Schizoposting

@therunner I think that you are being very uncharitable in your interpretation of shardic intent: Honor was pretty decent before Odium showed up, and I don't see why Invention would result in some dystopia where everyone has to constantly innovate—not everyone is as weak willed as Ati (every vessel in the Rosharan system has been in conflict with their shard in one way or another). @Frustration the shard will rule by getting people to worship them; all they have to do is demonstrate their divine powers, and 99% of people will follow them. It's not like secular leaders have not tried to influence the culture of their people: Peter the Great for instance, forcibly tried to westernize Russian culture, and I have yet to see anyone complain about it. With divine authority, this should be even easier. You can make a divine edict that dark eyes and light eyes are equal. If that's not enough, you can do some redistributive policy, like DEI or an inheritance tax. What gives anyone the right to rule? There are many different moral philosophies that can justify any given ruler's right to rule. The shard may make a divine argument (i.e. I'm God so you have to follow me), utilitarian argument, platonic argument, etc. It would do what any other government would do when its authority is challenged. But again, the shard would rule through religious authority, rather than through brute force. That's just empirically untrue, in the real-world, absolute monarchy and dictatorship have not led to this outcome. Now maybe you could argue that a divine monarch would be different, but it's not self-evident why this would be the case, especially if they don't abuse their divine power to just instantly fix all problems and just rule like any other ruler. At the very least, the Singers don't seem to be particularly lazy, despite being directly ruled by Odium. I suppose that a shard could gradually introduce democracy (Taravangian is also in favor of some sort of a representative government, actually), and only intervene, when necessary, e.g. if Hitler comes to power. But democracy requires a certain amount of socio-economic development to function, so until the people can effectively rule themselves, the shard would be in charge. In this case you would still be directly intervening, which Cultivation is opposed to. Your system is workable, as long as that single country at a minimum includes the entire planet, but building the necessary institutions would still require direct shardic rule, at least for a time. He does that because he literally can't do anything. If he could, he might adopt a different system.

Uhh... yes? You realize that God is traditionally described as being all powerful, all knowing, and all loving? And 54% of the world's population believes in such a god one way or another. It's ok if you're personally an atheist, but simply dismissing my proposal out of hand is ridiculous when most people ascribe to it. The shard doesn't have to be perfect; it just has to be better than the alternatives. As long as its intent isn't crazy (e.g. Ruin), a genuinely well-intentioned shard is enough.

I am supposing that the shard is essentially a dictator (they can make a religion around themselves so that people follow them), but they delegate tasks to their subordinates. In other words, it's like how Odium or Honor controlled their forces during the desolations. Shardic intervention can be used to promote any arbitrary moral viewpoint, so you're right that a shard could prevent technological advancement if it deems it harmful. I am more interested in the "means" (i.e. shardic intervention) than the ends in this case.

Wind and Truth, being a very philosophical book, contains many different philosophical debates, most of them involving the central antagonist—Taravangian. But the debate that I will be covering in this post, is not the one that you're thinking of; in fact, I don't think I've seen anyone cover it. The philosophical debate in question, is the one between Cultivation and Odium in the second interlude of Wind and Truth, which is about to what extent should shards intervene in mortal affairs? Taravangian's position is that given his vast divine power, and the amount of suffering in the Cosmere, he should directly intervene: Cultivation, however, is of a different opinion: In other words, instead of directly intervening, the shards should just gently nudge society on to a better path. She believes direct intervention is bad, because it would take away peoples free will. (We should note here that Cultivation is rather biased, given the intent of her shard.) Taravangian counters this by saying: So, who is right? Should the shards directly intervene like Taravangian wants? To ascertain this, let's do a thought experiment: suppose that you are a benevolent shard, say Devotion, on a planet with that has no other shards on it, and your goal is to create the best possible society/civilization; how should you go about doing it? Now we already know what a society that is a managed by Cultivation's laissez-faire system looks like: it's Roshar before the true desolation, because Honor was dead, and Odium was imprisoned on Braize, so Cultivation could essentially do whatever she wanted. Now let us compare this to a system where the shard directly rules (like under Singer-controlled territories) but they don't dictate every decision or fact of life. There is one immediate benefit to this arraignment: peace and security. On Roshar, despite Cultivation tutelage, there were a great many wars and genocides, and presumably famines. Direct shardic intervention could easily solve all of these issues, therefore saving many millions of lives. Additionally, our benevolent shard ought to be able to accelerate economic growth and development by creating the necessary social structures to incentivize technological innovation and adoption, such as by expanding schools and universities, pouring large amounts of resources into R&D, giving people inspiration in their dreams, etc. Now, given how abysmal Roshar's technological development was in the 2000 years following the Recreance, direct shardic intervention would make it orders of magnitude faster. Over the course of a few centuries (assuming a large enough population), these methods could plausibly take a premodern society to a highly advanced one. Finally, direct shardic intervention could prevent social problems, such as sexism, racism, or wealth inequality. So, what are the drawbacks to such a system? Well, this approach may lead to a retardation in culture, and philosophy, and you could argue that shardic intervention decreases technological advancement relative to other approaches, for... reasons. But this is a small price to pay for the myriad other benefits provided by direct shardic intervention. In conclusion, it does seem that, unless if you care about art and culture above all else, it's far better to live under the direct rule of a benevolent shard, then in a system where said shard stays in the background. So, in this debate at least, it seems that Taravangian really is right.

I just finished The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin. The basic premise of the book is that a human envoy is trying to convince an alien offshoot of humanity to join a confederation. But this is complicated by their unique biology: the aliens are "ambisexual" hermaphrodites who adopt sexual characteristics only once a month to reproduce. For the envoy to convince them to join his pan-human confederation, he has to overcome his prejudices and understand the aliens. Now, personally I preferred A Wizard of Earthsea (also written by Le Guin, and which I liked a lot) over The Left Hand of Darkness; I think this is because the former had a much more linear narrative than the latter, which is written in a very postmodern non-linear way. Also, I think that Le Guin's new age Taoism works a lot better in fantasy than in science fiction. As for the content the content of the book, I agree with a lot of the criticism, that for instance, the ambisexuals were presented in a masculine, rather than androgynous manner (partly, because they are referred to with masculine pronouns, presumably because "they" wasn't used as a gender neutral pronoun back then, the way it is used now). Overall, while it was very revolutionary for its time (it was published in 1969), and is a classic work of new wave science fiction, looking back from today, one kind of does wonder what all the fuss is about.

I'd take the breaths, for the life extension; given that it's half of what's needed for immortality, it would probably extend my lifespan by many decades if not by centuries. Which is a lot more valuable in my opinion than being able to fly or having a spren buddy.

He's not directly descended from Tanavast according to WOB, but even if he was, it wouldn't mean much, because that would be basically everyone, given how long ago Tanavast would have to have his child. In world it probably means something along the lines of Kaladin being especially aligned with Honor/Wind, or to Tanavast's vision of honor. But out of world, it does evoke "Son of God". It's all good.

They are not the same, but they are very much intertwined. It's like the relation between the mind and body—they are not the same, but they're intertwined. In fact, the term vessel was invented by the fandom; it does not appear in the books AFAIK. He did not protect them for altruistic reasons. This was implied in the original example. But regardless, the point is that the specific argument was fallacious, not that no possible argument could be made against the proposition.

Sure, but the vessel is the shard: while the abstract concept of honor is different from Honor the shard. But Rayse isn't actually protecting the Singers, so the argument doesn't show that having that one characteristic is not enough to be a heroic figure.

Not officially, but that specific detail is what gave me the initial idea for this topic, since "Son of Tanavast", is essentially "Son of God", unlike "Son of Honor", since the former refers to Tanavast the shard, while the later refers to the abstract concept, and not to the shard. The argument is a non sequitur, which makes it fallacious. Now, formal logic is not end all be all of things, but this does mean that the argument lacks rigor, since it fails to explain why Kaladin is not a heroic character.

They could use their shardic powers to just destroy the nukes before they detonate, so long as the other shards don't interfere. "War is the continuation of politics with other means", any U.S. military action would serve some political purpose; you can decide for yourself what that would be. The language barrier was not a particularly big problem for European colonialism. With today's technology and knowledge of linguistics, it would be even easier to overcome.

No, they are called "Son of Honor", while only Kaladin is ever referred to as "Son of Tanavast". The point is that our expectations about the Singers were subverted. Again, Brandon likes to subvert common fantasy tropes, such as "all orcs are evil". And this is a reflection of his own liberal views. I don't think that's fallacious. I think that argument is taking a different point of view to help prove a point, the point being that simply protecting the weak and needy doesn't make you a hero. It doesn't show that Kaladin isn't a hero, but it does show that simply defending the weak and needy isn't the only reason why. I'm sorry—and I don't mean to be rude—but if you don't see the problem with the example that I provided, then I really don't know what to say.

Well, Brandon has talked about how he first three Stormlight books are very similar in terms of narrative structure, while books four and five diverge from the formula markedly. If he hadn't done this, it would have gotten repetitive. Similarly, Tress was pretty innovative, compared to his other works, but releasing a hundred more Hoid's Travail's type stories would make it real boring (as an aside I have no clue why Yumi was narrated by Hoid—it just doesn't make narrative sense to me). Brandon tries to avoid this by writing in different genres, but I think it would be good for him as a writer to go beyond his usual formula of hard magic + weird worldbuilding + Sanderlanch. On a philosophical level, I think that artists should try to be innovative and push envelope; what point is there in doing what has already been done?

In principle I don't oppose having a greater diversity of worlds, but given the size and ambition of the Cosmere, as is, and the fact that Brandon has a finite amount of time, it would be better for him to focus on worlds that are narratively important, like Threnody, rather than on worlds that are literally never mentioned again. If it wasn't for the greater Cosmere as a whole, I would not be so opposed to more Hoid stories, so long as they're good. But again, I also don't want Brandon to be like Terry Brooks and repeat the same basic story, again, and again, and again.

That is how most people interpret them, but not everyone. I don't want to get into a theological debate, so let's just agree to disagree. yes, and so because we now have updated knowledge we need rely on the outdated knowledge no longer. My point is that the Singers were initially portrayed as rampaging monsters, only for that to be subverted. Kaladin himself was surprised by how normal they were. they were showing that it's easy to put some characteristics similar to Jesus and map them to a lot of characters, in this case, kaladin. I don't understand why you say they had fallacious reasoning. Ok, let me give you an example to make this clearer—suppose I say that Kaladin is a heroic character because he protects the weak and needy, and then someone comes along and says: "But Rayse protected and helped the Singers against the human invasion, does that mean that he's a hero too!?". Do you see why that's fallacious?

I think that people overestimate the U.S. military; remember, it failed to defeat the Chinese during the Korean war, despite being vastly technologically superior, and it hasn't won any major armed conflict in the last 80 years (with the possible exception of the Gulf War). Any U.S. invasion of Roshar could quickly turn an Iraq style quagmire, except on vastly greater scale, especially once the Fused and Radiant Soulcasters reverse engineer American weaponry. Regardless, conquering an entire continent would be such a herculean task that there would be little point in doing so. Instead, the optimal strategy for the U.S. would be to instead use gunboat diplomacy to force favorable trade concessions, and to then gain economic hegemony through our world's vastly more powerful economy. Essentially, the U.S. should use the same strategy that European colonialism used to subjugate Qing China.

I meant no offense with the topic; I sincerely apologize if this has offended you.

There's a continuum of to what extent a character is a Christ figure: on one end you have someone like Gandalf, who has some vague similarities with Jesus; on the other end who have someone like Aslan who is just Jesus Christ in a different form; and in the middle, you have someone like Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker. On this spectrum I would say that Kaladin is closer to Aslan than to Gandalf. Sure, he never claims to be a god, or a messiah, but it won't stop people from venerating him, which already makes him a lot more similar to Jesus than most Christ figures. Aside from this (admittedly major) difference, Kaladin has a far greater similarity to Jesus compared to aforementioned Christ figures. Like aside from dying a resurrecting to defeat Voldemort, Harry Potter isn't like Jesus at all, while Kaladin is characterized by his universal love, which is what motivates him to protect even his enemies—the Singers. In addition, as I already mentioned, Odium tries to tempt Kaladin into becoming his champion in ROW, by promising to take his pain away. Which is a similarity with Jesus that is not possessed by Harry Potter (although Luke Skywalker is tempted by Palpatine), despite him also being a considered a Christ figure. So, to conclude, Kaladin, although not identical to Jesus, substantially more similar than other examples of the "savior archetype". Now, I am not an expert on the LDS religion, or a theologian—I am someone with some general knowledge on the subject—so I may be wrong, but my understanding is that most of your quotes are referring to joining God in heaven, not to becoming a god. At the very least, non-LDS theologians reject the idea that one may become God upon death. But the exact theological details are not really relevant to the discussion. What's important is that Kaladin has significant similarities to Jesus, as he's commonly understood. The current discussion is about to what extent Kaladin is similar to Jesus. Well, the Voidbringers and Singers are different, at least to me. Voidbringers are the Fused, the sometimes crazy ones, and several do seemingly want to destroy Roshar. Singers, however, are just the same as they were before. I don't think that's quite a fair comparison, but you are right about Brandon liking to subvert tropes. A big reveal at the end of WOK was "the Parshendi are the Voidbringers". Now, later, we learn they are not necessarily the same thing, but at first, they were the same to our knowledge. I think that's kind of the point. She obviously isn't God/Jesus, and the point is that Kaladin isn't either. Obviously Yumi is not Jesus, but that has absolutely no relation to whether or not Kaladin is Jesus. The person who originally made that argument was just engaging in fallacious reasoning.

No worries.

I am using the word "cult" in the following (non-pejorative sense):

…I don’t know that I’d call Christianity a cult following among the lower classes Are you familiar with the early history of Christianity? Before it became state religion, and adopted by the ruling classes, it was heavily persecuted (the Anti-Christ was originally intended to be a Roman Emperor—probably Nero), with there being major Jewish uprisings against the Roman empire. Jesus himself was crucified for threatening the social order.

Well, I think we should keep in mind that as a postmodern fantasy, the Stormlight Archive plays with various fantasy tropes and genre conventions. Like the Voidbringer's were initially portrayed as these demonic entities that want to destroy everything out of pure hatred, when in reality, 99% of Singers are just trying to live their lives. Likewise, Odium was initially portrayed as a Dark Lord/Devil archetype, but ROW and WAT subvert this by showing that far from being diametrically opposed, Honor and Odium actually attract. So yes, Brandon does subvert a lot of these tropes, but in order to subvert something, you first have to build it up. Even if the savior trope (as you call it) ends up being subverted, it doesn't negate the fact that this trope was used in the first place. The problem here is the schematic way in which you're trying to go about proving that Yumi is a Christ figure: literary analysis is not done by matching a text to an arbitrary checklist. Now, I'll admit that I'm somewhat guilty of this myself, in presenting my argument the way I did, but I did this out sheer laziness, not because I thought that this was the right way to present my argument.

I think that you are looking at it from the perspective of the Cosmere as a whole, while I'm looking at it from the perspective of the Stormlight Archive, if that makes any sense. Sure, Odium and Honor are just one of sixteen pieces of divinity, but in the SA we are only really dealing with the three shards that are on Roshar, so the others don't matter. Vorinism, is heavily influenced by Christianity, for instance, even though the Almighty isn't actually almighty. And on a thematic and religious level, Ashyn represents Eden, while Braize represents hell. It's also important to keep in mind that Brandon Sanderson is a Mormon, and Mormonism differs substantially from mainstream Christianity in certain respects, such as in denying the holy trinity, or believing in the existence of other gods.

I think that we agree actually, Secret Project 6 takes place in about the same time frame as the others, even though Hoid tells the story later. As an aside, while I'm not entirely opposed to Hoid's Travails, I think that they risk getting repetitive, given how similar their structures are. At a certain point I would rather get the Threnody novel, or Silence Divine, than yet another story narrated by Hoid on a world that nobody cares about.

For the other secret projects, at least, Hoid only tells the stories a few decades after the actual events transpired—so still in the same basic time frame. Now, it's possible that this case is different, but I think it's unlikely.