PT Yoda: "Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose." (PLEASE SEE WARNING ON PAGE 14)

That's one of the reasons I liked Legends - which portrayed most of the 1000 generations (25,000-odd years) as not using this system - with it being only formalized 1000 years before ANH - some 40-odd generations.

 

But that's part of the Jedi's morality in the OT as well. Yoda tells Luke not to save his friends on Cloud City, saying that will destroy everything they've fought for. Luke goes anyway, and fails to really save his friend in any meaningful way.

Obi-Wan tells Luke that by not killing his father, the Emperor has already won.

The Jedi explicitly want Luke to kill both Sith to fulfil his destiny.

 

Hence the theory that, even in the OT, the message is that Yoda & Ben were wrong - and that Luke made the right decision to go (even if it was them that rescued him).

Star Wars on Trial

Author: Scott Lynch: Essay Title: The Son of Skywalker Must Not Become a Jackass (or Finding the Ethical Core of the Star Wars films by Ignoring the Ghosts and Muppets.)


The Star Wars films establish beyond a glimmer of all possible doubt that Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda, wise and well-meaning as they are, are not the sorts of guys you'd want to trust with the management of your mutual fund. The venerable Jedi Masters are actually quite the pair of shifty-eyed SOBs, and the web of guilt, lies and manipulation they construct over the course of the two trilogies is epic.
Detractors of the films (and of the personal vision of George Lucas) enthusiastically seize upon this point as though it were a revelation - as though the series' writer/creator and its fans might somehow be surprised to learn that the two older Jedi are frequently evasive, selfish, and dishonest. But while some second-guessing of Lucas's judgement in the construction of his films is justifiable. in this case it seems both uncharitable and easily refuted. Lucas clearly worries a great deal about the ethical image his characters present - in at least one instance, he worried far too much.

(he then talks about how Han Shot First and Only, the original version, was clearly self-defence, and how the new version looks silly)

Yet even this supremely justifiable preemptive blasting was deemed unwholesome enough to warrant a jarring change. Now, with that under his belt, does George Lucas strike you as the sort of writer/director who could plough through six films blithely unaware that two of his central characters like to fold, spindle and mutilate the truth?
Sure Obi-Wan and Yoda are a pair of liars (and wouldn't you feel like fudging the facts a bit if the alternative was to admit that the Sith played the Jedi like a cheap trombone, and that your bad judgement helped usher in decades of bloody tyranny?). Obi-Wan and Yoda are liars because their deceptions set them up in direct opposition to Luke, for the sake of the story. Materially, the two elderly Jedi are Luke's allies. Morally, the two of them are villains - yes, villains - that Luke must confront and overcome on several occasions in order to bring about a true and lasting victory over the Sith and their Empire.
Make no mistake: Luke's saga in the original Star Wars trilogy isn't a rediscovery of the ways of the Jedi of the Old Republic. It's the story of how he puts himself on an escape trajectory from almost everything they stood for.

Consider the Jedi of the Republic as presented in the prequel trilogy. By and large, they're as decadent (in their own fashion) as the slowly dying government they serve. Insular, ascetic, pompous, detached, overconfident and indecisive - even the better ones display some or all of these traits at various points. Again, critics seem to seize on this as an accident - "How can we completely sympathize with this pack of arrogant space hippies?" The only reasonable response is "What makes you think you're supposed to completely sympathize with them?"

The list of moral screwups perpetrated by the last generation of Old Republic Jedi is pretty overwhelming. Ponder:

1: When presented with the most powerful Force-sensitive being in centuries, they decide not to guide him in any fashion. Apparently, leaving him to run around on his own (or under the tutelage of interested third parties like the Sith) is a much better idea.
2: When presented with clear evidence that a Sith is behind the Republic-shaking events on Naboo, they dispatch the same Master/Padawan team that has already failed to beat the Sith once, with no reinforcements. Apparently, the thought of sending three dozen bright young lightsaber duelists to beat Darth Maul like a dusty carpet doesn't occur to anyone - and as a result, Qui-Gon Jinn is slain.
3: When presented with the massive ethical quandary of a huge army of sentient beings cloned to serve as blaster fodder, the Jedi shrug their shoulders and put the poor suckers to immediate use without discussion.
4: When they become suspicious that someone or something is manipulating Senator Palpatine, the Jedi Council continues to place the burden of spying on Anakin - a Jedi known to be insubordinate, proud and volatile, with possibly compromised loyalties. We all know what happens next.

When Obi-Wan meets Luke Skywalker in A New Hope, he speaks wistfully of the Republic era as "a more civilized age." He neglects to mention, of course, that the tragedy of the Old Republic Jedi was at least partially self-inflicted. He begins his association with Luke not just by lying to him about his father's fate, but by attempting to inveigle him into an undeservedly charitable view of the Order that Obi-Wan accidentally helped destroy. The message is clear in the prequels and Obi-Wan only amplifies it in Episodes IV-VI: the path of the Old Republic Jedi is something Luke must shun, not celebrate.

So much, then, for the prequel trilogy, a murky series of events in which few characters, even the survivors, manage to cover themselves in glory. The Jedi display an almost callous disregard for the emotional comfort of the boy who grows up to lead their slaughter - even Anakin's closest friend, Obi-Wan, is capable of turning a remarkably cold and dismissive shoulder toward him. Consistent ethical behaviour is nowhere to be found ... and the Galaxy suffers for it.
By contrast, the ethical core of Episode IV-VI is almost ebullient; the unpretentious message enshrined at the heart of the original trilogy's story boils down to "stick with your friends and loved ones even when the whole universe seems to have it in for you." In A New Hope Luke rushes off alone the moment he realizes his aunt and uncle might be in danger - a foolish but highly compassionate decision. He then elects to stay with the Rebellion and participate in a suicide mission rather than escape with Han. In the end, his example inspires Han to return as well, postponing his vital reckoning with Jabba the Hutt for the sake of saving his friends and their cause.
The displays of loyalty in The Empire Strikes Back are heartbreaking. Han risks a bitter, lonely death for a slim chance of finding Luke alive. Luke stubbornly ignores Yoda's pleas to finish his training in favor of rushing off to help his endangered friends. Lando Calrissian, in the hope of redeeming himself, gives up his entire Cloud City mining operation while trying to save Han, Leia and Chewbacca. Most strikingly, Luke chooses to fling himself to a possible death rather than accept Darth Vader's offer of a partnership to rule the Galaxy - a partnership that would surely destroy his friends and everything they've fought for as members of the Rebel Alliance.
Luke's moral resolve is an inarticulate and even shortsighted thing, but it shows him to be ethically superior to his teachers - he will not allow his friends to suffer while he stands by and does nothing for them, and he won't even consider using them as chess pieces in some far-ranging game of Jedi against Sith in which the lives of the non-Force-sensitive do not count. The Jedi of the Old Republic discouraged the emotional connections of love and friendship; Luke is defined to his very core by those connections. The efforts of Luke's mentors to mold him in the fashion of their generation of Jedi - more ascetic, more detached - more aloof - fail continually, and while they are cranky about this failure, events prove them wrong in every respect.

Luke, driven by compassion, holds out hope for the redemption of his father in Return of the Jedi even as a ghostly Obi-Wan grumpily continues to assert that Vader isn't worth redeeming. Kenobi seems to want Luke to atone for his mistakes in the quickest, crudest way possible - by killing Vader so Obi-Wan won't have to think about the problem anymore. Of all Obi-Wan's faults, this one seems the most petty and grievous. Even after the full revelation of every lie Obi-Wan and Yoda previously fed to Luke, Obi-Wan continues to begrudge Luke the feelings that define him: steadfast love, undying loyalty and unquenchable hope. Nowhere is the contrast between the Old Republic Jedi and Luke more apparent; never is Luke's commitment to his own ideals more critical.
A more arrogant and detached Luke, an Old Republic-model Jedi such as Yoda and Obi-Wan might have forged out of a more complacent young Skywalker, would surely have met with disaster in his confrontation with Vader and Palpatine aboard the second Death Star. Palpatine's superiority over Luke is readily apparent; the young Jedi has no defense against the Sith Lord's dark lightning.
Killing Vader outright or disdaining him as beyond redemption would have done no good; then Luke would have died or been suborned to the will of the Emperor in Vader's place. Struggling against Palpatine would have been to no avail, with Luke so overmatched. Only Luke's feelings for his father - his decision to spend what might be his last few breaths pleading for Vader's aid - succeed in turning Vader against the Emperor. The Sith Lord dies by his apprentice's hand, but it is Luke's love and loyalty that put that hand in motion.

At the end of the cinematic Star Wars saga, Luke Skywalker inherits the mantle and powers of the Jedi without the hang-ups that brought the Order down at its nadir - the pompous senses of entitlement, superiority and emotional detachment that his mentors failed to kindle in him. Luke faces his destiny as the first of a new breed of Jedi - compassionate and sociable, a more faithful friend and a more honorable foe than the Knights of old. The practical moral qualities he articulates by example are immediately applicable in the real world, and worth aspiring to.
With great power must come a certain amount of healthy self-doubt, and a certain amount of trust in the people closest to you. In embracing this, Luke's personal triumph becomes the Saga's ethical vindication.

 

Exactly. Luke refused to allow others to manipulate his relationship to his attachments (in the end). This is in spite of living a full childhood and adolescence where he would have learned the value and inevitability of forming attachments, as well as the pain that sometimes goes with them coming to an end, naturally or unnaturally. He's even immediately curious and longing for a relationship with a dead father he never knew. This is anathema to Yoda's proclamations about attachments and the need to seclude infants from the possibility of ever developing such notions.

Luke's career is initiated with notions of justice fspecifically for his now dead family including the father who was always dead but resurrected in a way that he now wants to honour. The infant Anakin on the other hand DOES have an altruistic sense of helping others around him and not thinking about himself. How that co-exists with obsessive parental attachment and possessive jealousy in the same person cannot be explained except by a personality disorder, which diminishes Anakin's responsibility, thereby diminishing the dramatic plausibility and applicability of the supposed moral dilemmas.

 

Maybe it was a case of - Anakin spent the 9 years between TPM and AOTC being encouraged to repress his attachments (and with strong disapproval shown every time he failed) - and as a result, his altruistic nature became warped?

In short - he didn't have a personality disorder, until his Jedi upbringing conflicted with his normal person upbringing, to give him one?

 

Not really IMO. Yoda and Obi-Wan believe Luke is not ready to face Vader, as he's only just learning to use the Force, but lacks control. In their eyes Luke is taking a huge risk, and they fear he may turn to the dark side like his father. However, IMO Luke doesn't fail. He's unable to save his friends, but he ultimately conquers Vader, not by besting him in a duel, but by refusing to join his father and choosing certain death, by letting himself fall to his doom. I think this was one of the most profound character moments in the saga.

Obi-Wan believes Anakin cannot be redeemed, so Luke should be prepared to kill his father, if he's forced to do so. This is not the same as believing all Sith need to be destroyed. TESB speaks of stopping and conquering Vader and his Emperor, not necessarily killing them. However, killing them should be an option, if all else fails. Obi-Wan never directly states Luke should kill his father. He says he must face Darth Vader again, after which Luke states that he can't kill his father (under any circumstances). Not being willing to use lethal force, puts the Jedi at a serious disadvantage.

 

It was good advice from Yoda. Had Anakin heeded it, both the personal and galactic tragedy of ROTS would not have occurred.

 

Scott Linch as per Iron_lord sums it up perfectly, I think. It is easy to confuse the definitions: attachment, love, dependency, reciprocity. They all have subjective interpretations.

A system that has endured for countless generations is not inherently a successful system. That is much like saying no nation can live for long in poverty, or dictatorship - but, of course, at the very least our own observations of reality prove that not to be the case. I believe it was Kreia, in the Old Republic (pre-Ruusan) before even such Jedi doctrines were properly rooted, who remarked, "The Republic is a slowly dying beast, and has been for centuries" or such words to the effect that it was stagnant and ineffective.

The same might be said of the Jedi and their beliefs as surmised by Yoda, before the rise of the Galactic Empire. We must remember that the Clone Wars was a unique orchestration that allowed the Republic to finally be toppled - it was only because of the contributing genius of the Sith's Grand Plan that the Jedi's flagging ways could finally be exterminated. One of few truths of the Sith doctrine, I think, was that purpose was realized through action, or more particularly, through conflict. The Jedi in peacetime were never honed, their views never truly challenged, their morals never put under duress. Indeed, a complete abandonment of 'attachment' is a cop-out, an excuse not even engage with the morality of human/alien interaction.

When we talk about Anakin's 'moral dilemma' I wonder whether it is more really a case of the 'moral dilemma of the galaxy at large' i.e. the state of the troubled, waning galaxy, reflected in the trials of one man, rather than solely his internal conflict, which merely gave rise to an Evil force user. The Skywalker legacy was perhaps a true legacy of the Force - one which cut through the orthodoxies around them, and forged something new - restored faith in the concept of Jedi as true, open conduits of the Force.

The scale of the Jedi's failure does dawn, finally on Yoda - Stover's novelization as an example is clear on that - as he duels Palpatine he knows the Jedi, embodied in him, have failed the Force and themselves. But he is passed the point of enlightenment - it comes too late to redeem Anakin, who is driven by a fate of a unique kind never before seen or appreciated by the old Jedi.

Therefore, I wonder, in light of Yoda's words, "Train yourself to let go..." - whether he could have said anything else, whether he knew anything else, whether he had that choice.

 

You rather failed to grasp the point.
You have been talking about it is ok for the Jedi to stop "unnatural" death, like stopping someone from getting murdered. At least sometimes, the unnatural murder of Shmi was apparently not something that anyone should stop.
But you argue against the Jedi doing something to stop "Natural" death.
Which, as I showed above, involves things like dying from pneumonia, poisonous snakes, natural disasters etc.
These are all "Natural" deaths and thus no one should try and prevent them.
Which makes most doctors in our world wrong. They should just these people die.

[/QUOTE]

Except Anakin obtained no cure.
What he did was fall for the empty promises of a snake oil salesman and he was dumb enough to believe it.

Also, if you define "Unnatural" as anything not found in wild nature.
Then curing a disease with man-made tools or man-made drugs is technically as "unnatural" as invoking Satan.
I know some religious sects that don't want their children vaccinated because of religious reasons.

But you also miss another important point.
Did Anakin go too far to save to stop Padme from dying? Yes, no doubt.
Does that mean that we should never make ANY effort to save ANYONE, EVER?
I don't think so.

This again is dogmatic, it is all or nothing.
"Anakin's attachment led him to turn evil therefore all attachment is bad."
That again is dogma, it takes good ideas and turns them into inflexible dogma.

And speaking about attachment, are the Jedi attached to the Republic as an ideal or an institution?
I would say yes, they have sworn themselves to protect it. They are willing to fight, kill and maybe even die in it's service.

So is this something that the Jedi should train themselves to let go off?
If all attachment is bad then the Jedi should be ready to let the Republic die if they feel that is what is fated?
If some huge natural disaster is going to destroy the whole republic, should the Jedi go "ohh well, Mother Nature wants the republic to die so we'll let it die."

Bye
Blackboard Monitor

 

Han's attachment was to himself, to his ship and to his money. That's why he left. That's why he shot Greedo. That's why he was only involved because of the reward and not for idealistic reasons. He was afraid to lose it all. He comes back because of his compassion for Luke and Leia. He decides to stop being afraid and selfish and do the right thing.

I've lost people in my life as well. But the thing that I learned that first time with my stepfather was that I couldn't drive myself into a frenzy, being afraid to lose him. I had to live my life one day at a time and not constantly worry about it. It was also the same thing that my siblings had to learn and it is what my mom had to learn. So, yes, the idea of "training" yourself to prepare for the worst is sound. And as to not mourning, as I said, Yoda isn't advocating not caring when they die. He's talking about in dealing with the end, to not let grief take a hold too soon. To not let that fear of loss dictate how you behave and to not let it define you.

Yoda knows what the root cause of his suffering and attachments are, it's because he was taken at an older age. He cannot treat Anakin's condition because it is of his own doing. His Jedi training is the only thing that can free him from his suffering. There is no single method other than to adhere to what Obi-wan has already taught him. Remember, he doesn't do this for Luke either. Luke has to figure it out on his own.

Lucas defined attachment based on the Buddhist traditions and beliefs, as well as those found in western psychology. But he also understands the power of love which is why he said these two things.

"The Jedi are trained to let go. They're trained from birth," he continues, "They're not supposed to form attachments. They can love people- in fact, they should love everybody. They should love their enemies; they should love the Sith. But they can't form attachments. So what all these movies are about is: greed. Greed is a source of pain and suffering for everybody. And the ultimate state of greed is the desire to cheat death."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith; page 213.

"It's about a good boy who was loving and had exceptional powers, but how that eventually corrupted him and how he confused possessive love with compassionate love. That happens in Episode II: Regardless of how his mother died, Jedis are not supposed to take vengeance. And that's why they say he was too old to be a Jedi, because he made his emotional connections. His undoing is that he loveth too much."

--George Lucas, Rolling Stone Magazine Interview; June 2005.

He defines love as two separate types, which there are many known examples of. The possessive love which is the unhealthy kind of love where people become emotionally volatile and dangerous and the compassionate love which is the more healthy type of love that many people engage in.

But that's the thing, even with the idea of a vast majority, there is the minority who aren't capable. There's always someone who isn't capable of loving a person the right way, whether it is mental illness or some other issue. Some go too far and some don't. With Anakin, his problems aren't inherent in him as a person. He is capable of loving people correctly because he does that at the end with Luke. His problem is that he had Palpatine twisting him for years, telling him that he was greater than the other Jedi and that he didn't need to be bound by their rules and dogma. And when it came to dealing with issues like his attachments, he took the quick and easy path towards finding a solution, rather than working it out the hard way. It's like the fitness guru who has to choose between either working out hard, every day in order to get in shape, or using a shortcut like steroids in order to get there faster. Anakin choose to take the shortcut.

It became a natural desire because Luke forced him to examine himself and his choices. That's why when Luke escapes from Bespin, Vader doesn't lash out at the Falcon's hyperdrive suddenly working again. It is a subtle sign that something has changed within him. When Luke and Vader confront each other, we hear the regret in his voice and see him contemplating what Luke said. He's starting to work it through his mind as he did all those years ago. And the root of his wanting to be all powerful was born from his time in slavery, because he had no power over his situation. The only power that he had was in fixing things that were broken, which he took pride in. That's why he became concerned with the idea of always being able to fix things that were broken and in turn, it fed into his wanting to help others all the time. He wanted to fix the hyperdrive on the Queen's ship and he wanted to help Qui-gon and Padme. But when he cannot fix something, when he cannot help someone, that's when he goes to pieces. That is when he becomes obsessed with the idea of needing more power, more control in his life, in order to fix the problems of the galaxy. That's why Lucas included that picnic scene where he supports the idea of a dictatorship, because he thinks that it is the only way to solve the problems. And that's why when he's really turned, he wants to do this to bring peace and justice, because deep down, even though he knows it is wrong, he also feels that it is right.

His premonitions were born from his attachment to people. Without that attachment to people, he no longer has them. His only attachment is to power and he isn't afraid to lose his power. But he becomes obsessed with wanting more power which is why he wants to turn Luke.

"It really has to do with learning," Lucas says, "Children teach you compassion. They teach you to love unconditionally. Anakin can't be redeemed for all the pain and suffering he's caused. He doesn't right the wrongs, but he stops the horror. The end of the Saga is simply Anakin saying, I care about this person, regardless of what it means to me. I will throw away everything that I have, everything that I've grown to love- primarily the Emperor- and throw away my life, to save this person. And I'm doing it because he has faith in me; he loves me despite all the horrible things I've done. I broke his mother's heart, but he still cares about me, and I can't let that die. Anakin is very different in the end. The thing of it is: The prophecy was right. Anakin was the Chosen One, and he does bring balance to the Force. He takes the one ounce of good still left in him and destroys the Emperor out of compassion for his son."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith; page 221.

"And obviously there are two sides to the redeemer motif in the Star Wars films. Ultimately Vader is redeemed by his children and especially by having children. Because that's what life is all about—procreating and raising children, and it should bring out the best of you."

--George Lucas, Time Magazine article, 2002.

"The film is ultimately about the dark side and the light side, and those sides are designed around compassion and greed. The issue of greed, of getting things and owning things and having things and not being able to let go of things, is the opposite of compassion—of not thinking of yourself all the time. These are the two sides—the good force and the bad force. They're the simplest parts of a complex cosmic construction."

--George Lucas, Time Magazine article, 1999.

The attachment is to himself and to his own power. He lets go of that and thinks of his son. He's not thinking of himself, just as Luke isn't thinking of himself. That's what unconditional love is. That is what letting go of their attachments means. When Anakin turns evil, he does so because he is thinking of himself. Not of Padme. Not of the galaxy. Only himself. Luke is faced with that same temptation because he's thinking about himself which is about losing Leia to the dark side and losing his friends to the Empire. Luke sees himself in his father and see why he was becoming him and he lets go of that. He lets go of all the things that he fears to lose and makes a compassionate choice. Anakin lets go of his own attachments and thinks only of his son and not himself.

I never said that Anakin shouldn't have tried to save his mother, but he also had an obligation to protect Padme. He had to choose and he choose poorly. In the case of his mother, his failure to save her might not have been his destiny. Meaning that this was the point where her life was meant to end. Nor should he have lashed out when he did fail. As for natural death, there is a point where medical science cannot save someone. The Force cannot stop someone from dying, which is what Anakin wanted to use it for.

He caused her to die by choking her and breaking her heart by becoming evil. He never got the chance to learn how to cheat death, because of Obi-wan's interference.

Using the Force to defy nature is unnatural. That's what Palpatine was saying to Anakin about Plagueis and what he allegedly did.

I never said otherwise. But what Anakin wanted is a far cry from what should be done and can be done.

The Jedi aren't attached to the Republic. They're not doing this for themselves, they're doing this for the people within the Republic and the galaxy as a whole, by fighting to protect it from evil. That's why the Jedi and the Republic formed a symbiant circle, as they worked together to try and make the galaxy a better place. The Sith were a parasite that attached themselves to the Republic and tried to destroy that circle, so that they could rule and dominate. They were doing it for themselves.

 

That's the thing though - it's his son being tortured to death by Palpatine - and not some complete stranger. It's someone who loves Vader, and not someone who is indifferent to Vader, that he saves.

 

And that's why Lucas had the duel on Mustafar end as it did. Obi-wan did love Anakin as a son and as a friend, but he becomes indifferent to him and walks away, because of the betrayal. By not trying to help him at the end, it burns Vader into Anakin. Vader saves Luke because Luke still loves him despite all of his evil actions and deeds. He forgives him for them, whereas Obi-wan couldn't do it. That is where unconditional love comes in. That is a compassionate act and Obi-wan couldn't bring himself to show him that compassion.

 

I wonder whether a true understanding of "love" ever dawned on Obi-Wan, or any of the Jedi, until it was far too late. Even with Anakin as his apprentice, the sense of even platonic love was never conveyed by Obi-wan. It didn't fall within the Jedi scheme of stoic detachment.

The Jedi were so detached from the human spirit by RoTS that the notions of redemption, sacrifice and compassion were all but alien to them. It is these very things in the father and son that finally restore the true meaning of a Jedi according to the the will of the Force. "I am a Jedi, like my father before me" - this is an assertion, not of the Jedi of old, but of the new. He relates to the Jedi his father was, the potential in him, and his uniqueness compared to all who came before.

I don't want to concede that the Jedi as defined in the PT were meant to represent the epitome of goodness and righteousness. That feels wrong - and it doesn't fit well with how the plot developed, which in my view, weighs equal criticism on the old Jedi and Republic as the Sith - by suggesting that it was these two things which gave entry to the Sith - I think that's far more compelling.

 

The Jedi understood what compassion meant as it was something that they taught. But in terms of showing it towards Anakin, Obi-wan had a difficult time due to the close relationship that they had and his own oath to train him despite what the Council would decide. And the Jedi as a whole didn't believe that he could come back, because past Jedi had failed to turn the Sith away from the dark side. That's why Yoda said that the boy he trained was gone and all that was left was Vader. What Anakin did with Luke was unprecedented as no other Sith had ever done that. Where the Jedi failed was not showing compassion to the Sith in situations like what Anakin was in.

And as DrDre pointed out, Vader only wants Luke in his life to help him with his ambitions. So there was potential for him to leave Luke to die at Palpatine's hand. It is why he waits so long before making the right choice. He's still struggling between his attachment and a growing sense of compassion.

 

Yeah, the line itself isn't that extreme but from the delivery it feels like he's also conveying, "Hardly anybody has done so" and "It would be very shameful."

 

You have said that Shmi's death was "fated" and thus should and could not be stopped by Anakin.
And if Anakin was supposed to have saved her, he would have.
Nice bit of circular logic, anyone that dies, their death was "fated" and anytime someone is saved from dying, that too is "fated".

And the Force can stop someone from dying. If a person is trapped in a car that is sinking in water and a Jedi uses the Force to lift it out of the water. That is a case of using the Force to stop someone from dying.

The film doesn't make it very clear if this power even exist or it is just lies that Palpatine is telling.
Given that Palpatine basically admits that he doesn't have this power but makes some very vague promises that they can find out together, I view the whole things as lies he tells a very gullible Anakin.

And you are correct in that Anakin is the one who causes the very thing he wanted to avoid.
So he could have stopped Padme from dying, if he had stayed in the temple, or if he had ran away with Padme and left the whole thing.
Also, say that Palpatine was not a sith, just a corrupt politician that wants to become a dictator.
And say that he offered Anakin a scientific drug that he had made. One that can reverse any injury, heal any disease and bring back dying people from the brink.
He has this drug and is willing to give it to Anakin if he sides with him against the Jedi.
Would Anakin go along with it?
I think he would.

You defy "nature" by curing diseases using man made drugs or made made instruments.
You defy "nature" when you heal injuries caused by animals or natural disasters.

Your argument comes across as saying that doctors should not do this and anything except human induced injuries should EVER be treated. All the rest are "natural".
This is again dogma.

You have said that the Jedi should limit themselves to stop "unnatural" death.
You said that when mother nature says it is time for you to die, no one should interfere.
Again dogma, "nature" is always right and is essentially "God".

Take the ENT ep. "Dear Doctor", in it the ship finds a species that is dying from a genetic problem.
They know that the species will eventually be wiped out and they do find a cure.
But they decide to withhold it because they think it is what "nature" and evolution wants.
How evolution is used in the ep is stupid, evolution has no end goal, nor does it "Intend" for species to get wiped out. It is as stupid as to say that convection intends to cause earthquakes.

So they effectively do ethnic cleansing by standing by and letting a whole species die out.
So we have the captain struggle with his conscience so that he can kill millions.
To me, that is not the hero of the story.

[/QUOTE]

They certainly are. They have attached themselves to the republic and are working to protect it.
Attachment need not be solely personal or for personal benefit.
Someone can be attached to idea of justice and if taken too far, that someone can decide to deal out "justice" on his/her own because the courts have failed.
Someone can be attached to the cause of freedom and take it too far and start wars that don't directly affect them.
You can be attached to lots of things, both people, things and causes.
And like with most things, if you take something too far, the result can be bad.

Ex Rorschach in Watchmen, I would say he is attached to his cause that evil must be punished.
Adrian Veidt is attached to his cause to save the world even if it means killing lots of people to do it.

Bye.
Blackboard Monitor

 

Er, there is such a thing as the social sciences. By “actual scientists” you are referring to those in the physical sciences, not all sciences. So what you should be saying is that psychology is not a physical science. Though even that’s not entirely accurate, as there’s a lot of hard neuroscience shaping the field today.

 

That's kinda the definition of fate. Something that was meant to happen by something beyond normal kin, i.e. the will of the Force.

In that regard, yes. But stopping death as in willing someone to live by using the Force to keep them alive, is wrong.

The point is that he never gets the chance to find out one way or another, because of Obi-wan's interference.

And that is also a problem, because it still means turning to the dark side.

Two things.

1. Nature always fights back. That's why some diseases and infections are now becoming resistant to the medications that once eliminated them. Others are still incurable.

2. The Force is not medical science. The Force is a power that is created by nature. There are things that are beyond even its capabilities and something like stopping death the way that the Sith allegedly do it, it isn't even dogma. It is a violation of the Force itself.

Hell, we haven't even conquered death in the real world. We can delay it, but we cannot stop it indefinitely.

No, I said that it if Padme's fated to die of natural causes during labor and medical science cannot save her, then Anakin should accept her death and not try to use the Force to keep her around. If Palpatine uses Sith lightning to kill Luke and Anakin can save him by stabbing him in the back, then that is correct.

How do we know that evolution doesn't intend for a species to become extinct? The dinosaurs were wiped out. Other species that were eliminated not because of man, but because of nature. Perhaps AIDS, cancer, Ebola and other diseases are our extinction. Perhaps there is something else that we haven't found yet that will do it. Nothing lasts forever.

The only Jedi outside of Anakin who took things too far was Mace. The other Jedi didn't.

And Anakin's was to saving his wife at all costs.

 

"To cheat death is a power only one has achieved, but if we work together I know we can discover the secret." Palpatine lied. Simple as that.

Also, Mace took things too far? Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it was because he was trying to kill the Sith? Remind me again who helped enslave a Republic and assisted in the near-genocide of the Jedi? 'Cause it certainly wasn't Mace.

 

Did he say to Anakin that he was the Apprentice of Darth Plagueis? No, he didn't. He told Anakin that he is the only one who has a knowledge of the dark side that the Jedi do not and will share it with him. He never lied about having the power to cheat death.

He took it too far by trying to kill an unarmed and helpless person, which goes against the Jedi Code and is what forces Anakin's hand. It showed to Anakin that Palpatine was right, the Jedi were hypocrites and were willing to break the rules, but expected the rest of the sheep to fall in line. And it is what forces Anakin to act, because Mace went from arresting Palpatine to killing him.

 

The only thing that matters is what Anakin believed. The fact that Palpatine has plausible deniability seems irrelevant to me. Also Palpatine stated that Plagueis taught his apprentice everything he knew, implying that the knowledge to cheat death was passed down to next generations, whether Palpatine was his apprentice or not. Either way most people I know interpreted Palpatine's statements as confirmation that he had that power. The fact that he sort of went back on his promise made Anakin seem pretty dumb, especially the extend to which he was willing to go to please his new master, considering that he was still a good guy moments earlier. Murder some kids to get a power which he probably made up to get me to turn, sure no problem!

Afterall who wouldn't trust this guy:

 

This isn't about Anakin, but about certain segments of the audience that misunderstood what was being said.

Unless as I pointed out, that isn't the case. Follow the dialogue. Palpatine tells Anakin that he has a knowledge of the dark side, knowing all there is to know. Dooku is dead. Maul is gone. The Jedi won't help him. Palpatine states, use my knowledge which refers to the dark side. He even says, "Know the power of the dark side. The power to save Padme". So he is the only one left who can help him. People make the mistake of assuming that he lied, which isn't true. It is entirely possible for Anakin to believe that just because Plagueis taught his Apprentice, that said Apprentice didn't teach his own Apprentice before being killed by him.

The point is that Anakin doesn't believe that he was lied to and Palpatine didn't lie to him about knowing the technique. Also, Palpatine frames the story as a legend and never pinpoints when Plagueis was alleged to have existed. Meaning that he could have existed before Darth Bane and the knowledge was lost in the shuffle.

 

Which is your interpretation. The fact that so many people interpreted the dialogue the way I did, points to the fact that it's ambiguous at best. Palpatine states Plagueis discovered the secret to cheat death, and that he taught his apprentice EVERYTHING he knew, before his apprentice killed him in his sleep. The logical conclusion is, that he passed on this knowledge before he died. Additionally Palpatine states:

"Learn to know the dark side of the Force, and you will be able to save your wife from certain death."

He doesn't say maybe, or anything like that. So, from Anakin's point of view Palpatine states the dark side is a guaranteed path to saving Padme, that is until Palpatine says:

"To cheat death is a power only one has achieved".

In which case his earlier statement should have been:

"Learn to know the dark side of the Force, and you MIGHT be able to save your wife from certain death."

Remember Yoda's words at the end of AOTC:

"Joined the Dark Side, Dooku has. Lies, deceit, creating mistrust are his ways now."

So I don't see how Sidious can be considered a beacon of truth, except by a gullible fool like Anakin Skywalker.

 

Anakin believes in Palpatine because he mentored him for thirteen years and has been the only one who has encouraged him, when the Jedi haven't. He is the only one who offers him what the Jedi won't. And the Jedi themselves have proven to be untrustworthy in his view, because he has exposed their hypocrisy.

 

Except that this friend has also kept the truth from him for thirteen years that he is a Sith Lord, and is ultimately responsible for the death of his first mentor Qui-Gon Jinn, and is a member of a group of dark side users who's crimes have been well documented, while the Jedi's dedication to peace and justice has been equally well documented. So, I wouldn't say Palpatine has earned many points in the trustworthy department. Also, Anakin just witnessed Palpatine almost getting an orgasm from killing Mace Windu. If that's not being evil, what is?