"Only a Sith deals in absolutes..."

*sigh*

This is why you guys won't re-gain power anytime soon.



-matt

 

[image=http://www.kunstikeskus.ee/keskus/pilt/tekstid/vodka.JPG]

Drink responsibly.

 

<<<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.>>>>>>>

I specifically said that the jedi ORDER was bad, not the individual jedi. And the order, i.e. the organization which the jedi worked under, WAS destroyed. The fact that the Jedi return does not indicate that there will be a temple, or council, or code (although Luke may create looser forms of these things).

I didn't respond to the rest because it was just your opinion, which I have no problem with. I only felt the need to correct this one misinterpretation of my position.

 

darth sennin

I specifically said that the jedi ORDER was bad, not the individual jedi. And the order, i.e. the organization which the jedi worked under, WAS destroyed. The fact that the Jedi return does not indicate that there will be a temple, or council, or code (although Luke may create looser forms of these things).

Luke probably will not do it, but future Jedi will. As the saying goes, "People hate rules and hierarchies, until they're told to organize things."

I think, that eventually, the Jedi Order will rise again - not the same as so much knowledge will have been lost - but in a similar form because the new Jedi will discover through trial and error what the old Jedi had already known for 1000 years. What works.

 

Darthsennin, I agree 100%.

Criticizing the Jedi Order's state in the prequels is not criticizing the Jedi as individuals, or even their very honorable beliefs.

Nor is saying that they served a corrupt republic necessarily saying that they are employees of the State who are actively aware of their corruption. They're not. They are just doing what is right.

What I maintain is that the Jedi fall when they deal in absolutes, when they play the Sith game. They codified that which was not meant to be codified. The Jedi temple is a big, beautiful, wondrous manifestation of the power and stability and comfort of faith, and yet, completely disconnected from the living force it is supposed to serve. Yoda, Mace, Qui-Gon - none of these people are bad or corrupt. But their Order borders on intellectual lethargy. Yoda is much more attuned to the Force when surrounded by living things on Dagobah than when he is surrounded by four concrete walls with the shades drawn to the outside world. The Order suffers from ivory-tower isolationism. Why else would "our ability to use the Force be diminished"? Complacency has replaced spirituality - no one is journeying out into the wilderness to connect with the Force or challenge their own beliefs or see things from all points of view and still keep their faith when faced with doubt; they just assume the Force is on their side because it has been for so long. And isn't it obvious? We have this great temple and the Sith are no more (or at least underground). We work with the Republic and love democracy, and we're on the side of right, and all our hard work has paid off ... so why not codify our beliefs into a bunch of laws, make the younglings recite them as they practice swinging a saber, and just "kill and drill" rather than challenge anyone to find their own connection to the Force? Qui-Gon saw the failure of this road of thought ... as should we all.

Overconfidence led to the Jedi Order's demise in the PT, overconfidence led to the Sith's downfall in the OT. A blank slate is restored once humility is as well.

 

"*sigh*

This is why you guys won't re-gain power anytime soon.

-matt"

What is the reason "you guys" won't re-gain power anytime soon? Is that a threat? Should we be concerned that Republicans (I'm assuming you're talking about) have more power in DC?

This goes for everyone that's "arguing" politics, here. Is it possible to actually keep things in the context of the movie? The comparisons to the Bush administration are so obvious in this movie and I'm sure the intentions of this topic was to stir up this kind of stuff, but we might actually have an interesting discussion about the movie and the characters in it if we could let go of our selfish comments about what we think about the left or the right.

 

I think Lucas said in an interview that he wasnt referring to Bush/republicans/whatever...just coincidence. Take it for what its worth

 

I have only read the fisrt 2 pages of this thread, and boy are some people thick.

Nearly everything that is said is "an absolute"

Obi Wan is refering to democracy, which is his line before this one.

Even this thread is "an absolute", and me saying this thread is "an absolute" is "an absolute"

You need to think a little harder about things, not just take things at face value.

Sorry if anyone is offended by the "thick" comment, it just came out that way.

 

Crazy_Old_Kermit said:
What is the reason "you guys" won't re-gain power anytime soon? Is that a threat? Should we be concerned that Republicans (I'm assuming you're talking about) have more power in DC?

Yeah...that is a threat!


LOL! It simply means with the sort of rhetoric that you are spitting out...you will continue to lose elections.



-matt

 

C´mon. The whole "dealing in absolutes" thing is getting a bit out of hand. He could have meant anything or nothing. It can mean Bush/Hitler/Saddam or just fundamentalists in general. On the other hand, its just a movie...People shouldnt perhaps read something into everything said.
By the way, liked the post with the Absolut vodka. Good to see some humor sometimes.

 

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.

The force is based upon buddism and taoism - if you get deep into these eastern based philosophies, what you will learn is that moral absolutism is a sham.

There is no "good" and "bad". There is no "right" and "wrong". Only perceptions.

What is absolute bad? What is absolute good? Where does good end and bad begin? Is it the same for everyone?

The problem with most western religions and philosophies is that they rely so heavily on moral absolutes. They need punishment for bad and reward for good. Without these things, they don't realize people would naturally strive for them. They seem to fail to realize the benefits in doing so naturally.

Jedi are living in the te (or practical application of daoist philosophy). It's about letting the dao guide you, direct you ... quit bucking the system type thought.

One doesn't NEED to have moral absolutism to exact goodness. Nor, is doing so "living a lie".

 

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.

Democracy is used very loosely here. In fact, one might say quite incorrectly.

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.

Which simply, is NOT a democracy.

I am not advocating change on this one, but to call a large dog with spots a cow, simply because it is large and has spots is still wrong.

Calling the US form of government a democracy is calling a spotted dog a cow. It just simply isn't so ... now matter how close it comes.

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.

Yeah, okay.

In the perfect world, yes, maybe. But, this is reality. Step away from the darkness.

We can't even count the votes in our own country - do you TRULY believe these "votes" in far less organized countries (under constant bombardment) are fair, organized and efficient?

You don't think there is a little spin going on here? Maybe just a little?

 

Is not the statement "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" an absolute?

 

Yes, it is, and that's called the use of irony. See last post.

 

I agree, and I compare it to the line in "Dr. Zhivago" when the doctor replies to the communist zealot that he's not a revolutionary, "But I'm not willing to kill you about it," or something like that.

 

I just don't buy that this is the whole story. After all, the "aggressive negotiations" that the Jedi hold in cases of disagreements are acceptances of an absolute justification for force. Even if democracy were the vehicle, to state that democratic votes and ideals are the open justification for intervention, aggressive or otherwise, is the acceptance of an absolute. The book, which provides more dialogue in this argument between Anakin and Obiwan, adds another line to the mix. Obiwan's full statement is (and I am paraphrasing from memory):

"Only the Sith deal in absolutes! The truth is never black and white!"

Besides making TWO absolute statements, a contradiction long held as a classic conundrum in philosophical circles, it appears that there is a recognition here that Obiwan has never been a fan of the truth in human communications. While Obiwan is still one of my favorite characters, he seems to think that lying is alright as long as its done in a particularly clever way, "from a certain point of view".

Lucas' ethics and politics have been off for as long as Star Wars has been a franchise. I don't mean that in a particularly offensive way, but facts are facts... absolutely. This situation of openly ignoring your own contradictions while criticizing those of your political or philosophical opponents doesn't really win him any kudos in my book. Having said all of that, I still very much enjoy the Star Wars. Authors, even when starting from really flawed premises and attempting to prove ideas that aren't really factual (and thus not provable) often times are so honest about the situations in their work, that the real causes of the dilemas the protagonists face rises to the surface, and the clever reader, viewer, what-have-you can recognize and derive those ideas.

In this sense, George Lucas' Star Wars is much like Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. Though Hugo is attempting to show Socialism as the viable alternative to both Monarchism and Capitalism by attacking absolutist law as a vehicle to making either one possible (personified by the luminous Inspector Javert), he fails to recognize that absolute law is exactly the vehicle for wealth redistribution, and continual forced equalization, both of which are necessary for any Socialism. No sufficient argument is made for the preference of one law vs. the other, which would at least differentiate the actions by a basic ethical argument first. Lucas makes a similar mistake here, but in neither case does it completely destroy these great stories in my eyes. It just motivates me to recognize the more intently, and appreciate them all the more for being more open-ended and honest than most dogmantic pieces.

 

Spoken like a true Republican.

 

Not a Republican here But I am a moral absolutist. Even if I were as liberal as the day is long, or as conservative, in either case I'd be siding with one absolutist view vs. another. Lucas' political jab against death sticks in ep. 2 is hardly vague, or settling on some truth "stuck in the middle."

The very notion of human rights REQUIRES an absolutist view. For a right to be a right in any meaningful sense, it cannot be revoked... only violated. Call me an absolutist for saying that, and you'll be paying me a complement

 

That's the inherent dillemma with an esoteric modality of thought,though developed and richly complex, it is indecisive and non-commital. Heh heh.

And, thank God about the lack of Elephants!

 

And contradictory... you left out contradictory.

I don't think it lacks commitment. Its actually pretty committed to something very solid, if not entirely consistent. The problem is that its also very ashamed to admit it.

If it sounds like I am personifying a philosophy, its probably because I am -- if just to avoid accusing actual people of anything.

My momma always taught me, neither an elephant nor a jackass be.

In this case, I actually listened.