I'm reading The Stormlight Archive for the first time

[Treamayne]

3 hours ago, Amira said:

Thanks for clarifying that!

Interlude 5:

Not sure what the purpose of this interlude was except for world building, introducing us to two new peoples on Roshar. Aimians sound very interesting and cool and I'd like to hear more about them! And now I get to use a spoiler box, look at that! SP1 sample:

  Reveal hidden contents

I thought it was only a handful of characters who could world hop. How did the Iriali people get from Lumar to Roshar (or vice versa)??? Where did they originally come from? Why did they all up and leave Lumar? I want answers!

 

3 hours ago, king of nowhere said:

some of those interludes are purely for worldbuilding. interludes are there for stuff that doesn't fit into the story proper.

regarding the spoilered question, we don't know.

Many Interludes are worldbuilding. . . but that does not preclude hidden foreshadowing.
That was the Axies the Collector interlude IIRC - he's great!

 

 

[Lego Mistborn he/him]

Nothing is Sanderson is unintentional-except for a few names/slang that actually have meanings IRL.

Sometimes the world-building can give hints as to what the future holds, sometimes the interludes have traceable plot relevance, some stories have plot relevance for other books, there's a lot.

[Amira]

Interlude 6, Szeth:

I feel like Szeth is the centerpiece of The Way of Kings, possibly The Stormlight Archive, at least the first five. I am not surprised by the direction things are developing, I felt like it was only a matter of time before someone sent Szeth to make another big splash. To me, a very interesting part of the interlude was when Szeth started questioning some of his core beliefs. I'd assumed there was magic involved with his being Truthless and having to obey whoever is in possession of his Oathstone, but maybe it's not magic but brainwashing / cultural influence / tradition, whatever you want to call it? Maybe he believes that this is what he has to do, and if something causes him to change his beliefs, he'll stop obeying people, start "rebelling" I suppose? I hope we find out more about this direction soon! Also, I hope his first target from that list will be the king of Ja Keved who happens to already be dead, lol.

[Bnaya]

I love your theorizing!! I am afraid that info about Szeth is coming slow..  but you will find out evetually

[Amira]

On 7/17/2022 at 2:37 AM, Bnaya said:

I love your theorizing!!

Thank you!

Chapter 29, Shallan:

What are those creatures Shallan drew??? Kaladin also has mysterious powers, but we've already seen Szeth use the same or at least similar powers. With Shallan, she's the only person we've seen do her kind of magic, so I have no point of reference. Meanwhile, we see a conversation at the beginning of the chapter between Shallan and her brother. Their house's situation just went from bad to worse, and seems so desperate that it would take a miracle to recover from their problems. Later, the characters had a discussion about religion, and after all the talk of how Jasnah was good at debating, she made imo a really poor argument when Shallan basically said "But what about how I feel?" Jasnah said two things. One, she said (I'm paraphrasing) "Your mind is creating that feeling" which I think is an okay response as far as debates go (as in, it directly addresses Shallan's question), and two, she said "That's your feeling; I don't feel that way." Which is an okay thing to say, but it doesn't address Shallan's argument, and she said it as if it did. Maybe I misunderstood, but that specific point kinda bugged me.

I have another question more specifically about their topic of discussion, but I figured I'd check first: am I allowed to talk about religion here?

Edited July 20, 2022 by Amira

[Bnaya]

There was a discussion about the math part in Jasna argument, if you're interested in that:

As to talking about religion, I think its all right if youre respectful, but idk the formal rules

 

[Lego Mistborn he/him]

Keep it respectful and it's fine.

[Amira]

Cool, so my question is, is it common for atheists to explain spiritual experiences as something that happens only in the person's head, without any outside influence (as I understand Jasnah sees it)? More precisely, how do atheists usually explain spiritual experiences? (FYI I'm atheist myself but tend to have unusual opinions so just wondering what is typical.)

[Amira]

Chapter 30, Kaladin:

The plot thickens... Kaladin thinks carrying the bridge sideways will protect them on a bridge run. Gaz thinks it will expose them. My money's on Kaladin.

Chapter 31, Kal:

I can't think of anything to say about this chapter, but the next one is called Side Carry. So excited!

Edited July 21, 2022 by Amira

[Bnaya]

13 hours ago, Amira said:

Cool, so my question is, is it common for atheists to explain spiritual experiences as something that happens only in the person's head, without any outside influence

From my exprience, and I am from Israel so I know mostly about people here, in philosophical debates its very common. People from the street will just say "you feel that, I not, so its all right for you to believe and for me no to". and that's all.

 Side carry is very fun and meaningful, enjoy it!

[KaladinWorldsinger]

16 hours ago, Amira said:

Cool, so my question is, is it common for atheists to explain spiritual experiences as something that happens only in the person's head, without any outside influence (as I understand Jasnah sees it)? More precisely, how do atheists usually explain spiritual experiences? (FYI I'm atheist myself but tend to have unusual opinions so just wondering what is typical.)

I don't know what you mean by outside influence, but usually atheists think that is strong beliefs causing strong emotions and feelings. Maybe something really, really good happens to you when you need it and you think it was an act of God. Maybe your parents strongly believe in a god so growing up with them you do too. Maybe you heard a passionate religious person deliver a sermon and you feel convinced.

For example, a charismatic person speaking about how vaccines cause autism can inspire many anti'vaxxers. These people genuinely believe that vaccination is bad and their feelings are real. The only difference am atheist finds between this and a religious speaker is that a belief in God doesn't hurt people and could be what the people hearing it need. Anti-vaxxers, on the other hand, are spreading harmful ideas even if they fully believe in what they are saying

[Returned]

On 7/20/2022 at 0:56 PM, Amira said:

More precisely, how do atheists usually explain spiritual experiences? (FYI I'm atheist myself but tend to have unusual opinions so just wondering what is typical.)

I don't think that there is necessarily a standardized way that atheists talk about them, but it's more or less a central belief of atheism that the one thing those experiences definitely aren't is an experience driven by something deific or supernatural. Though that last bit is kind of wobbly since there are plenty of atheists who nevertheless believe in a wide range of mystical or mysticism-adjacent things.

I'm very excited for you to read Side Carry. Reading your thoughts as you go through the book makes me very nostalgic about my own first reading, which feels like it was forever ago.

[Treamayne]

On 7/20/2022 at 1:56 PM, Amira said:

Cool, so my question is, is it common for atheists to explain spiritual experiences as something that happens only in the person's head, without any outside influence (as I understand Jasnah sees it)? More precisely, how do atheists usually explain spiritual experiences? (FYI I'm atheist myself but tend to have unusual opinions so just wondering what is typical.)

External Reading and comments - I'm going to spoiler this, not because of the traditional reason, but just so people who don't care can easily skip it:

Spoiler

BLUF: I consider myself Agnostic. My comments are more based on my experiences than my belief structure. While in the military, I have lived and worked in over 15 countries and with people of many different cultures and faiths (or lack thereof). YMMV:

What many people don't realize is that saying "Atheist" or "Agnostic" is like saying "mammal" - technically correct, but very non-specific and representative of a very many attitudes and belief structures.

Resources: Agnostic Atheist

*****

Above I mentioned that I consider myself Agnostic. I once had to explain to a Korean Teacher what that was (in Korean) because that language doesn't have the word Agnostic (both "categories" are 무신론자 = mu shillon ja = the "not God belief person") and, unfortunately, I have since found that many people (with or without faith in a religion) in all countries and cultures have similar blindspots.

In the terms of the referenced Wikipedia references, Jasnah would be a decent portrayal of a Positive Explicit Atheist, where:

Quote

Wikipedia Paraphrase:

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist.

• Implicit atheism is "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it"
• Explicit atheism is the conscious rejection of belief.
• Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist.
• Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism

Of the people I have know with similar views, I would guess about 60-75% were as belligerent about it as Jasnah; and she is portrayed as more wary of engaging in those conversations than most I have know with similar beliefs (and only seems to become belligerent about it after the topic is engaged, most of which is probably due to her personality rather than her belief structure). But that percentage is misleading, because I would guess less than a third of the Atheists I have known or worked with were that type of Atheist (the majority I've known would fall in the Implicit Negative category - or be considered Agnostic - and yes there is an Agnostic Atheist).

So, while I would say that there are people that would share Jasnah's views and her style of representing/debating those views; I would not say it is common among non-theists (though probably considered common since nearly all media representation of non-theists is this category)

Agnosticism is a whole other ball of wax. In my opinion, the word might as well not exist, since it seems to have become the "none of the above" category of religion.

Quote

Wikipedia Paraphrase:

Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-) 'without', and γνῶσις (gnōsis) 'knowledge') was used by Thomas Henry Huxley in a speech at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1869 to describe his philosophy, which rejects all claims of spiritual or mystical knowledge.

Quote

Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.

Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology.
— Thomas Henry Huxley

The term Agnostic is also cognate with the Sanskrit word Ajñasi which translates literally to "not knowable", and relates to the ancient Indian philosophical school of Ajñana, which proposes that it is impossible to obtain knowledge of metaphysical nature or ascertain the truth value of philosophical propositions; and even if knowledge was possible, it is useless and disadvantageous for final salvation.

In recent years, scientific literature dealing with neuroscience and psychology has used the word to mean "not knowable".

• Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism") - The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.
• Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism") - The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."
• Apathetic agnosticism - The view that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest. An apathetic agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deity exists or not, and I don't care if any deity exists or not.

This is where Kaladin falls, and I would consider the way he's been portrayed to be somewhere between Weak and Apathetic Agnosticism (usually mood dependent).  You can watch for more of this as the series develops. . .

If anybody is interested in my personal beliefs, I am willing to share them in private message; but I am unwilling to debate them. Part of my belief is simply that faith and belief is very personal.

On 7/20/2022 at 8:15 PM, Amira said:

the next one is called Side Carry. So excited!

As well you should be. If you may pardon the pun - it's a Bridge Chapter. . .

Spoiler

important things are happening.

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Treamayne
SPAG

[Amira]

Whoa, my topic has turned into a discussion of religion and social issues! I'm both honored and a little nervous

On 7/21/2022 at 3:46 AM, Bnaya said:

From my exprience, and I am from Israel so I know mostly about people here, in philosophical debates its very common. People from the street will just say "you feel that, I not, so its all right for you to believe and for me no to". and that's all.

Now that I think about it, Israel of all places is probably the most likely to be like that, because Judaism doesn't involve the individual person "talking to God" like some other religions (e.g. Christianity), so spiritual experiences are probably less of a thing to begin with. But maybe it was realistic for Jasnah to use that as an argument. I personally think discounting others' experiences doesn't lead to great logic. Also I respect that this is an atheist written by a religious author, and he's probably doing a better job than if I tried to write a religious character. Also Jasnah lives in a much more religious society than ours; she has to defend her beliefs all alone!

Chapter 32, Side Carry (Kaladin):

Okay, that didn't end as spectacularly as I was imagining, Kaladin destroyed the entire plateau assault and got beaten up, even if he did save all of Bridge Four. I probably should have seen it coming though that something would go wrong. The chapter is near the beginning of the part, not near a climax, and this book has a tendency to end chapters on grim notes. I still can't wait to see what happens next and wish I didn't have to read about Shallan and could just focus on Kaladin

Very interesting the idea that if a piece of a system is organized way better than the rest of the system, then it will cause the rest of the system to fall apart... I love when books deal with this type of stuff. Reminds me of Ender's Shadow where Bean reorganized the kids on the street at the beginning (it was a little different and things didn't fall apart there, but it dealt with the same theme of one person reorganizing a bad situation). I wish I found more books that did that.

One thing I forgot to say about the previous Kaladin chapter is what is Gaz bribing Lamaril to not talk about?? At first I thought it was Kaladin, but everyone knows about Kaladin so it must be something else...

[CameronUluvara she/her]

Gaz just owes him money; it’s not a bribe.

Edited July 22, 2022 by CameronUluvara

[Treamayne]

Glad you enjoyed the chapter and implications. I particularly like this quote:

Quote

That wouldn’t work—plus, that argument would leave Gaz and Lamaril with good reason to see Kaladin dead immediately, before he could speak to their superiors.

Kaladin needed to do something else.

“Do you have any idea what you’ve done?” Gaz sputtered as he grew near.

“I’ve upended the army’s strategy,” Kaladin said, “throwing the entire assault force into chaos. You’ve come to punish me so that when your superiors come screaming to you for what happened, you can at least show that you acted quickly to deal with the one responsible.”

Gaz paused, Lamaril and the spearmen stopping around him. The bridge sergeant looked surprised.

You can almost smell the smoke from their brains when faced with a Bridgeman who can think

3 hours ago, Amira said:

I love when books deal with this type of stuff. Reminds me of Ender's Shadow where Bean reorganized the kids on the street at the beginning (it was a little different and things didn't fall apart there,

Well . . . (Ender Spoilers)

Spoiler

Not until Achilles killed Poke, Bean went into hiding and the whole crew had to split up with new Papas

 

[offer]

4 hours ago, Amira said:

Whoa, my topic has turned into a discussion of religion and social issues! I'm both honored and a little nervous

Now that I think about it, Israel of all places is probably the most likely to be like that, because Judaism doesn't involve the individual person "talking to God" like some other religions (e.g. Christianity), so spiritual experiences are probably less of a thing to begin with. But maybe it was realistic for Jasnah to use that as an argument. I personally think discounting others' experiences doesn't lead to great logic. Also I respect that this is an atheist written by a religious author, and he's probably doing a better job than if I tried to write a religious character. Also Jasnah lives in a much more religious society than ours; she has to defend her beliefs all alone!

 

Might I ask in what sense does Christianity have a consecp of "talking to god"? I am jewish and have never heard that christinity have this consept.

[CameronUluvara she/her]

Christian doctrine teaches that when Jesus died on the cross, the temple veil between the holy place and the holiest of holies was torn completely in half from top to bottom. This is symbolic of the way all can now come before God because Jesus died as sacrifice for the world’s sins, and humanity is now no longer too impure to stand in God’s presence. Because of this, most Christian sects focus on the idea of a personal relationship with God by talking to him directly (through prayer), but you’ll find this idea much more common among Protestant and Apostolic denominations, not Catholic or Mormon.

[Coolmint]

1 hour ago, CameronUluvara said:

Christian doctrine teaches that when Jesus died on the cross, the temple veil between the holy place and the holiest of holies was torn completely in half from top to bottom. This is symbolic of the way all can now come before God because Jesus died as sacrifice for the world’s sins, and humanity is now no longer too impure to stand in God’s presence. Because of this, most Christian sects focus on the idea of a personal relationship with God by talking to him directly (through prayer), but you’ll find this idea much more common among Protestant and Apostolic denominations, not Catholic or Mormon.

It's also quite common in Catholicism.

[Lego Mistborn he/him]

I don't know about the Catholic church, but the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a large focus on prayer and personal revelation from god(in addition to revelation through church leaders)

[bmcclure7]

6 hours ago, offer said:

Might I ask in what sense does Christianity have a consecp of "talking to god"? I am jewish and have never heard that christinity have this consept.

Well the person you quote sounds confused about christianity and Jewism, (a comon problem in the modern world) but I try and explain the reality that his comment was loosely biased on. 

 

With in the Jewish law there is the concept of the prophet a choose individual who has been a vision or a word from God form the such as Jeremiah, Isaiah, Joha and so on.

Now let's talk about the prophet Joel he writes

"And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions." 

Joel 2:28

 

 For jews this is a prophecy yet to come,  When the messiah comes to his people. For christians however the messiah has already arrived. So this isn't a future prophecy anymore but a president reality so as this verses describe any all the people of God have them capability of been prophets and can hear from God directly like old testament prophets did.

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by bmcclure7

[Coolmint]

6 hours ago, Ta'veren Kaladin said:

I don't know about the Catholic church, but the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a large focus on prayer and personal revelation from god(in addition to revelation through church leaders)

What are the differences between Mormons and the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

[Treamayne]

Can we please spin this conversation off into a separate thread so as to not derail the OP? I think the original question was answered (or @Amira) can chime in if her question still needs amplifying data.

[Lego Mistborn he/him]

 

8 minutes ago, Treamayne said:

Can we please spin this conversation off into a separate thread so as to not derail the OP? I think the original question was answered (or @Amira) can chime in if her question still needs amplifying data.

Yes, PM me or another Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to ask questions about our beliefs.

[Coolmint]

11 minutes ago, Treamayne said:

Can we please spin this conversation off into a separate thread so as to not derail the OP? I think the original question was answered (or @Amira) can chime in if her question still needs amplifying data.

Sorry.  I came in at the end.