The Academy: A haven for Intellectuals and thought-provoking discussion of the Star Wars Saga.

I have been greatly disturbed by the overwhelming sense of anti-intellectualism on TFn and I have decided, with some of my friends, to create a haven for us. A place where we can wax poetic about all sorts of things that 99.9% of the population doesn't understand.

If you want to post excerpts of Machiavelli's The Prince to further emphasize your argument concerning a SW topic - go ahead. If you want to reference Perceval in Chretien de Troyes's Le Conte du Graal - go for it.

I want this thread to be an island of rational arguments and deep respect for your fellow posters. If you do not possess these qualities - please do not post here. This thread is not for people to discuss their daily lives, their issues with others, or for purely emotional arguments (i.e. Anakin sucks.)

I hope to encourage deep, intelligent debate with little conflict and sincere respect. If you choose to debate another poster's comments, simple, emotional comments will not suffice. If there is a weakness in their arguments, attack it rationally. Otherwise, respect your fellow poster and ask questions.

Our goal is to create a lively thread with engaging intellectual discourse in a friendly atmosphere.

Hope everyone enjoys.

 

A good idea for a thread, but isn't this what this forum is for? ? To post thread on the "though provoking" aspects of Star Wars? Or maybe I'm confused. But nice intro, although I don't have a topic for you at the moment.

-Krystal
Endless steps end in endless miles...

 

Yes, much like Krystal, I'm not sure why this thread is necessary. The entire forum is here for intellectual discussion.

If you want to relate Machiavellis works to the SW Saga, then by all means start a thread on it. Ditto de Troyes works.

But as for a thread that is meant to be a catch-all for whatever people decide to discuss...well, I dont like that. Call me old fashioned, but I like a thread to have a topic of discussion, and not simply 'whatever whim a person decides to have on a given day'.

I'll leave this open for you to respond in, but I'm leaning towards locking it if I'm not given a good reason why a miscellaneous topicless thread needs to be here.

 

Darth

I understand and I hope that I can give this thread the focus that it will need for you to consider this thread acceptable for the Saga Forums.

 

"And came I not at last to comfort you?" - Richard III

Thank you for this thread. I hope like- minded people will come to this thread to discuss deeper meanings and correlations in Star Wars. I doubt you'll get many responses, but perhaps you'll get a devoted, if small, following. TFN is often, with the Saga forum at times an exception, "A heap of broken images, where the sun beats, and the dead tree gives no shelter....There is shadow under this red rock."

 

This topic is so high-fluting all we can do is compliment each other on making it. Vanity, Irony, what cruel mistresses thou art!

In all seriousness, its a good idea. I really won't becoming back here until something is acutally being discussed, though.

 

"If you want to post excerpts of Machiavelli..."

I've done that actually. In this forum infact. No one even noticed. "Serious, in depth discussion" indeed!

Great thread idea.

 

Intellectual discussion on the Star Wars saga? Seriously, apart from references to other films and Joseph Campbell, is there really a lot to say?

Why not try Blade Runner, Ghost in the Shell, or 2001: A Space Oddsey?

 

Any movie can inspire intellectual discussion.

It's not the quality (or content) of the movie being discussed, it's the quality of the intellectuals who are doing the discussing.

 

"Joseph Campbell"

Oh, don't get me started on him!

Well, at the very least, this can become a repository for links to high-concept threads. Kind of a "heads-up" to those similarly inclined.

 

I agree with Dagsy. This thread is looking rather like a social thread, something Dagsy and I agreed is not in the spirit of the forum. The whole concept of this forum as a whole (pardon the redundancy) is to be a haven for intellectual discussion of the SW Saga. Do we really need this thread?

 

right. this entire forum is dedicated to intellectual discusion. That's why we have 14 "OT vs. PT" threads, 6 "rate the films" threads, and constantly new "episode 7, 8, and 9" threads. While this forum is certainly more in depth than any other (except maybe Senate, but that doesn't really count does it?) I have seen very little actually intellectual discussion of the films.

 

Well, don't blame the forum for that.

Hell, most posters nowadays either don't know or tend to ignore official quotes and documentation when it interferes with their pet theories. It gets old after awhile when people say "I don't care what Lucas said - this is what I think will happen"

 

So far, I perceive two main thought patterns here:

1. This thread needs a focus and a direction for it to prove its viability on this forum.

2. There are TFn users who are frustrated with the level of discussion about the SW and the tendency to revert to emotional arguments rather than logical, rational arguments.

Mods, I do think that this thread can have legitimate standing in this forum. Here is my proposal for this thread:

How about a forum for literary-based arguments to explain various features of the SW saga? We would have new issues after a certain period of discussion of the current issue and users would be able to cite not only literary patterns from the past, but also any thoughts or theories that have been set in print (which could include Political Science treatises and Psychological theories). In essence, this thread would be a truly literary and sociological discussion of various aspects of the Saga.

Every poster will have their own opinions, but they would have to supplement and prove their arguments through literary sources rather than opinion.

Is this sufficient for viability?

 

"Is there no place in this world for the man with a 105 IQ?"

 

"Is there no place in this world for the man with a 105 IQ?"

The Phantom Menace forum. Seek and you shall find like-minded intellects in the Social Thread. Does that forum have a social thread?

 

I propose a change of title for this thread.

The Academy: A haven for people so snooty and pretentious that they need to discuss how far beneath them most discussion is.

 

Regardless of how valid a point it may be? ?

Anyways, perhaps some of you high-minded folk wouldn't mind weighing in on The two sides of the force: separate or part of a whole?. Let me know what you think about this issue.

 

Maybe the title of the thread should be changed to "Denny's at 2 a.m." That's usually the time and place where deep discussions about big-budget fantasy movies seems like a good idea.

Anyway, I've got a question if people want to take a stab at it: According to Jedi "theology," is redemption possible?

Evidence for "no":
- Yoda and Ben certainly didn't see Darth Vader's redemption coming.
- Yoda's line: "Once you have started down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."

Evidence for "yes" or "maybe":
- Ben seems to have held a different opinion in the past.

We know that GL created the Jedi religion by adding two parts Buddhism to one part Christianity, flavoring with Jungian pop psyche, and stirring. Buddhism holds that there is an impersonal but just cosmic order which sensible people ally themselves with by practicing compassion. Those who do this free themselves from "karma," which, for lack of a better definition, is the result of foolish attachment to the world. (The "world" as most of us concieve of it is an illusion. Matrix fans will understand this.)

Sound familiar? If so, what do we do with the fact that Vader's story contains Christian themes of sin, sacrifice, and redemption? ("Redemption" literally means "buying back.") Buddhism has a concept of error, even remorse, but not really of "debt" in the Judeo-Christian sense. A Christian (or Jew or Muslim) *owes* worship and reverence to God, who has done him a series of large favors. If a believer neglects his duty of worship, he must "pay" for his actions.

Buddhists, by contrast, do not "pay" for "bad karma" by accumulating "good karma." There is no "good karma." Karma is like the junk that accumulates in your closet--a bunch of worthless crap that's the result of years' worth of bad decisions and irrational attachments. A good Buddhist throws out the "junk" so he can be the spiritual equivalent of "clutter free." He certainly doesn't want to "buy" anything else to take the place of the crap he just got rid of.

The two philosophies don't appear reconcilable. Are the contradictions between the "borrowed" faiths somehow responsible for Luke and Ben's disagreement about Vader's chances of turning back to the good side? Or can "Jedi theology" accommodate both nonattachment and redemption?

If Jedi redemption is possible, who or what did Vader "buy back" his soul from? What was the currency he used to do this? Is this spiritual currency available to everyone, or just him, since he's the Chosen One?

 

"Evidence for "yes" or "maybe":
- Ben seems to have held a different opinion in the past."

Not to mention the fact that Anakin is made a Force ghost at the end of ROTJ.

"If Jedi redemption is possible, who or what did Vader "buy back" his soul from? What was the currency he used to do this? Is this spiritual currency available to everyone, or just him, since he's the Chosen One?"

I believe Anakin was made a Force ghost because he finally succeeded in accomplishing that which he was always intended to do - bring Balance to the Force. The fact that he was sidetracked most of the time is explained (according to Lucas) by the fact that Anakin, being human, is subject to human frailties. The Saga explores these frailties, including their causes and consequences, in his and every other character.

"The first three really deal with the fall of Anakin - you will just see the saga of a young boy, his relationship with mother, how he grows up, who he marries, the children he has. He makes a pivotal choice in his life: a road that takes him to the dark side and he pays the consequences of that. We see his children grow up and see him finally redeemed."

"All of it is about a journey of self-discovery anyway. That is the essence of what all the Star Wars characters are about. This particular saga is just the saga of one family and what happens when one person in the family does something horrible to the people he loves. What are the circumstances, what are the ramifications, what happens to the rest of the family? I think George has always envisioned this as one big 12-hour film where you can sit down and watch this interesting thing happen. This saga of how somebody takes the wrong course and what it does for the rest of his life and then ultimately how does he redeem himself?" (5/20/00).

"You meet Anakin in the first one. You can see that he's a great, wonderful, mischievous kid. He's got all this talent. We know what he ends up. How he gets there and why he gets there is really the essence of what Episode II and III are about." (5/20/00). - Rick McCallum.

---

[b]MOYERS: [i]Ultimately, isn't Star Wars about transformation?[/i]

LUCAS: [i]It will be about how young Anakin Skywalker became evil and then was redeemed by his son. But it's also about the transformation of how his son came to find the call and then ultimately realize what it was. Because Luke works intuitively through most of the original trilogy until he gets to the very end. And it's only in the last act--when he throws his sword down and says, "I'm not going to fight this"--that he makes a more conscious, rational decision. And he does it at the risk of his life because the Emperor is going to kill him. It's only that way that he is able to redeem his father. It's not as apparent in the earlier movies, but when you see the next trilogy, then you see the issue is, How do we get Darth Vader back? How do we get him back to that little boy that he was in the first movie, that good person who loved and was generous and kind? Who had a good heart. [/i][/b] - [link=http://people.ucsc.edu/~cluine/lucas%20interview.html]Bill Moyers Interview[/link][/blockquote]

BTW, there's a lot of good discussion about Lucas' views on religion and Buddhism in that last link.

 

"Yoda's line: 'Once you have started down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.'"

For one answer to this question, let?s take a look at the parallels between the lives and deaths of Samson and Big DV.

Samson is born a Levite. (A priest.) He is blessed with inhuman strength. He became a great warrior and as a result was very popular. Especially with the ladies. Samson was seduced by Delilah, a Samaritan woman, then betrayed and captured. His hair, which had never before been cut, was shaved off and with it went his strength. His eyes were plucked from his head and he was used as entertainment for the Samaritans. But one day Samson was brought to a huge domed arena for the Samaritans to gawk and laugh at him. He was chained between the two supporting pillars in the middle of the arena. As he heard the cheers and yells of the spectators all around him, he prayed to God for forgiveness and his strength was restored to him. He pushed on the pillars and the arena fell around him, killing all who were inside.




Vader was born with the potential to be the most powerful force user ever(strength) and was trained as a Jedi(Levite). He became a great warrior and rose is power and position(popularity). Vader was seduced to the darkside by Sidious (we assume) and used as a tool to further Palpatines agendas. Then, when confronted by his son, he gathers his strength, and kills the Emperor, giving up his own life in the process.

Did the Dark Side dominate Vader's destiny? Certainly. But just as Samson was able to use his position, as a conquered foe, to kills thousands of his enemies, Vader was able to use his as a trusted agent of evil, to do a great good and so earn his redemption.

 

"Did the Dark Side dominate Vader's destiny?"

Well, the "Dark Side" certainly dominated much of his life, but it didn't conclude his life. Again, he was made a Force ghost.

 

The Samson thing is flawed. First, Samson was from the tribe of Dan, not Levi. He never served as a priest, but as a judge. Second, the enemies in question, of which Delilah was one, were the Philistines. The Samaritans are a group that came into existence after the Babylonian captivity--a very long time down the line from this point. Finally, Samson's strength wasn't present at all times.

Secondly, Samson was part of a Nazirite oath from birth. As an oath to God, he wasn't supposed to drink wine or cut his hair, among other things. The cutting of his hair then, represented the final (of what were actually severally) infractions to this oath.

Don't know about the quality of the comparisons, but just wanted to point out the flaws in the initial analysis.

 

correct you are Jabba.

serves me right for trying to write all that too late at night and from memory.

*note to self: next time, actually look that stuff up.*

 

Post any more of that "of-the-cuff" crap, and we'll ban you from this thread!

Research, research, research!