"Only a Sith deals in absolutes..."

In response to "Whipnsky"

My quote:
"And thirdly, if you wait until Bush (or ANY president for that matter) declares the U.S. an "empire" and stays more than two terms (in violation of the Constitution) and kills political dissidents, then guess what: YOU'VE WAITED TOO LONG!!!"


Whipnsky's response to me:
"funny, something tells me you wouldn't necessarily apply that reasoning to someone like.....


SADDAM?? "

My current response:
Sorry Whipnsky but you're wrong. I do apply the same reasoning to Saddam. The world supported him for too long as well, and I'm very glad he's out of power. Unfortunately, we supported him back when he was still stoppable and we are just as responsible as anyone else for helping him get the level of power he got. Too bad so many people forget that part (or never learn it to begin with). Look at your world history in the 1980s. We supported Saddam and gave him lots of power back when we were fighting Iran. We helped make him into the tyrant he became. So not only did we wait too long, if it weren't for our help, he may have never been able to do the horrible things he did.

 

This thread contains some of the most intelligent posts I've seen at TFN (and some of the dumbest.)

SonofGrevious, I totally agree with what you said. I loved ROTS but that line was such a blatant editorial comment it made me sick. BTW Lucas is a socialist and political cheapshots are his bag. Noting of course Nute Gunray being the bumbling doofus who causes problems for everyone based on personal greed and his name being an amalgam of Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan (two of my idols.)

Whoever said that we aren't 'considering the context' is insane. The context was Obi-Wan's final realization that his friend was lost forever. The line was delivered in such as manner as if to say 'he's dealing in absolutes, I have no choice but to kill him.'

What in the world is wrong with dealing in absolutes? Let's say for example, I call Adolf Hitler evil. Am I letting my personal feelings weigh in on that too much? Afterall, Eva Braun probably thought he was a knight in shining armor. So I guess it all depends on point of view then eh?

 

So darth_java, what you're saying is that you agree Saddam should have been removed but it should have been done sooner. Ever heard of "better late than never?" ...or do two wrongs make a right?

 

Don't hate me but I tend to say this whenever a thread begins to get TOO serious...

ITS ONLY A MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I have said this before in another thread, but I am just going to say it again. Lucas's attempt to make a political statement with this line falls flat. As many of you pointed out...Obi-Wan's response, is, in itself, an absolute. Add that to the fact that this response also seems to contradict Yoda's wise statement in TESB:

'Do or do not. There is no try.'

That is an absolute too. And as someone pointed out, Jesus says in the Book of Matthew:

'He who is not with me is against me' (Matthew 12:23 [NIV])

Hmm...so now Jesus is an evil Sith Lord too? LOL!


Come on George. You don't need to be taking political jabs, especially ones that don't make any sense to begin with.


-matt

 

>> Come on George. You don't need to be taking political jabs, especially ones that don't make any sense to begin with. <<<

...and that's exactly what it was, a political jab. The courageous response would have been:

Anakin: You're either with me or against me!
Obi-Wan: Anakin, what you're with is evil, therefore I'm against you!

Instead Lucas took the easy road and put in absolutes line that was such a big hit at the Cannes Film festival where moral relativism is the order of the day.

 

I don't see this line as being a contradiction. I think what Obi-wan meant was that Jedi don't react to others in terms of absolutes. Yes Yoda says you either try or fail, but Yoda accepts Luke for training even thoug he refers to him as reckless. If Yoda treated people with absolutes, he might have rejected him on this basis, instead he chooses to work through Luke's faults. The Jedi believe in negotiation, they rarely kill Seperatists leaders, and even Palpatine, a Sith lord is charged with arrest before Mace breaks down and tries to kill him. Obi-wan isn't saying you can't have firm beliefs, but you can't condemn others if they don't agree with you. That's the point of democracy, which the Jedi support.

And I do admit is was a jab, and it made me laugh.

 

"Noting of course Nute Gunray being the bumbling doofus who causes problems for everyone based on personal greed and his name being an amalgam of Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan (two of my idols.)"

Elle Wan, you're a Sith.

I'm just kidding, you're just ignorant for liking Newt and Ronny. Two of the most evil and stupid Americans ever. ROTS indirectly pokes fun at Republican Evangelical Christians as narrow minded individuals that live in absolutes. It's actually............true.

I'm not a Liberal or Conservative, to deal with labels is to deal in absolutes. And I'm no Sith. .

ROTS= Best sci-fi movie EVER.

 

Jedi don't see things in absolutes.

"There is still good in you. I can feel it."

All things are shades of grey. I don't expect everybody to agree with that, but if you study Taoism and Buddhism, which played such a great role in forming G-Lu's ideas about the Force, then you'll understand readily where he's coming from. Any absolute is an oversimplification. The middle way is always the truest way.

And honestly, I think this relates to the idea that Anakin was supposed to "return balance to the force." In fact, Anakin did return balance to the force. The Sith had been defeated and in hiding for hundreds of years. "Balance" means an interplay between both sides. With the Old Republic dominated by good, and with the Sith nearly powerless for so long, an increase in Sith strength and activity meant a return of balance to the Force.

Balance does not mean "good defeats evil" -- it means both sides exert power. Of course, it appears that with ROTS we see the balance tipping TOO strongly toward the Sith, as the empire rises up. So, I suppose, technically it can be argued that Anakin didn't bring "balance" but rather tipped the imbalance from an excess of Jedi power to an excess of Sith power.

In any case, the notion "only a Sith deals in absolutes" is, I think, true. To view things as simple black-and-white is to overlook the subtleties and complexities. A person who "deals in absolutes" can never understand a situation completely, and thus cannot dispense justice wisely, nor lead people wisely.

And it's amusing, BTW, to see who this line "struck a nerve" with, and who's jumping up to squeal about it!

And if Lucas is a "Socialist" somehow, then he's an extremely bad one, as I have not received even a DIME of the profits from ROTS -- not to mention AOTC, TPM, ROTJ, ESB and ANH. Come on, George, pay up, you Socialist! LOL!

 

This idea of only sith dealing in absolutes is utterly devoid of any truth.

Thats a sad thing for Lucas to add such a line to the FINAL star wars movie, when he always has championed the values of goodness and truth, right and wrong via the jedi code, and talks of the series of star wars films as a kind of morality myth for youngsters.

If only the sith deal in absolutes ( which include things like truth and goodness for example) then the jedis are walking on sinking sand never knowing any moral absolutes and basically living a lie in trying to justify their role of maitaining justice and peace.

 

JEDIondo-APESTOSO said:
I'm just kidding, you're just ignorant for liking Newt and Ronny. Two of the most evil and stupid Americans ever. ROTS indirectly pokes fun at Republican Evangelical Christians as narrow minded individuals that live in absolutes. It's actually............true.




-matt

 

Actually, the Jedi do deal in absolutes throughout the entire Prequel Triology, and this line gives voice to that being the reason for their downfall.

To those claiming that the Jedi do deal in absolutes: CORRECT. Until Episode IV, when Obi-Wan begins talking about "a certain point of view," until Yoda relearns from Qui-Gon why fighting a war for the republic was not the proper role for the spiritual monks that are supposed to be Jedi, until Luke discovers that winning the war actually involves throwing down the saber and taking another, more spiritual approach toward victory, until we finally learn that Anakin is the Chosen One and does fulfill the prophecy (but not in the way it was literally interpreted), yes, the Jedi do deal in absolutes just like the Sith. They get lured into playing the Sith's absolutism game, even while thinking that they are superior to it, and get squashed for it.

To those claiming that Lucas was trying to make a political statement with the line: CORRECT. And a pretty cogent one at that. Those who deal solely in absolutes fall. The Sith deal in absolutes in the OT, so they are blindsided by an attack of a different sort in Luke's refusal to fight and ultimately fall. The Jedi deal in absolutes in the PT, get drawn into an unwinnable war, and fall. Obi-Wan's ironic line is meant to illustrate that the Jedi have taken the wrong path as much as it is meant to excoriate the ways of the Sith.

To those claiming Obi-Wan is wrong to say only the Sith deal in absolutes: CORRECT. But that's what Lucas has been saying for three movies. The Jedi structure of the temple and council is based on absolutes, and thus, has become as bloated, inefficient, and weighed down as the Senate. The Jedi have become so entrenched in absolutes that Mace can say "we are not soldiers but peace-keepers" in one episode, and then run alongside Clonetroopers in the next. To put it bluntly, the Jedi are wrong because they too are absolutists. They are too institutionally rigid and not spiritual enough ... that is, until Obi and Yoda reconnect with Qui-Gon and learn about the Living Force, the certain points of view, the fact that always trying to predict the future (as Yoda did in the PT) is not as smart as focusing on WHERE HE WAS, WHAT HE WAS DOING (as he preached to Luke in the OT).

It was a genius line for those who appreciate irony. Leave current politics out of it. The Jedi went down a Sith path, and paid the price. Remember the lesson of the cave? Yoda had a long time to think about changing his curriculum ...

 

<<<Thats a sad thing for Lucas to add such a line to the FINAL star wars movie, when he always has championed the values of goodness and truth, right and wrong via the jedi code, and talks of the series of star wars films as a kind of morality myth for youngsters.

If only the sith deal in absolutes ( which include things like truth and goodness for example) then the jedis are walking on sinking sand never knowing any moral absolutes and basically living a lie in trying to justify their role of maitaining justice and peace.>>>>

Lucas IS championing values of goodness and truth. The moral of the story is that love defeats evil, and violence isn't always the answer. That's how balence is brought to the force. The Jedi in the PT do sometimes deal in absolutes (ammeding what I said earlier), they had no business working for the government. That's why Anakin destroyed their arrogant and dogmatic order, and via love, conquered the Sith. I doubt, if Lucas made a VII VIII and IX, that Luke would work for the new republic the way Mace and Yoda worked for the old.

 

The Jedi Order did not work for the Republic in the sense that they're hired like an employee; they were an independent body hence their disdain at the Chancellor appointing Anakin as Palpatine's representative. The Jedi Order became involved/allied with the Republic because they saved it from the Sith 1,000 years ago. Unfortunately, the Republic came to rely on the Jedi as galactic marshalls and the Jedi gradually fell into that practice because no one could, seeminly, do it better. With how good the Jedi are, it would be hard pressed for a new order to not be involved with the Republic in some capacity.

As Obi-Wan said in ROTS, he (presumably the Jedi as a whole at the time) served democracy, not the government and not as governmental employees; the Jedi were an autonomous body that sought to protect the principle founding of the Republic, which is why they tried to take down Palpatine.

Even then, the Jedi Order was not necessarily arrogant (only Yoda mentions that some are like this, but that's 'human' nature) anymore than they were dogmatic. Any religious order is going to have dogma-a set of beliefs the order believes to be true. Having a dogma is not automatically bad; there is a fine line between confidence in one's beliefs and arrogance. With the Jedi, it is paramount they are sure in their dogma lest they fall to the Dark Side.

The problems that beset the Jedi was more gradual complacency (eventually happens) and the Republic's reliance on the Jedi to do everything.


Ciou-See the Sig

 

JEDIondo-APESTOSO said:
I'm just kidding, you're just ignorant for liking Newt and Ronny. Two of the most evil and stupid Americans ever.

ignorant for liking

most evil and stupid

so now you are dealing in absolutes too?

i sense this thread is leading people to the darkside

 

Is it possible to say anything at all in this forum without it being an absolute?

 

yeah kermit it is kinda hard to discuss without "dealing in absolutes" which makes it clear that this line cannot really be applied out of the context of the film

 

My Opinion:

-If anything, this is an unintentional jab!

-The line stands out to those whose minds focus in this territory, but it also works very well in the context of the action.

In the film:

Anakin states, "If you are not with me, then you are my enemy!"

Obi-wan counters, "Only a sith deals in absolutes. I shall do what I must."

Call me crazy, but I believe that a key word is being overlooked; " DEALS." Obi-wan is told by Anakin that he will be killed if he is not completely with him in his decision, and obviously, Obi-wan is not entirely on Anakin's side, though he still wanted to try and save him. Another thing to not overlook in the context of the scene is the very important second line which follows this controversy. When Obi-wan hears this, he answers by stating that only a sith deals (takes action/dishes out payment)in absolutes, and that he, being a jedi, was only going to do what he must in this situation.

There is an important difference to be mentioned with "saying" versus "dealing." President Bush may speak in absolutes, but he does not entirely act/deal in absolute territory. He may say certain things that are close to what Anakin stated; but in the end, will President Bush order the purge of all the Muslims (no disrespect intended) to make his own reign/country seem stronger, when all he really needs to do is remove a few governing leaders from office? No. Mr. Bush may speak in absolutes (or the person who writes his speeches?), but he is known to be a very religious man and would probably only, "do what he must."

 

Moriarte, I can't say that I actually disagree with the content of your post, it's more that I feel you are being too lenient on the Jedi. It is true that they are autonomous from the Senate, but by protecting a corrupt body, they associate themselves with that corruption. Also, the Jedi dogma stated that Luke should have extinguished his love for his friends and his father. Obviously that would be a mistake because that love fueled his determination and allowed the chosen one to bring ballence, respectivley. Finally, if the Jedi were not a problem, (to the force, and maybe the galaxy) then I do not understand the inclusion of Qui-gon (at the expense of Obi-wan's character development) into the story. Qui-gon understands that the rules of the order are flawed. He also knows that you must strengthen your connection to the living force, including other people, which the other detached Jedi were not prone to do. Qui-gon seems to be the example of what a jedi *should* be; he is connected, he trusts his feelings over the rigidity of the jedi code, and he focuses on the here and now, unlike Yoda. In other words, Lucas set up Qui-gon as a dynamic counter-point to the rest of the order, and then showed that Qui-gon was right in the end. While individual jedi may have been good, the order itself needed to be destroyed to bring ballence to the force.

 

You got it -AE-. It's been said on this thread already many many times.

He didn't say, 'Only the Sith SAY absolute things' he said they only 'DEAL' in absolute things.

That's different.

I don't get how people are saying the Jedi also deal in absolutes. Not a single example anyone's given - when they've given any at all - are absolute. I believe one was where Mace says they're not soldiers but peacekeepers then they're generals one movie later.

Seems to me that is an ADAPTION and thus the Jedi are NOT being absolutist about their roles in the Republic.

And Instead Lucas took the easy road and put in absolutes line that was such a big hit at the Cannes Film festival where moral relativism is the order of the day.

You say 'moral relativism' like it's a bad thing.


EDITED TO ADD:

darth sennin

but by protecting a corrupt body, they associate themselves with that corruption.

Yes, but not all the Senators are corrupt. What about the Jedi associating themselves with them? No absolutes, remember?

Also, the Jedi dogma stated that Luke should have extinguished his love for his friends and his father.

No no and no again. Only his ATTACHMENT. He can love them all he wants.

Obviously that would be a mistake because that love fueled his determination and allowed the chosen one to bring ballence, respectivley.

It was compassion. You know, the Jedi thing? Otherwise how can ANYone love someone they've just met and don't know much about? Do you think Luke would still 'love' him if he knew about Padme and all the murdered children?

Finally, if the Jedi were not a problem, (to the force, and maybe the galaxy) then I do not understand the inclusion of Qui-gon (at the expense of Obi-wan's character development) into the story. Qui-gon understands that the rules of the order are flawed.

Does he? Or does Qui-Gon merely think he's right? HE could be an example of the arrogance of the Jedi. Even GL says Qui-Gon was wrong about training Anakin.

He also knows that you must strengthen your connection to the living force, including other people, which the other detached Jedi were not prone to do.

Yet he ignored his padawan's warnings. His padawan who could see the 'bigger picture'. What did that end up costing them all?

In other words, Lucas set up Qui-gon as a dynamic counter-point to the rest of the order, and then showed that Qui-gon was right in the end.

Or he was the personified arrogant Jedi. He was right in the end, but at what cost?

While individual jedi may have been good, the order itself needed to be destroyed to bring ballence to the force.

The fact that the Jedi survived through nearly impossible odds indicates that they WEREN'T intended to be destroyed. THAT was Qui-Gon's mistake. So the Force insured that they did.

 

GTyper: This bothers me. It seems that a lot of people are wholly confused as to the nature of our govenment. Let me explain it:

America is NOT a democracy. America was NEVER supposed to be a democracy. There is NOTHING democratic about the American government.

Democracy is a fallicy on the same level with true communism. Neither philosophy for governance is efficient or effective.

The US is a republic.

I am well aware that the US is a democratic republic. I, as many do, use the term "democracy" to cover a broad range of different governments that are "elected" by their constituents.

While democracy in it's true form does not work, to say that "there is NOTHING democratic about the American government" though, is false. While our officials are elected by a majority vote by the people, it is weighted with certain "safeguards" such as the Electoral College so that it is more the will of the regions or states, rather than resting with simply the majority vote.

GTyper said: Not to draw parallels, but do you really and truly believe these governments are independant?

Political people tend to call these forms of rule: "puppet governments".

The US has consistantly placed in power the people they want, and when it doesn't work out - we go back and redo the whole thing.

Whoa, to call the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq "puppet governments" is totally absurd. Yes, the US has in the past set up governments friendly to the US, i.e. Vietnam, but many of those were dictators and in my opinion ridiculous decisions by past leaders.

However, both Afghanistan and Iraq's governments were elected by their own people and not "set up" by Bush or anyone else from the US.

Overall, regarless that Lucas threw this line into ROTS, I realize that it is just a movie, and personally found ROTS to be one of Lucas' best Star Wars. Which I find great as it will most likely, (barring an Episode 0, but we can all hope), be the last one.

 

i think its a great line..

and yes i think Lucas is commenting on that idiot we all know named Bush..

 

"that idiot we all know named Bush.."

Ouch.

 

Why is it that the political left in this country say so many inflamatory things? Everything I hear from them is so full of hate...It's sad.

Did I agree with Bill Clinton when he was President? No. Did I think his behavior was less then stellar while in office? Yes. Do I say Clinton is evil, idiotic or a moron? Absolutely not. Because I don't believe that.

But then again, if I had lost as many elections in a row as the democrats...I would be a bit frustrated too I guess...


-matt

 

Bill clinton....now theres a real president...


But yeah i guess we should be happy to have a college failing, ex coke head, daddys boy imbecile running the most powerful nation in the world...

hah...at least we know he's not smart enough to do anything like Palpatine...LOL