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

darth-sinister

a) Being trans or gay isn’t even remotely comparable to being a murderer. I say this is a cisgender straight male, but don’t ever make that comparison again. Just don’t.

b) You’re clearly misusing and misunderstanding the term “attachment”. Attachments are pretty neutral. There are healthy and unhealthy attachments. With a healthy attachment, you’re willing to let go of a loved one if absolutely necessary, but you’re not just gonna give up on them at the drop of a hat. You exhaust all your other options first. Han Solo was willing to let go of Princess Leia because of his attachment. He didn’t wanna see her unhappy. My friend didn’t wanna see his dog suffering and in pain…because of his attachment. You’re conflating possessiveness with attachment…and possessiveness is indeed very unhealthy. However, the vast majority of people who are possessive don’t actually care about the people they’re possessive of. Raging Bull is a great film about possessiveness, jealousy, and paranoia. Do you think Jake LaMotta really cared about his wife? Or did he regard her as a possession, a thing, over which he should have complete control? Is that what George Lucas was going for? Raging Bull? If so, he failed.

 

It's a good question, especially in light of what Yoda says to Anakin about not being too emotionally involved with people. If Yoda had felt like he could capture Dooku in the hangar and potentially end the war at the cost of letting OWK and AS die in the process, then that's the decision you'd think someone who's entirely focused on the greater good would have made. OWK and AS made a similar decision on the way to the hangar when Padme fell out of the ship.

 

Sure - the question is whether Lucas, or Buddha, or whoever, was using that term, or used the term only for "unhealthy attachments".

I would suggest that there are at least overtones of "Any emotional attachment is bad" in Yoda's advice.

 

I agree, Yoda's rant about Anakin fearing to loose his mother is a prime example of this. Anakin had an emotional healthy attachment to his mother. Yet, Yoda makes a very spurious relationship between that fear and suffering, as if it's a foregone conclusion, that any type of fear will automatically lead to hate and suffering. Now, it was probably put there for dramatic purposes to foreshadow the events of the OT. However, there's no denying Yoda is chastising a small child for what under the vast majority of circumstances is a normal healthy human emotion.

 

I don't think he was chastising Anakin over that; he was merely warning how obsessing over his emotions would ruin him. He didn't even start the 'rant' out of the blue, it was a direct response to Anakin's "What does that have to do with anything?" He's simply answering the boy's (rather blunt) question.

 

It's not a good start though. To immediately challenge his thoughts about his mother in a less than sympathetic way.

It's like something that young boys sent to workhouse orphanages or pressed into the navy would get drilled into them in order to break them "You're mother's not here any more!".

Anakin's naturally puzzled response is dealt with by handing out grave warnings.

 

Yoda was kind of a jerk in the PT.

 

A point of agreement. In Star Wars, GL's definition of attachments is the SAME as your "unhealthy, insecure attachments." So, voila, we agree that (unhealthy, insecure) attachments are bad for Jedi.



We ALL seem to agree on this, we're just not using the same terminology.

 

He pretty much tells Anakin to stop caring about Padme so he doesn't get sad when she dies. Not very nice of him.

 

That's exactly what he meant. Palpatine was like a nice grandfather who made Anakin feel important. Yoda and the Jedi didn't show any warmth or trust.

 

The Jedi aren't allowed to form attachments, period, because "possessive attachments" = greed and so on until the inevitable darkside, evil, massacres etc.

But a "possessive attachment" is like an "abusive relationship". You don't forbid relationships because abusive relationships are a bad thing.

 

"Emotional healthy attachment"?! Attachment simply is not part of the Jedi way, period. If you want to be attached, or live by emotion, then you simply can't be a Jedi. It's Anakin's "emotional healthy attachment" that makes him discard his Jedi duty and mission to go rush to her. When you're a Jedi, you don't live by "emotional healthy attachment". You live by selflessness and compassion. Your relatives are not above anyone else. There's no attachment in selflessness.

 

Generally love is considered the opposite of attachment. It makes no demands and is unconditional. Most beings In-Universe and IRL seem to delude themselves into believing they have one, when it is really more often the other.

 

It's the unnatural perspective and pressures on an otherwise healthy attachment imposed on any attachments by the Jedi, coupled with profound trauma of the way he lost his mother, that provokes certain emotions.

If the Jedi didn't prohibit attachments then Anakin and Padme wouldn't have to hide and/or to lie. Their relationship would not be prone to the kind of unhealthy emotions that the Jedi seek to avoid.

It is not the existence of relatives and partners that encourages so called selfishness. It is an external body seeking to redefine those natural relationships for you that causes tensions that lead to duplicity.

People who have attachments don't live through emotion. That is simply a strawman. A person who eschews attachments may also just be misanthropic or a psycho/sociopath who lives by seriously negative emotions.

It is when Anakin is commanded regarding what he must do about his mother, which is being told he must train himself (as Yoda does not wish to train him) to let her go right after promising his mother he will learn how to help people like her and return to fulfill that promise, that the attachment and the emotions surrounding it start to become less than healthy.

 

Except that empathy can go a long way, of which Yoda displayed very little. Let's not disregard the fact, that the Jedi decided to train Anakin, despite his pre-existing attachments. As such, they took responsibility for Anakin, and by definition knew and accepted the fact, that Anakin was an exception to the rule in this respect. Anakin was attached to his mother, an attachment which at that time was perfectly normal for a boy of his age and given his history. Now what did the Jedi do to mitigate this problem? Well, they left Anakin's mother in slavery. I would argue, that this decision almost certainly exacerbated the situation. Secondly, they decided to leave Anakin's training in the hands of a young man, who himself only just became a Jedi Knight, and obviously had zero experience training Padawans, let alone a special case like Anakin. So, in my view it´s pretty easy for them to point the finger at a nine year old boy, and chastise him for having normal attachments, while ultimately failing to meet the responsibilities associated with accepting such a student in their midst.

I will ask you this. If the military accept a trainee, who they know is mentally unstable, and that trainee after learning his craft uses his training to go on a killing spree, who do you blame? Do you just blame the trainee with a known history of mental instability, or do the military also share responsibility for allowing such a person to become a one man killing machine?

Now, I'm not arguing Anakin in TPM is mentally unstable, but apparently having normal emotional attachments is so dangerous to a Jedi, that the fear of losing someone will lead to anger, hate, and suffering. As such, the real life analogy of the dangers of mental instability, and the responsibility associated with empowering such an individual, seems pretty apt.

 

This might be of interest for the discussion

 

No. It's Anakin's attachment to his mother, and his fear of losing her, that made him act. There's no unnatural perspective on compassion and selflessness. It's a valid path and way of life that the Jedi chose to take. Nobody forces anyone to be a Jedi. But to be a Jedi, one needs to behave like one.

Nobody forced anyone to lie. Anakin and Padmé didn't have to lie. Anakin could have been honest and chosen to live with Padmé and let go of being a Jedi. He chose not to. He chose to be greedy, to have it both ways. He chose to lie to others and to himself. That's on him.

There would be no relationship if Anakin had chosen to follow the Jedi way, by being selfless and compassionate. To dedicate his life to serving others. Instead he chose to give into passion and attachment. Which led to fear and suffering to himself and others.

Yes, it is. Because once you commit to a relationship, that person becomes more important than everyone else.

Do you have a partner? Kids? Family? Aren't they more important to you than virtually anyone else? If so, why?

Or not.

Anakin could have kept his promise. He could have chosen to live by attachment and fear of loss. Just not as a Jedi. But he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

When did Yoda not display empathy? When was empathy required of him?

And Anakin accepted to be trained in the ways of the Jedi. The Jedi did their part and taught him what he should do. Anakin decided to ignore those teachings and not be honest with the Jedi.

 

One point I might add... where Anakin probably should have just left the order; I think the pressures placed on him by others and himself meant he didn't out of fear of disappointing himself and the Jedi. When he mentions his feelings for Padme to Obi-Wan, Obi-Wan reminds him "You've made a commitment to the Order, a commitment not easily broken."
So it's not like it was simple to just leave.

As others said, Anakin also has a strong sense of duty. His desire to help others is after all part of what warps into his need for order and control.

 

He didn't fear to disappoint the Jedi when he flat out lied to them and acted behind their back.

Regarding Obi-Wan, a commitment not easly broken if he wanted to stay as a Jedi.

 

Perhaps, but it was largely fear that made him do that.
And that is a fair way down his character arc, he seems more honest with them when he first meets/joins the Jedi.

No, the commitment being broken refers to leaving the Jedi. It's not like just leaving a job, it would carry some shame.

 

Well, it's not like he wasn't warned about fear.

Sure. I'm just not going to blame others for his own faults/actions or for his qualities.

He's referring to acting against the Jedi way. Obi-Wan is responding to Anakin's disregard for the consequences of passion and attachment:

"I'd rather dream of Padmé. Just being around her again is... intoxicating."

 

Even Palpatine?
And Star Wars is heavily about the influence of father-figures, it seems dismissive to me to not put some blame on the Jedi when Obi-Wan even states "I thought I could instruct him just as well as Yoda. I was wrong."
Qui-Gon's death, and absence from the rest of the series, seems to be implied symbolically to partially cause part of the deficiency and insecurity in Anakin that brings about his fall.

Yes, that is the meaning in Obi-Wan's objection, but the dialogue clearly implies he is reinforcing "having a relationship or staying a Jedi".

"I'd much rather dream about Padmé. Just being around her again is... intoxicating."
"Be mindful of your thoughts, they betray you. You've made a commitment to the Jedi Order. A commitment not easily broken."

He is saying Anakin would have to leave the Order to act on his feelings in any way, and this is no small transition.

 

Let me put this from a personal perspective:

On a couple of occasions, years apart, I nearly go into a car accident while driving on snow-covered, wintry roads. I was OK, but it scared me a lot. I soon developed a problem. I got to the point to where I wasn't thinking, "Well, I'd better be extra careful driving in the snow", but rather thinking, "If it even looks slightly snowy, I won't drive at all." This caused a lot of problems. I was going overboard in my caution, far beyond what was needed, and it was having a bad effect. It still bothers me, but I'm working on it.

That's how I view the Jedi and attachments. Obviously, there have been times before the PT where a Jedi had an attachment, handled it badly, and caused big problems. In response, the Jedi didn't say, "Well, we'd better help our people to use wisdom and proper perspective in handling personal attachments." Instead, they said, "No attachments. They're always bad. You can't have them and be a Jedi, period." That goes too far into caution, and causes its own problems.

 

How about when a nine year old slave boy light years away from home appeared in front of him? Empathy implies you put yourself in the other person's shoes, in this case a small boy. Yoda's response to Anakin were cold and distant, the opposite of empathatic.

You're joking right? Anakin the nine year old slave boy accepted to be trained in the ways of the Jedi? How is a nine year old boy supposed to understand the enormous ramifications of such a life choice? By the time Anakin started to display his worst tendencies, he was only just old enough to drive, and not old enough to drink. Sorry but I think in this case a 900 year old Jedi Master, and a whole council of Jedi Masters definitely carry far more responsibility than a nine year old boy, or even a nineteen year old adolescent. This type of irresponsible response is typical for not only those that defend the Jedi's decisions, but ultimately for the mindset of the Jedi themselves. The fact that Jedi start training Padawans at such a young age, ultimately puts the lion's share of the responsibility for the outcome of the training squarely on the Jedi's shoulders.

 

And the ultimate proof that Star Wars is a complete and total fantasy that ignores human nature willy-nilly is the fact that any organization that actually tried to enforce this rule would have a membership of exactly 0, as every single member would eventually be kicked out for having formed an attachment.

It’s like communism. Great on paper, but a total failure in reality because it totally goes against human nature.