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

I think this is the best way to explain it. You and Lulu are correct in my book.

The only thing that would contradict this is the Father saying "too much light" is negative. For the galaxy to reach a point where light would reach dominance I don't know, but I still don't see excessive light as possible. If you say stuff like the light-wielders would become ignorant, stagnant, and hostile, those are all traits of the dark side to me. Not the light.

As well, we can't be sure that the Father is right about everything.

 

Too much light side/balance could be seen as bad if you see the opposite of change/evolution not being entropy, but stagnation. Sometimes hard times and conflict give people (both individually and in general) a real kick up the rear and drive them to do and achieve things they would not have done otherwise. Too much balance and stability would lead to nothing changing and nothing growing, just the same old status quo ongoing forever.

To apply this to Star Wars, if you look at the Prequels, the democratic Republic Senate is inefficient and corrupt institutionally. But because it is (nominally) democratic, the Jedi sit on their hands and keep it going the exact same way it is - allowing Palpatine to run his scheme. But when he is IN power, and the galaxy suffers, Leia and others strive to replace him with a truly democratic and just government - but it took a galactic civil war (with much Dark Side enabling suffering, anger, hatred etc. on all sides) to achieve it.

 

Balance doesn't mean lack of change nor stagnation.

 

But it does, depending on your interpretation of balance of course. The way I am using the term, if everything is perfectly balanced, it stands exactly still and does not move. Something getting better is as ''unbalanced'' as it getting worse, the situation is no longer stable.

 

That's a very limited and specific interpretation, and far from being the only one.

Reaction to adversity as an improvement is not imbalance. It's restoring balance.

 

If you are in a job, you like the job, it pays the bills etc. it's balanced. You are in a point of stability and equilibrium, you can quite happily go on doing that same job. But if you then get another job, that you enjoy just as much but pays more, you are in a period of change, i.e. it is not stable. Once that change is over, you reach a new balance. You personally are balanced but the situation has changed around you.
In the example I was using, the Jedi thought that the best thing to do was to maintain the status quo and maintain the balance exactly as it was right then. Everything worked to an extent, but it was not a truly democratic system, it was ruled by money and corruption and deals done under the table. There was slavery and war going on in other systems but that wasn't their problem. The New Republic was far fairer and cleaner than the old one at the time of it's ending, but the old Jedi would never have allowed that change to come.

 

Eh?! Source?

 

Pretty much everything they do and say in the prequels. At what point in the movie does ANY Jedi not played by Liam Neeson ever consider the Senate and the Republic is less than perfect? The only explanations we get for most of their actions very rarely gets any more depth than 'it's the Jedi way/the will of the Force' - i.e. this is what we do because that is how we have always done it. The novelisation of ROTS makes it explicit when Yoda realises they have not changed or grown at all, when the Dark Side has.

Many times Obi-Wan or another Jedi repeatedly state that the Jedi always strive to maintain balance - not improve, or try and influence things to become better. Just to maintain balance, keep on keeping on.

 

Which is?

Neither Qui-Gon nor any other Jedi made their thoughts about the senate and the Republic known to the audience. Besides, it's not like the corruption in the senate is a secret.

I.e: that's your personal interpretation.

That's not from Lucas.

Keeping balance and self-improvement aren't mutually exclusive.

 

When the Republic governs, it doesn't mean the dark side goes away. The light side and the dark side co-exist. Some politicians want to utilize their power for selfish means (power, money, corruption) while other politicians want to utilize their power to help the people living in the galaxy.

When the Empire governs, everyone lives with a gun pointed at their heads. Everyone becomes a slave.

Which one would you want to live under? I choose the Republic, and that's why I would join the Rebel Alliance or the Jedi.

 

Seeking imbalance is itself of the dark side. Therefore The Force can never become inbalanced towards the light side.

 

Not according to the Father, "too much light or dark would be the undoing of life as you know it".

Whoever came up with that, I want to have a conversation with. Who's idea was to make such a bold statement and provide no further depth or exploration into it?

 

Father didn't say that the light would seek to expand itself to the point of their being "too much light".

 

This conflates the light side and balance, but the balance is between the light and dark sides. So a condition of "too much light side" would not be "too much balance".

 

The light side does not seek dominance, but the Father wanted to make a point of saying that light and dark need to be balanced because too much of either one would, hypothetically speaking, be bad.

 

OK so if we go by too much light being bad, that could be demonstrated by someone overplaying their hand and destroying themselves through too much self-sacrifice.

But if someone helps people wherever they can within their means, and lives a selfless life while also taking the time to care for their own needs in order to continue helping other people, why is there a dark side? Where is it?

Although I'm a huge Star Wars fan, understanding this is the biggest thing of all, and they're doing a horrible job of exploring it and they are conflicting with themselves.

 

The dark side is passion. What is life without passion?

 

Dark Siders draw on their passions, true, but it's their greed, lust and anger that give them strength. Dark Siders do not believe in the common good, they believe in greed. Dark Siders do not believe in romance, they believe in lust, raw and uncompassionate. The Dark Side views compassion as a weakness. Those who follow it, feed on the fear they inspire in others. They control the anger they feel within, using it to power their hatred. In the end, the suffering of everyone else is what Dark Side practitioners enjoy.

 

I'm a little confused as to what the first quote is saying. Can you maybe explain it a bit as I know you're good with this stuff

 

Basically, that light side without enough dark side to balance it, leads to stagnation and longer-lasting empires.

 

Oh ok. But if the empires are good (we would assume they would be since the light side reigns) what's the problem with them?

 

Imbalance is when someone has power over someone else. Because the light side doesn't seek dominance, "too much light" is a hypothetical that can never be. Totalitarian regimes such as the Empire are unbalanced because Palpatine has total power over everyone else in the galaxy.

 

Innocent people not getting blown up at the order of a crazy tyrant, and avoiding the situation of an angst-ridden apprentice who kills innocent kids and intentionally kills his own wife when he wants to save her.

 

I'd say life without passion would be pointless. Strictly speaking, passion is suffering, but it is also caring and strong feelings in general. Without those things, life is but an emotionless function and that's utterly uninspiring to me.
Just as there is a black dot in Yang and a white one in Yin, there is passion on the light side as well, of course: compassion, which means to suffer together, care together etc. That's definitely something we should strive for, but it is passion, i e "darkness". We can't have that speck of darkness without there being a dark side.

The dark side isn't synonymous with evil, though. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Passion hurts, sure, but it's wonderful as well. It's emotion, which, as I said, is an essential component of life, from my point of view. It's joy, love and relish. It's the reward of life, all the things that we want to feel, what drives us to be great.
There's a downside to it as well, but all things have their pros and cons. The light side, were it to dominate our being, would lead to passivity, stagnation and indifference.
The key to harmony is to balance these two sides and bring out the best in them; use them to champion the well-being and harmony of all.

IMO.

 

Can I hear examples of this passivity,stagnation and indifference? Cause for the life of me I honestly can't see any reasons why the light side would lead any of this.