main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Are Jedi or Sith more natural, is the Force and being natural even good?

Discussion in 'Literature' started by Ghost, Jun 27, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dizfactor

    dizfactor Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 12, 2002
    Humans only care about passing on their genes. Every living thing that has genes does everything it ever does for one reason and one reason only: passing on genes. You, me, everyone on this board, your dog Spot, your grandmother, the plants in your garden, our entire lives, cradle to grave.

    Cooperative strategies and even self-sacrifice are just as prevalent as the sort of brutal end of competition you're talking about because they provide just as much evolutionary advantage.

    Untrue. As Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn helpfully pointed out, altruism is well-documented in the animal world. It is certainly not a trait that only appears in humans.
     
  2. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Again, extrapolate: This means that the Force, in its right or natural state, is light. The dark side is what is unnatural - part of the Force, and yet somehow not part of it. Think of it this way - the dark side is a cancer in the Force, a part of the Force perverted, gone bad, turned unnatural.


    A valid interpretation, but not necessarilly.

    It could also mean the Dark Side has become too powerful.

    Like cancer, it's all natural growth tissue. There's just too much of it.
     
  3. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
    While it's a quaint evolutionary notion, it's not entirely true Dizfactor. If the world were really governed by that, we'd still be in the primordial soup splitting asexually. Mutation, whether due to cosmic accident or hand of God, resulted in things changing.

    While it makes good copy to say that everything exists so life can grow, the simple fact is the reason that humans exist is simply because nature made us that way and biology compensates for the extremely imperfect way we're designed.

    Mutation, in the X-men sense, doesn't always serve an evolutionary advantage. That's just a broad way of describing the fact that people who pass on their genes who suceed manage to 9/10 have qualities that have allowed them to do so.

    Really, humans are one of the most misformed and ill-designed beings in the world. If you remove the Guiding Hand of Gene Passing On beyond Human Agency, then we're left with individual humans and plenty of people DO NOT pass on their genes often times by choice. Plus, they listen to music and enjoy themselves in non-sexual ways.

    This is an ongoing debate in science of course. But I fall squarely on the branch of "Mutation over Everything has a purpose." Which is ironic given I'm a Theist.

    But this is way way way way way off topic.
     
  4. Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn

    Lt.Cmdr.Thrawn Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 23, 1999
    "True" altruism ("He gives with no thought of reward") is difficult to detect - any action taken by a social creature can have a social reaction, so most 'altruistic' behaviors are, in practice, more like reciprocal altruism or the like (if help our children survive so that they reproduce, our genes get passed on. If we share food with a more distantly related conspecific, we can help our genes - fewer of them this time, but more than none - get passed on). However, the organism doing the behavior need not consciously know what the benefit is to them; it just feels good to do things like that (share, etc). This is important, because it gets at the innateness of being nice. Even if the processes that make you be nice are operating because they 'expect' a return on your investment, the individual need only know that being nice feels like the "right thing to do." Thus, true altruism could be considered instinctual, due to the limited nature of our self-knowledge.

    So... to lead back to the topic, that's why I think neither the light nor the dark are unnatural. They just play on different instincts and impulses.

    PS. Charlie, I'm assuming you're a fan of Gould and spandrels, yeah?
     
  5. 2Irandrura

    2Irandrura Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Callina raises the obvious counterpoint to that, though; that the dark side is imbalance, which is a perspective I would tend to support.

    No, I don't. A Jedi is a member of a certain religious organisation. Jedi and light side are not synonymous, nor are Jedi and good. The Jedi Covenant were and remain Jedi in a very real sense of the word. Perhaps they have fallen short of the ideals of the Jedi, but that's something completely different.

    Meh. In his power-mad stage on Outbound Flight, I would call him evil. Or at least, I would say his 'I am a Jedi; therefore I am automatically right and you must all obey me!' attitude was evil. He was still a Jedi, though, and a good example of everything the Jedi Order can be at its worst.

    None of those morals are countermanded by the presence of evil Jedi, though. The Jedi Covenant again. I've found the Knights of the Old Republic comic to be very true to the themes of Star Wars myself, and the entire plot is about opposing a cabal of Jedi. Those messages are in it. Well, maybe not all of them, but the key ones. No 'Yay democracy', for instance, but that strange fixation on democracy really only appears in the PT. The OT never bothered; it was considerably less strawman political in that sense (both with the 'centralising and reforming the government is evil! Evil!' and 'the military is the source of everything wrong with the universe!' messages). But standing up for what you believe in? Fighting and dying for it? Believing in redemption? Those are all very strong. It was in one of the interviews for The Force Unleashed, I think, where it was said that redemption is in many ways the main theme of Star Wars, and I'm inclined to agree. And that theme can be brought across perfectly well with the presence of evil Jedi or sympathetic Sith. Having sympathy for the Sith is integral to that, even.

    No, they don't. That's nonsense. Remember Luke trying to redeem Vader instead of just killing him? If anything, the movies ask us to accept that there's good deep inside everyone, even the most villainous of characters, and killing should be a last resort. The light side is always merciful and always offers someone a chance to change. At no point in any of the SW movies or EU that I can think of, are we told to accept that these enemies are better off dead.

    I think there's a difference between saying 'the Empire needs to fall' and 'the Sith are wrong' and saying 'the Imperials and the Sith deserve to die[/
     
  6. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Yep, he pretty accurately reflects my view. A friend introduced me to his work, basically pointing out what odd creatures humans were.

    Religiously, I'm also a preterist, so I suppose I've always marched to the beat of a different drummer.

    Not to undercut your argument or anything but yes, that would be literally and exactly my point.

    The X-men example being: Weird and bizarre mutations with seemingly questionable advantages or variants appear randomly. Why is the Beast Blue Furred? How does that help him? It doesn't. It's just something that shows up as a quirk of biology in the strange world of comic book physics. Rogue has the worst evolutionary advantage ever for passing on her genes.

    While real life Mutation is totally different, the simple fact is that mutation turned Amoeba into human beings and all other life forms in the planet. Not a drive to become better. Natural Selection, in my mind didn't become relevant until organisms no longer reproduced by division (division, essentially, being a far better and easier way to pass on your genes than the complicated mating game)

    You don't just pass on your good genes, you pass on pretty much a random selection of em that's stored in your D.N.A. Natural selection is a crap shot.

    Re: Jedi stuff

    As for the rest of it, you ignored my point about capture/surrender/redemption so I'm not really inclined to argue with you on it further. However, when capture/surrender/redemption isn't an option then death is what should happen. If you're going to argue that it is better to let evil guys operate than kill them then I disagree with your interpretation of the movies. A Jedi should try and take someone alive but should be prepared to kill them.

    Evil Jedi only exist as a way to show they've fallen from the path. A Good Sith is a Jedi Knight whose mistaken.

    I'm viewing this through the spiritual lens. If there's one group that cannot be looked through with a secular lens, it's the Jedi. It's like The Last Battle. Any follower of Tash who is good and noble is actually a follower of Aslan, he is simply ignorant.

    But you're correct, evil Jedi and good Sith TRAINED individuals operating in their environments serve to highlight the fundamental Good and Evil nature of their roles.

    So I concede that they could in fact serve a storytelling purpose so long as you don't remove the moral authority of the Jedi or the essential cruelty and monstrous nature of the Sith code.
     
  7. 2Irandrura

    2Irandrura Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Jun 23, 2008
    I'm sorry? Where did you say that?

    Certainly I am not arguing in favour of apathy, or that the message of the films is that one should simply let immoral behaviour continue. Quite the opposite, they demand action. I am merely pointing out that your claim that 'the movie asks us to accept that the Imperials and Sith are honestly better off dead' is nonsense. The movies, and EU, at no point even approach claiming that certain people are simply so bad as to deserve death.

    It seems to me that you are using 'Jedi' and 'Sith' as synonymous for 'good' and 'evil', which isn't something that I believe the SW universe supports. There are multiple examples of Jedi being just plain wrong. The PT provides an obvious example. The Covenant and C'baoth are villainous Jedi. A major part of Knights of the Old Republic II is about the Jedi Council's mistakes, and getting that council to face up to them. The Jedi Order is at no point given some sort of omnisicent morality license.

    Is that analogy applicable here, though? In Narnia, the difference is that we see both Aslan and Tash in the flesh. Aslan is good by definition, just as Tash is evil; it's the nature of the characters. As it applies to Star Wars, though, the Jedi Order is not an Aslan. The Aslan-equivalent is the light side of the Force itself. The Jedi, however, can be wrong, just as in Narnia there can be characters who think they follow Aslan but are actually wrong.

    It comes back to the definitions of the terms. If you ask me, the Jedi and the Sith are organisations. I do grant that the light side is good and the dark side is evil. Arguing the opposite would be ridiculous. But as I think 'Jedi' and 'Sith' are terms that refer to members of certain organisations and followers of certain religious philosophies, I think it is overly reductionist to conflate the Jedi with the light side and the Sith with the dark side. The Jedi are not the light side. They are a group of people dedicated to following the light side. Sometimes Jedi are mistaken and do not follow the light side, but as long as they remain part of the Jedi organisation, they remain Jedi. And vice versa - a follower of the light side who is part of the Sith Order remains a Sith. Thus evil Jedi and good Sith can exist.

    I would not talk about the moral authority of the Jedi, but rather the moral authority of the light side of the Force, and the essential monstrosity of the dark side.

    Incidentally, though, to try and return to the topic, what is it about the Code of the Sith is it that makes it specifically monstrous? I'm not arguing that it's not (for the moment, consider my attitude towards it to be neutral), but as the apparent purpos
     
  8. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
    It should be in the post. My point is that evil should be neutralized and if necessary, destroyed.


    Incidentally, though, to try and return to the topic, what is it about the Code of the Sith is it that makes it specifically monstrous? I'm not arguing that it's not (for the moment, consider my attitude towards it to be neutral), but as the apparent purpose of this topic is to consider the reasoning behind these moral judgements more clearly. Take the Sith Code (a reminder for everyone) -


    I follow the philosophy that the Jedi Way is to follow the Light Side of the Force and the Sith way is to follow the Dark Side. This is the fundamental rule. Yes, you can have Jedi who forsake the Light Side of the Force but even if the entire Jedi do it....they become no longer Jedi because I believe that dilutes what The Jedi are supposed to be. A positive and institutional force for good.

    I consider a Sith who serves the Light to basically have utterly failed at being a Sith.

    It's just a preference.

    Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
    Through passion, I gain strength.
    Through strength, I gain power.
    Through power, I gain victory.
    Through victory, my chains are broken.
    The Force shall free me.


    Well, were I a Sith Lord, I would teach the interpretations of the Code as this.

    1. Peace is a Lie. Attempting to bring peace to the world or yourself is erroneous and stupid. A Sith should accept that the world is a dark, uncaring, and unpleasant place while people are always violent and passionate. Ergo, a Sith should never use his powers to try and resolve conflict because that's like rolling a ball up an infinite hill.

    2. Sith embrace their emotions and cast away discipline. Anger is a source of power for them as is hatred. These emotions are just tools though and things to be harnessed. A Sith does not experience emotion for its own sake. A Sith might feel love but only if he can use it. Love by itself has no value unless it gives him strength.

    3. A Sith's goal is to harness his emotions for power. Ergo, in a conflict ridden universe, a person must use their emotions to gain strength, and that strength must be used to gain power. Because peace is a lie, a Sith must only use his power for selfish gain. There is no meaning to the universe and higher purpose, so only self-indulgence matters.

    4. Through Power, I gain victory. To this end, a Sith only should worry about results. Failure is a matter of having too little power. Only through power can victory be achieved. The idea of negotiation and compromise is fundamentally flawed. The only victory worthwhile is achieved through domination of one's opponent (I think Darth Maul says this exactly)

    5. Through victory a Sith achieves Freedom. Freedom from all moral restraints, Freedom from government supervision, freedom from societal condemnation. A Sith embraces that he is the ultimate law in his universe. A Sith literally should be able to do anything he wants.

    In the words of Thanos the Titan, Sith Lord equivalent of Marvel Comics.

    "I now hold omnipotence. What should I do with such almighty power? The answer to that is actually quite simple: Anything I want. Anything. I am incapable of error. Any result that displeases me I can simply reverse. There is nothing I need to worry on, for I am Thanos. And Thanos is supreme. Supreme."

    This is the Sith's ultimate ideal state. Omnipotence without consequence. To have power to enforce one's vision on the universe in its totality.

    6. The Force is the fool to achieve this. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    I'm sure you can read it this way and I admit, my belief the Sith Way=Evil influences this. But I think its a valid reading of the Dark Side's Philosophy.

    What is the Sith?

    An acknowledgement that everyone else does not matter. A Sith feels no remorse, regret, hesitation, or care. He is invulnerable to pity or sentiment. All things exist to a Sith as either enemy or slave. If you oppose him, you shall be destroyed for he has purged himself
     
  9. Jedi Ben

    Jedi Ben Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Jul 19, 1999
    It's in the focusing. Excessive rationality or emotion will screw up your perception and action thus:

    Because I'm so enraged by this man's failure I am right to split him into pieces with my lightsaber, having first choked him to death....

    OR:

    It is correct to save the greatest number of people possible, both now and forever, therefore I will kill all those I know to be criminals, regardless of justice systems.

    The Sith code encourages you to be excessive, to build up passion, power and work towards that end of inflicting your rules upon the rest of the world. The Jedi aim to steer you away from such outlooks.
     
  10. 2Irandrura

    2Irandrura Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Jun 23, 2008
    That's not really sufficiently developed to be a philosophy as such. What is the light side? By the same token, what is the dark side? Simply using the phrases does not imply understanding of what they are; and the point of this topic has been to discuss what they are and how to distinguish between them.

    So, while I do have more to say, in an effort to keep on topic, let me simply ask you this, Charlemagne19. What do you think the light side and the dark side are? What's the dividing line? Where did they come from, and are they inherent to the Force or created? Of what side, or neither, or both, is nature?

    As for interpretations of the Sith Code, here's what I think about the endpoint of Sith philosophy. Fortunately it is relevant to the topic and nature, so that's good. I think you are right to identify omnipotence as the ultimate goal, but as Darth Bane says, power is worthless in and of itself. Omnipotence is not the Sith goal because they want power, or they want to dominate. Omnipotence is the Sith goal because they want to be free. Free of all restrictions and obligations, including (or especially) the restrictions of nature. Power is simply a means to an end.

    And what will they do once that's achieved? Nothing. They'll simply be perfect, freed of all needs, freed of all wants and petty desires. Why? Because every conceivable desire stems from restriction. A person only becomes hungry because they are a slave to their physical body, and its inane restrictions, for example. A true Sith Master has no need to rule others. A true Sith Master, possessing ultimate power, is freed from all such mundane desires. Sith enlightenment, so to speak, has no material element, for that enlightened Sith is of such perfect power as to be freed of all the bonds of material existence. They want nothing, indeed cannot want anything, because of their power. This is what I think Bane's goal was. Via the Rule of Two constant increase in power could be achieved, that would ultimately end in a Sith of such power that he or she could transcend physicality and become enlightened in this way. Palpatine departed from that intention, though. Even though Bane did think it was the destiny of the Sith to rule the galaxy, we see no hints that he desired it. He merely thought it inevitable, and perhaps part of that gradual accumulation of power.

    The orthodox Jedi viewpoint is simple. By pursuing that goal, the Sith become slaves to that power. You cannot acquire sufficient power to transcend reality. The Force cannot be brute forced. (Pun unintended, but yes, it's horrible.) They can sympathise with the ideal of freedom, but would say that freedom comes from submission, not dominance. A person becomes free not by breaking their barriers, but by becoming one with those very barriers. When you realise that what you've perceived as obstacles really aren't; that you are free, and just haven't realised it, then, you become free. A Jedi would argue that the barriers the Sith are determined to break are of the Sith's own making, and that the Sith's quest is perpetuating that delusion and causing suffering both to the Sith and to those around him. While the Sith exalt the self and determine to free it through power, the Jedi believe that the self can be freed by disassociating it through service, to others and to the Force.

    For the Sith, the Force, and by extension the dark side, is only a tool. The dark side is not actually an integral part of Sith philosophy. It's all to do with the Force. Ultimately I suppose the enlightened Sith Master will become one with the Force. The Jedi understanding of that term is to become part of the Force, but this hypothetical perfect Sith would become the Force itself, such that all of the Force would be nothing but the extension of his will. But due to his perfect power and freed
     
  11. Jedi Ben

    Jedi Ben Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Jul 19, 1999
    Then how come just about every Sith ends up taking the route of dominating a region of space and then wanting more? The Sith Code advocates the amassing of power, what for?

    Saying that a true Sith wouldn't do X is kind of like saying Communism works, we just haven't had any true followers of it - there's too many examples that prove the opposite.
     
  12. Ulicus

    Ulicus Lapsed Moderator star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jul 24, 2005
    I don't think that the Sith Code is innately evil. I do, however, think that the Sith Code will always lead to evil when applied by the Force Sensitive.

    The dark side, whether you choose to believe in it as "the Dark Side": a malevolent power with a mind of its own, or as an unfortunate "down side" to excessive Force use (as I do), karks people up. This is indisputable. One who practices the Sith Code must utilise the dark side of the Force (or they are restricted) and, as such, they will inevitably turn to evil.
     
  13. 2Irandrura

    2Irandrura Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Jun 23, 2008
    For freedom.

    But power wants to be used, and Sith, like Jedi, are all too vulnerable to the lure of attachment.
     
  14. Whizkid

    Whizkid Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Altruism =/= cooperation or self sacrifice

    True altruism is the selfless concern for the well being of others. Non-sapient animals with no self-awareness can't be altruistic. If they can't recognize self, how can they be selfless? Everything they do is based on how it will help them pass on their genes. That, by definition, isn't altruism. Very few humans are truly altruistic either. Hell, maybe none of us are. It's impossible to know for sure.
     
  15. rumsmuggler

    rumsmuggler Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Aug 31, 2000
    Mine as well.
     
  16. Jedi Ben

    Jedi Ben Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Jul 19, 1999
    Interesting that you describe power as something independent and not that which is possessed and wielded to the end that the user desires.

    At the same time, that end you mention, of freedom, tends to involve war and chaos because it isn't the nature of any government to permit absolute freedom - within any societal system you are free so long as you obey the law, the Sith, by their very nature are set in opposition to this.

    Nor is it the case governments can simply leave a Sith be, for that sets the precedent that if you amass enough power, you get to opt out. What can they use against a Sith? There's a few options: Ysalamiri, bombardment, or Force-Police aka Jedi.
     
  17. sabarte

    sabarte Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Thing is, we see the consequences of "balance" in the force over a century and a half.

    Balance != peace.
     
  18. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Unless balance is an ongoing process, and Anakin Skywalker merely pushed the start button.

    From the point of view above about Sith and freedom, it seems like the Jedi and the Sith have the same goal and nearly the same method, with one fundamental difference: a Sith does not realize one of the chains he has to break in order to achieve freedom is "Self" itself. They don't understand that truth, because in their pursuit of power in order to exalt the Self they lose empathy for others.

    The effects of that are unintentionally causing harm to others along the way, and they may become lost in this pursuit of power by an attachment they are unwilling to let go of, losing focus of the path and using the power they have accumulated on domination and perhaps sadism instead since they have already lost most or all of their empathy. The Jedi follow the same path, but focus on keep their sense of empathy the entire way, which the Sith usually early on mistake as one of their chains.

    It's the same path, they just start at different ends, with Jedi breaking the most difficult attachment of Self first. A Sith theoretically would break that attachment last and instead start with breaking the "attachment" of empathy, which would prevent him from ever achieving true freedom in the long run for mistaking empathy for attachment, preventing him from realizing that last chain of Self.

    It's all about what Focus to keep on the path towards Freedom, the Sith choose Self and the Jedi choose Love.
     
  19. rumsmuggler

    rumsmuggler Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Aug 31, 2000
    interesting thought.
     
  20. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
    I go with what the old Dark Empire RPG sourcebook says.

    The Dark Side is the collective urge of the universe to destruction, entropy, and chaos.

    The Light Side of the Force is the collective urge of the universe to Law, Civilization, Knowledge, and creation.

    I have a small scan of the DE sourcebook section if the mods would let me post it.
     
  21. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Then how is the Dark Side evil? That view seems more like the Taoist yin-yang, where neither is bad, as long as it is all in moderation.

    Sometimes things need to be destroyed or drastically reformed, and if the universe was free of chaos there really wouldn't be any freedom, would there?

    It's the Sith who fear chaos, in my opinion chaos is just the stuff about the universe we don't yet understand or can't control. So the Sith fear it, and demand order, because they fear the unknown and what is beyond their control. Which is all lumped into the word "chaos." Same thing with entropy, which is really just the scientific way of saying "chaos" or "I don't know" or "it's beyond our control."
     
  22. Ulicus

    Ulicus Lapsed Moderator star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jul 24, 2005
    He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Charles is saying that the dark side/Dark Side is, in and of itself, evil, but rather that it cannot do anything but lead to evil.

    From the same sourcebook:

    "The Dark Side is a part of nature - it is not inherently evil, but evil comes from its irrationality, its intolerance, and its lack of control. Bestial and predatory, domination is its goal."
     
  23. sabarte

    sabarte Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Sep 8, 2005
    I do think there are chaotic, lawful, and neutral approaches to the Dark Side, though. Practioners are not monolithic.

    I'd put Vader more at LE, Sidious more at NE, and Maul or Ventress more at CE, for instance.
     
  24. Charlemagne19

    Charlemagne19 Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 30, 2000
    Psychologically, I believe the best way to look at is the Dark Side is the Id. The Light Side is the Super ego.

    Both exist in the consciousness of the Force.

    Jedi and Sith drawing from both sides of its power and being effected by it.

    I don't think the Dark Side is itself evil. It's just destructive, random, and self-indulgent.

    Part of the reason I reject the idea that Sith choose to seek freedom is that all the Sith we've encountered in the movies are Totalitarian Dictators. Even Count Dooku is serving the Confederacy solely as an elaborate sting operation that will wipe out all of the dissenters from his ideal fascist state.

    Freedom seems to be the ANTITHESIS of what the Sith seek.
     
  25. Ulicus

    Ulicus Lapsed Moderator star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jul 24, 2005
    It's about freedom for themselves, though, Charles. It's got nothing to do with their opinion on freedom for anyone else. The Sith Code is exclusively talking about self-gain and qualities of the self. It's not supposed to be applied beyond the individual.

    "By having this, I gain that.
    By having that, I gain this.
    In the end, I am omnipotent and can do what I want
    ."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.