PT Did Anakin / Vader really care about Jedi or Sith ?

Granted. Nevertheless, all Sith betray their ideals to a certain extent - it's in their nature, it's in their doctrine. Bane realised that the Rule of Two was as much a tendency as it was a rule - he got it started, but ultimately, it was the nature of the Sith and the requirements of their plans that enforced it.

Palpatine was an exceedingly cunning and ruthless Sith - Plagueis, as his title would imply, was far more wise - patient almost. A bizarre but ultimately compelling quality in a Sith. Palpatine had to come up with a way to bypass that wisdom, so he defeated him and usurped the Mantle for sure, just in a subtler way.

 

I agree Palatine did teach and adhere to the rule of two for the most part, but he does betrays his ideals.



As far as Anakin/Vader caring about the Jedi or Sith is concerned, I think Obi-Wan explains it in the ROTS novelization. Obi-Wan tells the Council Anakin doesn't think like the typical Jedi, Anakin is loyal and attached to people and is extremely loyal to people. Anakin was created from the force to bring balance, hence his destiny isn't to align himself to Jedi or Sith. Anakin was most powerful when using both light side and dark side powers. Anakin cared for people more than ideology. He loved Padme but didn't agree with her Politics, I think the same can be said for any faction of Force Users.

 

Yeah, since he has been a Jedi padawan operating out of the Coruscant; and is sworn to serve the Republic, that's a problem. Perhaps another failure by Obi-Wan that he never explained to Anakin how the government they serve works.

That's funny because what it actually shows is that he's clueless as to how his own government works. Great to hear your interpretation of the scene however.

He rationalizes mass murder; the "change" he wants to see is the genocide of an entire group of people...and it's not his first.

Partially? He murdered children. In cold blood. Where was the good? There's nothing colder.

Has a tantrum when he doesn't get a promotion. Not normal.

Two words: murders, children.

Hey if you're dumb enough to get drunk and sleep around the one guy in the galaxy who wants to murder you, you don't deserve to be the Dark Lord.

 

The Supreme Chancellor

Your observations are correct - fine. But to what end? Calling Anakin a psychopath doesn't alleviate Palpatine of the blame at all.
Remove Sidious from the scenario and you remove the basic elements of Anakin's Fall. No "solution" to Padmé's death, no promise of greater power through Palpatine and the Empire, no fostering of hatred for the Jedi and Senate.

Anakin was unstable, psychopathic even by your reckoning. Without Sidious he would have been a threat certainly, he would have been powerful Force user gone mad - but such has happened before in the Jedi's history. What he would not have become is a dark sider who went on to persecute countless thousands in the name of a Sith order.

Also a psychopath implies a degree of permanence, wouldn't you say? And do we really ever apply ideas like redemption and passion to psychopaths? No - because they do not have the capacity to feel such things by definition. So the psychopathic definition works sometimes, and doesn't work at others. Perhaps it is best to say he had psychopathic urges - because that has more relevance in terms of his character.

 

Okay he isn't the literal definition of a psychopath. I admit that much. I would categorize him as mentally unstable however.

If you remove Palpatine, you only remove the issue of someone dangling the supposed "secret to conquering death." (Palpatine was in fact one of the positive experiences Anakin had with politicians btw.) But Palpatine had nothing to do with:

-Anakin's frustration with Obi-Wan's doubt stopping him from saving his mother.
-Anakin killing an entire village of sand people.
-Anakin being absolutely obsessed with Padme.
-Anakin's open support of dictatorial rule.
-Anakin's war crime of killing an unarme prisoner (okay he did some goading, but either you're a war criminal or you're not)

It's hard to believe that with this combined swell of flaws and mistakes, another terrible fate would have somehow befallen Anakin. His obsession with Padme would have put some other Jedi or galactic affair in opposing directions, and we both know which one he would choose.

 

From a strictly Star Wars perspective -

Anakin appeared to have some aggressive tendencies but could also be caring and loyal to the people around him. His clone troopers, fives in particular, Obi Wan , Padme and many of those he was defending during the clone wars.

IMO - In addition to basic psychology and manipulation, Palipitine had been using his dark side abilities to slowly push Anakin toward the Sith path from age 9. By the time of his fall at 22 years old the Dark side energy Palpitine had been slowly infusing into Anakin had reached a critical mass that pushed him over the edge.

While I do agree that Anakin / Vader is a very interesting psychological study I think that any discussion of Anakins fall would be incomplete without a discussion of the specific dark side abilities that Palpitine could have used to his advantage.

 

Is this opinion rooted in any actual scenes from the film?

PS: P-A-L-P-A-T-I-N-E

 

-I don't really get the first point of your listing here - Anakin blames the death of his mother on himself, not on Obi-Wan or others. Indeed, Sidious chooses to have Obi-Wan eliminated (in Legends, Dooku and Palpatine explicitly agree to kill him in Labyrinth of Evil and Stover's Novelization of ROTS ) - the reason being that they consider Obi-Wan a moderating influence.

-Killing the sand people is evidence of his instability, and as a moment of rage and hatred. But only with Palpatine's help was he able to co-ordinate that rage and allow it to dominate him consistently and entirely.

-Anakin's obsession over Padmé is part of the tragedy of Anakin's dilemma - but without Palpatine, he has no knowledge of the Sith, no knowledge that she can even be saved. His vision is one of a possible future, just like how Luke sees a "possible future" when he is training under Yoda in TESB. In this case, however, Anakin fails to realize the self-fulfilling nature of the prophecy/vision. Because he acts to try and prevent Padmé's death - he ends up making it happen as fact. Without Palpatine, he would have come to trust in destiny, not because he wanted to, but because there was nothing he could do. Also, where did this vision come from? Why did this premonition exist? Was it a temptation of Palpatine? We know that he preys on Anakin's love for Padmé - so cannot discount these possibilities.

-Even if we accept the point that he prefers dictatorship, what would Anakin be able to accomplish without Palpatine? The Jedi, as a matter of common sense, would bring him to heel if he tried to single-handedly take on the senate out of hatred for democracy (which it think sounds very far-fetched)

-Goading is irrelevant. Anakin admits the wrongness in his deed - "I shouldn't" - Palpatine then persuades him to deal the final blow, "Do it". In the ROTS novelization, Anakin's actions are openly spoken of before Windu, and there is an understanding that it was necessary. Again, in this scene, Palpatine dresses up the murder of Dooku to ease Anakin's mind.




There are two basic distinctions that we should be clear on regarding Anakin's character. There is first his actions which are based on his desire - and there are his actions based on his sense of reason. Palpatine attempted to draw on reason to persuade Anakin to adopt dark sided methods. Anakin, alone, however, could only tap his desire - his reasoning was not non-existent, but it was, as you highlight, more limited, more unstable.

Indeed - I agree completely.

 

"It's all Obi-Wan's fault! He's jealous! He's holding me back!"

Oh I'm sorry, did I miss Palpatine in that scene helping Anakin slaughter the Tusken village?

Anakin was nearly killed by a Sith Lord LONG before he met Palpatine. I also assume there is significant education regarding the Sith in the Jedi teachings.

Also, he had no reason to trust destiny, his mother died in his arms because he was a few moments too late because Obi-Wan told him to ignore his dreams and trust "destiny." This is why he takes his vision of Padme dying so seriously before Palpatine even mentions Sith knowledge.

I never made that assertion. A Jedi Knight openly rationalizes dictatorship over the very democracy he is sworn to defend. This is a problem.

You're right goading should be irrelevant. In fact in the very same scene Palpatine also tries to goad him to abandon Obi-Wan, but he doesn't. So we are clearly shown that Anakin is capable of standing up to Palpatine's influence. This emphasizes even greater that Dooku's murder was a lucid decision by Anakin. Saying "it was wrong" afterwards does nothing. He knew it was wrong before he did it. He did it.

 

Done in a moment of temporary rage. You neglect his thoughts when he had recovered from his rage and was thinking more rationally, namely "I wasn't strong enough to save you, Mom...I wasn't strong enough..." The key theme being pushed here is that he feels inadequate. Obi-Wan might represent a reason behind that inadequacy, but he doesn't merely think Obi-Wan allowed his mother's death to occur - that's just generalizing.
We also get the implicit understanding from Palpatine that Anakin had told him that he didn't blame the Jedi for his mother's death - but rather the Tuskens. ("...You wanted revenge...remember what you told me about your mother and the sand people...")

You've misunderstood me entirely.

Temporary and sudden rage = Murder of Tuskens (he has a fit of anger, like many beings, and a light-saber makes them in this case lethal)
Channeling rage and learning to adopt it as a philosophy = What Palpatine encourages and what leads to Vader's mentality.

Maul would not exist as a Sith without Palpatine. Simple as that.
On your point about "education of the Sith" - "Did you ever hear of Darth Plagueis the Wise?" - Anakin's answer was no - because the Jedi know very little about the Sith of this era. They believed they were extinct before TPM - they can't even work out who's who regarding Master/Apprentice. Even if the Jedi did have this information, Would they really educate their Padawans on the unnatural techniques of the Dark? I think not.

Regarding trusting destiny - there was never an indication that Anakin deliberately stalled on advice from Obi-Wan, and that it was this that led to his mother's death. Anakin left for Tatooine as soon as he had gotten a good sense of what he thought his vision meant. He told Obi-Wan nothing. "What the blazes is he doing there?"

Obi-Wan does give advice when Anakin says he is having nightmares - but Anakin ignores this advice, granted. In fact, he deliberately tries to interfere with fate out of recklessness. Which I entirely concede.

The important idea is that the visions are inescapable and self-fulfilling. The Force was working through Anakin, giving him glimpses of his fate - he merely acted on it incorrectly, he acted as a Sith would, not a Jedi.

It is - but why hold a viewpoint when there is no-one who shares it, no-one who can make it become reality? Anakin wasn't in the position to defeat democracy. He had none of the cunning or intelligence required to achieve that sort of master plan - only Palpatine showed that skill. Again, Palpatine took the fragments and put them together for Anakin - almost as if to say "Good start, Anakin. You've got some good ideas there. Now, let me show you true power."

Do not discard Anakin's feelings so lightly. Anakin's feelings are what ultimately allow for his redemption. If we judged him solely by his actions (i.e. murder of Dooku in this case) - then the idea of his ever being redeemed and doing good again would seem impossible to us - but of course, this proves false. That's a big theme of the saga.

The relationship between Palpatine and Anakin runs deep - the killing of Dooku is symbolic of more than bloodlust - it is an act of defense against the man who he has come to admire, and trust more even than his wife and Obi-Wan. Palpatine is relevant.

 

So dialogue from the film that directly disproves you're point is inadmissible because "temporary rage"? Okay.

Palpatine nor Anakin ever said he didn't blame the Jedi. He was comparing Anakin's revenge kiling of Dooku to Anakin's revenge kiling of the Tuskens. What does that have to do with blame?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What I'm getting at is that Anakin committed a mass murder without any influence from Palpatine. He showed he was capable of abhorrent acts of cruelty all by himself.

Has anyone on this forum ever said otherwise?

You're argument just went from "Anakin has no knowledge of the Sith" to expecting him to knowing the identity of the current Dark Lord? Which is it?
Does Anakin have zero knowledge of the Sith at all or does he not have impossible to know knowledge about their current structure? You seem to keep changing the argument.

Obi-Wan's advice was ignore it. Wow a genius.

I don't know that I would call going out to help someone in agony when you have the superpower of being able to sense their pain "reckless." He was almost a fully trained Jedi Knight and more than capable of defending himself. Going to investigate the fate of his mother is actually one of the least reckless things Anakin does in the whole PT.

So Anakin has dangerous political views without Palpatine's influence. This is confirmed.

Also the entire Senate cheered Palpatine on when he announced the formation of the Empire; so him and Anakin weren't the only ones in the galaxy who favoured dictatorship...

..So Anakin committed a war crime and murdered an unarmed man. This is a problem. Don't know how much courts take "feelings" into account on that one.

 

The Supreme Chancellor

So this doesn't become an unending thread of back and forth discussion on one liners - I'll try and explain where I'm coming from with all this.

Regarding temporary rage - I'm trying to demonstrate that Anakin is not consistently hateful and aggressive all the time. I know perfectly well what the dialogue is. And, yes, it proves he is hateful of Obi-Wan, but at that moment.
At other times, he praises Obi-Wan, and shows a great amount of compassion and empathy towards him - the scene before Obi-Wan leaves for Utapau comes to mind, as do their scenes when entering the cantina as they apprehend Zam Wessel in AOTC. And of course, then there is direct contradiction of the scene you quote, which is the scene at Padmé's apartment (same characters, entirely different viewpoint).

So the idea here is that Palpatine takes these hateful and reckless moments, and he draws them out, and uses them to snuff out the good parts of Anakin's character that remain. And good aspects do remain - Anakin is widely thought of as a hero from TPM right through to Windu's death.

Anakin really doesn't blame the Jedi - he blames himself. Where is the evidence that he blames the Jedi for his mother's death specifically? Apart from that single quote when he is having a tantrum against everyone in the workshop?
Now, he does spite the Jedi for not giving him council membership, of holding back his powers, of not trusting him, of not recognizing that he is truly the Chosen One. These, however, are separate issues.

Please put my Darth Maul comment in proper perspective. I never said that anyone disputed the issue, I was reminding you of the fact so that you could understand that Maul and Palpatine were linked. I.e. if you remove Palpatine you remove Maul and hence remove Anakin's exposure to the Banite Sith completely. And the Banite Sith are entirely unknown to the Jedi - "The Sith have been extinct for a millennia" - and hence do not know any of their ideas and concepts - such as those which Palpatine discusses at the opera in ROTS.

What can we say about Anakin's actions in response to the vision of his dying mother? It is reckless by Jedi standards, and by the standard of good which we are evaluating here. "Always in motion is the future", yet Anakin takes his visions at face value. And this doesn't even factor in the notion that Anakin is allowing himself to be dictated by attachments to his family etc. Obi-Wan's advice is one of detachment, patience - whether that is genuinely good or not can be debated. But nevertheless, actively pursuing attachment when you have other responsibilities (like defending a senator or serving the Jedi Order) is reckless. Anakin admits as much.

On the point of Anakin's 'love of dictatorship' - Palpatine had manipulated the Senate (indeed, everyone) from the beginning - I thought this was well established, and I would argue that this is ground for the senators' support. Remember, his entire speech in the senate was a dressed up version of events to frame him as the innocent whom the Jedi attacked. ("The attempt on my life has left me scarred and deformed...but I assure you my resolve has never been stronger!") Words of a hero, not a Sith. The senators did not have the foresight of Force sensitivity either.

Finally, on Anakin's feelings - you discuss war crimes and murder - fine. The Jedi sanctioned Anakin's actions, in light of the situation, they felt what he did was acceptable in times of war. Sort of a Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges moment.
Again, not that that's right, but let's keep it in the SW context of the Clone Wars.

If you're going for the real life approach, which I would suggest doesn't really work, then feelings do matter - they help determine motive, which lies at the heart of the framework of criminal law.

 

You mean when they apprehend an injured suspect and can (presumably) take their time tending and interrogating her; but Anakin goes bats#@$ crazy and starts screaming at her? If anything Anakin has shown that he consistently has immature/extreme/violent outbursts of anger. No one in the saga, not even Palpatine is shown as being "angry" all the time. It's the ability to contain the emotion and not act upon that Anakin lacks.

I already gave you a direct quote disproving that. If you want to ignore it then ignore it. It's a two hour movie, not a television series, the writers can't spend countless amounts of dialogue dedicated to one small plot point. How many times did Dooku mention that Qui-Gon was his apprentice? ONCE. Then it was established that he was Qui-Gon's master. He didn't mention it over and over in every scene to hammer it home to people who aren't listening.

What you said originally was:

When I disproved that by showing examples, such as Anakin's run-in with Maul before he met Palpatine; or his education as a Jedi which would include the lengthy history between the Jedi and the Sith; you then changed your argument to whether he knows who Darth Plaguies is and/or his knowledge of the Bane line of Sith.

The history of the Sith is public knowledge; specifically it is extensive Jedi knowledge. Anakin and every other Jedi had knowledge of the Sith. What they didn't know is the current structure and secrets of the Sith operating at the time.

Anakin is the potentially most powerful Jedi ever and he is having powerful visions of someone suffering; someone who is so close to him that it strengthens the theoretical accuracy of his visions. He DID NOT take the visions at "face value." After much contemplation, meditation and patience (he has been having these dreams for weeks) he follows the will of the Force and he goes to investigate. Not very reckless aside from the fact he was supposed to stay on Naboo and protect Padme, however the CIS will CERTAINLY not be searching for her in the Outer Rim, the move puts her in no more danger than she already was.

I don't get it. You're defense of Anakin's argument for dictatorship in 22BBY is that Palpatine would create a dictatorship in 19BBY?

That's fan fiction. Neither Anakin nor Palpatine admitted what actually happened. The Jedi think that Anakin killed Dooku in the heat of battle, not as a war crime execution. In the novelization Mace Windu senses something is off, but does not investigate further.

 

Right. So to clarify - we're discussing the notion that Anakin would/would not still mess up big time without Palpatine + some other stuff about him being a psychopath.

Proceeding on that basis:

No. No. As I said above, when they entered the cantina, not left it via the back alley. The scene that contains the relevant lines, "Don't say that master, you're the closest thing I have to a father". In fact, the whole exchange there is reminiscent of a strong and mutual bond of friendship, rather than a hostile, hateful one. The point was that we were demonstrating Anakin's perception of Obi-Wan, in order to rule out the fact that he would blame everything on him for his mother's death.

Yes, I don't doubt he has violent outbursts - we've already clarified that. Does that mean he is evil or that he has no good in him? No. Many protagonists have flawed and redeemable qualities. Han Solo was one of them, in ANH particularly.

If you look carefully, you'll see I haven't ignored it:

The point is that it is not a sustained attitude. Why would Anakin go and rescue Obi-Wan from Geonosis if he hated him and blamed him for his mother's death? Your reference to Dooku's comment on Qui-Gon is totally irrelevant. Dooku is a secondary character and a plot device - Anakin, on the other hand, is the main protagonist and his scenes provide essential character development.

OK, he has knowledge of the Sith. Fine. Ancient Sith which are totally irrelevant to him in the current context. Will it help him with Padmé? No. Would the teachings of the Sith be well understood outside the Council? No. He never gets any tangible knowledge of the Sith from the Jedi - why would he, the Jedi don't lecture their students about Sith teachings. They lecture them about falling to the Dark Side. They are different things. Unless they were teaching their padawans Sith ideas off camera - which seems highly implausible.

I haven't changed my argument at all - I have just clarified it so that you could understand where I was coming from. I merely used "Sith" to represent the Sith we encounter in the PT - I thought that was what we were discussing, but you seem to have taken the definition and applied it against me in the broadest possible sense.

Theoretically accuracy? What do you mean?

The ROTS novelization has some insight into the way he interprets his visions:

PADME: Your dream must have been... some kind of metaphor, or something."
ANAKIN: "I—my dreams are literal, Padmé. I wouldn't know a metaphor if it bit me.

I would argue that Padmé is the voice of reason here, and Anakin the one of doubt and confusion. Indeed, he wouldn't know a metaphor, and doesn't. He demonstrates he has no notion of subtlety at all. Sounds reckless to me.

No more danger? Hmm.

How about - the Hutts? Identified to be a notable threat in TPM. And maybe it's me, but Tatooine spaceports are usually thought of as being "wretched hives of scum and villainy".
Or the fact that Geonosis is just a few parsecs away...? The CIS has major footholds in the Outer Rim.

The point is that the supporters of dictatorship were not thinking rationally, or much of their free will. Palpatine has coerced them, whether via propaganda or Force ability - which of the two it matters not.

Without Palpatine, Anakin's longing for dictatorship would be difficult to fill. I maintain that. The senators are just corrupt - they don't want a focused ideology. Before Palpatine, they were squabbling delegates + a few powerless men who had the right heart (like Valorum) but none of the determination.

And anyway, Anakin declares a love of dictatorship after 10 years of Palpatine having had time to mold this belief.

I concede the point. But it changes nothing regarding the importance of feelings and hence motive. Palpatine orchestrated the entire affair so that he could get Anakin on his own with Dooku and set up a situation where Anakin's hate was drawn out.
You can't possibly be arguing that such a circumstance would just have happened to arise if Palpatine hadn't plotted in this way?

 

How does this disprove that Anakin later outright said "It's all Obi-Wan's fault."??? Like no one has ever placed any blame on their father, let alone on a good friend who was LIKE a father?

So let me get this straight, you're argument is that because Anakin/Obi-Wan get along sometimes, it completely refutes that Obi-Wan contributed to his inability to save his mother and that Anakin verbally expressed this blame? ..okay.

You're creating a strawman argument. My point was that Anakin is abnormal. He consistently has immature, extreme, violent outbursts. Period.

I don't know; I think you can be mad at a friend and not want them to be executed as a prisoner of war. Also, Anakin never said he hated Obi-Wan. And I never said he said he hated Obi-Wan. You consistently use strawman arguments to make it seem like the opposing argument is wrong, implying that I made arguments I never did.

I never said it would. I just corrected you when you said Anakin has no knowledge of the Sith.

I mean if you were going to have an accurate anticipation of events, it's probably about the people closest to you.

First you were talking about his AOTC vision, now you're refuting the argument by referencing the ROTS vision. Which is it? Anakin had reason to take his dreams literally in ROTS, BECAUSE THE ONLY OTHER TIME HE HAD THIS DREAM IT CAME TRUE AND HIS MOM DIED. In AOTC, he didn't yet have the previous experience of a vision coming true and thus he waited it out andf contemplated on it much longer.

Now you're just saying random things instead of providing an argument. I wonder where someone looking to kill you would look: A. Your home. B. ANY OTHER RANDOM SYSTEM IN A GALAXY OF BILLIONS.

...where would it be harder to find someone? hhmmmm???

Ahhh of course. We are to assume that every thought that Anakin expresses is actually Palpatine brainwashing him. So is Anakin really a character at all? Can we just call him mini-Palpatine?

Anakin stood there, thought about it, and then committed a war crime. But it was someone else's fault, right?

 

OK - so there isn't an awful lot here that is advancing the discussion.

You are accusing me of 'consistently strawmanning' you - not at all the case. I think it's just a case that we're getting lost in the debate and not appreciating each other's approach. I don't dispute your basic points, it's just the interpretation.

I freely admit and agree with you that Anakin had psychopathic tendencies, that he openly blames Obi-Wan for some of his tragedies, and that he is deeply conflicted.
Where we disagree is where I focus on the idea that these are not permanent aspects of his character, but temporary bouts which give way to more rationale and compassionate thinking. And because it is seen that Anakin does have good in him, and that he is often compassionate, I would suggest that Palpatine played an important role in removing the good in him that remained and ensuring he was converted fully to the Dark Side.

Now, we could argue on and on as to how we're both shifting the goalposts in this debate. I hope that I've been fairly consistent on the point above, however.

I think it is important to look at the Force visions as a whole, rather than isolating them out and treating them separately. Anakin responds recklessly in both cases of his visions - because he tries desperately to bring about a change of events. It is a well known Jedi belief that interfering in force premonitions in this way can lead to the vicious cycle of self-fulfillment. Anakin admits as much in ROTS. Anakin's choice of action after both visions is a reckless one. in AOTC, it means abandoning his duty as a Jedi and dragging along Padmé for the ride - in ROTS, it means desperately trying to find some means to save Padmé through the Force (in the novelization he wants access to restricted and dangerous holocrons, and the whole issue gets blurred by a lust for power)

I do believe that the mentor relationship Anakin has with Palpatine is important - it is shown as flourishing already in AOTC. You can dismiss this if you like, but I have chosen to interpret it as having significant impact on Anakin's beliefs and philosophies. Otherwise there's not much to go on, unless we just accept that Anakin is the way he is for no other reason than his destiny - that's a valid interpretation.

Regarding the point on Obi-Wan - I'm not sure what your point is but what I have been trying to convey is that Anakin does not blame him for his mother's death. Apart from a single piece of dialogue, the notion of it being all Obi-Wan's fault never really re-occurs, whereas Anakin blaming himself reoccurs as a theme several times.

So can we agree to disagree on this one?

 

I never disagreed with that idea. Having consistent temporary bouts of rage is problem enough.

I'm not shifting anything. Whenever you change the argument I've made it a point to return to the original argument.

Why should multiple events be looked at as a whole instead of individually? How is this an effective problem solving strategy?

I already discussed and provided proof that Anakin didn't act recklessly in going to Tatooine. He was very patient and meditated on it for quite some time. You also failed to provide any rebuttal of my point that if anything Padme was safer hiding somewhere else in the galaxy rather than..AT HOME.

When did I dismiss Anakin and Palpatine's relationship? THIS IS A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. YOU'RE PRETENDING I SAID SOMETHING I NEVER SAID.

So you openly ignore the dialogue in films (which exist for no purpose I guess?) and make up your own plot. That is your own prerogative. We know in the films itself, according to the character, this is true.

 

“It’s all Obi-Wan’s fault! He’s jealous! He’s holding me back!” He might dislike the guy for a number of reasons, but that doesn’t mean he wanted him dead. It’s wholly possible to not like someone, to not have any measure of respect for them, and still not want them to die horribly.

As for the government thing, yeah it’s telling that Anakin’s been a Jedi for a decade now and he apparently doesn’t realize just what the government he’s supposed to be protecting actually does. Then when he learns that what he proposed is literally what the Republic is, he decides that they should be forced to obey by a supreme leader.

 

The Supreme Chancellor

I have provided rebuttal, in almost every case. The problem is we keep disagreeing - we're debating such a narrow line here anyway. I am not going to rehash all my arguments - if you don't think that what I have said is convincing, then I'm happy with that. We need to get the thread back on track, anyway.

I am not ignoring you or the film's dialogue. If that is the impression I give, then I apologize. I am merely giving different weight to different events, because that's how I interpret the film. Your interpretation is equally valid, of course. But please don't dismiss my arguments purely because you don't like them or find them feasible. We're debating opinion, not fact.

You keep using the term straw man - you seem to be implying a lot from my words - I have never openly created lies or false information. If I was strawmanning you, I would be openly attacking your argument by means of a different contorted version of it.
When I say things like "I do believe that the mentor relationship Anakin has with Palpatine is important - it is shown as flourishing already in AOTC. You can dismiss this if you like" this is not creating a straw man - this is saying "I have an opinion, and if you want to disagree with it, that's your choice". If I were straw-manning you, I would have said "The Palpatine mentor relationship is important. You have not considered it and your argument is therefore flawed."

As a point of further discussion, when you talk of the Obi-Wan/Anakin relationship, how do you think their relationship is presented in ROTS, in comparison to AOTC - do you think there is any genuine friendship/respect from Anakin?
This is aside from our discussion on Palpatine's influence. Just interested to hear your thoughts.

 

You're interpretation of Anakin saying "It's all Obi-Wan's fault! He's holding me back!" is that Anakin DOESN'T blame Obi-Wan at least partially for his mothers death? Please make sure you never become a professional interpreter.

You did. For instance you said I can "dismiss" the Palpatine Anakin relationship if I must. I never did. Ever. All I did was point out Anakin's violent abnormal behaviour; which you could not logically refute, so instead you needed to create an argument that you could. In your mind you created an argument from me that Anakin/Palpatine didn't have a relationship.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/169/Strawman-Fallacy

Haha good that you want to hear from me even though I've been shredding you mercilessly. Your a good sport.

In AOTC Obi-Wan seems like an overbearing mentor, picking on Anakin at every little detail. In turn Anakin is arrogant and bratty, out of control. Like any parent-child relationship, they have good times and also butt heads. Clearly this comes to a head when in the span of several days Obi-Wan:
- Offers no advice other than "dreams pass in time" to help Anakin with his visions; ultimately resulting in his mothers death.
- Refuses to let Anakin investigate the assassination plot against the woman he loves.
- Tells Anakin to abandon the woman he loves to possible death during the chase on Geonosis.

In ROTS Anakin has grown up a bit, but is still capable of childish outbursts and inhumane violence. Their relationship has also mature, and he loves Obi-Wan as a son loves a father, burying his jealousy/anger towards him. Why was it so easy for Anakin to try to kill Obi-Wan, when they were on such good terms the last time they spoke? Why was he able to say "I hate you!" with such gravity? That hate certainly didn't just pop up because he changed his name to Darth Vader. It was the culmination of all the boiling negative feelings he had towards Obi-Wan completely unleashed.

 

Allow me to 'interpret' this for you.

I have fairly said:

I then noted that:

That is the argument I have laid out and developed. When you initially introduced the ""It's all Obi-Wan's fault! He's jealous! He's holding me back!" quote, you did so without any supporting argument, as if it were obvious that this explained everything away. That's fallacious - it is a genetic fallacy, a misleading one.

Good site, I've heard of it.

Your initial argument that sparked off this debate began as follows:

We actually reached a conclusion with the psychopath argument and I think we both agree on that front.

But where we introduced this idea of "fault" and "blame" things went off the rails because we weren't arguing from the same grounds. So my point about the Palpatine/Anakin relationship is to rebut your point above, and argue that actually the relationship between the two is significant, in that it implants the notion of dictatorship, sows distrust etc. right from the start - hence the blame assigned to Palpatine. You assume that it doesn't.

A straw man? Perhaps. But in this case I'd call it misinterpretation. And that's not the same as deliberate misrepresentation.

Oh Indeed. I do enjoy these debates of ours.

Can you at least agree with me that Anakin's poor relationship with the Jedi is amplified considerably by Palpatine's influence? And that moreover, his psychopathic urges multiply as a direct result of Palpatine's influence.
That's all I really want to get across - I'll give you the other points because I'm too tired to keep this going.

I like the points you make for the most part. Really, I promise!

 

My supporting evidence was dialogue from the character in the film. Is there any better?

There is no dialogue or scene from the film that implies that Anakin's thoughts are not his own, that they are Palpatines. Anakin expresses his preference for dictatorship. He never says Palpatine explained to him it was better

On one side you ignore dialogue from the film of Anakin blaming Obi-Wan, and in the same breath state that something that is never even implied in the film is occurring?

I certainly agree with this sentiment.

 

I think the short answer is that the dialogue and film is not exactly 100% clear.
I don't get the vibe that we're meant to think of Anakin as a complete idiot - there is some tragedy involved, some attachment we as viewers have to him, some redeemable qualities we see.

But that's not totally relevant to your statements, I'll grant. I can see how your argument makes sense - I suppose I'm looking beyond hard evidence, and being a little too subjective here.

This is an odd case as well - I'm really trying not to draw on the novelization, good as it is. There are lots of pieces in Stover's work that can aid both of our arguments. Sometimes he has Anakin running through Palpatine sentiments of the Jedi in his mind, but at others, he blames Obi-Wan for not letting him go after his mother. So it's all muddled up.

 

The novelization is a masterpiece, I for one hold it in much higher regard than the film.

 

Still haven't read the novelization. Everything I hear people claim is from the novelization is stuff I get from the film itself.

There is clear evidence in the film that Anakin is being influenced by Palpatine. Palpatine is shown to be a close mentor of his, and his words to Padme in the meadow about strong leaders who can cut through the red tape of democracy hark back directly to Palpatine and his words to Padme in Episode I.

Not everything needs to be spelled out explicitly; in fact, it's often more rewarding when things aren't. Why do we need to explicitly hear Palpatine say these things to Anakin only to hear Anakin repeat them later, when we can just have Anakin say them with the strong implication he's been getting his opinions from Palpatine? The former way is comparatively dull in its painful straightforwardness and redundancy. The latter way is narratively economical and cognitively stimulating in the way it invites the viewer to think and to draw connections.