A Series of Essay's Refuting One Jasnah Kholin,

[Lesser spren]

We've all had one moment or another, where Jasnah's reasoning REALLY got under our skin, that is the initial purpose of her character. What moments did you wish you were there for just so could smack some sense into sense into her.

[Frustration]

Her argument with Taravangian about God.

[dannnex male]

3 hours ago, Lesser spren said:

that is the initial purpose of her character.

[citation needed]

[Lesser spren]

9 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

Her argument with Taravangian about God.

I should have put this in the topic post, but could you elaborate? What would your argument be to her?

[Robin Sedai she/her]

Please don't double post

[Lesser spren]

3 minutes ago, Robin Hatter said:

Please don't double post

sorry

 

8 hours ago, ookla the quantificational said:

[citation needed]

The time Jasnah mercilessly killed three men in the street, just to prove a point seems like pretty good evidence.

[Frustration]

1 hour ago, Lesser spren said:

I should have put this in the topic post, but could you elaborate? What would your argument be to her?

"You say that one plus one equals two even if their is no God, however without God there would be no one, or even a zero, there would be no matter to add, nor any mind to comprehend zero, there would truely be nothing, so no, without God one plus one cannot equal two as netiher one nor two can exist."

[Pathfinder]

1 hour ago, Lesser spren said:

The time Jasnah mercilessly killed three men in the street, just to prove a point seems like pretty good evidence.

That can be debated on many levels

36 minutes ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

"You say that one plus one equals two even if their is no God, however without God there would be no one, or even a zero, there would be no matter to add, nor any mind to comprehend zero, there would truely be nothing, so no, without God one plus one cannot equal two as netiher one nor two can exist."

And there are logical counters to this. As I am sure there are religious counters to those logical counters and so on round and round they go (saying logical not to indicate being religious is illogical but in regards to the function on which to derive the conclusions countering the ones stated). 

 

Having stated both these things, I would imagine this thread is intended for readers that disagree with Jasnah to vent. So I will not actually post the responses unless specifically requested. I will put forth however, we have numerous examples of characters across Brandon's novels including stormlight that either:

1. have faith, hold to that faith, and that faith is rewarded

2. have faith, have the original faith disputed, question themselves, and find their faith renewed and strengthened

3. have no faith, are either inspired by another character with faith, or have something happen to them to inspire faith, and are now one of the faithful

 

So personally I do not know why there cannot be a number 4 where:

4. lives in a society surrounded by faith, comes to question that faith, confirms those questions on that faith, and decides to be atheist and remains so.

 

As to what I assume is the primary pet peeve about that scene with Taravangian being he was not able to adequately defend that perspective:

1. Taravangian initiated.

2. It is not Jasnah's responsibility to assist Taravangian in defending his own convictions

3. Shallan pointed out the concern on Taravangian's capabilities. Jasnah responded asking Shallan how she would have asserted those religious convictions, and Jasnah responded thoughtfully and respectfully to each of Shallan's counters.  

 

So again, as I am assuming this thread is meant for venting, I will leave things there. I wish you all luck with your beliefs and feelings, and hope you all have a wonderful day!

[Lesser spren]

6 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

That can be debated on many levels

And there are logical counters to this. As I am sure there are religious counters to those logical counters and so on round and round they go (saying logical not to indicate being religious is illogical but in regards to the function on which to derive the conclusions countering the ones stated). 

 

Having stated both these things, I would imagine this thread is intended for readers that disagree with Jasnah to vent. So I will not actually post the responses unless specifically requested. I will put forth however, we have numerous examples of characters across Brandon's novels including stormlight that either:

1. have faith, hold to that faith, and that faith is rewarded

2. have faith, have the original faith disputed, question themselves, and find their faith renewed and strengthened

3. have no faith, are either inspired by another character with faith, or have something happen to them to inspire faith, and are now one of the faithful

 

So personally I do not know why there cannot be a number 4 where:

4. lives in a society surrounded by faith, comes to question that faith, confirms those questions on that faith, and decides to be atheist and remains so.

 

As to what I assume is the primary pet peeve about that scene with Taravangian being he was not able to adequately defend that perspective:

1. Taravangian initiated.

2. It is not Jasnah's responsibility to assist Taravangian in defending his own convictions

3. Shallan pointed out the concern on Taravangian's capabilities. Jasnah responded asking Shallan how she would have asserted those religious convictions, and Jasnah responded thoughtfully and respectfully to each of Shallan's counters.  

 

So again, as I am assuming this thread is meant for venting, I will leave things there. I wish you all luck with your beliefs and feelings, and hope you all have a wonderful day!

This thread IS meant for venting as well as refutation of the venting. From my perspective Jasnah is meant to be a Steelman of controversial positions, logically sound actions dressed in shocking events in order to engage the reader with serious moral questions. The incitement of Ruthar (who beat his own children), Jasnah disparaging remarks on the platitudes about "Hope", all those are made get the reader reluctantly agree with some parts of her decisions, but remain unsettled by the entire picture as to ponder on the scene and weed out which parts they disagree with.   

 

Hrathen from Elantris fills a similar yet opposite role in this regard. His character was based on Brandon's own experiences as a missionary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a faith he still strongly believes in. By positioning him as the antagonist it invites the reader (If the reader is of a similar of the same or similar faith) to analyze  Hrathen's reasoning and compare it to their own, thereby encouraging the reader to strengthen their own position of their belief by exposing them to similar beliefs that resulted in completely different actions.

[Szeth Pancakes he/they]

7 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

That can be debated on many levels

 

[Frustration]

8 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

As to what I assume is the primary pet peeve about that scene with Taravangian being he was not able to adequately defend that perspective:

1. Taravangian initiated.

2. It is not Jasnah's responsibility to assist Taravangian in defending his own convictions

3. Shallan pointed out the concern on Taravangian's capabilities. Jasnah responded asking Shallan how she would have asserted those religious convictions, and Jasnah responded thoughtfully and respectfully to each of Shallan's counters.  

I'm more Frustrated by that particular argument itself than the larger argument between them, that I don't mind so much

Also Taravangian admits he doesn't belive in OB, so it's not even a debate between people of differnet positions but two people of the same position faking an argument about another position, and that kind of underminds the whole thing

[Pathfinder]

18 hours ago, Lesser spren said:

This thread IS meant for venting as well as refutation of the venting. From my perspective Jasnah is meant to be a Steelman of controversial positions, logically sound actions dressed in shocking events in order to engage the reader with serious moral questions. The incitement of Ruthar (who beat his own children), Jasnah disparaging remarks on the platitudes about "Hope", all those are made get the reader reluctantly agree with some parts of her decisions, but remain unsettled by the entire picture as to ponder on the scene and weed out which parts they disagree with.   

So although I agree she is meant to make us question, the disputing portion was the getting under the skin. Basically it is in my opinion a rather harsh way to present the character. I completely acknowledge and respect that you can see her in that light, but it could be debated in another way. I do not want to digress your thread by going into at length, so I will reference a thread I wrote awhile back on her. The main purpose of it, was it included full quotes from the scenes. People tend to recall things with associated emotions. Just like how each time someone recalls storage from a coppermind, the memory is altered by that recollection. I was hoping to foster a discussion uncolored by that alteration, hence the quotes. I then explained how those scenes could be interpreted from her perspective. It is rather old now so has been locked, but I hope you will give it a look. I have linked it below:

 

 

Quote

Hrathen from Elantris fills a similar yet opposite role in this regard. His character was based on Brandon's own experiences as a missionary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a faith he still strongly believes in. By positioning him as the antagonist it invites the reader (If the reader is of a similar of the same or similar faith) to analyze  Hrathen's reasoning and compare it to their own, thereby encouraging the reader to strengthen their own position of their belief by exposing them to similar beliefs that resulted in completely different actions.

Right, he is in category 2. Just like Dalinar and Sazed.

Raoden, Elend, Silence and I am sure others (just working off the top of my head) fall into catagory 1.

Clubs, King Eventeo, Galladon and I am sure others fall into category 3.

Three various experiences of faith validated/confirmed for the individual. I was just wondering why there couldn't be a 4th category where an individual through reason and deliberate thought found their belief was counter to faith, and held to that.

17 hours ago, Ookla the Confused said:

 

Lol, if you check the posts, I did contribute and I feel make a decent explanation of my view. After which in my opinion the same topics were brought up all over again, so I didn't see a point on responding again. So I left things where I left them. 

17 hours ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

I'm more Frustrated by that particular argument itself than the larger argument between them, that I don't mind so much

Also Taravangian admits he doesn't belive in OB, so it's not even a debate between people of differnet positions but two people of the same position faking an argument about another position, and that kind of underminds the whole thing

Sorry, little confused. So are you frustrated because of the response given to what Jasnah said by Taravangian? In other words that Taravangian should have said what you would have stated? Or frustrated by the way it was constructed? Where Taravangian was in your opinion summarily dismissed over it? Because you crossed out the subsequent portion of your post. 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Pathfinder

[Frustration]

3 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Sorry, little confused. So are you frustrated because of the response given to what Jasnah said by Taravangian? In other words that Taravangian should have said what you would have stated? Or frustrated by the way it was constructed? Where Taravangian was in your opinion summarily dismissed over it? Because you crossed out the subsequent portion of your post. 

The responce Jasnah gave bothered me, though the fact Taravangian was soundly beaten by it didn't help.

The reason I crossed a section out was because it was a bit of a tangent, more a discussion on the scene than anything, and not something that overly bothers me but means that it can't be said that she was challanged on her stances.

[Pathfinder]

32 minutes ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

The reason I crossed a section out was because it was a bit of a tangent, more a discussion on the scene than anything, and not something that overly bothers me but means that it can't be said that she was challanged on her stances.

So I responded to this in a reverse order on purpose. I believe Sanderson presented it the way he did because if he would have truly presented both sides fully, it would have taken up an entire chapter on its own. 

Quote

The responce Jasnah gave bothered me, though the fact Taravangian was soundly beaten by it didn't help.

To illustrate my above point (not to get into a religious debate) only show how it can extend for some time. I will use T for Taravangian since he was the one arguing the side of religion, and J for Jasnah since she was arguing the side of an athiest. I will start with your response:

 

T. "You say that one plus one equals two even if their is no God, however without God there would be no one, or even a zero, there would be no matter to add, nor any mind to comprehend zero, there would truely be nothing, so no, without God one plus one cannot equal two as netiher one nor two can exist"

J. "If God is all powerful/omnipotent because it is the reason for all things, and all things thereby flow from it, then can God create a Euclidean triangle that does not add up to 180 degrees? This could also be presented as can God create a sandwich it cannot eat? Can God create a rock so heavy even it cannot lift it? The purpose to show the inherent problems with the idea of "all powerful". I used the first example because of its association with math. If God could create a sandwich it could not eat, then it is not omnipotent because it could not eat a sandwich, thereby something beyond its own power. If it could not create a sandwich it could not eat, because God can do anything, then again God is not omnipotent because there is something beyond its capability to create. If either are true, then it still demonstrates a limitation on the omnipotence of God. If God is there limited in its omnipotence, then the assumption that all things flow and are from said creator is called into question

T. "God can do anything according to its nature. God cannot create logical absurdities. Thereby God would not create something it could not itself accomplish. By extension God cannot create something greater than itself as by the very definition of its nature, it is the greatest possible being. 

J. "That means that God then obeys laws of nature in accordance to its own nature. But where are the laws of nature then derived from? If they were derived outside of God, then we return to the math example. If they were derived by God, then we return to the omnipotence issue. Further if all things flow from God, then what does God flow from? Why is God supremely unique to be the only being to flow from nothing? If everything has to have an inciting incident, then why is God the exception to this? And further, if God's form of omnipotence is the type that obeys the laws of nature, then how can God as an exception exist to that law of nature?

 

Now I am sure there are numerous responses to what I wrote, and I am sure quite a few people probably took issue to what I wrote that Taravangian said. Again, not meant to be a religious debate. My point is that was but a taste of the potential back and forth that would flow from such a discussion. I feel like Brandon had to present it briefly and succinctly so as to not show favor to one side or the other, as well as move on with the rest of the story. Honestly I feel no matter how Brandon approached it, it would have resulted in one side or the other disliking how it was resolved, because someone will always have something to add and dislike not having the last say.

 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Pathfinder

[Frustration]

4 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

So I responded to this in a reverse order on purpose. I believe Sanderson presented it the way he did because if he would have truly presented both sides fully, it would have taken up an entire chapter on its own. 

Now I am sure there are numerous responses to what I wrote, and I am sure quite a few people probably took issue to what I wrote that Taravangian said. Again, not meant to be a religious debate. My point is that was but a taste of the potential back and forth that would flow from such a discussion. I feel like Brandon had to present it briefly and succinctly so as to not show favor to one side or the other, as well as move on with the rest of the story. Honestly I feel no matter how Brandon approached it, it would have resulted in one side or the other disliking how it was resolved, because someone will always have something to add and dislike not having the last say.

That is entirely possible, though I was not asked what was best for the narrative, just my refutations.

[Pathfinder]

9 minutes ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

That is entirely possible, though I was not asked what was best for the narrative, just my refutations.

Totally get and respect that. Which is why in my initial post on this thread i said i imagine this thread is more for venting grievances, so i wont include my own arguments unless it was requested. Which i thought was requested based on your and lessersprens response. Sorry for the misunderstanding.