Anakin's Quest For Power...To Save People From Death

Except that fear, anger, hate, and suffering are independent emotional states that can be arranged in a number of different sequences. It's a case of George Lucas failing logic again. It's perfectly possible for anger to lead to suffering to lead to fear to lead to hate, or suffering to lead to fear to lead to anger to lead to hate.

Honestly, relationships get a bad rap in the PT, but you'd have to be a really, really creepy dude to tell an obviously troubled guy to celebrate a loved one's passing into the Force. No one celebrates death, not unless they lived either a very tragic or a very fulfilling life. But then again, Anakin's entirely worldview is entirely bereft of logic...It's just surprising and somewhat of a wallbanger that none of the Jedi realized a guy absolutely starved for affection and meaningful emotional contact would be upset about a loved one dying. I mean, Jedi get angry, they get scared, and they laugh, but they can't love?

 

FTW.

 

I agree that Anakin's fears are for himself - the above that I quoted explains it brilliantly.

As to the counterpost, there are valid points there, but this is not our world, but GFFA. In it, the Jedi are taught that death IS a part of life and not to fear it. (Sounds familiar to me in the real world as to some religions views. Doesn't make it any easier on those left behind, but the teachings are that death is something to look forward to.)

Did Anakin learn this? No.

Why not? I have no definitive answer and I doubt anyone does.

The thing is we the viewers do get to see Anakin as this emotionally childish and needish man. Does he show this side to the Jedi? Do they ignore it? Do they try to deal with it as they know how?

IMHO I think Anakin put on a facade. The Jedi may have glimpsed his emotional need without realizing just how deep it was, and Anakin didn't confide in anyone (but Padme) what his needs were.

 

Not so much that they cant (it is possible.... Anakin proves this, of course) but it is certainly deemed they should avoid doing so towards any one individual above all others. A Jedi should first and foremost be devoted to their order and all living things. Being attached to one person ahead of these things may make one vulnerable and corruptible. The philosophy proves a just one in the end. It is Anakin's connection to Padme that proves both his and the Order's downfall. Thats not to say Anakin should feel guilty for his emotions. The Jedi should have realised he were a special case and treated him as such. Had Qui-Gon lived, I would argue he would have. Qui-Gon died of course, and Obi-Wan thought he could train him just as well. As he later admits, he wasn't ready. The rest is history.

 

My religion teaches that death is not to be feared, and that we are not to be sad for those who pass on. But at the same time, we are allowed to be sad for ourselves. We are allowed, even encouraged, to grieve. As Anakin said, we are encouraged to love. The difference is that we are allowed to be attached to people.

Seems to me that the Jedi are not allowed to grieve at all, that grief at the loss of a loved one would be a sign of "attachment." Yes, Obi-Wan grieved over Qui-Gon's body, but he was also accused by Yoda of being too "attached." (Not because of that scene but in general.)

One such scene in the CW series that corroborates this point is the episodes in which Anakin is badly injured, Ahsoka stops on a remote planet to get help, and Aayla Secura meets her there. (This was in Season 1 and I don't have the name of the episodes or the planet right now.) Aayla suspects that Ahsoka is worried about Anakin, and really, it would have been pretty darned heartless of Ahsoka not to worry about Anakin--and Aayla sort of chastises her for it. Tells her that she has to learn to "let him go."

I personally find it really, really messed up to scold a Padawan for worrying about her injured Master, or to tell a guy who has nightmares about his mother or another loved one to just get over it. Which is essentially what Anakin is told.

Yes, Anakin was emotionally childish and needy, which I attribute partially to his background as a slave and partially to the fact that the Jedi essentially told him to just get over the fact that he used to be a slave and knew his mother instead of actually helping him work through the issues that came about.

But no, I don't think Anakin confided in the Jedi, I think at some point he decided that he couldn't or was afraid that he would be scolded for it. One of the CW novels indicates that after Obi-Wan realized that Shmi died--which of course happened at about the same time that Anakin lost his arm and the war started--he decided that Anakin needed a friend more than he needed a Master and decided to act as such, even defying Yoda to do so (Yoda actually told Obi-Wan not to be Anakin's friend, that he needed a taskmaster--are you kidding me??). Obi-Wan tried to help Anakin, at least in the CW era. But it may have been too late.

 

Eh, that's a very flawed argument. Devotion to the greater good at the expense of personal interactions is the hallmark of the strawman utilitarian extremist, putting them in the company of every bloodstained knight templar-esque crusader bent on creating the ideal instead of the good. Jedi should have been taught to manage their personal lives, not shun them, and they should have acknowledged that death is at best bittersweet. Again, telling a man who is troubled by it to simply celebrate the death (instead of, say, celebrating the life lived) of a loved one is callous and horribly tone-deaf. This applies not just to Anakin, but to all Jedi. Cutting all personal ties makes atomizes an idividual, makes them unable to relate to others, and makes others unable to relate to them. They literally become an island, not part of a whole, as it is a world they no longer have a stake in.

 

Again, you appear to be attributing to this fictional world the "illogical" tag purely because it fails to mirror an alternative, more common philosophy already established within this world. While you're entitled to disagree with it, you miss the point if you're trying to prove it definitvely wrong. The film teaches it a wise philosophy for the Jedi. Anakin's personal attachment is the root of his and Padme's downfall and the suffering of millions of others. For the sake of merely one he wishes to keep by his side, he condemns the galaxy and its people to a tyranical rule. Yoda's advice was to essentially accept the vision and let whatever it prophecised occur, if neccessary - like he will later advise Luke. Yoda's advice would have seen Padme fine and spared Anakin the even greater hurt he would endure over the next 20 years.

Who said being a Jedi is meant to be easy? Surely you can see that putting one individual above all others when you're meant to essentially "love" and protect all individuals to an equal degree makes for a significant conflict of interest.

 

Because logic is something that should be observed within reason when examining any fictional work. When one abandons logical analysis, that's when they become a mass consumer, content to let anything shown to them pass without criticism. I use the logic of the real world because it is the only one I have. And I happen to find personal attachments to be a very good thing. Without friends or family, life really wouldn't be worth living.

And the fact is that Anakin really didn't care that much about Padme beyond the fact she was beautiful. Call it carnality, lust, whatever, but if he did, he wouldn't have set up a dictatorship and served as its enforcer. He wouldn't have tried to kill her while she was bearing his children. Anakin had a very shallow attachment to her, based purely on physical attractiveness. I mean, he looked at her once when she was 14 and suddenly she became his bedtime fantasy for the next decade, until he made the fantasy a reality. His interest was physical and perhaps if he and she thought alike, he'd have understood that Padme would be, and was repulsed by his methods.

And simply letting prophesied things occur is determinism of the worst kind. There's no fate but one we make, and Anakin proved that. If one is dying, then a loved one should try to save them within reason. That's natural and that's right. Yoda's line of reasoning can justify horrifying things like allowing disease patients to die because, hey, they wouldn't have gotten sick if it wasn't fated, so obviously they're destined to die. What Yoda SHOULD have said was that the future was ever-changing and thus not set in stone, and that he should be careful not to ensure that the prophecy becomes self-fulfilling. What Yoda told him instead was that death was a happy occasion. That he should simply purge it from his mind and sedate himself with Jedi teachings.

The problem is that Yoda very rarely questions his students in a Socratic manner. He instructs and he expects his students to take his words entirely to heart. But Anakin had the same questions and fears going out that he did coming in. If Yoda had talked him through his fears, and have him see for himself how stupid he sounded, he would have had more success. Yoda gives ready-made parcels of sage wisdom, not active instruction.

 

Yet sound in space bothers you not? The concept of individuals from an alien world conversing in perfect English is perfectly rational? When you start judging works of fiction merely by the boundaries of logic you have ascertained in your own world, you eradicate the notion of fantasy. Were we not analysing a work of science fiction, I may agree with you on these specific points. But we are.

Thats no "fact". That's your interpretation.

In the Star Wars world it may well be the case that were one terminally sick, it could be considered right they be allowed to die. Again, this isn't about what is definitively right, this is about two different philosophies. I actually share your philosophy, but in a work of science fiction, I wouldn't state my philosophy to be superior and disregard what the fictional story is preaching. I also show anger and sometimes consider anger to be useful. But I dont criticise Star Wars for what it preaches about it, because I understand it is an entirely different world with entirely different standards.

Regardless of this, you're implying Anakin is perfectly positioned and able to save Padme from his nightmares when in fact, not knowing the specifics, Anakin is in no position to save her. Ultimately, to do so, he seeks a position elsewhere and its this kind of thing Yoda is likely wary of. At no point does Anakin give Yoda specifics. Had he said "well Master Yoda, she will fall from a cliff", I highly doubt Yoda's advice would have been as succint or abstract. I imagine he might have said "well make sure she keeps away from cliffs, numnuts" As it was, he chose to instruct Anakin that death is not some terrible thing but actually an inevitable thing. He sensed Anakin was haunted by it and tried to find a way of teaching him it is not something to be feared.

You simplify it as this, but what he actually says is "rejoice for those around you who transform into the force". Firstly, this is not simply "death" - it is one merging with the force. Who are we to say this is not something to be celebrated? Transforming into the force can easily be interpreted to be the GFFA's version of what we call heaven. If you truly love someone and acknowledge they are going to a peaceful, better place, it is a perfectly rational philosophy to consider it something to be celebrated.

 

All right, fair. But I'm not talking about physics, and really, in most movies, physics is bent a little for the sake of plot. Logic, however, is different, especially when judging a character's actions. If Anakin were to say "Money equals power, power equals camel, camel equals five celery sticks. Five. Quid pro quo" I would be more than a little baffled. Not only does that progression make no logical sense, but Anakin SAYING it makes no sense within the framework of the story.

Let's go back to that discussion on superpowerful medicine in SW and how Padme probably had no risk of death in childbirth. Look, trust in premonition is one thing, but this is a universe capable of stable human cloning, regrowing flesh over wounds without any lasting scarring in an absurdly short period of time, building life-like prostheses, etc. Anakin was probably in and out of a medical center to get patched up between missions. He should know how advanced medical technology is. This is very relevant, because the universe a character is in should govern how they think, how they behave. Why should Anakin have anything to worry about - he's probably seen people brought back from the inch of death by medical treatment.

The problem is that Anakin acts like some nut from the 6th century. You know, the kind that looked into crystal balls, bled people using leeches, brewed potions made mostly of dirt but claimed it made people's skin smooth, or read palms. He shouldn't be behaving this way, not in such a scientifically advanced society! If George Lucas really wanted a plot like this, he was better off creating a film set in the Dark Ages, not in a hyper-advanced galaxy.

Remember, the setting makes the character, just like in real life. Do you think someone in 1st Century Rome shared the same values as a guy living in 21st Century New York? Of course not; religion, law, ethics, morality, and science have all marched on since then, and as such, people behave differently. With that said, given how advanced the Star Wars galaxy is, its inhabitants really should be more skeptical of premonition than Anakin turned out to be, or any one of us might be, given how much further their scientific understanding is. Even the Jedi, who have scientific evidence of their powers, should be more scientifically minded.

This is a problem with trying to set high fantasy with obvious Biblical vibes in a space civilization. Lucas gave characters worldviews and behaviors inconsistent with the universe in which they live.

 

This is how I see it, and I'm not one who believes in the afterlife in my personal philosophy - but there's something terribly attactive about this idea in the GFFA (because for one we KNOW the Force is real there). For the Jedi this IS true to THEIR beliefs as Heaven is true to many here on earth.

I don't interpret the Jedi philosophy to merely "celebrate" another's passing on, but to accept the grief momentarily and recognize that your grief is for yourself at what you lost with the expectation that you will then move on and accept that it is the way of life to end in death. Hence, you do heal and treat - I suppose the closest real world analogy is chosing not to engage in heroic measures to prolong another's death when death is certain, especially when doing so only prolongs suffering.

I doubt anyone means it this way, but it almost sounds as if some think the Jedi's "callousness" means not even trying to save a life.

Certainly, for those who believe "attachment" means "caring for another" Anakin certainly proved the wisdom of the "no attachment" rule.

However, many years of reading the board and absorbing many viewpoints, including the real world counterparts that GL drew on in creating his GFFA, I would agree with the viewpoint that "no attachments" means no "possessive love" while unconditional love is not against the Code (think of it as "I can let you walk out of my life if that's best for you even though I love you").

Anakin was attached to many things and people - he could not let them go, not let the loss of it/them impact him. I am not condemning him, but I see how this was incompatible with the vast power he had when push came to shove.

 

Well I simply dont see this as a problem. This particular juxataposition of old fashioned ideals and technological advancement is one of the wonderful things about it, for me. Its a classical tale, scripted as being set "a long time ago". I've always had a problem with people who labelled or assumed it futuristic simply because it features advanced space travel and lightsabers etc. Thats a bit of a shallow observation. This is a different galaxy. The fundamental ideals it speaks about have always seemed old-fashioned and rooted in our own past. Its always been about sorecery and wizardry and classical archetypes. You obviously don't care for it and thats fine but I think to criticise it as being wrong is a little odd. Anakin and many others demonstrate magnificent, supernatural powers. Why shouldn't he invest in supernatural things occurring to Padme that go beyond medical/scientific knowledge? In the end, medical technology can do nothing to save her and Anakin's fears are, to some degree, justified.

 

But even the supernatural aspects are given a scientific basis, via midi-chlorians. The problem I see is that to be honest, with such levels of scientific understanding, characters should not be behaving like they are from sub-Roman Europe. Characters should be built around the universe they are present in and a futuristic setting is that universe. It's not shallow at all. In fact, it shows that George Lucas really doesn't build characters to fit the universe. He uses archetypes without adapting them to fit the setting. He would be the kind of guy to make a movie set in Augustan Rome where the main character have modern views about civil rights, democracy, and gender equality. People didn't think like that back then because society was different, much different. So why should a bunch of guys living in a place with such an advanced scientific understanding behave like characters out of the Bible? It's bad writing at its worst.

 

It's another ironic tragedy.
Ewan Mcgregor did an amazing job as Obi-wan. He made us feel sad when he said to the fallen Anakin that he loved him and that he was his brother. tragic indeed

 

Its not bad writing. Its purely intentional. Who says that because of technological advances, one cannot belive in supernatural things? The force itself is pretty much a "mystical" entity that goes beyond scientific manipulation. Midichlorians only highlight one's sensitivity to it.

Yet again you seem to be associating our world with that world, quoting some notion of inconsistency. But you entirely miss the point. Our rules need not apply. There is no law to this science fiction world. Equally, with what we see, there is no lack of logic with what they believe or how they behave. The only source you can quote that proves the characters illogical is that Anakin and Yoda are, in your opinion, dumb for assuming Padme may die in a fashion that is beyond medical/scientific understanding. Yet she does. Sorry, but intentionally or not, I think you're just not getting it

 

Do you live in the united states?

 

Yes, in fact I do, and don't stereotype Americans as being only Bible-thumpers. And being a Christian and being like a character out of the Bible are very, very different. But this is different; the only religion shown in Star Wars (Jedi/Sith) has a scientific basis for their supernatural power, something no religion in our world has. Therefore, the characters really should be behaving more rationally than we're shown. And none of these characters are uneducated. Obi-Wan, Padme, Anakin, and Palpatine are all prodigies.

 

Let's get this one out of the way first.

Actually, it's a case of Yoda failing logic, not George Lucas. It's Yoda who speaks the words. And Yoda is guilty of slippery slope reasoning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope By the way, slippery slope reasoning is a logical fallacy (and all logical fallacies are logical fallacies until they aren't -- howz that for circular reasoning (another logical fallacy)?). That said, I think Yoda is espousing a deep truth about human nature. Indeed, I think he's essentially too correct; that is, what he's saying to Anakin, chiefly about Anakin, can and does apply to anyone, including his Jedi kin. Therefore, he should either admonish everyone or admonish no-one (in my opinion). Anything in between seems somewhat biased and jaded (to me). I think Yoda is essentially correct in his ordering of emotional/behavioural states based on the energy expenditure required to maintain any of them versus the cost. In short, it pays for an animal to be fearful in the wild, so that they might survive and pass on their genes (on the other hand, it doesn't pay for them to be too fearful, or they'd never acquire food or reproduce). However, anger requires more energy. Ever tried being angry for a long time? It tends to be rather taxing and has deleterious effects on the human system. Hatred and suffering seem to be traits that human beings excel at; I'm not so sure about other animals. I hope this is enough for you to see my point(s), or see that your assertions are lacking.

 

Cryogenic, its good to have you back, sir

 

Cheers. We'll see how long it lasts ... this time.

P.S. I really enjoy your many detailed and thorough responses to criticisms and attacks of the PT / Lucas.

 

I never saw you before, I took a break from the site from '04 to early '09, but I enjoyed reading your analysis of the Anakin and Padme relationship above. I've heard a lot of talk about the meadow scene and "how could she marry him after he advocated dictatorship?" Padme never exactly saw right through Palpatine either, at least not up until the very end.

 

IT isn't easy to delve into philosophy - especially one that is not much "in vogue" in our current time - in the middle of a space saga dealing with the rise of the Sith, the fall of the Republic, galaxy-spanning civil war, the comic antics of JarJar Binks ;-) and more. *S*

The Jedi appear to practice something very much akin to Stoicism. Stoicism may or may not be your cup of tea, but the movies aren't going to give you much, in depth, to judge it on. It involves a lot more than someone just telling you - "Hey, a loved one died? Don't worry about it!"

I am not bashing on GL here, but to me, there are times the movies struggle to do "too much", in the time they have...and they try to do a LOT. We get no more than the tiniest, tiniest glimpse into the teachings and techniques of the Jedi. We CAN"T get much more - frankly, there just isn't the time, or place, to do much of it. Unfortunately, that can lead to some ham-handed scenes (like the one of Yoda seeming to tell Anakin to "just get over it", or Qui-Gonn seeming dispassionately uninterested in the fate of slaves). That is unfortunate.

And - respectfully - I just cant buy into the notion of the Jedi as some hapless, clueless, useless bunch of stuffy losers. No offense! They are clearly presented as a powerful force for good who have done much for the cause of peace and justice for a LONG LONG time. Flawed? Sure. "Human"? Sure. Fallible? Sure. But to listen to some here, you'd think Lucas' intent was to film "The Story of How the Stupid Jedi Screwed Everything Up, Turned Loveable Anakin Into a Monster, Picked on the Misunderstood Sith, and just REALLY REALLY STINK". Er...um...well, no. ;-)

Shadow

 

The characters in Star Wars are scientifically advanced enough to count midichlorians, not create them. The basis for the Force is natural, not technological. Furthermore, even advanced countries have most of the same problems as people in the Bible, even if its slavery, revenge, jealousy, war or natural disasters.
If the Star Wars universe were inhabited by characters who behaved more like Spock, would you find it more believable?

 

But the fact that they developed a method for counting midi-chlorians, the fact that they discovered midi-chlorians, and determined that they were the vectors for Force sensitivity implies that someone, somewhere in the SW galaxy knows about the scientific method. Technology is built from scientific understanding. More to the point, the Jedi Archives are shown to be the largest compendium of knowledge ever. That's all the information gathered from worlds across a galaxy for a thousand generations. That's the Library of Alexandria taken beyond the impossible. When a group has access to that much information, I'd expect a fair few of them to be quite brainy and logical. The problem is that NO ONE behaves like Spock, not that everyone must. But the Jedi simply have no excuse for their categorical lack of logical thinking.

 

Never tell me the odds.