Jedi Teachings Flawed?

Sure, you can have POVs, and everyone does view the Saga differently, but how can you support your POV when the only support you have is that it was the WOF, which you can't even be sure about in the first place?

I'm sorry, the Jedi love the Sith? Is that why they have no objections to killing them? Why they believe the Sith are the ones throwing the Force out of balance, and the ones that are clouding the "Light" side. They don't hate the Sith because Jedi don't hate, but love? I don't think so.

As for the Sith Throwing the Force out of balance, how can anyone be so sure of that? Why couldn't it be the simple fact that the Jedi's lack of "vision" of the Galaxy's "greater good" has taken its own course and has gone the wrong way? In my opinion, it's a mixture of the Sith's "evil" and the Jedi's lack of understanding.

Also, love is what makes this world go round, and what makes the GFFA complete as well (for the regular beings anyway). If the Jedi really wanted to do what was right for the citizens, they would need to understand them, correct? And if they can't understand them, then how can they really be helping them?

 

True, the Jedi don't love the Sith and I was hoping I'd be called out on that one. What I meant by the Jedi love the Sith however is that the Jedi are always willing for the Sith to atone for their ways and return to the Light, the Sith just aren't willing to. It would definitely be more accurately categorized as a lack of hate and a willingness to forgive them than anything else. All of the Sith but Vader however don't wish forgiveness and as such the Jedi don't operate on it being a likely possiblity.

The Sith throwing it out of balance is in my eyes confirmed by the fact that the destruction of the Sith is stated to be what causes balance to be achieved both in-universe by Obi-Wan and out of universe by Lucas.

The Jedi do understand them enough for Jedi to have friendships with beings out of the Order as shown by Obi-Wan's friendship with Dex. The Jedi themselves control their emotions to a greater extent than most non-Force Sensitives, but they have to if they are going to resist the Dark Side.

 

That quote is from the commentary on the Attack Of The Clones DVD, is it not? The thing is that Lucas talks in riddles because the Star Wars saga is a riddle. The thing is just because Lucas babbles on about why the Jedi believe in their code does not mean that Lucas believes the code is a good thing.

Lucas doesn't talk about Star Wars the way some of us here at theforce.net do. What some of here at theforce.net believe is that the Jedi and the people of the Republic brought the Empire upon themselves. The Sith did not make the people or Jedi do anything they weren't already doing or weren't willing to do. The Jedi chose poorly when they took control of that clone army. The Jedi corrupted themselves when they stood by a Republic that uses slaves to fight their battles for them. That's why it is the clones that kill the Jedi. It's poetic justice.

There are really only a couple Lucas quotes that are important. There's this one:

"The Force breaks into two sides: the living Force and a greater, cosmic Force.

The living Force makes you sensitive to other living things, makes you intuitive, and allows you to read other people's minds, et cetera.

But the greater Force has to do with destiny. In working with the Force, you can find your destiny and you can choose to either follow it, or not."

And this one:

"Anakin, as Skywalker, as a human being, was going to be extremely powerful. But he ended up losing his arms and a leg and became partly a robot. So a lot of his ability to use the Force, a lot of his powers, are curbed at this point, because, as a living form, there's not that much of him left. So his ability to be twice as good as the Emperor disappeared, and now he's maybe 20 percent less than the Emperor. So that isn't what the Emperor had in mind. He wanted this really super guy, but that got derailed by Obi-Wan."

In typical Lucas fashion, he is once again speaking in riddles, however, those two quotes are all you really need from Lucas if you're a little lost as to what the story means, but the truth is if you really pay attention to every line of dialogue and every visual, you don't even need that. But it really helps to know that Anakin cannot defeat the Emperor on his own after Obi-Wan derailed him and that there is this thing called the greater, cosmic Force.

 

However, for that to be the case one would have to be operating off the premise that the Jedi had become corrupt, I personally don't view them as such and think that Anakin chose to not follow his destiny when he became a Sith, but that in the Jedi he finally decided to follow his destiny and destroy the Sith. The Galaxy at large being so willing to fall into an Empire I view as a side-effect of the growing dominance of the Sith, I just don't think that the Dark Side's growing corruption spread into the Jedi as they were one of the few organizations that doesn't seem to be corrupt to me.

I agree that the Force guided Obi-Wan to not kill Anakin, however I don't think it was for Anakin to wait until the people of the Galaxy were no longer corrupted, but that Anakin cannot die until he destroys the Sith as it's his destiny and that as such Obi-Wan needed to spare Anakin so that the Prophecy would come true, albeit in a way that no one foresaw and not in the best way for it to have.

I agree that there are certain moral codes that must be followed given the Force but I view that morality code to be the Jedi Code, it's just that it only needs to be followed by those who are Force Sensitive, not those who are deaf to the Force.

The Jedi didn't corrupt themselves and were betrayed by the Clones even though the Jedi were the only ones who treated them like humans, and were the ones who gave them names. It's not poetic justice or justice of any kind. It's a simple betrayal by Clones who have no sense of morality but are willing tools of the Sith. The Jedi also aren't forcing the Clones to fight given that the Clones enjoyed warfare and wanted to be at war. They also weren't the Jedi's army. If anyone was forcing the Clones to fight it was the Republic, not the Jedi.

 

The Jedi are corrupt and Lucas sees it that way. That's why the Jedi Council chamber floor is dirty in Revenge Of The Sith. Or do you have an alternative reason as to why the Jedi Council chamber floor is dirty, and do me a favor don't say it's because they were too busy to clean it because the rest of the temple is spotless.

The people of the galaxy were not all good in Return Of The Jedi because it's impossible to rid the galaxy of evil but what you can do is achieve a balance.

The Jedi Code is not a morality code. It's just code that says Jedi should detach themselves from emotions.

So it would be okay if the U.S.A. and the U.K. started growing humans to fight our battles for us just as long as these brain washed humans liked killing and we gave them cute nicknames?

"Hey Commander Diddy, did you kill us some North Koreans today?"
"When have you ever known me to let you down?"

 

While that would be far more the likely in-universe reason it's clearly not why Lucas would dirty the floor. That said, looking at the ROTS DVD(more specifically the part where Anakin is denied the rank of Master) it doesn't look dirty to me, but looks spotless. It also looks no more dirty in the scene where Anakin makes his final decision to join the Sith. It also looks clean when Anakin slaughters the Younglings, so I don't know what you're talking about with regards to the floor being dirty.

In reality it is of course impossible to destroy evil however Lucas himself says that Anakin gets rid of all evil in the universe so, as of RotJ as far as the films go all evil is destroyed.

If the Jedi Code was only that then Anakin would no that making the claim that Mace was violating the Jedi Code in the killing of Sidious would be a pointless and false claim as he would in claiming that spying on the Chancellor is against the Jedi Code.

No, there's a difference between a Rogue Jedi(who while he was a member of the Council, wasn't doing the Council's will.) ordering the Clones and thus that Rogue Jedi, Sifo Dias being responsible for the growth of the Clones, and the Jedi backing the Republic by being the Generals in the Army that it chooses to field, in this case Clones.

 

it's pov. there's no absolute attached to it.
i could say, i believe in god, therefore i would view everything that happens as part of the creation. or i say, i believe in god, but i do think that humans are masters of their destiny and i could say, god doesn't exist and it's all humans screwing things up.
or whatever. and thus i approach the saga and put myself to it and complete it and i interprete. no matter what lucas says.
if he says the divine is part of it, sure, then it is. it might not be for me, and so i can have his pov and his story complement mine and so on and so forth.
through attempting an answer, through ahving the story resonate within you, you get to know yourself better and others who you share your views with.
personally i keep valuing the personal story of anakin as more important than the story of an organization, because for me organizations are made of individuals and the more room you give individuals to breathe and to contribute to the greater, the more they will feel at home and at peace. if you marginalize people due to difference in opinion or if you get to the point of not allowing a certain type of opinion to become popular you reduce something called freedom of speech and thereby also alienate a part of your greater whole you wanted to create. your organization will be less than the sum of its parts because it isn't whole and complete.
it's a failure in communication at best and at worst it has aspects of fascism (depending on how tough you are towards those who disagree).
the jedi order for me have an air of bureaucracy and efficiency which i don't wish religious organizations to have. if you believe in higher powers, what is the use of having think about this higher power alike and for everyone to have the same approach to it? we are all individuals (and i'm not) and we deserve to be granted the right to come to realize our selves in our time and not some prescribed time.

either way you will never ever need lucas to tell you about his tale because what he wanted to say is his tale, everything else is secondary waffle to me. if you think anakin is the chosen one (and there's plenty support for that notion alone) you can think so, you can also come out thinking maybe it's luke. and none is wrong. it's just what you bring to the tale yourself.

for me the saga is about so many things, so many themes resonate within so i don't quite know and i wouldn't even want to narrow it down. coz, you see, if i could stash it in a book altogether and could make people read it, what would be the point of having films?

anyway, great quote in your sig, starwalker. is that from the NJO books?

 

It's from the Legacy of the Force book, Betrayal. I also do agree that it's pov. I'm not positive that I'm right, do I think I am? Of course. I however fully understand that while it's how I see it, it's not going to be how someone else sees it.

As far as the quote, I think you'd like the longer version more as there's an important part that I had to cut off due to the character limit. The entire quote is

"Jedi are among the most pragmatic beings in the galaxy. We tend to operate under the assumption that it's better to get things done than to observe all the niceties-we consider justice to be of more consequence than law, for instance. Even justice is often overrated. Sometimes the imposition of justice prevents redemption."


I also do think that it's a quote you'd never hear out of any of the Prequel Jedi as they do seem to be solely concerned with justice. I do view Luke's way as a better way, I just don't view the old ways as being corrupt.

 

the quote seems to be a healthy approach to actions IMO.

you cannot get everything right, it's an impossibility. and you cannot be everything to everyone. realizing that and working within that is pragmatism, i guess. not realizing it is arrogance.

i guess it depends on your definition of corruption. i don't think i really labelled them as corrupt, just as having lost their way big time. sort of acting out self-righteously based on the strong belief that whatever they do is right. and also being afraid of changing what they do. it seems a combination of fear of change and being comfortable where they are which are both terribly useless traits if you want to reach the next level.

 

Oh, really?

While the core values expressed by the Jedi Code might have great intrinsic value, Lucas depicts, in my opinion, what T.S. Eliot described as: "Between the idea/And the reality/Between the motion/And the act/Falls the Shadow." What happens to Qui Gon when he first expresses a desire to train Anakin? He is told that "the Code forbids it" ("it" being the taking on of more than one apprentice). But the Jedi later bend/break the Code by getting Anakin to spy on the Chancellor (Anakin points this out to Obi Wan; Obi Wan doesn't deny it) and even later by attempting to assassinate him.

The floor is dirty -- but it's hard to spot.

I'm not sure whether Lucas willfully allowed it to become scuffed or not. If he did, then considering his fastidiousness and micromanaging of the films, especially their visual elements, two possibilites present themselves: 1) He did it for a subliminal "lived in" feel (always sought to some degree in each film) 2) He did it to highlight the Jedi Order's moral laxness in a subtle manner for those searching deeper. I really don't know which of the two it could be. If it's the latter, however, then it's a nice metaphor: the blemishes are hard to see, but present all the same, perhaps paralleling the Jedi's own lack of vision, and visually describing the ratio of corruption to virtue (i.e. minimal corruption -- but corruption nonetheless).

 

the problem with the code seems to be that it's not being taught, that it's being lectured. i.e. you follow it without understanding the intrinsic value.

there is a value to the no attachments rule and such but it's not something you can just demand and then that's it. if it's not understood, then it's useless. it's like saying you have to be virtuous to a little kid and demanding that kid to be virtuous. it simply doesn't work, because you don't understand the value of the virtues.

or something like that.

 

Exactly why I think that the Jedi teachings themselves aren't flawed whereas the Jedi at times bend it too much and at times not enough. I'm not arguing that the Order isn't flawed as no institution is perfect. The assassination attempt I'm not as sure is against the Code given that of the two Jedi in the office it is only the one who honestly believes Palpatine is defenseless as well as who has something to gain through Palpatine's survival that brings it up. If Sidious was really unarmed then it would clearly be against the Code as implied by Palpatine's taunts to get Luke to strike him down with his hatred as well as Anakin's killing of Dooku.

I'll take your word for it on the floor as my TV is admittedly not the largest thing, and it's also of a fairly low resolution so I could have easily missed it. If it's dirty and Lucas purposefully made it so then I agree that he did it either for the lived in look that RotS begins to transition towards and/or to parallel the Jedi's corruption(assuming he sees them as such.)

 

The dirt is there on every single shot featuring the Jedi Council floor in ROTS - see here:
[image=http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e345/mandraxx/Bitmap167.jpg]
(please click to enlarge)

and it never was there in TPM and ROTS.

I find it hard to believe that Lucas simply forgot to wipe the floor when shooting every one of these scenes.

But Yoda, in ROTS, in effect didn't do any better. He simply told Anakin to train himself to let go, without telling him how to do so.

With respect to spiritual teachings in general, the american psychologist Stephen Wolinsky has made the (imo convincing) point that many teachings that preach detachment are working fine as long as the adept is living in a monastery but break down for even accomplished masters as soon as they attempt to live these teachings in an everyday modern society. I think this assessment is perfectly valid for the Jedi teachings, and Anakin, as a child that's been raised outside the order up to the age of ten, is the example of what happens when one tries to apply these teachings for someone who actually has a life outside said monastery. For the PT Jedi teachings to work out, children have to be taken from their family and raised up in the temple. The Jedi even know this: "He is too old" - they don't accept students above a certain, very young age ordinarily.

As such, the Jedi teachings are ineffectual as a role model for ordinary people. They are even ineffectual as a role model for people who haven't been taught from infancy. No matter how you turn it, they have failed to educate Anakin to be a responsibly acting Jedi, even tough they knew about his pivotal importance as "the Chosen One". And this isn't only for Obi-Wan, who may be excused due to his inexperience, but also for Yoda and the rest of the council who failed to act on Obi-Wan's concerns when he voiced them.

I think it is fair to argue that the Jedi teachings were flawed - not that the basic code principles were flawed, but that the way they used to convey them were flawed, because their effectiveness was dependent on the student being raised in the temple from infancy. And no, I don't think that accepting Anakin that late was the real flaw. To me, spiritual teachings, if they are of any worth to society, must be teachable not only to people who are raised from infancy and continue to live in a temple ever since. If the Jedi want to be a role model for society, their teachings must be accessible and teachable, at least in principle, to ordinary people as well. This is what almost every spiritual order in our world strives to achieve: Making their teachings relevant for ordinary people, not only for people living in a monastery. As the Jedi teachings clearly weren't of any use for people who haven't been raised in the monastery, they are clearly flawed teachings to me.

p.s.: Master Shaitan, with your last post you've

 

The floor is dirty in every Jedi Council chamber scene in Revenge Of The Sith, however, the different camera angles and lighting make it difficult to see the dirt in some of the scenes and this was most likely done on purpose. The scene in which the dirt is most prominent is when the Council votes to send Obi-Wan to Utapau, but the dirt is in all the other scene and is always the same. I have a book called "The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith" and within the book are numberous prodution photos of the Jedi Council chamber even one with Lucas standing in the middle of the Jedi Council chamber and the floor is dirty so the set's floor was really painted to appear as if it was dirty. And here's the thing about the dirt, it's not like the dirt was tracked in. No, it's as if dirty liquid has oozed up through the joints of the flooring and then left a dirty residue after it dried. I would also like to point out that Lucas uses other symbolism to show the Jedi are corrupt. Notice their one man fighters are similar to the fighters that the villians of the OT commanded, while the clones' fighters are similar to those that the heroes of the OT commanded. I would also like you to notice how in Attack Of The Clones the Jedi start to draw their weapons first, not all the time in that episode, however, by Revenge Of The Sith, they always draw their weapons first in every showdown with a Sith, the Jedi draw first. Very unlike a keeper of the peace.

Lucas just babbles on and on but he never defines what balance means. Killing a single man brings balance? Then why does Obi-Wan say that the Force is an energy field that is created by all living things if it just takes the killing of one man to bring balance to it? Why in the Revenge Of The Sith novel does Mace say the Sith do not create the darkness, if it just takes the death of one man to bring the Force out of the darkness? Until Lucas defines what balance is then none of us truly know because there is dialogue in the movie and in the novels that contradicts Lucas when he claims balance is brought by the death of two Sith.

Cryrogenic is more into the meaning of balance than me. I'm just a guy who claims the Jedi are corrupt, the people of the Republic are corrupt and all Palpatine did was nurture the darkness that resides within all people and that is why the Force became dark. It is also my belief that the Force was already unbalanced before Palpatine even became Chancellor. The Force was already becoming unbalanced before Anakin was even born. Anakin is the central figure of an ancient prophecy. The prophecy came to pass so that means a higher power handed down the prophecy so this higher power must be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent if it sees events ahead of their time. So if this higher power created Anakin then it must have known that bad times were coming because why would it take the time to create the central figure of a prophecy if there was nothing for the central figure to do?

 

That's completely true, and I'm sure I view the Saga differently then some of you here, but I'm just saying, they are simply theories. Things that we as fans just thought of due to the way we see the movies, but if there ever was a "right" way to view the saga, do you agree it would be Lucas' way because he is the creator?

Don't get me wrong, there is no "right" way (hence the quotations) but I guess I'm saying the "rightest" way...

But you'll notice that at roughly the sametime Vader realized what was going on, Luke became the ultimate Jedi. Is it not a possibility that when the Sith were killed and the Jedi were killed, and the one person left (Luke) was alive, that that was what caused balance of the Force because the only Force-user left was a balanced one (of Light and Dark I mean)?

Tell me if I'm making no sense

 

The dirt representing the corruption of the Council is one possible interpretation, another would be that the darkness within the galaxy is finally seeping into the highest levels of good and that the darkness which does look to be oozing through the floor and have dried would represent that evil is everywhere, even in the Republic.

Yes, the Jedi do use ships similar to those used by the villains of the OT, however they've also used ships similar to the heroes of RotJ in AotC given that the AOTC Starfighter looks a lot like the A-Wing. I also would think that the Jedi use of TIE-esque fighters was simply because Lucas's main focus in the Prequels is on the story of Anakin Skywalker, and as such any way to foreshadow Vader within Anakin is a plus.


As far as the Jedi drawing first in the Prequels, it's true that they do draw first but, that's hardly surprising given that they're the ones confronting the Sith who are for the most part either trying to flee or stay hidden.

There's no dialogue in the movies that I see that contradicts Lucas's definition of balance as being brought with the death of Palpatine, as far as the

 

I always saw it as Luke not classifying his actions as being either "Light" or "Dark." He's just being himself. If he was more of a "Light" sider, then why would he love his father so much? There's no doubt he has an attachment to him (he wouldn't leave him). That's why I think he's found balance within himself as well, because he's not dictating his feelings (what the Force is telling him to do) by constantly thinking "is this not the Jedi way?"

 

He's not a traditional Jedi, but he's still far more light in that he doesn't give into his anger and hate.

 

See those images of those little babies in embryonic fluid? Those images are either going to make you think about what's right and wrong or they're not. Like I've said Star Wars is a visual story and the audience decides what is relevant. Either you think taking those little babies and turning them into mindless killers is moral or immoral. I don't really care if you believe me or not.

I'm just going to put this out there for you one more time because I do have a life and I can't be hanging out on this message board forever. Star Wars exists from two points of view. One point of view is what you've been explaining to me for days and you've done a fine job. And you're right about it all. What you're stuck on is the mortal point of view of the story. What I've been trying without any success to explain is the other point of view. The point of view of the higher power that is watching the mortal story unfold.

Lucas doesn't talk about the point of view of the higher power but it's there, and the symbolism is the key to unlocking it. The truth is if someone came to me a few years ago with some crazy talk about Star Wars gods that are never seen in the movies, I would have reacted the same way you have reacted to me.

However, I will tell you that you're wrong about the Delta-7 Jedi Starfighter. It's not supposed to resemble an A-Wing but I can appreciate why you would think that. It supposed to resemble a Star Destroyer.

The Jedi starfighter's basic shape is derived from the Star Destroyers of the original trilogy, suggesting that many of the noble designs of the Republic were subverted and claimed by the Empire following the Clone Wars. --starwars.com/Jedi starfighter databank/Behind the scenes

Like I've said, Lucas just blathers on and on about the point of view of the mortals. Of course, it's his story and whatever he says is true from a point of view of course.

"I knew from the beginning that I was not doing science fiction. I was doing a space opera, a fantasy film, a mythological piece, a fairy tale.

Originally, I was trying to have the story be told by somebody else; there was somebody watching this whole story and recording it, somebody probably wiser than the mortal players in the actual events. I eventually dropped this idea, and the concepts behind the Whills turned into the Force. But the Whills became part of this massive amount of notes, quotes, background information that I used for the scripts; the stories were actually taken from the 'Journal of the Whills'." --George Lucas, The Annotated Screenplays


Yeah, he says he dropped the idea and concepts behind the Whills but what he doesn't say is that he just dropped the idea and concept of having the Whills be seen in the movies.

George remarks to Rob Coleman that the story of Star Wars is actually recounted by R2-D2 to the Keeper of the Whills, one hundred years after Return Of The Jedi. ---The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith

If the Whills aren't part of the story then why is the story recounted by R2 to the Whills. You know that's why it says "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, and that's why the crawls are in third person.

 

Yeah, you're making sense.

The Old Jedi Order should have never detached themselves from their emotions to the degree with which they did because a person needs their emotions or they become empty shells that no longer know the difference between right and wrong, they become indifferent. The Old Jedi Order was the polar opposite of the Sith, but there has to be a balance.

Luke is the balance that every person needs.
He is not detached from his emotions and he does not allow his emotions to consume him. He has found a happy medium. The balance.

 

I can definitely see the Star Destroyer influence now that it's been pointed out.

I do find that interesting and I hadn't thought about it that way.

The existence of Whills is still basically canon anyway given that they're the ones who taught Qui-Gon how to retain his identity as I'm sure you know. Now, what their role is I'm less sure but I'd prefer to think of it as the Whills hearing the story from R2 as I always liked that old concept.

 

Ah, gee, why do you pin this stuff on me?

Seriously, though, thanks for mentioning me.

Palpatine really did nurture that balance. He does the minimum effort throughout the saga. That is why Lucas has him sitting most of the time. It also explains his extravagant claim in Episode II of loving democracy and the Republic (i.e. "democracy" -- derived from the Greek "demos" meaning "people" -- Palpatine loves the flaws of people). The images of him flinging pods at Yoda in Episode III are a visual confirmation of the verbal: Palpatine uses the tools of democracy to destroy democracy. Palpatine also tells Anakin that he "must choose" when faced with saving him or letting Mace kill him. In the preceding reveal scene, Palpatine's very power seems derived from the hate and negative emotions of others, hence his rapturous remark to Anakin: "I can feel your anger!" Before that, Palpatine tells Anakin that he's "depending" on him. Palpatine even begins his six-film campaign by preying on the greed and fear of the Nemoidians (which he later repeats on a more complex level with Anakin, culminating in Anakin killing those very people that Palpatine began manipulating, completing the circle). There are motifs all over the saga that support this important idea.

Yes. His final appearance is a visual confirmation of this: fresh grey flap over older black cloth. Luke is literally a shade of grey.

 

The dead Jedi Master had discovered an esoteric yet powerful technique to preserve identity even after death. A Force ability honed outside the Jedi order, this method was developed by a Shaman of the Whills. ---starwars.com/Yoda databank

A shaman as I'm sure you know is just a mortal member of certain tribal societies who acts as a medium between the visible world and an invisible spirit world and who practices magic or sorcery for purposes of healing, divination, and control over natural events.

So since this mortal holds the title of shaman then this person might believe in a supernatural being or supernatural beings. Since Lucasfilm calls this person a Shaman of the Whills then we could ascertain that this particular shaman believes in supernatural beings called Whills.

In Star Wars, Lucas has a rational explanation for everything even if you have to read starwars.com databanks, but it's probably just a point of view. I don't believe Qui-Gon retained his identity because of the teachings of the shaman. I believe he was given his identity because he believed in Anakin.

Like I have mentioned before, if there is a higher power watching these mortals then they are being watched to make sure they are doing the right thing. Cloning people, stealing half their life, and taking away their free will is not the right thing to do. These mortals can rationlize why growing these soldiers is a good thing, but that doesn't make it less of a crime. However, it didn't just start with the cloning, that was just the final straw. It started when the good people did nothing to protect the weak from the evil. That's why Anakin, an innocent child, was born into bondage, because the good people would not fight for those who could not fight for themselves. Because fighting for the freedom and safety of others is the most righteous thing a mortal can do in the eyes of a higher power.

 

I agree with everything except that Palpatine was nurturing the balance.

I do agree that Luke is certainly a more balanced individual, that said I don't think that the old way were wrong either. Luke has his emotions but doesn't go Dark because he resists them consuming him. I'd liken the difference between the two Jedi Orders to be the difference between Catholicism and Protestants. They both believe in most of the same fundimentals and are both equally valid, just different.(not specifically stuck on that example, it just seems to work for my view of them.)

 

Oops! That was a typo. That should read: "Palpatine really did nurture that darkness."