Saga Star Wars - Discussion of Mythology, Themes, Philosophy, Etc

I wanted to create a thread where various topics about the themes, philosophical view points, mythology, etc are discussed in detail. I imagine it will be fairly nerdy discussions in general, but being a nerd myself that's the kind of thing I love. People love Star Wars on many different levels, whether it's just a fun action-packed space film, a mythological lessons of good and evil, or potentially philosophical views that effect your every day life. I personally love stars for all those reasons and to some extent its themes and viewpoints have affected the way I live my life. I wanted to see what other people's view about these things are and hopefully have a great discussion about them. Here are some themes I think would make interesting topics:

Good vs. evil
Democracies vs. tyrannies
Friendships
Family relationships
The nature of the Force (balance, unifying vs living)
Jedi philosophies
Sith philosophies
Symbiotic relationships
The hero's journey and other Joseph Campbell themes
(And anything else anyone can think of)

Resources for these discussion can come from anywhere, though they generally should come from the films, George Lucas, Joseph Campbell, other directors/authors, and the books (EU/Legends too). However draw from any inspiration resources that you think is relevant to the discussion. I myself don't really read any Star Wars books so I can't really personally add towards their discussions, but I welcome anyone to educate me on them. My only rules are: be kind and courteous, no matter what the viewpoint. No bashing any films or books (I have ones that I like and dislike, but will keep that to myself). And most importantly, please have fun (for the nerdy ones who call philosophical talk fun).

I will let the first poster pick whatever topic they want.

 

I've just been catching up on some of the media commentary regarding the underlying "ideology" TLJ in particular which I'd like to just briefly address for the moment.

I'm disappointed that even those favourable to the movie still seem to gravitate towards the idea that SW is being pumped up with concepts attractive to those seeking to be encouraged by implied approval of whatever political activist sympathies they possess.

I don't think that you can so easily take that imprsesion from the actual narrative. Skywalker is presumed the wisest in the land and the saviour of all those causes but he cannot see the way out and so he defers while he thinks it over. Rey is tasked with inducing him to be proactive by offering herself in support and as a pupil. Impatient and disillusioned she takes action herself and the net result is status quo (this goes for Poe and Finn's escapades also).

The ST so far is acknowledging that not only is it inevitable that change is a violent process, but that the amount of violence necessary to keep things the way they are is no less tolerable.

The pros and cons of activism are equitably represented.

 

Hi Martoto77, thanks for your input. When you say "underlying ideology of TLJ" I personally am not sure what specific ideology you are speaking of or whether in general you are talking about the idea that there is a general liberal take from that film. It appears inevitable that in today's day and age that politics is extrapolated within all media. The questions are whether Star Wars has in the past been apolitical, whether it is becoming more political with the sequel trilogies, or whether it is the political climate of today that is making false inferences of politics in the film where none exist. I do believe that in the past, particularly with the prequel trilogy, Lucas does interject some political ideology. However, he takes a more historical perspective rather than a modern one. The grand question that the prequel trilogy was attempting to answer was that of how democracies ultimately can be converted into dictatorships, particularly in cases of Rome, France and Italy. Lucas's take was that these democracies failed once they handed out excessive power to their leader in a time of crisis and thus leading to the ultimate end of the democracy itself as seen by Palpatine gaining power to convert the Republic to an empire. Its intent was not to peer into modern politics but to give historical perspective of what is politics on a never ending cycle. I did read a CNN article recently that was suggesting that back in 2005 with ROTS, Lucas was taking a jab at Bush when Padme speaks about "how liberty dies." Of course Lucas set the backstory of this eventual Republic fall back in the 90's, well before Bush came into office and thus an example the media making an inference that wasn't necessarily intentional on the part of the filmmaker.

Of course the sequel trilogy is in today's political climate which seems even more polarized than before. Whether in mainstream media or social media, concepts of social justice, feminism, diversity, capitalism, animal cruelty, etc are being discussed within the Star Wars realm. It is now the question of whether the sequel trilogy, in particular TLJ is taking a political stance on one side or another, or if as you are suggesting Martoto77, TLJ is politically neutral and inferences are being taken incorrectly by one side of another due to their own political views. If TLJ is taking a political stance, should that be done so overtly in Star Wars or is that taking away from what people perceive to be just escapism entertainment?

 

I am just talking mainly of the perceived "ideology" that some commetators claim that the film promotes. It's debatable if and how ideology is the correct term, but from a purely analytical point of view, ideologies permeate everything in the culture even. Passively or otherwise. There has been a reaction from some that because the resistance are fighting against a clearly defined Imperialist movement then the message of the movie is liberal political activism.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I honestly hadn't heard about the idea that people were using idea of a rebellion against a imperialistic entity as a message of violent liberal political activism. This would be strange, particularly considering that this concept was rehashed from the original trilogy which of course was released in 1977. In fact, Star Wars at the time was somewhat seen as an escapist antidote to the pessimistic view of politics in the time post-Vietnam war as well as after Richard Nixon. I would agree that to believe that the sequel trilogy was sending that intentional message does not make too much sense, at least regarding that particular ideology that you are referencing to. I can only imagine that if the prequel trilogies were released in today's political climate, people would have said that Palpatine was meant to mock our current president. Again, I think Lucas in the past has discussed politics in historical generalities, rather than more contemporary specific issues that we see today. However given that such politics often continue to repeat itself throughout history only means that these historical generalities will always at some point become relevant over and over again.

 

Ok, I’ll give this one more try before I abandon it. How about people’s view of the Force. What do you think the Force really is? What about Lucas’s view of the Force or other directors’ view? What about the concepts of balance as well as the Living vs Unifying Force?

 

I prefer the more mythical interpretation of the Force.

Unbalance would be trying to use it for your own personal gains.

 

Don't abandon it. I'm tempted to reply here often but every time I think about I just see a post with a couple of thousand words coming out of me. And nobody wants that.

I will say this quickly for now. My impression is that force = destiny. Lucas's most oft stated belief is that you have free will but you also have destiny. You can choose to take the destiny that you perceive is in front of you. Or you can not choose it, choose something else, but you cannot escape it regardless. I think terns like cosmic, living force etc are just ways of acknowledging different relationships with desitny, as individuals and collectively.

 

When I see a person talk about the mythical side of the Force, I presume that it is also a rebuke of a more scientific view, specifically with midichlorians. And believe me I get that. While I understand why Lucas used midichlorians I also get why people don’t like them. It’s as if Rowling tried to describe the science behind magic in the Harry Potter universe. People just want magic to be magic. Science is so concrete and religion is some what abstract. They always will butt heads with each other. I personally like midichlorians though I understand why many don’t. How do others see this dichotomy between science and religion and how it makes you feel?

Your view of balance agrees with Lucas’s view as well as mine. But how exactly does using the Force in a selfish way unbalance it?

Hey no worries. If you open up a thread that specifically says it’s going to be about philosophy and mythology then long winded responses should be expected.

So when you say that the Force is destiny, do you believe that the Force itself has chosen a destiny for all living creatures within the universe? If so, how and why do you think the Force would do such a thing or is such destiny necessary for the fabric of the universe? I’m interpreting what you’re saying is that if the Force created the universe it’d be like if you were weaving a quilt and predetermined already where each piece of yarn needed to begin and where it would ultimately end. Only if you did that would the fabric of the universe be organized in a way that made sense.

And I see your point on destiny and choice. Of course with a prophecy it assumes a form of destiny. One would think that destiny contradicts the concept of choice, but I agree that while ones destination may be final, the path to that destination can vary depending on such choices. How do you think this affects people who know of their destiny? Do they feel trapped and without choice?

Your last statement however I’m trying to grasp what you’re trying to say. How do the cosmic and living Force differ in its relationship with destiny? And how does that occur on an individual and collective level?

 

I think this is a very good vid on Why Luke came to be who he was in TLJ.

I suspect it could go in other threads as well but I think it speaks to why TLJ enhances , not diminishes the Mythos of Luke and the real meaning of becoming a centered Jedi.

 

Please note - This Vid is not my work but I do agree with what its auther has to say

 

Briefly.

When people refer to the living force, they sound like they are talking about pragmatism. Whereas invoking, or attempting to define the cosmic force sounds like an attempt to impose ideology and order, or a narrative, to all our destinies.

This is why I've never understood why GL went out of his way to so conspicuously depict Qui Gon as the embodiment of that duality, only to cut him down and not transfer those concepts to an equally compelling character or characters with any real recognisable continuity.

 

I think that when Lucas says you can choose not to follow your destiny he means that you can indeed escape it, that it's a potential as opposed to an inevitable outcome.

"The Force itself breaks into two sides: the living Force and a greater, cosmic Force. The living Force makes you sensitive to other living things, makes you intuitive, and allows you to read other people's minds, et cetera. But the greater Force has to do with destiny. In working with the Force, you can find your destiny and you can choose to either follow it, or not." - Lucas

 

Sorry, I got pretty busy with work all week so I wasn't able to answer in a timely fashion.

So I'm not very familiar with pragmatism so I went ahead and looked it up. Just for others who may be also not be knowledgeable about it:

While I'm still not exactly clear on your view of the Living and Cosmic Force, I gather it is seeing from both a practical and abstract point of view. It does seem that Qui Gon's view was fairly unique among the other Jedi and it is sad to see that no one truly embraces that view after TPM.

Thank you for offering your thoughts to this thread. I admit I have some hesitation as to whether I would want to tackle this particular subject in this thread. While that video does discuss Luke in a thematic way, I'm concerned about having topics in this thread turn into a "I like this character or I don't like this character" type of discussion which would be best served in a different thread. Having said that I will attempt to answer this from a theme/story arc standpoint. First of all, the author of that video certainly expresses his opinion well and comes with a beautiful explanation of why Luke's portrayal in TLJ suits him. If you agree and believe in this, I encourage you to continue believing this and enjoying TLJ. However, I would have to say that I disagree with what the author has to say.

He offers the view that Luke throwing away his old lightsaber and not actually using it at the end of the movie is represented by his previous failures using the lightsaber in the past. He therefore learns to avoid its use in TLJ as his point of wisdom. While I agree that throwing away his lightsaber in ROTJ was perhaps, the greatest deed in all the Star Wars saga, saying that he is a failure with the lightsaber and ought to be avoiding it in the future is a bit of a stretch. When one looks at what Luke should have become, one only had to look at his past and the story arc he was presented. When we saw him in ANH, he was farmboy, though he had courage, he was also naive and not very worldly. He also knew nothing of his parents, thinking both were dead, and of course his only family Owen and Beru were killed. And now with his guide in Obi Wan Kenobi, he was a brave, but naive and without a family, finally set to adventure the universe. However when paired with the street-smart smuggler and the worldly princess from Alderaan, his inexperience only became more apparent, though offset by his courage. And he continued to show his lack of wisdom in ESB when he sets off to save his friends against the advice of Yoda and Obi Wan. Not having even seen Luke since the beginning of ESB, when Han hears of Luke trying to help them at the beginning or ROTJ he says, "Luke? Luke's crazy! He can't even take care of himself, much less rescue anybody." Even Han had still seen him as the brave, but naive little farm boy by then. And yet by the end of the film, he does indeed make the wisest decision in refusing to kill his father. You can see when he address the emperor and says "You've failed, your highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me," he is now the mature, heroic and wise Jedi he was destined to become. In fact, by then, he had shown more wisdom than Obi Wan and Yoda. And even more so, instead of being an orphan without a family, he now had a father and also a sister.

And then what would be expected of Luke heading into the future? The truth is, that remains up in the air, though one should expect that family and wisdom be important aspects of his future. Being a father myself, I understand the importance of passing on knowledge to my family. And after all the heroism that Luke had achieved, before he died, his true final act in his hero's journey was to pass on knowledge to the next generation. Force projecting himself to pretend fight Ben was not his great task. Passing knowledge is the ultimate goal that all parents have for their children. Of course Luke had no children and his nephew was the closest version of having a son. He apparently failed Ben and thus his task to pass on his knowledge. Rey on the other hand had been haunted by her search for her parents. She came to the island looking for guidance. And thus Luke needed to redeem his failure with Ben (which in itself I don't agree with Luke trying to kill Ben in his sleep but I won't delve into that) and complete task of passing on knowledge. I believe that those who have had great mentors strive to become great mentors themselves. Luke was looking for that son or daughter figure to whom his he can have influence over. And Rey was looking for that parent figure to fill the void of the ones that abandoned her. And so two people in the universe who needed each other the most found each other on a small little island in the middle of nowhere. For them to have filled each other’s void would have to been to complete a piece in each other’s hero’s journey. While I have many more issues with Luke's TLJ portrayal, this is my argument from a pure theme and story arc point of view.

 

I don't see any evidence in the films to really support either of these contentions.

 

Hi Arawn_Fenn. Thanks for posting. So what are your thoughts about Qui Gon or even how the Living and Cosmic/Unifying Force are presented in the films?

My thoughts on the Living Force is that takes the concept of divinity that exists within nature. Joseph Campbell was more a believer in this point of view and generally criticized Western religion in its ideology that divinity existed above nature. Looking at what Lucas has done with these two views of the Force, I believe he’s incorporated both sides.

 

The living Force and cosmic Force are not really views but aspects or parts of the Force. In the final season of The Clone Wars, Qui-Gon describes how energy from the living Force feeds into the cosmic Force.

( However, though it may be primarily for the purpose of exposition to the audience, he tells this to Yoda, as if Yoda does not already know it. )

 

Thanks Arawn_Fenn. I hate to say this but I've never watched the Clone Wars cartoons before. I had to go look up the quote and this is what I found:

So from what Qui Gon is saying there is an energy created by all living things (Living Force) which in turn feeds into a greater energy structure (Cosmic Force). That suggests that the Force exists due to the these living beings. If there were no living beings, there would not be any Living Force. If there were no Living Force from which energy flows, then there could be no Cosmic Force. And so this greater energy, the Cosmic Force is what binds everything together. If you remove life from the equation, then this greater energy no longer exists.

Maybe it is me but this sounds somewhat like the Gaia hypothesis which is a scientific hypothesis that all material (living, organic and inorganic material) form a self-regulated environment that is suitable to life. In other words, life isn't there by accident, but rather a complex mechanism ensures that life can exist and maintain homeostasis. This is also turned from just a scientific theory to also philosophical considerations:

Joseph Campbell has discussed this philosophy in terms of new age mythology:

And so Joseph Campbell saw looking at the planet as an organism, the Gaia principle, as a new form of myth. From that sense, the living beings on the planet form a symbiosis in which a greater living being, the planet as an organism can exist. There is of course debate as seen above as to whether the planet as an organism has a consciousness of its own.

 

I'd like to believe I'm a close follower of the works of Joe Campbell but his prediction of the new myth involving our planet always left me somewhat scratching my head. From a certain point of view, perhaps the Matrix Trilogy could be such a myth, but rather in the twisted way that the real world there is the aftermath of a catastrophic event that should encourage us to make sure it doesn't happen.

In addition he said (BTW, could you PM me a link to the whole transcript - I do have the softcover book lying next to me but it's a pain in the axx to type all the quotes manually):

And what it will have to deal with will be exactly what all myths have dealt with -- the maturation of the individual, from dependency through adulthood, through maturity, and then to the exit; and then how to relate to this society and how to relate this society to the world of nature and the cosmos.

The way I see it, it's still about us and the human condition.

The Holy Spirit - and it holds the galaxy together (and not some pseudoscientific "dark matter").

I always found the parallels rather noteworthy:

BEN Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force
flowing through him.

LUKE You mean it controls your actions?

BEN Partially. But it also obeys your
commands.

Mark 13:11 specifically refers to the power of the Holy Spirit to act and speak through the disciples of Jesus in time of need: "be not anxious beforehand what ye shall speak: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit."

i.e. the Holy Spirit, like the Force, partially controls your actions.

 

That's interesting.

I apologise for bringing Zizek up again (not really though) but this is sympathetic with his interpretation of the holy spirit. For him, the acceptance of holy spirit, in other words a dead(non-existent), impotent god, emancipates its followers from the grim prospect of oneself not existing some day. So the nominated collective of believers in the holy spirit are members of a "the party". And since we all die we are potentially all equally emancipated members in this party with free will in the context of this acceptance of the holy spirit. Naturally there are different ways in which that spirit may be accepted. So in a sense you have control by the holy spirit just by acknowledgement of its existence and then accepting it.. But it is this control that frees you to make good and bad choices.

Spoiler: Some Zizek tasters (some re star wars)

Yes, he does resemble Luke Skywalker in TLJ a little bit. Doesn't he?

 

I would say a better example of a film that establishes the Gaia principle is Avatar. Of course James Cameron and Lucas are friends so I do wonder if the collaborate on this idea. On Pandora the trees literally have neurosynapses. I wouldn't be surprised if Cameron takes this even further with his sequels and advances the idea that Pandora may be a living organism. These myths tell us about how we interact within the world around us which includes the people, the living creatures, the river, the mountains, the jungle, the forest, the plains etc. What Campbell is suggesting that while past traditional myths tend to have very regional influences, given the globalization of the world, we will see these myths on a more planetary level.

I stated earlier how I felt that the Living and the Cosmic Force were a duality between Eastern and Western views on theology/mythology where a Western view looks at divinity as being above nature. It has been a long while since my days of Catholic school but the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force which can fill a person. But it is apparently a conscious entity as well. If the Force is conscious, does it have emotions? Does it become jealous of other false deities? How much does it choose to, or have the ability to intervene with living creatures?

 

You know making me watch those youtube videos suddenly made Zizek videos show up on my youtube account. I actually ran into this one which is quite interesting.



Zizek seems to take the idea of ecology as an "ideology," in the sense that it is a secular religion constructed to deal with real problems, but in a mystified way. That view would suggest a negative light on something such a the Gaia hypothesis as a truth within science, though some see it as more of a figurative, mythological premise.

Here is a George Lucas interview from "The Meaning of Life" in Life magazine 1991:

 

Actually, I'm not that certain that the Western view looks at divinity as being above nature (i.e. life). The particular part of Christian mythology I'm still trying to somewhat figure out is this (from Wikipedia):

The sacredness of the Holy Spirit to Christians is affirmed in all three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 12:30–32, Mark 3:28–30 and Luke 12:8–10) which proclaim that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin.[33]

So blasphemy against God or Jesus (or - cough - prophets...) apparently is not unforgivable, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is. To me this does rather sounds that the Holy Spirit somewhat equals life and he (or she) who is against life is beyond redemption.

 

Sorry about that. I think it's hard to discuss the nature of the Force as Lucas has used multiple religious sources towards the design of the Force. In that case there really isn't one religious source that can be said to be part of the Force, but likely a combination of them all including Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Judaism, etc. However in trying to explain or deconstruct the Force, I can see where conversations ultimately deconstruct individual religions sources as well. This would lead people to feel that such brings questioning or doubt to those religions which is certainly not what I would want to happen. I think we will have to discuss religion only in its context to the Force itself and how Lucas may have used a specific view of a religion in order create his own version of the Force. Of this should be done without any suggestion that there be an interpretation of an aspect of a religion itself that would be wrong or false. Hopefully doing that would keep people from feeling offended. If the discussion of the Force can't be done in a way that achieves those goals then the subject can be changed.