PT 'Dogmatic' Jedi Responsible for their own downfall. Could someone explain this so that it makes sens

So I see this idea as an ongoing theme, almost asa given. It may be based upon something George Lucas has said himself, I either can't remember it or have never seen it myself. Regardless of the idea's origin I would just like someone to explain to me in what way the movies demand this reading because...I can't see it.

Let me explain - a little background.

First, let us consider the term 'Dogmatic'. What does it mean to be dogmatic?

Let us look at some synonyms. Opinionated, arrogant, assertive, arbitrary, emphatic, categorical, obdurate

Dogmatic is related to dogma, which are doctrinal codes set forth in an authoritative manner.

So...when we first see the Jedi Council who, really, is being dogmatic in their approach? The Council, or Qui-Gon. Qui-Gon is emphatic about a prophecy and its significance as he sees it. Why do the Jedi refuse to train Anakin? because he is too old? No. They refuse to train him because of the fear that they sense in him. His fear of loss. What they see, in fact, is the very route that will be manipulated by Palpatine to bring Anakin to the darkside. The Jedi, here, are not working to some dogmatic schema, their joint wisdom is, in fact, remarkably insightful.

So, later after Qui-Gon's death - where, even his dying breath is not some wisdom to his stricken padawan, but another categorical assertion about Anakin's 'destiny' and his own opinionated reading of the prophecy. He, essentially, in Obi-Wan's anguish, coerces him to promise to train Anakin.

So...how do the unbending, dogmatic Jedi react to Obi-Wan's obdurate proclomation that he will train Anakin? Do they continue to deny Anakin's training? Throw Obi-wan out of the Order for his headstrong challenge of their authority? No. They bend to the situation. Yoda even says he, personally, does not agree...so there is no arbitrary authority granted the most senior Jedi Master.

Not seeing any dogma yet - apart from Qui-Gon's.

So, later, Anakin marries behind the Jedi's back. he takes a wife with whom he has an attachment. Well, here - surely - is a sign that the Jedi are dogmatic, right? Except...why are the Jedi forbidden to marry? They are forbidden attachment - as Anakin explains to Padmé in AOTC. Why are they forbidden attachment? Because it can lead to jealousy, the shadow of greed.

No, no, I can hear you saying (like Qui-Gon, the voices in my head are sometimes very persuasive ) its..because the Jedi didn't know how to deal with Anakin. Particularly. They should have been more flexible because of his particular circumstances. Well...lets take a look at that idea.

Let's say, for instance, that Obi-Wan and the Council decide that, hey, maybe we should act on Anakin's visions regarding his mom. So, they jet off to Tatooine and one of two things can happen. 1) He still can't save her - which will lead to the same basic premise. he will still blame himself and seek the power to be all-powerful 2) He does save her, so he learns that by action he can alter the outcome of his visions (which he knows to be premonitions now). What lesson, as a Jedi, would Anakin learn? What would change within Anakin?

Or let's say that the Jedi allow him to marry Padmé as some special dispensation. When he has visions of her dying in childbirth the Jedi will still tell him the same thing, maybe in different terms but...it won't be what he wants to hear, and what Palpatine offers him; the power to save the one he loves...from dying.

Even more disheartening is the idea that, because the Jedi's rules (well reasoned, as above) aren't right for an immaculately conceived child who is taken from his mother by a belligerent, 'mystical' Jedi at just such an age (as carefully considered by Lucas) and thrown, unwittingly, into the arms of a Sith Lord as he looks for a father figure, then it was something wrong with the Jedi order....

Where is the dogma and the fault?

 

It might be novelizations that contribute to this view.

In the TPM novelization, we find that Jedi virtually never train any candidate above the age of 1 year old in any case.

In the RoTS novelization, Yoda admits that he has, in effect, kept the Jedi Order the way it was when he was young- not allowing it to change.

 

​

AOTC addressed the difference between the dogmatic ways of the Jedi Order & Skywalker's POV...​

 

Not following you. Here Anakin expresses that the Jedi encourage compassion (those darnable dogmatic fools) but forbid attachment. What was it that lead to Anakin's fall again?

 

I have always understood the "dogmatic" aspects of the Jedi Order to be referring to its integration into the Republic as an ancient institution. There are several conflicting interest leading up to war and it seems the Jedi Order just tows the "party line" of the state without any serious reflection on what effect it will have on anything - let alone the Jedi Order

 

Even that doesn't stand up to the 'facts' of the movies, though. The Jedi aren't at war with the Separatists, and Mace even defends Dooku, their leader. Obi-Wan uncovers a plot by a secretive cabal of leaders, hiding from prying eyes on geonosis, to attack the Republic with a large droid army and a fleet to transport them. They knew something was wrong with the war, and are willing to take out Palpatine once they finally get to the truth of the matter.

I don't see Padmé ever being accused of dogmatism, nor Bail Organa. The Jedi are swept up in events outside of their control. What course of action should they have taken, realistically? Not fight at all? So, leave the clones to their fate, leave the (ostensibly) democratic republic at the mercy of the corporate powers (and greed) and Sith Lord that are shown to be the beating heart of the Separatist movement? How would that have helped?

 

​

"I hope you trust me, Anakin."​

​

​

 

They went from "keepers of the peace" to commanding and controlling a galactic war machine - virtually overnight. They take the Republic's side in the separatist issue at the beginning of the AOTC, before any plot is discovered. Their only concern is not if stopping the secessionist systems from leaving is right or wrong, but simply that they don't have the physical manpower to enforce the Republic's will.

In any case, Im not sure you can find answers to your questions. The real problem is that the doctrine of the Jedi Order is not actually defined aside from some vague concepts that are alluded to here and there.

 

I think as long as the Septs would leave the Republic peacefully the Jedi didn't want to get involved. The irony is the Septs building up an army and planning a sneak attack is what made the Jedi fight them.

How do we know that any other Jedi is aware of Anakin's visions of his mother? A good warrior is supposed to be free of attachments, even to their own life since they can be used against them.

 

All that was ever said was that Anakin was having dreams involving his mother. Never what they were about. And Obi-Wan's line "dreams pass in time" leads me to believe that Jedi having dreams about things like that aren't uncommon. That they don't always "mean" something.

 

I think the issue has more to do with the Jedi, as a whole, becoming more concerned with institutional politics than following the will of the Force. I would say too, that they have become more complacent than anything.

One point I might bring up is the idea that they believe the Sith could not have returned without them knowing. Or that Count Dooku couldn't assassinate anyone since he was a Jedi and it's not in his character. Said by Mace Windu ironically enough.

--The point about them believing that the Sith could not have returned without their knowledge is really the crux of the matter. The Sith Lord was hiding right under their noses the entire time. And if they had paid more careful attention, they might have been able to stop him before any of this mess even began. They were so certain in their own power and rightness that they were blind to the darkness taking hold.

There's a sense, here, that the Jedi have allowed their position and alignment with the Senate/government to supersede their connection to the Force and the common people.

Qui-Gon is by no means perfect (and I don't think he's intended to be, such as when he dismisses Obi-Wan's sense of a larger force at work), but he also represents some of the things the Jedi have lost. Namely, trust that the Force will see them through, that he should trust its guidance. Also, he is willing to help those weaker than himself and in bad situations, even if it is not really relevant to the mission at hand.

Additionally, Qui-Gon wasn't necessarily wrong about Anakin. I think a lot of people ignore the fact that Anakin wasn't really instrumental to Palpatine's plans. Palpatine just wanted him because he was powerful. But without Anakin, Palpatine's plans would have worked out just fine. The only reason, for example, that Mace even went after Palpatine was because Anakin told him. So, although the Jedi were right to sense the possibility of darkness in Anakin, their dogmatism basically contributed to it rather than mitigating it. In this instance, Qui-Gon was right. Anakin was just a little boy with an uncertain fate. There was no reason to treat him as a threat. Could he become one? Yes. But thinking of him as such is going to do nothing to deter him from that path.

Let's take a look at what the Jedi tell Luke vs. Anakin regarding his visions. With Luke, they tell him that the future is always in motion, nothing is set in stone. More importantly, though, they stress that Luke might be able to save them, but he would put in jeopardy everything that they have worked and suffered for. In this instance, the Jedi don't tell Luke that he shouldn't be concerned for his friends, that there's nothing he can do and that he should just accept their deaths as inevitable. But they also tell him that it's important to think about the greater good -- to think about what they would want him to do. Luke, of course, still defies them (and pays a price) but the way the Jedi handle the situation is very different from how they handle Anakin. With Luke, they recognize that he loves his friends and is worried about them and that, yes, he might be able to save them -- but at what cost?

The point, I think, is not that the Jedi's ideas are necessarily wrong, but that they are too extreme. Yoda says that we should rejoice for those who rejoin the Force and not mourn or grieve them. And yet, he is almost crippled by the pain of losing his Jedi brethren. Moderation is the key. Anakin is at one end -- entirely too emotional and entirely too focused on constantly being in control. While the Jedi are at another -- shutting down their connections and normal emotions. What they need to both do is be willing to meet each other in the middle. So it's not fully the Jedi's "fault," but I think the reason you hear criticism of the Jedi is because Anakin was a little kid when he was thrown into their system and thus it really should be up to them to make the first move. Instead, both themselves and Anakin became more entrenched on "their" sides and Palpatine used that gulf to get to Anakin.

 

Sorry for the double post, but I thought I would give my thoughts on this because I think it does illustrate the gulf between Anakin and the Jedi.

Look at the dialogue:

PADMÉ: It must be difficult having sworn your life to the
Jedi... not being able to visit the places you like... or
do the things you like...

ANAKIN: Or be with the people I love.

PADMÉ: Are you allowed to love? I thought it was forbidden
for a Jedi.

ANAKIN: Attachment is forbidden. Possession is forbidden.
Compassion, which I would define as unconditional love, is
central to a Jedi's life, so you might say we're encouraged
to love.

Here, you're right that compassion -- which the Jedi encourage -- is a good thing. This dialogue also shows a lot of Anakin's failings -- such as the fact that he doesn't like being told what to do, i.e. not being able to go where he wants or choose what he wants to do. But notice what Anakin brings up -- "Or be with the people that I love." That's where I think the Jedi are extreme. Why shouldn't Anakin be able to be with people he loves, like his family? Was Luke worse off when he was with his sister and friends in the Rebellion? I would say no. And it's here, again, where I think the Jedi are being too dogmatic -- there's no reason Anakin shouldn't see his mother if he wants and it doesn't interfere with his duties. And him not being able to, I would say, is counterproductive.

 

As was mentioned by Iron_lord, the novel for "Revenge of the Sith" greatly expands on this. There's a scene after the Mustafar battle, where Yoda's contemplating why Sidious was able to beat him. Matthew Stover wrote that "he had lost before he was born", because of his unwillingness to accept any kind of doctrinal change in the Jedi Order. Another line says Yoda taught Jedi to "be like my masters of old", so he was unprepared for how a new generation of Sith would manifest itself.

Another thing explained in the novel but not the film (probably due to runtime) is Mace Windu's ability to sense another's weakness through the Force. He refers to these as "shatterpoints", and realizes Sidious' weakness is Anakin. However, he's genuinely surprised when Skywalker cuts his hand off, because he forgot to look for Anakin's weakness...the desperation he had to save Padme.

As a general rule, the Jedi wrongly believed that the best way to deal with strong emotions was to exclude them, instead of helping those in the Order accept and control them responsibly. Even while saying, "be mindful of your feelings", their main concern was adherence to a doctrine that became their undoing. In essence, the Old Republic Jedi were a sci-fi counterpart to first-century Pharisees in the Bible...and Yoda was Caiaphas.

 

The Jedi were not responsible for their downfall, and it certainly wasn't for their philosophy or way of life.

Anakin was a special case, yes, and it's proof for why Jedi are only trained from a very young age (in Anakin's case, he had grown attached to his mother / Luke had grown attached to his friends) and why attachment is forbidden.

In case it wasn't clear for the audience, Obi-Wan explains it himself: "[Anakin] was deceived by a lie, we (the Jedi) all were."

Is he talking about family? But even if he was, it all comes back to attachment. Attachment can be used against you. It can cloud your judgment and deviates you from your role and duty as a Jedi. We've all seen this in AotC and TESB.

Until he started his Jedi training, and his friends were used against him. And due to his attachment, he rushed to Bespin almost got himself killed by Vader.

Then it's all about Anakin being a special case. I agree that the Jedi should have adapted to Anakin' special circunstances, but Anakin also should have adapted to the Jedi's way if he indeed wanted to become one by dedicating his life to serve the Republic. Getting married and all that came with it was his own fault (in my opinion, not even Qui-Gon would agree with that).

 

In the EU, dissident Jedi Master Djinn Altis prefers to use the term "obsession" for this level of attachment, in the TCW: No Prisoners novel:

As with all faith, some basic messages become distorted over time. Why should attachment lead to the dark side? Loving commitment is the cornerstone of civilization, of society, and unites all living creatures. How can it be wrong? I assert that it's fixation- obsession- that leads to darkness and evil. That blind focus can corrupt any area of our lives. We may do terrible things because we're obsessed with a lover, with wealth, with power... or even with a set of inflexible beliefs that have come to mean more to us than the welfare of living beings themselves. Do you take my point, Master Yoda?
~Master Djinn Altis, in a rare exchange of letters with Master Yoda, some years before the outbreak of the war.

In another part of the novel Master Altis and Anakin have a conversation about attachment and Altis gives Anakin this piece of advice:

Could you let someone go, if you lived them? Could you let them walk away? Could you live without them? How far would you go to stop them from leaving? What would you do to save them? Ask yourself, listen, and if any of your anwers make you feel afraid... attachment may be fraught with misery, for you and those around you.

In his own private musings:

"Passion. Passion and anger and love. That's what this galaxy needs, not serenity. Passion for change. Anger at this brutality. Love - buckets of it, for everyone, love between child and parent, between spouses, between brothers and sisters, between friends. We need more attachment, not less. Attachment can stop us from tearing ourselves apart."

 

I would say that, in part, they were. You point out that the Jedi, like Anakin, were deceived by a lie. Well, do you not hold Anakin responsible for his fall? Now, certainly, there were other factors that played into both, but I think that the Jedi can be criticized for more than just their handling Anakin. I think that they did not spend enough time with the "common" people and also were too extreme in their beliefs. They had secluded themselves and had become too beholden to the Senate when I think they should have also tried to help others on an individual level.

I'll refer you again to Yoda's advice of "mourn them do not, miss them do not" but when he feels those he loves die, he can barely stand.

I would argue that pathological attachment is unhealthy. But do you really think separating two people is going to prevent that? I think, if anything, not letting Anakin see his mother only made him worry about her more.

Luke may have paid a price for disobeying the Jedi in ESB, true, but it wasn't all bad -- he found out the truth too. And it was his love for his father that ultimately saved him.

I'm not arguing that attachment can't be used against you, but I think the Jedi take it to an unhealthy extreme in cutting themselves off from family.

Again, though, sometimes it can be good as well. Palpatine says Luke's faith in his friends is his weakness. Well, he's wrong -- Luke's friends come through for him. Likewise, Luke refuses to give up on his father and Anakin saves him.

I'll agree that Anakin should not have married if he wanted to be a Jedi. But I don't think forcefully cutting off any ties to people he loved was right either. You need balance.

 

I disagree, except for the part of being too beholden to the Senate. We don't see Jedi spending enough time with the "common" people because the story we are seeing is not about that. I believe it's implied that they (as an Order) do, but the Jedi characters we follow just happen to be dealing with important events/people like planet blockades, Sith Lords, Senators and the like.

Is it really that though? Throughout the war many Jedi have died, and I doubt Yoda would have been affected on an emotional level. That was different, my take was that was a big disturbance in the Force.

No, and that comes back to Anakin being the exception to the rule and the Jedi not treating him as such. Not to the Jedi philosophy itself.

I think, if anything, not letting Anakin see his mother only made him worry about her more.

True, but that can be interpreted as the unconditional love that Anakin talks about. I really can't blame Ben and Yoda for asking Luke to destroy a tyrant (specially after what he did in RotS and to the galaxy itself), although a solution against the Emperor is never presented to him...

It seems to have worked fine for hundreds of years. And again, how does having contact/connection with family would benefit a Jedi's role?

I'm not sure that has anything to do with attachment. Replace friends with Rebellion and it's all the same.

In Anakin's case, I agree.

 

The Jedi were unwilling to change or modify their rules, views and way of thinking. Their arrogance blinded them

 

?I'm not sure why people are questioning me on this idea. I'm challenging the ideas that I see put forward as to how the Jedi should have treated Anakin differently (as an aspect of the argument of their alleged 'dogmatism') - and of course, how diffeently it 'would' have been had Qui-Gon lived..

I am questioning the logic of the Jedi allowing Anakin to respond to his fears (which is put often forward as part of the argument) or of allowing Anakin to marry. I'm challenging the logic of those ideas of 'dogmatism' on the basis of...what difference, actually, would they make. I'm not - in any way - suggesting that this should have been done.

 

Interesting topic.

I always thought that the Jedi fighting in the war as Generals was the clearest example of them "betraying their ideals". They called themselves "Keepers of the Peace" and fought in the war. That was...inexcusable - in a way. On the other hand - and that's one of the things I enjoy about the PT - they didn't really have a choice.
They couldn't really sit down and watch a war, couldn't they? That's a result of their decision to pledge themselves to the Republic and the Senate. The people on Coruscant probably wouldn't have accepted inactive anyway.

In terms of Anakin, I think both PiettsHat and Alexrd are correct.
Strictly speaking, the Jedi were right. Attachment is extremely dangerous for a Jedi. We all saw that with Anakin. He was afraid to lose the people he became attached to. That fear of losing loved ones turned into to greed to save them. That planted that idea of betraying death in Anakin's mind, which is something that never ends well. It all leads to anger at losing loved ones and it all ends with a lot of pain.
The thing is: A Jedi is or can be extremely powerful and that makes him equally dangerous if he falls into attachments. That's why the Jedi prohibited attachments.

Still, the Jedi should have been more flexible with Anakin. I agree with PiettsHat that their view on Anakin as a threat from the get-go was disastrous. I don't think they should have allowed him to see Shmi (that probably would have created jealousy even among Jedi), but they should have quaranteed Anakin to make her free and save (instead of relying on Anakin's ability to "cut" the attachment to his mother).
I also agree that they were too extreme sometimes. Yoda's words to Anakin are a prime example. He just sticked to his ancient rules and repeated them in front of Anakin while he should have known that Anakin was special and wouldn't find help in his old "Jedi lessons".

Conclusion: The Jedi were flawed and that played a part in their downfall, absolutely. But I couldn't say they were "responsilbe" for their downfall in a way that one could say it was "their own fault" or main responsibility.

 

"With great power comes great responsibility" sure- but also "no long-term relationships" and "no raising yourself a family"? Harsh rules.

Perhaps they had bad experiences in the past that caused them to impose those rules- but I do find them somewhat excessive- and maybe a factor in distancing the Jedi from truly understanding the lifestyle of normal people.

 

As others have said the in the novel ROTS Yoda admits that the Sith had evolved and the Jedi had not. The whole " Rule of Two" is evidence of Sith evolution. When there were many Sith their lust for power lead to constant infighting, and this made them weak so they were nearly destroyed by the Jedi. With the order of two there was only a master and an apprentice. The master would teach his apprentice everything they knew. As the apprentice grew stronger he would no longer need the master, so he would murder his own master and find a new apprentice. This was how the Sith would survive and stay hidden from the Jedi, and as knowledge was passed from masters to apprentices they were also becoming stronger. The wealth of Darkside knowledge was passed along and refined. This evolution paid off as we all know. Yoda spoke of the Jedi not evolving. The training being basically unchanged during his lifetime. I felt, after reading this, that Yoda felt like the Jedi should have changed. Does that mean rules, training, age requirements, or all of these? What changes could have saved them from ruin?

 

But Anakin has confused one for the other, as we see in both AOTC and ROTS. Plus, he tends to look for loopholes in the Jedi code just so he can do whatever he wants.

 

Interestingly, the word "dogmatic" is only spoken once in the films, by Palpatine, referring to the Jedi's views on the Force as "narrow."

So it is clear to me that, at least from Palpatine's point of view, the Jedi became too immersed in their own ideals to accept any change. Yoda was partly responsible for this due to his long life and having directly trained the majority of the living Jedi. Throughout the EU, one of the central arguments many Sith make in defense of their morals is they they use the entire spectrum of the Force, while the Jedi strictly use the Light Side. Having access to more powers and fewer restrictions made it easier for the Sith to adapt to be able to defeat the Jedi. While at the same time, the Jedi assumed that the Sith would remain the same as they had been during the last Jedi/Sith war.

"The dark side clouds everything" is a pretty literal way of describing just how screwed the Jedi were.

 

Part of the dogma in what Palpatine said also has to do with how the first Jedi who became Sith, felt, all those years ago. They felt that the Jedi Code, the Council and the senior Jedi had a narrow view of how one must use the Force. That by changing that and embracing all aspects of the Force that they deemed unnatural and dangerous, would they truly become masters of the Force and thus the universe. It is this that Palpatine uses to twist the knife slowly in Anakin, by pointing out how the Jedi could help him save Padme, but won't because the refuse to use the Force to its fullest. Combine that with their unwillingness to change following the last war with the Sith and you have a recipe for disaster.