Balance of the Force

Oh, there's definitely more to the Dark Side than that, it's just the most common way that we see it accessed on screen, as well as how Yoda described the way to know the good side from the bad. However, if that's all it was then it wouldn't have basically caused Vader to be enslaved to Palpatine for the vast majority of his life.

 

...whereas the Sith were trying to be the Will of the Force.

I like that.

 

It's an interpretation that I first heard at the Ben and Jerry's across from Celebration 3(The clerk was a Star Wars fan) and I really think that he made a good point. It really is an interpritation of the Force that I am slowly going back to in some ways as it seems to fit the movies. I remember that he thought the reason the Sith had powers like Lightning was that it was the Force being bent and broken. I'm not sure I agree with him on that part, but I definitely love the concept that the Sith wanted to be the Will of the Force.

 

Can anyone bring up the quotes that has GL saying, in exact, that the dark side and the Sith are the imbalance?

If you don't notice, or doesn't mind, in the pilot post of this thread, I've tried to resolve this issue by concluding that no one can really resolve and find the true/ultimate answer to the mystery of the Balance. From your earlier posts we were able to prove that in some aspect, the balance might mean the balance of 'light' and 'dark', however another aspect that while it contradicts the other concept, that the elimination of darkness could bring balance, is also true. There's only one thing I want you to think about: that like everything else in this world, at this moment to be exact, is grey. We don't know what will happen to us, or to everyone and everything around us. So does to the world of Star Wars. And quoting Yoda, "A prophecy . . . that misread could have been. ". The Jedi Order immediately concludes that Balance is the destruction of the Sith, like Obi-Wan said. And when things doesn't go on the way the Jedi are expecting, even Yoda, one of their wisest, admitted that they may have misunderstood the prophecy. This situation parallels us now, debating on what is the real answer to the Balance, when in fact, the answer is totally grey, as it includes vast ideas that seems to be true "from a certain point of view." There's only one thing that I know is a part of the answer to the Balance mystery: that it is for GOOD, it is about GOOD, it is GOOD. It eliminates Palpatine, a manifestation of EVIL. He's a Sith, but does it always mean that being a Sith means being evil? Is Anakin evil? He has become evil, but he is not totally evil. Also, does evil always mean using the "so-called" dark side? And who coined the dark side term? And where do the first Sith came from? We can actually throw in more facts and ideas to these Balance philosophy, but, we would not really achieve the ultimate answer.

 

"Which brings us to films 4, 5 and 6, where Anakin's offspring redeem him and allow him to fulfill the prophecy where he brings balance to the Force by doing away with the Sith and getting rid of evil in the universe."
--George Lucas


If good and evil are mixed things become blurred - there is nothing between good and evil, everything is grey. In each of us we have balanced these emotions, and in the Star Wars saga the most important point is balance, balance between everything. It is dangerous to lose this. In The Phantom Menace one of the Jedi Council already knows the balance of The Force is starting to slip, and will slip further. It is obvious to this person that The Sith are going to destroy this balance. On the other hand a prediction which is referred to states someone will replace the balance in the future. At the right time a balance may again be created, but presently it is being eroded by dark forces. All of this shall be explained in Episode 2, so I can't say any more!
-- George Lucas



"It really has to do with learning," Lucas says(regarding the end of Anakin's story). "Children teach you compassion. They teach you to love unconditionally. Anakin can't be redeemed for all the pain and suffering he's caused. He doesn't right the wrongs, but he stops the horror. The end of the saga is simply Anakin saying, I care about this person, regardless of what it means to me. I will throw away everything that I have, everything that I've grown to love - primarily the Emperor - and throw away my life, to save this person. And I'm doing it because he has faith in me; he loves me despite all the horrible things I've done. I broke his mother's heart, but he still cares about me, and I can't let that die. Anakin is very different in the end. The thing of it is: The prophecy was right. Anakin was the chosen one, and he does bring balance to the Force. He takes the ounce of good still left in him and destroys the Emperor out of compassion for his son."
-- George Lucas

"The Phantom Menace one of the Jedi Council already knows the balance of The Force is starting to slip, and will slip further. It is obvious to this person that The Sith are going to destroy this balance. On the other hand a prediction which is referred to states someone will replace the balance in the future. At the right time a balance may again be created, but presently it is being eroded by dark forces. All of this shall be explained in Episode 2, so I can't say any more!
-- George Lucas

"I think it is obvious that Qui-Gon was wrong in Episode 1 and made a dangerous decision, but ultimately this decision may be correct. The Phantom Menace refers to the force of the dark side of the Universe. Anakin will be taken over by dark forces which in turn destroy the balance of the Galaxy, but the individual who kills Emperor is Darth Vader - also Anakin. The tale meanders and both the prediction, and Qui-Gonn are correct - Anakin is the chosen one, and he did bring peace at last with his own sacrfice. Luke couldn't kill the Emperor himself, but he could make Anakin reflect on his life and kill the Emperor."
-- George Lucas

"As evil begins to take over, it pushes the Force out of balance. It's easier to succumb to evil than it is to be a hero and try to work things through on the good side. Evil is inherently more powerful?it doesn't have the burden of worrying about other people. What Luke sees in Darth Vader at the end of ROTJ is something that I thought was worth understanding: the idea that Darth actually was a very good person. Except he's slightly more powerful than other people and when you get into that situation, your ability to do evil is much easier to come by."
-- George Lucas


?The sad thing is Padme says there is still good in him and Luke says in ROTJ there is good in you. Its recurring. There is good in him. And that will bring balance to the force. He needs to get rid of the Sith and bring balance to the Force? -- George Lucas

Those would be the ones I c

 

Sorry for the late reply.

Well, I?ve heard of this translation of the Tao as ?the great harmony? but I don?t know where it?s coming from. As modern texts on Taoism and its relationship to modern science interpret it, the Tao could be characterized as the set of possible paths of developments or states of the world that may be realized with different likelihoods (it has been compared to the Schrödinger Wave Function in quantum physics, an analogy that I find quite fitting). The paths of development that have the greatest likelihood are ?the head path? or ?the way?, the ?natural course?, so to speak. In Star Wars this might be what Qui-Gon calls ?the will of the Force?.

As to entropy, the Entropy Law isn?t only responsible for tendencies towards disorder, disharmony and eventually death ? this is just true for classical thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. From the viewpoint of modern far from equilibrium thermodynamics and recent evolutionary theories it is also responsible for the development of complex behaviour and self organisation in open systems and as a consequence, it is a driving force of evolution, as argued by Prigogine and others. Prigogine even maintains that the working of the Entropy law is the prerequisite for life even to emerge (see Prigogine and Stengers, ?Order out of Chaos?, 1984). The entropy law is thus not only a law ultimately leading to death, but also a law responsible for the emergence of life and the evolution of ever more complex forms.

It is therefore not clear that entropy can be equated to ?sin? ? it is in essence the driving force of evolution and as such it is responsible for creation as well as destruction. The destruction part is as necessary a part of evolution as is the creation part ? it is ?sin? only from the perspective of the species that is threatened with extinction but not from the viewpoint of a newly emerging species that can only grow and evolve because some extinct species has made room for it. With the polarity of resilience/preservation and creation/destruction there is also a yin/yang aspect to this. Balance in this sense is not the absence of the creative/destructive force, but the balance between resilience/preservation and creation/destruction. The Chinese know about this aspect of balance, as is shown in the concepts of the preservation cycle, the fostering and destruction cycles of the Five Elements - all of these cycles are perceived as a part of natural processes and there is no value judgement on whether they are "good" or "evil" assigned to it.

If one wants to relate these concepts to the Force and its dark and light side, in my view one could compare the dark side to the creative/destructive forces and the light side to forces

 

The simple fact is this:

The Sith don't adhere to the force's will, whatever that may be, and with their actions put it out of balance.

The Jedi listen to the force's will and seek to maintain and preserve it, thus keeping it in balance.

Thats how the balance works and how it is put off keel.

That's at the centre of it. But this kind of situation is only brought about by the practitioners of the dark side. This is because the dark side is about your dark emotions and your own greed. It makes you want to seek power and keep things and to do so you go against the will of the force and effect the collective consciousness of the galaxy which is in the end what creates the force.

The light side on the other hand is based around compassion, selflessness and love. Due to acting on these beliefs the Jedi would only ever do the forces will and seek to do the right thing to keep the peace and harmony which reflects across the entire galaxy. A Jedi can't create "too much light" as that has nothing to do with the balance - the balance is to do with what the will of the force seeks and whether that is met. The Jedi way is all about maintaining that so too much light won't corrupt the balance. Too much dark on the other hand will as that means more and more people act on greed and thus dont follow the forces will and negatively effect the collective consciousness of the galaxy.

This is why its the destruction of the Sith that brings balance to the force. Only a Sith, who use the dark side, can create the imbalance. They are the ones that use the dark side of the force, which in turn means going against the force's will and they of course oppress the entire galaxy and create fear which has a hugely negative effect. They are the cancer. The Jedi are the surgeons who have to remove them.

Sometimes the Jedi make mistakes, but that is never enough to cause a shift in the balance of the force. Namely because these mistakes are small individual cases and can be rectified and are never based on dark side motivations. Its clear to see that it's the Sith who were behind the imbalance as the force went out of balance upon their return to power, it was all but destroyed when Anakin turned and it was restored when the Sith were destroyed.

 

balance=faith. Faith that the will of the Force is right (morally, ethically, strategically, etc), that the fabric of the universe will hold together, that 'all things will work for good for those that love Him (if there were a SW deity).'

Mandragora,
I am no scientist, but your descriptions of entropy are pretty fascinating. I see Entropy as a description of 'how' energy systems currently relate to each other. Unfortunately we have no idea what the world would be like without the life to death, death to life processes. This is to say, we don't know much about the science of a world without the fact of Entropy. In the SW world Entropy also exists, or seems to. Although the Jedi seem to be ok with the fact that death happens, I wonder if some of their abilities in the Force have anything to do with reversing or undoing entropy, at least to a small extent?

 

I'm sorry, Shaitan, but I don't buy this. Lucas has stated more than once that he has studied the history of democracies turning into empires in human history and that SW, the prequels especially, were an attempt to show how this is possible. He explicitly referred to the Roman empire and Hitler's dictatorship. Neither of those was accomplished because "dark side pracitioners" were involved in the process like Palpatine was (although Hitler had some connections to dark magicians allegedly). I've said it before: there wouldn't be much to learn from SW if the transformation of the Republic into the Empire was dependent on the presence of dark sorcery. To me, this idea cuts down the political relevance of the Saga for human reality.

3579B, presently I cannot think of any actions or abilities of the Jedi that imply the ability to reverse the increase in entropy (they do defy mechanical laws, like gravity etc. but not the law of Entropy) - apart from the Force ghost issue perhaps. But then again, no-one knows whether and how spiritual energy is affected by the law of entropy. It's the Sith, really, with their idea of creating life and cheating death, who are messing with the law of Entropy. Maybe that's an important difference between Jedi and Sith - while both manipulate mechanical laws, the laws of nature, only the Sith attempt to manipulate the supreme law of nature, the law of life that is about the irreversible increase of entropy.

Anyway, I think the evolutionary perspective clearly shows that good and evil is really a question of the POV, as Palpatine says. What is good for one species may imply the extinction of another. Even the heat death of the Universe itself need not be "evil", if one takes into account the possiblity that universes may "die" and are "reborn" that is at the core of cyclical universe theory. And this is what Taoism is all about - there is no means of judging developments as "good" or "evil" from a cosmological perspective. What is good and evil is relative to one's value system - what serves the "greater good" is at best valid for the "greater good" of humanity.

 

The force was intended to keep living things alive, because they stem from the force. The sith manipulate the force for their own power advantage so they can dominate. The galaxy was meant to be free, not enslaved to an evil Empire.

Im guessing the prophecy went around the lines of eventually the sith will rise up and be powerful enough to destroy the keepers of the force {The jedi's}and that only one person who is made of the force can destroy the cancer of the force.

See the sith is the unnaturally created users of the force, it begins with the power hungry and it wasnt meant to be used for that or so we are told. Bringing balance is killing the poison of the force so that its back to its natural wave.

 

It is interesting, then, that so many cultures end up having such a similar POV with regards to good and evil, even the Taoist, even Star Wars. If everything is relative, why is there a commonly accepted feeling of danger in the advent of the American Empire? Why is there something "to learn from SW" etc as you say above if the Roman Empire and Hitler's dictatorship and the Republic's transformation into the Empire cannot be judged as "developments as "good" or "evil" from a cosmological perspective"? Or any other perspective? Is this a relative coincidence? What is so wrong about the idea of an ubermensch (Aryan, Sith, genetically corrected human) if it, "serves the "greater good"" to the best of our knowledge? And why was Palpatine portrayed by the makers of SW as deceitful if he was telling Anakin the truth when he said good and evil is a matter of POV?

 

Well, because as humans, we are naturally primarily concerned about the "greater good" from the viewpoint of humanity. It's not like this has never been criticized - especially in the environment movement there is quite a heavy debate about this anthropocentric perspective, when it comes to questions in which the greater good for humanity versus the greater good for the eco-system as a whole don't coincide. From an anthropocentric viewpoint, for example, there is no harm in extinguishing a species A threatening to humanity as long as the extinction doesn't threaten to change the ecosystem balance in a way that's harmful for humanity. If this species A happens to be beneficial for another species B, or has an enormeous evolutionary potential that in the long run could bring evolution to a higher level (the extinction of the dinosaurs that made room for the evolution of mammals is one example), from anthrocentric viewpoint this is of no concern as long as the extinction of species A doesn't endanger the ecosystem balance to shift to a state adverse for humanity. From the perspective of species A, of course, matters look entirely different, and the question of whether perspectives of other species than humans have to be taken account of is quite heavily debated in systems ecology.

The genetic engineering of an uebermensch is a bit different an issue, IMO, since this is about humans playing god (or messing with the process of evolution) and creating "superior" beings instead of leaving the judgement on what is superior to the evolutionary process itself.

I would say that Palpatine is deceitful in the sense that while he is telling the truth in essence he doesn't explain to Anakin the difference between a merely relativistic outlook in the sense that everyone can make up their own judgements on what is good or evil, and different value judgements that may be arrived at depending on different systems considered in the cosmological system hierarchy. Moral relativism need not mean that there is no concern for the greater good, and that everyone making up their own mind on what is good or evil with no concern for others is the right way - it just means that there may be different "greater goods" and what is considered as evil for one greater good need not be evil for another one. Palpatine however doesn't talk about these issues but instead presents the matter exactly as if "good and evil are questions of POV" means that everyone can make up their own value judgements and this is of no consequence for the greater good of humanity. Still, in a sense putting the greater good of humanity above the fate of every other species or system in a sense is as selfish as putting one's own benefit above the greater good of humanity, the selfishness just applies to a different level in the systems hierarchy.

 

In what way is humanity primarily concerned about the "greater good?" I don't see this on a wide scale.

But if species A is humanity, and we have the knowledge to evolve, don't we have an obligation to? It would be going against our current evolutionary state not to. No matter if we come from a merely relativistic outlook or a different value judgement what benefit is to be gained for ourselves or for the ecosystem by our refusing to evolve?

Does this mean there is an absolute relativism and and considered relativism?

It is not only possible but likely that the self (be it Anakin, Palpatine, Luke, the Jedi Counsel, America, President Bush, etc, etc) becomes the "greater good" whenever moral relativism is allowed. It is precisely because human nature tends to be self oriented that no society can exist without a stationary value system, based on ethics that can be considered universal in the sense that we all have generally agreed upon them for humanities history. The Ten Commandments are a pretty good starting point. As you and I have discussed, there is confusing dialogue in SW that leads the audience in different directions philosophically. If you take away the dialogue and just look at the plot and what the characters do and don't do, however, I think a sound case is to be made that no "greater good" starts with selfishness. There is nothing that Palpatine does that indicates he is interested in a "greater good." For whatever the dialogue or the philosophies might indicate, SW is a very moral series where good and evil, right and wrong, are absolutes; they do not originate from any individual, and they do not exist solely in an individual. When Luke goes to Bespin he makes the wrong choice, and so does Anakin when he joins the Dark Side. However we may disagree with this, this is how it was filmed.

 

They don't act like they are, I'll concede that readily. I was referring to your statement "It is interesting, then, that so many cultures end up having such a similar POV with regards to good and evil, even the Taoist, even Star Wars. If everything is relative, why is there a commonly accepted feeling of danger in the advent of the American Empire?" - that is, I meant the human philosophies are primarily concerned with the greater good of humanity.

But isn't the matter of debate whether these genetically engineered uebermensch is human at all - and what, if this uebermensch is engineered, will happen to the rest of humanity?

I'm not sure I understand you correctly. I mean that there is a difference between moral relativism and amoralism. Moral relativism may still have generally accepted moral standard that may differ for different species, cultures or societies. Amoralism, by contrast, doesn't acknowledge any moral standards and argues that everyone can make up their own mind on what's good or evil individually.

I agree that there are dangers to moral relativism. However, moral absolutism also entails dangers - just look at groups of militant fundamentalists who consider other religious or social groups who don't accept their moral values as inferior or even unworthy of living. Any moral outlook entails dangers when taken to the extreme.

I've never meant to imply that Palpatine was interested in any "greater good" - Palpatine, in my view, is the prime example of an amoralist. And I agree that no greater good starts with selfishness - however, again from the viewpoint of another species the human focus on the greater good for humanity entails an element of selfishness, not on the individual level, but on the species level.

I'm not sure that Star Wars argues moral absolutism. If this is the case, why does Qui-Gon tell Anakin that "your focus determines your reality" and talks to Obi-Wan about POVs, and why does Obi-Wan tell Anakin that "only Sith deal in absolutes" and Luke that "many trut

 

Coming from the standpoint of relativism or evolutionism this is just the way of things. A higher level species threatens the civilization of humanity, like the Telepaths in B5. A conflict must ensue.

You said earlier on...

It seems you are here describing two different kinds of relativism. Can you explain this?

I agree that any idealogy taken to the extreme is dangerous, but I would submit that once an ideology is taken to an extreme it ceases to be that idealogy. That said, I do not think there is a plausable way to live as a community with relativistic views. It just does not happen. This is not at all to say that believing in the absolutes means that we always act that way, or that just because Good exists outside of us, as does Evil, that we do not also have reletive choices to make within that framework. It certainly is not a black and white world.

I am not sure moral absolutism is the correct phrase. It's the 'ism' that I am uncomfortable with. I think it is true that our focus does determine our reality (both here and in SW). But this statement is not to be exaggerated to say that there is no reality outside of our focus. Qui-Gon is not able to say "there is no war, there is no Sith" and it be so. I cannot say "I am rich" and suddenly I am.

I take issue with the SW creators using the term absolute because it is misplaced. What they actually mean, according to the context, is "extreme." I say the same understanding applies to the "many truths..." statement. Whereas this statement is true, it is not to be taken to its extreme, because it is also true that just because you believe something to be true does not make it so either inside or outside of onesself. Luke proved that Obi-Wan was not entirely correct, there was good in Vader. It was not Luke's believing in Vader's goodness that caused Vader's goodness, but it was his believing that brought it out.

 

Yes, but it is understandable that people are opposed to the idea that humans themselves engineer the higher level species that in the future will threaten them.

I meant amoralism and moral relativism in the earlier post - amoralism can be viewed as an extreme form of moral relativism. I hesitated to bring in the term "amoralism" in the earlier post, I thought it would only lead to confusing. I guess avoiding to call the thing by it's name was a mistake, it created just the confusion I intended to prevent

But we do live in a community with relativistic views to a degree. Take the sentences on killing someone for example. There's a lot of considering the situation and the context in which the killing has taken place. Murder is sentenced completely different than killing in affect or due to carelessness, and there are considerations with respect to the age of the culprit and his/her mental state as well. Or take the judgement of sexual relations before marriage as another example. Most people by now have accepted that there are different views on this issue depending on the cultural and religious background of different societies.

Someone might perceive himself as rich even though he is poor by material standards; he might just value other, immaterial assets higher than the rest of society. Take a Zen monk for example, or a Shaman. They wouldn't see Bill Gates as a "rich man", because being "rich" means something entirely different to them.

On this I agree.

 

I still don't understand why it is not completely logical from a natural evolutionary standpoint. Wouldn't we want to propagate our family line through it's devolopment into something greater? There is no rule in the 'survival of the fittest' handbook that says you can't try to evolve yourselves if you have the know-how. What is so special about allowing some random occurence to dictate evolution?

To a degree is the important part. You would be hard pressed to find a person or a culture that thinks random murder of an innocent person is really great and ought to be done as often as possible. Most people and cultures, of higher learning or base, come around to this way of thinking. Why is that if we live in a completely relative world? Simple, although the fine details of killing someone, your right, get real reletive, real quick, the morality that we all live by, and have lived by is Thou Shalt Not Kill. This ideal is a fixed mark and it never wavers. People waver, but not people's acknowledgement that we must live by this code. And of course there are many others. I have limited knowledge of other culture's view of sex before marriage, so I hesitate to say this is one of the fixed, not in any way reletivistic moral codes humanity has tried to live by. I do think the other side of the spectrum, casual sex, is having a severe detriment to society, but that is a completely different discussion.

That does not change the fact that a person is not able to change all reality inside and outside of themself. My point in saying "I am rich" was to say that if, by my own standard I want to be more wealthy than I am now, focusing on this desire does not in itself make it happen. It is the same concept that the Christian's use when they say "Faith without works is dead." Believing in a different reality than you are in has to be followed by action. In reletivism the person rarely sees a need to change themself because the view is every egotistical; "nothing's going to change my world." Whereas the acknowledgement of moral absolutes is simply the view that a higher code exists than I have ever been able to live by, and attaining it means I have to do something different, better, than I have been doing. And a person realizes that they can never attain this goal by themselves, they need a higher power to help them...like the Force.

 

Balance is not brought by the death of two Sith Lords because that's just stupid. That makes no sense at all.
It's a energy field created by all living things so why would the death of two beings magically balance the Force. That's so stupid.

Palpatine was losing his power in ROTJ because the Force was balanced before he and Vader were dead. Just like the Jedi couldn't sense Palpatine when the Force was unbalanced, Palpatine can't sense Jedi in ROTJ because the Force is balanced by the time Han's team lands on the sanctuary moon.

If you pay attention to Lucas' ramblings you'll notice he's usually always talking from the point of view of the Jedi, but the Jedi are just chumps who don't know jack. See if they knew anything they wouldn't have had their asses handed to them.

Balance of the Force is just a balance of emotions. The Jedi were stupid when they gave up their emotions. Luke does just fine and he is not detached from his emotions. People need their emotions. People need love, hate, anger, sadness, fear, ect. Emotions motivate us. We need emotions because they help us determine between right and wrong, however, we can't let our emotions take full control of our actions. Luke was right to become angered and cut off Vader's hand, but once his enemy was down he reigned in his anger.

The scene where Mace and Palpatine face off and the scene where Luke and Palpatine face off are not about Anakin/Vader. These two scenes are about Jedi making the right or wrong decision. Mace chose poorly and Luke chose wisely. The movies are not about Anakin. The thing is Anakin is the just the central figure and the story is just going on around him. The movies are about the people of the galaxy. The people that create the Force.

 

Balance is not brought by the death of two Sith Lords because that's just stupid. That makes no sense at all.
It's a energy field created by all living things so why would the death of two beings magically balance the Force. That's so stupid.

Because the destruction of a sect that manipulates that energy field to their own ends instead of serving it's will is stupid? The Sith don't follow the Will of the Force and that creates the imbalance. The Jedi follow the Will of the Force and attempt to maintain the Balance as well as peace.

Palpatine was losing his power in ROTJ because the Force was balanced before he and Vader were dead. Just like the Jedi couldn't sense Palpatine when the Force was unbalanced, Palpatine can't sense Jedi in ROTJ because the Force is balanced by the time Han's team lands on the sanctuary moon.

Wrong. Lucas has said Balance is brought in RotJ when Anakin kills Sidious.


If you pay attention to Lucas' ramblings you'll notice he's usually always talking from the point of view of the Jedi, but the Jedi are just chumps who don't know jack. See if they knew anything they wouldn't have had their asses handed to them.

Yes, it couldn't just be that the Sith are cunning, underhanded, and manipulative. Oh, that and the fact that the Sith got the vast majority of the Galaxy to turn on the Jedi. They were complacent to an extent sure, but that's something that happens with every organization that holds power for that long and not something that would in and of itself destroy them.


Balance of the Force is just a balance of emotions. The Jedi were stupid when they gave up their emotions. Luke does just fine and he is not detached from his emotions. People need their emotions. People need love, hate, anger, sadness, fear, ect. Emotions motivate us. We need emotions because they help us determine between right and wrong, however, we can't let our emotions take full control of our actions. Luke was right to become angered and cut off Vader's hand, but once his enemy was down he reigned in his anger.

Luke almost turned to the Dark Side because of his emotions. The Jedi also clearly have emotions as shown by Obi-Wan's speech at the end of the duel and the pain and sorrow Yoda shows during Order 66. They just try to control them.

The scene where Mace and Palpatine face off and the scene where Luke and Palpatine face off are not about Anakin/Vader. These two scenes are about Jedi making the right or wrong decision. Mace chose poorly and Luke chose wisely. The movies are not about Anakin. The thing is Anakin is the just the central figure and the story is just going on around him. The movies are about the people of the galaxy. The people that create the Force.

I think that they should have that wide of a focus, but


"What drove me to make these movies is that this is a really interesting story about how people go bad. In this particular case, the premise is: Nobody thinks they're bad. They simply have different points of view. This is about a kid that's really wonderful. He has some flaws - and those flaws ultimately do him in."

They don't according to the one who made them. Now, should what he says be a defined fact within the universe, that's arguable, but last I heard the policy here for good or ill was that they are.

 

Wouldn't you say that the Sith are more natural, as they are just following the human nature and the thirst for power that any normal human being posseses? As opposed to the Jedi, who surpress their natural feelings in an effort to become more "natural."

 

why not?

because you say so?

 

I didn't say it is not logical, but that it's understandable. Whoever said that humans are logical when it comes to the evolutionary fate of humanity?

Yes, as I said in the earlier post, both absolutism and relativism can be dangerous when taken to the extreme.

I think you are equating relativism and amoralism and in my view both are just not the same. Relativism accepts the possibility that value systems may differ from one society to another. This doesn't mean the view is egotistical, it just means that the same value system may not be accepted in another society. I think absolutism bears the danger of intolerance towards other cultures, the notion that one has the right to force one's own ideas and value judgements on others. Like they are some sort of "natural law". Hitler's ideology was a form of absolutism - it was based on moral absolutes like "the Jewish are evil and desere to be extinguished." It was intolerant to the extreme and it didn't permit the idea that there may be a different value system and a different perception of reality.

 

No, because if every complacent organization destroyed the vast majority institutions would no longer exist. It's something that hurts them dealing with the Sith I'll admit, but given that their destruction comes about because the Chosen One betrays them and not due to anything related to their complacency I don't see how it destroys them.

And yes it is my opinion because I say it is. It's all my opinion except when noted as otherwise.

 

no offense, didn't see it as not being your opinion

i just wanted to challenge it a bit. it seems the debate we could have is one of 'i say so' and that's rather boring.

how about that: what if every organization that would simply rest on their laurels for too long, would crumble from the inside? what if that's not something that you could put your finger on and say, oh TODAY when we did this and that, that's when it happened, that's when we became too complacent and too arrogant? what if it's a more sneaky development?

you see, the way you put it is saying, organizations reach a point of self-destruction (say, they can be *too* complacent) and then they crumble from within. for no reason whatsoever.

the way i would interprete it is that an organization needs to be rotten to the core in order to crumble within an amount of time that is as short as the jedi order gets. it tips the scales, naturally, to have anakin betray them, but he's ONE person, they are many, and yet they practically rush to their destruction themselves, like pieces of a domino, which makes me think, there was invisible corruption.

think of it like a building (you could twist that analogy around on me if you like) which looks really good from the outside, but all the wooden beams inside are infested with wood worms.

 

Hmm, I do see your point. My original post was admittedly fairly simplified. I definitely think that the Jedi's complacency has a large amount to do with the fact that the Sith were even able to take down the Jedi Order. You're right of course that Anakin is only one Jedi, but he's one of the most powerful in the Order and is also considered to be a great Republic Hero. It would both remove one of the greatest warriors in the Order and hurt morale an incredible amount by turning him.

What I meant was that complacency couldn't be the only reason or the reason on it's own for the Order's destruction as there's many complacent organizations that survive for thousands of years. I think that had the Jedi Order's fall only been an immediate thing your right that it would have been necessary for them to be rotten to the core, however in hindsight I think a part of the Jedi's fall happened in the 10 years between TPM and AotC given the huge discrepency in the numbers of Jedi from Episode 1 to Episode 2. I also think the way that the Clone Wars greatly thinned the Jedi ranks (I mean just that first battle took hundreds of Jedi lives) had to have a lot to do with enabling the Jedi to fall so quickly. I also think it's worth noticing that all of the Jedi in the Temple were either overwhelemed by Vader's power, the Clone Troopers, or both and that would thin their already diminished ranks. There's also the few that survive the Purge other than Obi-Wan and Yoda(at least I think RotS hinted at that) and it'll probably be dealt with more in the TV Series.

I just think the Jedi were mostly overthrown and brought down and not that they imploded. Now, the Republic definitely imploded and was corrupt for all of the Prequels, though I think it was less so in Episode 1. The Jedi just felt that the Republic was civilization and I do think it was better than the Empire. I'm also not sure just how much more corrupt it is than any other Democratic government given that the description of the Senators being self-serving beareucrats also seems to fit many real politicians.

I personally would say that the building that looks good on the outside but is rotten on the inside would be more descriptive of the Sith.

I have to admit I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the Jedi being willing to take control of the Government. I think that some of the Jedi such as Yoda would be able to stick to their word and give up power when the corruption is removed, but I think some Jedi would definitely start to take on more of an authoritarian opinion that they should keep control as that way it's easier to prevent the corruption. However that would be a Dark Side view so they'd like no longer really be Jedi.

By the way frared, I just bought a book that I think might interest you called "Star Wars on Trial." It's written as a trial between some people including Matt Stover on the Defense and some other authors on the Prosecution. The back blurb says that it "Star Wars stands accused of elitist politics and sexism, religious and ethical lapses, the destruction of literary science fiction and science fiction film, and numerous plot holes and logical gaps."

I definitely would rather not just have "Yeah well I say so, so meh!" as the whole argument as that gets very, very, boring.