A matter of conscience [book spoilers including aMoL]

[Aimless]

This past week, I've come to realize that many readers view Rand's battle of possibilities with the Dark One as being, primarily, about free will. Typically, this reading appears to be based on Rand's attempt to show a utopia in which there is no evil.

 

I believe that, while the issue of free will is certainly related to the central conflict between the Light and the Shadow, in those scenes, the real issue is conscience. What Rand comes to realize is that the existence of evil—and humanity's awareness of it—is necessary for the existence of a real conscience, that not only enables humans to discern right from wrong, good from evil, but also pushes us to choose right over wrong, to choose good over evil. Those who have been forcibly turned to the Shadow, as well as the people in Shai'tan's vision of Caemlyn, don't simply exhibit the behavior of mindless automatons—they act like people who have no conscience. In Rand's vision of a perfect world, we see that the absence of conscience manifests as a form of evil in and of itself, even in a perfect world—an evil reminiscent of The Dark One.

 

I don't know whether this was Jordan's original intent, but I think it was what Sanderson tried to convey of his take on the philosophical core of the story. In Sanderson's version of WoT, conscience is the essence of the Light, and anathema to the cosmic evil of the Dark One—who would prefer nothingness to a reality with conscience. If you prefer, you can substitute "conscience" for "moral agency", although I think the former may be more in line with Sanderson's worldview. It would be interesting to know what other readers believe to be the central conflict!

[EmreY]

I agree.

 

I would also say that the problem of evil is bound up with both agency and conscience.

[UOweTamASword]

Is it really not known whether this was Jordan’s original intent for the ending? With all the Q&A’s over the years I’m sure Sanderson has been asked, perhaps he’s just refused to answer.

 

Personally I would’ve just thought one of the following could have worked as well:

 

-Rand could discover he didn’t have the power to eliminate the DO and settle with a new prison.

 

-Rand discovers the Creator bound the DO and the Wheel simultaneously, and to eliminate the former is to break the latter.

 

-Rand discovers the Dark One’s energy and very existence is what is driving the Wheel.

 

As far as your take on it. I struggle with where the line is drawn between conscience and free will. Do the two not go hand in hand? I don’t see how one can exist without the other, so the distinction you’re making eludes me.

[wotfan4472]

The lack of conscience is displayed in the woman that guns down the street urchin, and also in Basel Gill's attempt to rob Rand. That happened because the Light did not exist.

It is this scene that prompts him to create that vision where the Dark One is destroyed, with the result of a Turned Elayne.

Both these visions are an exact match, because it shows the absence of it's opposite.

 

[Andra]

I think it revolves mostly on the difference between the light and dark halves of the yin/yang concept in the eastern religions and the good/evil dichotomy in the western.  In eastern religions, dark is not evil as understood in the west.  Rather, it is the necessary complement to the light, and it is the tension between them that allows life/movement/etc. to exist.  Or in the WOT universe, to drive the Wheel.

 

I believe the adage is "There is no light without shadow.  There is no life without death."

 

In this kind of cosmology, the Shadow is the dark half - not the opposite of the Light, not its enemy.  But rather the other end of the battery that powers the universe.  And a battery with only one end does nothing.

 

The Dark One became the embodiment of true evil when he deceived himself about that role, and sought to stop the Wheel.  Rand's visions at that point ultimately gave him the insight that the Dark One had lacked.  Namely, that darkness is necessary for light to exist.  But darkness and evil aren't the same thing.

 

 

[EmreY]

I find the Dark One gets an awful lot of bad press from one-sided writers like RJ.  And victors get to write history and all that.

[Jaysen Gore]

Kind of amusing, but this is in fact one of the objections of Satanists; if he fulfills the same role in Christianity that the DO does in Randland, then he is both absolutely necessary to the adoption of free will, and performing the task he was created to fulfill. So if that's the case, can he truly be considered evil?

[Andra]

4 hours ago, Jaysen Gore said:

Kind of amusing, but this is in fact one of the objections of Satanists; if he fulfills the same role in Christianity that the DO does in Randland, then he is both absolutely necessary to the adoption of free will, and performing the task he was created to fulfill. So if that's the case, can he truly be considered evil?

Also amusing is that his interpretation in Christianity isn't all that similar to his interpretation in Judaism.  Which is supposedly where Christianity got him from.  In Judaism, he's more like a prosecutor in a trial.  With various prophets being defense attorneys, and God being the judge.  Or possibly with God being the defense attorney, and some unidentified watchers being the jury. The difference isn't really clear.

 

An interesting take on the concept within Christianity (and therefore naturally rejected by most Christian authorities) is the apocryphal Gospel of Judas.

The idea being that if Jesus actually came here to be a sacrifice, then the person who enabled the sacrifice to happen was not only NOT the worst of the evil, he was actually the best of the good.  Jesus trusted him with the most difficult task of all the Disciples.

A task that was the equivalent of the Hebrew High Priests that carried out the sacrifices that the people needed for their salvation.

 

Another version in popular fiction was Snape killing Dumbledore.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Andra

[Jaysen Gore]

1 hour ago, Andra said:

Also amusing is that his interpretation in Christianity isn't all that similar to his interpretation in Judaism.  Which is supposedly where Christianity got him from.  In Judaism, he's more like a prosecutor in a trial.  With various prophets being defense attorneys, and God being the judge.  Or possibly with God being the defense attorney, and some unidentified watchers being the jury. The difference isn't really clear.

 

An interesting take on the concept within Christianity (and therefore naturally rejected by most Christian authorities) is the apocryphal Gospel of Judas.

The idea being that if Jesus actually came here to be a sacrifice, then the person who enabled the sacrifice to happen was not only NOT the worst of the evil, he was actually the best of the good.  Jesus trusted him with the most difficult task of all the Disciples.

A task that was the equivalent of the Hebrew High Priests that carried out the sacrifices that the people needed for their salvation.

 

Another version in popular fiction was Snape killing Dumbledore.

Or my personal favorite interpretation - Sammael is the prosecutor, the prophets are the defense attorney, humankind is the jury, and God is in fact the defendant. 

 

Because, to your point around Judas, in service to his Lord, he commits the only unforgivable Mortal sin due to his guilt resulting from one of the most important actions of the new testament, and is damned to hell for all eternity as a reward for ensuring Jesus makes it to the cross.  That is the reward he receives for his service from his beloved Creator.

 

It's like if Rand had to kill the DO, replace him in the abyss, and then close the portal from the other side. in order to remove the DO's touch on the world. That would be some reward from the Creator for his service.

 

And yes, it is dependent on the legal system difference between an adversary (specifically Satan = Adversary) and an enemy. 

[Andra]

On 1/12/2022 at 12:59 PM, Jaysen Gore said:

Because, to your point around Judas, in service to his Lord, he commits the only unforgivable Mortal sin due to his guilt resulting from one of the most important actions of the new testament, and is damned to hell for all eternity as a reward for ensuring Jesus makes it to the cross.  That is the reward he receives for his service from his beloved Creator.

 

 

 

Which I believe is one of the reasons Christians reject it.  They've painted themselves into a corner.

 

Interestingly enough, nothing in the Biblical canon says suicide is an "unforgivable sin."  Jesus makes clear that the only thing that's unforgivable is "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."  That claim about suicide doesn't come about until Augustine.

 

And Judaism (which both Judas and Jesus would have practiced) doesn't really have the concept.  In Judaism, forgiveness comes from the victim who has been wronged, rather than from God.  So the only thing "unforgivable" would be the one that prevents the victim from offering forgiveness.  In other words, murder.  But if the victim survives long enough to forgive their murderer, the sin is forgiven.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Andra