How do Jedi ever get anything done?

The Jedi Order is far too constrictive on what constitutes the Dark Side. Luke chopping off Vader's head was supposedly a dark side act. Striking down the Emperor would be a dark side act. How exactly would killing the two most evil men and the rebellion's biggest enemies constitute "turning to the dark side". The Jedi are not proactive enough and are striclty reactive. It's no wonder they became extinct. Now I'm not saying Sith is the way to be, but I believe getting results is far more important than worrying about technicalities.

 

Jedi can kill either as a matter of self-defense or when the death of another, usually evil, life-form will save the lives of many other innocent people.

Luke killing Vader, or the Emperor, would not be Dark Side acts in and of themselves.


Ciou-See the Sig

 

Don't forget it's not entirely dark. The Council makes Obi-Wan a Jedi Knight without him ever having to go through the Jedi Trials after he kills Darth Maul - and he did that by harnessing his anger, which a Jedi is not supposed to know, according to the Code. Lucas made a great point in the commentary about the deleted scene from Episode I when Anakin fights Greedo. He says something to the effect of the scene being "not so much about controlling your anger as it is putting your anger in the right place." Anakin beating up some punk because he was teasing him is wrong - Obi-Wan using his anger to destroy an evil being is not.

Regarding Luke in the cave, Yoda says all that is in there is "only what you take with you." He told Luke not to take his weapons, but he did anyway. Luke went in with aggressive feelings, I think. That is the idea behind him killing Vader being a "failure", not the killing of Vader in itself.

As for the Emperor saying Luke's journey towards the Dark Side being complete once Luke struck him down, I think that was just part of Palpatine trying to goad Luke into getting worked up enough to kill Vader and become seduced by the power anger can give you, the way Anakin was seduced. Obi-Wan took that power and controlled it, as I said before - Anakin let it consume him. Luke is able to control it also - he defeats Vader and throws his saber away.

I apologize if I have misunderstood your comments - these are just my thoughts.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. The fact is George Lucas neglected to add the fact that their is such thing as righteous anger directed at individuals for their wrongdoings. This is why the Light failed.

They were so preoccupied with trying to attain a perfect level of piety that they forgot to abhor those who could not see evil. They were ineffectual for their meekness.

They forgot that men like Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine, and Nute Gunray were rotten to the core. That killing them was in fact glorifying life by thrawting them from killing more innocents in their reigns.

You can hate the acts, well up with justified rage, and be aggressively proactive and still not be an evil person.

<[-]> Saber

 

>>>The fact is George Lucas neglected to add the fact that their is such thing as righteous anger directed at individuals for their wrongdoings. This is why the Light failed.

Well, some would say that Anakin was righteously angry at the Tusken Raiders...

It's all to do with points of view- sure, if Joe X is an evil murderer, then it's OK to kill them, right? But in doing so, you become a murderer as well. So what happens if someone judges you for that killing in the same way that you judged Joe X?

"Fear, anger, agression- the Dark Side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. Once you start down the Dark Path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will- as it did Obi Wan's apprentice."

 

The Jedi Order in the best of terms doesn't have to deal with Sith Lords. They are simply peace keepers and those who negotiate disputes. It is only when the Sith and Jedi collide when there can be conflict. There were times when Jedi used anger such as Obi-Wan killing Maul, that is not really turning to the other side but it is exploiting something which is not really supposed to be used.
There is a large amount of gray area between black and white in this case.

In my opinion Luke and Obi-Wan can use anger or fear as long as they control it. If they keep it under control and are aware of what is happening they will be fine. It is when they agree and fall into it helplessly that they can fall into the dark. It is complex in my mind and can best explained as gray area.

-Seldon

 

With the Tusken slaughter it was entirely different. Anakin did not differentiate between who he was killing. He blindly hacked away until the entire village lay dead.

Righteous anger is the feeling that the United States had (for the most part) after we were attacked on September, 11, 2001. Righteous anger to bring the culprits to justice.

So you feel no anger is ever justified? So whatever you face you calmy turn the other cheek to? If someone slaps your wife, you're not going to be stirred to anger rightfully?

<[-]> Saber

 

"So you feel no anger is ever justified?"

The uncontrolled anger that leads to irrational action is never justified. And I'd never feel angry at a person who slapped my wife; I'd only feel sorry for the poor turd after she got through with him.

 

When the Republic was on top and the Jedi were the dominant force in the galaxy their reactive "self-defense" only stance was justified. But in Luke's case something had to be done to stop the Empire, and some heads have to roll.

 

The uncontrolled anger that leads to irrational action is never justified.

So the Jedi Order disagrees with you. In the Star Wars saga all forms of anger are decried by the Jedi. True, it could only be because they view it as treading in dangerous waters, so to speak.

But the Jedi - or at least how George Lucas portrays this Order - are far too timid. They believe that maintaining a continuous zen-like resolve is the only answer to every issue they would face.

I believe that's flat wrong. There are situations that warrant swift retribution out of pure anger that has no ulterior motives or selfish interests behind it.

<[-]> Saber

 

>>>>With the Tusken slaughter it was entirely different. Anakin did not differentiate between who he was killing. He blindly hacked away until the entire village lay dead.

Righteous anger is the feeling that the United States had (for the most part) after we were attacked on September, 11, 2001. Righteous anger to bring the culprits to justice.

OK. So the "righteous anger" that the United States had, which led directly to massive bombing campaigns on areas of Afghanistan and Iraq, were different to Anakin taking out a village? Seems like remarkably similar situations to me...

How about the "righteous anger" of the Iraqis who have been bombed? Would it be a good thing for them to retaliate to "bring the culprits to justice"?

And is it righteous anger when Palestinian suicide bombers attack Israeli targets? How about when Israel retaliates wtih military strikes? And how about when Palestinian suicide bombers retaliate? etc. etc.

>>>>But in Luke's case something had to be done to stop the Empire, and some heads have to roll.

And yet, he actually brought down the Empire by refusing to fight and throwing down his sword.

 

I wonder what is "riigheous anger" anyway ? How do we define it ?

To put it into an extrme, is it possible that this feeling drove Vader into throwing the Emperor away ?

(I don't hold this opinion, but I just wanted to show how one might be able to think. )

 

I'm not sure, but I don't think I've personally ever been angry without feeling righteous about it.

Not at the time, anyway...

 

Dooku was vexed by the very same question and we all see were that lead him.

 

George Lucas: "They key issue in these movies is for a Jedi not to use anger. (When Luke gets angry and Vader and attacks him) he's turning to the dark side - all is going to be lost."

He also said about the dark side cave that the reason the phantom Vader appeared in the dark side cave in ESB was because Luke went in their with his weapons, with his anger and hatred of Vader on his mind. Is Luke's anger righteous, because Vader killed Obi-Wan and (Luke thinks) Luke's father? It might be. But according to GL, it's this anger that could turn Luke into another Vader, and lead him to the dark side- unless we learn to control it, anger leads us to the dark side. I don't think Obi-Wan killed Maul out of anger, actually. Watch the scene again - when the barrier goes down, Obi-Wan charges through using his anger, and he failes to kill Maul - he gets pushed into the abyss. It's only when he relaxes, lets go of his anger and taps into the Force that he is able to pull himself out of the abyss and kill Maul. Also, remember that the Emperor is not killed by anger and hatred - that fails. The Emperor is killed by Anakin's sacrifice, Anakin's love for his son. Both Sith are defeated not by anger, but by compassion - Anakin is redeemed, Palpatine dies due to Anakin's sacrifice. Using anger to attack our enemies means we may become our enemies. You might disagree with it, but that seems to be the message of the saga. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

On the issue of whether Obi-Wan uses anger to kill Maul, this is what the official TPM novel says about it:

Eyes fixed on the Sith Lord, Obi-Wan Kenobi went deep inside himself, connecting with the Force he had worked so hard to understand. Calming himself, stilling the trembling of his heart, and banishing his anger and fear, he called upon the last of his reserves.

So Obi-Wan does not use his anger to kill Maul. In fact, it's only when he lets go of his anger that he is able to defeat evil.

 

One more thing ... I don't think the Jedi fall because of their unwillingness to use anger. They fall because the dark side clouds their vision, and they can't see who the Sith are. But they are prepared to fight - they lead armies into battle, and Yoda fights Dooku. The Jedi fall because they have grown arrogant, stuck in their ways and unable to sense the growth of the dark side and where it's centred - not because of an unwillingness to fight it.

 

i dont think the jedi have it wrong at all. sure maybe you can hate with the right motives, but eventually hating with the right motives will turn into flatout hate. i mean look at ghandi, he didnt hate the britsh, hell he loved the britsh people! and he used means which seemed "meek" and "ineffective." then again he only did a free an ENTIRE NATION FROM BRITSH RULE.

 

You really don't have to be "angry" to do be effective or to do what's effective. That should be obvious from the films. After all, Mace didn't have any problem loping off Jango's head, when it came right down to it. And he didn't have to compromise his beliefs forbidding anger to do so.

Also, I'm failing to see how anger in and of itself makes one more effective at anything.

Yes, you should be able to recognize the things that others might get "righteously angry" about. And yes, you should recognize and oppose evil. But getting bent out of shape about it won't help the situation. What helps is careful analysis and measured action. Which is what the Jedi do.