Absolutes, Points of View, and the Force.

Perhaps Obi-Wan had an entirely different meaning intended in the line. Anakin had just got done saying that by default Obi-Wan was his enemy for simply opposing his senseless transformation.

Obi-Wan could have only meant that because he was opposing Anakin did not absolutely mean that he was against Anakin. That, instead, he wanted to help Anakin cope with what was happening to him.

<[-]> Saber

 

Yes, absolutely. But they don't deal (bargain/barter/negotiate) in absolutes.

Can you definitively say that a Jedi has never dealt in absolute terms ever?

Obi-Wan didn't present the choices in terms of absolutes, Anakin did. Anakin is the one who laid out the extreme terms and wouldn't let Obi-Wan negotiate: "Don't make me kill you. If you are not with me, then you are my enemy."

Obi-Wan only had those two choices before Anakin said anything. Either a Sith turns to the lightside or the Sith must be destroyed; there is no third option. Not only that, but the Sith are the imbalance of the Force. Thus, they must be destroyed and not simply banished or even arrested.


It's not about making choices. It's about dealing. Bargaining. Bartering. You do this, I do that. Anakin deals in extreme absolutes as the first terms of the agreement, and considers them mandatory, nothing less is acceptable to him: You join me and I let you live. You refuse and I kill you.

Obi-Wan has only those two choices in regards to Anakin as well; either Anakin joins Obi-wan (the Jedi) or he must die because the Sith are to dangerous to let live-whether they abide by absolutes or not. Anakin's words do not necessarily mean that all Sith deal in absolutes anymore than Jedi do not.

There were other options that Obi-Wan would have rather done if he had really had a chance to negotiate. He could arrest Anakin, and have him locked up or banished. But Anakin won't let him have those options. Obi-Wan has only one option left: "I will do what I must."

Again, the Sith are too dangerous to let live; this was the only other option Obi-Wan had even before Anakin made a two-choice proposition.


Ciou-See the Sig

 

Well, Anakin never said that he didn't want Luke to have it.

Anakin never said anything about Luke taking his light-saber to Obi-Wan, because (i) he was hiding the fact that he was going to have a son, (ii) he had no idea that he was going to have a son in the first place, (iii) he had no intention of losing his light-saber to Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan lied clearly when he said that Luke's father wanted him to have his light-saber.

 

There is another possibility; perhaps on their many missions together Obi and Ani had talked about the far fetched idea that they had kids and Ani had said: "sure, I guess I'd like him to be a Jedi too."

Another possibility: Obi never said Ani TOLD him that he wanted his son to have the weapon, maybe Obi just sensed that this was so either before he turned or even after (maybe while he's burning up he is thinking to himself, ow ow ow ow, I hope my son becomes and Jedi and avenges my death you meanie!!... " I hate you!"

Darth_Saphus said:
Anakin never said anything about Luke taking his light-saber to Obi-Wan, because (i) he was hiding the fact that he was going to have a son, (ii) he had no idea that he was going to have a son in the first place, (iii) he had no intention of losing his light-saber to Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan lied clearly when he said that Luke's father wanted him to have his light-saber.

 

Perhaps Obi-Wan had an entirely different meaning intended in the line. Anakin had just got done saying that by default Obi-Wan was his enemy for simply opposing his senseless transformation.
Obi-Wan could have only meant that because he was opposing Anakin did not absolutely mean that he was against Anakin. That, instead, he wanted to help Anakin cope with what was happening to him.
Yes!!! (Someone else finally understands!!!) Taken in context, that is exactly what Obi-Wan meant.

Can you definitively say that a Jedi has never dealt in absolute terms ever?
In the same way that Anakin did? Yes, I think we probably could. And if not: "Every rule has an exception."

Obi-Wan has only those two choices in regards to Anakin as well.
But I think Obi-Wan would have liked to have more options. Anakin just wouldn't give them to him.

Either a Sith turns to the lightside or the Sith must be destroyed; there is no third option.
Couldn't they (in an ideal situation) be incarcerated into a high-security prison? Regardless, I think Mace's comment about "He's too dangerous to be kept alive!" applied more specifically to Palpatine, and not just to all Sith as a general rule.

Not only that, but the Sith are the imbalance of the Force. Thus, they must be destroyed and not simply banished or even arrested.
The Sith are more accurately the source of the imbalance in the Force. And they can't futher contribute to that imbalance if they've been securely placed away (if such a thing is even possible).

Again, the Sith are too dangerous to let live; this was the only other option Obi-Wan had even before Anakin made a two-choice proposition.
Well, then that's just a fact, and not something that you can deal (barter/bargain/negotiate) about.

 

Perhaps Obi-Wan had an entirely different meaning intended in the line. Anakin had just got done saying that by default Obi-Wan was his enemy for simply opposing his senseless transformation.
Obi-Wan could have only meant that because he was opposing Anakin did not absolutely mean that he was against Anakin. That, instead, he wanted to help Anakin cope with what was happening to him.

This has been already been explained. At the onset, Obi-Wan wanted to turn Anakin to the good side which makes Obi-Wan on Anakin's side from Obi's pov because he believes he is doing it for Anakin's salvation. However, if Anakin rebuffs Obi-Wan, which he did, then Obi-Wan has no choice but to take Anakin out whether or not Anakin made his controversial statement. It is an impossibility for the Sith and Jedi to co-exist-they are natural enemies.

In the same way that Anakin did? Yes, I think we probably could. And if not: "Every rule has an exception."

PPOR. I recall Luke giving a two-way ultimatum to a certian Hutt in ROTJ.

But I think Obi-Wan would have liked to have more options. Anakin just wouldn't give them to him.

Obi-Wan does not have any options anyway; either Anakin comes back to the good side or he must be killed as Obi-Wan relents to later. Notice Obi-Wan does not entertain a third option.

Couldn't they (in an ideal situation) be incarcerated into a high-security prison? Regardless, I think Mace's comment about "He's too dangerous to be kept alive!" applied more specifically to Palpatine, and not just to all Sith as a general rule.

Doubtful, the Sith seek to rule and control everything and this includes killing anyone in their way. Their Force-abilities make them too dangerous a la Palpatine-that a Sith was able to become Chancellor under the Jedi's nose is proof enough that not just Palpatine but any Sith is simply too dangerous to be left alive. Otherwise the Jedi would be repeating their mistake of not killing all the Sith again and the dangers they can create-locked up or no.

The Sith are more accurately the source of the imbalance in the Force. And they can't futher contribute to that imbalance if they've been securely placed away (if such a thing is even possible).

That a Sith exists is keeping the imbalance 'intact,' balance of the Force is attained when the Sith are killed; Lucas has said as much. Thus incarcerating them is not good enough.


Ciou-See the Sig

 

That a Sith exists is keeping the imbalance 'intact,' balance of the Force is attained when the Sith are killed; Lucas has said as much. Thus incarcerating them is not good enough.

That seems like an odd interpretation even for Lucas. I alway assumed that the Force was like Plato's Forms, its a blank slate, its whatever you want it to be. I mean technically the Jedi and the Sith are exactly alike, except for key differences, which in fact are being debated in this thread, so I'm not going to focus on these. As it is, the Sith WERE Jedi, they're a renegade sect, by another name, they're Dark Jedi. Both Jedi and Dark Jedi are users of the Force, how they use it is again up for debate, but nontheless, I don't see how one groups use of the Force throws the whole thing off... Thats like saying the Protestestant interpretation of God is wrong, while the Catholic interpretation is right, yet the Protestants came from the Catholic religion originally.

I think "balance" was achieved in the the form of Luke who managed to use his emotions, but not become overcome by them in the way a Dark Jedi would. While the Old Jedi Order tried to do away with emotions altogether, Luke used them to his advantage and wasn't ruled by them. It was how he used the Force that restored balance. Since Dark Jedi did rise after Vadar and Palpatine both died on Endor.

 

One of the tricky things is that we do not see enough of the Sith way of thinking to really pull it apart- we see, obviously, the lust for absolute power, but Palpatine's dialogue with Anakin in the Opera House scene does suggest that there is a lot of thought that has gone behind 'the way of the Sith'.

But what that thought is, we never find out.

 

OmnipotentSeal posted on 6/25/05 5:45pm

---

[b]That a Sith exists is keeping the imbalance 'intact,' balance of the Force is attained when the Sith are killed; Lucas has said as much. Thus incarcerating them is not good enough. [/b]

That seems like an odd interpretation even for Lucas. I alway assumed that the Force was like Plato's Forms, its a blank slate, its whatever you want it to be. I mean technically the Jedi and the Sith are exactly alike, except for key differences, which in fact are being debated in this thread, so I'm not going to focus on these. As it is, the Sith WERE Jedi, they're a renegade sect, by another name, they're Dark Jedi. Both Jedi and Dark Jedi are users of the Force, how they use it is again up for debate, but nontheless, I don't see how one groups use of the Force throws the whole thing off... Thats like saying the Protestestant interpretation of God is wrong, while the Catholic interpretation is right, yet the Protestants came from the Catholic religion originally.

I think "balance" was achieved in the the form of Luke who managed to use his emotions, but not become overcome by them in the way a Dark Jedi would. While the Old Jedi Order tried to do away with emotions altogether, Luke used them to his advantage and wasn't ruled by them. It was how he used the Force that restored balance. Since Dark Jedi did rise after Vadar and Palpatine both died on Endor.
[hr][/blockquote]
Wrong. Lucas has stated many times that balance to the Force means the destruction of the Sith. Picture a pond in your mind. The water in the pond is clear; you can see to the bottom. It is in a state of balance. Over time, however, algae begins to form across the top of the pond. The water darkens; it is no longer clear. This is what the dark side does to the Force. It clouds it, it makes it dirty, and it takes away the state of balance that once existed. By destroying the Sith, or eliminating the algae, balance is once again restored.

 

That's a great explanation, and refreshing to see that someone understands what 'balance' means. It means that everything is at peace, then something comes along and upsets that peace.

You are walking along, everything's great, such a nice day. Then some jerk trips you and you fall. When you were walking along there was not some yin and yang thing where evil was needed to help you walk down the street.

Palpatine ruling through fear is not peace even if order is kept.

Yin and Yang are present in SW. Luke is mostly good with some evil in him, Vader is mostly evil with some good in him. But this is not the overriding factor in 'the balance', it is simply the focus of Luke on his hero journey.

THIS is why Star wars is so great. So many levels, so many topics, so many mythologies and philosophies wrapped up in one great package.

 

Thats interesting on from the point of view that I read somewhere the Sith had a version of the "One," much like the Jedi, possibly even before the Jedi...? Though I think it is somewhat counteractive, well technically retroactive, compared to my understanding of the OT. I mean, if we're all at least somewhat luminous beings and the Force is in EVERYTHING, even the Sith, and this (factoring in midicholorians) Force obviously has a survival instinct, wouldn't the destruction of the Sith technically bring stagnation? Sure stagnation is balance, but its still stagnation, which is counteractive to well evolution.

 

Actualy, arresting them seems to be the first choice. After killing Dooku, a known sith, Anakin says the jedi way would have been to not kill him. When Mace is told the identity of the sith lord they've been looking for his response is to go arrest him. Even after Sidious kills three jedi and Mace has him backed into a corner Mace tells him he is under arrest. Now, after being arrested they may have been executed for their crimes, but conversion or destruction don't seem to be the only options for dealing with them.

 

I have never heard anything stating that the Sith had their version of the Chosen One.

In this instance, stagnation of the general nature of the Force is necessary. For it to be in balance, it needs to be clear of the dark side. This is a fantasy story, and as such, this concept works. The Force needs to remain in the light; any descent into darkness merely disrupts the balance of the Force. This does not mean that the Jedi cannot explore the Force on new levels or experiment with the Force in new ways. They are free to do what they wish with the Force as long as they do not embrace the dark side.

Yes, the Force is in everything. However, the dark side is like a virus or a disease in the Force. It is a cancer that destroys the good nature of the Force. It spreads throughout the galaxy creating destruction and suffering.

 

This is where I semantically and metaphorically argue that stagnation is what causes such things as the Dark Side, as Dark Jedi, the Sith Lords to arise. There is no contact with the outside, and anything can just grow in the metaphorical pond. So the Force in a way could never be truly balanced, just only momentarily clean, since after all it was the Jedi's complancy that is one of the causes of the rise of Palpatine. They were sure that they had rid themselves of the Sith, but they didn't know Palpatine in the form of Sideous was around until TPM. Its only until Palpatine reveals himself to Anakin, for the expressed sake of drawing the Jedi out, so he institute the Purge, that they KNOW that a Sith Lord exists. Until then they only had hints from Palpatine's various apprentices, Maul and Dooku. They had a hint the Senate may have been controlled, but no proof. So in a way, the Dark Side is a necessary part of the Force.

Lets take this idea a bit further, lets say that Luke is the LAST JEDI, he never takes an apprentice and dies an early death after turning Vader. Then there is nobody who truly knows how to use the Force, either for the Dark Side or the Light Side. What happens to the Force then? Wouldn't the biological nature of the Force WANT to find others? Was the Force really out of balance before the Jedi and Sith or was it the use of the Force that overthrows the balance? If its the latter, then answer is to the question is simple, restore balance by just not using the Force for good or ill. If its just that the Force doesn't "like" bad natured people, then it still isn't truly balanced cause there are still some dodgy lawyers and used car salesmen to worry about...

 

Like was said before, there is a difference between SPEAKING in absolutes, and DEALING with them. Anything said can be analyzed as an absolute. The sky is blue, spoken as an absolute, as anything can be, the difference is the sith, deal with thenm, they only want things done that way, and cannot be ope n to other things. For the sith it would be the sky is blue, and only blue, and that can never be changed.

 

Just the fact that Obi-Wan doesnt try to kill Anakin right away like Yoda would have him shows you from at least from his perspective he himself does NOT deal in absolutes. You must also remember - Obi-Wan going to Mustafar isnt just an incidental in the film and indeed has ramafications on the entire rest of the story. Yoda is PISSED OFF at Obi-Wan immediately after watching the hologram. He sarcastically responds to Kenobis weak question of "how shall I find him?" and its my opinion that Yoda and Kenobi splitting up to take on there respective Sith Lords has everything to do with the responsibility that each had to burden and what the appropriate action was to that responsibility. I know Ill catch crap for this but It has absolutely nothing to do with Yoda thinking that Obi cant handle Sidious. Yodas failure to the Republic, the Jedi, himself is known to him immediately on the revelation, and the only way to even marginally make up for it was for him, the top Jedi, to confront Sidious - ALONE. And its exactly the same for Obi-Wan concerning Anakin but tellingly to his love for Anakin, Yoda must slam it down his throat - exactly what it means to be a teacher and a friend to someone, and the excruciatingly difficult task of owning up to your part of the responsibility of that friends actions when they go awry. You must realize, as Yoda does in RotS before anyone else - Anakin isnt the only Jedi that went haywire, although he is certainly the most extreme manifestation of the larger problem. Its when Kenobi says " I HAVE failed you " that he undertsands fully, from all perspectives, what is really going on and at the point all hope for Anakin is lost, for Kenobi AND for us. That he does Anakin in the way he does, to me ( and Im in the minority ), doesnt reflect that he had hope for Anakin - just that the altruistic Kenobi wasnt intending for an easy kill on an old friend no matter his allegiance. Im certain that if Anakin was wiser at that point and just left Kenobi realizing the tactical advantage that Obi had, they would indeed have had to meet again.

 

Absolutes are a sign of inbalance, and there is a clear inbalance in the Force. Even the Jedi are out of balance, as is Obiwan. Obiwan and Yoda never overcame their imbalance, and therefore, were both given to absolutism, revealing their weakness, their blindness, their fear. Whether it is Light Side, or Dark Side, the imbalance exists, and it is the imbalance that is the true enemy, for it allows the usurper to gain power. The further a pendulum swings in favor of Jedi power, the further it will swing in the other direction in favor of Sith power. Absolutes will ultimately destroy themselves, as the Sith destroyed each other, as the Jedi destroyed themselves in their apathy. The future remains in motion, as even balance has to be disturbed. To remain in any state for too long is to stagnate, and that, too, is destruction.

Two Jedi, as I recall, were balanced, and weren't given to absolutism: Qui Gon Jin and Luke. An aside: Too bad there's no reincarnation in Star Wars... those two would have made an interesting choice.