Saga Clarification on how the Jedi "recruit" other Jedi

Mate, I feel like you’re shifting the goalposts a little there, and conflating two issues. I agree with you that the Jedi should have been more flexible about who they accepted as candidates for training.

But I think the real sticking point of their inflexibility was not the type of family the child came from, but their age. Consider this thought experiment. What if Anakin had come from a culture (I’m taking this example from RL, though I can’t name the culture off the top of my head) where he was raised in a longhouse with all the other kids of Mos Espa by all the women, with fathers living in another longhouse, and no special recognition of immediate biological (or otherwise “nuclear”, whether the parents were hetero/homosexual/polygamous/whatever) relationships? In other words, an approximation of how Jedi younglings are probably cared for? I think chances are they would still have been unwilling to train him. So it’s not so much “non-communal” families they object to as it was age. And yes, there could’ve been more give on that point. I think there were sound reasons for it as a general rule though.

And from a purely practical perspective, I think kibbutz-style was “the only viable way to raise Jedi”, given the constraints the PT Jedi faced. I imagine it would be far too large a drain on their resources to have a different ratio between their children and the adult Jedi who looked after them. I don’t see anything in the movies to suggest that they were dogmatically committed to raising children in large groups. Just logistical necessity.

In any case, the point I was originally making was in response to Stover’s comments (and others who have expressed like opinions), below, that Jedi couldn’t connect to ordinary people because they didn’t have “real families”. His implication clearly being that being raised in the Temple couldn’t possibly involve real familial relationships, and that Jedi were therefore socially/emotionally stunted. Coming from a part of the world (Southeast Asia) where some cultures still practise “takes a village to raise a child” literally, I just find that incredibly narrow-minded. I acknowledge that not all critics of the PT Jedi share Stover’s views on this, and apologise if my comparison gave offense.

Indeed it can. But so can any moral maxim. For example, prioritising individuals’ “rights” over the greater good can (and does, as we see in RL) lead to the tyranny of those favoured by the luck of nature’s draw (such as, in the GFFA, Force-sensitives).

That’s why moral maxims are pretty useless without some context. And the relevant context here is these people are, as Stover put it, “the Justice League with interplanetary License to Kill”. There is every reason to think that a desirable and intuitive morality would require them to prioritise the greater good over themselves and their own interests. Context is also one reason why Palpatine isn’t a relevant example to support your position, IMO.

Another, more fundamental reason which I think you’re missing is the intuitive first-/third-person moral asymmetry of valuing individuals. Applied to and by Jedi, “prioritising the greater good over individuals” is a principle which is valued because it requires the individual Jedi to “prioritise the big picture over myself ” (first-person assessment). That sort of first-person assessment is what the prohibition of attachment requires, and that is why it is a rule—because it reflects a more fundamental prohibition of selfishness.

The destruction of Alderaan from Palpatine’s perspective is totally different. He prioritises (putting the best possible spin on it) “the greater good” over the lives of several billion other (ie not himself)individuals. Leaving aside the sheer scale, that fundamentally is qualitatively different from the Jedi rule because it is a third-person assessment: that other people’s lives aren’t worth as much as (my vision of) the greater good.

I don’t doubt that Jedi often have to make decisions about whether to save some people at the expense of letting a larger group of people die. Then they would have to make a third-person assessment in the sense I just described. But (on its own) that’s got nothing to do with the rule against attachment, which focuses on the individual Jedi’s ability to sacrifice himself (or herself) and his or her personal interests. Nor do I think such an assessment is a peculiarity of Jedi philosophy. That sort of utilitarian decision is just inevitable when your job is “intergalactic superhero” (cf Spiderman, MJ and the car full of kids - IIRC). Therefore, “prioritising the greater good” when considered as a characteristic of Jedi philosophy, particularly the rule against attachment, doesn’t fall foul of your objection that it could justify an Alderaan-type decision.

You never replied to my post the last time Alexrd and yourself discussed this

I have posted earlier in this thread about my interpretation of how and why Luke's redemption of Anakin was consistent with and a vindication of PT Jedi teachings about non-attachment. Also see my reply to darth-sinister immediately above.

Look up Central African peoples such as Efé. Look up the various indigeneous peoples of Borneo. Those are just a couple of examples off the top of my head of cultures where the entire community sometimes lives in the same longhouse/compound and childrearing is rotated amongst the adults who happen not to be out getting/growing food on a particular day.

If those people have no less valid an experience of family than John-Boy Walton's, then neither do Jedi just because of their communal childrearing practices. If they are no less able to emotionally/intuitively connect with others for that reason, neither are Jedi.

 

Sorry for the double post, but the previous one was already wayyy too long.

I just wanted to add that the quotations from Scott Lynch on the previous page strike me as a prime example of "Ugly American" condemnation of the PT Jedi. It's filled with such conviction in Lynch's own ethical assumptions that he can't even see that they are assumptions, not universal, divinely-ordained lex naturalis. He comes close to equating "emotional comfort" with "consistent ethical behaviour" --- seriously?! Sorry, but I lol'd.

(Not to mention the usual phenomenon of complete obliviousness to the nuances which couldn't be made more explicit unless the audience was handed a pamphlet entitled "JEDI TENETS" as they took their seats in the cinema.)

 

We know that there are other Force users out there. We know that Qui-gon discovered something that the Jedi Order as a whole, including Yoda, did not know about. Yoda even learned something from the Priestesses that he was unaware of. As Palpatine said, the Jedi have a narrow view of the Force and he's not just talking about the dark side.

And is why they're all but extinct.

Everything they did with Anakin and how they treated Ahsoka.

To the Living Force. To people. To emotions. Being raised by normal people and living a life without the Force allows them to develop connections and then the training from the Jedi Arts will help them to understand it.

Luke had empathy for his father and wanted to save him. Obi-wan didn't and was going by his sense of duty, forged from a life time of training.

Because in ANH, Luke has no training beyond a small bit. By TESB, he's trained but he's still not ready for the fight and emotionally, he's in revenge mode. For the death of his father, his mentor and the pain that he caused to his friends. By ROTJ, Luke is stronger in the Force and he comes to realize that Vader wasn't entirely evil. That he could still feel the good within, but at the time, he didn't realize it. Now that he does, he wants to save him. Obi-wan couldn't sense the good in him, but Padme who wasn't strong in the Force, believed it despite knowing what Anakin had done. She was no Jedi, but she had love for Anakin that transcended what Obi-wan believed he had.

Ah, but he did give up and fought Anakin. Then he left him to die, effectively giving up on him. Luke didn't. He didn't want to fight him and other than being goaded into it, avoided it. He only defended himself while trying to reach him.

Look at Luke Skywalker.

But nowhere near what it is between Luke and Anakin.

Due to their training.

There was plenty of opportunities to show the Jedi outside of the Temple, outside of their work as Jedi, to show them being normal.

Because not everyone should be alone. They can choose to be, but they should also get out there and live a life that is more than solitary. Anakin didn't want to leave the Jedi Order, because he wanted his cake and eat. He was selfish and greedy. He felt entitled to be a Jedi and to be a husband.

 

Going back to the original topic of the thread- recruitment - which do you think is more plausible? That Jedi carry out the midi-chlorian tests that identify potential recruits, or that it's non-Jedi that generally carry out those tests?

 

So, they didn't find the Chosen One and didn't know about Force ghosts. That doesn't mean they've stopped seeking knowledge.

He actually is.

No, they are extinct because a Sith Lord managed to blind them and rise to power. But I wouldn't mind if you explain how you've jumped to that conclusion.

They forgot to "be human" with them? Taking Anakin's example alone, which Lucas had complete creative control over, where did they forget to "be human" with him? They offered him a chance to have a better (although hard) life as a Jedi, explained the terms and conditions of said life, and he accepted. It's not like the Jedi don't understand why he's afraid of losing his mother, or why he has feelings for Padmé. The point is that if he wants to be a Jedi, he has to behave like one and be selfless. If he wants to "be human" and have a normal life, the door is always open for him to leave.

That's great for him. But there's still no direct correlation with his success.

Not in TESB. If being raised by a "normal" family has so much influence on his character, he would have tried to save Vader in TESB.

But the "good" was still there, and it was when he sensed the good in Vader. I'm not talking about the fight, where he had no chance whatsoever, but about him sensing good in him and trying to save him. Or Mr. and Mrs. Lars didn't teach him to try to save strangers that still had "good" in them?

Yes, Anakin gave him no chance whatsoever with his ultimatum.

They've probably spent more time together than Luke and Anakin, but that's beside the point.

That's up to them to decide if it's a connection that "truly matters" or not.

(Un)fortunately the story was focused on something else. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.[/quote]

 

If you believe writers like Rand or Heinlein - to be perfectly selfless is an utterly unreasonable, inhuman expectation.

Of course, they have their own biases. Still, I can see where they're coming from.

 

Good thing we're talking about inhuman beings then.

 

Anakin, Qui-Gon, and Obi-Wan are inhuman? About the only thing that distinguishes them is their powers.

 

According to Yoda and Palpatine, they did.

He is, but he's also talking about the other views. Like the Nightsisters and unknowingly, the Whills.

Because as Yoda said, the Jedi should have changed after the last war with the Sith, but they didn't.

Right and they didn't do anything to help him to break his attachments, other than just teach him. There was no counseling. There was no emotional heart to heart. None of them knew what it was like to be separated from a parent.

Sure there is. He grew up with attachments and still learned to let them go and was able to do what no Jedi had done.

Luke didn't know Vader was his father. He was told that this was a rogue Jedi who needs to be killed to end the war.

The good only surfaced when Luke and Vader fought. And during the fight, Luke didn't realize what he was sensing from Vader because he wasn't ready for the fight. He could barely use the Force to defend himself, much less sense things and understand what he is feeling.

They taught Luke love. Unconditional love. Compassion.

There was a choice. There is always a choice. Obi-wan could have chose not to fight him, but instead continue to try and reason with him. He quit because of his training.

And yet, Luke could sense the conflict. Luke believed he was worth saving when Obi-wan didn't.

A result of their training. It's a cause and effect.

 

There's this:

"The part I am working on now is mostly about Darth Vader, who he is, where he came from, how he became Luke and Leia's father, what his relationship to Ben is. In Jedi, the film is really about the Redemption of this fallen angel. Ben is the fitting good angel, and Vader is the bad angel who started off good. All these years Ben has been waiting for Luke to come of age so that he can become a Jedi and redeem his father. That's what Ben has been doing, but you don't know this in the first film."
--George Lucas

but that may be a case of Lucas changing things after the event. It's kinda hard to believe Ben wants Luke to try to redeem Vader.

 

Stuff did change there between 97 and 05. The DVD commentary doesn't reflect that. It's hard to say how much that has changed or not.

 

Annotated Screenplays is a book:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Annotated_Screenplays

 

Classic excuses for maintaining the status quo (outrageous inequality and suffering) and ensuring that any moral progress humanity makes is completely accidental.

The Jedi ideal is indeed very hard. Qui-Gon emphasises this twice (in this respect, Anakin's choice to join the Jedi was more informed and free than Luke's, so expecting him to act like one, ten to thirteen years after he signed up, is not "utterly unreasonable"). That difficulty doesn't say anything about its moral value or its worthiness as a goal, unless you're a hardcore hedonist.

I'd suppose the blood test would be part of a standardised suite of testing/vaccination procedures for infants, probably done by droids usually, on Republic worlds that have any sort of healthcare. I envision it as being opt-out, so parents who don't even want to know if there's a possibility their kid might be Jedi material don't have to. The results are probably shortlisted automatically and sent to the Temple, where some Master Padawan being punished for not meditating enough goes through them and further narrows down which households they'll send someone to speak to the parents.

 

I'll try to be more brief as these post have gotten a bit long.

I think they do and their words and actions indicate that they have a limited understanding of emotions and how they can affect a person. They have denied themselves certain feelings and thus have grown cold.

They could have freed Shmi from slavery, which Qui-Gon tried to do. The reason he tried is that one, Shmi had done him, Padme and the mission a favor by opening her house to them. So trying to pay her back would be the right thing to do. And two, having her not a slave anymore would help to put Anakin's mind at ease.

I totally disagree with this. First, what you are saying is that no matter the circumstances, no matter what Anakin did, what anyone around him did, he could NEVER learn to accept loss.
This paints Anakin as damned from birth and nothing that he or anyone else could do, would change that. Also, I think the films disproves this because in RotJ Anakin does this. He attacks the emperor, knowing that this would in all likelihood kill him and he would loose Luke and Leia and his own life.

Second, Anakin left his mother at a sensitive age and he knew that she was a slave and all that. So obviously he missed her and worried about loosing her. All or almost all children grow attached to their parents/primary caretaker and this is normal and healthy. Most children eventually grow out of this kind of close attachment and can leave their parents/primary caregivers side for longer and longer periods of time. Until they mature and move on, on their own. There is still a bond there and if the parent/primary caregiver is lost feelings of grief and loss can arise but most can now deal with those feelings.
Anakin's attachments were not dealt with properly. He could not grow out of them naturally because the connection was just severed and his fear and worry was not resolved. Had he known that she was free and lived well, that would have put his mind at ease. Having the occasional contact would also have helped him to let go.

Consider the following ex. Parents A loose their child due to illness.
Parents B have their child kidnapped and then is never heard off.

Both scenarios are horrible but in A the parents can say their goodbyes, mourn and eventually move on. In scenario B they are left in limbo. They mourn and miss their child but the chance that their child is still alive and could be found still exists. The Madeleine McCannstory is one example of this.
So the hope still is there and that can stop them from moving on.

He is off on his own, he doesn't have Obi-Wan or any other Jedi to look over him.
He also knows full well that Padme isn't one who likes to sit still and obeys order without question.
Typho told him that he worried more about her doing something foolish than Anakin.

Actually we do know that because no Luke, no R2 and the MF can't jump. Assuming Lando did try something and assuming Vader wouldn't be around to stop it. Remember Vader was busy with Luke when Lando and the others tried to escape. They would take the MF and then get promptly caught or shot down as they can't go to Hyperspace,

Um I don't remember Yoda or Obi-Wan asking Anakin's permission before they decided to split Luke and Leia up. He is their parent too and yet his wishes were not of interest to Yoda and Obi-Wan.
Of course they probably figure that he was dead, same as Padme. So neither parents could really give their consent. And Bail takes Leia and Yoda and Obi-Wan offers no objection to that. If the overriding concern was that the children should go to their closest family then BOTH Leia and Luke would go to Tatooine.
Instead they decided to split the children up, which makes sense. Bail took Leia and Luke got sent to Tatooine and Obi-Wan looked over him.

So, get him there when he is one or whatever. Obi-Wan is near Luke and could have brought him to Yoda at any time. Yet they didn't do that. They waited and let both children be raised by families.

They did pretty much take them and decide what to do. Both Anakin and Padme were dead, or so they thought, so they could get no permission.
Also why was only the Larses "family"? What about Padme's parents or siblings? Aren't they family too?

Yoda, Obi-Wan and Bail decided on their own what was to be done with the children. Taking them on their own was an option. Yet they didn't take it and I think that was in part to do with them realizing that the old ways would not work anymore.

According to the little EU I have read on the matter suggest that a minority of the Jedi that had families turned to the dark side, not the majority.

Audience.

This "not normal humans" is not a valid excuse to me. Just because they have powers shouldn't have to mean that they must become unemotional robots. In fact, to me, having normal human emotions makes them more relatable and more interesting as characters.

Ex. When Star Trek TNG was started to be made, Gene Roddenberry said that humans in the 24th century were all perfect. They were more "evolved". They never felt petty emotions like greed or envy. They never grieved or mourned and accepted death instantly as a part of life. There was also not supposed to be any conflict between the humans as all such things were long gone.
To me, this makes it very hard to write compelling drama and it shows in the first two seasons of TNG. The humans are either rather dull or they come across as insufferable, arrogant and condescending.
Later seasons were able to move away from this notion and they became much better in my view.

Again with the excuse that those with powers can't behave like humans.
I know of several superheroes in both comics and film that have suffered loss and have grieved and mourned. And in some cases it made for quite good stories.
Neil Gaiman's comic book character, the Sandman, could get really sad, grieve and show all sorts of human emotions. And that made the character interesting to me and made for some good stories.

Disagree, the Jedi expect Luke to kill his father. He can't because of his attachment to him.
This same attachment also makes Luke takes foolish risks in trying to save his father.
He also drags the dying Vader through the DS2 and says that he has to save him. So clearly he is very attached to him.
With regards to Leia, he gets angry yes but he stops himself when he realizes that going down this path would just turn him into Vader. So he clams down, he doesn't let go of his attachment but he has learned self control so that this attachment won't make him do bad things.

Luke felt the good in Vader in ESB but he didn't know what it was at the time.
During the fight, Luke had no idea that Vader was his father. Once he was told this, the fight was over. But Luke and Vader had one last mind contact before the MF jumped. Once Luke was able to process what he had felt and once Yoda confirmed that Vader really was his father, then Luke knew that there was still good in Vader.

Luke doesn't decide to leave until Vader comes down to Endor.

LUKE Vader is here...now, on this moon.

LEIA (alarmed)
How do you know?

LUKE I felt his presence. He's come for me. He can feel when I'm near.
That's why I have to go.
(facing her)
As long as I stay, I'm endangering the group and our mission here.
(beat)
I have to face him.
.
.
LUKE Then you know why I have to face him.

LEIA No! Luke, run away, far away. If he can feel your presence, then leave
this place. I wish I could go with you.

LUKE No, you don't. You've always been strong.

LEIA But, why must you confront him?

LUKE Because...there is good in him. I've felt it. He won't turn me over to
the Emperor. I can save him. I can turn him back to the good side. I
have to try.

[/QUOTE]


Luke leaves for two reasons, to protect the mission and try to save his father.
Kind of like how he left in ESB, to try and save Han and Leia.
Obi-Wan wanted Luke to kill Vader and seemed to reject any idea that Vader could be turned back.
So Luke's "mission" is to kill Vader, not save him.

@anakinfansince1983

You don't know that Shmi had nothing to do with it. Shmi was a loving, caring mother and Anakin felt that. So having experienced the love from a parent could have made Luke something more than just a means to kill Palpatine and make himself Master.

Superman, The Sandman and a whole lot of other superheroes have powers I can't begin to understand and yet some of them have parents that they care about, some also have families and even children.
To me, this can make for more interesting and dramatic stories and character development if done well.

Let me ask you this, in the whole world and over the last say 2000 years, how many humans have had families, children. Of those, how many have been able to handle that responsibly and how many have, as you say "acting completely irrational and ape**** over romance."?

I would think that a large majority of humans have been able to fall in love, get married, have children without going on homicidal rampages, burn down buildings, destroy cities, torture people etc.
I also think that humans are capable of acting in a terrible manner for reasons that have nothing to do with love or romance. Bigotry, power hunger, greed, fear etc.

You can change a rule without condemnation of those that earlier followed said rule.

If you mean the OT then again, they were hunted by the empire. Not terribly practical to get married and have children.
And Luke's father had children and possibly a wife. And nothing that was said in the OT indicated that this was unusual or strange.

I was responding to a comment that said that the OT painted a picture of the Jedi as Monks or isolated people.
I don't agree. In ANH, Luke is told that his father was a Jedi and that that father wanted Luke to have his lightsaber when he was old enough. That to me, does the opposite of this comment.
A Jedi having a child/family wasn't treated as odd or forbidden.
Monks are quite often celibate/chaste and if you use that term then celibacy is implied.

And what is with this focus on "Western"? Doesn't "Eastern" people get married, have romantic love or parent-child attachment?

The "family" unit exists in many other countries outside of America.

Blaming the audience for their reaction to a film is not an argument that I like.
I am single and don't have any children so I don't fit your above notion.

And the Jedi came across as cold to me partly because of the often flat and sometimes uncaring way they spoke, how they seemed disinterested in the plight of others, how Shmi was just left to rot and so on.
So Order 66 didn't have much of a punch to me. I knew from AotC that the clones would eventually turn on the Jedi so it wasn't a surprise. And since I didn't really care about most of them, their deaths were rather empty.


Samuel Vimes said:

Third, in this thread people have questioned whether or not the PT Jedi restricted emotions and banned certain feelings.
If the Jedi are Monks and supposed to be then the answer to that question is yes.​

I said CERTAIN feelings.
Monks are traditionally required to be celibate/chaste and thus feelings of a sexual nature are a no-no. Take the issue about catholic priests not being allowed to marry and whether or not that rule have had anything to do with the recent scandals. The Pope recently said something that might indicate that this rule could be softened.

Parent-Child attachment is banned, romantic love that leads to a relationship is banned, at least if you want to remain in the order. Having a child is banned.
That is not getting into the negative feelings like fear and anger that are likewise something that a Jedi should never have.

And based on what Yoda said, Obi-Wan shouldn't have cried over Qui-Gon, he should have been happy instead.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

Since the PT Jedi banned contact with parents, banned marriage and having children for active Jedi.
That is enough of an indication that they did restrict their emotions.
Two, for any story teller, if you remove some or all human emotions from the characters, it becomes difficult to create griping drama. Again Star Trek, some who played Vulcans did so by being totally unemotional. This made them dull and uninteresting. Better actors/writer, like Nimoy and Lenard, was able to play reserved characters and yet show that they had emotions. They just didn't act on them.

You know it would help if you actually read my posts instead of making things up.
Nowhere have I said that.
I said this;

So my issue is that I think the ban might have been wrong. Not that those Jedi that choose not to have one are wrong or are deprived of something.

And your continued attempts to pigeonhole me is getting tiresome. I personally knows several "families" that are NOT one man and one woman. Friends of my mother, friends at work etc.
So I am open to many possibilities. I am less fond of the idea to remove choice and use the "one size fits all" approach the PT Jedi use.

First I was not the one who compared the Jedi to Monks.
CT-867-5309 said this;

I DISAGREED with that. Pointing out that in the OT, the Jedi have been hunted to near extinction by the Empire so obviously they would be in hiding and not busy getting married.
I also pointed out that Luke's father had a child and nothing was said that indicated that this was against the norm or that the Jedi, prior to the OT, were celibate or chaste.
So I DON'T think that the OT painted the idea that the Jedi were monks or much like them.
Your disagreement should be directed against CT-867-5309 and not me.

As for Shmi, the FACT is that NO Jedi prior to Anakin have been able to turn back from the Dark Side. He was raised by his mother, at least in part. Did that have anything to do with him being able to turn back? I merely raised the possibility. I can't prove it and you can't prove that it didn't matter.

I just find it interesting that Luke is the only one in the OT who thinks Anakin can be redeemed and he was raised in a family. Anakin, who was also raised in a family, manages to turn back.

[/QUOTE]

Since you seem to be more interested in trying to pigeonhole those that have a different opinion than you rather than having an actual discussion. You are right, there really is no need for us to talk further about this.

Bye.
Old Stoneface

 

I know about that. I'm talking about the DVD commentary for ROTJ.

Mind you that a filmmaker who was born in the US, came up with all this, it's not unreasonable that some of his American upbringing and lifestyle doesn't play into his storytelling. Hence Anakin and Padme got married and had two kids. Not to mention that the Lars and the Organas fit within that mold when they each raise one of the twins. In fact, the Saga tells us that being raised by normal families was infinitely better than being raised by the Jedi and that if Anakin had been left with his mother, he'd be a lot better off.

 

"Westernized" is a bit of an exaggeration - people "raised by a village" still normally spent time with their parents.

Similarly, in "raised by a village" societies - marriages still generally exist.

 

It's more that after 1000-odd years of "not having the type of family structure we are accustomed to having" - of raising only infants (accepting children over 1 year old is portrayed as generally "doomed to fail" in the TPM novel) - they will lose a lot of the traits of "ordinary people". Thus being - compared to them - colder and less emotional.

And thus - unable to comprehend why a person who'd been raised normally for 9 years, would have issues with it.

 

Alternatively - emotions exist because, from our distant evolutionary past, right up to the present day, they had survival value.