Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by Polydroxol, Feb 14, 2014.
The Jedi were not the ones unbalancing the Force.
I think both the Jedi and Sith contributed to the unbalance of the Force with their extreme views.
Views don't unbalance the Force. The Force was shifted out of balance due to the actions of the Sith. Besides, the imbalance in the Force is one-directional; the Force is unbalanced toward the dark side. If the Jedi and Sith both unbalanced the Force in different directions you would think the imbalances would cancel each other out ( or the Force would be unbalanced toward the light side ). But no source has indicated that the Jedi cause imbalance.
And Lucas confirms that it is the Sith causing said imbalance.
That's not directly stated in the movies.
"You were the Chosen One! It was said that you would destroy the Sith, not join them. Bring balance to the Force, not leave it in darkness."
Yeah, he said he was the chosen one so he would bring balance to the Force and destroy the Sith. It's not explicitly stated that the two are linked.
It's apparent that it is, because it is clear that the Sith are the ones causing the imbalance through their actions.
Clear to you maybe, not everyone else.
Since 'doing prequels' in and of itself doesn't produce 'philosophical breach', your statement above doesn't follow.
The philosophical breach is what only one kenobi pointed out: "The OT addresses that visions are to be mistrusted, that what is is, that one's actions now create that now and affect the future. The PT addresses that prophecy is truth, that the future is already in place, that one's actions are just part of a gambit that is being played out over your head, that a greater power will put hings right - you just have to have faith."
In short, it's a case of the PT undermining the philosophical conceits established by the OT.
Except, once again, that's false. The PT establishes no such thing. The future is always in motion in the PT just as in the OT; in fact, we see the visions of the future changing just over the course of ROTS. The only reason the future appears to be "in place" from the perspective of the PT is because you're watching prequels. The inclusion of the prophecy does not change this, because no one ever said prophecies or "destinies" come with a guarantee, and Lucas implied otherwise. Someone else's ideas about prophecy and determinism are being superimposed onto the material.
I'm not sure that there is any way to logically escape determinism; cause and effect exists throughout any kind of storytelling and real life. So the future is 'already in place' (Slaughterhouse-5 style, perhaps).* And both trilogies have the aspect of future-sight. Personally, I don't have so much of a problem with characters being able to see/predict the future (especially because the visions are consistently vague, throughout all six films). And I don't think it damages the notion that character motivations and agency are still relevant; even if (for example) Luke sees Han and Leia on Cloud City, all of Han's history with Lando plus the events since Hoth are still the things that lead them there. But future-sight and prophecy is tied, in the PT, to the virgin birth of Anakin, bringing balance to the entire Force, etc, and that's where the difference lies, for me. Those things change the stakes of the story, moving the goalposts from the personal and political outward toward the cosmic.
* So perhaps I have a problem with both trilogies - with 'the future being in motion' - or perhaps I just take that line in terms of 'our knowledge of the future' being in motion and just go with it.
I mean, there is something to be said for how The Emperor and Darth Vader are consistently overconfident in their interpretations. But I wonder how deliberate this is, as a commentary on visions in general. The background notes, like in the Making Of books, don't seem to talk much about that as a theme. The prequels also have people be overconfident in what they think will happen with visions, to the point that Anakin causes the events that he sees - he doesn't seem to consider that he could be their cause. But then, there is the prophecy, which is accurate (as is Luke seeing his friends on Cloud City). But then, it's accurate in an unexpected way. Is this all consistent with the OT 'lesson' on visions? Is it a commentary on how visions can be so vague that any series of events can 'fulfill' them?
Like I said, determinism is very popular. But does determinism's popularity force SW to become an ode to determinism?
Yes, saving the galaxy from the Empire was retconned into saving the galaxy from the Empire and balancing the Force. But you might have noticed that the post you're quoting refutes the contention that the future is any more "already in place" in the PT than it was in the OT. So much for that.
It says that both trilogies have "an aspect of future-sight". I wouldn't call that saying that the trilogies are identical on the issue of the future being already in place, but the author of the quote may correct me on that.
I'm not sure how 'popular' it is (popular with whom?) but it is logical. If you have a narrative - fictional or real - in which events happen with no causes (quantum randomness nonwithstanding), then incoherence results. The future is simply the results of present and past causes.
Are you agreeing with my post or disagreeing? From this post, I can't tell... ?
I'm really not sure if there is a difference in the trilogies in this respect. I guess I personally start with the assumption that the 'future is already in place,' and see how stories work within that. Lucas may not approach things the same way, but even so, I can't really tell if there is a deliberate difference:
But you might have missed the parts of his post that I highlighted in bold, where he highlights a major difference between the OT and PT:
Iow, the OT's personal and political goaposts vs. the PT's cosmic ones.
No, I referenced that:
But once again, the post refutes your original contention, so bolding a different part of the post doesn't help that position much. Here is the same viewpoint again:
The point is that the alleged difference between the trilogies is an imaginary one in this case.
But 'cause and effect' doesn't equal strict determinism where there's no real free will.
I guess it depends on the definition of 'free will.' Some people take it to mean that people 'could choose otherwise,' which I'm not sure is the case, given how we're all products and participants in the physical system we call the universe. At any given moment, it seems like we have multiple options, but viewed from any future time, we will have only been seen to take one path, and if we have enough background information, that path will then seem 'inevitable'; 'of course' that's what happened, because now we see the influence of x, y, and z driving it.
However, if by 'free will' we mean simply 'will,' as in, 'Luke willed himself to throw away his lightsaber rather than strike Vader down,' then of course it's relevant. But even so, our wills come from our pasts and other outside events; we can't will what we will will, eh?
In other words, 'will' is important but it's not free. What would it be 'free' of? If it were totally free of influence, it would be nothing at all. The 'will' of any given person or other creature is a sometimes-useful, conveniently-defined component in the Whole Sort of General Mish-Mash.
Remember, the alleged difference between the trilogies got shot down.
As much as I don't want to undermine my own point, am I really that much of an authority? I'd be open to actual discussion of if people think there really is such a difference.