The difference in the attitude of the jedi - PT compared to OT

What do u believe to be the main lessons learned from the jedi from the PT to the OT, after the rise of the Sith Empire?

How did obi-wan & yoda restructure their training methods when dealing with luke as opposed to anakin?

How did they learn from their mistakes?
How did they succeed with luke where they failed anakin or was luke's victory all down to himself?

Quotes from the films to back-up any assertions please...

 

ANY1 AT ALL???

 

In the PT the Jedi were conservative and that made them fall, along with some machinations of Sidious.

In the OT they understand they needed to change, and they trust Luke to bring forth a fresh start for it.

U happy now?

 

Yep! That is just about it. At first the Jedi were conservative and they couldn't change. Then they relized that they were wrong and they had to balance thereselves in the Force.

 

Mace Windu: What can go wrong going this way? Us getting killed?


Real stubborn and close minded.....

 

Yeah, I think that pretty much sums it up. I don't think they were necessarily wrong in their ways, but they weren't necessarily right, either.

 

Sry Darthwolvo, didn't see the thread.

The main difference is the ability to understand growth and change I think. The Jedi of the Old Republic got far too wound up in traditions and their holy code too the point where they were hindering themselves. Traditions are not bad, but they are when they always dictate our current actions. I think the best way to sum it up is that they already understood that it is good to be mindful of the future, but not at the expense of the moment. But what the Jedi learn, from Qui-gon especially, is that it is also good to be mindful of the past, but not at the expense of the moment. The Jedi could never quite make that connection.

 

"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."

"If you face Vader, you must do it alone. I cannot intervene."

Those are the first differences that come to mind besides the "conservative" issue.

 

How did obi-wan & yoda restructure their training methods when dealing with luke as opposed to anakin?

One of the underlying conceits being explored in these films pertains to the singular, parochial manner in which the Jedi chose to view both themselves and the political situation in which they were situated. Due to their collective "arrogance," their ability to properly discern and assess outside threats diminished ? this is something that Palpatine likely sensed and then chose to exacerbate through his calculated manipulation of the force. The Jedi?s failure in this respect only became fully evident to them during the moment of their demise, at which point it was (obviously) too late to rectify that which was already well in motion ? given this information, it was a bit of a masterstroke for Palpatine to have created such a complex network of diversions, from Sith apprentices to full-fledged wars, these labyrinthine developments distracted the Jedi from Palpatine?s more insinuous, Machiavellian political schemes. With the Republic in ruins, and the Jedi all but exterminated, it was clear that the Jedi?s previously steadfast doctrines needed to be reassessed ? to what extent precisely is left to inference, I suppose.

How did they learn from their mistakes?

How did they succeed with luke where they failed anakin or was luke's victory all down to himself?

I think the level of growth exhibited by Yoda and Obi-Wan had more to do with the internal characteristics of their respective beings; certainly, such changes were no doubt made manifest in some of their teachings, but since we don?t have a detailed tableaux of the methodical training techniques (used during the height of the Republic) from which to draw comparisons most of it is left as fodder for the imagination. What is evident, however, is that Yoda and Kenobi realize that they cannot "force" Luke to avoid making the mistakes which befell Anakin ? for Vader and the Emperor to be defeated, Luke needed to discover balance and "goodness" on his own terms ? a superficial and fleeting deign to the light side of the Force would be fundamentally dishonest. The sage Jedi masters could only impart wisdom and guidance onto Luke, not make decisions for him; in that way, I suppose it is the younger Skywalker who, of his own volition, recognized his own capacity for good and chose it rather than succumbing to the base emotions of fear and anger ? characteristics which would inevitably lead him towards the Dark Side.

The main difference is the ability to understand growth and change I think. The Jedi of the Old Republic got far too wound up in traditions and their holy code too the point where they were hindering themselves. Traditions are not bad, but they are when they always dictate our current actions. I think the best way to sum it up is that they already understood that it is good to be mindful of the future, but not at the expense of the moment. But what the Jedi learn, from Qui-gon especially, is that it is also good to be mindful of the past, but not at the expense of the moment. The Jedi could never quite make that connection.

You make some good points. The Jedi Order as a whole was mired in a sort of collective passivity ? with the supposed extinction of the Sith, it seems reasonable to suggest that they became rather complacent in their position. As previously indicated, Sidious deliberately exploited this weakness, and through his various machinations sought to occupy the Jedi with other matters whilst his political incarnation, Palpatine, gradually ascended to a position of power in the Senate. The lack of critical foresight on the part of the Jedi Order is a lesson gained only through their collective downfall ? it must have informed the teachings of Yoda and Obi-Wan to a rather significant extent, yet as I have suggested, they realized that despite the considerable amount of knowledge and insight which had been gathered, they were unable to forcibly impose such notions onto Luke, who instead had to come to some of t

 

We know there weren't many Jedi in the OT. Yoda is basically the same as he was in the PT, but less rigid and more concerned with the moment and the living Force. Obi-Wan is older, wiser, less concerned about the cosmic Force. He's the same as the Episode III Obi-Wan, just older and wiser.

Luke Skywalker was a great Jedi. He wasn't as self centered as Anakin and he reminded me a lot of Kenobi in AOTC.

 

That they need to change their philosophy every one in a while. The Jedi are like a rock, they'll never change for anything. Their philosophies dated back 1,000 years ago when they defeated the Sith. The problem was, the Sith came back, adapted and beat the Jedi. The Jedi, however, continued to live in the past and never saw the Future coming.

 

thanx for bringing my thread back from the dead

another question: if the jedi basically wanted to let luke make his own mind up about what was good/evil, why did kenobi lie to him about his father?

 

simple the jedi were the way the were in the OT becuase it was made before the PT

 

no problem.

They wanted to make Luke think his father was good, but when Vader spilled out the beans they were like.

*Okay, you know what the real deal is. Now it is up to you to decide what to do.*

 

I'm going to go against the grain here and say there was no difference in attitude. While there were certainly differences between the OT and PT Jedi, I feel I can clearly demonstrate that these differences where rooted in practical needs for survival, and not in any fundamental cahnge in philosophy on the part of the Jedi. I'll try to go point by point, but for this opening thread, I'll just do two of the major ones, to see how it's received.

Attachment
One common charge is that the Jedi were wrong in forbidding attachment. As evidence, people often cite the fact that Luke was allowed to grow up with attachments. However, is this really legitimate evidence?

Consider the way in which ROTS ends. The two living Jedi are on the run, and need to go into complete secrecy. Both of them become hermits on extremely hostile, unlivable worlds, and live in the wilderness, shirking their former identities in front of outsiders. At the same time, the Skywalker children must be hidden, and are newborns. First off, there are practical considerations. As men, how could Yoda or Kenobi even hope to lactate in order to feed these children? Or alternatively, how could they keep their presence a secret if they were constantly buying baby formula or retaining the services of a wet nurse? Or further still, even if the baby could somehow be fed, could Yoda or Kenobi provide proper medical care? If they had to flee suddenly, could they really do that with a baby? Would the places either of them chose to live really be a safe environment for an infant?

Clearly, then, they had to give up the babies at birth, until they were old enough to be somewhat independent. After that point, they couldn't very well just rip Luke from the arms of his family. And even if they could, attachment would've already been established at that point. The Jedi during the PT trained people to let go of attachment by providing them with an isolated, monastic environment, with plenty of literary and real life support, texts, and examples to help them understand and follow that stipulation of the Jedi Code. Yet, they had none of these resources in the OT. They weren't safe, didn't have the kind of time to let Luke do the meditation/study that would've been needed, didn't even have the texts to provide him if he'd wanted to learn, and coldn't replicate the monastic environment. It just wasn't a feasible project.

Pacifism

Some have said Luke's decision to drop his lightsaber in ROTJ represents a fundamental shift in philosophy, and a realization that "violence wasn't the way to defeat the Sith." They claim Yoda adn Kenobi didn't train Anakin as a warrior, but only as someone who could deal effectively with relationships, and "make the right choices," thus enabling him to save his father.

I would reject this notion first and foremost because all signs pointed to them wanting him to kill his father. They made repeated demands that Luke confront him in battle in order to become a Jedi. They continually told him that it was impossible to turn anyone back frmo the Dark Side. They even hid Vader's true identity from him. These aren't the kinds of things you'd do to convince someone to "save their father." Further, Luke was a highly capable Jedi warrior. In the alliance, his only training was as a pilot, and he was a fairly bumbling foot infantryman. Yet, in ROTJ, with only a lightsaber, we see him take on Jabba's entire sail barge by himself (at least 30-50 people!). He kills them all. Those are the kind of impressive feats of combat prowess that the PT Jedi were known for. As fpr statemetns like Yoda's "wars make not one great" that's along the same line as Mace's earlier "We're keepers of the peace, not soldiers." There's no reason to see it as a rejection of earlier philosophy. So I don't see anything "non-violent" about Luke's time as a Jedi. Quite the opposite.

To conclude, I see the OT Jedi, as a continuation of PT Jedi in every sense, with changes brought on by strictly pragmatic concerns for their survival, not some shift in Jedi phi

 

dam thats a good post Master Jabba Wocky.....

all i can say is WOW and yes i'm with you 100% on that assessment

 

To explain the two quotes I posted, for those who didn't read into it


"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imgagine."

Obi-Wan had definitely become more passive since the PT.
However, I agree with JabaWocky's comment that the Jedi were essentially the same from the PT to the OT.


"If you face Vader, you must do it alone. I cannot intervene."

Although the opportunity for a three person duel never really occurs in the OT, I don't think Obi-Wan would have assisted Luke in a sabre fight if he were still able to.
This is very different to the PT duels, which almost always start with 3 people.

 

good points as always,

with attachments, i agree. there isnt an "allowing" of attachments. they were necessary since all 4 had to be seperated for survival. Attachment is still the main theme in the saga and we the consequences of this in ESB. however, he is still attached to his father.

I would argue that when Luke throws his saber down, he lets go of his obsession with his father that nearly led him to murder. if he still clung to this obsession and hate, he would have tried to strike the Emperor.

with Pacifism, you raise an interesting point that i thought about yesterday: the idea that compassion is the answer, but yet murder is its ultimate end

after all, even Vader's ultimate act of compassion still involved a murder

so to suggest that it is inherently wrong to use violence is good in theory, but not practical

i agree with you so far, but im not sure what other issues you plan on discussing.

as for yoda and obi-wan not changing their views to any extent, i would disagree

Qui-Gon: at the end of ROTS (novel at least) Yoda submits to Qui-Gon as the greater Jedi and calls Jinn his master. Jinn's achievment is credited to ultimate selflessness and compassion.

this new teaching of becoming immortal is not like learning a new lightsaber form. it is gigantic. i cannot see how accepting this new training would not effect yoda or obi-wan's overall view in a substantial way. specific evidence may be hard to come by as there is a gap in tone (and to some extent continuity) between the OT and PT, but the Qui-Gon problem is right there staring us in the face. it cannot be ignored

with all that(Qui-Gon influence) said, i'm led to another popular phrasing of the PT Jedi: arrogant.

many use this "arrogance" to rationalize the behavior of Anakin and i find it somewhat dishonest.

a more accurate term would be incomplete

 

I agree. It seems that the Jedi were this stone-hard group that never changed their policies for anything. That was their downfall ... they never adapted with the times.

 

I think Jabba-wocky nailed it.

The Jedi are continuing their ways and there really is no dramatic shift in the OT. Obi-Wan still carries his lightsaber with him and he still fights Darth Vader on the Death Star. Certainly, the aspect of learning to "cheat" death is something that influences Obi-Wan's ultiamte decision to sacrifice himself and that is a change, but it is one more used for strategic advantage so that Luke or Leia can one day assume the mantle and confront the Sith.

ROTS makes it painfully obvious that the Jedi hold the same "pacifist" ideals in the PT and the OT. It's not so much pacifism as it is restraint. Not killing defenseless men, protecting the innocent, and disciplining yourself to let go of all attachments are a part of Jedi life in EVERY Star Wars movie and these never change.


What happened with the Jedi in the PT is that they became complacent. They thought they had defeated the Sith, and that should the Sith return, they would still have the advantage. Their main fault was that they were manipulated and duped, and that isn't so much a fault on them as it is the calculated plot of an evil Sith Lord.

 

Although it was a great post by Jaba Wocky I must disagree.

So, what changed?

Lets start with attachments.

Firstly, attachments for a Jedi in the PT and OT are dangerous. They lead to jealousy and greed. Its very hard for anyone to let go. But we all die, as do the people we love. As Yoda says in ROTS - "Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose". This is because holding onto something is greedy - holding onto life is the ultimate greed - the way of the Sith. The jedi are trained from birth however to let go of their attachments. They can love people - as GL says - they should love everyone.

Yet in the PT there is a problem with this. This rule prevents the Jedi from having relationships - it therefore puts a NO ENTRY sign on anything that it considers a path to attachment.

The Jedi in the PT are all brought to the order from birth. They havent hade time to form attachments. Along comes Anakin Skywalker. He already has an attachment to his mother and soon has one with Padme. Anakin, being the man he is doesnt want to let go and that is ultimately his downfall.

But notice the difference in the OT. The Jedi send Luke off to his family - they actually set up a possible attachment. They then allow him to have a relationship with Han and Leia and tell him that his feelings do him credit. This for me is the difference.

Luke was not banned from having relationships espite the risk. Instead, he was trained on how to live with them without succumbing to the temptations of the Dark Side. If this had been the case with Anakin - had they allowed him to have a relationship with Padme would he have had to go behind their backs and seek a way of saving her? Just imagine if he didnt. He could have gone to them with the vision and the Jedi could have directed him properly. They would have known all the facts and as they did with Luke show him that the furture is always in motion. The problem in life when things are bannned, is that we seek them somewhere else. We do things taht are perhaps wrong to find a solution. When, instead if those things were not banned in the first place we could deal with them and be a whole person. In the end being attached and not letting go is greedy. But should realtionships be banned just because they might lead to an attachment?

The important point to realise here is that the dark side is at some point in everyone and it will come out whether they want it to or not. This dark side is the place that anything they do not wish to own in themselves, or seems too dangerous for others to see, gets dumped to fester. Mostly their culture dumps it there for them but no matter how much they deny it, repress it, no matter how painful it can be to look at it, it is part of them. Anger, lust, hate, these are the things that can blow up in our faces if we do not consciously address them. But if the Jedi bring these energies to light before they explode unconsiously, they can use them creatively to enrich their relationships rather than destroy them. Some of this darkness they relegate to the shadows are those traits that are simply not culturally acceptable and yet may be used to identify their 'faults', not get rid of them, but understand and live with them - helping us to make the right choices and bring a balance to themselves.

It may seem a frightening prospect to face a raging beast within, or the dragon on your shoulder. But heroic myths from all cultures show that facing the 'beasts' is a neccessity for human growth, and our own dreamlife shows us that approaching them brings insight rather than violation. Have you ever run with heart pounding terror from shadowy monsters in your dreams (Luke in Dagobah Cave)? I suggest it is just a part of yourself you've chucked in the shadow bin that urgently needs to be seen. If you explored it honestly the urgency and terror would cease, and an aspect of your personality, once hidden, would be safely returned to you. At first when you encounter these energies they seem wildly enraged but so would you be if you'd been locked in a da

 

O_____________O real big that post of yours. and it makes real sense.

 

I would also like to post some extracts from Labrynth of Evil that link to my post:

Anakin:

"But maybe we're wrong to attach ourselves to the Force at the expense of life as most beings no it, which includeds lust, love, and a lot of other emotions that are fobidden to us. Devotion to a higher cause is fine and good, Master, but we shouldn't ignore what's going on in front of our own eyes. You said yourself that we're not infallible".

Now I know this is from Anakin who at this point has a certain amount of greed about him. However, I agree with what he says and believe that such changes would have benfited the Jedi order.

Dooku:

"The Sith were pleased that the jedi, too, had been allowed to grow so powerful, because, in the end, their sense of entitlement would blind them to what was occuring in their midst. So let them be placed on a pedestal. Let them grow soft and set in their ways. Let them forget that good and evil coexist. Let them look no further than their vaunted Temple, so that they would fail to see the proverbial forest for the trees. And, by all means, let them grow possessive of the power they had gained, so that they might be much easier to topple.

Not all of them were blind of course. Many jedi were aware of the changes, the drift towards darkness. None, perhpas, more than aged Yoda. But the Masters who made up the Jedi Council were enslaved to the inevivtability of that drift."

 

I agree with your Jungian inspired analysis of the need to confront the "shadows", MS.

I'd like to add that this is just the theme of the classic mythological "journey of the hero into the underworld". In so many classical myths, greek and otherwise, the hero in his quest has to descend into the "underworld" (i.e. his own unconsciousness) and has to confront the "beasts and monsters" there (i.e. his own worst fears). Only after having accomplished this he can ascend to the light again.

I agree that the PT Jedi have never confronted their fears. And you are right in that the Sith were more evolved in this respect, as they have dared to explore the "underworld". Its just that instead of ascending to the light they've got stuck in it.

So what it needed was someone who would be willing to explore the underworld but would walk the path to it's end. With Anakin and Luke, we have been shown two ways to do this: One in an uncontrolled and chaotic fashion with catastrophic side-effects, and one in a controlled and conscious manner.

However,I'm not so sure if it's really attributable to OT Yoda and Kenobi that Luke was able to accomplish this. OT Yoda and Kenobi still show a great extent of fear of stepping into the darkness, and they insist that once Luke takes this path, "forever will it dominate his destiny" (which implies that there isn't a way back to the light). To me it seems that OT Jedi have come to acknowledge that emotions had to be integrated, but someway I have the feeling they've stopped halfway down the road. We've briefly touched this subject in another thread, MS, and I'm still not sure about the reason why they sent Luke to the Emperor. I still have no explanation better than the one you proposed, namely the hope that Luke might be able to turn Anakin back - and yet I'm not convinced, given the reply Obi-Wan has for Luke when Luke suggests that there's still good in Anakin: "He is more machine now than man. Twisted and evil." And he tells him that if he can't kill his own father, then the Emperor has already won. Somehow it seems that Luke has surpassed both Yoda and Obi-Wan, and discovered a way to explore the unconscious and come back to the light again.

 

Im not sure, in fact im actually doubtful that Yoda and Kenobi thought Luke would redeem Vader.

I just think that they train him to resist the dark side himself and trust that he will do the right thing - whatever that maybe. Basically they put trust in the force. I dont think they knw what will happen. they just have faith that if luke is compassionate, selfless and doesnt succumb to his attachments that good will prevail.


However,I'm not so sure if it's really attributable to OT Yoda and Kenobi that Luke was able to accomplish this. OT Yoda and Kenobi still show a great extent of fear of stepping into the darkness, and they insist that once Luke takes this path, "forever will it dominate his destiny" (which implies that there isn't a way back to the light). To me it seems that OT Jedi have come to acknowledge that emotions had to be integrated, but someway I have the feeling they've stopped halfway down the road.

I never know what to believe with those two! I wonder whether they were just setting up the path for Luke.

E.g When Kenobi says that "then the emperor has already won" in reply to lukes "I cant kill my own father" - I wonder whether its just another test to ensure Luke confronts Vader. I think they just want Luke to overcome the dark side (his fears) and to do this he must face vader. This time - luke is ready.

Perhaps they think once luke has done this he can kill vader but i just dont see it. For would they really think he could match the Emperor as well?

What Yoda and Kenobi fear the most is Luke turning to the dark side.

I think the line "forever will it domiate your destiny" is in fact true. I dont think Yoda is saying - you will be a sith forever. I think he saying - the effects of being a sith or having been a sith will be with you forever. It was for Vader. He turned back but died because of his sith ways.

DIT: who knows...maybe the real change to the jedi came after Luke did what he did and redeemed Vader. Maybe Kenobi (possibly Yoda0 wanted Luke to kill Vader. But Luke actually redeems Anakin. Maybe this is when the Jedi truely change?