PT 'Dogmatic' Jedi Responsible for their own downfall. Could someone explain this so that it makes sens

But Palpatine is here wooing Anakin to accept the darkside. That is what he means when he refers to the Jedi as dogmatic here - their refusal to embrace the darkside. I think it can be agreed that that path didn't work out so well..

 

What has this got to do with the movies?

 

Very interesting thread. I look forward to posting more when time permits.

I've always struggled with this idea of Jedi dogmatism too. I think they were naive and perhaps blinkered in their thinking as far as the Republic's politics was concerned, but I'm not sure that they should have been expected to let Anakin have his cake and eat it in the way that he often seemed to think was his right.

 

He tells Anakin a lot more in the RoTS novelization- at the opera:

"Do you remember," Palpatine said, drawing away from Anakin so that he could lean back in his seat, "how as a young boy, when you first came to this planet, I tried to teach you the ins and outs of politics?"
Anakin smiled faintly. "I remember that I didn't care much for the lessons."
"For any lessons, as I recall. But it's a pity; you should have paid more attention. To understand politics is to understand the fundamental nature of thinking beings. Right now, you should renember one of my first teachings. All those who gain power are afraid to lose it."
"The Jedi use their power for good," Anakin said, a little too firmly.
"Good is a point of view, Anakin. And the Jedi concept of good is not the only valid one. Take your Dark Lords of the Sith, for example. From my reading, I have gathered that the Sith believed in justice and security every bit as much as the Jedi-"
"Jedi believe in justice and peace."
"In these troubled times, is there a difference?" Palpatine asked mildly. "The Jedi have not done a stellar job of bringing peace to the galaxy, you must agree. Who's to say the Sith might not have done better?"
"This is another of those arguments you probably shouldn't bring up in front of the Council, if you know what I mean," Anakin replied with a disbelieving smile.
"Oh, yes. Because the Sith would be a threat to the Jedi Order's power. Lesson one."
Anakin shook his head. "Because the Sith are evil."
"From a Jedi's point of view," Palpatine allowed. "Evil is a label we all put on those who threaten us, isn't it? Yet the Sith and the Jedi are similar in almost every way, including their quest for greater power.""
"The Jedi's quest is for greater understanding," Anakin countered. "For greater knowledge of the Force-"
"Which brings with it greater power, does it not?"
"Well ... yes." Anakin had to laugh. "I should know better than to argue with a politician."
"We're not arguing, Anakin. We're just talking." Palpatine shifted his weight, settling in comfortably. "Perhaps the real difference between the Jedi and the Sith is only in their orientation; a Jedi gains power through understanding, and a Sith gains understanding through power. This is the true reason the Sith have always been more powerful than the Jedi. The Jedi fear the dark side so much they cut themselves off from the most important aspect of life: passion. Of any kind. They don't even allow themselves to love."
Except for me, Anakin thought. But then, I've never been exactly the perfect Jedi.
"The Sith do not fear the dark side. The Sith have no fear. They embrace the whole spectrum of experience, from the heights of transcendent joy to the depths of hatred and despair. Beings have these emotions for a reason, Anakin. That is why the Sith are more powerful: they are not afraid to feel."
"The Sith rely on passion for strength," Anakin said, "but when that passion runs dry, what's left?"
"Perhaps nothing. Perhaps a great deal. Perhaps it never runs dry at all. Who can say?"
"They think inward, only about themselves."
"And the Jedi don't?"
"The Jedi are selfless- we erase the self, to join with the flow of the Force. We care only about others ..."
Palpatine again gave him that smile of gentle wisdom. "Or so you've been trained to believe. I hear the voice of Obi-Wan Kenobi in your answers, Anakin. What do you really think?"
Anakin suddenly found the ballet a great deal more interesting than Palpatine's face. "I ... don't know any more."

Not much - but the Sith philosophies aren't really elaborated on anywhere but the EU.
The novelizations of the movies, at least, have Lucas-created content that couldn't be fitted into the movies- too much exposition.

TPM:

The Sith had come into being almost two thousand years ago. They were a cult given over to the dark side of the Force, embracing fully the concept that power denied was power wasted. A rogue Jedi Knight had founded the Sith, a singular dissident in an order of harmonious followers, a rebel who understood from the beginning that the real power of the Force lay not in the light, but in the dark. Failing to gain approval for his beliefs from the Council, he had broken with the order, departing with his knowledge and his skills, swearing in secret that he could bring down those who had dismissed him.

He was alone at first, but others from the Jedi order who believed as he did and who had followed him in his study of the dark side soon came over. Others were recruited, and soon the ranks of the Sith swelled to more than fifty in number. Disdaining the concepts of cooperation and consensus, relying on the belief that acquisition of power in any form lends control, the Sith began to build their cult in opposition to the Jedi. Theirs was not an order created to serve; theirs was an order created to dominate.

Their war with the Jedi was vengeful and furious and ultimately doomed. The rogue Jedi who had founded the Sith order was its nominal leader, but his ambition excluded any sharing of power. His disciples began to conspire against him and each other almost from the beginning, so that the war they instigated was as much with each other as with the Jedi.

In the end, the Sith destroyed themselves. They destroyed their leader first, then each other. What few survived the initial bloodbath were quickly dispatched by watchful Jedi. In a matter of only weeks, all of them died.

All but one.

 

Seriously?

 

We see Palpatine saying that being a Sith is about "embracing all aspects of the Force".

But the movies themselves don't say anything about how the first Sith came into being - only novelizations and various EU sources.

This bit:

They felt that the Jedi Code, the Council and the senior Jedi had a narrow view of how one must use the Force. That by changing that and embracing all aspects of the Force that they deemed unnatural and dangerous, would they truly become masters of the Force and thus the universe.

applies in the current EU to several splinter factions, not just the Sith. The Legions of Lettow, for example, from long before, fit this mould quite neatly.

 

Yes, seriously. This is a discussion about the movies, in a movies discussion forum. This whole 'Well, the philosophy of the first Sith' has nothing to do with anything that can be understood from the movies themselves. I don't read EU. I have little interest in EU. I don't even know how much of what you have written is simply what you, personally, have read into the EU and what actually exists within it.

The EU has nothing to do with discussions regarding the movies.

 

Not even novelizations of the movies?

 

In a sense, no. I mean I'm not saying, whatever you do, don't mention it but..ultimately in a discussion about the movies...shouldn't the movies tell their own stories? As someone else said - you shouldn't have to buy some other medium to understand a film (one could suggest that hints at poor film making) and Lucas has said the films stand on their own as his saga.

 

Makes sense.

 

I response to the OP, I don't think the fact that Palpatine thinks the Jedi are dogmatic counts for much. He says what he neds to say at any given point in time to achieve a certain outcome.

The charge of dogmatism seems most often to be leveled at the Jedi for their treatment of Anakin and their inflexibility towards him with regard to their code. To me, however, the Jedi Order isn't the kind of organisation that can operate on a 'bend the rules' or a 'case by case' basis. The Jedi harness the force and therefore deal with great power. They play with fire daily, as do the military and other organisations with strict codes of conduct. Because of this, they have to have strict rules. Anakin's fall and the cataclysmic consequences were the result of breaking the code, not the code itself. As long as Palpatine was offering what he was, there's no amount of rule bending which could've changed that. Anakin wanted the perks of the job. The power. The influence. But he didn't want to pay the price for those things.

The Chosen One storyline muddies the water here a bit as we have the situation where the guardians of the force in the physical world are enforcing there rules on a guy who's basically, well, the force. But that's another discussion for another place.

 

This isn't about the EU. This is coming from Lucas himself. The Sith had a different view of the Force from the Jedi and that's why they were in opposition to each other. Note that I never once talked about the EU Sith Lords and Jedi Knights. Those stories are based on the things that Lucas wrote in the films and in his story notes. Hell, I didn't even talk about the other Force users in the EU that were outside of the Jedi and Sith Orders.

 

Problem is, if you believe the EU, they did. They offered older Force-Sensitives the chance to train as Jedi when they were sufficiently impressed- they allowed Ki-Ad-Mundi to marry due to his species suffering from low population issues, and so on, and so forth.

The rules haven't existed for the lifetime of the Jedi Order, either - they were recommendations, that came fairly late, and some time after that, they became treated as hard-and-fast rules.

 

I tend not to read much EU and I'm going just on the movies themselves, but yes, it's an interesting point.

 

At least part of it was that Ki-Adi-Mundi's background was established shortly before TPM aired (TPM tie-in comics)- then I think referenced in the TPM Visual Dictionary.

Result- when AoTC came around and told us Anakin getting married to Padme would result in him being expelled from the Jedi Order- this was puzzling.

 

Yeah, it's a bit odd isn't it? I sometimes think the continuity connection between EU and the films is overstated.

 

Not really. Lucas didn't give all of his notes to the folks at LucasBooks. He gave them what was relevant to each film and they had to operate based on what they had and what they could surmise. Case in point, Lucas had not stated an edict that Lightsaber blades had to come in three colors only, prior to 2000. This is why Kevin J. Anderson went hog wild in his books, with all kinds of different colors and a few other authors followed suit. This in turn carried over to the 1999-2000 TPM Jedi Council members having different colors. After Lucas made his statement, a soft retcon had the blades changed to blue and green, based on whatever ILM let LucasBooks and LucasArts know in advance. The only EU Jedi in the PT era to remain consistent was Kerian Halcyon whose saber was later passed on to his descendant, Corran Horn. The blade was a bit of silvery color. The EU during the "New Jedi Order" era slowly stopped talking about the color of the blades, unless they matched up to the films. Other sabers were destroyed and replaced with different blades, when applicable.

 

TCW did give us a few more colors- yellow, and "Darksaber black" (I think EU's Young Jedi Knights had Tenel Ka's first lightsaber, that exploded, be "smoke-coloured"- which would fit rather neatly).

 

So...I still haven't seen an argument, from within the films, that I could consider a dogmatic approach by the Jedi.

They are shown to be flexible in their decision making by changing their minds about training Anakin (and not disciplining Obi-Wan for his rebellious attitude to the Council) and..
Their initial decision not to train Anakin is not based on a dogmatic principle but upon their insight into an emotional flaw that Anakin clearly never addresses (in fact he seems unable to understand) and which - as they predicted (and what made him 'dangerous') - drew him to the darkside.
The 'dogmatic' rules which stand against attachment are - by Anakin's actions - shown to be absolutely reasonable.

I see some ...odd arguments about how its right that attachment should be avoided but that shouldn't stop them being with 'loved ones'..? Huh? What do you think 'loved ones' are? They are attachments. As opposed to universal compassion. The term itself signifies exactly that; 'loved ones' - being ones that are loved, ie as a separate entity from not 'loved ones'.

The only dogmatism that I see surrounds the prophecy; which isn't surprising as dogmatism usually (but not always) derives from 'authorative' scripture. Qui-Gon forces Anakin and the Jedi onto a path by his dogmatic (emphatic, categorical "he is the Chosen one, you must see it", obdurate, opinionated "revealed your opinion is") beliefs and actions.

When the Jedi begin working to the prophecy they, again, are dogmatic. For example; Obi-Wan questions the wisdom of sending Anakin on his solo mission with Padmé. The response "Remember, if he is the Chosen One your padawan is the only one who can bring balance to the Force". Worked out well didn't it?

EDIT: Sorry, forgot to add that...there seems little option open to them in terms of the war.

 

Interestingly, I think probably the single best example of the Jedi's dogmatism comes from the OT. They refuse to believe that Anakin can be saved. "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." "He's more machine now than man -- twisted and evil." "Then the Emperor has already won." And so on and so forth. This works especially well because we see it contrasted sharply with Luke's faith in the possibility of his father's redemption.

The Jedi's perspective on this is present in the PT as well, though, such as when Yoda tells Obi-Wan "the boy you trained, gone he is -- consumed by Darth Vader." And yet, Anakin's not completely gone, is he?

I would also say that the Jedi are shown to be quite dogmatic in regards to attachment. Separating Anakin from his mother and leaving him in a position where he hasn't heard from her in a decade seems a bit…extreme to me. Luke shows us that it is possible to have friends and family ("loved ones") and still be a great Jedi. Luke loved Han and Leia and supported them and that did not mean he was doomed to fall to the Dark Side. On the contrary, Luke's love for his father is what saved him and redeemed Anakin, as an example. Keeping them separated would have done far more harm than good in this case.

You mention that the Jedi's decision not to train Anakin wasn't dogmatic but their view of him as dangerous most certainly was. Fear for one's mother and missing her (especially Anakin's age and in Shmi's situation) is not an "emotional flaw." It's normal. How many nine-year-olds do you know who aren't afraid to lose their mothers? Who don't miss them? What's dogmatic is the Jedi's view that this makes Anakin dangerous. Qui-Gon rightly points out that this isn't so; it merely means his future is uncertain and with time and training he can understand.

 

I'm not sure that the Jedi thought that Anakin was dangerous just because he missed his mother. I got the impression that they perceived a more general, deep set fear in Anakin. It was just that that fear manifested itself in feelings for his mother at that time.

The whole Anakin / Jedi thing is a real chicken and egger isn't it? Did he turn at least in part because of the Jedi's 'dogmatism'? Or were the Jedi's fears about Anakin fully justified by his eventual turn? Probably not a black and white answer.

Regarding the EU, I'm not suggesting there's no link there. Just that outside fairly visible contradictions, I don't think GL's that worried about what happens outside the films. Didn't he say as much in his 'father, son, holy ghost' interview a few years back? Does Ki Adi Mundi's marriage constitute something that GL would consider a large enough contradiction that we can assume a history of Jedi rule flexibility as canon? I don't know...

 

It's possible that he wrote the basics of Ki-Adi-Mundi's backstory, gave it to the comic writer, then left them to fill in the blanks. That may be how a lot of "tie-in" EU was handled.

 

Luke's attachment to Han and Leia almost cost him his life in TESB, as Obi-Wan and Yoda warned him. Luke's faith in his father nearly got him killed and, along with his attachment to Leia, nearly started him down the path to the darkside in ROTJ. Why is he attacking Vader with such rage? Because of the threat to Leia and because Vader has not been the father that Luke wanted him to be. All of the Jedi's warnings become clear at this point which is why, upon recognising all of his lessons, he throws down his weapon and declares himself a Jedi.

He lets go of everything he fears to lose. He lets go his attachment to Leia ("if believe in what they fight for, yes") and the rebels. He lets go of the anger and hatred those fears have, up to that moment, drawn him into. he is not saved by his faith in his father, his father is redeemed by the example of Luke's actions, of his sacrifice. Luke is saved by re-awakening what it is to be a Jedi in Anakin.

And...didn't the darkside dominate Anakin's life? If he had lived do you think he could, honestly, forgive himself his actions? Or, perhaps a better way of putting it, would it not be a case of having to face up to the responsibility of those actions in the full glare of self-awareness? The redemption is, surely, being able to still do the right thing in spite of your previous actions.

Obi-Wan's 'friend' and 'brother' is no more at that point. He has no moral compass except that which he desires, he even throttles his own wife. Would you not say that Vader has, at this point consumed Anakin?

Luke being able to detach, as he does in ROTJ, is a function of his increased maturity. Lucas made it clear that he thought long and hard about Anakin's age and chose an age where Anakin would be at his most vulnerable regarding attchment. Notably, here you argue the Jedi's dogmatism on the basis of their accepting of Anakin for training...and then your next argument is to argue the Jedi's dogmatism on the basis of their not training him.

In fact their change of heart is never really explained..we simply have the Jedi decide that, despite having said no they now say yes. The only hint of a reason for this is when Yoda says that he disagrees and follows that by referring to the possibility that Anakin may be the 'Chosen One'. So...as I said previously, the dogmatic behaviour appears follow on from the prophecy. Dogmatism flows naturally from 'authorative' scripture.

On top of all of this I somehow have to buy into the fact that the Jedi never discuss his situation, never try and guage where he is emotionally? That Anakin's attachment is something he is just left to struggle with on his own as a nine year old - even though the Council have sensed this? But, that's a trend throughout the PT really. As an instance of this...why does Yoda not find it absolutely shocking that Anakin, a trained Jedi Knight, comes to him with a problem of attachment and doesn't know how to deal with it? Or that, following Anakin's massacre of the Tuskens no one has really investigated what occurred? It's all just...dropped? Why was Anakin given the task of escorting Amidala back to Naboo (where he marries her) after disregarding multiple orders and after clearly (as Yoda senses) having had some sort of emotional disaster (oh...and having had his arm cut off)?

It is precisely the age that Anakin comes to the Jedi that is the problem - and Lucas spent a long time ensuring that he had just the right age set up for Anakin. The Jedi council recognise the danger of Anakin's training beginning at this time (just as Lucas set it up). And the fear that they perceived was exactly what lead to Anakin's fall. The dogmatism, then, is Qui-Gon's; who clearly cannot see what the others can (and what Lucas has deliberately set up), that at the age he is, Anakin is not in a position to understand or to learn - the attachment is too strong for Anakin to learn to let go.

 

I actually don't think Vader would have killed Luke in ESB. If he really wanted to, he could have just crushed Luke's throat with the Force as Luke was dangling helplessly following the revelation of his paternity. Instead, Vader wanted to capture him. Moreover, going after Han and Leia, while it did cost him his hand, was not a completely negative experience. Luke learned a lot and was at the point that by the time he returned to Yoda, Yoda admitted that he had nothing else to teach Luke. Luke's faith in his father nearly did get him killed -- that's true. But, in the end, it saved him. If Luke hadn't gone to confront his father then the Rebellion may very well have still destroyed the Death Star II, but Palpatine certainly would have had the time to escape.

Moreover, in this case, the Jedi (Obi-Wan and Yoda) were clearly wrong. Obi-Wan says that if Luke can't kill his father, then the Emperor has already won. When the opposite is really the case -- it is by refusing to kill his father (because of his love and faith for him) that Luke ultimately both saves his father's soul, destroys the Sith, and helps bring down the Empire. Luke succeeds by directly going against what the Jedi tell him to do because he recognizes that he can turn his father back to the "good side."

And the Dark Side may have dominated Anakin's life, but not forever. His image as a Force ghost proved that he finally freed himself of it. In the grand scheme of things, 22-23 years (the amount of time Anakin spent on the Dark Side) is but a drop in the bucket compared to the vast ocean of eternity. I don't think that Anakin could forgive himself if he had lived, but I would not say that means that the Dark Side will forever dominate. It is in the past and must be accepted, but you have to move forward and try to do better while acknowledging the wrongness of your actions. That's what redemption means to me.

Except he is. Anakin may be trapped in the thrall of the Dark Side (a trap of his own making), but he's still there. He still cared enough about Padmé, for example, that his first question upon waking is whether she is safe and alright after going through that horrible operation. Doesn't by any means overshadow the evil he's become, of course, but he's still the same person. If there weren't any spark of Anakin left, then he never would have sacrificed his life to save Luke and kill Palpatine. He may be twisted and evil, but the OT shows us that he's still there.

I'm not sure where I said that the Jedi deciding to train Anakin is an example of dogmatism. I would argue more that an example of dogmatism is trying to force the same rules on someone with vastly different circumstances. It's like accepting a blind child into a class of children who can see and then not understanding why they struggle with the material. Obviously, it's because they have a "handicap" that the other children don't. I agree that maturity most certainly plays a part (I have had blind individuals in some of my college lectures for example) but I also think that the Jedi of the OT did a good job of not "demonizing" Luke's attachments. They didn't tell him, as Han and Leia were being tortured, that he shouldn't mourn them or accept that they're going to die. They told him that he might be able to save them, but he would risk everything they had fought and suffered for. They framed their argument in terms of why Luke's friends would not want him to go after them. Why Luke can still love them but should also respect their wishes.

I would argue that such a dialogue is much more likely to make Luke understand what the Jedi are trying to tell him: you can still love your friends, but think of the bigger picture too.

The acceptance of Anakin I always saw, not only due to Qui-Gon's death, but due to the fact that with the Sith having returned, the Jedi might very well be concerned that they will need the Chosen One in the future.

In terms of Anakin and the Jedi gauging him emotionally, I would like to point you to a particular scene in AOTC. Anakin has run off to Tatooine. Obi-Wan traces him there and then asks incredulously:

Well that's Anakin's tracking signal, all right. But it's coming from Tatooine. What the blazes is he doing there? I told him to stay on Naboo.

Don't you find that surprising? Anakin's been dreaming about his mother for a while and Obi-Wan knows it. He knows that Anakin is concerned with her situation. And yet, he's still shocked that Anakin went to Tatooine. "What in the blazes is he doing there?" I give you three guesses. I have friends who come from across the entire United States and different parts of the world. If I knew that they had been worried about a family member and then found out that they had returned home when they were supposed to be working, I wouldn't think twice about why they had left or what they were doing there. But to Obi-Wan, for whom duty is one's greatest responsibility, it is unfathomable.

And this is a pretty clear-cut extreme example. Do you think that the Jedi would have caught more subtle things growing up? Do you think they would have had time to investigate Anakin's pain on Tatooine with the war breaking out? Or do you think they would have just accepted whatever Anakin told them -- such as the fact that his mother died, which would easily account for the sense of pain Yoda felt?

Anakin's turn was not set in stone. People act like it was inevitable that he would turn. It's not. Just like it's not reasonable to view a nine-year-old child as a threat. Yes, his future is uncertain, but that's it. Have you ever heard of labeling theory? It's the idea that children adjust their behaviors to reflect what is expected of them. For example, telling teachers that certain random students are more intelligent will cause the teacher's behavior to change towards those students and they will often perform better as a result. It makes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I argue that you are largely missing the point -- kids reflect back to the world what is shown to them. Everyone has the potential to be a threat. The Jedi, though, make certain assumptions based on their beliefs on attachment and ultimately, their actions cause those assumptions to become truth. The Jedi also believe that Count Dooku was once a Jedi and thus couldn't assassinate anyone as it isn't in his character. And yet, not only is Dooku behind the war, but Mace himself will move to kill Palpatine which (whether you believe it is justified or not) is an assassination as an assassination is the murder of an important person in a surprise attack for religious or political reasons.

Yes, Anakin does need to learn to let go. That's why I said he needs to meet the Jedi half way. But I think the Jedi also started off on the wrong foot by berating him for missing his mother. What nine-year-old child is really going to understand their reasoning? Twenty-two year old Luke may very well do so, but a child will not. Anakin can learn to let go but I don't think the Jedi handled him correctly at all. They show more empathy and sensitivity with Luke who is both older and much more mature.

 

Dogma was a factor to a degree, but not the degree we think. Anakin did went against the Code by falling in love with and marrying Padme. The problem with dogma was that Anakin held rigid to the idea that the Jedi shouldn't spy on the Chancellor, because that goes against the Code, yet the Council is only doing this because they don't trust Palpatine. He's having trouble seeing the moral gray in all of this. Where dogma really applies is the knowledge of the Force and how it is applied. The Jedi understood a long time ago that the Force can corrupt those that misuse it, thus they do not encourage their members to use fear, anger and hate. Palpatine tells Anakin that this is a narrow minded view of the Force, because the Jedi refuse to embrace a larger view of the Force and thus become stronger for it. He refers to it as dogma. If I don't use it, you don't use it. No ifs, ands or buts. Not even to stop someone from dying.

What I suspect is that when asked to sign off on a PT era Jedi to promote the new monthly comic series, Lucas signed off on Ki-Adi-Mundi. I don't think he provided too much backstory other than he was on the Council and what world he was from. The bulk of it came from the creative team and the folks at LucasBooks. Lucy Wilson had worked with the publishing division and I think she still transcribed Lucas's handwritten scripts into typed pages. So as soon as she found out what was what, going into AOTC, she and the others had to come up with retcons. Thus there was an allowance by the Council due to a retcon that Ki-Adi's species has population issues and thus they need to continuously breed. In the OT era, they had gotten around a lot of this by having Luke admit that information was scare and that he had to make due with what he and Tionne could find.