"Only a Sith deals in Absolutes": The Jedi Philosophy of Light and Dark

"If a planet isn't in our records, then it does not exist!"

OMG ABSULOOT!

 

The Stoics on Star Wars:
From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (with my selections and headlines)

The Sith as driven by their passions

The passions or pathê are literally ?things which one undergoes? and are to be contrasted with actions or things that one does. Thus, the view that one should be ?apathetic,? in its original Hellenistic sense, is not the view that you shouldn't care about anything, but rather the view that you should not be psychologically subject to anything--manipulated and moved by it, rather than yourself being actively and positively in command of your reactions and responses to things as they occur or are in prospect. It connotes a kind of complete self-sufficiency.

It is important to bear in mind that the Stoics do not think that all impulses are to be done away with. What distinguishes normal impulses or desires from passions is the idea that the latter are excessive and irrational. Galen provides a nice illustration of the difference (65J). Suppose I want to run, or, in Stoic terminology, I have an impulse to run. If I go running down a sharp incline I may be unable to stop or change direction in response to a new impulse. My running is excessive in relation to my initial impulse. Passions are distinguished from normal impulses in much the same way: they have a kind of momentum which carries one beyond the dictates of reason. If, for instance, you are consumed with lust (a passion falling under appetite), you might not do what under other circumstances you yourself would judge to be the sensible thing.

The stoics, Anakin's Fate, Anakin's Responsibility

Do the Stoics confront the perceived conflict between universal causation and human freedom? Chrysippus used the illustration of a cylinder rolling down a hill as an analogy for actions that are within our control. It is true that the force that starts its motion is external to it. This is analogous to the impressions we have of the world. But it rolls because of its shape. This is analogous to our moral character. When our actions are mediated by our characters, then they are ?up to us'. Thus, if I see an unattended sandwich and, because I am a dishonest person, steal it, then this is up to me and I am responsible. All things come about by fate but this is brought about by fate through me. When, however, I trip and fall, knocking your sandwich to the floor, this is not up to me. The chain of causes and effects does not flow through my beliefs and desires.

 

David Hume on Passion, Action, and Reason
from Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy

Hume famously sets himself in opposition to most moral philosophers, ancient and modern, who talk of the combat of passion and reason, and who urge human beings to regulate their actions by reason and grant it dominion over their contrary passions. He claims to prove that ?reason alone can never be a motive to any action of the will,? and that reason alone ?can never oppose passion in the direction of the will? (T 413). His view is not, of course, that reason plays no role in the generation of action; he grants that reason provides information which makes a difference to the direction of the will. His thesis is that reason alone cannot motivate to action; the impulse to act itself must come from passion. The doctrine that reason alone is merely the ?slave of the passions? is defended in the Treatise, not in the second Enquiry, although in the latter he briefly asserts it without support.

Yoda and Obi-Wan believe thet are driven by reason. But their reason is really just a slave to their passions. They are too arrogant too see their passions and recognize them

Anakin's action to save padme is driven by passion, but so is Luke's passion to save his father. Luke's passion enables Anakin to fulfill the Prophecy.

Qui-Gon would have approved of an appropriately tempered passion such as Luke's.

 

The Jedi could have gone into hiding and fought indirectly against Sidious once
they knew what he was, sparing a lot of Jedi lives.
Instead, Mace charged off to kill him and have the Jedi assume
control of the Republic, regardless of his justification. They could have
assembled Senate leaders to make the transistion legitamate rather than
regicide.

Mace went to arrest Palpatine. He only decided to kill him, when he realized it was pointless to do so.

You mean to tell me that it didn't occur to Master Mace that the man who'd been quietly
culling power to himself in the republic for the previous 13 years might have some
connections in the Senate and the Courts? What a lack of imagination.

If it didn't occur to Mace that he'd have to kill Palpatine to save the galaxy
a lot of trouble before he went to the Palpatine's chamber, then the jedi
didn't learn a whole lot about galactic politics while being based a
stone's throw away from the center of the galactic government.

The Jedi went on instant offense and were thinned out. Obi Wan and Yoda were gone.
And tell me this: why didn't Mace take the time to put the word out to the other
Jedi that they were serving with troopers who served at the beck and call of
a Sith Lord? Mace could have saved a lot of lives if he had taken Anakin and
quietly withdrawn and evaluated what the Jedi could have done with what resources
they had left.

He didn't have to do anything. Mace was limited by his own imagination.
We have a sith and he must be confronted. So I'll just take 3 stooges
along with me and leave the chosen one here, that way, he can't see
what happense when I expose Palpatine. I mean, christ, it's only been shouted
at me that according to the vaunted prophecy, ONLY Anakin could balance the force
and that explicity means killing the Sith Master. So you leave him?

Anakin was the only Jedi thinking with a level head, actually. And all of the
Jedi paid the price for Mace's aggression and arrogance.

 

THANK YOU for bringing up philosophy, which is the entire point of the thread.

 

Anakin was the only Jedi thinking with a level head, actually. And all of the
Jedi paid the price for Mace's aggression and arrogance.

Anakin was thinking with a level head then if he was he probably would not have lost Padme and he would not have ended up in a suit in servitude to Palpatine. I wouldnt necessarily call that level thinking. Also even with Mace not aroung Palps wouldve launched his attack anyway.

 

I was referring specifically to the instance of learning that
Palpatine was Darth Sidious. Anakin controlled his temper and
went immediately to tell Mace about it rather than acting rash.
In this case, Anakin was the only one acting with a level head.
It was the fact that he knew Mace would try to kill Paplatine
which drew him back to Palpatine's chamber and was then put
in to an irrational situation, thanks largely to Mace.

By your own reasoning, outcomes to put a name to it, Mace wasn't
level headed either because he ended up dis-handed, fried and dead.

 

The Jedi, like all monolithic religious orders, are blinded by their own dogma.

 

was the fact that he knew Mace would try to kill Paplatine
which drew him back to Palpatine's chamber and was then put
in to an irrational situation, thanks largely to Mace.

Was it due to Mace or Anakin disobeying an order by leaving the temple. Who knows maybe Padme would still be alive right.? Anakin put himself in that situation no one forced him to.

By your own reasoning, outcomes to put a name to it, Mace wasn't
level headed either because he ended up dis-handed, fried and dead.

Yeah but Mace isnt the one whose wife died of a broken heart and not the one who ends up in an iron lung suit in servitude to a power hungry empereror and anakin kills Palps so Mace was right

 

Yes. But again, you are protracting events out. I am speaking to a specific moment,
that of Anakin learning that Palpatine is Sidious. He refrains from lashing out
in anger and tells a Jedi Master on the council. The Jedi Master from the council
takes 3 stooges with him and forces a confrontation, on the chancellor's own turf, no less.
In this instance, only Anakin was thinking with a level head. What happens after
that is up for debate.

 

Anakin was emotionally invested. He was only thinking of himself, not anyone else. He was no good in that situation. As to Mace Windu, he wasn't sure if what Anakin told him was true. Remember, he has some doubts as to his claims. They come in there to arrest him, but Palpatine shows his true colors. And to get Mace to threaten to kill him, in front of Anakin, he had to attack again and hope that it got him to change his mind. Which it did.

"Mace was going to do the right thing by arresting him, but after Palpatine does the lightning, he changes his mind."

--George Lucas, The Making Of ROTS; Page 204.

It's not a case of absolutes, but a certainty. Sidious got Nute Gunray off four times. He would've walked from this. Death was the only option.

 

Again, if the contingency that Palpatine had the courts and senate covered
didn't occur to Mace, then that speaks more about Mace's inadequecy than
anyone elses. Dooku told Obi Wan in AOTC that a Sith Lord controlled
members of the Senate.
What did Mace think would happen? That Palpatine had orchestrated events
for 13 years only to be foiled at the last second? Palpatine admitted it
to Anakin. It didn't occur to Mace that perhaps Palpatine was choosing
his timing and terms?

 

C.) Yoda deals in absolutes ("Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.", etc.). Is he a Sith Lord?

 

I don't think "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny" is the sort of absolute Obi-Wan is referring to. He's talking more about a polarizing world view.

 

Anakin's attitude was "my way or the highway", "join me or die", "If you're not with me, you're my enemy."

Damn I knew it. God is a Sith.

 

im going to play devil's advocate here...


doesnt god allow for redemption? mercy? forgiveness?


the sith done allow such things

just my two cents

 

I cannot find the exact quotes but George Lucas make a comment about the Sith as absolutes in the ROTJ commentary when Luke first enters the Emperor's room on the Death Star

 

It would have been better to have a trial, not killing Palpatine.

That way the Senate could have made their own minds up about whether or not they wanted to have a Sith as their leader.

It's better for the Jedi not to take these matters into their own hands.

 

I hope its ok to post this. Im not trying to force an opinion one way or the other its just that when Anakin says the "If your not with me your against me" line it reminds me of GWB using that line after 911. So when OB1 says "Only the Sith deal in absolutes like that" My witty remark is to say "Well them and George Bush"

 

Actually, a great many critics made the same observation and felt that George Lucas -- what with his portrayal of a democratically elected leader using a war to slowly erode civil liberties, and then basically putting a Bushism in Anakin's mouth -- was making something of a political statement.

Then again, Palpatine's rise to power has been kept as a fairly similar backstory since before the original Star Wars was released.

But that doesn't mean George Lucas didn't take advantage of the coincidence...

 

I think Lord Spooner is probably right that this was GLs motivation for this line, although the overarching plot was there long before Osama started bombing the Kohbar towers or the USS Cole or all the other's he tried to kill. George seems mostly to stick with his instincts and avoid overt political statements that will date his movies.

That said, in this one case GL was angling for an applause line at Cannes and inserted a kind of cheesy and pretentious line in the hopes that his story would get a favorable headline. I think he is probably unaware of the paradox that makes the line so inadvertantly amusing.

 

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the line:

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes"

The problem is we are looking at that line in an absolute way, forgetting the conext that it is spoken in.

Here is my explanation for it.

When you deal in absolutes you have a one sided concept of your internal conciousness, what the future holds and what is going on around you. These absolutes come from a selfish position - the inability to see something from another point of view. This is very different from making factual statements about something - "The brick wall was hard" is a factual statement. "The brick wall for always be there" is an absolute or looking at a single brick - "This brick will become part of a wall" - thats an absolute.

To Anakin, Kenobi is either with him or he is his enemy. There is no other option for him and its a selfish mind set.

The use of the term absolute in this context also refers to the fact that Vader is giving Kenobi a command. YOU ARE either with me or YOU ARE my enemy. He gives Kenobi no room to move and is suggesting that if Kenobi isnt with him then he will kill him. Anakin is set on one thing and wont be swayed.

Another idea about an absolute is that its faultless. That there is only one outcome so that outcome is the only way and is therefore faultless.

So in fact, Vader is saying once again that his way is the only way and its the right way. No room for another point of view.

When I say we must look at the context of the scene, I mean we must understand why the characters say these lines when they do.

When Yoda says "do or do not, there is no try", it sounds like an absolute. However, this is said within the context of Lukes training. Its a factual statement that is true. If you dont truely believe in your abilities then you will not have full control over them. Its a statement that is true of everyone - not just the Jedi. (Also remember that Yoda is training Luke - what he says to Luke may just be a technique of putting a point across to him).

But when Vader says "you are either with me or you are my enemy", it is an absolue. He is saying that if Kenobi doesnt join him then he is his enemy. When in fact, there are many other options. Vader could alter his position and see an alternative way. Or Kenobi could just walk away himself. It doesnt have to have one outcome - which is all that Vader see's.

The Sith deal in abolsutes because they only see one result - their result. The Jedi dont deal in absolutes because they understand that the future is always in motion and its down to what they do in the moment and how they face their destinys.

Sidious: Darth Vader will become more powerful than either of us.

Yoda: Faith in your new apprentice misplaced may be, as is your faith in the dark side of the Force

Sidious is dealing in absolutes here, but Yoda is showing him that the future is not set, despite his overconfidence in the dark side.

 

well, the question is what Obi-Wan means by absolutism. Just found this in the ever resourceful Wikipedia on absolutism:

Absolutism (see Absolute truth), the contention that in a particular domain of thought, all statements in that domain are either absolutely true or absolutely false
Enlightened absolutism, a term used to describe the actions of absolute rulers who were influenced by the Enlightenment (eighteenth and early nineteenth century Europe)
Moral absolutism, the position that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act
Political absolutism, a political theory which argues that one person should hold all power

Lucas somewhere in the ROTJ commentary stated something to the effect that the Empire casts all things in black and white, good vs. evil, and that "the good guys" didn't have such a black-and-white worldview. So this seems to relate to moral absolutism. However, the paradox is that Mr.-"good-is-a-point-of-view-Anakin"-Palpatine is the perfect moral relativist.

 

Absolutism (see Absolute truth), the contention that in a particular domain of thought, all statements in that domain are either absolutely true or absolutely false

Enlightened absolutism, a term used to describe the actions of absolute rulers who were influenced by the Enlightenment (eighteenth and early nineteenth century Europe)

Moral absolutism, the position that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act

Political absolutism, a political theory which argues that one person should hold all power

Lucas somewhere in the ROTJ commentary stated something to the effect that the Empire casts all things in black and white, good vs. evil, and that "the good guys" didn't have such a black-and-white worldview. So this seems to relate to moral absolutism. However, the paradox is that Mr.-"good-is-a-point-of-view-Anakin"-Palpatine is the perfect moral relativist.

I would say its a mix of three out of the four absolutes.

Its absolutism because Vader is giving only one result.

Its moral absolutism because Vader now believes he is doing the right thing.

Its Political absolutism as Vader is saying the 'Jedi are evil' and the Empire is the only way.

I would also note that when Sidious says - "good is a point of view", he doesnt truely believe that the Sith way is possibly the good way or has anything good about it. Good is a point of view, but it doesnt exist in his world. What he does is greedy and selfless and evil. He's just trying to turn Anakin against the Jedi.

 

I agree - however, the Jedi also deal in absolutes when they say "Palpatine is evil".

Now Master_Shaitan deals in moral absolutes ... I'd say for Sidious "good" vs. "evil" isn't only a question of POVs, but that he takes moral relativism to the extreme, in that he is completely "a-moral", he hasn't got a moral code at all and certainly doesn't believe there is a moral code that somehow is given by law of nature to exist (which would be the position of a moral absolutist).

Again from the wikipedia:
"In philosophy, Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that it is meaningless for the moral or ethical judgments or acts of one person or group to be judged by another, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.
[...]
Moral relativism stands in marked contrast to moral absolutism, moral realism, and moral naturalism, which all maintain that there are moral facts, facts that can be both known and judged, whether through some process of verification or through intuition."
and:
"Amorality is the quality of having no concept of right or wrong."

Thus, IMO saying that Sidious is dealing in moral absolutes simply is totally beside the point. He doesn't seem to deal in moral categories at all. If anything, he seems to represent moral relativism taken to its utter extreme, to complete amorality.