PT Does anakin's chosen one prophecy make sense?

I was referring to the part you highlighted

"and they both need to be there"

referring to " the good side, the evil side"....which...well, in terms of contradiction, Lucas has also said that destroying the Sith destroys all evil in the galaxy. Now..unless I've been mistakenly using the word my entire life...that appears to be a contradiction. In other words, what you argue in terms of what Lucas "clearly" means with this quote (that destroying the Sith doesn't destroy all evil)...is contradicted by another quote of Lucas' which says precisely the opposite of what you argue.

 

Evil is a word that can mean different things depending on the context. Clearly, to Lucas, the dark side represents passion and attachment and destruction, none of which are inherently evil things. What they are is negative, subtractive properties which draw on the energy of the universe rather than adding to it. Such things are necessary to balance out the positive, additive properties of the light side. Creation and destruction, life and death, these are dualities that need to exist in the universe in order for there to be equilibrium. Sometimes, however, Lucas describes these things as being in the same category as "evil," because that is how such things are commonly conceptualized by laymen.

But Lucas is referring to something else when he says that Anakin "does away with evil in the universe." That is patently obvious. Anakin did not "do away" with the very concept of destruction. He didn't "do away" with the very concept of subtraction. He didn't "do away" with Death, turning everyone in the galaxy into an immortal. He simply destroyed a cancerous agent which was overpowering the universe with a surfeit of dark energy. Lucas is not being academically rigorous in his definitions. No one is really claiming that he is.

In a similar manner, Lucas has frequently said that Anakin was redeemed, while at other times saying that he was not redeemed. On the face of it, this would appear to be contradictory. However, if you're actually interested in understanding what Lucas means, it's pretty easy to see what he's talking about. What he's saying is that Anakin's sins weren't erased. He was rewarded because he stopped the horror going forward, not because he turned back the clock and brought all the people he killed back to life. We know this is what Lucas means, because he actually goes on to explain what he's talking about.

Just as we all do, Lucas has a habit of using words imprecisely. He's intelligent and well-read, but he isn't exactly a wordsmith, especially when he's speaking pretty much off-the-cuff. This does not really mean that the things he says are "contradictory," not really. Because we, being intelligent human beings ourselves, can quite easily make out what he's trying to say, using the interpretive linguistic faculties we have been blessed with as social animals. If I hear a person speaking in dialect say, "I ain't got none," I don't assume the double negative means that they do in fact have some. This is because I am not a robot, and I can determine meaning based on context.

 

Lucas isn't speaking in dialect..or rather whatever dialect he is speaking in is the same across his quotes. I, too, can work out what people are actually saying....and what you've actually said is..yeah Lucas contradicted himself so I'm going to layer an interpretation onto what he says. Even though he uses the same word he means it in different ways. Although in one quote he says both good and evil have to be there...and in another he says that Anakin brought balance to the Force by destroying evil in the universe....that's not a contradiction?

It's as clear as day...provided we take your interpretation of what he means?

I mean...do you not see the nonsense in that? You can quote him for 'clarity' and then just ignore a contradictory quote based upon the fact that you prefer the other quote. What if actually he meant that destroying evil in the universe is what brings balance, and the stuff about evil having to be there ought to be seen within the context of that? And if the darkside is like a cancer....in what world-view is cancer "necessary"

Not to mention that Yin and Yang are nothing to do with good and evil....

And....what does evil mean? Is torture necessary? Is there a necessary number of murders that are required in order that the world can function correctly? How can one argue cogently that evil is necessary?

 

I don't believe evil is necessary certainly not for proper balance.

 

There is a Dark and a Light side. Both need to coexist to keep the universe in balance. The sith, dark side users, have tipped the balance into the dark side bringing unbalance. The chosen one is supposed to bring balance and does so by destroying the sith. Really its that simple. If anybody doesent want to get it, its because they dont want to understand it.

 

The fact that you think I don't understand this shows that you completely failed to comprehend what I was saying in my post.

Same with this. I don't mind if people disagree with me, but the problem here is I'm not sure you even understand what I'm saying to you, or are interested in understanding. Like, what you just said here is a total non-sequitur. I'm just not sure how to approach this, because it's like you responded to a completely different post than the one I wrote. I feel like I'm debating against a random speech generator program which issues canned responses based on a limited set of keywords which it happens to recognize in my posts.

 

Yeah, I guess it does if you really think about it. I don't get the hate for Vader killing the Emperor being ruined because of the prophecy though. The prophecy just predicted the light and dark being balanced. It's not like Vader thought, "Oh, yeah, the prophecy! Better fulfill that!" and destroyed the Emperor.

 

It's not about what you understand..it's about whether what Lucas says is contradictory. That's what we are discussing. Whether or not what Lucas says is contradictory....and makes sense. You claim it isn't because you've decided to interpret his words in one quote one way and that he means that,,,,and so the other quote is to be seen in the light of that one. But its just as feasible that actually he means the other...and that the quote you put so much emphasis on is to be seen in that light.

I'll make this really simple.

In one quote Lucas says good and evil must both be present...that's what balance is.

In the other quote he says that evil must be destroyed for there to be balance.

These are absolutely contradictory statements.

If Lucas can't even settle on a meaning for evil, how can he settle on a meaning for balance.

As for Yin and Yang being the same as good and evil....that's about a statement made in the context that "all religions" are based around the same thing.

"The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them."

The wolf, the lion and the leopard will starve to death. The heavenly realm is not the same as the world. These are not the same ideas. Not all beliefs are based around the same ideas.

Fundamentally I'm disputing the idea that 'balance in the Force' makes sense, and particularly on the basis that...look, here's a Lucas quote - job done. What you take from that quote is what you have put there, defined by what you consider is meant by 'balance in the Force'. And that you will argue that this makes sense to the point of even denying that a clearly contradictory statement is contradictory.

 

Hes talking two different evils. The evil needed for balance is the dark side. BUT The chosen one can tame this evil so the universe can be in balance. The evil needed to be destroyed is the SITH. They are evil and deliberately try to throw the universe off balance. You need the dark side not the sith.

 

Even worse, imo, because then it's all down to factions/organizations, ie. "Jedi" vs. "Sith". Very shallow, in my view.

 

It's not Jedi vs Sith, it's Sith vs balance of the Force.

 

Right....so, Sith are THE problem. Meanwhile, NON-Sith, like Tarkin and Jabba, not a problem?

This is what happens when you reduce the bad guys down to just the Sith......

 

Precisely. And accepting the necessity of the dark side does not mean one must go out and intentionally commit dark acts in order to maintain the balance. The dark side is aggressive and will assert itself regardless of your efforts. Death will come naturally to everyone, given enough time. It requires no effort, no intent on the part of sentient beings. Murder is superfluous to the natural order, and wasteful to boot.

The light side is passive, and meek. It does not assert itself unbidden, as does the dark. To sustain and to cultivate life, there must be intent. There must be love, and selflessness, and sacrifice. It won't happen unless you do something. Life creates it, and makes it grow. That is why sentient beings must devote themselves to serving the light, and not the dark. The light needs the help. The dark does not.

e:

They're not a cosmic problem, no. Part of being a well-adjusted person is accepting that the world will never be a perfect place, and that you can never force everyone to do exactly what you would like them to do. Fortunately, most people are generally goodhearted, and when left to their own devices will tend to cancel out each other's positive and negative qualities, maintaining the natural balance of the Force. However, there are some people, like Jabba and Tarkin, who serve only themselves, and must be balanced out by people like the Jedi, who serve the Force.

The reason the Sith were so dangerous was because they twisted an entire society into an evil mockery of itself. They turned a democratic Republic of equals into an Empire ruled by one wicked, self-centered man. They asserted control over every dominion of the galaxy and snuffed out the light wherever it managed to shine through. Neither Tarkin nor Jabba were capable of doing anything so terrible before Sidious came along to give them a helping hand by wiping out the Jedi. Tarkin was an authoritarian Navy captain and Jabba was a crooked mob boss. They were small potatoes compared to the Sith, who were genocidal maniacs with aspirations of godhood.

 

They are, but not to the topic's subject.

Who did that and when?

 

First off, as others have already explained, nobody is 100% precise in every interview.

That said, the "dark side" doesn't necessarily equal "evil". The dark side - represented by anger, hate or aggression - doesn't automatically lead to evil (although potentially). If someone kills an innocent child, it makes you angry and that's natural and not evil. If you move on to behead the killer or torture him to death afterwards, then that action makes you evil and it's based on anger. That's means the dark side, dark emotions and feelings, will always be there and have to be there because they are just as much of what makes us human as good emotions like love and compassion are. Padmé's "To be angry is to be human", although somehow trivializing in Anakin's context, is actually very accurate. Evil doesn't need to be there, though, because you can just as well control your dark insticnt and go to the police in order to bring the child murderer to justice in constitutional context.

Being in control of your emotions and not letting your emotions take over or control you is one of the most central themes in all of the Star Wars films and I don't really understand what's so difficult for you to see....

 

Evil still exists at the end of the day. The Hutt crime lords are still out there. We know that slavery still exists. Smuggling contraband still goes on. Murder, rape, drug use, those things don't end. The Nightsisters and Nightbrothers are out there. We know that not all dark side users were destroyed. The trailer for "The Force Awakens" reveals that something has happened to the Force. "There's been an awakening. Have you felt it? Both the dark side and the light." The Sith are the problem in that they've caused the imbalance based on what we've seen in the PT. They blurred the lines between good and evil and created an imbalance as a result.

 

"nobody is 100% precise in every interview"

Sorry but....this isn't a matter of "precision". Is there some problem with understanding what a contradiction is? What Lucas says in one quote is precisely and absolutely the opposite of what he says in another.

In one case he says balance requires that both good and evil be present. In another he says that evil must be destroyed. Which is it?

So...the argument goes....he means different things by "evil" when he says these things. Hmmm.but given that we are trying to make sense of "balance in the Force"...and that "balance in the Force" is intrinsically linked with conceptions of "good" and "evil" then it if one differs in the context and use of a term like "evil" while describing what brings about "balance in the Force" then there can be no clarity.

And, here's the rub. I've had this argument thrown at me consistently; That it's clear what is meant......Yet, the post directly prior to yours here - that I am responding to - offers an explanation which is distinct from what you claim is "clear". In that explanation it is only the Sith and their proclivities that matter. Not whether evil is acted on...but only that the Sith act on it.

What I "see" is irrelevant...in terms of what I consider ought to be balance in the Force.What I do see are a number of very different arguments put forward as to what is "clearly" meant...all of which can be supported by one or another combination and interpretation of Lucas quotes.

If so clear it is, why so many different "truths"?

 

Overt evil. Institutionalized evil.

In Lucas' comments, despite the apparent religious or metaphysical construct of "balance", I sense there is a sublimated anger toward despotic and corrupt power structures, especially toward reputedly "democratic" governments, and especially toward that embodied by the Nixon administration, which effectively kicked the whole Star Wars thing into motion.

It's a metaphor exhorting people to "wake up" to who they put into positions of power and to the kind of interference and oppression they tolerate in their own lives. Anakin sees the light in the end, when he sees the full evil of the Emperor and how his own actions have enabled it to endure: his own part in the system.

Similarly, I think Lucas is urging people to put a critical distance between their own emotions and what they believe is in the best interests of others; and what is really in the best interests of others. In short -- to paraphrase a remark from "The Legacy Revealed" -- Lucas poses an important question: are we going to live for the machine or for the collective well-being of the planet?

 

"What these films deal with is that we all have good and evil inside of us, and that we can choose which way we want the balance to go. Star Wars is made up of many themes, it's not just a single theme. One is our relationship to machines, which is fearful, but also benign, they are an extension of the human, not mean in themselves. The issue of friendship, your obligation to your fellow man, to other people who are around you. That you have control over your destiny, that you HAVE a destiny, that you have many paths to walk down, and you may have a great destiny if you decide not to walk down that path. Your life might be satisfying, if you wake up and listen to your inner feelings and realize what it is you have a particular talent for and what contributions you can make to society."

--George Lucas, Billy Moyers Interview, 1999.

 

As far as I'm concerned, my explanation is in complete agreement with Samnz's explanation, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say our explanations are "distinct" from each other.

I never said that it is only the Sith and their proclivities that matter. In point of fact, everything matters. The universe is a holistic system. What Samnz says is very true. Everyone has dark impulses, but the majority of people keep them in check for the most part, and are relatively balanced individuals. However, some people consistently fail to keep their darker impulses in check--people like Jabba and Tarkin and Nute Gunray--and these are unbalanced individuals who contribute more negative energy to the universe than they do positive energy. People like the Jedi, who devote themselves to the light side, exist in order to counterbalance people like Jabba and Tarkin and Nute Gunray, and to maintain parity between the light and the dark.

This is why the Jedi aren't allowed to form attachments. Attachments are technically of the dark side, but that does not mean they are evil, or even undesirable. That's why the Jedi don't condemn marriage as an institution for the galactic populace at large. Jedi simply avoid attachments themselves, because they have devoted themselves to becoming servants of the light. They can form friendships, and (apparently) they can even have sex--but they cannot pledge a formal oath to put the needs of one person ahead of the needs of everybody else. They are simply entrusted with too much power over the fates of others for that to be practical. Normal people can get married, and form attachments, and occasionally give in to their negative feelings, because they have comparatively little power compared to the Jedi, and thus comparatively little ability to disrupt the entire Force with their emotions. With great power, comes great responsibility, and vice versa. This, too, is part of the balance.

 

I have to say that I love the notion that the Sith brought imbalance by muddying the waters. I don't believe in absolute morals, but everyone has their own moral compass and the Sith messed with that. The Clone Wars made people very unsure of the democracy that they used to hold dear. The Separatists seemed to make some pretty decent points, as evidenced by the thousands of star systems who joined them. And then we have the Jedi, self-professed peacekeepers who spread the war across the galaxy, throwing them all further into confusion and despair.
By ROTS, the citizens no longer had a clear idea of their own, so they went along with the convincing words of the well-meaning Supreme Chancellor who was attacked by the Jedi for standing between them and absolute power.

That's imbalance, all right. Palpatine made the citizens his marionettes and that is not acceptable.
So balance had to be restored, not because the Sith existed, not even because evil existed, but because the people had lost power over their own lives.

 

You might think that what you say matches "completely" with what Samnz said...but the arguments are different. You are claiming that...somehow only destroying the Sith matters in terms of destroying evil in the galaxy...where the other argument is about all action to evil as being evil. They are not the same argument. And I mentioned the post just prior to to highlight what actually is a wider point. There are as many conceptions as to what "evil" or "balance in the Force" actually means as there are posters here. That's to be expected because....

Lucas has contradicted himself in statements regarding what "evil" is and/or what "balance in the Force" requires.

So. No....there is no sense in the prophecy, nor in what "balance in the Force" means, and quoting Lucas does not solve the problem.

 

We've already told you why your insistence on conflating the two senses of the word "evil" is wrongheaded. If you stubbornly refuse to budge from that position, then no, of course the prophecy will never make sense to you. But understand that this is a choice you're making. I don't think you want it to make sense. Be honest now. Would you really ever be willing to admit that you were wrong and one of your central grievances against the prequels was in error, even in a hypothetical universe where that were objectively proven to be the case?

 

With Lucas, you really do have to read between the lines sometimes. I remember him saying that Anakin brings balance by destroying the Sith and getting rid of evil in the universe, but that is obviously a huge oversimplification, since evil exists in many forms and can never be truly vanquished. In all likelyhood, he meant "ridding the universe of the current oppression of evil". The Sith have never been portrayed as the root of all evil, nor are they meant to be viewed as such.

BTW: Whether the prophecy makes sense or not depends on how it's handled in the movies, not what people are saying about it off screen.

 

I don't see the problem? The Sith imbalance the Force by trying to usurp its power and 'polluting' the energy field with excessive dark side energy. We know the dark side is natural as per Mortis and the fact that it involves natural things. Destroying the Sith does not end all evil... it merely ends a period in which there was excessive dark side energy and I suppose the destruction of the universe.