Saga Jedi Philosophy Was Pretty Messed Up...

That opens up another problem, as they might've also figured that, in the interests of fairness, they shouldn't treat her or him as any better or worse than anyone else. Thus, Yoda sticks to "Let her go, forget her, move on."

Actually, I figure if he was going to tell the truth to anyone, he'd have been better off telling Kenobi. Yes, he could be a real by-the-book pain, but he might have been more understanding and helpful. And, had he lived, Qui-Gon would've managed to stay true to Jedi teachings while moving heaven and earth to help them both.

 

The problem isn't that he will be kicked out of the Jedi Order, but that there isn't anything that they can be done. As the droid said, she was fine and in good physical health other than the fact she was dying for no apparent medical reason. So even if he fessed up, regardless of his status as a Jedi, there isn't anything that the Force can do to save Padme. Yoda tells him and Luke that death is a natural part of life. He even says to Luke that he is strong in the Force, but he is not that strong. Palpatine tells Anakin that the dark side is considered unnatural to the Jedi point of view and thus, they refuse to help him because they deny themselves a larger view of the Force. One that would lead him to his salvation.

As to Qui-gon, as he points out Yoda when discussing what happened, he tells him that the ability to retain their identity as they will do, is something that can only be done for themselves. They cannot grant it to others, save for teaching the skills to them. That is the true path to immortality.

 

I doubt that Yoda would do that. First off, Yoda and the other Jedi know how Anakin feels about his loved ones and how far he would go to save them. Since he is trying to save his wife, they would do the best they can to help so Anakin doesn't fall to the darkside. The fact that she is pregnant would be even a bigger incentive because Anakin's offspring would be as powerful or close to Anakin's power, making them a good candidate for the Jedi.

 

Does anyone else agree with Qui Gon Jinn and Luke? I think it's okay to love and be compassionate, but you need to have a strict guide line and morality, so that you don't deviate from the light side. I also believe that I should go with ones intuition rather than what the council say, unless you think about the odds really deeply and heed their orders. That's what makes me like the Sith because of their beliefs, but I also like the light because of their morality too, I find this very conflicting. I see myself walking both paths, but not strictly staying with one, but at the same time staying with the light. Has there been any other jedi's that were the same? Also, that's what makes me like Luke Skywalker's new order so much better, but that's what I heard his council also allowed love and compassion; perhaps if I were to make one I would do the same, but make very strict rules and only have a select few that are allowed to with careful surveillance and testing to see if they can cope with the death. But, also to make it secret that they are married. Well enough of me what do you guys think?

Sorry if this isn't new topic worthy.

 

Well yes and no. The Jedi belief is like Buddhism. Buddha says don't become too emotionally attached, but the Jedi go over the top and say don't be attached at all. Buddha also says compassion is good, love is good, and to a certain extant attachment is good. TBH I think that if Jedi belief and the Sith belief were combined it would be more effective. Instead the Jedi's should have emphasized that death is universal and not that emotions are worse than Satan.

 

I addressed this in my topic...

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/jedi-philosophy-was-pretty-messed-up.50017177/

 

I agree with Palaptine's view that Jedi teachings were narrow and dogmatic.

It can be likened to a small family business that employs a small amount of people. Maybe ten. This small group of employees are known by their employers intimately. The employers may even be on a first name basis with the employees' families and friends. The employees work hard to help the owners expand, perhaps the owners are generous with bonuses as well. Over decades, business growth demands more employees. Expansion also demands more employees and satellite locations for production and marketing. At some point, since all employees are not personally known by ownership, and vice versa, company-wide rules need to be established to achieve repeat-ability in all locations, amongst all employees and business partners. These include operations, business plans, and company specific business ethics.

Reference material tells us by the time of TPM, there are over 10,000 Jedi in the galaxy. (If memory serves correctly here at work.)

In short, the Jedi Order had become corporate.

Company-wide rules and regulations do not always transfer evenly across borders, cultures, and even situations. I would guess in the SW universe, all sentient beings do not feel the same way about things; as there are differences here on this planet according to culture and background. I won't even bring in the feared MBTI... Point being- not all species, nor individuals, can completely conform to a general standard. Thus, there is chaffing conflict internally within Jedi on screen and in the EU. Yoda and Mace give off a careless vibe about others and their surroundings. You ( Moviefan2k4 ) mentioned Yoda's counsel to Anakin about letting go his attachments, that came across about as sincere as Yoda reading from some flash card about Jedi ways. Yet, with a galactic war raging, you would think the Jedi during the ROTS time period would almost be different from their dogmatic auto reply answers.There had to be some trepidation and confusion during that conflict. Ultimately, there must be some wiggle room to accommodate all individuals.

A further point is - perhaps the Jedi Order were not meant to be Galactic Peacekeepers in the first place?

With the current unsubstantiated rumors about the Order not existing in the ST, maybe Luke himself came to that conclusion as well?

And Obi Wan's dialogue line about' Sith dealing in absolutes' also struck me funny too; since the Jedi blindly adhere to their own constitutions and view Sith as irredeemable, deserving of death.

 

Well, the dogmatic and narrow view refers to the Force. The Jedi who became the Sith were ones who believed that they should use fear, anger and hatred to enhance their connection to the Force and use it beyond what they were. The Jedi remained as they were had opposed them because they saw how dangerous that way lay and couldn't abide by it in all good consciousness.

 

That's actually an interesting point on a certain level. I mean, yes, that's a no brainer on the surface. But, I'm sure you didn't mean this, but your statement almost hints that the Force chooses it's adherents; and the side they shall serve.

 

Not quite. The way I understand it, just going by Lucas and not the EU specifically, is that the first one to be a Jedi had learned the ways of the Force. Discovered its existence and the connection to all living things and how it could be used and at some point, abused. The Jedi Order was the end result of passing on the knowledge from one person to the next and over time, they began to use their power in the service of the Republic. Somewhere along the line, one or more Jedi had begun to dabble in the wider view of the Force. Seeking power and knowledge beyond what was taught and in those forbidden teachings lay the origins of the Sith. It was more of how the Jedi and ultimately the Sith view the Force. We know from Lucas that the Whills could use the Force and have a similar view to the Jedi, but they never went out and used the Force as they did. Or if they had, they had moved on from that and studied the great mysteries of the Force, without succumbing to the dark side. Those who wanted to know more couldn't move past what they found and thus they became tainted.

The only thing the EU did was create a history for the Jedi and Sith and then like with the Whills, showed us other aspects of the teachings. Such as those found in "The Black Fleet Crisis" and "The Hand Of Thrawn". The only difference was that the Sith were way worse.

 

Hi EdwardPatton, welcome to the boards - I'll merge this with the thread mentioned above.

 

Is that what Buddha said? I'm pretty certain that Buddhism teaches that the source of all human suffering is attachment. Now, that might have been stated in a pretty broad stroke, but it is the possessive nature of the delineated self (the ultimate attachment) that is the route to suffering within Buddhism.

 

Buddha permanently abandoned his wife and son in a quest for "enlightenment", going so far as to name the latter Rahula, meaning "obstacle". I wouldn't hold him up as any kind of sound example.

 

Regarding families, and attachment, EU Jedi sometimes have interesting things to say:

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.

 

I'm not saying that Buddha was to be held up, simply questioning the assertion that Buddha ever said attachment was kinda alright. I'm not a Buddhist...but as for holding him up as any kind of sound example, he never asked any to do so. He told his followers to forget him and remember the knowledge - the path to truth is important, not the Buddha.

 

Yes now...let me think. how many Jedi turned to the darkside because of their 'attachment' to 'inflexible beliefs'? And how many turned because they were attached to an object of their desire?

I'd also argue it's a very poorly framed argument. "Loving commitment is the cornerstone of civilisation"...pretty sweeping. It is the cornerstone of differentiation - so family, to tribal clan, to city state, to nation. Loving commitment to what? To all beings? To all life, or just those that are deemed (more) worthy? Loving commitment in the sense of attachment can as easily be sen as the cornerstone of conflict - and to that extent it is true, because our civilisation is based upon conflict.

 

The point in Altis's letters was reflected in what happened to certain Jedi who turned, because they didn't want to see the Republic fall to the war and to the Sith. This was part of what was used to turn Dooku and Matthew Stover would say was Mace's motivations behind the fight with Palpatine. In this case, it was to an ideal that had been so much of a cornerstone of society, that it was difficult to see the dangers presented in trying to preserve that which was already past saving. In Anakin's case, it was a much more specific attachment which was to a person and to a point in time that was deemed perfect.

 

The idea is that, because they're so obsessed with "not turning to the dark side" they put in place policies that, while they may protect Jedi from "falling" do a lot of harm in other respects.

 

In Revenge of the Sith, Yoda tells the wookiees, "Miss you I will." You could handwave this as just a polite goodbye with no bearing on Jedi doctrine, but it strikes me as hypocritical that Yoda tells Anakin not to miss murdered loved ones, but himself says he will miss his own friends. This one line may not prove Yoda wrong in-universe, but out-of-universe I take it as a bit of a Freudian slip, an indication that Lucas did intend to show the Jedi Council stance as "messed up" and meant for us to feel like Yoda asks too much.

 

I'm not sure that the Jedi's philosophy on attachment was intended to be portrayed as messed up. The philosophy essentially holds true in terms of what we see unfold. I wonder if it was more a case of it being clumsily executed through the writing.

 

There's a difference in saying good-bye to a friend that you won't see again and mourning someone to the point that you give into fear, anger and hatred, then betray everyone you ever cared for, because you were too selfish to begin with.

 

Yeah, there is, and I think recognising it is clearly the intention. But is that made sufficiently clear? The conversation between Anakin and Yoda often comes up as problematic in the sense that the message seems too arbitrary.

 

The way the Order is presented it makes it pretty clear their ideals are pretty unlivable if they are taken literally. The only why I can reconcile their code and manner of conduct is that they are aspirations to strive for NOT demands.

 

Yes. Yoda says he will miss Chewie and Obiwan viewed Anakin as a brother, so I think it's probably intended that the Jedi allow close relationships, the breaking of which will cause a sense of loss and mourning, as is normal and natural. The intention, I think, is that a Jedi should never get to the point where he or she is tempted to try and use the force to prevent these relationships from reaching their inevitable end. In other words, from accepting that attachments will all eventually be broken. I'm not sure that this is what's portrayed in the films though.

 

Yeah . . . that's a lesson both Anakin and Yoda, along with a few others, failed to learn.