TV Discussion The Jedi: Their Roles and Philosophies in Star Wars TV

I dont think all of them are wrong. In many ways, he is right about things. But there are some things to me that don't quite stack up and are contradictory - and not what would be expected in a given situation.

There are so many forms of love and I don't think George's simplified views to justify attachment encompasses it all.

I think the issue is quite complex.

 

Well that's the problem is that at the end of the day Star Wars and George Lucas in particular are very...simple writers and not very complex and nuanced about things.

Sometimes Star Wars handle the nuances better than others.

But George, and Filoni in particular i think have a bit of simplistic philosophy about it and that shows in their writing.

 

The problem arises when you can't even consider loving someone, and yet being able to accept their death.

It is perfectly human. And it happens. If the death is not violent and is natural, then there is no reason for depression or other extreme feelings.

Is there grief? Yes. But that's a natural consequence of loving someone and feeling empathy towards them.

As Vision told Wanda better than anyone could ever have, what is grief, if not love persevering?

None of that is an unhealthy attachment, and none of that was rejected by the Jedi.

Yoda literally touched his chest on the heart area when he felt the death of the Jedi.

Kenobi felt pain for the death of billions of souls on Alderaan.

The Jedi are not emotionless and never were, and that's not what they teach.

But to cross the line and be possessive of someone, is ALWAYS unhealthy.

I am sorry, but George was 100% right.

 

I thought Ahsoka presented her argument flawlessly actually. Grogu is a kid. A toddler. He would feel very sad after Din Djarin left him again. It would only be selfish on behalf of Din Djarin to see Grogu.

 

George isn't 100% right at all and I didn't say that the Jedi are emotionless.

I recognize that the Jedi feel a certain type of love towards each other, towards living things; that type of selfless, compassionate and unconditional love. And they are trained like this. Some really good moments are being shown of this in the High Republic novels.

But its a certain kind of love and there are also other kinds of love too. For me, Anakin wasn't being possessive in his love for Padme; thats not what made him turn to the Dark Side. He didn't own her. His love for Padme (and vice versa) was the kind of love that exists between a husband and wife; the kind of love a Jedi can't give or teach because its the kind of love that only develops through being "attached" to somebody. And he turns to the dark side to save the women he loves from dying; so that he can be with her and continue to love her and have her love him - not "possess" her.

So George's views on love and attachment mostly work if you look at things purely from a Jedi point of view. They don't work on an individual character point of view such as Anakin.

This to me is where Grogu will struggle too and I agree with others that he will end up being both Jedi and Mandalorian.

 

Anakin's love for Padme was healthy.... until it wasn't. He force choked her.
He killed younglings as a means to a goal, when the goal was to save Padme.
I don't know in what universe this is a healthy kind of love, but in that one, it isn't.
How was his love for Padme not possessive? I don't get that.
And there's the story arc in TCW with Clovis too. He most definitely was possessive.

 

The answer is yes. Because Grogu is being trained to be a Jedi. He's not in kindergarten. He is trained to serve a greater purpose and help people across the galaxy. He isn't being trained to be a good and independent kid.

 

Completely agree, once Anakin had turned and what Palpatine made him do (murder younglings and destroy the Jedi Order) in exchange for being taught this mysterious power to keep people from dying, thats no longer appropriate love; which is what repulsed Padme and made her pull away from him - which then lead to the Force Choke. At that very moment of the choke, that became possessive love.

But before this, the lead up to him turning and the want to prevent Padme from dying, thats not possessive love. Thats genuine romantic love that exists between partners and wanting to do whatever one could to prevent a loved one from dying. The Force Choke is on Anakin and his possessive love in the moment. The killing of innocents is on both Anakin in the moment, as well as Palpatine's manipulations.

So for me, there is a distinct line between Anakin's romantic love and his possessive love; which is drawn at the moment he goes from Jedi to Sith.

 

Ok, I should have said "not only a good kid"
The point remains. Luke is not supposed to take the role of the father for Grogu.
He is supposed to be his mentor.

There's a lot to be said about whether it's healthy for Grogu to actually start training too young, as opposed to Anakin starting the training too old. The Jedi Academy is not on Coruscant anymore. And the various Padawans are not engaging in social activity with multiple other other padawans, because there's only one padawan. So Grogu needs a paternal figure, but he cannot currently have one, or Luke is just not able to become a paternal figure from not even having a padawan. But he's building the academy, and he is empathetic and sweet towards the "little one". It's a good start. There is absolutely no reason though to remove the "no attachments" rule. It's a rule that makes sense and should be there. I agree wholeheartedly with Ahsoka that seeing Din Djarin would be a major setback for Grogu and the fact that he needs to embrace this new life, if he is to become a Jedi. If he doesn't want to embrace this life, then.... he doesn't need to be a Jedi.

There is a multitude of moments and actions in the life of Anakin before he turned to the dark side, where he proved that he is possessive and his love for Padme became problematic to the core after a certain point. It's not one defining moment. It's a collection of smaller moments, where he flirted with the dark side. He was unstable, and that does not exclude his relationship for Padme.

I get it, I am actually one of the people who think the Anakin Padme romance made so much sense, and it was presented really well by George Lucas. But it definitely wasn't healthy at the end. And that's because Anakin became possessive. These, are as @Bor Mullet said, things that happened in the movie. So, the Jedi were right. His love for Padme and the unhealthy level at which it reached, was the cause for his fall. Palpatine literally implanted visions in his mind to give him an extra push after he realized that she was his soft spot. He exploited his possessiveness for Padme.

 

I agree with @Generational Fan. Like yeah, possessive relationships are wrong. But by that I mean like abusive relationships. A ten year old boy missing his mother after being whisked away to a religious cult is not possessive and wrong. Marriage is not possessive and wrong. But Lucas seems to be pathologizing commonplace and normal human relationships because they are rooted in attachment. Yes attachment can go too far. But I think any healthy and normal loving human relationship is rooted to some extent in attachment. Lucas never presents a healthy way for Jedi to connect with their parents after joining the order. He never presents a healthy Jedi romantic relationship either. Likely because they are fundamentally rooted in attachment. Instead young Anakin is judged harshly for missing his mother and he has to keep his marriage hidden because such relationships are presented as fundamentally problematic to the moral voices of the series (the wise Jedi and their great Order). Joseph Campbell wrote about the different types of love: Eros (sexual desire), amor (romantic love), agape (“love thy neighbor” love for mankind). In Jedi morality, I guess only agape is allowed

 

Specific relationships could be added easily to the Jedi way I think. Friendship would be a good one. Aswell as Obi-Wan's "We were brothers". Sister would also be there. These are also less-exclusive/possessive relationships generally. They are less self-absorbed for sure.

But I think the point is that in all forms of relating - their embodiment and how they develop with changing situations - new feelings will arise. This can include a possessiveness and self-centredness that may not have been felt before. The Jedi aspire for compassion to "overcome" this.

 

After the PT I didn’t re-think my views on the OT and suddenly see Luke's Story as suceeding in "no attachment". And I don't think Vader saved him out of no attachment either.

He wouldn’t have saved any other person in the galaxy (Bar Leia maybe after he knew) from being force-fried by Palps. Just his children. And Luke most certainly wouldn’t have felt motivated to even try with him if not for their familial connection.

All of this is attachment to me because it is obvious emotional bias. It just wasn't bad or selfish attachment.

To me attachment in and of itself is not a dirty word and wouldn't be one for a Jedi either. It's how you act upon it. Obviously not everyone goes and murders kids the second a loved one is in danger.

So I just have a different definition for attachment and therefore interprete the rule differently. And I guess one that is shared by others as well. Not everyone and apparently not George but I can see what a storyteller means to say and still come to my own different conclusion. Maybe I enjoy the material just as much just in my own way. Not looking at it like George certainly never marred my enjoyment of the OT. Nor even kept me from overall enjoying the PT.

I've tried to come up with an answer to the question "why do people hold so-and-so stance on the attachment rule" by in a roundabout way saying "they might interpret attachment differently in the first place". At least that is true for me.

 

Yes. A different interpretation of attachment (than what George intended) is clearly at the center of why there’s a debate about this. But essentially, the Jedi in the story define attachment the way George Lucas (and now Filoni) did, because…they wrote it. And according to George, Vader saving Luke was a compassionate move, and not a form of attachment, because it was selfless. I think you’re absolutely right that Vader would likely not have saved the life of Jo-Sh’moh, in that context. It had to be his son. And that’s a form of bias. But I don’t think “attachment” is wholly synonymous with bias. It refers specifically to a grasping, possessive, greedy form of love. And the Jedi Order wanted to prevent that possibility in its adherents in order to keep them committed, with a clarity of mind, to the mission. Were they too rigid about this? Perhaps. I think maybe yes. But I don’t see anything in any Star Wars product demonstrating that the attachment rule caused any major problems. Indeed in Anakin’s case, the wisdom of the rule was demonstrated.

George essentially defines attachment the way most forms of Buddhism define attachment. As possessive rather than compassionate. And I personally just think it helps with understanding and appreciating Star Wars content to accept that definition. Otherwise the story takes weird contortions and we end up agreeing with Palpatine, and that’s clearly not what was intended. But I don’t think the will of the storyteller need to imposed on everyone. If interpreting a concept differently than intended doesn’t harm appreciation for Star Wars, then there’s no harm in it.

 

I don’t agree. I haven’t seen any exceptions to “attachments are unhealthy” in George’s Star Wars. The healthy relationships that exist in the stories just aren’t attachments as defined by Lucas. They’re…healthy, non-possessive relationships.

And I think a lot of audiences instinctively understood the danger of Din seeing Grogu at this stage. I’ve heard it likened to going to see your child at school mid-way through their first day, after an earlier bout of separation anxiety, and making things worse because now they just want to come home with you. It’s not just manufactured drama. Ahsoka’s warning was one that rung true on a human level. The overwhelming reaction to that scene from people I’ve spoken with seems to be real understanding of it. Yeah, might make Grogu’s separation anxiety worse at this stage.

That said, I understand why some are less accepting of the final scene where Luke implies that the separation between Din and Grogu could be permanent if he becomes a Jedi. But I think Luke may be exaggerating for effect.

Exactly. It was a lack of attachment that gave him the clarity of mind to reject the option of joining him. To choose a moral path rather than amoral familism.

It’s essentially how mafiosi are sometimes brought down. Because their spouses or children find a moral path to be stronger than their familial attachment, and so…they break with the family. And that’s a good thing.

This too.

No, I wouldn’t murder a ton of innocent people with the hope that doing so would lead to somehow preventing people I love from dying. I wouldn’t artificially raise a loved one from the dead so I could talk to them again. I wouldn’t do any of the selfish, greedy things George’s characters do out of “love.”

What George is talking about with “attachment” is possessive love, not just love. And the positive side of love he presents on screen is a compassionate love.

These are fundamentally different concepts. You are claiming that “love” can not have qualifiers that distinguish them from each other. That there’s only one type of love. But George was actually engaged in a more subtle exploration of the concept.

Buddhism separates grasping, possessive, greedy, selfish love from compassionate, selfless love. The Jedi forbid the former but not the latter.

Where I accept that the Jedi of the PT may have erred is in their assumption that all romantic love was likely to lead to possessive love/ attachment. And yeah, perhaps they should’ve been less rigid about that.

 

As someone who defines attachment differently but doesn't agree with Palpatine at all, I don't think it poses much of a problem. Palps is still too evil for many to agree with him.

Honestly, I believe a lot of viewers considered Anakin/Padme as a simple play on a Romeo and Juliet motiv and didn't remotely think about the connorations of attachment in the story. Not for nothing John Williams named their love theme "Across the Stars" aka a play on star-crossed.

And if the romance had been more embraced and more popular in mainstream (I will defend George a lot but not his ability to write romance dialogue, that was some purple prose there), the Jedi would have been perceived as "meanies" with the rule, instead of it being embraced as a good core concepta whole lot more.

Which incidentally is IMO the trigger for the current debate with the Grogu situation. He IS popular, he is small and child-like and anyone who tells him "no" and breaks his little heart is somewhat in a losing position. It is optics before content.

Also, because they play up the baby angle, people wonder if he isn't way too young and immature to be presented with such a choice as he was and be expected to make it.

 

Right. So it’d be normal and acceptable love between a husband and wife if a husband joins the Nazi Party and murders a bunch of innocent people on the promise that the Nazi Party will finance an operation to save his wife’s life?

Doing anything in your power to save a loved one is not healthy love. It is possessive love. Nobody should be willing to do anything to prevent loss.

And that’s the central critique of human behavior that the PT presents us with. And it’s intensely personal. And George was, IMO, right. We should examine the narrow moral boundaries we might be creating around our families and friends, and definitely critique any potential evil we might do to benefit them. If my father were to commit a hate crime, I would do nothing in my power to prevent him from going to jail. And I consider that compassionate, whether he would or not!

This is a great point. And incidentally, what I find so brave about the choice. The easier, more audience-pleasing, and in my view shallower thing to do is just let Mando see Baby Grogu so we can all be happy. Instead, we are treated to a much more bittersweet scene wherein Din sees his child, but has the constitutional fortitude to not let his desires impede the growth of his child. Simply put, he’s not selfishly steering his kid to go to college in the town next door. He’s letting him go further abroad.

I think where the debate gets more legitimate, for me, is in the idea presente in the final scene - that Grogu may never see his father again if he chooses to be a Jedi. That’s an unnecessarily harsh vision. But in that context, I think Luke is simply presenting Grogu with the most severe of potential consequences so as not to delude him. If you choose this ascetic, warrior-monk life, it’s going to be very hard and you’ll rarely see your loved ones. If you don’t really want that, now’s your chance to turn back.

 

As much as I respect George Lucas as creator of worlds and otherworldly stories, his philosophy is not (IMHO)that deep really and oversimplifies a lot deep human emotions like hate, love and attachment. I cannot respect GL as a great philosopher. He just is not... Feel free to disagree of course...

I mean that is true to certain extent that attachment has these negative side effects. But claiming that Anakin is some sort of typical case of human mind gone wrong is rich. Not all people are willing to become mass murderers to save their loved ones. Not even all hate is evil IMO. It is emotion with a huge potential to do evil, but it is not something to be ashamed of in itself. It is natural emotion and as such justified when you have been wronged. Killing men and women and children too is not justified, being angry is not same as being murderer.

There are different philosophies in the world and they are also connected to religious beliefs making it very complicated to discuss without hurting someone's conviction. In Star Wars, story takes place in the world where the Force is real and it complicates things. Anger makes dark side flow through you and one strong in the Force may more easily become mass murderer to allow such emotions to empower themselves within. So jedi having strong need to evade all strong emotions, fear, hate, passion makes sense in-universe. Attachments bring up all strong emotions at once. Jedi avoiding them makes sense, because the Force.

In the real world belief that all emotions are to be avoided makes no sense. Being angry is not same as murdering a tribe of native people. Emotions are not deeds, and claiming feeling automatically leads to action seems honestly immature and juvenile. Children claim they hit their friend because they were angry, but adult person knows that being angry doesn't justify hitting anyone. You have control over your actions, but not over your emotions, not in similar manner at least.

But as interesting the concept of the Force is, it is not something I personally believe is well... real. So it doesn't matter to me IRL. If you are one of those people whose religion is "jedi" and you spend your free time meditating and tele-kinetically lifting rocks I apologize... I didn't know you exist. I know there are some weird SW-fans listing their religion as "jedi" on paper, but I highly doubt you really claim to believe the Force exists exactly like it does in the films. Or I suggest mental asylum. It is well established that it was invented by George Lucas....

If you have some less movie-inspired religion with a deep conviction that complicates things, since concepts of good and evil may include religious beliefs like sin. I am not willing to discuss further about religion. Nothing good comes out of doing that online.

 

What George says is not that black and white. He never once claimed that emotions are inherently bad. Or, for that matter, that most people are like Anakin.
The story of Anakin's fall is simply a cautionary tale that takes things to the extreme to show us how bad things can get under the wrong circumstances.
It's not outlandish, though. Most people would do what Anakin does if they were in his shoes with the same background.

I'll also say this: Hate is bad. Period. Nothing good ever comes out of hate. All it does is bring more pain. It is pain. Dislike, or aversion, is one thing. But hate... That's taking it too far. That's caring too much about something you need to let go of.

Emotions on the whole, though... They're a necessity for life to function and prosper. The trick is to let them do what they're supposed to do without giving them control over you. Your emotions work for you, not the other way around.

 

Myths are symbolic. They’re meant to help us explore our thoughts so that we can question, reaffirm or change our previously held beliefs on topics that might initially seem less complicated and ripe for division than they truly are. Myths do this most frequently through exaggerated, romanticized, or idealized figures and set those figures into scenarios which are purposefully exaggerated by design to explore the best or worst case scenario worthy of contemplation and discussion. Through these extremely exaggerated scenarios and conflicts between the most selfless aspects of humanity and our most selfish we learn more about who we are and why we hold the beliefs that we have. The best of Star Wars continues this, spurring on debate and discussions like those in this thread.

The attachment rule is the most exaggerated and extreme example of not allowing one to become controlled by selfish feelings in any way. Either by perceived threat to an attachment, or a desire to control or obtain an attachment of some kind. By taking it to extremes, in the form of a rule by one organization associated with the most selfless pursuit in this conflict between light and dark, it gives the dark side its easiest wedge issue opportunity to recruit. Jedi will routinely fall in different ways to various selfish desires over time and as they do the dark side will be there to offer them easy solutions that they can justify to themselves as not being selfish. Even though they are.

Narratively, it’s important that the dark side remain a slippery slope that’s easy to fall onto without realizing it. Lucas was wise to recognize this.

 

Well yes "hate" is a strong word for what I meant back there. I think anger would be better. I think that feeling anger is human and not inherently bad. Same as with fear. I think jedi approach to emotion is too extreme for real persons. Jedi deny passion and emotion in their code. I think it makes sense in-universe for a jedi, but as some all-encompassing life philosophy I don't agree with it.

Sure there are some great philosophical discussions one can have about Star Wars and George Lucas does have some insight into philosophy as well.
But overall there are some rather... questionable beliefs I see in philosophy George Lucas has created for the jedi and his universe. "Only sith deals with absolutes" for example is itself an absolute which is paradoxical. Same with Yoda's "do or do not, there is no try", which I think is rather mystical claim. If trying does not matter it may lead to perfectionism in which trying your best is not enough and nothing is ever enough.

Some Star Wars philosophy is just mystical paradoxes that can be interpreted many ways. There seem to be internal contradictions though. Ki-Adi-Mundi's "There is no luck" for example and yet same jedi talk about being lucky later....

In the end I don't think we all need to share same life philosophy as George Lucas to like or appreciate his universe and movies. What comes to the Force, it is exactly black and white though. It is the very definition of dualistic world view IMO.

It is sort of shame though, grayer aspects of the Force could be interesting. But gray jedi and such belong in the EU apparently.

 

I think it’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion for many observers of Star Wars to come to that “balance” between these extremes would be best and I also think it’s possible that deep down… Lucas may have hoped for people to come to that conclusion after watching these extremes battle it out.

That doesn’t mean Star Wars should abandon the extreme differences between the light and dark and fully embrace grey storytelling because there’s value in people coming to the conclusion that balance is necessary on their own through the extremes battling it out. In myth it’s better for there to be extremes.

 

Of course. A Jedi is a Jedi. Gray Jedi can't exist because once they deviate from the path of the Jedi, they cease to be Jedi. That's self-explanatory.

But no, it is not black and white. That's a misinterpretation.
Maybe the Jedi Code makes it sound that way, but "There is no emotion" is not meant to be read as "You're not allowed to feel". That should be a given, since it's literally impossible to be emotionless.
In fact, compassion, which is central to a Jedi's life, requires emotion.

And "There is no try" is not a call for perfection, at all. I've honestly never seen it taken that way before.
It's simply saying "Put your heart into it. Mean it. Do it fully".