Saga Clarification on how the Jedi "recruit" other Jedi

RE: the influence of our parents.
It is big, no question. But you also have influence from your childhood friends, school, both teachers and classmates.
Relatives, if you travel abroad and the values a society has as a whole can also play a part.

Consider how much have changed when it comes to rules, values and ideals in many countries.
In my country, 100 years ago, women couldn't vote but men could. If a single woman got pregnant it was very shameful.
50 years ago, many children left school at the age 13-14 and were expected to start working, like in the local mine for ex.
Gay people, not all that long ago it was a criminal offence. Even when I grew up the idea that gay couple could adopt a child was almost unheard of.
The role religion/church plays has changed a lot. 100 + years ago, if you didn't come to church every sunday, it caused a lot of comments.

So children are influenced by their parents but it is not the only influence. And children don't always become identical copies of their parents when it comes to values and ideals.

How much have the Jedi changed over 1000 years? Not all that much it seems.
The jedi to be are raised in a controlled and partly isolated enviroment. No contact with parents or siblings.
I doubt younglings at the age of 5-6 have lots of non-Jedi friends.

RE: what about Jedi that get intimate and a pregnancy results.
It probably doesn't intend to but I can see it being a bit different with male Jedi and female Jedi.
A female Jedi will carry the child to term, unless they are required to do an abortion. But then, if they want to remain a Jedi, the child is taken from them. This will not be an easy choice to me. It can be hard for male Jedi too but I figure it would be even harder for female Jedi.
For both, if they elect to remain Jedi, they still know that their child is in the same building they are in. Can they resist the temptation to visit, to see their child?
Sure I figure that jedi are encouraged to take precautions and act responsibly but still it seems iffy to me.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

Actually they do - when that power crosses into "violation of human rights" all honest Rand followers will condemn it.

A perfectly selfless person would not even eat, while other people are starving, because they would be "depriving those others of food". Result - they die too.

That may be an overgeneralization- but it does seem like the logical extension of "selfless to the point of perfection"

 

Sure. But again, there are two issues there. I was responding to Cushing's Admirer's point about the child's lack of consent to the Jedi way of life. My point was that that way of life was what its parents decided was the best for it (I'm sure there are cases where the parents have no practical choice due to poverty or desperation, but those involve other issues, which I'm disregarding for now because they're not relevantly attributable to the rightness or wrongness of Jedi recruitment), and that this is inevitable because no child ever has any real choice over what their parents decide is the best way to bring them up. Ie it's the parents' decision, so the Jedi cannot be said to be tearing families apart on the basis of lack of consent.

The substantive content or consequences of that decision ("never seeing your parents again") is a separate issue. The correctness or otherwise of someone else's choice (even if constrained by socioeconomic circumstances) is not something which can be attributed to the Jedi, for good or ill. And I don't think that is in itself self-evidently wrongful. It does not seem to me inherently harmful to the child, who has no conscious connection to its birth family and is young enough to form new emotional connections just as deeply with Jedi caregivers as with its "real" (what does that even mean?) family,

Maybe the school analogy is distracting people from the real issue because it's substantively too different (although I think in relevant respects it is not distinguishable). Let's try something else. Imagine a RL young single mother who decides the best thing she can do for her infant child is to put it up for adoption. By the act of separating her child from its birth mother (herself), has she done something wrong? Has the orphanage done something wrong in accepting the child? Suppose she was advised/assisted in this (monumental and undoubtedly painful) decision by, say, a social worker, who explains to this overwrought young woman the availability of places that will take care of the child. The mother concludes that, given the information she has, and the prospects she can foresee for herself, it would be better for the child to be given up. Has the social worker done something wrong?

It seems to me our intuitive responses would and should be "no", unless one assumes, unfairly and without basis, that any improper pressure or knowing falsehood influenced the decision. The parents of children given to the Jedi are no different. If they are impecunious, they are in the exact same position, which the Jedi cannot be blamed for (unless one is to hold them responsible for every economic unfairness in the galaxy). If they are not, then their choice ("my baby is special, and I can't give her what she needs to reach her potential as a person, but the Jedi probably can") is even more free, even less constrained by circumstance, and a fortiori the Jedi can't be blamed for it.

My apologies, but I'm going to have to refrain from commenting on the EU material because
1) I'm unfamiliar with it;
2) my opinions of Jedi philosophy are based on the films (the previous references to fanfic were merely explaining why I have some of the biases I might appear to you to have; I did not intend them to make any substantive point for or against the PT Jedi).

I do not think the Jedi are "obsessed with power". May I ask what you base this statement on? To my eyes, the movie evidence contradicts this.

We have Palpatine's say-so, but in that scene he was deliberately manipulating Anakin into thinking there isn't much difference between Jedi and Sith, and the Sith do seek power. I don't think we can rely on anything Palpatine says to Anakin about the Jedi. If you do, we'll have to agree to disagree.

If you are talking about their assuming command of Republic military forces as evincing obsession with power, I'll have to disagree as well. As I've said in this thread and elsewhere, I think the evidence in AotC is clear that they were reluctant to do so, and felt forced into it by the circumstances and their duty.

It is true that their access to the Force makes them powerful, but they do not pursue or wield this power for its own sake, but rather in service of greater purposes. Hence Qui-Gon's "And we cannot use our power to help her" (I took this to mean that while he was prepared to mind-trick Boss Nass into lending them a bongo he could probably spare, he wasn't going to mind-trick him into fighting a war for Queen Amidala). Hence Obi-Wan's teaching Anakin that he should not use the Force for self-glorifying purposes.

They are also selfless. We see throughout the PT that they are prepared to die doing their duty, even if they have the option of preserving themselves ("We will not be hostages to be bargained with"; "The mission; get to the Chancellor! Get out of here, there's nothing more you can do."). And Luke, upon declaring himself a Jedi -- faithful to his teachers and finally realising the lesson Yoda was trying to teach him at the cave -- tosses aside his only weapon in the face of near-certain death. In that situation, Randian rational self-interest would straightforwardly say, "Worry about the Dark Side later, if you have to -- after you've sliced-n-diced this wrinkly creep." He literally chooses to die rather than be ruled by rational self-interest. And he makes clear that this is because he is a Jedi. I think Rand would despise him (and every other Jedi).

I cannot think of a philosophy that would be more opposed to Rand's individualism than what we see of Jedi principles, except maybe Buddhism, and that's probably we know more about Buddhism than we do about the hinted-at, fictitious Jedi religion.

The Sith, on the other hand, seem to exemplify Randian principles to a T. Palpatine's spiel to Anakin (moral relativism, the emphasis on seizing power, the implicit glorification of the triumph of the individual and vindication of self-will) is, to me, very Randian. Indeed, given George's own very unRandian views on the importance of interdependence and human beings' responsibility for each other, I'd go so far as to say that the similarities are deliberate.

You seem to be implying that would be morally disagreeable. If not eating while others are starving isn't going to help anyone -- if the food you refused couldn't have reached those starving -- then I can see why that would be so. But if someone outside my home is starving, and I have enough for only one person, it is not self-evident to me that keeping it all for myself is morally preferable. I very much hope and want to believe that I would share. And I'm not being perverse or contrary -- many religions teach the same.

Rand would no doubt disagree, as far as I understand her position. But your example does not convince me that's correct. I admire, deeply, what Luke did in the Throne Room. You'll have to put forward a more rigorous argument to convince me that pure selflessness is undesirable.

 

I was talking about the Sith- obsession with power, is very very anti-Randian.

Really, it's not. If you read almost anything on Rand's ideas, be it Wikipedia, TV Tropes, or the books themselves, "seizing power" is what the villains do.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Objectivism

Objectivism supports Classical Liberalism/Minarchism and argues that the role of the State should be restricted to defending negative liberty. This logically implies that the State should not interfere in any human actions that do not involve force, fraud or coercion. For example, voluntary economic activity conducted by fully informed, consenting individuals, should not be restricted in any way. The same applies to capitalist acts between Consenting Adults ranging from voluntary prostitution to consumption of drugs. This is what Rand and other Libertarians mean by Laissez-Faire Capitalism. They are not defending Corrupt Corporate Executives or Peace & Love Incorporated. Also, they are not using the Marxist or anarchist meanings of the term "capitalism," they are referring to "free market economics" first and foremost.

It has to be emphasised again, however, that this is where most of the Flanderization/misrepresentation of Rand comes from; the fact that both Corrupt Corporate Executive types, *and* their critics, tend to believe that Rand was in support of amoral/destructive forms of Capitalism.

To those that have read the Political Ideologies page, this should not come as a surprise. Rand is a textbook case of a Classical Liberal and Objectivism embraces a very similar theory of human nature to that of the Enlightenment philosophers (i.e. human reason as effective, humans possessing rationality and free will).

Note that even amongst Objectivists there is some debate over the finer points of politics. Some are sympathetic to anarchism and think that the ideal society would have no state. Others are more moderate than Rand but are still undeniably Libertarians generally speaking. But the basic political principle of Objectivism is the sovereignty of the individual self over their own life and body. This is often summarized as the Non-Initiation of Force or Non-Aggression principle; that as long as no one initiates Force, Fraud or Coercion, all is good.

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/nietzsche&fountainhead.htm

Roark then gives several examples of character-types he regards as "second-handers." One is "the man who cheats and lies, but preserves a respectable front ... and derives his self-respect from that, second hand." Another is the person who "professes a love for the ... less endowed, in order to establish his own superiority by comparison."(17) (658.) At the end of the discussion, in which Wynand appears to think that the two of them are in complete agreement, Roark thinks to himself: "I haven't mentioned to him the worst second-hander of all - the man who goes after power" (660). It is clear, from the fact that he is referring to Wynand at this point, that the power he is referring to is simply hegemonic power: the worst sort of second-hander is the one who seeks power over others.

How about that it wasn't pure selflessness - but moral pride? - "Better to die now then spend the rest of my life as a miserable monster?"

 

Wow, I got hit with a good dose of stupid there, didn't I? Sorry for the idiocy in misunderstanding your "they're".

I still don't understand how you can characterise Jedi as Randian and the Sith as not, though. I still stand by my points.

We seem to be operating on different perspectives of Rand. The sources you cite all seem to refer to "power" as being state-based, centralised coercion. Certainly Rand opposes that -- I do understand that much
But I was talking about power from the individual's perspective. If the state is to be minimised, that necessarily leaves greater liberty for individuals who have greater power to wield it and accumulate even more. The desirability of individual power and of the triumph of the individual will is therefore a corollary of Rand's opposition to state power. It is power in that sense which I was referring to. And that is the power Palpatine wanted, and which he manipulated Anakin into wanting too. The diversion of power from the dispersed system of the body politic into the hands of individuals.



edit: I feel like if we keep discussing this, we're going to run up against political assumptions from which neither of us is going to be moved in the context of a Star Wars message board. I don't think I've misunderstood Rand as fundamentally as you seem to suggest I do, but I accept you have your own understanding of her. Is it all right if we leave it at that? I think we can keep talking about the Jedi without having to decide whether they or the Sith were Fountainhead fans or not

 

And you would be right. The Jedi are not Randian.

Rand would see the Jedi as "the mooched-off" - people who try to honestly practice altruism, and as a result, unintentionally empower the moochers and looters.

Her characters would not fight the Jedi - but seek to bring them around to their own way of thinking.

She'd hate the Sith a lot more than the Jedi - the Jedi she'd see as victims of their own idealism rather than true villains.

(I see Randians as the center of a spectrum, which at one end has the Jedi, and at the other end has the Sith)

It seemed to me that what Palpatine most wanted was "power over others" rather than just "power over the Force". The power to tyrannise, to bully, to see everyone grovelling before him.

But that may be just my own version of him

Fair enough.

So how do you think the Jedi recruit? Do you think "state-sanctioned testing of infants for midichlorians by ordinary people" is the norm, or that only Jedi do the midi-chlorian testing?

 

Thank you for your good grace in dropping Rand, much appreciated

I stated my opinion on the OP earlier.

 

Sounds about right - though I'm not sure about the opt-out bit.

 

The way I understand it is that if a Jedi wishes to be intimate, they can be, but they're not allowed to start a family. That includes marriage and intentionally having children. If, however, a male Jedi impregnates someone by accident, then they have to deal with that. This is the implication when Qui-gon asks Shmi who Anakin's father is, as it seems as if he suspects it was a Jedi given the boy's connection to the Force. When Shmi tells him the truth, that is what prompts him to test the boy further.

 

I'd like to revisit the "adoption scenario" mentioned a few posts back.

In the past, and often nowadays, an adopted child is given away by its parents, never to see its parents again. One would hope that the parents gave the child up for adoption because it was the best thing for the child.

If we assume for the sake of this "argument" that parents give their children to the Jedi for the same reasons (best for the children), how is it any more distasteful, bad, evil, whatever you want to call it, for the Jedi to accept children than parents are to adopt someone else's child?

 

There seems to be a tacit assumption here that it's distasteful and different from RL adoption because there is an element of coercion/pressure/brainwashing of the parents by either the Jedi, the Republic, or both. The evidence for that being certain EU suggestions, which I think completely contradict the films.

Alternatively, the assumption might be that giving a child away when the parents are financially able to care for it themselves is inherently harmful to the child. Again, that assumption rests on the premise that "real" family is superior to any other environment for bringing up a child.

If separating a child from its parents when they are able to look after it constitutes a distinct harm to the child, the same harm would be suffered in RL adoption, except that presumably the harm done in RL adoption is outweighed by the harm that would be done if the birth parents kept a child they were unable to care for.

But I don't believe children who are adopted have been harmed at all by the fact of their adoption.

 

Well, this post goes into EU territory by a wide margin, but it does give an idea of things. We know that Dooku came from a wealthy, prestigious family according to the novelization, TCW and the EU stories that focused on his backstory. From what has been talked about, he was given up freely and most likely because of the prestige of being a Jedi. Then there was Xanatos, Qui-gon's student whose father was poor and couldn't support him and thus he freely gave him up to the Jedi for a better life. Later on, his father managed to become a person of wealth and power. Asajj Ventress was given up from her mother on Dathomir and went to Rattatak where she was a slave until being freed by Ky Narec who raised her to be a Jedi. Two Kegan citizens wish for their child to be trained and have contacted the Temple, though it goes against the wishes of the government. The two had a daughter who was strong with the Force and they wanted a life away from their world. The novel, "Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter" indicated that citizens made pilgrimages to the Temple to see about having their children trained, often cited as wanting a better life for them.

So at the very least, there was no hard and fast rule regarding status when it came to training. Granted, a lot of that is up in the air now, but it gives an idea of how inclusive candidates were chosen.