main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Saga Why is the light side bad? (Balance in the Force)

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by MilakeRaznus, May 6, 2016.

  1. darth-sinister

    darth-sinister Manager Emeritus star 10 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2001
    You're misunderstanding slightly. What you said is mostly true, but Lucas defines attachment as being attached to someone and not loving someone without being attached. He's not advocating detachment, but rather a love that is free of fear, anger, hate, jealousy, obsessiveness, possessiveness and greed. A Jedi can feel compassion and unconditional love without being attached to that person. They can care for someone who is important in their life, but they have to be not attached to them.
     
    Vialco, Ananta Chetan and theraphos like this.
  2. theraphos

    theraphos Jedi Knight star 2

    Registered:
    May 20, 2016
    This is extremely important to remember in any discussion of what Jedi believe. Lucas borrowed this stuff (more or less) from Buddhism. The English/western definition of attachment is just flat out not relevant, and people trying to force it in anyway is the source of a lot of complete misconceptions about what Jedi even are.

    Jedi, by word of Lucas himself, are raised to love people without forming attachments to them. Attachment is a thing separate from love, and it is by definition a negative thing, a source of suffering, or it is not attachment. Literally the most basic definition of attachment in this context is a thing you can't let go of; there is no such thing as a "healthy attachment" that you can let go of. That is the opposite of attachment.

    That's why it's said to be attached to you. It's like it's tied to your hands.

    And yeah, whoever first decided "attachment" was a good enough English translation of the Buddhist concept probably could have done a better job and hunted down a word that doesn't require additional research to understand in this context, but it is what it is.
     
    Alexrd and Ghost like this.
  3. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Ok, well with that definition then it's my assertion you can have a family (raised by parents, have a spouse, raise children) and love them... with no attachment.
     
    LordDallos and Sarge like this.
  4. theraphos

    theraphos Jedi Knight star 2

    Registered:
    May 20, 2016
    Jedi culture's particular views disagrees, and not unreasonably. Buddhist monks (as opposed to regular everyday Buddhists who have a different level of dedication) do not marry either.

    Now getting into Buddhism's views on sexuality gets complicated because the Jedi aren't exact copy-pastes of Buddhist monks (for one thing, they can have sex, provided everyone involved can do so without drama, jealousy, unkindness, fear of loss, possessiveness, or I Can't Live Without You In My Life situations developing) but they still ultimately seek monk levels of dedicating their lives to the service of the Force (which is the whole point of being a Jedi) rather than being able to mostly do what you want in your daily life and go to temple services once a week. If a Jedi wants to get married they can leave the monastery and live their equivalent of the non-monk Buddhist life and nobody is going to stop them. They just won't be monks - er, Jedi.

    Besides, the particular Jedi cultural view seems to be that if you accept that everyone you care about is a temporary presence in your life and you are fully at peace with that, then going and making vows to someone and saying "until death do us part" goes completely against that. Why would you even want to bind them to you to and you to them in the first place, if you have accepted that binding yourself to something is impossible? If you are a Jedi, you enjoy that person while they're in your life and then one day they won't be.

    Heck, it may not even end in death, maybe six months later they're just not happy with you anymore. But expectations have been formed, and arguments and conflict are what you're likely to have brought upon yourself. This is why the Jedi do not want to encourage that mindset, and they view marriage as encouraging it.

    Now that's a chance ex-Jedi are welcome to take if they want to leave the culture they were raised in and live differently, since they have given up their full devotion to the Jedi life and will not be under the same pressures. And with a Jedi upbringing (lots and lots of meditation and anger management training) and no major conflicts of interest causing extra strain (dedication to everyone vs. special dedication to a few) they probably have decent chances. This does not make Jedi culture wrong. It makes it different. It's a monastery vs. the people who live regular lives and go to religious services once a week. Neither is wrong.

    Honestly, sometimes I feel like the only reason anyone's so fixated on Jedi being allowed to marry is that they want to imagine being Jedi themselves but are absolutely repulsed by the idea that this might mean living differently and giving things up rather than just being "me, but with powers and I get to have cool adventures and beat up all the bad guys." Being a Jedi isn't a little kid's power fantasy, and I respect Lucas for having Qui-Gon Jinn personally shoot that down.

    "But I want it" is not a place Jedi life comes from.

    The last thing Star Wars needs to do is pull a Last Airbender and borrow these concepts only to "correct" the parts modern western society doesn't like as a plot point with our own "more enlightened" views. That kind of thing feels tiresome and disrespectful.
     
  5. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Thanks for explaining your view, theraphos


    You see... I know many people who live like that already, and many are happily married and with children. Saying "until death do us part" doesn't go against that at all. That last sentence there, "if you are a Jedi, you...", that's all what I see "until death do us part" being about. Cherishing each other until you must be parted by death, and never knowing when that time will come or what challenges you may face.

    Thank you for saying that. And I agree.

    But must Jedi only be the monk version? Can't being a Jedi include multiple paths, a person be called by the Force differently than another person also called by the Force?

    Did you watch the last two episodes (I think it was) of Season 2: Earth, with the Avatar State monk and the crystal catacombs under Ba Sing Se?

    Aang originally had that problem, that he couldn't separate love from attachment in his mind, and couldn't open his last chakra. But when Katara's life was in danger, he realized "letting go" was the only way to save her, and he did unlock that last chakra (though Azula's lightning saw to it being delayed for a season). But even after letting go of that last personal attachment, he still loved Katara too, and would go on to marry her and have children, even being the last of his kind and still a dedicated Airbender and Avatar (like Luke was of the Jedi) as well as dedicated husband and father (though still human, never perfect at any of those things).

    I don't think that's disrespectful of the philosophy at all.
     
  6. theraphos

    theraphos Jedi Knight star 2

    Registered:
    May 20, 2016
    You left out what I think is an important other half of that train of thought: "Heck, it may not even end in death, maybe six months later they're just not happy with you anymore. But expectations have been formed, and arguments and conflict are what you're likely to have brought upon yourself. This is why the Jedi do not want to encourage that mindset, and they view marriage as encouraging it."

    Romance/marriage/kids is not all sparkles and unicorns with true love that never leads to any problems and only ends when someone dies. Just watching the evening news a few times or having friends or relatives go through an ugly divorce disproves that.

    But anyway, I see nothing wrong with the idea that Jedi culture's ideal of enlightened affection is one that emphasizes impermanence and feels no need to make vows. Their culture doesn't need to match 1:1 with mine for me to enjoy them. They value compassion, not being controlled by every mood swing or fit of temper that crosses your brain, and self-sacrifice; how they go about it is their business, and is what makes them unique and interesting rather than being the Justice League in brown robes.

    The Force can call people to be all kinds of things. Not all of those things are Jedi. That doesn't make them less, but it does make them not Jedi. If someone wants to be a Jedi but they don't want to live like a Jedi I don't know what I'm expected to say beyond "well that's too bad then." That's like saying I want to be recognized as a monk of an order that bans alcohol, meat, and sex, but I should be allowed to party and eat steak every day because I'm being a monk differently.

    Those monks would probably tell me to buzz off, and they'd have every right.

    To be completely honest with you I haven't watched all of TLA in a very long time and am not in a position to have a detailed episode-dissecting conversation on the subject of my views on how well it did or didn't handle its themes. And anyway that other canon doesn't really matter, because "correcting" these ideas with our own modern western views is exactly what I constantly see Star Wars fans demanding this canon do, whether here or on reddit or wherever else. They want to see old Luke stand up and announce "the Jedi were stupid, non-attachment means they banned friendship and caring about things, and if they just let Anakin get married in public he never would have done anything wrong ever in his life and also I'm married and I have five children and they're all Jedi too!"

    I know the old EU did parts of that because people were just writing whatever before Lucas put out the PT and it all had to be reconciled somehow, but quite frankly I'd like to see it be written differently this time around. I tried reading OT-era EU material a few times and I found the new era Jedi to be pretty flat and uninteresting.
     
    Gamiel, Alexrd and CT-867-5309 like this.
  7. Iron_lord

    Iron_lord Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012

    If "safety" trumps "handing children over nearest living kin" - then why can't "the needs of the Jedi Order to raise the children of the Chosen One properly" trump "handing the children over to people with any claim" ?

    If Obi-Wan and Yoda can override the rights of Padme's family in the name of "safety," they can override any familial rights in the name of "safety".

    But they don't. Which suggests they have a reason for letting powerfully Force-sensitive children be raised by non-Jedi, other than "we have no right to raise them".

    Possibly - that they've rethought the whole "Jedi-candidate children need to be raised by Jedi" idea - and have concluded that an ordinary loving family can also teach self-discipline.

    That was how the EU novel Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader portrayed it, anyway:


    During Palpatine’s brief abduction by General Grievous, Bail had promised Padme that should anything untoward happen to her, he would do all he could to protect those close to her. The fact that Padme was pregnant had been something of an open secret, but at the time Bail had been referring to Anakin, never realizing that events would draw him into a conspiracy with Obi-Wan and Yoda that would end with his assuming custody of Leia.
    It had taken only days for Bail and Breha to come to love the child, though initially Bail had worried that they may have been entrusted with too great a challenge. Given their parentage, chances were high that the Skywalker twins would be powerful in the Force. What if Leia should show early signs of following in the dark footsteps of her father? Bail had wondered.
    Yoda had eased his mind.
    Anakin hadn’t been born to the dark side, but had arrived there because of what he had experienced in his short life, instances of suffering, fear, anger, and hatred. Had Anakin been discovered early enough by the Jedi, those emotional states would never have surfaced. More important, Yoda appeared to have had a change of heart regarding the Temple as providing the best crucible for Force-sensitive beings. The steadfast embrace of a loving family would prove as good, if not better.
     
    Ghost and Martoto77 like this.
  8. Lulu Mars

    Lulu Mars Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Mar 10, 2005
    I think not training them from birth was just safer, as the Sith might otherwise have been alerted to their presence while they were still too young to fend for themselves.
     
    theraphos likes this.
  9. Iron_lord

    Iron_lord Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012
    While that might help - the Inquisitors seem to be able to sense baby Force-Sensitives who haven't had time nor opportunity for any training, in Rebels.

    Maybe Obi-Wan & Yoda blocked the Skywalker children off, to keep the Inquisitors away - with that block fading by the time of ANH?
     
    Lulu Mars likes this.
  10. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    EDIT : wrong thread
     
  11. Iron_lord

    Iron_lord Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012

    the issue isn't Force-training - it's "non-attachment training"

    If the PT Jedi are right to believe that Jedi have to be raised from birth in the "Jedi way" if they are to be suitably non-attached - with Anakin being a lost cause right from the beginning purely because of his family attachment (and Qui-Gon & Obi-wan being hugely mistaken in wanting him in the Order) - then, wouldn't Obi-Wan and Yoda be sparing no effort in order to ensure that both Luke & Leia do not have "attachment issues"?
    How would they be kidnappers when Owen, at the time, has no claim to Luke?

    The "they would be kidnapping" argument applies better to Padme's parents than to Owen. So, Obi-Wan and Yoda are "kidnapping" Luke & Leia from their grandparents - denying them knowledge of them and access to them - because they think it's the right thing to do for their own safety.

    And they're almost certainly right.

    But that doesn't change the fact that, if they can deny the grandparents their rights, they can deny Owen any right (that he's unaware of at the moment) and raise the kids themselves, in the Nonattached Jedi Way, for the good of the galaxy.
    Yet they choose not to - suggesting the Nonattached Jedi Way is not as huge a priority in making a "good Jedi candidate" as is being argued.
     
    Ghost and Martoto77 like this.
  12. Lulu Mars

    Lulu Mars Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Well... While Anakin's fall to the dark side was hugely important and tragic, it didn't cause the fall of the Jedi Order. The Jedi fell because Palpatine took advantage of their complacency. They were too sure of themselves to be prepared for that and yes, I think this made them wary of any rash decisions regarding the twins' upbringing. It would've been easy for them to go the traditional Jedi route, but that might also have naturally brought them back to that state of complacency where their apprentices would be ill-prepared to deal with the Sith.
    They needed to try out a different approach, so they decided to simply let the Force be their guide and wait until the time was right.
     
  13. Alexrd

    Alexrd Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 7, 2009
    theraphos At last, someone gets it. Thanks for explaning things better than I could.

    What is there to reproach if there's no blame?

    The entire order is dead because of the Sith and Anakin's choice to help them in order to feed his greed and fear. Not because of their handling or lack thereof.

    I discuss interpretation, subtexts and themes where there's room for them. Not everything is up to interpretation. There are things established in the movies that are not up to debate, and there are things established in the movies that refute many "interpretations".

    No. Who said they had to be Jedi? They could be, or not.

    Owen is part of Anakin's family. They would be kidnappers if they took the twins and went into hiding while training them.

    Of course. Safety is the most basic requirement. They aren't kidnapping when they took the twins to family and friends of their parents.

    No. They didn't deny any rights. Their decision was not based on denying anyone's rights. Their decision was based on keeping the children hidden and safe. Under those premises, they left them with family and friends of their parents.

    The Jedi way and attachment has nothing to do with this. That's a non issue. Their concern is not about them being Jedi. It's about keeping them hidden and safe. Nothing more.
     
    theraphos likes this.
  14. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Blame does not need to be established prior to considering a reproach. You clearly don't comprehend the distinction.

    That means that you are not the slightest bit disappointed that the Jedi could not have foreseen the dangers in Anakin's training or his proximity to the chancellor while he accumulated power and the resultant deaths of hundreds of Jedi and billions of others in the Clone war and the dictatorship that it ushered in.

    Feed his fear? That's a new one. Never heard of people wanting to feed their fear before. In any context. That doesn't even make sense.

    So you don't think that the Council's belated suspicions about Palpatine and their misjudged trust in him to deceive and betray his lifelong friend in the Chancellory,which is what lead Anakin to distrust the Council, was beyond reproach.

    And what about Mace Windu's inability to supress his fear and anger at Palpatine?

    It seems that you are just unwilling to consider a reproach and that you are only capable restating pat answers. The Jedi have raised Anakin since he was a boy. Whatever kind of man he has become, they are in part responsible.

    You don't get to decide when and where there is room for interpretation simply on the basis that you are satisfied with the superficial conclusions.

    You're committed to Anakin's selfishness and greed (i.e. not wanting to allow Padme's imminent violent death to come true) being entirely to blame for the entire galaxy falling into darkness and the Jedi destroyed and are unwillingly to even comprehend any ambivalence towards the Jedi whatsoever. You've not refuted one single interpretation on any thread I've participated in. You've just stated the obvious and the literal and don't even engage with the subtex.
     
  15. Alexrd

    Alexrd Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Sure.

    Yes. By feeding his attachment he's feeding his fear of loss.

    No, I do not. If anything, Anakin would be the one more interested to discover if the Sith Lord was in the midst of his "friend".

    When was Windu in fear and anger?

    No. They are responsible for their teachings. They aren't responsible for Anakin's actions from disregarding those same teachings.

    No, I merely need to point out what's in the movies, no matter how inconvenient it is to some.

    I'm not the one with the burden of proof. I don't blame Anakin's selfishness and greed entirely (as I've pointed out before). But it did help.

    MOD Edit: NO. Stop with this crap.
     
    theraphos likes this.
  16. Iron_lord

    Iron_lord Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012
    The decision they made requires that they deny the rights of Padme's family though. Owen is much less Anakin's family, than Padme's parents are Padme's family - he's a stepbrother, that Anakin has only met once in his life, and feels no connection to.

    So - the people with a strong claim are being denied (unknown to them) in favour of a person with a weak claim (Owen) and a person with no legal claim at all (Bail).
     
    Ghost likes this.
  17. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Alexrd

    Feeding his attachment is even more novel, What does feeding an attachment mean?

    You don't get to just make concepts up when existing ones are at odds with your understanding of them.

    Anakin is the first one to intuit that Anakin is a Sith, even though Obi Wan was told that the Sith lord controlled the senate.

    You're clearly incapable of thinking outside of your own preconceptions if you feel the need to put the blame for Palpatine remaining undiscovered for so long on Anakin.

    What;s in the movies is not open to interpretation. So that's totally irrelevant. The underlying motivations for how and why people do or don't do things are not in the film, (other than what's expressed in dialogue and which cannot be wholly relied upon) and are therefore open to interpretation.

    Pointed out? By obstinately refusing to consider them and trotting out pat answers ."No Anakin was selfish" "No Anakin was greedy" at perfectly reasonable considerations of the fallibility of the Jedi order. You also seem to have quickly forgotten this.

    There's no room for any of these other factors you fail to nominate in that statement. Or in any other trite statement you've made.

    It's no wonder that you resort to immature non-sequiturs.
     
  18. Iron_lord

    Iron_lord Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012
    In TESB Yoda says "Only a fully trained Jedi Knight with the Force as his ally will conquer Vader and his Emperor"


    But in the context of the PT, it seems likely that "Only the fully trained offspring of the Chosen One, with the Force as their ally, will conquer Vader and his Emperor" was what they were thinking when they sought to hide Luke and Leia.


    Since Yoda, mightiest Jedi Master of the Jedi Order, tried to conquer the Emperor and failed. So it takes more than just a Jedi Knight.


    As such - since Luke & Leia are so important to them - they're prepared to do slightly dubious things to keep them safe until training can begin - concealing their existence from Padme's family, and handing them over to the people they choose, rather than "whoever might have the best legal claim".


    If they're prepared to do that - then it makes sense that they would be prepared to raise the children themselves, if they thought it was the best way to save the galaxy, even if it's unfair on Padme's family and Owen.

    "Being fair to Owen because he's Anakin's family" is unlikely to be on their minds when they choose to hand Luke over to him.
     
    Martoto77 likes this.
  19. darth-sinister

    darth-sinister Manager Emeritus star 10 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Feeding his attachment means adding to it. Anakin has attachment issues and everything he does with Shmi, Ahsoka, Obi-wan and Padme just adds to it. In the case of Padme, he's been attached to her for ten years. He's been obsessed with her. That obsession worsens after they're reunited and are alone together. To the point where they get married knowing that it goes against the rules and could end in disaster. He leads by his heart and not his head, becoming emotionally angry whenever there's the slightest bit of a possibility of losing her. Such as with the Blue Shadow Virus or when Rush Clovis comes into the picture. His fear of losing her starts to overwhelm all logic and reasoning to the point that he becomes angry and violent. And when the visions of her death start, he feeds his fear by giving into it and not turning away from it. Every action he takes adds to that fear.

    Anakin is told that Palpatine is a Sith by the man himself, before he doesn't believe that Palpatine is nothing more than a kind, sweet old man. He's put blinders on to the fact that Palpatine isn't the saint that Anakin views him as. Obi-wan has warned Anakin for years that politicians, including Palpatine, are not to be trusted. But Anakin's placed his loyalty to people over principles and thus he's turned a blind eye to Sheev's true nature.

    The Council is only to blame for training Anakin despite knowing that he was already corrupted by his feelings. If they had waited for him to be an adult, it might not have gone as bad. The real fault is with Anakin for letting himself be dictated by his emotions, more than the Council not coddling him.
     
    theraphos likes this.
  20. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    theraphos

    I left it out because I just don't see that as true or logical. Like I said, I know people with the kind of "everything is temporary" kind of mindset, and if anything it makes them even more monogamous and committed than some others I know. Those tend to be the better marriages, from what I've personally seen.

    I never said it was. And I know that pretty well.

    I'm not saying Jedi NEED to be married, or in romantic relationships, or raise their own children (all 3 very different things). True romantic love, like any true love, isn't a temporary "mood swing." I don't need their culture to match mine. But they could definitely still work by allowing more lifestyle diversity. I just can't help but think this argument is similar to "gay people shouldn't get married, you can have that lifestyle, but that shouldn't change the established culture and institution of marriage, which has always been opposite-sex" arguments. Do you see where I'm coming from?

    Could the Jedi at least open up their knowledge and training to others, then?

    And maybe it's because I formed an idea of the Jedi from the OT, before TPM (and then the no-marriage rule introduced in AOTC)... but my view of the Jedi has never been as narrowly-defined as you think of it. I saw Obi-wan, Yoda, Luke, and heard of idealistic crusades and the Force generated by all living things.

    And then when I discovered the EU, you see the Jedi in Tales of the Jedi, in the Bantam era... later on in the NJO, then DNT/LOTF/FOTJ, and Legacy, and Dawn of the Jedi, and Kerra Holt of Knight Errant, and Zayne Carrick of the KOTOC comics, etc. There's been very few constants besides Jedi are supposed to be trained in the Force, and Jedi are supposed to stand with the forces of good. There's also been plenty of internal debate among the Jedi through the ages too. And all that just reinforced that the Jedi have evolved and changed a lot through their history, and no way was completely right, but they shifted with the times. And then Yoda reflects in ROTS that the Jedi failed in the PT because they stopped evolving and became too dogmatic and narrow and arrogant, partially his own fault. The novel that Lucas and the author both say he personally oversaw all the details of.

    Why should we be so sure to claim what is and what is not "Jedi"?

    What would be your view if the whole no romance/marriage/family thing is officially rebuked in the ST, and Lucas revealed that was part of his original outline and a flaw he intended the PT Jedi to have (a well-reasoned and well-intended flaw, but still a flaw)? My point in asking this is to learn if you feel about the Jedi this way because you think it's authorial intent, or because you simply think that's what's canon so far, or because you personally think this is how the Jedi should be, or something else?

    I don't see it as that at all.
     
    Iron_lord likes this.
  21. Iron_lord

    Iron_lord Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012
  22. Lulu Mars

    Lulu Mars Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Mar 10, 2005
    I was thinking: If we discuss what's wrong about the Jedi way, it seems only fair that we also discuss what's right about the Sith way ;)

    Not a lot, from my point of view. I do, however, agree with Palpatine when he says that good is just that: a point of view. One person's pleasure is another person's pain. It may seem logical to conclude that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, that we have a lot to gain from helping each other, but the greedy won't agree - and I can't say that from their point of view, they are wrong.

    This doesn't really have to do with the Sith way, though. It's just their philosophy, not what they do.
    Hm... Maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all :p
     
  23. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    If everyone was like the Sith, extinction or self destruction would be inevitable.

    Concern only for oneself and one's possessions only goes so far. Life requires cooperation and compromises. Even if they are ultimately self serving, the human brain uses emotion to make choices that ensure our longevity. And the desire for interaction with other people to help aid that longevity produces emotions that prompt us to maintain mutually beneficial relationships. Those emotions include love, compassion, altruism and, ultimately, empathy.

    So even if one person is irredeemably and unequivocally self serving they at least rely on others with comparatively unselfish motives and impulses.
     
    Ghost, Iron_lord and Lulu Mars like this.
  24. Lulu Mars

    Lulu Mars Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Mar 10, 2005
    But does that make them unequivocally evil?
     
  25. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    I don't know what makes someone unequivocally evil. Evil doesn't necessarily think it's evil, except sometimes in fiction.

    If evil is the absence of empathy, do you need to acknowledge empathy by explicitly rejecting it or simply lack the capability for empathy outside of that which satisfies your own objectives and/or self serving impulses.