Lit Socrates in Star Wars: Vergere in the NJO and philosophy

The gardener metaphor is also less about "you get to choose who lives and dies!" and more "The universe is a fragile thing that needs nurturing". It's never, ever been about empowering the individual and telling them they're above other creatures and thus have the right to do as they will with others.

 

I think people have some very, very strange ideas about horticulture if that kind of metaphor makes them think "evil social darwinist Sith!"

 

I thought Vergere did once equate some of the slaves to Unkraut = bad weeds. Or am I wrong?

 

Yes. The choice is Jacen's.

 

Certainly seems close enough to social Darwinism for me.

 

when?

And thus enslavement only happens to nice people?

Hell, if under enslavement you become predatory to your fellow enslaved people are you a danger to all those around you? whats the context of her statement?

 

In Traitor when Jacen was a "slave" to the Dhuryam. The context was that he was working for the Dhuryam, keeping everything in order. And Vergere more or less told him he was gardening and would have to decide what is a flower and what a bad weed.

 

I am not sure what some slaves being bad has anything to do with anything, by the way. If you decide based on your own sympathies what intelligent being is worthwhile and what isn't, which should die and which should live, you are a social darwinist. It would mean that you don't believe intelligent life has intrinsic value.

 

Do you have any idea how many slave revolts failed because some slave decided to look out for number one and reported? nearly all of them. So yeah, So yeah some slave through out history get no sympathy.

 

You're assuming she wanted him to lead a slave revolt when in fact she made a point that "Jacen has to go his own way".

 

What exactly do you think social Darwinism is? Where does choice factor into it?

 

If I turn myself into Judge, Jury and Executioner at the same time. If I decide who is worthy of living and who isn't based on a criteria like skin colour, political views or religion. Because that is what social darwinists usual do. They think of themselves of exalted beings who have the right to judge who is worthy and who isn't based on whatever criterion they deem important. The Jedi usually don't do that (at least the good ones). If they destroy a being it is to protect even more others.

 

That has nothing to do with the ideology of social Darwinism.

Guess what, folks. Whenever a Jedi takes a life, the Jedi is exercising power over life and death, and is deciding the person that is killed is a weed. A Jedi only does this in defense of self or others, aka flowers.

It really isn't that hard to understand.

 

Social darwinism isn't really defined in the first place. But my view is certainly not far off from how it is commonly described.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinism

And no, when a Jedi takes a life, he does it because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. It has nothing to do with one being a weed and another a flower. Or you could say that for a real Jedi everything is a flower.

 

All I have to say is lol.

 

I could return the gesture.

 

The Jedi aren't pacifists. Ergo, not everything is a flower.

 

Yoda quite clearly teaches Luke to use the force only for defense, never for aggression. And when it comes to killing Vader, Luke refused to do it as he still saw worth in the man who called himself his father. The Jedi fought the Empire because there was no other choice, because the Empire would go on killing and killing and killing, not because they thought the Imperials were less worthy of life than everyone else.

Bad weed in the garden is, as the name says it, bad. It will never turn into a flower and has to be destroyed if the other plants are to bear fruit. There is no other choice but to destroy it.

But this is far less clear-cut in reality. A destructive element might turn into a constructive one and vice versa.

 

The clones turned into weeds when they started killing the Jedi flowers.

 

Self defense is also defense. It's even in the word. One could of course question whether he could have used a different, less lethal weapon.

 

Hah, that one is a classic!

 

"Evil" is an ascribed characteristic attributed to a thing by an outside observer. Every time a Jedi kills and says that it was necessary, especially because something was evil by their standards, they are gardening. Regardless:

Emphasis is my own. The most important thing is that Jacen's decision is Jacen's decision. Ironically, that's pretty much the singular thing that Vergere really wants him to learn but he needs to learn it himself; it needs to come from self realization. Jacen's decisions are always Jacen's decisions. If Jacen has a major flaw, particularly visible in Traitor it is an inability to accept that he has as much control over himself and his situation as he actually does. He insists that he is reactive, that forces acting on him are leaving him without any real choice. But that's a lie. There's always a choice.

And because there's always a choice, it is our right as free thinking creatures to do with it what we will. That doesn't automatically justify or absolve your of your action, though. You need to make a decision knowing the consequences and never denying them. For instance, ending a life. This is a choice and a dire one. Death is never free from negative consequences, if only because it ends a life and life is precious, positive thing. Thus, you don't only need to exhibit proper judgement if you take a life...you should never deny the weight of the choice. That's where Vergere's comment about "kill, kill, kill" comes in. Regardless of your motives, pure intentions...if you kill, something is always dead. And this is something we must mourn, even for our enemies. (Yes, even the lives of the "bad guys" matter.)

But even as we mourn it, we need to understand that even death is not without purpose. Killing to protect, for instance, is still regretful. You still regret the loss of life; Yoda (I believe in Dark Rendezvous) notes that killing is always of the dark side. The important thing is that they've chosen their decision, understand the ramifications, and then act.

And so does every Jedi once they ignite their lightsaber with the intention to kill. Does that make them...as you seem to define it, anyway....darwinistic?

 

When did I mention evil today? I thought I said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Jedi are often not written as they are supposed to be written in the EU. Many didn't seem to get the point of ROTJ. So if some Jedi says "I had to kill him because he was evil" that Jedi is either a bad Jedi or badly written.

That said, everyone is free to make up his/her mind on what is evil or not (it would be silly not to as we humans are programmed to categorize). But using those opinions as base to determine who deserves to live or not? That is akin to playing god.

I'd rather prefer it if leader figures like the Jedi would do calculus. Which course of action will lead to more deaths and which won't? That's the question you gotta ask yourself in that situation, not whether a being is "evil".