"Only a Sith Deals in Absolutes"

I think, perhaps, that fans wax too philisophically on this particular statement. I think Anakins line that prompts this retort from Obi-Wan is really the whammy of RotS, as far as Anakin being totally out of touch with his friend, and reality for that matter.

 

I could not agree with this more. The logic behind it I agree with 100%.

Also I feel nature has it's absolutes,it's laws. If you jump from a cliff you will fall screaming to earth. It is the Law of Gravity and it applies to everyone DESPITE thier belief on it. It is human's who live in the grey areas. Depending on many things. Your surroundings, Your upbringing, your experiences all cause you to have your own theories and thoughts. Nature deals in absolutes the problem is not everyone agrees with them. This is where the grey areas come from.

 

THANK YOU!!!

 

Another case of Lucas trying to get "deep", as with "point of view", but exceeding his own capabilities as a storyteller. And in this case, being motivated to take a jab at Bush without having the mental acuity to pull it off.

The jedi have dealt in absolutes thgouhout the saga. there is no "point of view" towards the Sith other than "they're evil-does".

 

Gotsta agree with Yankee on this one. It was a potshot at Bush. But, that line has made for a very interesting discussion. I believe that the world is much more black and white than what humans make it it out to be. But, that really is human nature. In an effourt to avoid consequenses for actions people know are wrong, or to gain something through actions they know are wrong, humans have conjured up a gray area to rationalize said actions. Obi-Wan's line sounds cool, but it is just George offering a clever remark to Anakin's line that sounds almost exactly like Bush's statement.

 

Again with the "Episode III is clearly anti-Bush propaganda" nonsense. You know, there are differences between allegories and similarities.

George "Dubleyah" Bush is not the first one to say "if you're not with us, you're against us", and he certainly won't be the last. Just because Anakin says words to that effect, it doesn't make Anakin Bush, it doesn't make Sidious Dick Cheney, it doesn't make the Sith the White House, and it doesn't make the Clone Wars the war in Iraq.

Remember when the media accused Peter Jackson of expressing anti-Bush sentiments in his LOTR trilogy, despite the fact that he was making movies based on books written 50 years ago? Even back then, Tolkien had to listen to gripes about the Orcs being too similar to Nazis.

Of course there are similarities. You can't read a single novel or watch a single movie without finding such connections. But give these writer the credit that they're due. Be it Lucas or Tolkien, they're writing their own stories.

 

Sorry, it was a blatant dig at Bush. That isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Unfortunately, Lucas's weaknesses with dialogue result in a ham-fisted reply by Obi-Wan, rather than something that rings truer and is more in line with what's really going on at that point in the movie, something like "Anakin, you fool, Palpatine and the Sith are the ones who are really against you and what you believe."

 

Sorry, it was a blatant dig at Bush.

Are you sure about that? Or are you just making an observation connecting similarities to your social experience? Because that sort of thing has been done with countless of other pieces of stories in literature.

Take Shakespeare for example. Personally, I see more similarities between ROTS and Shakespeare's Othello.

For those of you who didn't pay attention in English class, let me fill you in on the story:

Othello is the noble but passionate Moor warrior. He is a noble savage of sorts, guided by personal moral principles, but still alien to the 'civilized' world of Europe. Anakin is a similarly conflicted character. Born in the savage regions of space, far away from Republic control, he grows up to be a brash Jedi Knight guided by his passions.

Othello is married to Desdemona, a sheltered young woman of noble birth, lovely but delicate. Padme, for all her blaster-shooting bravado in Episodes I & II, bears many similarities to Desdemona. She has lived a sheltered life of nobility all her life, more accustomed to politics than to the battlefields. Both the names of Desdemona and Padme are synonymous with flowers, which reinforces this characterization.

Iago, an envious underling, plots to destroy Othello through treachery and deceit. He convinces Othello that Desdemona is having an affair with his second-in-command, spurring the Moor into a fit of jealous rage. Palpatine, I think you'll agree, uses similar underhanded tactics of deception and subterfuge to goad Anakin and seduce him to the Dark Side.

Once Iago has done his work, Othello is completely convinced that her wife is unfaithful and resolves to kill her. Although Anakin originally fell to the Dark Side with a Machiavellan "the ends justify the means" reasoning order to save Padme, I think you'll agree that in his turning, Anakin not only became evil, but became irrational. He's deluded himself into thinking that the Jedi are evil, and that he is righteous in his actions, to the point that no one --not his old master, not even his wife-- can get through to him.

Othello murders his innocent wife, who despite her husband's wrath remains faithful to him until her end. Surprisingly we see this in Padme as well. Despite having witnessed the monster her husband had become, despite having been mortally brutalized by him, she also remains faithful to Anakin to her dying end, believing that there is still good in him.

Don't get me wrong. I do see the Bush similarity, but I'm not convinced that Lucas was peddling an anti-Bush propaganda scene here.

Do you have proof? Did you hear or read George Lucas actually confirm this? If you can procure any evidence, I'll gladly concede to your point.

 

Not sure that hes come out and said something like "This line is a jab at Bush" but he has stated that ROTS is his most political movie and has criticised Bush. Given that the "with us or against us" line is very well known, the connection is just blatantly obvious.

 

That's a pretty interesting observation on DarthMark's part. I have never read Othello, but it sounds pretty good. That's the great thing about art. It can be interpreted different ways. It is rather arrogant of Mark, however, to say that someone's interpretation of said art is wrong and the random connection to some five-hundred year old play is the only true way in which it can be viewed. I don't feel I need to offer proof that George was making a political statement. It is simply my interpretation of art. Where is your proof it is all about Othello?

 

I still believe Obi was contradicting himself. Even though he didn't say it..it was still an absolute. Anakin was evil, so he intended to kill him. An absolute.

 

I still believe Obi was contradicting himself. Even though he didn't say it..it was still an absolute. Anakin was evil, so he intended to kill him. An absolute.




He isnt really contradicting himself. " Speaking " in absolutes is vastly different then " dealing " in absolutes. We all speak in absolutes every day of our lives. And as to whether Obi-Wan intended to kill or maim Anakin, thats highly debatable no matter what anyone says.

 

Thanks for the acknowledgement, DarthDork .

And if I came off as arrogant, I apologize. So let me say that maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Lucas is expressing his political opinions concerning Bush. Like I mentioned, I do see the Bush connection in this scene. However, that is completely beside the point. It's not all he's expressing. The scene has far greater dramatic meaning than mere anti-Bush sentiments. This is more about Anakin falling to the Dark Side and refusing to turn back than being a dramatic mirror to a right-wing nutjob.

 

If that were true, I'd hate Star Wars.

It would become very shallow, and I would lose all respect I've ever had for Lucas (And that is a LOT).

 

anakin is not *all* wrong, this is noticable when he says, "from my point of view the jedi are evil." the jedi were forcing anakin to ignore his feelings, that killing sidious was wrong, it was an act of aggression. yoda did not make that mistake twice. with luke, yoda taught about trusting your own feelings, yoda let luke leave his training early in tESB. its just important to remember perspective, just because the jedi were a little off, doesnt mean you abandon them for the sith, who hardly try to do right.

 

I found this comment incredibly ironic, especially on this thread.

 

The "If your not with me, then your my enemy" WAS a deliberate attack on Bush's line, "If your not with us, then your against us"

Lucas is liberal, he hates Bush, what do you expect?

 

Great thread, btw. Very intelligent discussion.

In the DVD, Lucas has said that there is an amount of politics in Star Wars. Now, I have talked to several liberlas about this, and they have different views. Some say Bush is Anakin, due to that line. But some hate him so much that there is no redemption for him save getting thrown in a pit of electricity, so he's Sidious.

Anakin's line by itself was fine. I mean, It clearly was a jab at Bush, as has been said, but it fit the story.

Obi-Wan's return line was bogus and annoying. I mean, the Jedi have dealt in absolutes many times throughout the saga. Thats the whole point of Star Wars good and evil. Yet that it's better to be 'grey' than good or bad is simply proposterous.

It has been said by Lucas, and thousands of other observers that it was a political line.

Fun fact- Jesus was actually the one to say 'If you're not with me you're against me.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=12&verse=30&version=31&context=verse

 

Excellent !! This is exactly what it is. By the way, dealing in absolutes is not always wrong. Sometimes you need absolutes, but always dealing in absolutes is wrong. By the way, never dealing in absolutes is a kind of absolute in itself ! Think about it : the perfect balance cannot be always in the middle, because then it is always the same thing (an absolute, then) ! The perfect balance thus means that the balance itself must be balanced with a bit of extreme. And that is a very very tough equilibrium game !!

I'm not sure it is a blatant dig at Bush. I'm not sure it isn't neither ! But so what if it is ? He's right anyway ! Whether it is intended or not, if anyone sees a similarity with Bush, then ... just think about the meaning of it. And be careful next time you'll have to vote !

Anyway, reducing the movie to a political message would be much too ... reductive. There is so much more in the movie !

 

All movies are based on our own experiences, so Lucas undoubtedly took some from his own, makes the writing easier for him. And one could relate the happenings to most presidents, they are all liars and power mongers.

As far as absolutes go, wasn't it Jedi code that you may not have attachment, and absolutely never attack, only defend. Like the other thread elsewhere states, EVIL IS ONLY A POINT OF VIEW. And usually the point of view of the present majority!! And history is written by the victors. That was a rediculous line for Obi, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes". I think it was said to point out the weakness of the Jedi and their own downfall. This order of Jedi was doomed to fail long before the Emporer took power. Luke's new Jedi order is on a much better track in that they include thinking with their hearts, not just blatant, all powerful, and always right Jedi dogma.

 

I disagree with the sentence "Evil is only a point of view". It is true on the border region between evil and good, especially because this border is very indistinct. The further you go in one direction or another, the less questionable is the name of the region you are.

Take an easy example : Hitler. We can't say he was the absolute evil, because, as all men, parts of him were not, and not all his deeds were evil. Nevertheless, the character is evil and only a few distorded people think differently.

 

I don't like Bush either. Anyone that doesn't like Bush , at least for the moment is alright with me.

 

Just sticking my two cents in here.... [originally posted by me in earlier threads]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obi-Wan: "Only a Sith Lord DEALS in absolutes."
Deals. Barters. Bargains. Negotiates. Deals. Don't take it out of context.
Absolutes themselves are not characteristic of the Sith. DEALING in them is.

Remember how General Grievous refers to Obi-Wan as "The Negotiator" at the beginning of ROTS.
Jedi negotiate. Sith don't. Sith adopt this "my way, or the highway" attitude. You do this, or I kill you.
And this should be expected. There's only two of them, after all. Their word is law, and MUST be obeyed.

The Jedi, on the other hand, have a Council to make decisions. Yoda doesn't decree things all on his own.
Yoda's famous line "Do. Or do not. There is not try." is not DEALING in absolutes. He's simply stating a fact.
Luke ALMOST deals in absolutes with Jabba, but not quite. He still gives Jabba some room for negotiation.

LUKE: I seek an audience with Your Greatness to bargain for Solo's life. (Jabba's crowd laughs) With your wisdom, I'm sure that we can work out an arrangement which will be mutually beneficial and enable us to avoid any unpleasant confrontation.
JABBA (in Huttese subtitled): There will be no bargain.

It's JABBA who is completely unwilling to negotiate, not Luke. And then later:

LUKE: Nevertheless, I'm taking Captain Solo and his friends. You can either profit by this... or be destroyed. It's your choice. But I warn you not to underestimate my powers.
JABBA (in Huttese subtitled): There will be no bargain, young Jedi. I shall enjoy watching you die.

Jabba is saying "I WILL keep Han Solo, and you WILL die." JABBA is the one dealing in clear-cut absolutes here. He's laying down his word as law, and would rather kill Luke than negotiate with him on any terms. And in regards to the final line:

LUKE: You should have bargained, Jabba. That's the last mistake you'll ever make.
....LUKE: Jabba! This is your last chance. Free us or die.

Luke has given Jabba MULTIPLE opportunities to change his mind, and Jabba obstinately refuses. JABBA has refused to negotiate, so he leaves Luke with no other choice left. I'm sure Luke would have still been willing to bargain with Jabba if he had changed his mind and decided to free them. But he didn't. "Free us or die" isn't an unprovoked ultimatum by any means; it's much more a statement of fact, now that Jabba has refused to negotiate. Luke was ALMOST dealing in absolutes with Jabba, but wasn't because he still left some room for negotiation. JABBA was the one dealing in absolutes. And look where it got him.

Of course the Jedi BELIEVE in absolutes. Good and evil are absolutes. There's nothing wrong with this.
The Sith, on the other hand, DO NOT BELIEVE in absolutes of good and evil. Sith are moral relativists.
Palpatine: "Good is a point of view, Anakin. And the Jedi point of view is not the only valid one."
Jedi Knights BELIEVE in absolutes, but Sith Lords DEAL in them. That's what Obi-Wan meant. And he's right.

OBI-WAN: Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil.
ANAKIN: From the Jedi point of view! From my point of view, the Jedi are evil.
OBI-WAN: Well, then you are lost!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the line in the novel when Obi-Wan claims, "The truth is never black and white."....I've been pushing that one around in my head for a while now, and I've come up with a few things. First off, this quote must be taken within the context of the Saga as a whole. Jedi recognize the absolutes of good and evil in the universe, while Sith believe both are merely individual "points of view" constructed and adopted by each person. The above dialogue, taken directly from the film itself, proves to us that, although Obi-Wan may indeed recognize that our own individual points of view are key to how we see the universe around

 

A problem with subjects such as this (IMO) is that people find answers where Lucas has only put questions.
The line has non-literal meaning, of that I'm sure. But I don't think he is pushing a one-sided political idea on anyone. It is supposed to make you think for yourself. Any problems you have with it are a result of the education and background you have. A lot of Star Wars "meaning" is presented in such a way that it entirely depends on your own perception.
Nothing is stated in any way that Lucas can get in trouble (heh).

Anyway, having said that, I do have something related to Jedi and Sith.

Obi-Wan says "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
He is absolutely right about Sith dealing in absolutes.

SIDIOUS:
Every single Jedi is now an enemy of the Republic. Do what must be done Lord Vader.

But this means nothing solid because of how easily it applies to the Jedi as well.

YODA:
Destroy the Sith, we must.

There is a lot of stuff like this, and I think it isn't explained for a reason.

 

I think it's not explained becuase it doesn't NEED to be explained. Because that's not dealing in absolutes. Those are simply statements of fact....which, like it or not, are inherently absolute. Either they are true or they are not. What I think you're still doing is confusing precisely what "dealing in absolutes" means....emphasis on the word dealing.

It means that the terms of the "deal" are absolutely set in stone from the very beginning. Only two options allowed (obey or die), and no negotiations under any circumstances. And that, unlike the Jedi, is precisely what the Sith do. It's how their order inherently exists: one master to command the apprentice....no type of council to consider and/or discuss the costs/benefits of other alternatives. Anakin was dealing in absolutes with Obi-Wan. Luke was ALMOST dealing in absolutes with Jabba, but not quite. And that makes sense.