Fanclub The Sith Empire - Lords of the New Sith Order - Continuing to put the Laughter into Manslaughter!

Quite.....

 

The Creed of Ruin – A Solipsists’ Madness or Self-Deterministic Gem?​

​

​

​

I must say I have previously had the pleasure to discuss this with myself, though not to the same extent and in such depth as I will now. Your assignment has given me just the incentive to truly get down to analysing this philosophical oddity among oddities. For that, Master Insipid, I am grateful.

The purpose of this essay shall be to discuss this code and its philosophy from an empirical viewpoint (in regards to what is actually real) and a teleological viewpoint (in regards to purpose/intent).

Now, to the delicious meat of things!

*lights turn off, maniacal laughter ensues; the audience is transported into an alternate dimension, with a backdrop of galactic history acting as ambience for the discourse*

First, a bit of background. Darth Ruin, born Phanius, was an Umbaran Jedi Master turned Sith Lord who caused a schism in the Jedi Order around 2000 BBY, convincing some Jedi to leave and reuniting Sith remnants scattered around the galaxy. This led to the rise of a new Sith Empire, which plunged the Republic into another war and ended a long period of galactic peace. After he was betrayed and killed by his disciples, his dominion fractured, but the wave of Sith resurgence was already set in motion. The New Sith Wars would continue on and off for a thousand years, terminating with the elimination of the Brotherhood of Darkness by Darth Bane.

Darth Ruin was most notorious for his philosophy, which seemed to put other beings off and turn adherents against him. It was referred to as solipsistic, and indeed many viewed Ruin himself as such. It was encoded in the so-called Creed of Ruin, which is presented here:

“There is no passion… there is solely obsession.
There is no knowledge. There is solely conviction.
There is no purpose. There is solely will.
There is nothing…
Only me.”

Interesting, huh? Now, there are different ways one can look at this creed. It is obvious from its structure and wording that it is meant to be placed in juxtaposition to both the Jedi and Sith codes. Those codes deal with both what they believe to be real (ex. peace is a lie) and what they uplift as ideals (ex. there is no passion). Thus I distil two avenues of approach – an empirical one, to see whether the creed corresponds to reality; and a teleological one, where we study the intent and ideal it argues for. Whether one or both these approaches were the intent of its original creator is up for debate, and shall be addressed towards the end. Let us now go over each approach in turn, line by line, and draw conclusions…

-------------------------

Empirical analysis

This deals with how well the Creed of Ruin describes and corresponds to actual reality.

There is no passion…there is solely obsession.

Is this correct in regards to factual reality? Well, it depends on your definition of these words, whether you view them as separate or variants of each other. Going by the ordinary definitions though, this is incorrect. Passion signifies strong emotion and interest, and these things do exist. Obsession can be viewed as a stronger form of passion, but every temporary interest does not become an obsession.

There is no knowledge. There is solely conviction.

This is obviously incorrect. Empirical knowledge of reality is certainly an extant phenomenon, unless one subscribes to solipsism or the simulation argument. Those explanations would require additional assumptions and questions though, like why one is the only being in existence, and what is outside the illusion. And that would once again be empirical knowledge. Thus I apply the rule of Occam’s Razor of taking the explanation with fewest required assumptions and say that knowledge does indeed exist. Conviction exists also, but is by no means a substitute for reality.

There is no purpose. There is solely will.

Now there is a semantic question to answer first. If purpose is meant as a synonym to will, the sentence does not make much sense. Thus, I assume purpose is meant in terms of an extrinsic “reason for being”, a natural teleology if you will. This line, I can certainly agree with. The universe operates according to physical laws, and not according to laws of morality, or sentient behaviour in general. Therefore there is indeed no other purpose that what a thinking being may choose for itself, its personal will.

There is nothing… Only me.

Once again, this brings to mind Ruin’s purported solipsism, the belief that one’s mind is, or may be, the only that is sure to exist. Going by the earlier assumption of this not actually being empirically true, or even provable/disprovable, and the fact that Ruin was indeed killed by other beings, for real, I cannot help but conclude that Darth Ruin was indeed not the sole being in existence and creator of everything.

Conclusion: Three out of four of its lines being empirically incorrect, it must be concluded that the Creed of Ruin does not in fact correspond to reality to any satisfactory degree.

------------------------

Now, one can be satisfied with stating that his philosophy is out of touch with reality, declaring Ruin a mad solipsist, and leaving it at that. But an entity of great wisdom once taught me to always think one level higher. *a knowing wink to somewhere elusive*

Did Darth Ruin simply argue these things in their literal, most obvious meaning? This seems somewhat simple-minded for the first of the Lost Twenty, who not only was persuasive enough to draw members away from the Jedi Order, but to recreate the Sith Empire and infuse the Sith with enough vitality to begin a war of a thousand years. This was the being whose legacy made the Sith major power players for over two millennia, enough for some to regard his efforts as the beginning of the new Sith Order, with no need to look further back.

Did a man of such intellect and accomplishments truly think in the most banal of ways, ignoring empirical evidence to the contrary? He may or may not have. The fact is that we do not know for sure. I, however, lean to the conclusion that the meaning of his philosophy was not as simplistic. And if he was indeed simply arguing that he was dreaming everything, well, nothing stops those who come after to see more meaning in his philosophy. After all, if one has the will to do so, then that shall become one’s purpose.

Teleological analysis

This deals with what the Creed of Ruin may be intended to say, the philosophy behind the words.

There is no passion…there is solely obsession.

This is obviously meant as a jab against the Sith Code’s predilection for passion, but what does it offer in exchange? Why, it offers obsession, which I take to mean a whole new level of commitment and absorption, above any conceivable passion. Yet obsession need not be emotional, which is why no corresponding increase need be observed in that area. Rather, I suppose that Darth Ruin meant that while others dabbled in passions, splashing in the shallows, his desires and goals took the form of absolute, superior obsession, driving him into the deepest areas of whatever he was doing. This obsession could very well be cold and unemotional, but much stronger that what is usually meant by “passion”. Following that line of thought, this could also be interpreted as a stance against fickle emotionality, and for a thoughtful, intellectually considered commitment to a goal. After all, what is mere passion against an overriding obsession when competing for a prize? What is false emotional bravery against cold, well-considered certainty?

There is no knowledge. There is solely conviction.

At first this sounds strange, does it not? As if it is being argued that reality can be changed with conviction alone? Obviously such a simplistic interpretation is empirically erroneous, as has been discussed previously. But can reality be changed at all? The answer is of course yes; it always stays in a state of constant process and change, including that wrought by sentient beings. With that simple realisation we understand that what we see before us need not be taken as immutable. How can reality be changed, then? In most general terms, by being able to affect it, by having the ability, the power to do so. And so we understand that by exercising the proper abilities with enough power, one can affect and change reality.

I surmise that this line does not in fact argue that there is no empirical reality; rather that it need not be respected for what it is and taken for granted, but can be changed however one likes if only one is able to change it. Thus, with sufficient power, of whatever kind is required for the task, the desires and goals of a being can become empirical reality. Thus, intent becomes fact.

There is no purpose. There is solely will.

This line is fairly straightforward to anyone not under the illusion that laws of thought and behaviour are somehow encoded in the fabric of reality. This is a simple statement of the fact that any rules, causes, laws and traditions are subjective constructs created by thinking beings. Whatever purpose a being says it has in life can only be an opinion, never an empirical fact. One’s “purpose” is whatever one thinks it is. The weak and the small-minded are convinced there is an external purpose outside themselves, and have it chosen for them by whatever ideologue they happen to be listening to. The clever and independent choose their own “purpose”, and can thus go in any direction they desire, for that is all there is to it.

There is nothing… Only me.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this very much aligns with the German philosopher Max Stirner’s idea that oneself, the “I”, the being’s individual experience, is the only absolute, and any cause or idea is always beneath it. Any purpose that one holds to can at any moment be discarded in favour of something else should “I “ so see fit. This reminds us also of Darth Traya’s question whether you are able to let go of the ideology you follow. To be able to do this thus signifies that no concept is above you, not even the very things like “individuality” or “power”; for everything such a being does is by choice, and there is never any delusion about “higher” causes and ideals. Oneself is the only common denominator, the ultimate bottom line, the end-all and be-all.

This is what I propose this line signifies. We now see that it need not mean that nothing actually exists outside oneself, but that nothing need be above or equal to oneself.

“I am above everything; all things are nothing to me”, one may say.

Conclusion

Thus concludes my analysis of Darth Ruin’s creed. From this discourse I have gathered that while one may look at this philosophy and see nothing but mad solipsism, detached from reality, one can also look further and see an expression of self-determinism that dwarfs anything else in the Star Wars universe, one that has no respect for reality or for “higher” purposes. This makes me question whether it was due to Ruin’s madness that his acolytes killed him, or because he propagated a philosophy that best be kept to oneself lest one’s followers lift their heads too high. It being the expression of boundless individualism that it is, it's perhaps not the glue with which to bind an empire together.

While the empirical approach yields nothing but speculative illusion arguments at best, madness at worst, it is my suspicion that describing what is real or not isn’t the goal of this creed at all. It is instead teleological in nature, describing what can be done rather than what already is, barring no holds as it does so. It regales the attentive reader with the possibility of absolute freedom, to the ruin of all dogma and the status quo.

@Sinrebirth​

 

Thank you, Master. It was just the task for me.

Aha, I see your reasoning. I had been distinguishing between adherence to the dream argument/solipsism as madness from his mistake in divulging his discovery, but yes, said mistake was indeed mad, especially for one so wise in other things. I suppose arrogance and the desire for adoration got the better of him...

Do you gather that he did not indeed think himself as the dreamer of all reality? We have Lord Daiman as a certain solipsist, but he is pathetic next to Ruin, who is in a whole other league.

PS. I'd very much like to see the 4 ABY to 28 ABY narrative you mentioned!

 

I'mma start working on my Sith Trials RP post sometime during my existence.

 

I hope you're able to get it up tomorrow so that I can update.

 

Hesper has been shorn!

 

The extreme ****ing heat makes me not want to do anything.

I'll get it up as soon as I can/feel like it.

 

Remember that other players are waiting for you.

Corinthia - Jeez. How long was it before?

 

It was down to my hips I think about 7~9 inches was cut off.

 

I miss having hair

 

I'd like to announce that my 10 week old kitten, Rey, lived up to her name last night. I put Rebels on and she was mesmerized! She's lived up to her name and is officially a Star Wars cat. I'm so proud!

Darth_wanderguard did you create your new avatar?

 

Snokers - nope! corinthia did. I bribed her with prestige It's a sketch of Darth Haretisch, and quite perfectly in line with my own vision I'd say.

 

It looks great master!

 

Why thank you, Octavius.

She took a few liberties with his regalia, and I'm glad she did. The chest and shoulder plates remind me of Clone Wars Obi-Wan; how he would wear the Jedi robe over plasteel clone trooper armor. I always loved that look and I've embraced it with Haretisch, albeit in a bit darker way. I imagine him in dark gray plasteel armor with a black robe and a Kylo-esque waistcape. The Sith equivalent to Obi-Wan's getup, I guess.

 

Intresting, I always liked Obi-Wans desingn.

Great Work corinthia.

 

Love the golden tresses, corinthia.

 

Do the Sith aspire to become like the Ones of Mortis? If he lived long enough, would Palpatine have become an Abeloth-like being?

 

I'm sure he would have become like her. I would have rejoiced had he done so. But I would have averted my glance. Neither would I wish to see Sidious drinking nor bathing.

 

So I just smeared toothpaste on my new tablet's charging cord because my cat has a penchant for chewing on new cords, but hates toothpaste. Cat ownership gets weirder every day

Sent from my SM-T817V using Tapatalk

 

When I read "So I just smeared toothpaste..." I guessed something bad had happened to your clothes. Then I went on and.. ok, that's nice


Edit. Is this the new "buttered cat" paradox?
Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk