting for someone who would aspire to be one of the gods. Humans are fearsome enough creatures, it's the rest of the world that truly needs a god.

I have a different view on this: It seems like Autonomy just wants to maintain the order of 16. Harmony is a problem for her because Sazed formed a dishard. I imagine Retribution is next on her list of people to try to break up. Fusing shards together denies the Autonomy of their individual Intents. Until I see some other motive, this feels like the simplest and best explanation of why she acts like she does. Creating Avatars in various places is, to my mind, more just a way to try to do good without becoming the monogod ruler of everything. The fact religions she has influenced promote ambition would seem like a design on restoring the first Shard that Odium wrecked.

I think you are mislead to not see the earnest comparison. Murder is wrong because it is defined as the wrongful killing of another person. There is a different notion, homicide, which is distinct from murder. It is thus possible to see in someone's comparison of relationships of two people of the same gender or sex the same notion that there is a rightful and a wrongful conduct of physical intimacy, and they have adopted some ethos which says homosexuality is innately wrong. I think asking about taking away is too much of an imposition of a frame. The morality of utility has plenty of flaws, and so you might be better to not assume it is reasonable to other people when talking to them. I want to be clear that I agree with your position, people should be accepting of queer relationships. However, I have seen these kinds of arguments before. I have felt that they are flawed on a deep level, and I am hoping this discussion will be a place where less flawed arguments might be forged.

Because spiking the dragonness out of a dragon would be cruel if that dragon wanted to remain as such. Sure, the stamps might need to be reapplied, repaired, and even replaced from time to time, but does the fact Elantrians eat food to maintain their sanity diminish them? Those who insist on a distinction between true and false dragons in such a world would be as wrongheaded as people who engage in transphobia in ours.

Where it that Adonalsum had a purpose in making mankind, mankind would be the most justified in killing Adonalsum for such an Adonalsum would be evil. To treat a person as a mere means is to negate their existence as a living being, it reduces them to the same level as a hammer or a knife. Thus, the murder of Adonalsum would not be for the making of the Singers in this hypothetical, but might very well be for the justice of reducing Adonalsum to the status that Adonalsum ascribed to its creation, a lifeless thing. Also, if humans and singers can interbreed, there is no more a replacement there than the passing of generations. It's the logic of racism and fascism to see replacement in the succession of generations and the intermingling of peoples.

Replace it in doing what?

Aren't dragons already another species? Also, I doubt the 17 who did the shattering all came to it with the same reasons for doing so. Like, Rayse probably just wanted the personal position of usurping the highest power he could find, considering how he has behaved. The others probably wanted other things. Bavadin seems like she is committed to just wanting there to never again be a mono-god, assuming the way trellium interacts with harmonium and the way she seems to have conspired to wreck Scandrial mean what I think they mean. I actually find this immensely understandable, I think the efforts to create a universal faith in human history have all been disasters in my view.

I actually am the type to enjoy the clash of convictions. I think there is nothing more worthy an expenditure of time than the sounding of idols by using one's own as the hammer to test another. We are all capable of being superiors to Abraham in this way, taking the blows to even our final idol in a hope it will prove itself living and true but accepting we will be without a scapegoat for our wrongs should it fail.

What is plausible and implausible in a world with so much magic is very loose. Hemalurgy seems able to bend forms, and there seems to be plenty of possibilities in the surges for shape shifting with enough meditation. Forgery simply lets a person go from knowing about how those techniques work to using them to create false histories in which their "natural form" is a false imposition that is to be cast off. Think of Zhaung Zi and his butterfly dream, with magic running around, it is not hard to make it seem plausible that the butterfly in fact physically became the man and might elect to return to that form. I admit that plausibility and implausibility are always dicey topics. Let me suppose a more concrete hypothetical: What if some forger gathered in one place a number of dragons and the means of doing a great deal of hemalurgy. Suppose they discussed with the dragons the procedure of turning a human into a dragon via the use of hemalurgy to remove their humanity and to impose a dragon's nature in its place. This discussion could go on for a while, refining the notions of the technique, figuring how to do it without killing anyone involved, etc, but it is ultimately never done in fact. Then imagine the later making of a soul stamp which says "Ah, but what if I did?" This is a single change in event, one which the user could describe in great detail, and thus must be felt as plausible, yes?

Freedom is not had purely by counting votes. There is plenty of oppression that happens in even the best of democracy as we know it. There are myriad solutions to the pains of differences, but I might ask why these categories would remain fixed? Why can't someone be a dragon in the morning, a human in the afternoon, aertherbound for tea, and end the day as one of the Elantrians? Forging is my favorite MoI because it seems to be the best promise for allowing people to exist, if only temporarily, in forms which they were not put by pure chance. If the fantasy of intrinsic difference does not allow for its overcoming, then that is a flaw of imagination.

I am hoping for a Kandra who picks up Soul Forging myself. The Emperor's Soul is still my favorite books in the canon, and seeing how it worked alongside strong investiture sources in The Lost Metal just made me think combinations like forging the contents of a Kandra's spikes might be a path to all kinds of interesting moments.

Cold wars are funky. They often don't have winners, just one side have some internal matter take its attention away from the proxy wars. People running around doing Metal Gear Solid stuff to each other with random assortments of magitech is how I see that going. Sure, eventually both Roshar and Scandrial will just be blasted ruins unfit for anything humans can see as life, but colony ships seem really doable for both groups.

No, you have misheard: I am denouncing your morality as false for the reason that it is the fruit of the same tree as sexism, racism, and slavery. I think you should understand the most vile people you can imagine. Study the writings of rapists like de Sades, converse with child murderers like [pick a living US president], and imagine why you could become Hitler himself under his circumstances. They are as human as you. If you cannot do these things, you are at risk of becoming like those you hate without knowing why. If you understand those people from their example, you have a chance to realize when you are on that path and thus you can depart it. What kinds of ideal/value/moral do you find acceptable? I simply state what I know as truth yet seems to be unstated in as clear and bold terms as I can. I don't think my ideas come from such sources, but instead from my experiences in life and my efforts to study the shape of society. I am a materialist in the way of Georges Bataille. If you want, though I am an atheist, I can make an argument which appeals to the book of Genesis. I imagine you use a notion of God to justify your position, since secular homophobia is rare.

I am most interested in the potentials of Hemalurgy. It is the most egalitarian form of magic we have seen, as having access to books that guide Intent and metal enables anyone to do it. I could imagine all kinds of fun and interesting potentials in combining biotechnology with hemalurgy to allow people to trade out aspects of themselves with one another. Sure, there are a lot of ways this can be abused, but Steel Pushing has probably killed more people than Hemalurgy ever has, nevermind guns. I actually just got out of seeing No Other Land, a documentary which included a scene of a mother saying that, were it that she could give her life to reverse a spinal injury inflicted upon her son, she would be glad to be able to do so. My mind, perhaps in craving for the chance to think of anything else but the horror of that, did produce the reaction that this would not be an issue with a magic like hemalurgy, and that it is a shame we are not provided with such an elegant tool in our world.

This simply requires the following program to be adopted: Shatter the shards until they are in enough pieces that no sapient being is without their own Splinter of infinity. Let not one immortal thing exist which tramples the grass.

This kind of issue has been something that I have been bothered by in the broader cosmere books for a while now too: Revolution is never given the presentation it deserves. Jasnah's reforms make sense to our modern, post-Enlightenment Revolutions, way of thinking. Everywhere in our world has been touched by the flames that were lit in the USA and France in the late 18th century (and I might say the USA only truly knew Enlightenment when the Civil War began), with my understanding being that their burning through in China happened from the fall of the Ming Dynasty through to the Cultural Revolution and in Japan with the Meiji Restoration through to the US Occupation after WWII, and with many more places being subjected to this force we recognize as modernity through the cruel implements of colonialism. However, people, especially feudal land owners, tend to HATE this kind of revolutionary moment because it tears away their special legal privileges. We saw tiny amounts of this with how the Mistborn books played out after the death of the Lord Ruler, but then the mystical end of the world showed up and seemingly replaced the years of terror that are needed to replace plantation aristocrats with industrialists. Jasnah did, at some point, do the thing of intimidating some noble down, but the actual patterns of history that we know would have her cleaving through thousands of lesser nobles in order to get them to stop acting like they own people. She would have to become a legend as terrible as the Blackthorn, a true Napoleonic figure, in a story which wanted to tackle the hardships that come with the pursuit of liberation. Also, on the moral nuance front more generally: I wish the battles of the book had all been told from the perspectives of Singers. It would have made the "Finally, the singers one! No more desolation!" note of the ending a lot more interesting.

I think proving or disproving this is impossible, since it is trying to read specific intention into a single word, but I do think the general thing of "someone is going to be putting mono-God back together" is a theme we will be seeing more and more of going forwards. Honestly, this just feels like the obvious arc when you consider the theology that is ken to Sanderson is one where the it is great there there is a single God. I am not versed in the distinctions between how members of the church of LDS handle the trinity matter compared to the other Christian churches I have experience with, but I do not know them to identify as polytheists. I can't know the man's hearts, I have never even seen him in the flesh, but I imagine part of why he has made such an effort at inclusivity and diversity in his books is to try to develop an argument, not in logic but in example, of how one can synthesize the attributes of a singular god who is superior to a multitude of gods. So, yes. I think the reading where Rayse was saying "God is dead and we have killed him. How can his reincarnation be before me? We divided the body so as to ensure it could not be reassembled, as Osiris without Isis to gather his remains from the underworld." in far fewer words is a valid reading. I don't think confirmation on this is likely, but it will probably be a standout moment for setting the stage for the rebirth of God later in the grander narrative.

I have realized this does not mean doing the Randy Orton move of a running kick to the head of kneeling person, which I was going to say "not sure I feel like giving brain damage to fictional characters, kind of vindictive" and instead probably means ejecting the character from the story. Am I allowed to kick God out of Bible and the related works? I think that would be fun to see how it effects world religion if suddenly three of the world's most notable religions suddenly were all made atheistic by some ontological shift caused by me. Plus, I could go around telling people that Nietzsche was wrong, we didn't kill God: I personally did it. Everyone else just watched. Otherwise, I am not usually huge on franchise or larger serial media anymore. I still check out seasonal anime, but I have developed a sense of taste which sees art as needing to be bound, to be contained within a frame, in order to be properly appreciated. People and art must be finished before a lasting judgement is possible.

I actually liked the parts with Szeth when Kaladin wasn't being a weird amateur therapist. He's really interesting to see as this innocent soul that the world mangled to the point that he is possibly literally haunted by dozens of ghosts. Also, Shallan being as much as fan of the inter-species boylove as me was just so funny. I feel like she would like Homestuck. She'd probably see herself in Vriska. I was a bit disappointed by the Recreance. I had imagined that it had been a more gradual thing. Or it had been something like a civil war among radiants that actually wrecked a bunch of the world. I have been toying with trying to tell an AU where Garith takes the "I must do right by those I love" ethos of the Windrunners and pollutes it with "And so I must war against the other Radiants until I can right this hideous wrong" because of the hideous pain he felt. Imagine a world where Honor had not given the Radiants the vision of them destroying the world, but instead it was a war among the Radiants that actually did ruin civilization again, like a desolation that didn't end. Imagine the horrors of people who know the oaths and what they mean of other orders using that knowledge as weapons against one another. Maybe even stuff like Odium enabling these avenging radiants to swear hideous oaths, sealed with sacrifices, like "For I so love this world, I shall not rest until I have restore what is fairest in the world to me or ruined those who ruined that which is most beautiful in it" which would make the hate and rage of people like Garith a well of investiture in return for driving them into deeper and deeper madness by literally removing their ability to sleep in this case or other things which enable people to be at peace for others. To be clear, I think the book was more than long enough, I don't actually think the book would be better if it spent dozens of pages describing this, I just like the idea for a story on its own. There's a lot of cool imagery of someone with the Windrunner vibe going crazy because he is failing to save the one person he truly loves even though she's still technically alive and not in direct physical danger. The big problem I have trying to work this out is that a lot of the conflict would be structured by people basically trying to screw with each other's oaths while corrupting their own, and I did not get the "Ars Arcanum lore dump telling me what a bunch of the orders whole slate of ideals are" that I had hoped would be in this one. If anyone has tried to speculate on this stuff, please let me see it. I never have correctly anticipated what an ideal would be before it was spelled out.

Since you brought this up under "philosophy time" I need to point out that this is using an argument from nature. What is natural need not be taken as good. We have seen multiple characters decide that they actually don't want to go off to the Beyond. I have my own fiction I work on where I imagined a society that has nobles who inherit the memories of their ancestors, but in order to assume their full power they must bring about the death of the rest of their family, and this must be repeated in each generation or it will diminish them, and thus they tend to be few in number. I could imagine a line of Hemalurgists who pass a spike down their line, parent to child, hoping to give the next generation ever greater power at the cost of needing to exist without their parent and the pain of the transfer. Even without safe Hemalurgy, this would allow for the development of astounding amounts of capability without needing multiple spikes or anything complicated like that. Sort of a cultivation of power over generations.